1

“TEACHER REACTION TO AND

UNDERSTANDING OF A TASK-BASED,

EMBEDDED SYLLABUS”

by

Candice Sparks (BA BEd University of Queensland)

School of Humanities and Human Services Centre for Social Change Research

Submitted for Masters Degree

Queensland University of Technology December 2006

i

List of keywords- task-based instruction, embeddedness, Queensland French syllabus,

French teaching, teacher understanding, learner centredness, teacher role, teacher

change.

ABSTRACT

This thesis investigates where the Years 4-10 Queensland French Syllabus is receiving

support, by investigating groups of teachers with shared characteristics. In doing so, it

aims to shed some light on why teachers have not embraced this new syllabus. Specific

issues pertaining to the syllabus are investigated, such as the use of task-based

instruction as the chosen methodology and of embedded content, as well as contextual

issues, such as employment sector and levels taught. Teachers’ reactions to change have

also been investigated in relation to the introduction of this syllabus. In addition to this,

the process involved in acceptance of an innovation has been explored which led to an

examination of teacher understanding of the current syllabus. This study is divided into

five chapters. Chapter one outlines the syllabus and context, as well as hypotheses for

this study and rationale. Chapter two is a literature review which brings together

previous research and links it to the current study. The chosen methodology is covered

by chapter three, with chapter four being a detailed explanation of results received from

the data collection. The final chapter, chapter five, discusses these results and the

implications of these findings.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter One- Introduction 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Recent History of French syllabuses in Queensland 2 1.2 Methodology of 2000 French syllabus 3 1.3 Description of Queensland French context 8 1.4 Aim of the study 10 Chapter Two- Literature Review 2.0 Introduction 15 2.1 Task-based instruction 15 2.2 Embeddedness 31 2.3 Teacher proficiency/qualifications 33 2.4 Teachers and change 35 2.5 Conclusion 41 Chapter Three- Methodology 3.0 Introduction 42 3.1 The survey 42 3.2 Details of survey questions 46 3.3 Focus groups 50 3.4 Conclusion 54 Chapter Four- Survey Results 4.0 Introduction 55 4.1 Teacher and school details 56 4.2 Who is using the syllabus 68 4.3 Strengths and weaknesses of the syllabus 76 4.4 Task-based instruction 77 4.5 Embeddedness 94 4.6 Time 108 4.7 Resources 111 4.8 Teacher role 121 4.9 Physical space/ideal classroom 122 4.10 Professional development 123 4.11 Conclusion 124 Chapter Five- Discussion 5.0 Introduction 127 5.1 School sector 127 5.2 Adaptability/resistance to change 128 5.3 Syllabus specific issues 132 5.4 Scope and limitations of the study 148 5.5 Recommendations 148

iii

Appendices Appendix 1A- Example module 154 Appendix 1B- Example of a resource 155 Appendix 2A- Survey 156 Appendix 2B- Teacher Information letter and consent 162 Appendix 3- Ethics clearance 164 Appendix 4- Focus group information and consent 166 Bibliography 168

iv

List of diagrams and tables Diagram 1 The Teacher’s Life Cycle (taken from Huberman, Thompson & Weiland

1997) Diagram 2 Possible pathways through the survey

Table 4.1- Male/female

Table 4.2- In which system are you currently employed?

Table 4.3- Primary/secondary

Table 4.4- French as percentage of teaching load

Table 4.5- Please indicate in which age group you belong. Table 4.6- How many years have you been teaching?

Table 4.7- Native/background/neither

Table 4.8- Have you spent a time greater than 2 months in a French speaking country?

Table 4.9- Listening proficiency

Table 4.10- Speaking proficiency

Table 4.11- Reading proficiency

Table 4.12- Writing proficiency

Table 4.13- Overall scores for macroskills

Table 4.14- Proficiency levels of participants by levels taught

Table 4.15- Did you use the 1988 Queensland French syllabus?

Table 4.16- Do you currently follow the year 4-10 Queensland French Syllabus?

Table 4.17- Use of syllabus in EQ and IE schools

Table 4.18- Use of syllabus by levels taught

v

Table 4.19- Proficiency levels of participants versus use of the syllabus

Table 4.20- EQ teachers’ use of the syllabus by proficiency level

Table 4.21- Years of experience versus use of syllabus

Table 4.22- Experience versus use of syllabus in EQ

Table 4.23- Students are enthusiastic about task-based education

Table 4.24- Level taught versus student reaction to TBI

Table 4.25- I enjoy teaching a task-based syllabus

Table 4.26- Primary and secondary teachers’ enthusiasm for TBI

Table 4.27- Proficiency levels versus enthusiasm for TBI

Table 4.28- Years experience versus enthusiasm for TBI

Table 4.29- The move to a more learner-centered syllabus is beneficial for students

Table 4.30- Primary and secondary opinions on benefits of learner centredness

Table 4.31- My students have the necessary skills to deal with learner-centredness

Table 4.32- When working on tasks, students spend the majority of time engaged in work

Table 4.33- Primary and secondary responses to time spent on task

Table 4.34- When working on tasks, many students are frequently off task unless they

are being individually monitored

Table 4.35- Primary versus secondary opinions on whether students are frequently off

task

Table 4.36- Teacher opinion on focus on form in the 2000 syllabus

Table 4.37- Years experience versus opinion on focus on form

Table 4.38- Overall, I feel the 2000 Syllabus is working well in my situation

Table 4.39- Primary vs secondary opinions on whether syllabus is working well

Table 4.40- Years experience versus overall support for syllabus

vi

Table 4.41- I have sufficient general knowledge to teach the topics in the 2000 Syllabus

Table 4.42- Conferring with other KLA teachers Table 4.43- Primary vs secondary responses to conferring with other KLA teachers

Tables 4.44- The suggested topics in the syllabus are interesting for students

Table 4.45- Primary vs secondary results to interest of topics for students

Table 4.46- A task-based, embedded syllabus, such as the current Qld 4-10 French

syllabus, puts a higher demand on teachers’ language skills than a textbook course

Table 4.47- Do you feel that a high French proficiency is necessary to be able to

effectively teach the current syllabus?

Table 4.48- Proficiency level vs opinion on necessity of high French proficiency to teach

syllabus

Table 4.49- Do you ever refer to the suggested teacher language supplied on the

syllabus CDs?

Table 4.50- Do you feel that a teacher with limited proficiency would be able to

successfully teach the 2000 syllabus using the materials and sample language supplied

on the CD?

Table 4.51- Proficiency versus opinion on whether low proficiency teacher could

effectively teach syllabus using supplied resources

Table 4.52- Has your use of French in the classroom increased since implementing the

2000 syllabus?

Table 4.53- Proficiency versus increase in use of French in the classroom

Table 4.54- The time allocated to LOTE in my school allows enough time for me to teach

the current syllabus

Table 4.55- Do you use the resources supplied on the syllabus CDs?

Table 4.56- The resources are level appropriate

Table 4.57- Proficiency versus opinion on level appropriateness of resources

Table 4.58- The resources engage the students

Table 4.59- I need to add many additional resources to what is supplied

vii

Table 4.60- I have access to sufficient resources to teach the 2000 syllabus

Table 4.61- Have you been informed of the existence of the resource kits created to

complement the modules of the syllabus which are available from the Qld LOTE Centre?

Table 4.62- Do you use the aforementioned LOTE centre kits?

Table 4.63- I feel that I am adequately prepared for my role as facilitator in the 2000

syllabus

Table 4.64- Have you had any training in the implementation of the Years 4-10 French

syllabus, including pre-service education?

Table 4.65- If professional development sessions in the implementation of the 2000

French Syllabus were offered, would you be interested in attending?

viii

Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the assistance of my supervisors, Dr Barbara Hanna and Dr Beatrice Atherton and thank them for their unrelenting support which enabled me to continue studying with my daughter by my side. I would also like to acknowledge the patience of my daughter, Mia, when Mummy had work to do. Statement of Original Authorship The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made. Signature: ____________________ Date: ____________________

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction

Six years have passed since the current Queensland Years 4-10 French syllabus first

appeared in schools, so teachers have had ample time to work with it and discover both

the positive aspects and the limitations in their individual contexts. Prior to the

commencement of this thesis, based on my teaching experience and informal discussions

with other Queensland Language Other Than English (LOTE) teachers, my

understanding was that, in many cases, this syllabus was not being implemented as

intended, nor was it receiving the support expected when it was introduced.

At the time of its introduction, the Queensland 2000 Years 4-10 French Syllabus

represented a radical shift away from what most teachers were currently doing in their

classrooms. Based on the latest research on second language acquisition, the approach

taken by this syllabus combined a strong version of task-based instruction (TBI) with

embedded content from other key learning areas (KLAs) of the curriculum, a rare, if not

unique, combination. Due to decreasing interest in LOTE, there was a need to change

approach in an attempt to attract a greater number of students into the language

classroom. A task-based syllabus was seen to be the most effective way of achieving

this, blended with the choice of embedded content, being topics from other KLAs.

This chapter commences by tracing the history of French syllabus change in Queensland

and how a task-based, embedded syllabus came to be the methodology of choice.

Following this, the syllabus is described and its various, and often unique, components

are outlined. Hypotheses for this study are then made explicit and a brief discussion of

the relevance of the project concludes this chapter.

2

1.1 Recent history of French syllabuses in Queensland

Prior to the current 2000 Years 4-10 Queensland French Syllabus, the last junior French

syllabus is dated 1988. However, in the interim an attempt at the creation of a new

syllabus was made, but the document was never completed. In lieu of a formal, written

document, many teachers came to rely on the boxed Stage A, B and C Kits (Department

of Education Queensland, 1996), adapted from Distance Education materials, and also

on a non-language specific sourcebook entitled “In other Words” (Department of

Education Queensland, 1989).

Gradually language education in Queensland has been moving away from a synthetic

approach to an analytic approach. The 1988 syllabus encouraged teachers to “direct

attention away from the concept of language as an abstract system to be learnt towards

the uses of language – why and how it is used” (BSSS, 1988:1), which in reality, is

closer to an analytic syllabus. However teachers were still expected to “set out in detail

the situations, topics, functions, grammar, learning experiences and cultural components

to be included in the units of work for each semester” (BSSS, 1988:19), making this

syllabus a typically synthetic one when it came to practice. A traditional PPP

(presentation-practice-production) approach was still the expected methodology in this

case. As discussed in Ellis (2003:29), “PPP views language as a series of products that

can be acquired sequentially”. However SLA research has shown that learners do not

acquire language in this way. Rather they construct a series of systems, known as

interlanguages, which are gradually grammaticized and restructured as learners

incorporate new features”. This final remark relating to the construction of

interlanguages is one that is crucial to understanding the workings of a task-based

syllabus. Skehan (1996a) summarises the differences between PPP and TBI stating,

A PPP approach looks on the learning process as learning a series of discrete

items and then bringing these items together in communication to provide further

practice and consolidation. A task-based approach sees the learning process as

3

one of learning through doing- it is primarily by engaging in meaning that the

learner’s system is encouraged to develop. (p. 20)

A task-based approach is meaning focused and involves learners in ‘doing something’

rather than simply manipulating language out of context. TBI also seeks to have real

world significance which, in the Queensland case, is done by linking the content to other

subject areas in the curriculum. This will be discussed in greater detail in section 1.2.1.

The task-based approach to instruction moves away from the traditional “transmission”

approach, to one where the teacher acts more as a facilitator and allows students to

discover their own knowledge which is precisely why TBI is viewed as controversial

(Siu-yin Tong, Adamson, & Man-wai Che, 2000). Teachers’ attitudes towards the shift

in teacher role in task based education is another factor which was investigated in this

study . Naturally, with the move to “teacher as facilitator”, the learner also takes on a

different role, a more active one, so teacher reaction towards increased learner

centredness is also investigated.

Within TBI programs there is considerable variation in implementation. The following

section outlines the practical aspects of this syllabus as defined in the syllabus

document.

1.2 Methodology of 2000 French syllabus

The 2000 French syllabus spans grades 4-10 and as such has been arranged into three

bands of schooling: middle primary (Years 4 and 5), upper primary (Years 6 and 7) and

lower secondary (Years 8, 9 and 10). At the time of its introduction, it was expected that

LOTE in Queensland would be compulsory for all students in years 4-10, however this

is not the case. Currently in Education Queensland (EQ) students in years 6-8 should

experience compulsory language classes, though there are reportedly a number of

schools where this does not occur. The syllabus caters for students at different stages of

language learning by acknowledging that at any point in time, regardless of band of

4

schooling, there could be students in the classroom at any of the four stages of language

learning these being beginner, elementary, lower intermediate and intermediate (QSCC

2000a:10).

The syllabus is available in two forms: one is a paper copy, and the other is a CD. The

CD version contains a significant amount of material not included in the paper copy of

the syllabus. There are many example modules which teachers can adapt to suit their

own contexts. Within these modules are provided a multitude of resources and task

ideas, as well as suggested teacher language to assist those who need it.

1.2.1 Task-based methodology

The methodology adopted by the 2000 syllabus is a strong task-based approach, where

tasks form the basis around which the syllabus is organized. The syllabus discusses the

task-based approach stating:

Tasks engage learners in using real language for real or lifelike purposes. They

are sequenced to achieve some central purpose within a context that has

relevance for students in terms of their social, school and personal lives. Students

become involved themselves and are able to invest personal meanings into what

they comprehend and compose (QSCC 2000a:8).

The points mentioned above are equally applicable to the choice of content, which is

embedded content being content taken from other subject areas. This is discussed in

greater detail in the following section.

1.2.2 Learner centredness

Learner centredness is a key feature of the 2000 syllabus. The roles of teacher and

student are described in the syllabus when it describes “learning as the active

construction of meaning, and teaching as the act of guiding and facilitating learning”

5

(QSCC 2000a:11). Students are encouraged to be active participants in the learning

process and, as mentioned previously, it is believed that by engaging with the language,

one’s interlanguages are restructured. The syllabus states

Through feedback and continued experimentation and deliberate and

subconscious processes of acquisition, learners constantly refine and extend their

internal grammars. A task-based language approach within an embedded

program encourages learners to apply their mastery of another language to

actively pursue knowledge and understanding about their world and the cultures

within it (p. 4).

While advocating a program based around tasks, the syllabus also acknowledges the

important role of focus on form in language acquisition. It suggests that sessions of

“integrated form-focused instruction” will accelerate language acquisition (p.11).

1.2.3 A three phase approach

In terms of unit planning, the 2000 Syllabus was loosely modeled on the Language Arts

Syllabus in Queensland from 1991, employing the same terms to label the different

phases of task completion. Explanation of the different phases in each of the syllabuses

is quite similar, although obviously in practice, there are differences when a second

language is being taught, as opposed to a first language. There are three phases outlined

in the modules in the 2000 French syllabus CDs, these being the orientating, enhancing

and synthesizing phases. The orientating phase is comprised of preliminary activities

and explanations about what will take place in the unit and discussion of the major

task(s). The enhancing phase concerns itself with acquainting learners with what they

will need to complete the final task, which is realized through smaller tasks that may

form part of the larger end task, through completion of similar tasks or possibly viewing

a completed version of the task. Basically the aim of the enhancing phase is to give the

learners the tools to be able to successfully achieve the final task. The synthesizing

phase, as the name suggests, aims to synthesize what has been learnt throughout the unit

6

by giving students the opportunity to demonstrate their understanding through the

realization of an individual creative task. Interestingly, there is neither mention nor

explanation of these phases in the syllabus document. Information concerning the three

phases appears only on the syllabus CDs and can be located in the section entitled

“sequence for teaching and learning in LOTE”.

To further clarify the above explanation, I propose the following examples of tasks

forming part of the module appearing on the syllabus CDs entitled “No Dodos”.

Suggested tasks for the orientating phase involve the learners in hearing the names of

endangered animals and locating their country of origin on a world map. Identifying

other endangered animals also forms part of the orientating phase, as well as reading

brief case studies and identifying the concepts of rare, vulnerable, endangered and

extinct. Included amongst the examples of the enhancing phase of this module are tasks

such as listening to or reading about endangered species and recording the information

on a class sheet, describing why different animals are endangered and identifying groups

that help threatened animals, as well as making suggestions about what can be done to

assist in the protection of these animals. The example given as a possible synthesizing

task is the presentation of a promotional poster, story or report which suggests ways to

help an endangered or threatened species.

1.2.4 Embedded content

The 2000 French Syllabus is considerably different from previous syllabuses in that it is

an embedded syllabus, meaning that “an embedded program […] involves content based

on concepts and topic areas in other key learning areas while always allowing for

content to be interpreted as appropriate for language learning” (QSCC 2000a:8). Nunan

suggests sources for possible subject matter in a content based course “might be defined

in terms of situations, topics, themes, or following Widdowson (1978; 1979) other

academic or school subjects” (1988:38), which is the approach taken by the current

Queensland French syllabus. In practice, this translates into modules of work with titles

such as “Moon Residence” (see Appendix 1a) and “Waterwise”, where clearly the

7

content has been taken from other school subjects and French language thus becomes the

means for learning about the content, rather than solely an end in itself. Nunan (1988)

discusses the use of content from other subject areas, stating that “The stimulus for

content based syllabuses is the notion that, unlike science, history, or mathematics,

language is not a subject in its own right, but merely a vehicle for communicating about

something else” (p. 38). Therefore, in order for the lesson to be a French lesson, the

lesson itself really needs to be conducted in French, otherwise, it would seem that there

is little difference between a French lesson and a science or study of society lesson,

given that the content is very similar. Teacher attitude towards teaching in the target

language is an issue which was investigated in this study. In addition to this, teachers

were also asked whether they felt they were equipped with sufficient general knowledge

to be able to teach content derived from other subject areas, which may well be derived

from an area where the teacher has little or no experience, such as science or history.

Content that teachers can cover in their classrooms is not strictly prescribed, although

there are many suggestions of modules accessible on the syllabus CDs. Topics covered

need to fall into any of six broad fields, these being:

• personal and community life

• leisure and recreation

• the natural world

• the built world

• the international world

• the imaginative world

The use of embedded content is a key feature that sets the Queensland program apart

from other task-based syllabuses. The rationale behind this choice of content is the belief

that embedded content provides a link to the real world as students are familiar with the

content from other subject classes. This differs from many other task-based syllabuses

where a real world link is created in other ways, such as by simulations of tasks that may

occur in the target country. As reported by a teacher involved in the syllabus

8

development, the use of embedded content is more relevant to students. At this point in

their lives, many students cannot yet visualize visiting the target country so units created

around the idea of completing day to day tasks for life in French may not hold real world

significance for students. Included in the appendices are the overview of a module

(Appendix 1A) and an example of one of the included resources (Appendix 1B).

1.3 Description of Queensland French context

The following section aims to give a brief presentation of the Queensland background.

French is taught in a diverse range of contexts in Queensland, hence there is no one

defining description that can be given. Instead this section will aim to show a snapshot

of LOTE in Queensland. Firstly, there are three sectors of schooling: Education

Queensland Schools (Government run), Independent Education (operated by

Independent bodies, often different church associations, such as the Anglican Church)

and Catholic Education (which has its own education office). Within the Catholic system

there are two branches: that run by the dioceses and independent Catholic schools.

French is taught across all three of these sectors and while each sector has its

differences, so too do individual schools within each sector.

Geographically, a significant portion of Queensland schools are identified as “rural” by

Education Queensland providing a very different context to teaching in metropolitan

areas, such as Brisbane, Cairns or Rockhampton. Language teachers frequently report

lack of support for language programs in country areas and as such, there are diverse

issues at play in terms of success of LOTE programs in the rural context.

LOTE is compulsory from years six through to eight, meaning that both primary and

secondary students study compulsory LOTE. Primary school students (Prep - 7)

generally have one principal teacher who takes the class for majority of the week, with

several specialist teachers attending to particular subjects, such as LOTE and music. In

the high school context (year 8-12), on the other hand, LOTE teachers are just one of the

teachers students encounter in their day. In primary schools, the LOTE teacher most

9

often will conduct the lesson in the students’ regular classroom while the classroom

teacher is released for non contact time. In contrast, many high school LOTE teachers

are fortunate enough to have a room or building designated to LOTE where students

come for the lesson. This varies greatly among schools and it could be argued that the

allocation of specialized LOTE space seems to relate to the attitude towards LOTE in

the school.

The current mandated minimum time for LOTE in the compulsory years (years 6, 7 and

8) is 90 minutes a week and it is up to the school how the 90 minutes is divided into

lessons. While 90 minutes is expected of all schools, there exist differences between

schools, with some not even reaching the minimum time allowance, and others greatly

exceeding the minimum amount.

It is preferred that students study the same language across the three compulsory years

of LOTE education, however frequently this is not possible in practice as students

change districts or sectors from primary into high school, into a school where a different

language is taught. As a result, students in a year eight French classroom may exhibit a

range of ability levels and the French teacher is expected to cater to these mixed ability

groups. There are also some schools where the French program is commenced prior to

year six, putting these students at a different level again, as they have received a

considerably larger number of hours of instruction than others commencing in year six.

Resources available to teachers vary greatly among schools and even among sectors.

Some schools place great importance in their LOTE program, and have access to

sufficient funding and resources for LOTE, while others function with minimal

resources and funding. Again, it seems to depend on the attitude towards LOTE within

each school.

The LOTE Centre1 Kits have been created as a set of resources to complement many of

the modules in the 2000 Syllabus. They are language specific and contain authentic

1 The Queensland LOTE Centre is a government funded library housing resources from a variety of languages and is open to teachers from all sectors.

10

resources relating to the topics, such as posters in the target language that can be used in

the classroom, brochures, articles and videos, as well as resources created especially,

such as card games and board games. These kits are available for loan for the duration of

one term to enhance the implementation of the syllabus and give teachers access to

resources not always easily obtainable here in Australia.

In terms of LOTE teachers, there is a wide variety of qualifications and levels2. Among

the teachers in this study, there was a range of language study and education

qualifications. Teachers reported qualifications ranging from a one year diploma of

education to a Bachelor’s degree or post graduate training in education. Language

qualifications were equally varied ranging from those who had only completed senior

school French, to those with post graduate language study in French and native speakers.

Needless to say, there is significant difference in teacher proficiency from school to

school. While there is a regulation of new graduates’ proficiency as they enter the

Education Queensland system, tested by a “LOTE Proficiency Interview”, it seems there

are many teachers who have no such rating.

1.4 Aim of the study

The purpose of this study is to investigate teachers’ reactions to the 2000 French

syllabus following its introduction six years ago. This research concerns itself with

determining the key features of the syllabus that teachers find problematic and in turn,

also explores how teachers integrate an innovation into their practice.

This study focuses on teacher-identified issues by using teacher input at every stage of

data collection. It is hoped that these results will be accessible and relevant to teachers

upon completion. As expressed by Barnes, Thomson, & Watson (1978), “to make the

research available it requires more than better communication, more than “popular”

books; it requires different research which addresses itself to teachers' issues and offers

2 In order to preserve teacher anonymity, detailed presentation of individual qualifications has been excluded.

11

explanatory accounts which teachers can map on to their own vocabulary of motives”

(p.23). The work of Barnes et al has influenced my approach to this research, in that

teachers are asked to report on practice and results have then been, presented using much

of the teachers’ own words as taken from the survey and focus group sessions. Barnes et

al. discuss such research stating that, “this can most readily be done through research in

which teachers are participants, and not merely ‘subjects’ ” (p.23). Further to this, they

add that “an important task for researchers in planning under such conditions would be

finding ways of helping teachers to make explicit to themselves aspects of the

vocabulary of motives which have formerly remained unreflected upon and unstated”

(p.23). I have aimed to facilitate the clear expression of teacher opinion in my study

through the use of both open ended and multiple choice questions written in language

that is accessible to teachers to stimulate accurate reflection on practice The overall goal

of my research is to explore barriers to the successful implementation according to

teachers. The discussion of the results goes beyond a superficial view of what is

happening, attempting to isolate the key factors pertaining to the successful

implementation of the syllabus.

1.4.1 Issues investigated by this study

There are two broad questions that were investigated in this study, the first being who is

using the syllabus, in order to determine if there are consistencies amongst groups; the

second question seeks to identify the teacher-defined problematic issues in regards to the

syllabus.

In attempting to answer the first question, the following were identified as potential

factors which might influence use or non-use of the syllabus.

1. Sector

It was hypothesized, based on personal experience and informal contact with

teachers, that sector would play a major role in determining whether a teacher used

the syllabus. As the syllabus is not mandated in the private sector, it was expected

12

that there would be a much lower number of teachers who claimed to be using it than

in Education Queensland schools, where teachers are expected to use the syllabus.

2. Levels taught (primary or secondary)

Due to the nature of the content in this syllabus, it was hypothesized that primary

teachers would be more supportive of it as it is more akin to what is happening in

their regular classroom, where subject boundaries are not so clearly defined. It was

also expected that primary teachers would express greater ease with conferring with

other subject area teachers as there are significantly fewer barriers to this happening

in the primary context. This is due to the arrangement of the primary school where

specialist teachers frequently encounter classroom teachers and there are no subject

specific staffrooms, instead there is a common room shared by all staff.

3. Stage in career

Based on the literature on teacher career cycle and on informal observation, it was

hypothesized that more experienced teachers would be more reluctant in their

support of this syllabus than their less experienced counterparts. It was expected that

more experienced teachers would be more resistant to any change as it represents

moving away from what they have established through their years of experience and

from what is familiar and comfortable.

4. Language proficiency of teachers

Prior to beginning this project I had spoken to many teachers about the supplied

resources and a resounding theme that emerged was the inappropriately difficult

level of the language. I hypothesized that perhaps teachers with limited language

proficiency would be less supportive of the syllabus because of the challenge

presented by the high language level and specialist language coming from the

embedded content.

13

5. Knowledge of teaching methodologies

From my own conversations with teachers I noticed that there seemed to be various

interpretations of task-based instruction which also became a focal issue in my study.

I hypothesized that perhaps rejection of the syllabus might be due to lack of

understanding of TBI as a methodology.

6. Issues with TBI as a methodology

The choice of task-based instruction and the issues it raises were also investigated to

determine if the task-based methodology could be responsible for the lack of support

for this syllabus. The change in teacher role to that of facilitator and the move to a

more learner centred syllabus, as well as teacher reaction to the place of form were

all explored as contributing to teachers’ lack of support for the syllabus. The impact

of time allocations was also investigated, both in terms of time in the classroom and

teacher preparation time.

As discussed previously, the Queensland Years 4-10 French Syllabus uses embedded

content taken from the other KLAs which raises several issues. Teachers’ reaction to

embedded content is investigated, as well as whether the topics are motivating for

students (according to teachers), and also the availability of appropriate resources to

assist with the content. Based on informal discussion, it was expected that the issue of

embeddedness would be a key reason for lack of support for the syllabus. As mentioned,

there are a large number of resources supplied with the syllabus CDs and teachers’

reactions to these are also explored. It was expected that issues such as the language

level and relevance of the material may be some of the issues mentioned by teachers.

Teacher opinion on professional development associated with the implementation of the

syllabus was also explored, with the expectation that many may not have attended

training sessions and so may not have the necessary grounding in the use of this

syllabus.

14

1.4.2 Relevance of study

The findings in this study and the subsequent conclusions have serious implications for

French teachers in Queensland, and indeed for any teacher who is attempting to

implement a task-based program, these results will hold some relevance.

During the initial stages of implementation, there was some effort made to report on

teacher practice however these results were never formally released. My study is thus

the first conducted that investigates teacher reaction to the Queensland Years 4-10

French Syllabus, six years after its introduction.

While it has been mentioned previously that the Queensland syllabus is somewhat

unique in its approach, being both task-based and embedded, the results are nonetheless

significant for teachers using TBI outside Queensland. Many of the findings relate

specifically to teacher reaction to TBI and teacher understanding of the concept of TBI

is one of the key issues investigated.

