Action Research in Schools                                                                  Josh Becker

Final Report                                                                                                       Fall 2000

60 Minutes toward Norwegian Fluency

THE CONTEXT

Five Colleges Foreign Language Resource Center/

Self-Instructional Language Program

      For the past two years, I have been leading Norwegian Conversation Groups to augment the Five Colleges¹ Self Instructional Language Program.  This program is meant to provide a venue for students to learn languages not offered at any of the colleges or universities within the Five Colleges community (University of Massachusetts/Amherst, Amherst College, Hampshire College, Smith College and Mt. Holyoke College).  Students use study guides, texts, and tapes to gain the rudiments of their language of choice.  Their grades are determined by an examining professor who is brought in from other institutions at the end of each semester.  In the case of Norwegian, a professor comes from Minnesota to conduct interviews with the students.

Conversation Partners

      Each student is paired with a ³Conversation Partner² with whom students meet once a week.  The purpose of meeting with Conversation Partners is to provide an environment where students can practice and gain exposure to the target language in authentic communicative situations.  This communicative approach to language learning stems from a holistic view of language learning which ties the learning of languages to the experience of learning native languages as children (Baker, 1996), as opposed to traditional approaches to language learning in academic settings which focus on learning the fundamentals of grammar as a means to gain fluency.  

      The typical Conversation Partner is a native speaker of the language, often an undergraduate exchange student from a country where the language is spoken.  Most Conversation Partners have not been trained in the teaching of languages, and are not familiar with the experiences of foreigners learning their language.  From the standpoint of the Five Colleges Foreign Language Resource center, this is not problematic: Conversation Partners are instructed to speak with the students in the target language at all times, to provide authentic exposure to the target language, and not to explain or teach the language.

      My approach to the Conversation Partner role is altered both by my experiential and philosophical background.  Regarding my experience, I am considered a ³native speaker² of Norwegian, although I did not learn the language until I was in my teens, when I learned it in order to complete my high school education at a Norwegian high school when my father was stationed in Oslo with NATO.  After high school, I studied Scandinavian Philology at the Universität Hamburg in Germany, and have held a variety of language-teaching jobs throughout the last twelve years.  These experiences have provided me with different qualifications than those of the other Conversation Partners, in particular the ability to explain the grammar and usage of the language from the learner¹s point of reference. 

      My approach to the Conversation Partner role differs philosophically from that as prescribed by the Five Colleges Language program not only based on my experience with learning and teaching languages (and Norwegian in particular).  My philosophical approach differs based on feedback I have received from students in previous semesters, where students have reported frustration with other Conversation Partners who cannot offer explanations or true guidance in learning the language.  While students seek authentic communication in the target language, they also seek coaching and clarification.

      Sometimes a student is the only one studying a particular language in a given semester.  When this happens, the Conversation Partner and the student work one-on-one.  Usually, however, there are three to five students taking Norwegian at the same level at the same time, thus the Conversation Partner becomes a conversation group leader. 

Meet the boys

      The group with which I currently work consists of three 19-year old sophomore students, two from Amherst College and one from UMASS.  This is the second semester we have worked together.  All three are highly motivated to learn Norwegian, although the source of their motivation varies dramatically.  One student has had a Norwegian girlfriend, has visited Norway twice, and is interested in returning to Norway for pleasure.  Another student is of Norwegian heritage, and sees learning the language as a way to connect with his family history.  The third student is from Russia, and sees learning Norwegian as a way to help him professionally when he returns to his home country to foster his career by specializing in Internet expansion in the Baltic region.

      Norwegian is not the first foreign language to be learned by these students.  Two students are taking German concurrently to their study of Norwegian -- one of these students is the Russian student, who also had to learn English as a foreign language.  Another student took French throughout his four years of high school.  These past exposures to other languages serve the students well: all three performed exceptionally well on the level 1 exam, and make notable progress each week we work together.

      We meet weekly for an hour, usually in a classroom at Amherst College.  Sometimes we meet in student lounges, or library study rooms, and twice at my home.  The reason for the changing venues is that often times our schedules do not permit us to meet at the same time each week, requiring us to find whatever space is available.

RESEARCH FOCUS

An initial concern

      I began this Action Research with a concern for how communication flows during our weekly sessions.  I described communication in sessions as being like a wagon wheel, where I am the hub and the students are spokes.  Over time, I feared this would lead to lessened student interest and learning.  I saw the ³communication flow problem² as being connected to a ³use of time problem² in sessions, whereby I was concerned with getting the most from our limited time together.

      As a result from these initial considerations, I set out to investigate three aspects of our conversation group sessions over time: my ³talk time², student interest, and student performance.  It was my hypothesis that by reducing the amount of time I spent talking per session, I could off-set potential waning student interest which I believed would result in declining student performance.