As we have seen in this chapter the 2000 syllabus adopts a strong-task based approach

with embedded content coming from the other KLAs. We now move to chapter two to

situate the syllabus amongst second language acquisition research.

15

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to discuss the research related to a task-based, embedded

approach for French, as well as to explore the issues which relate to the success, or

otherwise, of this approach. This chapter is organized into four main sections. Section

2.1 deals extensively with task-based instruction, covering the different models of TBI

and different meanings ascribed to the word “task” and situates the Queensland version

of TBI amongst these. Also discussed are the theories behind task-based instruction and

why it can be an effective methodology. Other studies on teachers’ views of task-based

programs are reviewed and subsequent problems identified by the participants in these

studies are covered as they relate to the Queensland context.

Section 2.2 centres around embeddedness, tracing its origins and rationale. Teacher

language proficiency is briefly covered in section 2.3 as it relates to the implementation

of a syllabus such as the Queensland one. Section 2.4 examines the literature on

teachers’ reaction to change and discusses how teachers experience an innovation. Also

included in this section is a discussion of the role played by career stage in acceptance of

change.

2.1 Task-based instruction

Section 2.1 discusses task-based instruction as it relates to the 2000 French syllabus. The

syllabus is situated amongst the different versions of TBI and issues pertaining to TBI

are also covered in this section. It is important to note here that a number of sources used

in the writing of this section may, by usual standards, appear dated. These sources have

been specifically included, alongside more recent works, as they form part of the

bibliography of the environmental scan conducted by the QSCC prior to the writing of

the syllabus (QSCC 1997). These sources are thus crucial in a discussion of the syllabus.

16

2.1.1 Analytic versus synthetic syllabuses

In a broad sense, the Queensland 4-10 Syllabus for LOTE is an analytic syllabus. Nunan

(1988) describes an analytic syllabus as one where “learners are presented with chunks

of language which may include structures of varying degrees of difficulty. The starting

point for syllabus design is not the grammatical system of the language, but the

communicative purposes for which the language is used" (p.28). Perhaps the most

defining feature of analytic syllabuses, as opposed to synthetic syllabuses, is that the

target language is presented in “whole chunks at a time, in molar rather than molecular

units, without linguistic interference or control” (Crookes & Gass 1993:11). The

rationale behind presenting whole chunks of language in this fashion can be found

succinctly defined in Crookes & Gass (1993) in their statement of the principles upon

which the analytic syllabus is based: “(a) the learners' presumed ability to perceive

regularities in the input and induce rules and/or (b) the continued availability to learners

of innate knowledge of linguistic universals and the ways language can vary, knowledge

which can be reactivated by exposure to natural samples of L2" (p. 11). Based on these

assumptions, those being taught using the Queensland Syllabus are presented with

‘whole chunks’ of language.

The task-based syllabus can take various forms, as will be seen below. The Queensland

French Syllabus is of the “TBLT” (Task-Based Language Teaching) type and assumes a

“strong” approach to TBI, as is evidenced below.

2.1.2 Models of TBI

There is a variety of different approaches to task based syllabuses, which I will attempt

to cover briefly, in order to situate the Queensland Syllabus amongst them. To begin

with, a very broad classification that many authors use is the opposition between a weak

or strong approach to task-based instruction. A “weak” approach is one where tasks are

used, alongside other resources, as a method of instruction, while a “strong” approach to

task-based instruction uses tasks as the “unit of language teaching” (Skehan 1996b: 39)

17

and everything is thus based around tasks. To draw on an example module, “Moon

Residence”, provided on the syllabus CD (see Appendix 1A), the unit is structured

around the final “synthesizing” task where students are asked to construct a moon

residence, outlining design features, as well as describing the daily routine of someone

living on the moon. All other tasks in the unit are constructed in such a way as to expose

the students to the necessary language knowledge to be able to successfully complete the

final task. Ellis (2003: 27) summarises the weak and strong approaches to TBI, using

different terminology, as follows:

Some methodologists have simply incorporated tasks into traditional language

based approaches to teaching. Others, more radically, have treated tasks as units

of teaching in their own right and have designed whole courses around them.

These two ways of using tasks can be referred to respectively as task supported

language teaching and task-based language teaching.

The Queensland French 4-10 Syllabus adopts a strong, task-based language teaching

approach in that tasks are central to the organization of the syllabus.

To break down the classification of task-based syllabuses still further, many researchers

make reference to various different types of task-based syllabuses. Unfortunately, space

does not permit me to cover in detail every approach; however a brief description of

each will enable the Queensland context to be situated amongst these other methods.

Long and Crookes (1992) offer three different types of task based syllabuses: procedural

syllabuses, process syllabuses and task-based language teaching. Ellis (2003) also makes

these distinctions, as well as the addition of another type of pedagogy, “humanistic

teaching”. Drawing on work by Moskowitz (1977), Ellis summarises humanistic

teaching, saying “humanistic principles of education emphasize the achievement of

students’ full potential for growth by acknowledging the importance of the affective

dimension in learning as well as the cognitive” (2003:31). In essence, activities of a

humanistic nature involve discussing students’ feelings and personal information,

forming the focus of the syllabus.

18

Programs claiming to have a procedural syllabus approach to task-based instruction are

those programs modeled on the Bangalore Madras project led by Prabhu in 1979-1984,

which was seemingly the earliest attempt at a true task-based syllabus. An important

point to note is that Prabhu’s model of the task-based syllabus (1987), while appearing

similar to regular communicative syllabuses in terms of the proposed tasks, was actually

quite radically different in that the focus was on task completion, rather than focusing on

the language used (Long & Crookes 1992). “The Bangalore Project”, as it is often

referred to in the literature, was the start of the popularization of TBL (task-based

learning). Growing out of a dissatisfaction with “structural teaching” in English as a

Foreign Language (EFL) in India, Prabhu and his associates saw the main issue to be

addressed was a need for a change in methodology (Beretta and Davies 1985).

Prior to Prabhu’s work, in the state education system of India, English was taught

through a method referred to as S-O-S (Structural Oral Situational). Introduced between

1955 and 1965, in brief, the S-O-S method consisted of

the use of structurally and lexically graded syllabuses, situational presentation of

all new teaching items, balanced attention to the four skills (but with listening

and speaking preceding reading and writing), and a great deal of controlled

practice using techniques such as the substitution table and choral repetition

(Prabhu 1987: 10).

A significant amount of time and money was spent in implementing the S-O-S

methodology which remained the preferred methodology for more than ten years.

Around 1975, by which time S-O-S was a well established methodology, it began to

receive various criticisms and its “intellectual momentum” started to wear out (Prabhu

1987:12). There was concern that outside the classroom environment, students were not

able to use the language, nor achieve sufficient grammatical accuracy or situational

appropriateness in their language, despite several years of learning by the S-O-S

pedagogy (Prabhu 1987). So began a shift from pedagogy primarily of form-focused

19

instruction, to one where students were more focused on meaning and communicating

and so began the “Bangalore Project” which was based on the assumption that “the

linguistic code is learnt better if, in the process of learning it, learners’ attention is not on

the code itself but on some problem of meaning or message involving the use of the

code” (Prabhu 1987:78). The background to the Bangalore project holds much relevance

as it mirrored what was happening in other foreign language classrooms around the

world.

Another style of task-based instruction is the process syllabus defined as having “a

social and problem–solving orientation, with explicit provision for the expression of

individual learning styles and preferences” (Long & Crookes 1992:38). The process

syllabus has strong influences from other subject areas and is, in essence, a syllabus

whereby the learners are given a problem and expected to solve it. The focus is on the

learner and learning process, more so than the language used. Breen and Candlin are two

of the key researchers on the process syllabus, and both are advocates of a syllabus

where the content is negotiated with the learners, based on individual needs and thus,

learner-centredness is a key tenet in this type of syllabus.

As can be seen, these syllabus types are moving away from the traditional synthetic

syllabuses, to more analytic syllabuses. The final category “Task-Based Language

Teaching” is closest in orientation to the Queensland French Syllabus and the one on

which the most time shall be spent. A necessary starting point is defining the word

“task” in task-based language teaching, or TBI as it is usually referred to in this thesis.

2.1.3 Definition of “task”

The word “task” appears throughout the second language literature but the meaning

varies greatly among different authors and, as concluded by Cook (2001:221) “the

concept of the task is, then, fairly variable; no two people seem to have quite the same

definition”. It is also useful to note here that the term ‘task’ and ‘activity’ are often used

interchangeably although, as will be seen, the two are quite different when defined in

20

relation to TBI. The term ‘activity’ tends to refer to those exercises that are shorter in

length, possibly stand alone without linking to a larger task. An activity may simply be a

grammatical exercise to assist with focus on form. It is important to define which

meaning of the word ‘task’ is used in task-based instruction and in particular, when the

term ‘task’ appears in the 2000 French Syllabus for Queensland. While the word task

has been used in the past to mean anything from a cloze exercise, to writing an essay, the

fundamental element of the ‘task’ in task-based instruction is that it be meaning focused.

The definition used to inform the syllabus3 can be found in Nunan (1989) “the task is a

piece of meaning focused work involving learners in comprehending, producing and/or

interacting in the target language, and […] tasks are analysed or categorized according

to their goals, input data, activities, settings and roles” (p.11). To further enhance this

definition, Breen refers to a task as “a springboard for learning work. In a broad sense, it

is a structured plan for the provision of opportunities for the refinement of knowledge

and capabilities entailed in a new language and its use during communication" (Breen

1989:187). A number of authors (eg. Crawford 1999, Skehan 1996, Carr 2005 among

others) suggest another classifying feature of tasks is that they are comparable to real life

language use. Ellis (2003) discusses the link to the real world, asserting that many tasks

occurring in the classroom will not be performed outside however he makes the

important point that “the kind of language behaviour they [tasks] elicit corresponds to

the kind of communicative behaviour that arises from performing real-world tasks” (p.

6). Skehan (1996b) adds two other features of a task to the above description: “Task

completion has some priority, and the assessment of task performance is in terms of task

outcome” (p.38).

To further define a task, Ellis (2003:9-10) puts forward six criteria which he considers

need to be satisfied in order for something to be classified as a task. The “Criterial

Features of a Task” are as follows;

1. A task is a workplan

2. A task involves a primary focus on meaning

3. A task involves real world processes of language use

3 The definition appeared in the environmental scan conducted by QSCC in 1997.

21

4. A task can involve any of the four language skills

5. A task engages cognitive processes

6. A task has a clearly defined communicative outcome

Summarising this section, the “task” referred to in the Queensland syllabus is meaning-

focused, with relevance to the real world and it is something which engages learners in

using one or more of the four macroskills. Assessment of the task is based on quality of

task completion. On the whole, the Queensland syllabus favours tasks which fit with the

criteria outlined by Ellis above.

2.1.4 Theoretical underpinnings of TBI

Task-based instruction is fundamentally based on naturalistic language learning,

meaning that learners learn best when allowed to experience language for themselves

and essentially ‘learning by doing’, rather than by teacher instruction. Some TBI

researchers (eg. Ellis), stress the addition of in-context form-focused instruction, thus

aiming to compensate for the lack of focus on form in purely naturalistic learning. It is

hoped that by adding some relevant focus on form, the students’ attention will be drawn

to the form when needed in task completion, leading to an incorporation of it into their

interlanguage (Ellis, 2003). The Queensland program stresses the learners’ active

involvement in the learning process. In addition, the QSCC environmental scan (1997)

makes reference to learners developing internal grammars as they engage in task

completion.

In terms of rationalization for embeddedness, the use of content from other KLAs is just

one of many possible options which aims to provide real world links. Embedded content

has been chosen in order to link languages with the rest of the curriculum, as well as to

give students content which is relevant to their age and level.

22

2.1.5 Review of studies of task-based programs and teacher reaction

There does not exist a great number of studies which focus on teacher reaction to TBI,

however in those studies accessed, there are several commonalities. It is important to

note that the Queensland situation, where content is embedded, is an unusual situation,

which thus presents an added dimension not covered in these other studies. The issue of

embeddedness will consequently be treated separately in section 2.2.

A useful starting point is the introduction of the target-oriented curriculum (TOC) in

Hong Kong. While the context is significantly different from the Queensland situation,

there are, nonetheless, some relevant parallels in teacher opinion on TBI. Carless (2003)

conducted case studies of three teachers in Hong Kong who were attempting to

implement a task-based curriculum. In contrast to Queensland, task-based instruction in

Hong Kong takes on the form of a ‘weak’ approach (Skehan, 1996a) with tasks being

similar to the production stage of the PPP method (Carless 2003), and as such tasks are

more structured than in the Queensland situation.

Carless discusses six issues which he found to be of significance in how teachers

implemented the TOC which are relevant to the Queensland situation. The issues

identified were:

1. Teacher beliefs

Teacher beliefs and attitudes are a crucial factor in determining if a new

innovation will be implemented, and hence is also a factor which is very relevant

to the Queensland situation, and is examined in some detail in this study.

2. Teacher understandings

This point is concerned with teacher understanding of what is entailed in task-

based instruction. A teacher’s interpretation of a particular methodology is

integral to how it is implemented.

3. The syllabus time available

23

Time constraints are certainly an issue in both contexts. In Hong Kong, all three

teachers in the study expressed concern with having insufficient time to cover the

syllabus and this was exacerbated by the need to include tasks into class time. In

the Queensland situation, where tasks form the basis of the syllabus, and are not

in addition to it, the issue is slightly different. It is a matter of whether or not

there is sufficient class time to effectively teach via task-based instruction.

4. The textbook and the topic

Teachers in Hong Kong place great importance on covering the textbook, and the

same can no doubt be said of some Queensland teachers, making this an issue

relevant to both contexts. Results were inconclusive in relation to the effect of

different topics on task-based instruction, however two out of the three teachers

in Carless’s study believed topics had an impact on student motivation and ease

with which task-based instruction could be implemented.

5. Preparation and the available resources

Hong Kong teachers and Queensland teachers alike have heavy workloads and

often textbook based learning will require less preparation time than task-based

instruction, hence the reason some teachers may show a preference for textbook

over task-based education, an issue prevalent in both contexts.

6. The language proficiency of students.

Teachers in Carless’s study had a mixed view on this issue, but Carless’s own

interpretation of it is that students with higher ability are able to complete tasks

on a wider variety of topics and also, they have more language at their disposal,

thus reducing the time spent on task preparation, and thereby increasing time

available for tasks. Like the 6 or 7 year old Hong Kong students, many of the

students taught using the 4-10 Syllabus in Queensland are beginning students, so

the ability level of the students is also an issue in the Queensland context

24

Similar findings to Carless were also reported in a study conducted by Jennings & Doyle

(1996) who investigated the implementation of a task-based approach in a small, private

EFL school in Ireland. Materials were a key concern, with reference made to the desire

for a textbook by the students and the difficulty in locating appropriate materials for the

course. Teacher preparation time was also a concern for the teachers involved in my

study. On a more positive note, higher teacher motivation was reported, as well as

increased co-operation between teachers. Learner centredness and the use of authentic

materials were also cited as positives by the teachers in my study.

As can be seen, although different contexts were investigated, similar issues arose in

both studies and as will be seen in the chapters to follow, also amongst Queensland

teachers.

2.1.6 Issues associated with task-based instruction

TBI is controversial for a variety of reasons. This section discusses some of these

concerns as they appear in the literature and how the Queensland syllabus has attempted

to address these issues.

2.1.6.1 Naturalistic language learning

An important characteristic of both TBI in a broad sense, and the Queensland context

specifically, is a focus on naturalistic language learning. While many see naturalistic

language learning as a positive, there are those who see this as one of the pitfalls of TBI.

Swan, in discussing naturalistic language learning, states “the role of instruction in a

typical language classroom is not, surely, to attempt the impossible task of replicating

the conditions of natural acquisition, but to compensate for their absence” (2005:393).

He further expands his lack of support for naturalistic learning that characterizes TBI,

saying “this naturalistic slant constitutes something of a straitjacket, tending to limit the

approach to doing what it does best- promoting more accurate, fluent and complex use

of what has already been learnt- at the expense of a principled focus on new linguistic

25

material” (p. 388). Basically, students with a limited knowledge of the language, such as

the majority of learners being taught via the 2000 Syllabus in Queensland, see the goal

as task completion by whatever means necessary, and so will come to rely on already

learnt language, at the expense of developing new language. Skehan (1996b:58) also

notes this as a real danger of TBI, “task-based learning, a current vogue in

communicative language teaching, contains dangers if implemented without care. In

particular, it is likely to create pressure for immediate communication rather than

interlanguage change and growth”.

Some researchers (for example Swan 2005) express concerns about where new language

input is derived from when teachers use a strong task-based approach. Consequently,

several researchers argue for a more rounded view of TBI (eg. Seedhouse 1999, Swan

2005), not completely discrediting the advantages of TBI, but instead suggesting that

TBI be one of many tools available to classroom teachers, rather than the sole basis for

the syllabus. Effectively, these researchers are in support of a ‘weak’ approach to TBI.

Swan (2005) presents an argument against the use of a strong version of TBI, claiming

that “while TBI may successfully develop learners’ command of what is known, it is

considerably less effective for the systematic teaching of new language” (p. 376). He

questions where new language input is supposed to come from, arguing that a limited

amount will come from interaction among students during the tasks, but this is not a

reliable form as it is unlikely that students will gain much new language in this way. He

suggests that some new language will come from pre-teaching, but he very clearly

discredits this, as one of the characteristics of TBI is to not give the learners specific

language. Instead learners must be permitted to use their choice of language in order to

complete the task (Willis 1996a). Swan (2005) expresses a considerable amount of

skepticism in regards to where new input will come from in TBI stating, “it seems to be

commonly taken for granted that structures and lexis will be made available for learning

(and presumably learnt) through interaction, task materials, ‘focus on form’, teacher

intervention, pre-teaching, or simply the rich input felt to be associated with TBI; but

these assumptions are not for the most part given detailed attention or subjected to

testing” (p. 389). The Queensland program averts this problem via the use of the

26

‘enhancing’ phase where students should be given the chance to work with new

language and structures, before being expected to perform tasks for assessment.

2.1.6.2 The role of focus on form in TBI

Like the definition of task, the role of focus on form in TBI also varies according to

authors consulted. Some researchers emphasize a focus on meaning, with focus on form

taking a secondary role. One such example is the framework for task-based learning

proposed by Willis (1996a). She suggests that learners start by completing the task using

whatever language they already have, which is followed by a discussion and comparison

with other students. This stage can also involve hearing or reading other versions of the

completed task. At the end of the cycle, the students’ attention is then drawn to the

forms used. The Queensland program takes a different stance, with sessions dedicated to

focus on form occurring in the preparatory stages, as the need arises for task completion.

The syllabus states that “it is helpful for learners to practice language in integrated

sessions of form-focused instruction” (QSCC 2000:8). Students learning via the

Queensland program experience sessions of focus on form as they arise and are

necessary in task completion, rather than afterwards, as suggested in the Willis model.

The syllabus explains the rationale behind this approach to focus on form in that the

speed of language acquisition is increased, as well as greater accuracy, when form-

focused instruction takes place in context, as it occurs.

Recently there has been some research conducted on the effect of planning on task

completion. One such example is the work of Yuan & Ellis (2003). They investigated

different amounts of planning and the impact this had on task completion. They

concluded that the more planning that was able to take place, the more accurate the work

produced would be, as students had more time to attend to accuracy and complexity. As

will be seen in the section to follow, striking a balance between the goals of fluency,

accuracy and complexity can be quite a challenge for program designers. The

Queensland syllabus expects that students will have significant preparation time, with

tasks often conducted over several lessons. This is expected to result in more accurate

27

and complex use of language, whilst also assisting with fluency when tasks are

presented.

2.1.6.3 Fluency, accuracy and complexity

Skehan (1996b) discusses a grave concern for students being taught via TBI. There are

three goals of language instruction, these being fluency, accuracy and complexity and it

is striking a balance between these three goals that poses a great problem for learners, as

they are not able to focus on everything at the same time. Fluency is often favoured over

the other two goals (Willis 1996b) as it is what is most needed for task completion. Both

Skehan (1996b) and Willis (1996b) discuss the danger in doing nothing but tasks as it

may lead to a situation where “some learners become adept at task completion strategies

and manage to get by on very limited use of the target language” (p. 55). Skehan

discusses the use of communication strategies used by learners taught via TBI:

The central problem for the foreign language learner, taught by task-based

means, is that learners operate under pressure of time and under the need to get

meanings across. This approach places a premium on communication strategies

linked to lexicalized communication. These strategies provide an effective

incentive for learners to make best use of the language they already have. But

they do not encourage a focus on form. They do not provide an incentive for

structural change towards an interlanguage system with greater complexity.

(Skehan 1996a:22)

In other words, students are able to complete the task sufficiently, but the goal of new

language acquisition, which is of course of central importance, is not being achieved as

students have learnt how to get by using these communicative strategies. To view this

another way however, communication strategies are also a very necessary part of

conversation. Swan (2005) acknowledges this same point but adds that perhaps TBI is

an appropriate method of instruction for more advanced learners who may know more

language than they “use fluently and/or accurately” (p. 388). He suggests that

28

“appropriately designed TBI may be an ideal corrective, combining communicative

practice with a focus on ‘pushed output’ which encourages them to process material

syntactically, ‘stretch’ their interlanguage, and thus gain a genuine control of previously

learnt material” (p. 388). As will be seen, teachers are not always satisfied with the

balance struck between fluency, accuracy and complexity in the syllabus.

2.1.6.4 The impact of time

Another factor pertinent to the success of TBI is time. Mentioned by several researchers

(eg. Carless 2003, Swan 2005), a significant amount of class time is necessary in order

to TBI to be an effective method of instruction. The amount of time allocated to French

on a weekly basis has significant implications if this type of a program is to be

successful. Ellis (1990) makes a relevant point relating to syllabus design and time,

saying that we are making a syllabus to imitate what we do in the L1 but we have a

fraction of the time to work with and this could be a possible reason for the

ineffectiveness of many methods. Swan (2005) discusses the “3hpw learner”, and

conclusions he reaches are equally valid for Queensland students, perhaps even more so,

as very few students in the Queensland context will be fortunate enough to even reach a

total of three hours each week, more commonly receiving about half that amount,

somewhere around 90 minutes which is the Education Queensland current mandated

minimum. Swan argues that “in a 3hpw situation, a purely task-based approach can

neither ensure that language learners encounter all the most common and useful

language items, nor prevent much of what they do notice from being inadequately

processed and rapidly forgotten” (p.393). The three teachers in Carless’s (2003) study

also mention inadequate time allocated to their subject and the pressure this places on

them to teach via TBI.

Time is a crucial factor, but not just in relation to the classroom. Carless discusses

another factor in the implementation of TBI in his context being a lack of time for

teachers to adequately prepare for TBI. He states that Hong Kong teachers have heavy

workloads and often textbook based learning will require less preparation time than task

29

based instruction, hence some teachers may show a preference for textbook over task

based education. This is clearly also an issue prevalent in the Queensland context.

There are two opposing ways of viewing the time issue and the use of TBI in the

Queensland context. On the upside, students, especially primary students, who only

attend language classes once or twice a week and for around 90 minutes in total, are

possibly more likely to remember where they are at in terms of task completion, than say

where they are in terms of grammar exercises or other textbook related exercises, as

tasks may hold greater interest value. Students may retain more from a task as they are

engaged with the personal creation of a product, whereas grammar exercises most likely

will not hold as much significance outside the classroom.

On the downside of the time situation, there are limited opportunities for focused

instruction, thus limiting the amount of language that students are able to cover in class.

Couple this with the time taken for task completion, and students have even fewer

chances for new language input.

2.1.6.5 Learner centredness and the change of teacher role

A key issue in TBI is the change in teacher and student roles in the classroom. While the

communicative approach does involve students in playing an active part in the learning

process, it is still very teacher driven. TBI puts the teacher into the role of facilitator of

learning. The teacher is expected to guide students to self discovery of new knowledge.

Thus, students have become more active participants in the learning process. Willis

discusses one of the implications of this change, stating “the biggest challenge for the

teacher used to a teacher-led PPP approach is to stand back, have faith and let learners

get on with their learning” (Willis 1996b:61). Scrivener (1996) contrasts PPP with TBI,

making the point that “with PPP the entire sequence of classroom events is described

from the teacher’s perspective; it is possible to plan a lesson entirely without reference

to the learners” (p.80).

30

A task based syllabus is naturally a more learner centred one and, as stated by Rubin

(1987), “there has been a steadily growing interest in considering the task from the

learner’s point of view and in changing the focus of classrooms from a teacher centred

one to a learner centred one” (p.15). Holec (1987) describes previous approaches by

saying that “traditionally a majority of teachers and learners alike have tended to think

that the learners’ responsibility should be limited to being the beneficiary, so to speak, of

the process, its active manager being the teacher” (p.147). In contrast, the current

syllabus requires students to work either individually or very often collaboratively, in

order to complete a task, the teacher’s role often to be simply to circulate and facilitate

the completion of a task by offering assistance and guidance where necessary, with

small amounts of whole class instruction, a greatly reduced amount to previous

syllabuses To quote from the syllabus, (QSCC 2000:11) “ a learner-centred approach to

learning and teaching views learning as the active construction of meaning, and teaching

as the act of guiding and facilitating learning”. The shift in teacher role may be one of

the reasons for teacher resistance to this syllabus and as such, it is an issue which is

investigated in this study.

The importance of learner centredness can be summed up by Rubin (1987), when she

says

it is assumed that it is essential for students to be able to control their own

learning process so that they can learn outside the classroom once they are on

their own. If students are dependent on teachers to shape language to suit them

and to provide them with proper input, they can’t begin to take charge of their

own learning when the teacher is not there (p.17).

Rubin goes on further to discuss the importance of students “being active” in the

learning process whereby teachers do not simply hand them the information, but instead

students are required to work with the information and thus internalize in ways

meaningful to them. While this is not necessarily a new idea, having also been a feature

of inductive grammar, which dates back several decades, it is intensified in TBI. As

31

such, learners do not all work with exactly the same language in an approach such as the

2000 syllabus, but complete individual or group projects, which differ from each other

and hence require different language. In essence, learners are actually more able to shape

their own learning experiences in a task-based approach. The downside to a more learner

centred method is that since this is currently an approach not shared by other subjects in

the curriculum, students do not yet have the necessary skills to work independently,

without constant teacher interference. Throughout the literature, there is evidence of the

need to instruct learners how to behave in such a situation. For example, Nunan and

Lamb (1996:12) state, “learners need to be systematically taught the skills needed to

implement a learner centred approach to pedagogy”. Cross (2005) paints a dire picture

when he says “learners are affected by the impact of materials upon teachers because

unless teachers make the nature of communicative language teaching explicit to them,

they can become disruptive and uncooperative since the communicative approach

assumes a greater responsibility on the part of the learners for their own learning than

they might ordinarily expect” (p. 18). While Cross is referring to the communicative

approach, this is equally applicable to TBI hence teachers’ opinions on the move to a

more learner centred syllabus, as well as how their students tend to react to it by being

either on or off task, are investigated by this study.

2.2 Embeddedness

As mentioned previously, the Queensland 4-10 LOTE Syllabus is an embedded syllabus,

in that it takes content from other KLAs (Key Learning Areas). As expressed in the

QSCC Environmental Scan for the 2000 Syllabus (QSCC 1997),

an embedded approach is suggested as an appropriate model of syllabus

development which will ensure a meaningful link with other curricular areas.

This means that the topics and tasks of the language program are based, where

appropriate and feasible, on key concepts and ideas in other curricular areas for

that year level, while still allowing for a discrete language component, and

32

consideration of the social contexts within which learners may be expected to use

their language (p.15).

Initially appearing similar in orientation to an immersion program, it is necessary to

clarify the distinction between the goals of the two programs. “The focus within such a

program [embedded program] is not the content per se, as in immersion, but on tasks

which draw on language and content to solve a communicative need” (QSCC 1997:15).

The rationale behind this choice of content is the view of language is as a tool, which

can be used to communicate about something else. Thus the focus is on using language

for real communicative needs. This is added to by the links to other areas of the

curriculum as in immersion programs. The idea of pulling content from other subject

areas into the language syllabus comes originally from Widdowson (1979) in his work

on English for Specific Purposes (ESP). He states that “a course which prepares students

for dealing with English use in scientific communication should present the language not

as something in isolation from what the student knows but as an aspect of something

with which they are already familiar”(p.28). This is also the philosophy which underpins

the Queensland LOTE Syllabuses. Students are presented with content taken from the

other subject areas, with which they are already acquainted, and the French language is

thus used in order to access this content.

The use of embedded content, while serving to “provide something meaningful and real

to talk about” (Curtain & Dahlberg 2004:285), also raises some issues which are

problematic. One is whether teachers feel they are equipped with the necessary subject

knowledge to teach the content.

2.2.1 Teacher knowledge of other KLAs

Opinions vary on the importance of teacher knowledge of other areas when teaching

courses which employ content from other subjects. Klippel (2003) makes the distinction

between the type of knowledge required of teachers in immersion programs and content-

based programs. Those teaching immersion programs need both a good knowledge of

33

the language, as well as a good knowledge of the other subject area. A content-based

program does not require the teacher to be as knowledgeable in the other subject area as

French is still the focus, with the content being secondary and merely a relevant reason

for using the language.

Ideally when embedded content is being taught, language teachers would have frequent

contact with other subject teachers, both to assist with subject knowledge and pedagogy,

as well as to identify “concepts that can be reinforced or enriched in the language

classroom" (Curtain & Dahlberg 2004:285). Curtain & Dahlberg (2004) discuss the

frequent “lack of professional preparation in specific content areas” (p. 271) as a

problem for language teachers who are teaching a course where content is taken from

other subject areas and propose that this often results in teacher preparation time being

spent more on content, than language and cultural components. Widdowson (1979) also

asserts the importance of teachers knowing something of the subject specific pedagogy

in order to be able to effectively teach.

2.3 Teacher proficiency/qualifications

One aspect that is hypothesized as a reason for possible acceptance or non-acceptance of

the 2000 Queensland French Syllabus by teachers is teacher proficiency in French. A

teacher with a higher proficiency will be more at ease with more challenging resources

and topics. Without a doubt, a proficient teacher is more desirable in any circumstance

but the issue of proficiency is one which is difficult to define. As stated in a NALSAS

report prepared by Norris entitled “Language Teacher Proficiency or Teacher Language

Proficiency” (Norris 1999), “while recognizing that the quality and supply of proficient

language teachers is vital to the success of second/foreign language as a learning area,

there does, however, remain some considerable ambiguity about how to define

proficiency, let alone how to monitor it” (Norris 1999:54). As discussed in the NALSAS

report, there are multiple interpretations of “teacher proficiency”

34

the term “language teacher proficiency” of itself suggests an emphasis on

linguistic knowledge as opposed to pedagogical or cultural knowledge. It is clear,

however, that effective language teaching involves more than linguistic

competence. The “multiple knowledges” approach provides a more complete

picture of the interrelated components of language teacher proficiency (pp. 52-

53).

In addition to this confusion surrounding which factors are worthy of inclusion in

defining teacher proficiency, the NALSAS report also makes the point that “there is

clearly a lot of debate about the proficiency levels required of second/foreign language

teachers teaching in specific program types and at different phases of schooling” (p. 53).

For the purposes of this thesis teacher proficiency refers to linguistic knowledge, with

teacher knowledge of methodology treated as a separate issue.

While a LOTE proficiency interview does exist in Queensland for EQ teachers, not all

French teachers have such a rating and as evidenced both anecdotally and in this study,

there are French teachers with minimal proficiency in the language. Opie (2006) writes

about a district he has named “Black Swan” situated in rural Victoria. He makes the

point, which is equally relevant to the Queensland context, that if the proficiency of

LOTE teachers in his district were mandated to a particular level, the program might be

unable to continue its existence. As suggested by the title “To be or not to be? That is the

Question” in a bid to offer LOTE to all students as required by the government in

Victoria, as in Queensland, on the goal is the continuation of the language program, with

any available teachers who may or may not be suitably qualified or proficient and this is

obviously the focus in this case. In Queensland, similarly, LOTE is mandated which

may contribute to the reason why LOTE teaching positions are filled at times by anyone

available in order for the LOTE experience to remain a possibility for all students. Low

teacher proficiency often occurs when there is no available teacher who is suitably

qualified and it becomes necessary to place someone in the position in order to maintain

a language program. Westwood (2006) conducted an analysis of advertisements and

follow up survey of employers advertising for language teacher positions in a Sydney

35

paper with the aim being to determine desirable attributes of language teachers. While

proficiency and qualifications were ranked as the top two desirable characteristics, there

were many other factors such as commitment to the school’s ethos and ability to

contribute to the co-curricula program that were also deemed important attributes. While

Westwood’s study involved mainly private schools, results nonetheless do offer possible

reasons why a teacher of low proficiency may be found in a language teaching position.

Proficiency becomes an issue for the study reported in this thesis because the survey in

this thesis investigates the link between proficiency level and ability to cope with the

heightened language demands of the 2000 French Syllabus, in comparison to previous

syllabuses.

2.4 Teachers and change

Naturally when an innovation is introduced there will be some resistance from teachers

because it involves stepping outside the familiar and comfortable, in order to try

something new. The difficulty with the implementation of a task-based syllabus in

Queensland is that it was quite different from what many teachers were doing in the

classroom previously, and subsequently, the move to TBI also involves a shift in

thinking. As expressed by Woodward (1996), “changing techniques on the surface does

not involve paradigm shift. Paradigm shift is about changing our view of learning or

language, teaching or training or all four. It’s about changing categories, procedures and

views of the world” (p.7).

2.4.1 Teacher beliefs and their role in acceptance of an innovation

It is important at this point to discuss teacher beliefs and the role they play in whether an

innovation is adopted by teachers. Woods (1996) discusses the notion that what teachers

do in the classroom is greatly influenced by their assumptions about language, teaching

and learning. The beliefs held by teachers may come from a variety of sources,

including, but not limited to, the following as stated by Senior (2006: 251-2):

36

• school-based memories of both good and bad learning experiences;

• personal language learning experiences (both inside and outside the classroom);

• the quality, extent and focus of teacher training programs;

• past and current experiences of language teaching;

• inservice teacher development programs;

• the influence of respected colleagues.

Teacher beliefs and assumptions play a crucial role in determining whether there will be

uptake of an innovation. Pennington (1996) discusses the link between teacher beliefs

and change when she states “teachers change in areas they are already primed to change,

and this priming depends on their individual characteristics and prior experiences, which

shape their view of the classroom, their students and themselves as teachers.” In other

words, if an innovation significantly differs from current practice, and is not concurrent

with teacher beliefs, it is unlikely that the innovation will be adopted. In relation to task-

based instruction, very few, if any teachers would have been taught via this methodology

when they were learning French as students, as TBI has only recently become popular.

Thus, it is an unfamiliar methodology for many. With no past experience of TBI,

teachers are reliant on what they learn of the methodology either from colleagues or

professional development or from preservice training or their own research. Upon initial

acquaintance with the methodology, teachers may see it as a radical shift and for this

reason alone may be reluctant to incorporate TBI into their teaching.

Carless (2001) suggests that there are a number of factors that affect whether or not an

innovation is implemented by teachers. He chooses to discuss three factors of particular

relevance to his case study of the implementation of the Target-Oriented Curriculum in

Hong Kong: Teacher attitudes, teacher training and teachers’ understanding of the

innovation. These factors are equally applicable to the Queensland situation. In

discussing teacher attitudes Carless (2001) states that

when teachers’ attitudes are congruent with the innovation, then they are likely to

be positively disposed towards its implementation. However, teachers who are

37

initially enthusiastic about an innovation may easily become disillusioned if

there is a lack of support for the innovation, such as inadequate resourcing or

negative sentiments from the principal or colleagues (p. 264).

TBI is significantly different to what is happening in many other subject areas and due to

its very nature, it may appear to the observer more disorganized, noisier and chaotic than

more traditional methods, and thus teachers may not be particularly supported to persist

with this method. Inadequate resourcing may also be an issue in the Queensland

situation, based on the difficulty associated with locating appropriate materials.

Carless also discusses the importance of ongoing teacher training as crucial to the

successful implementation of an innovation and this is particularly relevant to the

Queensland situation: TBI represents, for most teachers, a significant change and, as

mentioned previously, teachers are more likely to change in areas in which they are

“primed to change” (Pennington 1996).

One of the factors proving to be at the heart of the Queensland situation and also an

issue for Carless was teachers’ understanding of the innovation. “If teachers are to

implement an innovation successfully, it is essential that they have a thorough

understanding of the principles and the practice of the proposed change” (p. 264). This

has obvious links to Carless’s previous point about training, as understanding results

from sufficient training. In a study by Karavas-Doukas (1995) cited by Carless (p. 264),

teachers introducing the communicative syllabus into Greek schools did not completely

understand the new innovation, and as a result, negative feelings towards the innovation

were one of the results.

2.4.2 Teacher career stage

While not a key element in this study, a factor that is taken into account nevertheless is

teacher career stage and the effect this has on willingness to engage in new innovations,

namely task-based instruction. Space does not permit me to discuss at length this

38

extensive topic, however Huberman, Thompson & Weiland (1997) offer one model of

the teaching career upon which analyses of the survey are based. These researchers

propose a model comprised of seven phases, these being ‘survival and discovery’,

‘stabilization’, ‘experimentation/activism’, ‘reassessment/self doubts’,

‘serenity/relational distance’, ‘conservatism’ and ‘disengagement: serene/bitter’.

Teachers will pass through some or all of these phases, in various possible orders. It is

important to note that Huberman et al. are very clear in stating the limitations of

attempting to place all teachers in such phases however these groupings are still a useful

starting point to look at trends in teacher attitude. Figure 1 shows possible pathways for

a teacher’s career and the approximate time in number of years of teaching when these

phases should occur.

39

Figure 1

Taken from Hubermann, Thompson and Weiland (1997)

40

During the first three years teachers experience a phase of “survival” and “discovery”.

These two parts may occur separately or concurrently. “Survival” involves the new

teacher in coping by whatever means, while “discovery” refers more to the enthusiasm

of new teachers. It was expected that teachers in this phase would be likely to be using

the syllabus as many would have been trained in its implementation during their

preservice education. A phase of “stabilization” usually encompasses years 4-6 of the

teaching career. This is a time where teachers, as the name suggests, tend to stabilize and

accept this as their career choice and become comfortable in the classroom. Like the first

years, it was expected that many in this phase would have been trained in the 2000

syllabus and perhaps more likely to be using it than in later phases.

Years 7-18 of the teaching career are characterized by a phase of “experimentation and

activism”. Teachers have reached a point where they are at ease in the classroom and are

willing to try new methods and have a desire to create an impact on their students. It was

hypothesized that because teachers at this point in their career are often in search of new

challenges, syllabus use may be high in this group. At this stage of the teaching career,

teachers may also go through a phase of reassessment, where they express doubt about

their career choice. Again in the 19-30 years two branches exist and teachers may endure

either or both of these phases. Teachers in the phase of “serenity/ relational distance”

tend to be “less vulnerable to the opinions of others” (p. 47-48). It was hypothesized that

teachers in this time of their career would be the least likely to be using the syllabus but

would instead be confident in their own individual methods developed over years of

experience. Huberman et al. suggest those experiencing phase of “conservatism” are also

likely to exhibit resistance to innovations and inflexibility in approach. The final stage of

the teaching career is distinguished by a period of “disengagement” endured either

serenely or bitterly depending on one’s career. As with the 19-30 years experience

group, it was not expected that teachers in this group would be particularly supportive of

the syllabus.

41

2.5 Conclusion

As seen in this chapter, the Queensland Years 4-10 French Syllabus represents a

significant change for teachers and as such, raises many issues. We now move to chapter

three where the instruments used to collect data on these issues are discussed.

42

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction

This chapter outlines the methods used for data collection, as well as the rationale

behind the choice of such methods. Also included in this chapter is a detailed summary

of the questions used in the survey and the justification of the use of these questions.

There were two main phases to data collection, the first being a survey which was

distributed to French teachers, and the second phase being three follow up focus groups

with selected survey respondents. Data collection methods were inspired by Crawford

(1999) who used a survey for quantitative purposes and focus groups to access

qualitative data. The difference in this study is that the survey also aimed to produce

qualitative data through the use of many open ended questions and optional comment

sections where teachers were given the chance to explain their responses.

3.1 The survey

A survey for French teachers was created which aimed to capture teachers’ views of the

Queensland Years 4-10 French Syllabus and elicit opinions as to both the positive and

negative aspects of the syllabus as perceived by teachers. The survey used can be found

in Appendix 2A, along with the cover letter sent with paper copies of the survey

(Appendix 2B) and ethics clearance (Appendix 3). Both an online version and paper

version of the survey were used to capture as many respondents as possible. It was

expected that the online survey would prove the favoured option as this method tends to

be less time consuming than the completion and effort required to return a paper copy,

and consequently more responses would be gained. In reality though, more paper copies

were returned than online versions of the survey, due to a large mailout to Education

Queensland schools.

43

A survey was used in order to reach as many potential respondents as possible and to

hopefully gain a broad cross section of responses. It was hoped that, given the hectic

schedule of teachers, by creating a survey that took around 15-20 minutes to complete,

more responses would be gained than would result from one longer in length.

Necessarily, the survey questions were reasonably generalized, but in many cases, there

was space left for optional comments, where teachers could expand answers if they

desired to do so. The use of many open ended questions, as well as optional comment

space, was a deliberate attempt to counteract the main criticism of surveys, being that

“preset response categories may limit the way in which respondents can answer a

question” (Foddy 1993 in Crawford 1999:118) as well as a strategy to gain some

qualitative data about teacher practice.

3.1.1 Pilot version of the survey

A pilot paper version of the survey was distributed to a group of twelve French teachers,

from all three sectors, who were in attendance at an event for secondary French students.

Teachers were asked to complete the survey and identify any possible problems with the

instrument and then mail the survey back in a pre-stamped envelope. While only three

surveys were returned, none indicated the presence of any problems in the survey

design, hence the content of the pilot version is identical to the final version4.

3.1.2 Distribution of the survey

A second group of teachers was then contacted via the MLTAQ (Modern Language

Teachers’ Association of Queensland) email list and provided with a link to the online

survey. MLTAQ members are comprised of both primary and secondary teachers from

all three sectors (Education Queensland, Catholic Education and Independent

Education), however the greater balance falls in the private sector. Several reminder

emails were sent to this group and an invitation to complete the online survey also

4 Both online and paper versions were distributed with identical content, though different layouts

44

appeared in the LOTE Note, the monthly newsletter of the MLTAQ. Seventeen

responses were received from a potential pool of approximately 50 teachers.

Following this, Education Queensland was approached to gain permission to contact

Education Queensland teachers directly. A list of schools where French was taught was

provided by Education Queensland containing all the primary and secondary schools

where French was a subject. Of these, the principals of all high schools listed as teaching

French were contacted, as well as 47 primary schools, making a total of 78 schools. An

envelope was sent to each of the schools, containing, in accordance with Education

Queensland policy, a letter to each principal detailing the project and asking permission

for their French teacher’s participation in the study. Also in the envelope, there was a

letter to French teachers outlining the project, as well as a paper copy of the survey and a

stamped envelope for return of the survey. Teachers were given the choice of returning

the paper copy or answering the survey online. An unexpected setback was experienced

in that the list provided by Education Queensland also contained schools where students

were studying French by BSDE (Brisbane School of Distance Education). This was not

specified and as a result, no French teacher was present in some schools on the list.

Consequently a number of schools received a survey when there was in fact no French

teacher employed.

3.1.3 Survey design

The survey was designed so that all teachers answered the same questions at the outset,

dealing with personal and school details. Following this, there were subsequently three

possible pathways through the survey based on teachers’ response to question 14, their

use of the syllabus. Depending on whether teachers were using the syllabus in its

entirety (option a), sampling resources (option b) or not using the syllabus at all (option

c), they were directed to continue completing questions from different points in the

survey. Below is diagram 3.1 depicting the three pathways.

45

Diagram 3.1

Possible pathways through the survey

As can be seen, group A respondents were directed to answer all questions in the survey.

These were the respondents who were using the syllabus in its entirety. Group B

respondents were those who claimed to be only sampling resources so for this reason,

these respondents were not asked the questions relating specifically to TBI (questions

15-19). The respondents in group C were those who used neither the syllabus in its

Personal details and questions related to school context

(questions 1-14)

Question 14a (using the syllabus in its entirety)

Question 14b (sampling resources from the syllabus)

Question 14c (not using the syllabus at all)

Question 15- Task-based instruction

Question 20- use of French in classroom Question 32/33- teacher role/ideal classroom

Question 16- conferring with teachers from other KLAs

Question 21-26 Resources

End of survey

Questions 17-20 Teacher language and language in the

classroom

Question 21-26 resources

Questions 27-29 Professional development

Question 30 and 31 Overall strengths and weaknesses of the

syllabus

Questions 27-29 Professional development

Question 30 and 31 Overall strengths and weaknesses of the

syllabus

Question 32/33- teacher role/ideal classroom

Question 32/33- teacher role/ideal classroom

End of survey

End of survey

46

entirety, nor sampled the resources, there fore these respondents were only asked

questions that did not pertain to the syllabus or resources.

3.2 Details of survey questions

Section 3.2 outlines the questions used in this survey and the reasons behind these

questions. Questions are grouped according to topic areas.

3.2.1 Personal details and school context

The survey asked teachers for a number of personal details, these being age, sex, school

system (ie Education Queensland, Independent or Catholic), time they had been teaching

French and length of time teaching overall, time spent in a French speaking country,

LOTE qualifications, background (ie native speaker, background speaker or neither) and

whether or not they taught any other subjects. These details were requested in order to

compare teachers’ responses to the syllabus based on individual situations. It was

expected that among Education Queensland teachers, there would be a higher number

using the syllabus than among those in the Independent or Independent Catholic system,

as there is no obligation for these teachers to use the Syllabus. Details such as age and

gender were requested for comparative purposes, to see if any correlation existed, as

were the other personal details. This section of the survey also asked teachers to indicate

how much time is allocated to French in their particular school for each of the year

levels they teach. This was requested in order to elicit where French was receiving

support, and also to determine if time allocation was a factor in the acceptance or not of

the syllabus. This question allowed teachers to be classified as primary or secondary

teachers, or both. Teachers were asked to rate their language proficiency in the four

macroskills based on a five point scale taken from Crawford (1999) which was based on

the ASLPR scale (Wylie and Ingram 1993). Although there are obvious limitations with

asking people to rate their own proficiency, teachers were given the opportunity to

remain anonymous if desired, and nothing was to be gained by inflating their ability. It is

hoped therefore, that this is as accurate a picture as possible of teachers’ abilities without

47

subjecting them to individual testing. The rationale behind requesting this information

was to determine whether language proficiency affected teachers’ acceptance of the

Syllabus, as anecdotally, many teachers have commented on the level of difficulty of the

resources supplied with this syllabus. Teachers were also asked whether they used the

previous 1988 Syllabus, in an attempt to elicit whether it is particularly this syllabus that

teachers do not wish to follow, or syllabuses generally. Question 14 asked respondents

to make a distinction between whether they used the syllabus in its entirety, sampled

resources or did not use it at all, and from this question, depending on the response,

respondents were then directed to particular sections of the survey. Those not using the

survey were asked to briefly indicate why in order to determine the major reasons for

this.

3.2.2 Question 15- Task-based instruction

For those who responded that they were using the syllabus in its entirety next followed a

series of questions on different aspects of TBI. These questions gave a four point scale,

from strongly agree (1) to agree (2), disagree (3) and strongly disagree (4). A neutral

response was purposefully omitted in order to make respondents commit to one side or

another. Optional comments sections were available for each question to allow

respondents to clarify or add information. Questions 15a and b sought information on

students’ and teachers’ enthusiasm for TBI. Questions 15c-f dealt with various aspects

of learner centredness, while 15g attempted to gauge the interest value of the topics for

students. Question 15h sought to elicit information on whether teachers felt they were

equipped with sufficient general knowledge to teach the content in the syllabus. The

impact of time allocations for French classes was investigated by question 15i, and the

role of focus on form was covered by question 15j. Question 15k asked teachers whether

they felt a greater demand was placed on a teacher’s language skills by a course such as

the 2000 syllabus, in comparison to a textbook based course. Teachers’ preparedness for

their role as facilitator was explored by question 15l and this section concluded with

question 15m which asked teachers to rate how well the syllabus was working overall in

their context.

48

3.2.3 Conferring with teachers from other KLAs

Following from this segmented question was a question asking teachers whether or not

they conferred with colleagues from other subject areas in order to determine whether

this was happening and amongst which teachers. In order for the syllabus to be

implemented as intended, there should be some conferring amongst different subject

areas.

3.2.4 Teacher language proficiency and language in the classroom

Questions 17 to 20 were related to teacher language proficiency and ability to cope with

the syllabus, and also questions about the suggested teacher language supplied on the

syllabus CDs. These questions were asked in order to determine if respondents felt the

amount of support given through the provision of sample language was a useful

addition, and also to gauge how reliant people were on this resource. Question 20 asked

teachers if their use of French had increased since implementing the new syllabus.

3.2.5 Resources

Starting with question 21, a series of questions relating to the resources supplied on the

syllabus CDs followed. The first item in this series asked teachers how often they used

the supplied resources on the syllabus CDs. Following this was another segmented

question asking teachers to rate a number of issues associated with the resources. Again

the same four point scale was used as in question 15, from 1-strongly agree to 4-strongly

disagree. Four issues were investigated by this question: appropriateness of the level of

the resources, whether the resources engage the students, whether it is necessary to add

many additional resources and whether teachers feel they have access to sufficient

resources. These issues originated from personal communication with teachers prior to

this project. Question 23 and 24 investigated teachers’ awareness and use, respectively,

of the LOTE centre kits, which were created to add additional resources to some of the

modules in the syllabus. This section concluded with two open ended questions asking

49

teachers what they saw to be the strengths and the weaknesses of the resources, the aim

of which was to determine whether there were further issues related to the resources in

addition to those already mentioned.

3.2.6 Professional development

Questions 27, 28 and 29 dealt with the issue of professional development. Teachers were

asked if they had received any training in the implementation of the syllabus (question

27) in order to determine whether there is a need for more training to be conducted.

Question 28 aimed to establish whether there would be sufficient interest in professional

development sessions and question 29 asked for suggestions of possible content, in order

to identify where teachers felt gaps in their knowledge existed.

3.2.7 Strengths and weaknesses of the syllabus

Following the section on professional development, teachers were asked what they

thought the overall strengths and weaknesses of the syllabus were (questions 30 and 31),

in order to identify any further issues and to consolidate which issues are the most

prominent, based on the frequency with which they appear in the responses.

3.2.8 Teacher role and ideal classroom

Question 32 asked teachers to describe their role as teacher in order to gain a further

understanding of the type of pedagogy practiced at the classroom level. The final

question asked teachers to describe their ideal classroom with the aim of seeing what

teachers felt they needed.

3.2.9 Willingness to be contacted further

At the completion of the survey teachers were asked whether they were willing to be

contacted further and asked to provide contact details if so.

50

3.3 Focus groups

3.3.1 Participants

Of the 39 respondents, there were 23 who indicated their willingness to be contacted. It

was thought that three focus group sessions, with four or five participants in each would

be an appropriate number. Participants were chosen to represent the variety of contexts

of survey respondents, being primary and secondary teachers, independent and EQ

schools, new and experienced teachers and native and non-native speakers. Across these

groups there was a mix of those using, sampling and not using the syllabus. Non-

metropolitan teachers were also included via a conference call to the session.

Participants were contacted with a letter asking them to indicate preferences for

attendance at any of the three sessions (for information and consent form see Appendix

4). From this, even groups of four participants were formed, with each group comprising

a mixture of those using and not using the syllabus. Three participants attended each

session in person, while one connected via conference call due to distance.

3.3.2 Location and time

It was decided to hold the sessions outside school hours from 4.30 until 5.30 to

maximize teachers’ chances of being able to attend. Sessions were held on Monday 18

September, Tuesday 19 September and Thursday 21 September. All sessions were

conducted at the LOTE Centre at West End, chosen for its centrality, its familiarity to

teachers and also because teachers could be given the chance to visit the LOTE Library

before the session, should they wish to do so. The focus groups were held in the week

leading up to the school holidays in the hope that teachers would be completing exams

so have less preparation to complete after school, and thus be more inclined to attend.

3.3.3 Choice of methodology

51

The use of focus groups as the second phase of data collection was the chosen

methodology as it allowed hypotheses that had not been completely satisfied by the

survey responses to be further investigated. It also provided a platform from which to

discuss issues arising from the survey and consolidate conclusions reached at that point.

Prior to the sessions, in order to maximize the discussion time on the day, teachers were

sent a list of questions on which to reflect in preparation for the focus group. The

questions appear below in the intended order, which was changed for some groups, as

particular responses led to answering questions out of sequence.

3.3.4 Questions for focus groups

*What is your understanding of a task-based syllabus? Feel free to give examples from

your own practice.

*For those using the syllabus, is there anything you have had to do to ensure the

syllabus works in the classroom?

*Is there something specific to your context that allows the syllabus to be effective or

ineffective?

*What are the optimum conditions for the Syllabus to be successful?

*How do you integrate a focus on form into your program?

*How do you feel about the move to an embedded syllabus? (Meaning one where the

content is taken from other subject areas?)

*Many people suggested sharing resources for the syllabus would be an effective type of

professional development. Based on your situation, what is an effective way of doing

this?

52

*The senior French Syllabus is currently under review. Would you support the

introduction of a task-based syllabus in the senior years? If there is a move towards a

task-based syllabus for year 11 and 12, how will that impact on your implementation of

the 4-10 Syllabus?

It was explained to teachers that these questions were only the basis for discussion and it

was expected that there would be other questions that would arise based on responses

given.

3.3.5 Rationale for questions

Question one (What is your understanding of a task-based syllabus? Feel free to give

examples from your own practice) From certain respondents’ answers, it became

apparent that there seemed to be different understandings of the term ‘task-based

syllabus’, so this question was used to determine how teachers defined this based on

their own practice, and to see if there were great differences in understanding of this

term.

The next question, for those using the syllabus, is there anything you have had to do to

ensure the syllabus works in the classroom?, was included to explore whether there were

specific strategies teachers used to make this syllabus work in their situation. While this

question was directed at those using the syllabus, all teachers were encouraged to answer

if they had something to add.

Following this, question three asked teachers Is there something specific to your context

that allows the syllabus to be effective or ineffective? The aim of this question was to

isolate reasons why particular teachers supported or did not support the use of the

syllabus in their schools. This question arose from issues discussed in the survey in the

open ended questions and also aimed to further explain why teachers were rejecting the

syllabus. Question four what are the optimum conditions for the Syllabus to be

53

successful? further built on this theme by asking teachers to consider what would be

needed to make this syllabus successful.

Question five how do you integrate a focus on form into your program? arose from the

numerous responses in the survey which discussed the importance of focus on form. It

was also to assist in gaining a further understanding of teachers’ concept of task-based

instruction.