      The research notebook group was a great help in clarifying my initial concerns.    In our weekly discussions, I was able to better understand the context of the Norwegian conversation group as it became necessary for me to be clear in explaining my situation to the other group members.  Group feedback led me to a clearer understanding of the differences between my approach to the conversation group and the approach advocated by the Five Colleges Foreign Language Resource Center. 

An evolving question

      Throughout the semester, the focus of my Action Research changed dramatically.  Although I began with a focus on the amount of ³my talk time² versus ³student talk time², I came to see that this variable in and of itself did not hold the key to productive use of time, student interest, or student performance.  Because of this, the focus of my Action Research turned away from hypothesis testing -- using talk-time as an independent variable ­ to a more exploratory approach in trying to fully understand the context of our Norwegian conversation group.  In looking at the context of the group I took into consideration factors affecting the sessions themselves as well factors affecting each student¹s approach to learning Norwegian.

      Three elements led me to this changed focus to the Action Research.  First, early data collection led me to believe that benefits from analyzing the amount of talk-time in sessions were too few to justify the time it was taking to do so (see Methods and Results sections).  Second, questions posed by my research notebook group guided me to deeper reflection of the context of the research, which encouraged me to broaden the scope of enquiry.  Reviewing some research literature on second language acquisition by adults provided the third impetus to change my research focus.  

A look at the literature

      Throughout the semester, I have drawn on much the research on second language learning for adults has to offer for activities and approaches to my facilitation.  Mellor¹s (1997) detailed account of an independent learner¹s course of study of German helped to inform me to ways to structure Norwegian grammar explanations.  From Arthur (1995) I received inspiration for forming alliances with my students, drawing upon their needs and interests to guide us through the use of time in sessions.  Although his audience is teachers to adults learning English as a Second language, Bliss (1998) helped me to perceive functional communication skills.  Bliss (1998) also explained the differences between grammatical, topical, functional and communicative approaches to instruction, which helped me to use the best each has to offer in the unique setting of weekly Norwegian conversation groups at this level.  This article also provided good food for thought for me as a facilitator as this specific group moves into higher levels of Norwegian in future semesters.

      Perhaps the most inspirational article from the literature I came across is from Coyle and Bisgyer (1999).  This article explores the notion of ³Œgenuine¹ communication² in adult second language classrooms, and how this can be attained even in environments where students possess only ³Œrestricted¹ language² in the target language (Coyle and Bisgyer, 1999).  

      In the research literature I found ample guidance for specific techniques for teaching foreign languages to adults (Archer, 1995; Jones, 1998; Mellor, 1997), as well as theoretical considerations to help frame my understanding of the context in which my students learn (Baker, 1996; Bliss, 1998; Coyle and Bisgyer, 1999).  However, I found no research which examined specifically what teacher:student talk-time ratio is optimal.  This was a further indication that it would be better for me to concentrate on understanding the context of the conversation group sessions, with a specific focus on student interest and performance.

METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION

The researcher and the researched

      At the outset of data collection, students were given consent forms to sign.  All three did so willingly.  I engaged the students in a discussion whereby I explained the nature of the research project in terms of its goal being my improved practice as a Conversation Partner.  In order to do so, I explained, I would be asking for input from them as students in various forms, and would be collecting data to help in my analysis.  Students understood that I would be looking at communication flow, their interest and their performance.

Types of data

      As with the research question, the methods of data collection evolved during the course of the semester.  It may be most helpful to explain the methods in terms of the types of data collected and when.

      I used lesson plans and artifacts from brought in for conversation starters (such as magazine articles) to evaluate how affective sessions were organized.  These are examples of types of data already available.  I also include my own on- going reflections on the sessions in this category.

      Tape recordings of session which were analyzed in terms of use of time, my perception of student interest, and student performance constitute one portion of data which was generated.

       Included in this category of generated and collected data  are instruments which I designed to record student interest and performance, as well as to document factors affecting student participation in the Norwegian learning process.  Among these are:

      1.  ³Temperature gauges² which students turned in at the end of each session.  On a slip of paper, I had each student rate themselves on a scale of 1 (great) to 5 (none) in terms of their interest and performance during that day¹s session.  The papers were put in a sealed envelope and analyzed during the first week of December.

      2.  ³E-mail interviews² in which I asked each student about amount of time spent on Norwegian, use of resources available, and feedback on sessions, to include questions about communication flow.  Two such interviews were conducted, on November 2 and November 30.  On December 7th a final e-mail interview was conducted, which asked specifically for feedback regarding students¹ interpretation of ³interest² which I requested on the ³temperature gauges², as well their critiques of our final session of the semester.