The issue of ‘embeddedness’ was investigated using question six, how do you feel about

the move to an embedded syllabus? (Meaning one where the content is taken from other

subject areas?) The content used in the syllabus was frequently referred to, both

positively and negatively, in responses in the survey so this question was used to

investigate whether there were other issues relating to the embedded content which were

not already covered, as well as to further consolidate the conclusions reached from the

survey responses.

With a view to possible recommendations, the issue of professional development was

further discussed in the focus groups, through the use of the question many people

suggested sharing resources for the syllabus would be an effective type of professional

development. Based on your situation, what is an effective way of doing this?

The final question asked participants to consider the senior syllabus for French which is

currently under review. Participants were asked would you support the introduction of a

task-based syllabus in the senior years? If there is a move towards a task-based syllabus

for year 11 and 12, how will that impact on your implementation of the 4-10 Syllabus?

The first part of this question aimed to gauge support for the task-based syllabus, while

the second part aimed to investigate an issue that had arisen from the surveys, being that

preparation for year eleven was a reason for rejection of the syllabus at the year ten

level.

54

3.4 Conclusion

As has been seen, the instruments used for this study involved a focus on both

quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection in order to examine the issues

from both angles. Drawing on knowledge from my time as a practicing teacher, as well

as on research on the theoretical background of the field, questions were designed with

the intention of gaining a teacher’s view of the issues surrounding the implementation of

the 2000 French syllabus. The survey, with its many open ended questions proved to be

an ideal methodology for achieving this aim. The use of focus groups following the

survey allowed teachers to reflect on their responses and clarify their answers, and the

use of this methodology also enabled new hypotheses arising from the survey data to be

explored. We now turn to chapter four where the results of the survey are presented.

55

CHAPTER FOUR

SURVEY RESULTS

4.0 Introduction

This chapter will present the data received in the survey, with questions from the survey

grouped according to topic, as outlined below. This is a preliminary discussion of the

data, which identifies trends and determines whether the data received is concurrent with

hypotheses. The results of the survey, along with findings from the focus group

interviews, will be discussed in detail in chapter five.

• 4.1 Teacher and school details

• 4.2 Who is using the syllabus

• 4.3 Strengths and weaknesses of the syllabus

• 4.4 Task-based instruction

• 4.5 Embeddedness

• 4.6 Time

• 4.7 Resources

• 4.8 Teacher role

• 4.9 Physical space/ideal classroom

• 4.10 Professional development

NOTE: In total there were 39 survey responses, however there was one survey received

where the respondent had chosen to answer only three questions. While these three

responses will be used in their appropriate sections, this respondent will be excluded

from most statistics for all other questions.

56

4.1 Personal details and school context

The following section defines the sample population in terms of a number of personal

and school related details5. These details are subsequently used further on this chapter in

determining possible patterns in existence amongst subgroups.

4.1.1 Female/male

Table 4.1

Results Summary for Question 1:

Male/Female

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 1 2.63%

Male 7 18.42%

Female 30 78.95%

The survey asked respondents for a number of personal details in order to see if trends

existed among certain groups. Females comprise 30 of the total 38 respondents, while

males make up seven and one respondent chose not to answer this question.

4.1.2 System

Table 4.2

Results Summary for Question 2:

In which system are you currently employed?

Answer Count Percentage

Education Qld 27 71.05%

Independent Education 11 28.95%

5 Please note that for some tables, due to rounding, percentages do not add to 100%.

57

In total, there were 38 teachers of French who responded to the survey, informed either

via the MLTAQ (Modern Language Teachers’ Association of Queensland) mailing list,

or via a mail out to randomly selected Education Queensland schools listed as teaching

French across the state in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. As such, there are

significantly more responses from French teachers teaching in the Education Queensland

sector (27 people or 71.05%) in comparison to the independent sector (11 people /

28.95%). The survey offered three sector options - Education Queensland, Independent

or Catholic. It needs to be noted that those three respondents who indicated they were

teaching in the Catholic sector all teach in schools which are classified as ‘independent’

catholic schools, meaning they are not operated by the Brisbane Catholic Education, and

hence do not have to abide by rules set out by the Archdiocese in relation to choice of

syllabus, with the exception being the religious education program. As a result of this,

from here on this group of three respondents will be referred to as ‘Independent’, along

with the other eight who indicated ‘independent’ on the survey. Thus the independent

group is a group of 11 respondents, a common factor being that none are required to use

the 2000 French 4-10 Syllabus for Queensland. The inclusion of a higher number of

Education Queensland French teachers was a deliberate attempt to gain a broader picture

of what is happening in schools where the Years 4-10 Queensland French Syllabus is the

prescribed syllabus. Teachers in the independent sector have been included in order to

investigate reasons for rejection and acceptance of the Syllabus when teachers have a

choice.

58

4.1.3 Levels taught6

Table 4.3

Results Summary for Question 3:

Primary/secondary

Answer Count Percentage

Primary 13 34.21%

Secondary 19 50%

Both 5 13.16%

No answer 1 2.63%

As can be seen above, respondents are comprised of both primary and secondary

teachers, as well as a small number who teach across both primary and secondary.

4.1.4 Teaching load

Table 4.4

Results Summary for Question 4:

In relation to your entire teaching load, approximately what percentage

is comprised of French?

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 1 2.63%

25% 3 7.89%

50% 2 5.26%

75% 5 13.16%

100% 27 71.05%

6 It should be noted that on the survey this question asked teachers to indicate the levels taught and time allocations in their school for each of those classes. Only the data pertaining to levels taught is reported here. Time allocations are discussed in section 4.6 of this chapter.

59

84.21% of respondents had a teaching load comprised of 75% or more of French, with

27 of the 39 respondents (71.05%) indicating that 100% of their teaching load consisted

of French. It is particularly beneficial to have respondents with a high proportion of

French in their teaching load as the issues will most likely be of more importance to

them and more prevalent in their work, as they are dealing more frequently with French

classes. It is also useful, however, to include those others who teach French among other

subjects to compare the extent to which these issues also affect them.

4.1.5 Teacher age

Table 4.5

Results Summary for Question 5:

Please indicate in which age group you belong.

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 0 0.00%

20 - 30 3 7.89%

30 - 40 8 21.05%

40 - 50 7 18.42%

50+ 20 52.63%

It was hypothesized that age and stage in career may have some bearing on willingness

to accept an innovation, as well as acceptance of the role of facilitator. Just over half

(52.63%) the respondents fell into the 50+ age range (20 respondents), with close to

equal numbers in the 30-40 group (8 people, 21.05%) and in the 40-50 age group (7

people, 18.42%) and the 20-30 years group was made up of three respondents (7.89%).

A possible reason to account for the high proportion of respondents in the 50+ age group

could be that the Education Queensland surveys were sent attached to a letter to the

principal. The principal was asked to pass on the survey to the French teacher. It seems

quite likely that in a school of multiple French teachers, the survey would have been

given to the most senior member in the group.

60

4.1.6 Total teaching experience

Table 4.6

Results Summary for Question 6:

How many years have you been teaching? (Please write total teaching

experience, even if not French and please round to nearest year)

__________years

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 0 0%

1-3 years 3 7.89%

4-6 years 3 7.89%

7-18 years 12 31.58%

19-30 years 18 47.37%

31-40 years 2 5.26%

In this question, teachers were asked to calculate their total teaching experience, rounded

to the nearest year. The answers were then collated and placed in the above subgroups,

as per Huberman et al’s “The Teacher’s Life Cycle” (1997). The aim of this question is

to investigate the hypothesis that stage in teaching career plays a part in whether

teachers choose to implement the Syllabus. It was thought that perhaps those who have

been in the profession longer might be more reluctant to change than those newer to

teaching. As can be seen from the above table, there is a predominance of teachers in the

7-18 years and 19-30 years experience groups. There are two possibilities for this: In

schools where there was more than one French teacher it is most likely that the survey

would have been passed to the more senior member on staff. Secondly, the numbers in

each experience group seem to bear some resemblance to the overall shape of the French

teaching population at present in Queensland.

The purpose of question 7 (years of French teaching experience) was to add more

information to question 6, total number of years teaching experience: This is necessary

61

in order to isolate those whose general teaching experience and French teaching

experience are significantly different and acknowledge that there exist career stages both

in teaching generally, and in French teaching itself. Patterns within this subgroup of

teachers with significantly different years of general and French teaching experience

were subsequently examined. While there were a number of respondents whose French

teaching experience was less than their overall teaching experience, there was only one

respondent, respondent 19 whose lack of French teaching experience may be an issue.

This respondent has 20 years experience overall, but only two of these are in French. It

was hypothesized that perhaps those new to French teaching but with significant

experience in teaching other areas might favour the embedded nature of the syllabus,

having come from other disciplines. This does not seem to be the case here, as this

respondent is only sampling. It is possible that from a larger sample, there might prove

to be greater support for embeddedness from those teachers coming from other subject

areas. Other respondents indicating a difference in French teaching experience all had at

least one third their total career in French teaching, making it impossible to further

investigate the opinions of experienced teachers recently entering French teaching..

4.1.7 Native/background/neither

Table 4.7

Results Summary for Question 10:

Please indicate which group best describes you.

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 2 5.26%

Native Speaker 9 23.68%

Background Speaker 12 31.58%

Neither 15 39.47%

This question is present in order to investigate differences in usage of syllabus for native

and non-native, and whether language proficiency is an issue in implementation of the

62

2000 Syllabus. The composition of respondents represents a good mixture of native,

background and non-native speakers. While there was one respondent who expressed

uncertainty as to the meaning of ‘background speaker’, and perhaps this could have been

defined, there were no other such comments, so it seems unlikely that this is a problem

in terms of the results received.

4.1.8 LOTE Qualifications

LOTE qualifications were requested in order to determine if there were many not

possessing sufficient language training and whether this impacted on their acceptance, or

otherwise of the syllabus. As would be expected, a large number of the respondents had

as their LOTE qualification a Bachelor of Arts. According to the Queensland College of

Teachers (personal communication 15/8/06), in order to register to teach in Queensland,

an applicant must possess a four year undergraduate degree, with at least one year of this

dedicated to preservice teaching. Alternatively, a bachelor degree plus a one year post

graduate diploma in education is also acceptable. Overseas degrees are accepted on a

case-by-case basis, based on the requirements outlined previously. It is interesting to

note that teachers are registered as teachers generally, not French teachers specifically,

and it is at the discretion of the employer which subject a teacher is assigned to teach,

based on demand within each school context. This explains how it is possible for those

possessing no LOTE qualification to be found in French teaching positions. Since all

respondents had adequate LOTE qualifications, the hypothesis that the syllabus could

not be implemented by teachers without such qualifications could not be investigated.

63

4.1.9 Time spent overseas

Table 4.8

Results Summary for Question 11:

Have you spent a time greater than 2 months in a French speaking

country?

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 0 0.00%

Yes 25 65.79%

No 13 34.21%

Question 11 asked respondents if they had spent a time greater than two months

overseas in a French speaking country. There were 13 respondents of 38 (34.21%) who

answered no to this question. The remaining group comprised of native speakers and

other respondents who had spent anywhere from two months to several years in a French

speaking country. This question was added to the survey to gain additional information

about the language proficiency of French teachers, as with Question 9, teachers’ LOTE

qualifications.

64

4.1.10 Proficiency

Table 4.9

Results Summary for Question 12a:

Listening.

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 1 2.63%

Minimal 3 7.89%

Reasonable 3 7.89%

Good 4 10.53%

Very Good 14 36.84%

Native/Near Native 13 34.21%

Table 4.10

Results Summary for Question 12b:

Speaking.

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 1 2.63%

Minimal 4 10.53%

Reasonable 1 2.63%

Good 11 28.95%

Very Good 8 21.05%

Native/Near Native 13 34.21%

65

Table 4.11

Results Summary for Question 12c:

Reading.

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 1 2.63%

Minimal 0 0.00%

Reasonable 5 13.16%

Good 4 10.53%

Very Good 16 42.11%

Native/Near Native 12 31.58%

Table 4.12

Results Summary for Question 12d:

Writing.

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 2 5.26%

Minimal 1 2.63%

Reasonable 6 15.79%

Good 9 23.68%

Very Good 11 28.95%

Native/Near Native 9 23.68%

Just over 70% (71.05%) of the respondents claimed to be of very good or native/near

native proficiency in the macroskill of listening, with a similar number (73.69%) placing

themselves in the highest two categories for reading. It is generally accepted that the

productive skills (writing and speaking) are more demanding than the receptive skills

(listening and reading) so not surprisingly, there are significantly less respondents who

rated themselves in the top two categories for speaking (55.26%). There was, however,

quite a number of respondents (28.95%) who placed themselves in the “good” range for

66

speaking. As expected, a similar result is evident for writing, with 52.63% of

respondents placing themselves in the top two categories. Again, a sizeable group can be

found in the “good” group (23.68%). It is also interesting to note that for three of the

four macroskills, there was a small number of respondents who indicated that they were

of minimal proficiency (Listening 7.89%, Speaking 10.53%, Writing 2.63%).

Understandably, these teachers may experience more difficulties with the language used

in the Syllabus.

For ease of comparison, respondents’ scores in the four macroskills have been averaged

to one single score. Below is a table showing how many participants are in each of the

proficiency levels.

Table 4.13

Results Summary for Question 12:

Overall scores for macroskills

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 1 2.63%

Minimal (1-2) 4 10.53%

Reasonable (2-3) 2 5.26%

Good (3-4) 12 31.58%

Very Good (4-5) 8 21.05%

Native/Near Native (5) 11 28.95%

Below is a table showing proficiency levels of respondents from the primary, secondary

and both teaching areas. As can be seen, in all three cases the majority of teachers fall

into the three upper bands of proficiency, with only a couple of teachers reporting

proficiency levels below these levels. As such, there is no correlation between

proficiency and level taught.

67

Table 4.14

Combined Results Summary for Questions 3 & 12:

Proficiency levels of participants by levels taught7

Answer primary secondary Mix

No answer 1 0 0

Minimal 2 1 1

Reasonable 0 2 0

Good 4 7 1

Very Good 4 3 1

Native/Near

Native

2 6 2

4.1.11 Use of 1988 syllabus

Table 4.15

Results Summary for Question 13:

Did you use the 1988 Queensland French syllabus?

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 0 0.00%

Yes 20 52.63%

No 6 15.79%

Not teaching French 12 31.58%

The rationale behind the use of this question was to determine whether teachers did not

use the 2000 Syllabus specifically, or didn’t use the standard syllabus generally. Of the

38 respondents, just above half (20 respondents, 52.63%) used the 1988 Queensland

7 One respondent misunderstood the question relating to levels taught and so has not been included in this table.

68

French Syllabus8. 12 teachers were not teaching French at the time, leaving six teachers

(15.79%) who indicated they did not use the 1988 Syllabus, although teaching at the

time. The correlation between use of the 1988 French Syllabus and use of the 2000

Syllabus will be explored further in this chapter.

4.2 Use of 2000 Syllabus

Table 4.16

Results Summary for Question 149:

Do you currently follow the year 4-10 Queensland French Syllabus?

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 0 0%

Yes, in its entirety 16 42.11%

I only sample resources 14 39.47%

No I don't follow it at all 8 18.42%

Perhaps the most crucial question of the survey asked teachers whether they were using

the syllabus (option a), sampling resources (option b) or disregarding it altogether

(option c). Teachers who did not indicate option a (use of 2000 Syllabus) were directed

to skip further through the survey, missing the questions on task-based instruction. It is

important to note here that based on one teacher’s responses, indicating that she used a

task based syllabus of her creation, perhaps a fourth option “use of a task-based

approach, other than the 2000 Syllabus”, may have given other teachers a chance to have

their say on the task-based element of the 2000 Syllabus. It was not evident from any

8 It is necessary to note in relation to this question that there were two respondents who indicated that they did not use the 1988 Syllabus yet from their other responses they should have indicated “not teaching French”. These respondents’ answers have been changed accordingly. 9 The numbers shown in the table below are based on the answers teachers themselves provided about their syllabus usage. There are several respondents who have not followed the directions in the survey thus in sections to follow the number of respondents does not correlate with this table. 17 respondents have answered the questions intended for syllabus users, rather than 16 as shown in the table. Three syllabus samplers have completed the survey as though they are non users, making 29 respondents answering questions intended for samplers and users.

69

other respondents that this was happening; however, it is still a possibility as there were

no questions to this effect.

In total, of the 38 respondents, 16 teachers indicated that they were using the syllabus in

its entirety (42.11%), 15 (39.47%) claimed they only sampled resources, but did not use

the syllabus in its entirety, and seven (18.42%) used neither the resources nor the

syllabus. It must be noted that on the returned surveys there were three non responses for

this question, which have been classified based on respondents’ other answers into one

of the three groupings for ease of comparison. Teacher understanding of using the

syllabus will be further explored in section 5.3.6.

4.2.1 Use of Syllabus by sector

Table 4.17

Combined Results Summary for Questions 2 & 14:

Use of syllabus in EQ and IE schools

Answer EQ IE

Yes, in its entirety 15 1

I only sample resources 10 4

No I don't follow it at all 2 6

It is expected of Education Queensland French Teachers and diocese run Catholic

schools that they use the 2000 French Syllabus, while for Independent schools, including

independent catholic schools10, the use of the syllabus is at the discretion of the school.

This places respondents in two possible groups, those for whom the syllabus is

mandated, and those for whom it is not. The survey sample was comprised of 38

respondents, 27 of whom were teaching within the Education Queensland sector, the

group for whom the Syllabus is supposedly mandated and 11 others whose choice to use

10 Readers are reminded that independent Catholic schools are those not run by the diocese, but operated independently by a particular religious order. These schools are not required to use QSA syllabuses, so operate like other independent schools, except in the case of religious education, where a standard program is mandated.

70

the syllabus lay with the school. Of the mandated group (27 respondents), 15 used the

syllabus in its entirety, ten sampled resources and, two did not use the Syllabus at all. Of

the 11 independent education teachers who responded to the survey, four are sampling

resources and one respondent only is using the syllabus in its entirety while six have

disregarded the syllabus altogether. This clearly shows the impact of sector in

determining whether teachers use or disregard the syllabus. Obviously, in order to verify

this result, a larger sample group would be necessary.

Unfortunately, not all respondents who claimed they were not using the Syllabus

provided a reason and, many of the comments received in this section were not from

teachers who were not using the Syllabus, but from others adding information about

their situation. However, of those comments appropriate to this question, reasons for

non-use of the Syllabus included dissatisfaction with the resources (respondents 24 and

4), preference for a textbook based course (respondents 24, 1 and 4), the fact that the

syllabus is not mandated in the school (respondent 1) and “not adequate” (respondent 8).

4.2.2 Use of syllabus by school levels taught

Below is a table showing the distribution of users of the syllabus, samplers and non-

users based on whether the respondents are teaching at the primary or secondary or both

levels.11

11 One teacher misunderstood the question relating to levels taught, so it is not possible to classify her answers. This teacher’s responses have thus been excluded from tables to follow where differentiation is made based on level taught.

71

Table 4.18

Combined Results Summary for Questions 3 & 14:

Use of syllabus by levels taught

Answer Primary Secondary Mix

Using in its

entirety

7 7 2

Sampling 5 6 2

Not using 1 6 1

No answer 0 0 0

As can be seen from the above table, use of the syllabus is much stronger amongst

primary school teachers, with seven of a total 13 who are using the syllabus. Only one

respondent amongst the primary participants claims not to be using the syllabus. On the

other hand, the responses of the secondary teachers have similar numbers in all three

categories, with the largest number falling into the using column (seven respondents of a

total 19). The group teaching across primary and secondary is also divided between the

three categories of using, sampling and not using. When Independent teachers are taken

out of the above, the secondary group mirrors the results of the other groups, with six

using, four sampling and one respondent not using. Clearly this is an indication of the

role played by levels taught.

72

4.2.3 Proficiency level versus use of the syllabus

Table 4.19

Combined Results Summary for Questions 12 & 14:

Proficiency levels of participants versus use of the syllabus

Answer Using in its entirety Sampling Not at all

No answer 0 1 0

Minimal 3 1 0

Reasonable 1 1 0

Good 1 7 4

Very Good 5 2 1

Native/Near Native 6 2 3

As can be seen from the above table, there is some evidence to support the hypothesis

that those in the lower proficiency group may be more inclined to use the syllabus due

the support it provides in terms of suggested teacher language and translations. It was

also hypothesized that those with higher proficiency level would be more inclined to use

the syllabus as they are more able to cope with the language level and the need for

spontaneous language use associated with TBI. The impact of teacher proficiency level

will be discussed in section 5.3.1.

73

4.2.3.1 The impact of language proficiency on syllabus usage amongst EQ teachers

Table 4.20

Combined results summary for questions 2, 12 & 14

EQ teachers’ use of the syllabus by proficiency level

Answer Using Sampling Not using

Minimal (1-2) 3 0 0

Reasonable (2-

3)

1 1 0

Good (3-4) 1 5 2

Very Good (4-

5)

4 2 0

Native/Near

Native (5)

6 1 0

While it would seem that sector is perhaps the most pertinent factor in determining

teachers’ use of the syllabus, an interesting pattern emerged when EQ teachers and their

proficiency were analyzed to see who was using the syllabus and who was sampling or

not using the syllabus at all. Again the results are concurrent with the hypothesis

presented in the previous section, that the lower and higher proficiency groups are the

most likely groups to be making use of the syllabus. As noted previously, question 12 of

the survey required teachers to rate their language proficiency in the four macroskills,

and these scores have been averaged to one single score for each respondent as seen in

table 4.13. An clear pattern concerning EQ teachers’ use of the syllabus emerged from

the responses. Those with lower proficiency (<2) were all using the syllabus (four

respondents in total), as were those with the higher proficiency (>4). A score of four for

proficiency seemed to be the point where respondents were divided, as in both

categories, background and neither native nor background, there were respondents with

a score of 4 who were using and sampling. However, of those with a score between 2

and 4, none of these EQ respondents were using the Syllabus in its entirety (10

respondents in total). All ten of the respondents whose proficiency scores fell into this

74

range were either sampling or not using the syllabus. This will be discussed further in

section 5.3.1.

4.2.4 Use of syllabus by years experience

Table 4.21

Results Summary for Questions 6 & 14:

Years of experience versus use of syllabus

Answer Using in its entirety sampling Not at all

1-3 years 1 1 1

4-6 years 1 2 0

7-18 years 6 5 1

19-30 years 8 5 5

30+ years 0 1 1

As can be seen from the above, respondents are a spread between the groups of using the

syllabus, sampling or not using it at all. It was hypothesized that those in the greater

experience groups would be most likely to reject the syllabus based on being content

with the status quo (Huberman et al 1997). As shown in the table, there is the greatest

rate of syllabus non-use in the 19-30 years experience group. Conversely, there is also

the greatest rate of use of the syllabus for this group also. This will be discussed in

greater detail in chapter five, section 5.2.

75

4.2.4.1 Use of syllabus by years experience- EQ only

Table 4.22

Combined results for questions 2, 6 & 14

Years of experience versus use of syllabus in EQ

Answer Using in its entirety Sampling Not at all

1-3 years 1 0 0

4-6 years 1 2 0

7-18 years 6 3 0

19-30 years 7 5 2

30+ years 0 0 0

While it would seem that employment in EQ is a major determining factor in whether

teachers are using the syllabus, as can be seen from the above table, years of experience

may also play some role, with a greater rate of syllabus rejection in the more

experienced groups, however overall there is a high rate of syllabus usage amongst EQ

teachers. It must be noted that due to the small sample size of the 1-3 years and 4-6 years

groups, it is difficult to gain an accurate picture of these groups.

4.2.5 Use of the 1988 syllabus versus use of 2000 syllabus

There were 20 respondents in total who claimed they used the 1988 French Syllabus and

of these 20 teachers, 11 now use the 2000 Syllabus in its entirety, 6 claimed they sample

resources and 3 do not use this Syllabus at all. While there are various possible

interpretations of these results, such as a change in sector which may have led these

teachers to move away from the use of a prescribed syllabus, certainly on the surface it

appears that there is less overall support for the current syllabus, in comparison to the

previous one. Conversely, of those 6 respondents who were not using the 1988 syllabus,

only 1 of these 6 is using the 2000 Syllabus in its entirety now, indicating that perhaps

76

some teachers desire to create their own syllabus for their specific context, regardless of

the current syllabus.

Taking the Independent Education teachers out of the analysis, and looking solely at the

Education Queensland respondents, of which there are 27, there are 11 respondents who

used both the 1988 Syllabus and the current French Syllabus, 3 who currently sample

resources from the Syllabus, but who previously used the 1988 Syllabus, 1 respondent

who currently samples but did not use the 1988 Syllabus, and 1 teacher who does not use

the current Syllabus but who did use the 1988 one. The other 10 respondents indicated

“not teaching French” to Question 13, so have necessarily been excluded from this

comparison. From these results, it can be concluded that there is less support for this

syllabus, than the 1988 one. This will be explored further in section 5.2.

4.3 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Syllabus

The purpose in discussing the responses to question 30, strengths of the syllabus and

question 31, the weaknesses of the syllabus, at this point is to justify the sections which

follow. Each section presents an issue which arose from the survey responses as having

some effect on teachers’ implementation of the 2000 French Syllabus.

There were a number of recurrent themes in responses to question 30 (strengths of the

syllabus) and 31 (weaknesses of the syllabus).

• Embedded nature of the syllabus- this appeared as both a positive and negative

aspect according to different respondents.

• Choice of TBI as teaching methodology- this also featured both positively and

negatively.

• Resources- teachers were quite divided on the usefulness of the included

resources as will be seen in the sections to follow.

77

• The impact of time allocations for LOTE- some teachers made mention of the

fact that some schools do not receive the minimum mandated time allocation for

LOTE and the impact of this.

• Use of target language in the classroom- both a positive and a negative

depending on the respondent.

• Lack of structure and sequence when introducing grammar was a commonly

mentioned negative point of the syllabus

• Outcomes based assessment was also mentioned by a small number of

respondents both positively and negatively however this does not seem to be a

major issue in relation to support, or otherwise, for the syllabus as many people

report that they are using the syllabus but reporting using criteria as required by

their schools.

4.4 Task-Based Instruction (TBI)

This section focuses on a variety of issues surrounding the use of task-based instruction

and for organisational purposes, is arranged into a number of subsections. Section 4.4.1

investigates teacher opinion on TBI, as well as student reactions. The issue of learner

centredness is explored in section 4.4.2, with teacher opinion on the role of focus on

form in this type of syllabus featuring in section 4.4.3. Section 4.4.4 concludes this part

with an analysis of teachers’ overall opinions on whether the syllabus is working well in

their context.

78

4.4.1 Teacher views on TBI

4.4.1.1 Student enthusiasm for TBI

Table 4.23

Results Summary for Question 15a:

A) Students are enthusiastic about task-based education

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 2 11.76%

1 - Strongly Agree 5 29.41%

2 - Agree 8 47.06%

3 - Disagree 2 11.76%

4 – Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

.As can be seen from the above table, there is an overwhelming majority who either

agree or strongly agree (13 responses of 15) that students are enthusiastic about task-

based education. Among the relevant comments, both from those who were themselves

enthusiastic about TBI, are those from respondent 14, who raised the issue of age,

writing that “Years 8-9 in particular really like this approach- year 10 are heading more

into senior” and from respondent 33 who used the words “busy” and “engaged” to

describe her students, implying that they do enjoy task-based education.

79

4.4.1.1.1 Primary versus secondary students’ reactions to the syllabus

Table 4.24

Combined Results Summary for Questions 3 & 15a:

Level taught versus student reaction to TBI

Answer Primary Secondary

No answer 0 1

1 - Strongly Agree 3 2

2 - Agree 5 1

3 - Disagree 0 2

4 - Strongly Disagree 0 0

As can be seen from the above table, there is a slight difference in attitude of primary

and secondary students, according to their teachers. All primary students are supposedly

enthusiastic, while two out of the five secondary teachers who answered this question

reported that this was not the case with their students.

4.4.1.2 Teacher enthusiasm for a task-based syllabus

Table 4.25

Results Summary for Question 15b:

B) I enjoy teaching a task-based syllabus

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 3 17.65%

1 - Strongly Agree 5 29.41%

2 - Agree 7 41.18%

3 - Disagree 2 11.76%

4 - Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

80

Teachers, as well as students, generally seem to enjoy task-based teaching as 12 out 14

teachers answered in the affirmative, five of them indicating strongly agree in response

to the statement “I enjoy teaching a task-based syllabus”. Again, there were comments

which did not relate particularly to this question, of the others however, there were two

very positive comments “I find it very rewarding” (respondent 33) and from respondent

14 “I think that it's a great approach for middle school”. It is interesting to note that

again the issue of this syllabus being suitable for the younger students is raised. (Middle

school in Queensland is grades 7, 8 and 9.) Interestingly, another comment was made by

respondent 20 who wrote “Many kids find it challenging and would rather a more

passive 'head down tail up' approach. Many equate that with real school work. It [TBI] is

harder work for all but it is real work. Nevertheless the other [more passive approach] is

useful for when classes won't cooperate”.

Respondent 24 makes a clear distinction between TBI and the Syllabus, writing [I enjoy

teaching a task-based syllabus] “but not the syllabus’s suggested tasks”. This teacher

supports TBI, but has a problem with the suggested tasks in the Queensland Syllabus, a

distinction not made by any other respondents.

4.4.1.2.1 Primary and secondary teachers’ responses to question 15b

Table 4.26

Combined Results Summary for Questions 3 & 15b:

B) I enjoy teaching a task-based syllabus

Answer Primary Secondary

No answer 0 2

1 - Strongly Agree 3 2

2 - Agree 4 1

3 - Disagree 1 1

4 - Strongly Disagree 0 0

81

It would seem that primary teachers seem slightly more enthusiastic about teaching with

a task-based syllabus, however results are inconclusive due to the number of no-answers

in the secondary category. From the focus group sessions, it became apparent that this

was the case for those teachers involved.

82

4.4.1.2.2 Proficiency level versus responses to question 15b

Table 4.27

Combined Results Summary for Questions 12 & 15b:

Proficiency levels versus enthusiasm for TBI

Answer 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5+

Strongly

agree

0 0 0 2 3

Agree 1 1 1 3 1

Disagree 1 0 0 0 1

Strongly

disagree

0 0 0 0 0

No answer 1 0 0 0 1

It was hypothesized that teachers with a higher proficiency would be more enthusiastic

about a task-based syllabus as they would be more able to deal with the spontaneity of

language needed and hence language level. It is difficult to generalize with a small

sample and five possible proficiency groupings, however based on the number of

respondents who indicated that they strongly agreed, all were in the upper two

proficiency bands, while those below these levels either agreed or disagreed. There was

however, one respondent who disagreed in the 5+ proficiency band making it difficult to

generalize using these results.

83

4.4.1.2.3 Years experience versus enthusiasm for TBI

Table 4.28

Combined Results Summary for Questions 6 & 15b:

Years experience versus enthusiasm for TBI

Answer 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-18 years

19-30 years 31-40

years

Strongly

agree

0 0 1 4 0

Agree 1 1 4 1 0

Disagree 0 0 1 1 0

Strongly

disagree

0 0 0 0 0

No answer 0 0 0 3 0

The purpose of comparing years experience with question 15b, which asked teachers if

they enjoyed teaching a task-based syllabus, was to investigate the hypothesis that the

more experienced teachers would be less enthusiastic about TBI due to being more

supportive of previous methodologies as this is what they have grown used to. Results

are inconclusive due to the small sample of those in the first two experience groups

however, contrary to expectations, it would seem that perhaps the 19-30 group are more

supportive of TBI than the 7-18 group based on the higher percentage of respondents

who indicated strongly agree.

4.4.2 Learner centredness

Learner centredness is a key issue in task-based instruction. Included in this section is

teacher opinion on whether the move to a more learner centred syllabus is beneficial for

students, as well as looking at whether students have the necessary skills to deal with

learner centredness and also whether students are engaged in work or whether this

approach requires constant monitoring of students.

84

4.4.2.1 Learner centredness as beneficial for students

Table 4.29

Results Summary for Question 15c:

C) The move to a more learner-centered syllabus is beneficial for

students

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 3 17.65%

1 - Strongly Agree 5 29.41%

2 - Agree 6 35.29%

3 – Disagree 3 17.65%

4 - Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

A small number (three respondents) don’t believe that the move to a more learner

centred syllabus is beneficial for students, however there exists a sizeable number in

support of a learner centred syllabus (11 of 14). Comments to this question were fairly

limited, simply referring to the benefits of such a syllabus: “It gives students the

opportunity to design their own curriculum” (respondent 14) and “Definitely! Gives

them more control regarding the choice of activities” (respondent 33). Unfortunately,

none of the respondents who disagreed with the move to a learner centred syllabus chose

to comment on this question. It can be theorized, based on comments in other questions,

that it may be a matter of behaviour management. An example of such a comment

appeared in the comments in response to question 31, the weaknesses of the Syllabus

“too much group work- ever heard of behaviour management” (respondent 37)

85

4.4.2.1.1 Primary and secondary opinions on benefits of learner centredness

Table 4.30

Combined Results Summary for Questions 3 & 15c:

C) The move to a more learner-centered syllabus is beneficial for

students

Answer primary Secondary

No answer 0 1

1 - Strongly Agree 4 1

2 - Agree 3 2

3 - Disagree 1 2

4 - Strongly Disagree 0 0

Primary teachers tend to see more benefits in the learner centredness of this syllabus, as

shown above, with seven out of eight respondents indicating that they agree, four

strongly, and only one disagreeing. The secondary teachers are more divided in their

opinions, with two out of six disagreeing with the benefits of learner centredness.

Section 5.3.4.3 further discusses teachers’ views on learner centredness.

86

4.4.2.2 Student skills for dealing with learner centredness

Table 4.31

Results Summary for Question 15d:

D) My students have the necessary skills to deal with a learner-

centered syllabus

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 2 11.76%

1 - Strongly Agree 0 0.00%

2 - Agree 10 58.82%

3 - Disagree 4 23.53%

4 – Strongly Disagree 1 5.88%

Question 15d asked teachers whether they felt their students had the necessary skills to

deal with a learner centred syllabus, with ten respondents of 17 feeling that their students

do have these skills. Interestingly, one teacher wrote “I teach these skills” (respondent

24). Other comments were mixed between affirmative and negative on the issue, such as

“Majority of students do” (respondent 31), “Most of them have” (respondent 33), and

others such as “Some students (many in some groups) do not” (respondent 20) and

“some do, but others really need to be 'encouraged' along to achieve any kind of result”

(respondent 34). One comment (respondent 14) noted the value in learner centredness,

“It's a struggle to get students to work in this manner but it's worth it”. When primary

and secondary teachers’ responses were compared, it would seem that teachers in both

groups were divided in their opinions on this matter.

87

4.4.2.3 Time engaged in work

Table 4.32

Results Summary for Question 15e:

E) When working on tasks, students spend the majority of time

engaged in work

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 2 11.76%

1 - Strongly Agree 2 11.76%

2 - Agree 8 47.06%

3 - Disagree 5 29.41%

4 - Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

Question 15e was used to enhance the information gained from the previous question

about learner centredness. This question asked if students spent the majority of time

engaged in work when completing tasks. Results were similar to the previous question,

with the same number of participants agreeing and disagreeing with the statement,

however this question evoked two ‘strongly agree’ responses that the previous question

did not. Comments included a prescription for the type of task “Learner centred tasks

can (must) be short, structured and controlled” (respondent 20), while another teacher

suggested the importance of discussing the task (respondent 14), and respondent 24

spoke of her fortunate situation in which learner centredness seems to be ideal “My

student "type" is NOT the norm. On average they are students with good study habits

and a commitment to learning”. Another interesting comment was that of respondent 34,

who wrote “Many have a negative attitude to French and don't really see it as relevant to

them”. This person disagreed that students spent the majority of time engaged in work,

so perhaps this comment is her reasoning for this.

88

4.4.2.3.1 Primary and secondary responses to time spent on task

Table 4.33

Combined Results Summary for Questions 3 & 15e:

E) When working on tasks, students spend the majority of time

engaged in work

Answer Primary Secondary

No answer 0 1

1 - Strongly Agree 2 0

2 – Agree 3 3

3 - Disagree 3 2

4 - Strongly Disagree 0 0

Responses received for this question indicate that primary teachers feel their students

have more ‘on task’ time than their secondary counterparts. The following question adds

further evidence to this.

4.4.2.4 Time spent off task

Table 4.34

Results Summary for Question 15f:

F) When working on tasks, many students are frequently off task

unless they are being individually monitored

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 2 11.76%

1 - Strongly Agree 1 5.88%

2 – Agree 4 23.53%

3 - Disagree 9 52.94%

4 - Strongly Disagree 1 5.88%

89

Again this question was used to gain a further picture of learner centredness in the

classroom. Results were similar to question 15, part d and e, again with ten respondents

on one side and five on the other. An interesting comment was received from one

teacher who attempted to shed some light on the rejection of the syllabus writing, “Many

of the suggested tasks in the modules would certainly result in this. This fact has put

many colleagues I know 'off' the new syllabus. The examples of its methodology were

too challenging for student behaviour and capacity and many gave up on its

implication”.

4.4.2.4.1 Primary and secondary responses to time spent off task

Table 4.35

Combined Results Summary for Questions 3 & 15f:

F) When working on tasks, many students are frequently off task

unless they are being individually monitored

Answer Primary secondary

No answer 0 1

1 - Strongly Agree 1 0

2 – Agree 1 3

3 - Disagree 5 2

4 – Strongly Disagree 1 0

Secondary teachers reported greater time spent off task than primary teachers and hence

the results further strengthen the conclusions reached in the previous question- that

primary teachers are more able to engage the students with this syllabus than secondary

teachers. This will be discussed further in section 5.3.2.1.

4.4.2.5 Summary

While it would appear that majority of teachers are in support of the benefits for students

brought about through the use of a learner-centred syllabus, in practice there are some

90

difficulties associated with behaviour management issues. Featuring among many of the

comments in this section is the belief that student behaviour is a factor which places

constraints on the success of this type of syllabus. The implications of this will be

discussed further in chapter five, section 5.3.5.

4.4.3 Focus on form

Table 4.36

Results Summary for Question 15j:

J) There is sufficient focus on form in the 2000 syllabus

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 4 23.53%

1 - Strongly Agree 0 0.00%

2 - Agree 5 29.41%

3 - Disagree 5 29.41%

4 – Strongly Disagree 3 17.65%

Question 15j asked teachers whether they agreed or disagreed that there was sufficient

focus on form in the current syllabus. Based on the comments, there were at least two

who were not familiar with the term “focus on form” and the focus group sessions

provided further evidence of this, as several more questioned the use of the term ‘focus

on form’. This will be discussed in depth in chapter five, section 5.3.7.

Of those respondents who did answer this question, five agreed that there was sufficient

focus on form, while eight disagreed, three strongly. Two comments received indicated

that teachers did not feel the syllabus covered focus on form sufficiently, “I include it in

my lessons but I don't feel the syllabus supports it as much” (respondent 31) and from

respondent 33, “There could be more included. This is one of the weaknesses I have to

supplement constantly”.

91

A common complaint was raised in regards to focus on form and this was the lack of

sequence of focus on form in the syllabus. One teacher mentioned this on the survey,

writing “there isn't any particular focus. Most units offer a too broad selection of

language and functions, one must refine and narrow down. Then there is the question of

sequencing. An important question not addressed and planning, preparation and

resourcing. Not to mention long term planning of sequencing language structures taught

and covering enough functions etc.” Almost all teachers seemed to concord on this point

during the focus group sessions which leads very strongly to question teachers’ overall

understanding of the role of focus on form in a task-based approach. This will be

discussed in detail in section 5.3.6.

4.4.3.1 Years experience versus view on focus on form in syllabus

Table 4.37

Combined Results Summary for Questions 6 & 15j:

Years experience versus focus on form

Answer 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-18 years

19-30 years 31-40

years

Strongly

agree

0 0 0 0 0

Agree 0 0 2 3 0

Disagree 1 1 2 1 0

Strongly

disagree

0 0 2 1 0

No answer 0 0 0 4 0

It was hypothesized that the more experienced teachers may favour a course with more

time devoted to focus on form. As can be seen from above, in the 7-18 years group and

the 19-30 years group, respondents are divided in their opinions. From these results it

can be concluded that teaching experience does not determine teachers view on the role

of focus on form in the syllabus. Both the respondents who fell in the first two

92

experience groups also indicated that they felt there was insufficient focus on form

however results are inconclusive due to the small sample size.

4.4.4 Overall support for syllabus by those using the syllabus

Table 4.38

Results Summary for Question 15m:

M) Overall, I feel the 2000 Syllabus is working well in my situation

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 5 29.41%

1 - Strongly Agree 4 23.53%

2 - Agree 6 35.29%

3 - Disagree 2 11.76%

4 - Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

Results of question 15, part m, represent an unexpected result: despite all the negative

comments present in the survey, a majority of teachers feel the 2000 syllabus is working

well in their situation. Ten respondents in total feel the syllabus is working well, with

four of these teachers strongly agreeing. There were five non-responses to this question,

two of which are from teachers who chose to insert an added choice to those listed,

neutral. Of the 17 total respondents, only two disagree that the syllabus is not working

well in their situation. A number of interesting comments appeared in the optional

comments section of this question, where teachers seemed, quite often, keen to justify

their response. One such comment reads “[the 2000 Syllabus is working well in my

situation] but only for primary”, which was also a theme that emerged during the focus

groups. Another comment was “yes after a number of years of experimenting”.

Respondent 33 wrote a particularly positive comment “I had very positive comments

from parents and students”, however another teacher used the comment space to remark

on the heavier workload on the teacher, stating “The 2000 syllabus makes impossible

demands on all teachers. In essence it is asking teachers to conceive of their own course.

93

Professional textbook writers are that- PROFESSIONALS”. Although respondent 11

agrees that the syllabus is working well in her situation, she adds “but not in the present

format. Adaptation to suit students’ interests is vital”. This leads to the question whether

“working well” and “being satisfied with the syllabus” may actually be two different

things. Further evidence of this appears in the comments of respondent 14, who states

“Yes I have added and adapted many of the resources”. Thus, this respondent has

indicated “yes the syllabus is working well”, yet has also indicated, through her

comments, that she is dissatisfied with the syllabus in its present form.

4.4.5.1 Primary vs secondary opinions on whether syllabus is working well

Table 4.39

Combined Results Summary for Questions 3 & 15m:

M) Overall, I feel the 2000 Syllabus is working well in my situation

Answer Primary Secondary

No answer 1 3

1 - Strongly Agree 3 1

2 - Agree 3 2

3 - Disagree 1 0

4 - Strongly Disagree 0 0

There seems to be greater overall support for the syllabus amongst primary teachers. The

results in the table above show six out of seven primary teachers indicating that they feel

the syllabus is working well in their situation, three strongly. The secondary column

shows that all teachers agree that the syllabus is working well, however there are three

non answers, with two of these respondents writing comments indicating their negativity

regarding the syllabus. Reasons for greater support in the primary sector will be

discussed in section 5.1.

94

4.4.5.2 Years experience versus overall support for syllabus

Table 4.40

Combined Results Summary for Questions 6 & 15m:

Years experience versus overall support for the syllabus

Answer 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-18 years

19-30 years 31-40

years

Strongly

agree

0 0 1 3 0

Agree 1 0 3 2 0

Disagree 0 1 1 0 0

Strongly

disagree

0 0 0 0 0

No answer 0 0 1 4 0

It had been hypothesized that those in the less experienced groups would be more

supportive of the syllabus having been trained in its implementation in their preservice

training. The results are inconclusive due to the small sample; however it is interesting

that the respondent in the 4-6 years group did not feel it was working well. Equally

unexpected is the great amount of support in both the 7-18 years and 19-30 years

experience groups. It must be noted however that those who were required to answer this

question were only those using the syllabus, so may be biased in their support of the

syllabus as others may have disregarded the syllabus because it was not working well in

their context.

4.5 Embeddedness

There are three elements of embeddedness that have been investigated by the survey as

possible issues affecting the implementation of the syllabus.

95

1. necessary subject knowledge- an embedded syllabus demands knowledge of different

disciplines, as well as French, and this is investigated using the responses to question 8-

teaching other subjects and question 15, part h (do you feel you have sufficient general

knowledge to teach the syllabus). Also covered in this section is whether teachers confer

with colleagues from other KLAs (question 16).

2. relevance/interest of topics- Setting it apart from other syllabuses, the embedded

syllabus takes its content from other subject areas. A common complaint I had

encountered prior to undertaking the research for this thesis was the lack of interest and

relevance of the topics in this syllabus. Question 15, part g, aims to investigate this.

3. necessary language proficiency- a high language proficiency across a variety of

genres and subject areas is necessary in order to teach an embedded syllabus due to the

large amount of specialist vocabulary needed to teach content from other disciplines.

Results of question 15, part k (a task-based embedded syllabus places a greater demand

on teacher language proficiency), as well as question 17 (Do you feel that a high French

proficiency is necessary to be able to effectively teach the current syllabus?). Question

18, which asks teachers the frequency with which they make use of the suggested

teacher language, and question 19, which investigates whether teachers believe that a

teacher with a lower proficiency would be able to cope with the syllabus using the

resources supplied, also feature in this section.

4.5.1 Necessary subject knowledge

An embedded syllabus takes content from other subject areas and teaches French using

these topics. It was hypothesized that perhaps this aspect of embeddedness might be a

negative for teachers who feel ill equipped to deal with subject matter for which they

have received no training and in which they have no background. Question 8 asked

teachers if they taught other subjects, the aim of which was to determine whether there

were many teachers with multidisciplinary knowledge. Also included in this section are

96

the results from question 15h, teachers’ opinions on whether or not they have sufficient

general knowledge to teach the topics in the 2000 Syllabus.

4.5.1.1 Teaching other subjects

A large number of the respondents (25/39) indicated that they taught another subject.

Unexpectedly, there were two interpretations of this question. Some respondents listed

all the subjects they have taught at various times, while others wrote “not at present” or

similar, implying that they may do so at other times. It had been initially hypothesized

that perhaps those teachers with knowledge of other subject areas might be more

supportive of an embedded syllabus and also more able to cope with the subject matter,

particularly in areas completely unrelated to French language, such as Science. While

responses varied, there was certainly a greater number of teachers indicating humanities

subjects, such as English (nine respondents) and SOSE and related subjects, such as

History and Geography (eight respondents). Interestingly, the sciences were not listed at

all, and mathematics subjects appeared in only two respondents’ answers, as did Health

and Physical Education. From this, it could be concluded that the respondents in this

survey may be ill equipped to deal with an embedded syllabus which takes some of its

content from subjects such as science, as teachers may have no more than a very basic

level of knowledge derived from their own school days. In addition to this, even if

teachers possess the necessary inter-disciplinary knowledge, it seems unlikely that they

will have the subject specific pedagogy to match, having not taught, nor been exposed to

how to teach these particular subjects. Again science is a key example as the pedagogies

associated with science and French vary considerably.

97

4.5.1.2 Sufficient general knowledge to teach the topics in the 2000 Syllabus

Table 4.41

Results Summary for Question 15h:

H) I have sufficient general knowledge to teach the topics in the 2000

Syllabus

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 2 11.76%

1 - Strongly Agree 5 29.41%

2 - Agree 9 52.94%

3 - Disagree 0 0.00%

4 - Strongly Disagree 1 5.88%

As evidenced by the results of question eight above, teachers of French do not seem to

come with a wide interdisciplinary knowledge base. It could thus be expected that there

may be a considerable number who feel they do not have sufficient general knowledge

to deal with the current syllabus’s topics, however the results indicate otherwise. Of the

17 respondents who completed this section, there was only one who did not feel she

possessed sufficient general knowledge to teach this syllabus. There were two non

responses to this question, however there were 14 respondents who indicated that

insufficient general knowledge was not an issue, indicating that this aspect of

embeddedness is not a key issue for teachers. There were no significant differences in

the responses of primary and secondary teachers. As the issue of embeddedness featured

heavily in the responses to question 31, the weaknesses of the syllabus, it is obvious

there is another aspect of embeddedness which teachers find more problematic.

98

4.5.1.3 Conferring with teachers from other KLAs

Table 4.42

Results Summary for Question 16:

Do you ever confer with teachers from other Key Learning Areas

regarding topics to be taught in French?

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 1 6.25%

Yes (Y) 11 68.75%

No (N) 4 25%

Question 16 asked teachers whether they ever confer with teachers from other key

learning areas in order to determine whether teachers were able to call on the knowledge

of those from other subject areas, and as can be seen from the above table, a large

number of respondents (11 out of 15) claimed they did confer with other teachers, while

only four did not do so. The expectation was that there would be fewer teachers who

claimed they conferred with teachers from the other KLAs due to issues such as

itinerancy, proximity of the LOTE classrooms to other classrooms and also issues of

time, however this was not the case.

4.5.1.3.1 Primary versus secondary teachers’ responses to conferring with other

KLA teachers

Table 4.43

Combined Results Summary for Questions 3 & 16:

Do you ever confer with teachers from other Key Learning Areas

regarding topics to be taught in French?

Answer Primary Secondary

No answer 0 1

Yes (Y) 7 3

No (N) 1 2

99

There was a difference in response to this question by primary and secondary

respondents. It would seem that it is more common for the primary teachers to confer

with the teachers from other KLAs, than secondary. This could be due to primary

teachers having contact with the classroom teacher, who teaches many of the KLAs,

while secondary teachers often need to actively seek out teachers from other KLAs as

contact is otherwise limited due to the organization of staffrooms and teaching blocks,.

4.5.2 Relevance/interest of topics

4.5.2.1 The interest value of suggested topics in the syllabus

Table 4.44

Results Summary for Question 15g:

G) The suggested topics in the syllabus are interesting for students

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 4 23.53%

1 - Strongly Agree 1 5.88%

2 - Agree 8 47.06%

3 - Disagree 3 17.65%

4 - Strongly Disagree 1 5.88%

The aim of question 15g was to investigate teachers’ opinions on whether the topics

used in the syllabus were interesting for students. While the results in the above table

generally indicate that teachers believe the topics are interesting for students (nine

respondents out of 13, excluding the four non responses), amongst the comments

teachers described the topics using terms such as “irrelevant”, “too complex” and

“unrealistic”. Most teachers would have learnt French by the communicative method,

where content was linked to the target culture and so, the use of content derived from

other KLAs represents quite a shift and may explain why some teachers view the topics

as irrelevant if the criteria they use to judge is based on their own learning experience.

100

The comments in other sections, particularly in response to question 31, the weaknesses

of the resources, indicate that the choice of topics is a problem, with many references to

the irrelevance of the content. In light of this, perhaps the results are not really indicative

of teacher opinion in this regard.

4.5.2.1.1 Primary vs secondary results versus interest of topics for students

Table 4.45

Combined Results Summary for Questions 3 & 15g:

G) The suggested topics in the syllabus are interesting for students

Answer Primary Secondary

No answer 1 2

1 - Strongly Agree 1 0

2 - Agree 6 1

3 - Disagree 0 2

4 - Strongly Disagree 0 1

All primary teachers indicated that they felt the topics were interesting for students while

only one out of five indicated this amongst the secondary teachers. This is an issue

which also arose during the focus groups and results were confirmed. This will be

discussed further in the section dealing with embeddedness in chapter five (section

5.3.2.1).

101

4.5.3 Language level

4.5.3.1 Demand on teachers’ language skills

Table 4.46

Results Summary for Question 15k:

K) A task-based embedded syllabus, such as the current Qld 4-10

French syllabus, puts a higher demand on teachers’ language skills

than a textbook course

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 2 11.76%

1 - Strongly Agree 7 41.18%

2 – Agree 7 41.18%

3 - Disagree 1 5.88%

4 – Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

Table 4.47

Results Summary for Question 1712:

Do you feel that a high French proficiency is necessary to be able to

effectively teach the current syllabus?

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 2 12.5%

Yes (Y) 10 62.5%

No (N) 4 25%

The topics covered in an embedded syllabus naturally demand language which is outside

regular day to day language. Based on personal communications with teachers prior to

undertaking this research project, it was hypothesized that perhaps the higher language

12 It should be noted that there is one respondent who misread the survey and skipped from this question to the strengths and weaknesses of the syllabus did not answer the questions in between so has been excluded from this and other tables to follow.

102

level in this syllabus may be a cause for objection to the syllabus by some based on the

increased workload for those with lower language levels. It was not expected that this

would be a concern for those in the higher proficiency groups. It must be noted that

although some teachers did indicate that there is a higher demand on teachers’ language

skills in a syllabus such as this, this is not necessarily a negative aspect. The results of

this question must be read in combination with the following sections in order to be

entirely understood. The higher language level of the syllabus is a positive for some

teachers who desire to increase their students’ language level.

Question 15k aimed to investigate whether teachers believed a task-based embedded

syllabus puts a higher demand on teachers’ language skills than a textbook course. As

can be seen from the table for question 15k, 14 out of a total 15 who responded to this

question agreed with this statement (the one respondent who did not agree was a native

speaker). On the negative side, one interesting comment received stated that the

language demanded by this type of syllabus is an “impossible demand” (respondent 24).

This is further consolidated by the responses received for question 17, which asked

teachers if they felt a high French proficiency was necessary to effectively teach the

current syllabus. Of the total 16 who answered this question, ten answered in the

affirmative. Excluding the two non responses, there were four who disagreed, indicating

they did not believe that a high French proficiency was necessary to teach the current

Syllabus.

103

4.5.3.1.1 Proficiency level versus question 17

Table 4.48

Combined Results Summary for Questions 12 & 17:

Proficiency level vs opinion on necessity of high French proficiency to teach

syllabus

Answer Yes No No answer

Minimal (1-2) 1 2 0

Reasonable (2-

3)

0 1 0

Good (3-4) 0 1 0

Very Good (4-

5)

4 0 1

Native/Near

Native (5)

5 0 1

All those with proficiency above four indicated that they agreed that a high proficiency

was necessary to teach the current syllabus, there was only one respondent in the lower

three groups who also agreed that a high proficiency was necessary. All other

respondents with a proficiency lower than four indicated that they felt a high proficiency

was not necessary. It can be questioned at this point how different teachers perceive the

syllabus and what it means to be implementing it, an issue which featured frequently in

the focus groups. See section 5.3.1 for discussion of this.

104

4.5.3.2 Frequency of use of suggested teacher language

Table 4.49

Results Summary for Question 18:

Do you ever refer to the suggested teacher language supplied on the

syllabus CDs?

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 1 6.25%

Always 2 12.5%

Sometimes 10 62.5%

Never 3 18.75%

Question 18 asked teachers how often (always, sometimes or never) they refer to the

suggested teacher language on the syllabus CDs. Obviously, when the 2000 Syllabus

was being written, there was an expectation that the language use would be of a higher

level than previous syllabuses and hence, the suggested teacher language has been

provided to assist with this transition. The aim was to investigate whether, in

combination with the answers to the previous questions, teachers felt there was specialist

knowledge, outside what they already had, that was necessary in order to be able to

teach this syllabus. Excluding the one non-response, two respondents always referred to

the suggested teacher language, ten sometimes did so and three never used this. This

seems a fairly large number of respondents who use the suggested teacher language,

which seems to further consolidate the notion that there is a higher demand on teachers’

language skills in an embedded syllabus.

4.5.3.2.1 Proficiency level versus use of the suggested teacher language

As can be expected, the respondents (three in total) who indicated never referring to the

suggested teacher language were all in the top two proficiency bands. All other

respondents indicated either sometimes or always.

105

4.5.3.3 Ability of lower proficiency teachers to cope with syllabus using supplied

resources

Table 4.50

Results Summary for Question 19:

Do you feel that a teacher with limited proficiency would be able to

successfully teach the 2000 syllabus using the materials and sample

language supplied on the CD?

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 1 6.25%

Yes (Y) 3 18.75%

No (N) 12 75%

Question 19 asked respondents whether they felt a teacher with a limited proficiency

would be able to teach the syllabus effectively using the sample language and resources

on the CDs. There were three respondents who believed that a teacher with limited

proficiency could teach the syllabus, however there were 12 who did not believe this to

be possible, again indicating that teachers feel there is a greater language level needed

for this syllabus.

106

4.5.3.3.1 Proficiency versus question 19

Table 4.51

Combined Results Summary for Questions 12 & 19:

Proficiency versus opinion on whether low proficiency teacher could

effectively teach syllabus using supplied resources

Answer Yes No No answer

Minimal (1-2) 1 2 0

Reasonable (2-

3)

1 0 0

Good (3-4) 1 0 0

Very Good (4-

5)

0 5 0

Native/Near

Native (5)

0 5 1

As can be expected, those who indicated that yes, a teacher with limited proficiency

could successfully teach the 2000 syllabus using the materials and sample language

supplied on the CD, all were of the lower three proficiency groups and were

implementing the syllabus. There were two respondents in the minimal proficiency

group who indicated no, suggesting that these teachers do not feel they are coping with

the syllabus. The impact of teacher proficiency will be discussed further in section 5.3.1.

107

4.5.3.4 Increase in French usage

Table 4.52

Results Summary for Question 20:

Has your use of French in the classroom increased since implementing

the 2000 syllabus?

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 4 13.79%

Yes (Y) 12 41.38%

No (N) 13 44.83%

Question 20 inquired whether teachers felt their use of French in the classroom had

increased since implementing the 2000 Syllabus. The expectation was that majority of

respondents would answer yes, based on the emphasis placed on use of the target

language in the syllabus, however results were roughly equal, with 12 respondents

agreeing and 13 disagreeing (there were four non responses to this question). This

survey did not investigate the level of target language respondents were using prior to

the implementation of this syllabus and many of those who answered that no, their use

of French in the classroom had not increased may have already been using a significant

amount. It is promising however that many teachers have reported increased usage of the

target language.

108

4.5.3.4.1 Proficiency versus question 20

Table 4.53

Combined Results Summary for Questions 12 & 20:

Proficiency versus increase in use of French in the classroom

Answer yes No No answer

Minimal (1-2) 2 1 1

Reasonable (2-

3)

2 0 0

Good (3-4) 2 5 1

Very Good (4-

5)

4 2 1

Native/Near

Native (5)

2 4 1

As noted in the previous section, respondents are almost equally divided on this

question. When factoring proficiency levels into the analysis, of those in the lowest two

proficiency levels four out of five answered yes, with only one indicating no. Results for

the other groups were mixed with no discernible trends.

4.6 Time Issues

4.6.1 Time allocations for French classes

One of the original hypotheses pertaining to the successful implementation of the 2000

Syllabus was the impact of time allocated to French in the school. Two specific

questions were included in the survey to investigate this: question three asked teachers

how many minutes per week each year level received of French instruction, while

question 15, part i, sought to determine whether teachers felt their particular school

allowed sufficient time to cover the 2000 Syllabus.

109

Due to a multitude of different scenarios, it is impossible to tabulate the results to

question three, time allocated to different year levels. Instead, I have chosen to focus on

which schools have the required time allocation, and those who have above and below

that amount. According to the QSA guidelines, the minimum mandated allowance for

years 6, 7 and 8 LOTE is 90 minutes per week. Of the 39 respondents, there were ten

who had classes that did not receive at least 90 minutes per week. Across these

respondents, the time deficiency varied extremely, from those who were only 10 minutes

under the required 90 minutes, to a couple of schools who were struggling with only 30

or 40 minutes of French per week in total. Even within the same school, there were

differences in classes at the same level, such as the rather extreme case of respondent 35

who had three classes of year 5, one receiving 30 minutes, while the other two had the

required 90 minutes per week. This was not an isolated case, with respondent 37 also

experiencing a similar scenario with one year seven class allocated the required 90

minutes, while the other received only 75 minutes. The great diversity in responses to

this question became very apparent upon receipt of a survey with a separate A4 sheet

attached which detailed an itinerant primary teacher’s time allocations across her four

schools. This particular respondent for year six alone had classes with allocations of 70,

40, 80 and 90 minutes. Another scenario apparent in two respondents’ schools was the

addition of middle primary LOTE (grades 4 and 5) at the expense of the full allocated 90

minutes for the year 6 and 7 classes. Respondent 9 used question 15i to comment on

this, stating “two lessons in Grade 6 is not quite enough but the trade-off is two lessons

in the non-compulsory Grade 5 area. This was a negotiated choice to allow continuation

of the Middle Primary LOTE syllabus in our school”. Most likely this is not a unique

case.

The support for French was quite obviously stronger in some schools, with 3 of the

teachers with primary classes (year 6 and 7) having above the minimum 90 minutes,

with 95 minutes, 130 and 135 minutes for each of their primary classes.

On the upside, out of those ten respondents who had under the required 90 minutes per

week allocated to them for any one of their classes, there were only four who did not

110

have any classes receiving the minimum. The other six respondents had at least one class

of years 6-8 with 90 minutes of French. There were nine respondents who, across their

classes of years 6-8, had exactly 90 minutes but more impressively, there were quite a

number of grade 8 classes receiving more than 90 minutes (12 in total). Unfortunately,

there were also six respondents who had year 8 classes with less than the minimum 90

minutes.

When one delves more deeply and compares time allocations across sectors, a very

interesting pattern emerges. All the independent school teachers reported French time

allocations that were above the required 90 minutes, except one, suggesting that French

is given more priority in the Independent school sector, than in EQ.

4.6.1.1 Teacher opinion on LOTE time allocation

Table 4.54

Results Summary for Question 15i:

I) The time allocated to LOTE in my school allows enough time for me

to teach the current syllabus

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 2 11.76%

1 - Strongly Agree 3 17.65%

2 – Agree 7 41.18%

3 - Disagree 4 23.53%

4 – Strongly Disagree 1 5.88%

Only teachers using the syllabus were required to answer question 15i, and of the 17

respondents who completed this section, there were five who did not feel that they had

sufficient time to teach the current syllabus. Comments that appeared for this question

included that of respondent 20, who wrote “Many of the suggested modules, even when

simplified take 12-14 weeks of work (incl the usual interruptions) to really do properly,

modeling levels 1-3 and allowing for these outcomes”. Another teacher, respondent 33,

111

raised the issue that it depends on the task “Not always as some tasks are more time

consuming than others” while another comment, that of respondent 23, indicated that

there is a difference between primary and secondary LOTE, stating “In primary but not

in secondary at grade 8 level”. One teacher used this question to vent some anger with

the comment “IN WHOLE OF QUEENSLAND! What is wrong with government? Lang

(foreign) teaching can be so beneficial in all sorts of strands of life and to develop

literacy in own language it should be taught from preschool”. Another passionate

respondent used the space to make this comment: “More time would mean more

"yoohing off" by the anti-French (or any foreign language) group- mainly boys”. There

was one positive comment in this section, respondent 14, who said “my school is fairly

generous with time allowed”.

4.7 Resources

Section 4.7 explores various issues associated with the resources supplied on the

syllabus CDs. The frequency with which teachers make use of the resources is

examined, as well as teacher opinion on the level of the resources. In addition to this,

student reaction to the resources is explored and teachers’ access to appropriate

materials is also investigated.

4.7.1 Frequency of use of resources

Table 4.55

Results Summary for Question 21:

Do you use the resources supplied on the syllabus CDs?

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 2 6.9%

Frequently 11 37.93%

Occasionally 12 41.38%

Rarely 4 13.79%

112

It was initially hypothesized that teachers’ rejection or acceptance of the 2000 French

Syllabus might be related to their views on the resources supplied on CDs for use with

the Syllabus. Question 21 asked teachers how often they used the resources in order to

gauge how central the resources are to the implementation of the Syllabus. As can be

seen from the table below, a majority of the respondents using the Syllabus (23 of a total

29) used the supplied resources either frequently (11 respondents) or occasionally (12

respondents). This suggests that the resources are a key issue in terms of implementation

of the 2000 Syllabus.

4.7.2 Level of resources

Table 4.56

Results Summary for Question 22a:

B) The resources are level appropriate

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 2 6.9%

1 - Strongly Agree 3 10.34%

2 – Agree 12 41.38%

3 – Disagree 9 31.03%

4 - Strongly Disagree 3 10.34%

Question 22 followed with a series of four sub-sections questioning different aspects of

the resources. Similarly to question 15 earlier in the survey, a four point scale was

offered for teachers to rate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the

statements. Part A aimed to investigate whether teachers believe the resources are level

appropriate. This appears to be an important issue for teachers as comments related to

this have appeared at various sections throughout the surveys. Respondents are quite

divided in their opinions on this issue, with 15 out of a total 29 agreeing and 12

disagreeing. 9 respondents offered comments in total, amongst them 7 made mention

113

that some of the tasks/resources contain language that is inappropriate or needs

modifying. The fact that those who have commented are only those who find the level of

the resources to be inappropriate suggests that perhaps this is a particularly important

point for these people. All comments in this regard imply in some way or another that it

is not all tasks or resources that need modifying, only some.

The other two comments not related to the above refer to particular grades and the lack

of appropriateness of the language levels of the resources in these particular cases.

Respondent 15 comments that [the resources] “can be difficult for grade 8 beginners”. A

similar sentiment is evident in the comments of respondent 37, “secondary too hard for

yr 8 beginners. primary now not age appropriate. younger good”. An issue raised by

these comments is that these resources have perhaps been written with the expectation

that students would already have completed two years of language study in years 6 and 7

and would not be entering year 8 as French beginners. Unfortunately the reality is often

quite different. Students do not necessarily attend a high school in the same cluster or

sector as their primary school, hence often the LOTE taught is not the same as the one

they have studied during the primary years, placing them at beginner level upon

commencement of French in high school.

114

4.7.2.1 Proficiency level versus 22a

Table 4.57

Combined Results Summary for Questions 12 & 22a:

Proficiency levels versus level of resources

Answer 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5+

Strongly

agree

0 0 0 3 0

Agree 2 2 4 2 2

Disagree 1 0 4 1 2

Strongly

disagree

0 0 0 0 3

No answer 1 0 0 1 0

It was hypothesized that teachers with a lower proficiency might be more inclined to

believe that the resources were not of an appropriate level. However, as can be seen

from the above, all those in the lower proficiency groups are more inclined to believe the

resources are level appropriate, while those in the higher proficiency groups have

expressed concern with the level.

115

4.7.3 Student reaction to resources

Table 4.58

Results Summary for Question 22b:

B) The resources engage the students

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 3 10.34%

1 - Strongly Agree 2 6.9%

2 – Agree 12 41.38%

3 – Disagree 9 31.03%

4 - Strongly Disagree 3 10.34%

Again respondents are quite divided on this issue, with 14 believing that the resources do

engage the students and 12 believing that they don’t. While there were some positive

comments to this questions, such as that of respondent 18 “the contexts are interesting”

and the comment of respondent 33 can be taken either way “most of the time if they are

understood”, again many negative comments were received. “Boring”, “obscure” and

“unmotivating” were three adjectives appearing in the comments to this question. Again,

as in the previous question, there was the suggestion that not all tasks or resources fit in

this negative category, however the fact that teachers feel moved to comment negatively

and not positively about the resources suggests that the resources are more of an issue

for those who do not find them adequate.

116

4.7.4 Availability of resources

Table 4.59

Results Summary for Question 22c:

C) I need to add many additional resources to what is supplied

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 2 6.9%

1 - Strongly Agree 12 41.38%

2 – Agree 11 37.93%

3 – Disagree 3 10.34%

4 - Strongly Disagree 1 3.45%

Question 22C asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement “I

need to add many additional resources to what is supplied”. An overwhelming majority

(23 of a total 29) agreed that there is a need to add many additional resources to what is

supplied. What is interesting about the responses to this question is the number of people

who strongly agree with this statement, a sizeable number at 12 out of a possible 29. The

term ‘scaffolding’ appeared in two respondents comments to this question (respondent

18 and 20) and the idea of scaffolding, although not referred to directly was also implied

in the comment of respondent 33 who wrote of “resources that make it easier for the

student to understand the language”. It should be noted here that it was never intended

that the modules provide everything needed for a unit, there was always the expectation

that teachers would supplement the provided materials but it would seem that many

teachers do not know this.

117

4.7.5 Access to resources

Table 4.60

Results Summary for Question 22d:

D) I have access to sufficient resources to teach the 2000 syllabus

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 2 6.9%

1 - Strongly Agree (22d1) 2 6.9%

2 - Agree (22d2) 21 72.41%

3 - Disagree (22d3) 4 13.79%

4 - Strongly Disagree (22d4) 0 0.00%

Question 22D seeks to investigate whether teachers have access to sufficient resources

to teach the 2000 Syllabus. Only four respondents feel they do not have access to

sufficient resources indicating that, at least for the majority, this is not a key issue.

Comments were generally about what was held in respondents’ schools and of the six

respondents, four mentioned making their own resources, indicating that although

having agreed that they have access to sufficient resources, it is more a matter of tailor

making resources to fit the course.

118

4.7.6 Awareness and use of LOTE Centre kits

Table 4.61

Results Summary for Question 23:

Have you been informed of the existence of the resource kits created to

complement the modules of the syllabus which are available from the

Qld LOTE Centre?

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 2 6.9%

Yes 26 89.66%

No 1 3.45%

Table 4.62

Results Summary for Question 24:

Do you use the aforementioned LOTE centre kits?

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 3 10.34%

Yes 16 55.17%

No 10 34.48%

As can be seen from the above tables, a majority of respondents (26 of 29) are aware of

the existence of the LOTE centre kits (question 23), however the number using these kits

is significantly less, with only 16 of the 29 respondents claiming the use the LOTE

centre kits. These kits have been created to correspond with the modules in the 2000

Syllabus and contain realia such as posters, brochures, games, videos, audio recordings

and numerous other resources specific to each module. The kits are available from the

LOTE Centre and even those teachers who are not in metropolitan Brisbane have access

to the kits via the post. Kits are available on loan for the length of the school term.

Although no space for comments was allocated to this question, there were comments

about these kits which appeared elsewhere in the survey, such as that of respondent 22 “I

119

service three schools in this region. I do not borrow resource kits from the LOTE centre

because the loss of an item incurs a fine of $50. If I were to claim some wall space in

each room I visit and post pictures, etc, on the wall, I would face weekly fines!!” While

this thesis does not aim to analyse these kits, these questions were added to determine if

teachers were aware of these kits as potential resources, more specifically if responses to

question 22d (access to specific resources) came back negatively, which they did not.

Teachers, at least those surveyed, are aware of the resources offered by the LOTE centre

and there are a variety of possible reasons why people may not be accessing them such

as the inability to visit the LOTE Centre (although requests can be made by phone) and

the cost of replacement for lost items was mentioned by one respondent as a reason for

not accessing these resources.

4.7.7 Summary of strengths of resources

There were 25 out of a total 29 respondents who chose to provide comments to Question

25 which aimed to investigate teachers’ views on the strengths of the resources provided

with the Syllabus. As a result, there are too many responses to refer to individually,

however common ideas have been collated for frequency and also, some of the more

unusual responses will be discussed. There were three particular comments which

appeared frequently in responses. Firstly, six respondents mentioned that a strength of

the resources is that they are adaptable or modifiable, some even citing in detail that

these resources have been created so that they can be edited, adding colour to the

graphics being one possibility. . Seven respondents referred to the resources as a ‘good

base’ and appearing six times amongst the comments was that some respondents felt that

the visuals, such as the illustrations etc., within the resources were a key strength.

Although mentioned less frequently, it is also worth noting that four respondents

commented on the resources as ‘user-friendly’, two respondents referred to the use of

the target language, another two other respondents believed the resources saved time on

preparation and the word ‘engaging’ was a feature in the responses of two others.

120

4.7.8 Summary of weaknesses of resources

Again, as with the previous question, question 26, the weaknesses of the resources, also

moved many people to offer an opinion, 24 out of a possible 29 who were asked to

answer this section. Once again there were a large number of different responses which

have been grouped as far as possible. The key complaint above all others, mentioned by

nine respondents, was the difficulty of the language used in the resources. “Irrelevant

topics” was another frequent comment, with four respondents making mention of this.

Interestingly, five teachers mentioned lack of access to technology, either in the form of

computers or a language lab, as a barrier to the use of the audio provided with resources

on the CDs. Photocopying of resources was an issue both in relation to cost and time and

was mentioned three times, and a preference for textbooks was suggested twice in

relation to these problems.

Four respondents directly mentioned that there was significant time needed to modify

the resources, while a further three wrote of adaptation of resources as a negative. Two

further comments discussed negatively the need to supplement the resources, while

another two commented on the absence of scaffolding tasks. All these comments refer

indirectly to the same issue; namely that the resources as they are received on the CD are

not useable without some initial modification or supplementation.

121

4.8 Teacher Role

Table 4.63

Results Summary for Question 15l:

L) I feel that I am adequately prepared for my role as facilitator in the

2000 syllabus

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 2 11.76%

1 - Strongly Agree 4 23.53%

2 – Agree 9 52.94%

3 - Disagree 1 5.88%

4 - Strongly Disagree 1 5.88%

Question 15l asked teachers if they felt adequately prepared for their role of facilitator in

the 2000 Syllabus. From the 15 responses received for this question, only two people

disagreed, leading to the conclusion that this is not a key problem. It had been

hypothesized that those in the more experienced groups would be less prepared for their

role as facilitator. While the two respondents who indicated this did fall into the 7-18

years and 19-30 years experience groups, a majority of the others did not feel under

prepared so this is no longer a valid hypothesis. One striking comment did appear

however, in the optional comments section for this question, “I am prepared but I will

not do it”. This response indicates that preparedness does not necessarily translate into

acceptance of this role.

Question 32 asked teachers to describe their role as a teacher and was included to

determine whether teachers see their role as facilitator as expected in the 2000 Syllabus.

There were a multitude of different responses to this question, in total 36 of the 38

teachers responded. Many of the responses were centred around “marketing LOTE” to

students and developing a love of languages, as well as creating an appreciation of

different cultures. Unexpectedly, some teachers interpreted this question more literally

122

than intended and wrote a list of duties. For others, it was a chance to express their

dissatisfaction with teaching. Interestingly, the idea of teacher as facilitator appeared in

only eight of the respondents’ answers.

4.9 Physical Space/Ideal Classroom

4.9.1 Ideal classroom

Question 33 was an open ended question asking teachers to describe their ideal

classroom and from the responses emerged a number of common themes. Comments

relating to the provision of basic classroom needs, such as sufficient chairs, whiteboards

and good lighting featured in this section. It would seem that some schools in the survey

are greatly under resourced, though it is unclear from the responses whether it is the

LOTE department and lack of recognition for LOTE that is the problem, or whether the

school generally is lacking in these basic necessities.

Access to technology, both in the form of sufficient computers and AV equipment,

featured frequently amongst the responses, with eight respondents making some mention

of this in their comments. In relation to technology, the point was also raised that in an

ideal situation, teachers would have access to online sharing of resources. Many teachers

interpreted this question as a chance to give a description of the physical space in an

ideal classroom. A resounding theme was space; space for group work, space for games,

space for activity rotations and mentioned most frequently, a place for displaying posters

and student work on the wall. The idea of having an area to display student work seems

particularly relevant to task-based instruction, as students are expected to produce

something at the completion of a module, rather than sitting an examination for

assessment. The issue of physical space and the impact of this on the implementation of

the syllabus will be explored further in the discussion to follow in section 5.3.

A completely different interpretation of this question was evident in other respondents’

comments who used this question to talk about the type of students in an ideal

123

classroom. Motivated, engaged, enthusiastic and well-behaved were frequently

occurring adjectives. Some respondents also made mention of desiring parents and other

teachers to have more of an interest in LOTE.

4.10 Professional Development

Table 4.64

Results Summary for Question 27:

Have you had any training in the implementation of the Years 4-10

French syllabus, including pre-service education?

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 3 10.34%

Yes 20 68.97%

No 6 20.69%

Table 4.65

Results Summary for Question 28:

If professional development sessions in the implementation of the 2000

French Syllabus were offered, would you be interested in attending?

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 3 10.34%

Yes 18 62.07%

No 8 %

Question 27 asked respondents whether they had any training in the implementation of

the 2000 French Syllabus. Twenty respondents answered in the affirmative, there were

three non-responses and six said they had not had any training. Interestingly, I was told

of a training manual which was distributed when the syllabus first entered schools but it

is currently unobtainable. There was a fairly high level of interest in attending

professional development sessions (question 28), with 18 out of 29 respondents

124

indicating their interest. In answer to question 29, suggestions for professional

development sessions, there were a number of respondents who suggested an exchange

with other teachers to share resources, unit plans or assessment items. Inclusion of

technology also featured among the responses, something towards which many schools

are moving. Applications in the primary school (respondent 38) and how to teach high

school French beginners (respondent 15) were two other possible suggestions. There

were two respondents who suggested offering an inservice training session on reporting,

while a number of others mentioned assessment in a general way, suggesting this is

definitely an area in which teachers feel underskilled and which may be worth the

development of appropriate professional development sessions. Unfortunately, there

were two respondents who made it quite clear that their schools would not be supportive

of sending their teacher to professional development sessions, due to lack of funding.

The issue of professional development was explored further in the focus groups, where

teachers were asked what was an appropriate method of delivery given their situation, as

well as expanding on possible topics for professional development. The three rural

respondents all suggested professional development delivered via the internet would be

useful in their situations, as all had sufficient access to computers in their schools. Due

to distance and associated costs, professional development meetings with other teachers

in their network were not a possibility. Of the teachers working in the Brisbane area,

many were keen to share resources with other teachers and the use of ICTs was another

topic which featured heavily in the discussions.

4.11 Conclusion

Chapter four presented the data received from teachers who completed the survey and

outlined trends in the data, as well as briefly discussing whether the results were

correspond with hypotheses. As can be seen in section 4.1 of this chapter, the sample

population represented many different groups within the French teaching profession:

males and females, public and independent education sectors, primary and secondary,

various career stages and levels of language proficiency. One of the aims of the survey

was to determine if trends existed in terms of which groups were using the syllabus.

125

Clearly EQ teachers were more likely to be using it, and there was greater support from

primary teachers, as opposed to secondary. Of the different language proficiency groups,

those in the lowest and highest levels were more likely to be using it than those in the

middle proficiency groups and those with more experience were less likely to be using

the syllabus. The impact of these findings is further discussed in chapter 5.

Chapter four also isolated major strengths and weaknesses of the syllabus according to

teachers, with many key issues, such as TBI as methodology, embedded content and

supplied resources, featuring both positively and negatively as stated by different

respondents. Teachers using the syllabus answered a range of questions about TBI and

the syllabus specifically and generally, most respondents were satisfied with the

methodology, despite some behaviour management issues. The use of embedded content

however proved to be more controversial, with respondents passionately placed both for

and against the use of the content from other KLAs. Unexpectedly, when asked about

the role of focus on form in TBI, many respondents struggled both to understand the

term and to articulate the role played by focus on form in TBI as evidenced by their

comments.

Not surprisingly, there were a number of teachers who believed LOTE should receive a

greater time allocation, and amongst those, there were many not even reaching the

minimum weekly mandated amount of 90 minutes for years 6-8.

Teacher opinion on the worth of the supplied resources varied, though a frequently cited

complaint was that the resources were pitched at too high a level and many respondents

did not believe the resources were engaging for students.

The investigation of teacher role, while providing some interesting data, did not seem to

play a major role in most cases in determining acceptance, or otherwise of the syllabus

and the same can be said for the role of physical space available. The results of the

questions which explored professional development, did however present some useful

data. The results showed that while many teachers would be interested in attending

126

training relating to the syllabus, many have not yet done so, which is of crucial

importance and this is discussed further in the following chapter.

Along with a discussion of the results included in chapter four, chapter five also

incorporates findings from the focus group sessions. Due to the timing of the focus

groups, after the survey, issues raised in the survey were able to be investigated further

during the sessions and thus conclusions reached were able to be further confirmed.

127

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

5.0 Introduction

Using the data received from the survey and from the focus group sessions, this chapter

will analyze the results presented in chapter four and discuss the implications of these

findings. This chapter is organized into five main sections. Section 5.1 deals with school

sector and the role this plays in teachers’ use of the syllabus. Teachers’ reaction to

change is covered by section 5.2, with section 5.3 being dedicated to a variety of

syllabus-specific issues. This study then concludes with a discussion of the scope and

limitations of this research (5.4) and recommendations based on the findings (section

5.5).

5.1 School sector

The Years 4-10 French Syllabus is mandated for Education Queensland teachers,

whereas for those teaching in the Independent sector13, the use of the syllabus is at the

discretion of the school and/or teacher. There is a clear trend in relation to use of

syllabus based on sector. Of the Independent Education teachers surveyed (11 in total),

there was only one respondent using the syllabus in its entirety, five were sampling and

five did not use the syllabus at all. In the focus groups, it became apparent from the

responses of the sole user of the syllabus in the Independent sector that she was not

particularly supportive of the syllabus and had been moving away from the use of it.

This lack of support for the syllabus in the Independent sector is consistent with

informal conversations with teachers conducted prior to the research undertaken for this

thesis. It seems generally accepted that those in the Independent sector are not using the

syllabus so it would seem that a diversity of syllabuses is developing, with students in

the Independent sector, in majority of cases not having access to TBI. The development

13 As mentioned previously in the thesis, “Independent Education” also encompasses those Independent Catholic schools where schools have a choice as to whether or not the syllabus is used.

128

of parallel syllabuses creates a whole range of issues ranging from the problems

encountered by teachers moving between sectors, as well as the access of students to

different types of instruction. Unfortunately it is beyond the scope of this study to

explore this is in great detail however it warrants noting at this point.

The responses provided by Education Queensland teachers demonstrated greater use of

the syllabus, with 15 of a total 27 using the syllabus, ten sampling and only two claiming

to be disregarding it altogether. The fact that there were very few amongst the EQ

teachers who claimed to not be using the syllabus at all, compared with five of 11 in IE,

is further evidence of the role played by sector. It is important to note here that while

teachers claim to be using the syllabus, there are various interpretations of this, and this

will be explored in detail further in 5.3.6. Level taught also influenced teachers’ support

for the syllabus, with greater support in the primary school, the reasons for which will be

discussed further on in this chapter.

5.2 Adaptability/resistance to change

This section examines teachers’ resistance to change and seeks to determine whether it is

the syllabus itself that teachers are rejecting, or merely the introduction of something

new, regardless of the form it takes.

5.2.1 How teachers experience innovations

When an innovation is introduced, there is always some resistance to change and there is

evidence of this in the data. Comments such as “if we have something which is working,

why change it?” which was voiced during the focus group sessions is clearly evidence of

the resistance to change and to stepping outside the familiar. Consistent with my results,

one of the reasons cited for rejecting the introduction of task-based instruction in Hong

Kong schools is that many teachers had confidence in their old ways of teaching (Siu-

yin Tong et al, 2000). Teachers who are not acquainted with the merits of a task-based

program are unlikely to be supportive of its introduction: it involves significant change

129

in terms of what is done in the classroom, as well as re-writing programs and resources,

which all takes a great deal of time.

As discussed in Siu-yin Tong et al, (2000:151), with reference to the Hong Kong Target

Oriented Curriculum (see Literature Review for details), there are three ways in which

teachers react to curriculum change: assimilation, appropriation and a façade of change.

While it is hoped that “appropriation” will occur, where teachers’ practices are

consistently shaped by the innovation, what is happening in reality in the Queensland

situation, as was also the case in the Hong Kong context, is merely “assimilation”

(where practice is not drastically altered, but aspects of the innovation may appear in

teaching). At worst, there are also some teachers in the Queensland context who exhibit

a ‘façade of change’, evidenced by those who claim to be implementing the syllabus, but

who, on closer examination of their responses, are revealed not to be doing so at all.

In the case of the introduction of task-based instruction in Queensland, this move

represents significant change for many teachers, both practically and in the way

language learning and teaching is understood by these teachers. It is acknowledged that

switching paradigms is not easy, and involves risk-taking on the part of the teachers and

ideally, a belief that better outcomes will ensue through adoption of the innovation

(Carr, 2005), but as evidenced frequently by the comments received, teachers quickly

list the perceived deficits of TBI in their contexts. It is unlikely that teachers will be

open to the trial of an innovation if there are already presumed problems before

commencing. As expressed by Woodward (1996) a paradigm shift involves more than

superficial change, it involves a shift in understanding about learning and teaching, and

this is a key issue for many teachers attempting to implement the 2000 syllabus.

Prior to the 2000 syllabus, teachers operated from a standpoint of viewing language as a

system to be learnt, and syllabuses (such as the 1988 French syllabus in Queensland)

detailed the language elements that teachers were expected to teach. Conversely, TBI

encompasses a view of language as a social practice. The focus is on communicating

with people for real needs, and the language is merely the means for doing so. This has

130

many practical implications, and thus requires a significant change in thinking and ways

of looking at language, away from merely ‘covering the content’. Comments from

teachers during the focus groups such as “covering the vocabulary” and “sentence

patterns” show very clearly that many teachers are still viewing language as a system to

be learnt. Those teaching using TBI are not prescribed a list of functions and vocabulary;

instead students will each take away different knowledge from the input received. These

remarks about “covering the content” demonstrate some teachers’ greater commitment

towards achieving accuracy and complexity, with fluency often taking a secondary role.

The aim of language instruction should be towards striking a balance between all three

goals (Skehan 1996), and this is the intention of a strong task-based approach using

integrated focus on form. It became apparent that there is a lack of understanding about

TBI amongst the teachers surveyed, and this lack of understanding is evidenced on many

levels. While section 5.3.6 covers teachers’ understanding of TBI in detail, it is useful

here to highlight one misunderstood aspect that contributes to change being accepted by

teachers. Many teachers in this study could not see how the three goals of accuracy,

fluency and complexity are covered by TBI, and as such, have difficulty embracing this

change as it is not concurrent with their present views on what a language program

should do. Some teachers believe fluency is favoured in a task-based approach at the

expense of the other goals. This is evidenced in comments expressed by several

respondents by the need to “focus on grammar”, as many believed the syllabus did not

cover this sufficiently. Another respondent spoke consistently about ensuring her

students could write accurately, and the need to compare English and French grammar

side by side. This respondent also commented that “our course is very academically

rigourous” in response to discussions about programs in other schools, thereby

suggesting that she does not believe that the syllabus is academically rigourous. In order

for an innovation to be accepted by teachers, they need to believe that the innovation

will be of benefit, and should fit with their current views on teaching and learning. To

achieve this, renewed training is necessary. Teachers need to be re-trained in up-to-date

research on teaching and learning, and more specifically, on the benefits of TBI, and, as

views begin to shift, it is likely that support for the syllabus will also increase.

131

5.2.2 Teacher career phase

Based on the work of Huberman et al (1997), it was initially hypothesized that stage in

career might have some bearing on teachers’ acceptance, or otherwise, of the 2000

syllabus, Huberman et al believe that teacher stage in career cycle and acceptance of

change are integrally linked and my results do exhibit clear trends in this regard.

Evidently, in the groups of more experienced teachers in my survey, there is less

support.

This finding is further consolidated when the results about teachers’ use of the 1988

syllabus and the current syllabus are compared. While there are various possible

interpretations of the decline in use of the currently prescribed syllabus, vis-à-vis the

previous one, (such as a change in sector or change in school which may lead to

different pressure to use the contemporary syllabus) there is a clear a link between career

phase and adoption of an innovation. Teachers who claimed usage of the 1988 syllabus

are now currently in later stages of the 7-18 years experience group (characterized by

experimentation/activism or reassessment/self-doubts), or else in the 19-30 years group

(serenity/relational distance or conservatism). As discussed in chapter two, in relation to

the model proposed by Huberman et al. (1997), there are two branches for the 19-30

years experience group termed “serenity” and “conservatism”. While serenity signifies

greater satisfaction with what is happening, in terms of acceptance of change, both

pathways suggest similar disregard for innovations and “increased rigidity” (p. 49) in

approach. The ‘serenity’ phase is more a state of mind, suggested to occur between 45-

55 years of age, which also accounts for evidence of this attitude in less experienced

teachers who fell into this age group.

The 7-18 years experience phase is a time when teachers have reached a point where

they are comfortable enough with their career and confident in the classroom, which

leads them to “experiment”, hence the name for this phase, with ways of best achieving

objectives for their students. These are the teachers who “set off in search of new

challenges” (p. 45) and will take on innovations if they feel they are of value and will be

132

beneficial to their students. The survey results, in combination with the focus groups,

indicate that, while there is some uptake of the syllabus in this group, there is still a lot

of resistance to it. It would seem that, despite extensive training having occurred when

the syllabus was first introduced, many teachers have reverted to teaching in the way

they themselves were taught. As mentioned, many of these teachers are at a point where

they are looking for something new, a new challenge and something which will increase

classroom outcomes, so if they were targeted and given further professional

development in the benefits and application of TBI, they might be more likely to take on

this innovation, and in turn, influence those with lesser experience who may seek

guidance from them.

Most of those in the 1-3 years experience group and 4-6 years experience group should

have been trained in the implementation of the 2000 syllabus in their pre-service training

if it was conducted in Queensland. It is possible that these teachers have entered pre-

existing school cultures where the syllabus is not supported, and so, have followed suit.

One of these teachers, when questioned, indicated that French was being introduced for

the first time in her school in year eight, with a weekly time allocation of only 40

minutes, thus despite her support for the syllabus, she felt the time allocation was too

restrictive and creation of a textbook-based course seemed a more feasible way of

introducing the language program in her school.

5.3 Syllabus-specific issues

This section outlines a number of issues which are specific to the 2000 syllabus. The

role played by teacher proficiency is explored in section 5.3.1. Section 5.3.2 covers

embeddedness, with the supplied resources featuring in section 5.3.3. TBI and the many

issues surrounding it are discussed in 5.3.4 and time related issues are covered by 5.3.5.

The final part, section 5.3.6 looks at the lack of shared understanding of the syllabus

among teachers.

133

5.3.1 The role played by teacher language proficiency

Proficiency in the target language is a highly desirable characteristic of a language

teacher. The “Professional Standards for Accomplished Teaching of Languages and

Cultures” prepared by the AFMLTA (2005) outline high level language knowledge as

one of the standards of an accomplished teacher. Westwood (2006), in her survey of

schools advertising for LOTE teachers, found proficiency and qualification of candidates

as the most frequently mentioned attribute. Unfortunately, as shown by Crawford’s

results and my findings, in relation to teachers’ self-rated proficiency levels, the reality

often differs. Due to staffing issues, among other reasons, teachers with limited

proficiency and, at times, no language-related qualifications, are cast into the role of

language teacher and expected to cope. This section will outline some of the problems

experienced by these teachers in relation to the implementation of the 2000 French

Syllabus.

Proficiency level was investigated as a possible reason for rejection of the syllabus based

on the many teachers who had conveyed to me informally that they felt the language in

the resources was too difficult for both teachers’ own language level, as well as students’

language level. It was hypothesized that those with lower proficiency would be more

inclined to reject the syllabus on the grounds that the resources contained language

which was too difficult. This is consistent with Crawford’s prediction (1999) “The new

syllabus content will therefore provide a greater challenge to this group (lower

proficiency in speaking) both in terms of their need to teach content in the target

language and adapt materials to fit the curriculum rather than depend on the textbook”

(p.374-5). Despite these factors, this does not seem to be the case as, of the EQ teachers,

the two not using the syllabus, both had a proficiency of 3.5 out of a possible maximum

of 5, disproving this hypothesis.

A clear pattern emerged in terms of proficiency level and use of the syllabus: those with

high? proficiency (around 4 and above) use the syllabus, as do those with lower

proficiency (2 and below), while those between do not use it. There are several possible

134

explanations for this: the lower proficiency group may be using it because of the support

in the form of teacher language and pre-prepared resources, and judging by the high rate

of reported use of the suggested teacher language, it would seem the syllabus writers

have successfully averted a potential problem for the lower proficiency groups. Those in

the upper proficiency group might favour it because of their ability to cope with the high

language level and spontaneity of language use needed for the implementation of a task-

based approach.

Due to the nature of TBI, the role of teacher language input is crucial. This approach

relies on the notion that with access to sufficient input, students will begin to internalize

the language and then start independently reproducing it at different levels. Teachers

may be able to rely on the suggested teacher language on the CDs up to a certain point,

but this cannot be the entirety of the input received by the students, which thus causes

problems for those teachers with lower proficiency. Worryingly, only 27% of teachers in

Crawford’s study (1999), conducted prior to the implementation of this syllabus, used

the target language as the main medium of instruction, and of the teachers in my study,

only about half reported an increase in their use of French in the classroom. Once again,

these results demonstrate teachers’ incomplete understanding of the methodology

proposed by the 2000 syllabus, and specifically in this case, the crucial role of target

language input in TBI.

Another problem which confronts lower-proficiency teachers in the implementation of

the syllabus, is the significant amount of resource modification required. This is an issue

mentioned by all proficiency levels, but is particularly relevant to those with lower

proficiency levels: not only is the time taken for modification an issue, but the ability to

do so is also problematic. Teachers with lower proficiency are naturally going to be

more challenged as they have less language at their disposal to assist this process. What

might be very likely to result is that those in the lower proficiency group, based on the

issues previously outlined, might have difficulty implementing the syllabus as intended,

i.e. a strong version of TBI.

135

As can be seen from the above, teachers with lower proficiency face various challenges

when attempting to implement the 2000 syllabus. While the syllabus writers have

attempted to support this group by way of the suggested teacher language on the

syllabus CDs, these teachers still struggle with implementing the 2000 syllabus as

originally intended.

5.3.2 Embeddedness

A key defining feature of this syllabus, and one on which teachers seem quite divided, is

its ‘embedded’ nature. Crawford (1999), in discussing the embedded approach,

expressed the opinion that the move to an embedded approach would be a “radical

change” (p.344) for many of her respondents. This is consistent with the results of my

study which indicate that embeddedness is a problematic aspect for many teachers for a

variety of reasons which will be outlined in this section. Earlier in this thesis, the

rationale behind the choice of embedded content was discussed. The main reason given

was that topics from other KLAs would be more likely to hold significance for students

than more traditional topics including simulated tasks relating to visiting a French-

speaking country.

Those in support of the embedded content offer the argument that taking content from

other KLAs is a way of adding ‘value’ to LOTE, since the content tends to come from

the KLAs often viewed as more valuable to student education by the majority, such as

Science and Social Science14. On the other hand, those not in support of embeddedness

believe this type of content should be saved for immersion programs, and do not believe

it is relevant to teaching a language. Again, this aversion to embeddedness seems to

contribute to the view of language as a system to be learnt, and not as a social practice,

for communication between people.

14 There were two survey respondents who made mention of the lack of support for LOTE by some parents in their schools, another barrier to the success of a LOTE program.

136

5.3.2.1 Primary versus secondary teachers’ attitudes towards embeddedness

Due to the timing of her study, Crawford (1999) was only able to make a prediction

about the greater support for embeddedness in the primary school, citing the fact that the

embedded approach to content is more akin to what is already happening in the primary

school, whereas for secondary school teachers, this would represent quite a change and

may be physically difficult due to staffroom locations. The results of my study clearly

support this prediction, with much greater enthusiasm for embeddedness amongst

primary respondents, in comparison to secondary. There were a number of reasons given

by focus group respondents including the notion that topics coming from other KLAs

hold more relevance for primary students than, for example, courses which teach

survival in a foreign country, which is probably far outside the students’ realm of

experience and aspiration at this age (see section 4.5.2.1.1). Also, concurrent with

Crawford’s prediction, according to my survey results, there was a greater number of

primary teachers who reportedly conferred with other subject teachers (see section

4.5.1.3.1). Obviously, as suggested by Crawford, the primary culture is more conducive

to this, as there are fewer subject teachers, there are no isolated, subject-specific

staffrooms and the LOTE teacher frequently encounters the classroom teacher, unless in

an itinerant position, which holds similar problems to high school teachers who do not

encounter colleagues from other KLAs.

5.3.2.2 Understanding of embeddedness

A valid point raised by one focus group participant was the lack of definition of

embeddedness in the syllabus document, with references to it simply describing it as an

approach using content from other KLAs. This comment proved to be correct when two

teachers questioned exactly what embeddedness referred to. Both these teachers claimed

to be covering embedded content (being content from other KLAs), though were not

familiar with the term “embedded”. This adds further evidence to the lack of shared

understanding among teachers about the 2000 syllabus, the implications of which will be

discussed in section 5.3.6 of this chapter.

137

Further to the point of lack of understanding of embeddedness, a frequent complaint was

the inappropriateness of the content. Some teachers see it as irrelevant to teach content

from other KLAs because they feel their students will never need the language related to

such topics. The way the modules have been written (generic for all languages) requires

the content to be situated in a context that makes it relevant and culturally appropriate,

such as assisting an exchange student from the target country or writing something for a

sister school in the target country. Without a cultural context, it is true that some of the

topics in an embedded approach may lack relevance. It is up to the teacher to create this

link between the content and the target culture. This does not seem to be understood by

teachers, as many participants in the focus groups are referring to the lack of culturally

specific material as problematic, when in fact, according to the information on the

syllabus CDs (QSCC 2000), it was expected that teachers would incorporate the

culturally specific material as appropriate for their particular context.

In addition to creating a relevant context in which to situate the embedded content,

equally important is the necessity to teach a large portion of the course in the target

language. If teachers do not do so, then the content does lose much of its relevance,

being no different to a SOSE or Science course, for example.

Survey respondents were roughly evenly divided into those who felt their language had

increased since implementing the syllabus, and those who did not feel this was the case.

This could be interpreted as indicating that some teachers were already teaching a

significant amount in the target language, so have not increased their usage. However,

based on findings by Crawford regarding use of the target language in the classroom as

mentioned in section 5.3.1, this is most likely not the case.

Another comment which featured in the focus group sessions was that some teachers

resented that they are teaching content from other subject areas when they are not

trained in these fields. However, even amongst those who reported teaching Science or

SOSE, there was not overwhelming support for embeddedness.

138

Further to this argument, some participants in the study claim the specialist vocabulary

needed for many topics in an embedded syllabus is problematic, particularly for those

with lower proficiency. This links to a hypothesis relating to reasons for rejection of the

syllabus: that teachers with lower proficiency may reject the syllabus because the

language needed is too difficult due to the embeddedness of the content. Section 5.3.1

discussed this hypothesis in detail and clearly showed that this was not at all the case.

Several secondary teachers in attendance at the focus groups stated that for year ten

students, they discontinued use of this syllabus in order to prepare their students for

senior French, which they did not see as possible if they continued with the embedded

content as this type of content is not continued in the senior syllabus. Again this shows a

lack of understanding about how to incorporate the embedded content into the course.

As can be seen, teachers reject the use of embedded content for a variety of reasons.

There are those who do not want to teach content from other KLAs fearing the message

this sends, this being that LOTE is less valued and thus, needs to borrow content from

other more important subjects. Others reject embeddedness on the grounds of wanting to

do more culturally appropriate work, but this notion actually indicates a lack of

understanding of embeddedness. Embedded content, like any content, still needs to be

situated in a culturally appropriate context. Some teachers felt they did not have

sufficient expertise in the suggested topics and again this indicates a lack of

understanding about the intentions of the syllabus writers. Teachers are free to choose

topics as appropriate to their situation, and the topics are not intended as in-depth

treatments of the subject matter, but rather a relevant context for language use. With a

better understanding of embeddedness among teachers, it may well be that there would

be greater support for this approach.

5.3.3 Resources

For a large number of teachers, the syllabus and provided modules are inseparable, with

many being much more familiar with the content of the modules than the syllabus

139

document which informs them. Again, there is greater support amongst primary teachers

who see many of the suggested modules as engaging for students with one respondent

during the focus groups mentioning that some of the more unusual “wacky” topics are

an effective way of gaining the interest of students not otherwise interested in LOTE.

There was a high level of usage of the supplied resources across both primary and

secondary, which thus provided a sizeable sample group who had some familiarity with

the materials.

5.3.3.1 Language level of the resources

While section 5.3.1 discussed the impact of teacher language proficiency, this section

focuses on teachers’ beliefs regarding the language level of resources with respect to

students. Respondents were divided in their opinions on the appropriateness of the

resources’ language level, however there was a general feeling among the teachers that

the resources required modification in most cases to make them useable, with language

level often cited as a reason. A key issue featuring in the comments was that this varied

depending on the year level in question. It is of crucial importance to note that the 2000

syllabus was written with the intention that compulsory LOTE would expand down to

year four, and upwards to year ten. While there were moves towards this at one point in

time, it never eventuated as anticipated; the syllabus was written with the expectation

that when students reached year eight, they would not be entering the language for the

first time. Unfortunately this is often not the case, and it is for these students

particularly, that the resources are pitched at too high a level, although many

respondents believe the level is too high for all students.

In addition to these factors, there are continuity issues that persist when students go from

primary to secondary school, such as a change in sector or language cluster, which then

places these students at beginner level in their language in year eight. The use of task-

based instruction was an attempt at minimizing these problems, by offering

differentiated tasks for different learners (Carr 2003). It is arguable whether transition

140

difficulties have been decreased based on the translation into practice of TBI by

Queensland French teachers, but teachers’ interpretations of TBI will be discussed in

section 5.3.6. With the current trend being towards offering “middle school” in

Queensland (models vary between schools, but frequently years seven to nine form the

middle school), transition difficulties in LOTE may decrease, with the possibility of a

consistent program operating across these years. Unfortunately this is not yet a reality,

though efforts towards the widespread advent of middle school are currently in progress.

It was expected that teachers would indicate that there was a need for supplementation

of the resources supplied on the CDs and the results of the survey and focus groups

indicate this. Teachers often made mention of the need for the addition of more

scaffolded materials to assist in the initial stages of task completion, perhaps an area

which could be added to the CDs to enhance the support they are intended to provide. It

needs to be noted that the modules were intended as a guide only, and that the creators

expected that teachers would supplement the provided materials (QSCC 2000). This

does not seem to be widely understood. Teachers claim the modules are unsuitable and

cite this as a reason for lack of support of the syllabus, yet it was never the intention that

the modules be the sole basis for a language program.

More positively, some respondents made mention of the ease with which materials on

the CDs were able to be adapted and modified on the computer.15 For those with

computer skills this poses no problem, however it was evident that this was not the case

for all respondents and these skills may be beyond some teachers’ current capabilities,

which limits the usefulness of the resources for some. On the downside, the need for the

resources to be adapted before they are useable places pressure on teachers’ already

hectic schedules and demands yet more time of the teacher, leading some to choose a

textbook for mere convenience to ease the pressures of a busy, often overloaded,

timetable.

15 There were professional development sessions on this when the syllabus was first introduced (reference- personal contact with EQ representative)

141

5.3.3.2 Textbook use

A critical issue which became visible during the focus groups was that of the use of

textbooks which means almost certain departure from the syllabus, as most textbooks

and task-based instruction are not entirely compatible. In saying this, I must

acknowledge that there are those who claim to be using a task-based approach and a

textbook, however for the majority of textbook users, the allure of the convenient

textbook meant rejection of the syllabus. The appeal of the textbook is not a new issue in

LOTE teaching, having been debated for some time (for example, Nunan, 1991).

Unfortunately, the use of a textbook is almost certainly at the expense of a task-based

program, unless the textbook is used only to supplement the course and not as its basis

since as yet, there does not exist a task-based textbook aimed at the level of this

syllabus16. It is difficult to create a task-based textbook as the knowledge students gain

through TBI varies for each student, and different language is used by individuals during

task completion. Reasons cited for the use of a textbook over the syllabus have included:

that textbooks are a colourful resource, which is appealing and motivating for students;

textbooks are convenient- a course can be created around a textbook, rather than the

teacher having to create a structure and all resources for a unit; the use of a textbook is a

practical way to ensure students have all the content available if they are absent and is

also a practical way to revise previous content when needed; and finally, textbooks are a

time-saving device- the content is pre-prepared and only supplementary materials need

to be added.

The attraction of a textbook cannot be ignored, nor can the frequent comments

advocating their use by survey and focus group respondents. What is needed is the

production of more materials that are compatible with the TBI approach to language

teaching.

16 Rond Point (2004) is an example of such a textbook. It positions the teacher as “coach” and creates a real world connection through tasks which can form part of the student’s portfolio within the “Cadre Commun Européen”. This textbook is aimed at older beginners of French.

142

5.3.4 Task-based instruction

5.3.4.1 Role of facilitator and TBI

TBI is controversial for many reasons, one of which is the challenge to the nature of the

fundamental teacher-student relationship (Siu-yin Tong, et al., 2000). For teachers using

a task-based approach, there is a necessity to relinquish control and to “stand back, have

faith and let learners get on with their learning” (Scrivener 1996: 80). This signifies a

substantial change from the role of teacher in a PPP approach, an approach that has been

traditionally adopted by language teachers. If focus group sessions are accurate, many

have not moved beyond this. While most respondents indicated that they felt prepared

for their role as facilitator in the 2000 syllabus, when asked to describe their role as a

teacher, many respondents still spoke in terms of transmitters of knowledge, with only a

comparatively small number making mention of being a facilitator. This is problematic

because this is a key component of task-based methodology.

In the role of facilitator, teachers no longer have control over everything that happens in

terms of learning in the classroom, which naturally leads to a number of implications.

Firstly, as already mentioned in section 5.3.1, for those teachers with lower proficiency,

being able to cope with the spontaneous language use needed to support the students

may pose a real challenge and a teacher-led program may feel a much safer and easier

option. Secondly, because students are acquiring differentiated knowledge, each student

needs to be supported in a different way, which thus necessitates the teacher having

more knowledge about the students, and how best to assist each one. It also requires

teachers relinquishing control, and accepting that lessons are no longer completely

predictable. It is perhaps this concept of differentiated knowledge that is one of the key

elements with which teachers grapple when first attempting task-based instruction. The

teacher is no longer in the ‘stand out the front and lecture’ role, but instead, is in the role

of facilitator, providing the necessary language input and guidance, but as the term

suggests, teachers are ‘facilitating’ students’ differentiated acquisition of the language.

143

5.3.4.2 Student reaction/teacher reaction

Generally, teachers reported that students were enthusiastic about TBI, perhaps slightly

more so in the primary than in the secondary school, though due to sample size, results

were not conclusive. Teachers who were using the syllabus generally reported their own

enthusiasm for TBI, with no significant difference between primary and secondary.

There was however, a slight difference for those in upper proficiency levels, who were

more supportive of this methodology than those in the lower proficiency groups. It must

be noted here that only teachers who claimed to be using the syllabus were asked to

complete this section. Although supposedly mandated, there seems to be considerable

variation in uptake of this syllabus, with those who are strongly opposed to it choosing

not to use it, thus expecting that most respondents who completed this section of the

survey would indicate their enthusiasm for TBI.

5.3.4.3 Contextual factors

It was generally agreed among respondents that the move to a learner centred syllabus

was beneficial to students. Those who disagreed made mention of behaviour

management issues, which are a contextual barrier to learner centredness, and do not

necessarily discredit the approach. Interestingly, not all teachers felt their students had

the necessary skills to deal with a learner centred syllabus, so perhaps a focus on the

teaching of these skills may be of use in ensuring that a syllabus of this type is of the

highest possible benefit for students. The teaching of these skills is as equally important

as the teaching of content, in order for students to maximize learning opportunities

(Nunan and Lamb, 1996). In addition to the survey and focus group data, informal

discussion with teachers, behaviour management issues in many classrooms can be a

real barrier to the implementation of a learner centred syllabus, once again highlighting

the importance of teaching the skills to deal with this type of learning. The status of

LOTE within the school can also be the cause of behaviour problems, when students

view the language class as an unimportant element to the curriculum, despite its status as

a KLA. Several focus group respondents indicated that there was a significant amount of

144

‘off-task’ time, which further adds value to development in students of the skills

required to effectively deal with a learner centred syllabus.

Contextual factors cannot be ignored, as they play a major role in the success, or

otherwise, of a particular methodology. Physical factors, such as the teaching space

available, also fall into the category of contextual factors. By definition, tasks in TBI

should have real world significance and relevance to students. This often involves the

creation of something, such as a model, or posters. An area dedicated to the display of

student work is particularly relevant in task-based instruction, in order to give the

products created by students the recognition and importance they deserve. Space needs

to be allocated to this so that students can feel their work is valued, and hence,

motivation may also be increased. It is not just space to display student work that

seemed to be an issue for teachers, but also space to work when completing tasks. These

are necessities that require consideration if TBI is to be as effective as it should be.

5.3.5 The effects of time allocations on implementation of TBI

There are two time-related issues which impacted on teachers’ uptake of the syllabus:

the first, is time allocated to teach French and the effect this has on teachers’

willingness, or otherwise, to teach via TBI; and the second, is the amount of time

teachers have available to them for preparation outside of the classroom. Both issues

will be discussed in this section as potential factors which contributed to lack of teacher

support for the syllabus.

5.3.5.1 Time allocation for LOTE teaching

Carless (2003) and Swan (2005) both discuss the impact of time allocations on the

success of TBI. As can be seen from the results reviewed in section 4.6, while there is

some variation in time allocations, on average, teachers are allocated around 90 minutes

for LOTE each week, which is the mandated amount allocated to LOTE by EQ.

Teachers using the syllabus were asked if they felt there was sufficient time allocated in

145

their school to teach the current syllabus, with about one third believing they did not

have sufficient time. Time allocations did not feature as a reason for rejection of the

syllabus, either in the focus groups or surveys, hence time allocation is not a major

factor for the teachers in this study.

5.3.5.2 Teacher preparation time

An issue of greater importance is the time teachers have for preparation. Clearly, from

results received in open-ended questions about weaknesses of resources (question 26)

and weaknesses of the syllabus (question 31), teachers feel there is a real need for

adaptation and supplementation of the resources needed to teach the 2000 syllabus,

which takes a significant amount of time. Time is needed to adapt materials and to locate

appropriate resources, which are often not readily available, given the nature of the

content. Carless (2003) raises a similar point in his study of teachers in Hong Kong,

saying that the reason some of the teachers prefer to use a textbook is due to lack of time

to prepare the materials necessary for task-based instruction. A participant who was

involved with the writing of the materials on the syllabus CDs raised an interesting point

during the focus group sessions: she discussed how when writing the materials, everyone

in the team was allocated a task- someone would locate materials, someone else would

adapt them and someone would create different resources. In classrooms though, for a

teacher to implement the syllabus, and not rely solely on the resources supplied, that

teacher would need to do the work of several and there just is not enough time to do that

for each class that one teaches.

5.3.6 Lack of shared understanding

Crawford (1999) made a valid prediction concerning the implementation of the 2000

syllabus prior to its introduction into schools saying:

… respondents still look at language in terms of linguistic structures to be taught

rather than as discourse to be experienced through contexts of use. The task-

146

based embedded approach advocated in the new syllabus is thus somewhat at

variance with current practices and will require considerable negotiation if

teachers are to change their approach rather than assimilate the new syllabus into

current practice (p.397).

Based on my results, this is an accurate portrayal of what is happening now that the

syllabus has been in schools for six years. As discussed earlier in this chapter, many

teachers’ concepts of language does not seem to have moved beyond the idea of

language as a system to be learnt, which explains the problem many teachers are having

with implementing this syllabus as intended. It is not possible to use this syllabus as

outlined in the syllabus document if language is still viewed in this way.

Crawford accurately predicts how this syllabus will be implemented stating, “While

respondents share some attitudes and beliefs, there are also considerable differences

which are likely to result in very different interpretations of the new syllabus

documents” (p. 360). This has very clearly been shown by the results of the survey and

focus groups in my study. There is a significant lack of shared understanding about what

constitutes ‘using the syllabus’, with seemingly very few in this sample implementing

the syllabus as the creators intended. This becomes a problem if there is to be any

uniformity in approach between different schools. While it is not suggested that all

schools be covering the same material on the same day, a strong task-based approach has

been chosen as the methodology for LOTE based on current SLA research and

consideration of the context with which teachers are faced, albeit quite varied in

Queensland. It is then up to the teacher whether the modules supplied are used, or

whether they create their own, more relevant units for use in their classrooms.

This lack of shared understanding concerning implementation of the syllabus was a very

significant finding and is, essentially, at the very heart of the issue of teachers’ problems

with implementation. While the groups outlined in section 5.1 are those teachers who

claim to be using the syllabus, it became clear that there is significant variation in

teachers’ understanding of what this entails. For example, some teachers interpreted

147

“using the syllabus” as using the modules provided on the CDs, while others saw it in

more general terms, stating they were creating units around the six fields outlined in the

syllabus. Yet another interpretation was simply the use of a task-based approach, with no

reference to the embeddedness of the content. To add further to this, teachers’

interpretation of the term ‘task’ also varied, with many using ‘activity’ interchangeably

during the discussions. While teachers did focus on the aspect of ‘real language for real

use’ (QSCC 2000: 8), many participants still discussed what they do in the classroom in

terms of vocabulary and functions. This is concurrent with results seen in Crawford

(1999), who states “participants continued to discuss the content in terms of functions,

vocabulary and sentence patterns rather than tasks which encourage learners to choose

from their full repertoire range whatever this might be” (p.348). Despite the years that

have passed between Crawford’s study (1999) and the current research project, teachers

still mention the same issues, indicating that many teachers continue to view language as

a system, and for many, understanding has not evolved to seeing language as a social

practice. This aids in explaining why teachers are not implementing the syllabus as

intended, since it is on the view of language as social practice that this syllabus is based.

Clear evidence of this lack of shared understanding of the syllabus can be seen when

teachers’ attitudes to the role of focus on form are examined. A frequent complaint

which featured both in the survey and in the focus group sessions, was the lack of

guidance provided for the teaching of focus on form. Many teachers were appalled by

the lack of sequence given for covering grammatical structures, yet working in a

predetermined sequence is no longer considered the most effective way of acquiring a

second language, with TBI working on this premise. Clearly, these teachers do not have

a complete understanding of TBI, where grammar is not covered sequentially, but

instead integrated as necessary for task completion, not as the basis of a course. Carr

(2005) discusses focus on form, saying that while this approach allows learners to

acquire a good understanding of the language as a ‘linguistic system’, and their skills in

reading and writing are good, outside the constraints of the exercises they have been

used to, these learners are considerably less able to use the target language in real

situations, which is the aim of TBI. Equally noteworthy, is the fact that several teachers

148

were not familiar with the term ‘focus on form’. This again demonstrates the lack of

shared understanding among teachers.

5.4 Scope and limitations of the study

This study differs from many others in that it is teacher focused. The research presents

teachers’ views on the use of the syllabus at the classroom level. It may be useful in

future research to investigate student reactions to the syllabus, as this study only covers

teacher opinion.

The main findings of this research are that there is currently alack of shared

understanding and there are deficiencies in many teachers’ understanding of TBI. While

other factors have been discovered which are problematic for teachers who are

attempting to implement the syllabus, such as teacher proficiency, many of the issues

raised by teachers were traceable to a lack of understanding of the syllabus.

The scope of this project did not extend to observing teachers in the classroom but

instead relied on teachers self-reporting on their practice. Observing teachers

implementing the syllabus may have been a useful method of data collection, however it

became apparent from the survey and follow up focus groups that none of the teachers in

this study were implementing the syllabus as intended, but instead, there were various

interpretations of what was expected. Thus, studying individual teachers would have

proved irrelevant if the aim were to provide an example of best practice, given that the

findings contain no single, consistent model of implementation.

5.5 Recommendations

This section offers several recommendations and practical suggestions based on the

findings of this study. Some recommendations relate to the syllabus itself, in the form of

revision of wording and expectations. Other recommendations are of a more practical

149

nature and are aimed at reaching a shared understanding among teachers of the exact

expectations of syllabus implementation.

5.5.1 Adaptations to the syllabus

As mentioned previously, the Queensland Years 4-10 French Syllabus was written in a

context where LOTE was strong in schools, and was intended to extend down to year 4,

and upwards to year 10. Currently, this is not happening, and given the current state of

LOTE in Queensland, this is unlikely to occur in the near future. Most schools have

compulsory LOTE from year 6-8, which explains the large number of respondents who

cited the difficulty of the language for students as one of the weaknesses of the syllabus.

By year eight, students should already have had four years of instruction. The syllabus

needs to be revised to reflect this situation.

Aside from this, the syllabus is written with the expectation of reasonable time

allocations for LOTE each week, even if, for the majority of teachers, time allocation

was not an issue. TBI takes time, both in the classroom, and outside the classroom, in

the form of teacher preparation time, thus allocations should reflect this. Further to this,

expectations about what is covered in a year need to be revised to take into account the

time allocations that teachers are working with. The primary teachers referred to the

greater ease with which they were able to confer with teachers from other KLAs,

however this is often genuinely difficult for secondary teachers. If an embedded program

is to be successfully implemented, there needs to be time allocated for teachers from

other KLAs to collaborate. This should not be expected to occur in teachers’ own time.

Currently in primary schools, LOTE time often equates with non-contact time for

principal teachers. As a result, many classroom teachers report behaviour management

issues once the classroom teacher has departed. LOTE should not be viewed as non-

contact time, but as an equally important component to the curriculum, with which the

classroom teacher assists.

150

As shown by the results provided by both the survey and focus group sessions, the

implementation of the 2000 French syllabus is erratic at best, and of those claiming to be

implementing it, understandings of the syllabus are very inconsistent, resulting in varied

applications in the classroom. There are two actions that are needed to remedy this

situation: The first is a rewording of parts of the syllabus to clarify what is expected; and

the second, is a renewed round of professional development, which shall be covered in

the following section.

As mentioned previously in this chapter, there is an inadequate explanation in the

syllabus document of the type of task-based approach expected of Queensland teachers,

and nor is the aspect of embeddedness covered in great detail. This is of particular

concern to those who did not receive the initial professional development associated

with the implementation of the syllabus. Clarification of these aspects could benefit

teachers, and facilitate a shared understanding of the syllabus.

5.5.2 Recommendations to assist in implementation of the syllabus

As mentioned, another step needed if there is to be a shared understanding of the

syllabus involves a renewed program of professional development for teachers. This

would serve not only to address inconsistencies in teacher understanding of the syllabus,

but may also inspire and renew enthusiasm for the use of such an approach to language

teaching and learning. In its initial stages of implementation, there was a significant

amount of professional development for teachers involving the use of the 2000 syllabus

and reportedly, based on informal discussion with one of the people involved in these

programs, teachers were for the most part, fairly receptive. Since that time, there are a

great number of teachers who have entered French teaching who have received no

training at all. In light of this lack of training, at this point in time, the organization of

some professional development sessions would once again benefit teachers, particularly

those who have not attended past sessions. Renewed professional development would

also benefit those who attended the previous round, revising the syllabus and answering

practical questions which have arisen during its implementation.

151

In order for these sessions to be of great benefit, it is not simply enough for them to be

offered to those volunteering to attend. As evidenced by the data in this study, for some

teachers, the issue of getting released for professional development is a problem, and a

real barrier to their participation. If professional development sessions are to be

successful, funding should be allocated to teacher release for the period of the

workshops, as was the case initially, thus ensuring that all teachers are in attendance and

are able to access the information required for successful implementation. These

sessions need to be conducted statewide, for all teachers.

In terms of content, as well as the practicalities of classroom implementation, such as

collation of resources and creation of modules, these sessions should aim to provide

teachers with a very clear explanation of the syllabus and its expectations, in order for

teachers as a group to have some consistency in their understanding of what the syllabus

entails. It is not simply enough to cover the syllabus in the practical sense; teachers

should also be made aware of the theory behind the methodology, in particular what a

strong version of TBI might entail, and why this is currently the methodology of choice.

In doing so, teachers may be more inclined to attempt TBI, having been made aware of

its many benefits. Assistance in how to operate in the role of facilitator may also be of

use for some teachers who, from their survey responses, do not entirely understand this

concept.

In addition to professional development sessions, there are a number of teachers who

showed enthusiasm for the renewal of once a month sessions where teachers come

together and swap resources around a central theme.17 It seems useful to take this idea

further, and as suggested by one focus group participant, teachers could use this time to

work together to create whole units, rather than simply collecting photocopies. In order

for those teachers who are isolated geographically to benefit from this, teachers could

collaborate online during the creation of units, and then these units could subsequently

be published on the internet to enable all teachers to access them. Naturally, these

17 This used to occur at the LOTE centre on a Friday afternoon once a month.

152

sessions would be language specific which would thus allow teachers to create units that

also incorporate the intercultural aspect lacking in the generic modules created for the

syllabus CDs. It is important to note here that the aim would not be the creation of

generic modules useable across schools with very different contexts. The units would

simply act as a guide or inspiration for teachers to adapt to suit their unique contexts.

Having teachers collaborating regularly would aid in maintaining a shared

understanding, and would also facilitate those entering the profession to share in this.

An issue that was raised to me during the focus groups was the lack of “policing” of the

implementation of the 4-10 Syllabus, unlike the senior syllabus. In fact, school

principals are responsible for ensuring teachers follow this syllabus, though

unfortunately in reality, this rarely seems to happen. Principals with no LOTE-specific

knowledge cannot be expected to monitor the implementation of this syllabus anymore

than they can be expected to be an expert in a number of subjects offered by their

school. It is unrealistic to demand that principals be given this duty. Instead, if there is to

be widespread use of this syllabus, it is crucial that there be some other form of

accountability. Teachers of senior French undergo a process of moderation and a similar

procedure could be very effective for years 4-10 French teachers. However, instead of

samples of work being sent to a panel for moderation, where feasible, it would be more

beneficial for teachers to meet together and exhibit work samples and receive feedback

both from other teachers in attendance and from a trained facilitator who can assist with

any questions or difficulties. This model would lessen the pressure on teachers in

comparison to the senior moderation process, in that it would also be a time for sharing

units and resources, and not solely a time for inspecting the quality of teachers’ work.

Many teachers expressed their enthusiasm for sessions where the sharing of resources

could take place, or more constructively, as suggested already, the “moderation”

sessions could also concurrently incorporate the idea of collaborating to create whole

units of work, rather than just a swapping of isolated resources.

This syllabus was introduced with great gusto: good funding, a strong introductory

professional development program and support materials. The methodology is based on

153

sound theoretical principles of second language acquisition. Unfortunately, enthusiasm

for the syllabus did not endure, and within a short while support was waning. While

there are some contextual factors which present difficulties to implementing the syllabus

as intended, the main issue causing lack of support is the absence of understanding what

is expected. With some revisions to the syllabus document and efforts made to reach a

shared understanding among teachers, this situation can begin to be resolved.

154

APPENDIX 1A

EXAMPLE OF A FRENCH MODULE

155

APPENDIX 1B

EXAMPLE RESOURCE FROM SYLLABUS CD

156

APPENDIX 2A

TEACHER SURVEY TEACHER INFORMATION 1. (Please tick appropriate box) Male Female 2. In which system are you currently employed? Education Qld Catholic Education Independent Education

3. Please indicate a) How many French classes you teach at each level

b) How much contact time is there for each of those classes in your school per week.

Year levels How many classes do

you teach (eg.2x year 4 or 1x year 4 and 1x year 6)

How many minutes per week does each class receive ( eg. Year 7- 70 minutes)

Years 4-6 minutes Year 7 minutes Year 8 minutes Year 9/10 minutes Year 11/12 minutes 4. In relation to your entire teaching load, approximately what percentage is comprised of French? 25% 50% 75% 100% 5. Please indicate in which age group you belong. 20-30 30-40 40-50 50+ 6. How many years have you been teaching? (Please write total teaching experience, even if not French and please round to nearest year) __________years 7. How many years have you been teaching French? (Please round to nearest year) __________ years 8. Do you teach any other subjects? Please specify. _______________________________________________________________________ 9. Please write your LOTE qualifications, if any. _______________________________________________________________________ 10. Please indicate which group describes you. Native speaker Background Speaker Neither

157

11. Have you spent a time greater than 2 months in a French speaking country? Yes (please specify how long) _________________ No 12. How would you rate your own French proficiency? Please rate yourself by ticking the appropriate box for each macroskill based on the scale given below. Minimal Able to understand the essential information only in very simple, very

predictable texts about very familiar topics; able to make oneself understood in face-to-face interactions on familiar topics with sympathetic interlocutor and to communicate basic factual information about very familiar things, despite lots of errors

Reasonable Able to understand the main ideas of straightforward, fairly predictable authentic texts (e.g. personal letters, TV, radio, newspapers) and convey opinions fairly precisely ‘off the cuff’ (i.e. without rehearsal). Frequent errors do not prevent getting the message across.

Good Able to understand most social interaction between native speakers at normal speeds and most popular authentic texts; able to discuss own and others’ opinions; usually able to adapt to the formality of the occasion; able to read short, popular literature for pleasure.

Very good Able to understand and produce quite complex written and spoken language in academic and work contexts as well as social situations although subtle cultural references may be missed and some accents may create problems; rarely at a loss for words and language mostly accurate

Native/near native

Able to function as well, or nearly as well as a native speaker of similar age and level of education

* Scale taken from Crawford 1999

Minimal Reasonable Good Very good Native or near Native

Listening Speaking Reading Writing

13. Did you use the 1988 French syllabus? Yes No Not teaching French 14. Do you currently follow the year 4-10 Queensland French Syllabus? Yes, in its entirety I only sample resources (PLEASE GO DIRECTLY TO QUESTION 20) No, I don’t follow it at all If not using the syllabus, please briefly indicate why.

158

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (PLEASE GO DIRECTLY TO QUESTION 32) 15. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following based on the scale below. (Please circle appropriate response) Space has been made for optional comments and issues you may wish to raise regarding the syllabus. 1- strongly agree 2- agree 3- disagree 4- strongly disagree A) Students are enthusiastic about task-based education Comments _______________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

1 2 3 4

B) I enjoy teaching a task-based syllabus Comments

_______________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

1 2 3 4

C) The move to a more learner-centered syllabus is beneficial for students Comments _______________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

1 2 3 4

D) My students have the necessary skills to deal with a learner-centered syllabus Comments _______________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

1 2 3 4

E) When working on tasks, students spend the majority of time engaged in work Comments _______________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

1 2 3 4

F) When working on tasks, many students are frequently off task unless they are being individually monitored Comments _______________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

1 2 3 4

G) The suggested topics in the syllabus are interesting for students Comments _______________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

1 2 3 4

H) I have sufficient general knowledge to teach the topics in the 2000 Syllabus

1 2 3 4

159

Comments _______________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ I) The time allocated to LOTE in my school allows enough for time for me to teach the current syllabus Comments _______________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

1 2 3 4

J) There is sufficient focus on form in the 2000 syllabus Comments _______________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

1 2 3 4

K) A task-based embedded syllabus, such as the current Qld 4-10 French syllabus, puts a higher demand on teachers’ language skills than a textbook course Comments _______________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

1 2 3 4

L) I feel that I am adequately prepared for my role as facilitator in the 2000 syllabus Comments _______________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

1 2 3 4

M) Overall, I feel the 2000 Syllabus is working well in my situation Comments _______________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

1 2 3 4

16. Do you ever confer with teachers from other Key Learning Areas regarding topics to be taught in French? Yes No 17. Do you feel that a high French proficiency is necessary to be able to effectively teach the current syllabus? Yes No 18. Do you ever refer to the suggested teacher language supplied on the syllabus CDs? Always Sometimes Never 19. Do you feel that a teacher with limited proficiency would be able to successfully teach the 2000 syllabus using the materials and sample language supplied on the CD? Yes No 20. Has your use of French in the classroom increased since implementing the 2000 syllabus? Yes No 21. Do you use the resources supplied on the syllabus CDs? Frequently Occasionally Rarely

160

22. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following based on the scale below. (Please circle appropriate response) Space has been made for optional comments you may wish to add. 1- strongly agree 2- agree 3- disagree 4- strongly disagree A) The resources are level appropriate Comments _______________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

1 2 3 4

B) The resources engage the students Comments

________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

1 2 3 4

C) I need to add many additional resources to what is supplied Comments _______________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

1 2 3 4

D) I have access to sufficient resources to teach the 2000 syllabus Comments _______________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

1 2 3 4

23. Have you been informed of the existence of the resource kits created to complement the modules of the syllabus which are available from the Qld LOTE Centre? Yes No 24. Do you use the aforementioned LOTE centre kits? Yes No 25. What do you see as the strengths associated with the resources supplied on the syllabus CDs? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 26. What do you see as weaknesses in terms of resources? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

161

27. Have you had any training in the implementation of the Years 4-10 French syllabus, including pre-service education? Yes No 28. If professional development sessions in the implementation of the 2000 French Syllabus were offered, would you be interested in attending? Yes No 29. Is there anything specific that you would like to see covered in professional development sessions for the 2000 syllabus? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 30. Overall, in your opinion, what are the strengths of the year 4-10 Qld French syllabus? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 31. What do you see to be the weaknesses of the current syllabus? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 32. How would you describe your role as teacher? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 33. Please describe your idea of an ideal French classroom. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 34. Are you willing to be contacted to chat further regarding these issues? Yes No Please provide contact details: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

162

APPENDIX 2B

TEACHER INFORMATION LETTER Dear Teachers of French, My name is Candice Sparks and I am currently completing a Master of Arts by Research at Queensland University of Technology. I am investigating how the 2000 French Years 4-10 Queensland Syllabus is being implemented in the classroom and as such, I am seeking volunteers who can complete a short survey. In order to participate, respondents must be currently teaching French (no pre-service teachers please). Responses will remain confidential and you may choose to remain anonymous should you wish to do so, by leaving blank the contact details section on the final page of the survey. In order for this to be a valid study, I am seeking as many volunteers as possible to assist with my research. Although I know we all have very busy schedules, please spare 10-20 minutes and complete the survey, as not only will it benefit my research, but in the long term, the outcome will hopefully be of benefit for all students and teachers alike in language education in Queensland. Should you be willing to participate, please place your completed survey in the enclosed pre-paid envelope at your soonest convenience. My appreciation and thanks in advance for your contribution to this research project. Kind Regards, Candice Sparks Phone: (07)38482265 Mobile: 0407389232

163

164

APPENDIX 3

ETHICS CLEARANCE

165

166

APPENDIX 4 FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET

167

168

BIBLIOGRAPHY AFMLTA. (2005). Professional standards for accomplished teaching of languages and cultures: Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations. Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barnes, D., Thomson, J., & Watson, K. (1978). Language in the classroom: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia. Beale, J. (2002). Is communicative language teaching a thing of the past? Babel, 37(1), 12-16. Bell, T. R. (2005). Behaviour and attitudes of effective foreign Language teachers: Results of a questionnaire study. Foreign Language Annals, 38(2), 259-270. Beretta, A., & Davies, A. (1985). Evaluation of the bangalore project. In N. Prabhu, Second language pedagogy (pp. 144-153). Oxford: Oxford University Press. BSSS Junior French Syllabus. (1988). Queensland: Board of Secondary School Studies. Breen, M. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 187-206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brindley, G. (Ed.). (1990). The second language curriculum in action. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research. Candlin, C., & McNamara, T. F. (1989). Language, learning and community. Sydney: National Centre for Language Teaching and Research. Carless, D. R. (2001). A case study of curriculum implementation in Hong Kong. In D. R. Hall & A. Hewings (Eds.), Innovation in English language teaching (pp. 263-274). London: Routledge. Carless, D. R. (2003). Factors in the implementation of task-based teaching in primary schools. System, 31(4), 485-500. Carr, J. (2002). LOTE study in Qld: responding to the challenge of (gendered) disaffection. ALM(Jan/Feb/Mar), 7-9, 18. Carr, J. (2005). More thoughts on the usefulness of tasks in the multi-level Classroom. Babel, 39(3), 31-36. Clyne, M., Jenkins, C., Chen, I. Y., Tsokalidou, R., & Wallner, T. (1994). Developing second language from primary school: models and outcomes. ACT: National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia Limited. Cook, V. (2001). Second language learning and language teaching (3rd ed.). London: Arnold. Crawford, J. (1999). Teacher response to policy and practice in the teaching of LOTE. Unpublished PhD, Griffith University, Brisbane. Crawford, J. (2002). Do languages have a place in the curriculum. Babel, 36(3), 12-16. Crookes, G., & Gass, S. (1993). Tasks in a pedagogic context: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

169

Cross, R. (2005). Making sense of the eclectic- conceptualising teacher practice in the communicative classroom. Babel, 40(2), 16-20. Curtain, D., & Pescola, C. (1994). Languages and children: making the match: foreign language instruction for an early start grades K-8. NY: Longman Publishing Group. Curtain, H., & Dahlberg, C. (2004). Languages and children, making the match: new languages for young learners. Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. Denyer, M. (2004). Rond point guide pédagogique. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble. Department of Education Queensland (1989). In other words. Brisbane: Department of Education Queensland. Department of Education Queensland (1991). Years 1 to 10 English Language Arts: Syllabus and Guidelines. Brisbane: Department of Education Queensland. Department of Education Queensland (1996). LOTE Kits A, B, C! : Queensland Department of Education. Diffey, N. (1995). 'General language education' and second language teaching in Canada. Language Awareness, 4(4), 189-201. Ellis, R. (1988). Classroom second language development. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd. Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition: learning in the classroom. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. Retrieved 28/4/2006, from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/September_05_re.php Hammerly. (1991). Fluency and accuracy: towards a balance in language teaching and learning. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.). Harlow: Longman. Hird, B. (2003). What are language teachers trying to do in their lessons. Babel, 37(3), 24-29. Holec, H. (1987). The learner as manager: managing learning or managing to learn? In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 145-158). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall International. Hubermann, M., Thompson, C. L., & Weiland, S. (1997). Perspectives on the teaching career. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teacher and training. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Jennings, K., & Doyle, T. (1996). Curriculum innovation, teamwork and the management of change. In D. Willis & J. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 169-177). Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann English Language Teaching. Johnson, R. K. (Ed.). (1989). The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

170

Klippel, F. (2003). New prospects or imminent danger-The impact of English medium instruction on education in Germany. Prospect, 18(1), 68-81. Liebscher, G., & Dailey-O'Cain, J. (2005). Learner code-switching in the content- based foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89(ii), 234-247. Lightbown, P. (2000). Anniversary article classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 431-462. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2001). How languages are learned (revised ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. Tesol Quarterly, 26(1), 27-55. Mangubhai, D., Dashwood, A., & Howard, B. (2000). Sometimes I can't help myself - communicative language teaching in the primary classroom. Babel, 35(1), 13-17. McKay, P. (1996). A classroom-based study of LOTE teaching and learning: what do the data tell us about focus on form? Or how communicative are we and how communicative should we be? Paper presented at the who's afraid of teaching grammar?, University of Queensland. Norris, S.(1999). Language teacher proficiency or teacher language proficiency. A report prepared for the NALSAS taskforce Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers. New York: Prentice Hall. Nunan, D., & Lamb, C. (1996). The self-directed teacher: managing the learning process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Opie, L. (2006). To be or not to be? That is the question. LOTE education in the rural district of "Black Swan". Teacher Learning Network, 13(1), 9-10. Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies, what every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Pennington, M. (1996) When input becomes intake: Tracing the sources of teacher attitude change. In D. Freeman & J. Richards (Eds). Teacher learning in language teaching.(pp 320-348) USA: Cambridge University Press. Prabhu, N. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Puddhu, P. (2003). A whole-school approach to curriculum planning for effective LOTE programs. Learning Matters, 8(2), 48-51. QSCC. (1997). QSCC- LOTE Environmental Scan. Retrieved 16/11/05, from www.qsa.qld.edu.au/yrs1to10/kla/lote/docs/en_scan.pdf QSCC. (2000a). Years 4-10 French Syllabus. Brisbane: Queensland School Curriculum Council. QSCC. (2000b). Years 4-10 French Syllabus CDS. Robinson, P. (1996). Consciousness, rules, and instructed second language acquisition. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.

171

Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 15-30). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall International. Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R. (1999). Multiple data sources: converging and diverging conceptualisations of LOTE teaching. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 24(1), 17-33. Scarino, A. (2003). Transition and continuity in learning languages in the school setting. Babel, 38(1), 4-8. Scrivener, J. (1996). ARC: a descriptive model for classroom work on language. In D. Willis & J. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 79-92). Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann English Language Teaching. Seedhouse, P. (1999). Task-based interaction. ELT Journal, 53(3), 149-156. Senior, R. (2006). The experience of language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sheen, R. (1994). A critical analysis of the advocacy of the task-based syllabus. Tesol Quarterly, 28(1), 127-151. Shopen, G. (2000). Literacy and languages a classroom perspective. Babel, 35(3), 16-21. Siu-yin Tong, A., Adamson, B., & Man-wai Che, M. (2000). Tasks in English language and Chinese language. In B. Adamson, T. Kwan & C. Ka-ki (Eds.), Changing the curriculum the impact of reform on primary schooling in Hong Kong (pp. 145-174). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Skehan, P. (1996a). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In D. Willis & J. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 17-30). Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann English Language Teaching. Skehan, P. (1996b). A Framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62. Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (2002). Second language acquisition. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An Introduction to Applied Linguistics (pp. 115-132). London: Arnold. Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: the case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 376-401. Towell, R. (1991). Experimenting with an integrated syllabus design in modern languages. Language, culture and curriculum, 4(1), 1-15. Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (Eds.). (1987). Learner strategies in language learning. New York: Prentice Hall International. Westwood, R. (2006). What do schools really want in a language teacher? Teacher, April, 38-44. Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Willis, D. (2003). Rules, patterns and words grammar and lexis in English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

172

Willis, J. (1996a). A framework for task-based learning. Essex: Longman. Willis, J. (1996b). A flexible framework for task-based learning. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 52-62). Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann English Language Teaching. Woods, D. (1996) Teacher cognition in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Woodward. (1996). Paradigm shift and the language teaching profession. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 4-9). Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann English Language Teaching. Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1-27.