FINDINGS

Communication Flow

      The focus of my research veered away from communication flow through the semester.  Nonetheless, some interesting findings helped me confirm that I was correct in not pursuing this ³variable² too closely.

Text Box:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tape-recorded sessions from October 26 and November 25 showed little change in the amount of time I spoke versus students spoke during sessions, despite different lesson plans and approaches:

 

      Students also consistently reported in e-mail interviews that they felt as though I spoke ³just the right amount², and offered no feedback on any changes that should be made to sessions in this area.   However, in the interview done after the final session, which was conducted nearly exclusively in Norwegian in preparation for their exam, two students expressly stated how satisfied they were with the increased amount of time they spent speaking during the session. 

      This speaks to me of the need not to look at ³talk time² as a variable on which other variables depend.  Rather, it is important for me to understand that as student fluency improves, more opportunities will present themselves for increased genuine communication to occur among students in the target language.

Student interest and performance

      The tables on the following page summarize students¹ interest and performance levels through the semester.  ³My perception² scores are based on journal reflections and listening to tape recordings of sessions when available.  ³Student self-ratings² are based on the ³temperature gauges².

      It is interesting to note that I consistently under-rated students¹ interest, while students consistently under-rated their performance.  This could be due in part to the unclear parameters I set in defining these two items (see ³What¹s interesting?² below).  These finding could also be pointing to a certain amount of self-depreciation on both our parts: students not wanting to seem to haughty in their estimation of their performance, me not wanting to over-estimate the interest or importance our sessions have on students¹ learning.  

Student Interest & Performance Ratings

STUDENT A

Interest (1=WHOOPIE! ­ 5=BLECH!)

 

10/26

11/02

11/09

11/16

11/25

11/30

My perception

4

2

2

3

1

1

student self-rating

2

2

1

2

1

1

Performance (1=²A² ­ 5=²F²)

 

10/26

11/02

11/09

11/16

11/25

11/30

My perception

1

1

1

2

1

1

student self-rating

3

3

2

1

2

1

STUDENT B

Interest (1=WHOOPIE! ­ 5=BLECH!)

 

10/26

11/02

11/09

11/16

11/25

11/30

My perception

3

3

4

3

2

1

student self-rating

3

1

4

2

1

1

Performance (1=²A² ­ 5=²F²)

 

10/26

11/02

11/09

11/16

11/25

11/30

My perception

3

2

2

2

1

1

student self-rating

5

4

4

3

3

2

STUDENT C

Interest (1=WHOOPIE! ­ 5=BLECH!)

 

10/26

11/02

11/09

11/16

11/25

11/30

My perception

3

3

3

2

1

1

student self-rating

1

2

3

2

1

1

Performance (1=²A² ­ 5=²F²)

 

10/26

11/02

11/09

11/16

11/25

11/30

My perception

2

2

1

1

2

1

student self-rating

3

2

1

2

2

1

What¹s important?

      The following table summarizes selected answers from the e-mail surveys which pertain to students¹ use of resources and their perceptions of the importance of our conversation group sessions.

      It is interesting to note that pronunciation help shows up consistently as the most useful aspect of our sessions, while culture discussions in English and lack of grammar explanation are considered least helpful.  I would have thought these would be reversed, given the other resources available to students.  These findings point to how important it is that I never forget to tailor the sessions to the needs of the students, and that I remember that no two sessions or groups will be alike.

Student Survey Results

Question

Student A

Student B

Student C

How much time do you spend on Norwegian in a typical week?

4-5 hours

2-3 hours

4-5 hours

Rank resources in order of importance

textbook

cassettes

sessions

partner

workbook

internet

textbook

cassettes

sessions

partner

internet

translation

workbook

textbook

sessions

cassettes

workbook

internet

What do you find most useful about our sessions?

*pronunciation help

*using real-life dialog

*pronunciation help

*provides ³deadline² for keeping up with work

*current cultural information

*pronunciation help

*current cultural information

What do you find least useful about our sessions?

*talking too much about Norwegian culture in English

*not enough grammar explanation

(didn¹t answer)

What would you like to change about our sessions?

*work more with dialogs

*use more internet articles

*work more with grammar exercises

(didn¹t answer)

What¹s interesting?

      One glaring flaw in the data collection process was that I did not specify to students what I was looking for in asking for an ³interest² reading at the end of each session, other than to rate their ³interest² on a scale of 1 ( ³WHOOPIE!²) to 5 (³BLECH!).  In hindsight, I realize that I had not considered precisely what I meant by an ³interest² reading.  Subconsciously I was thinking about a global feel of their interest in learning Norwegian as experienced through our group sessions. 

      In an attempt to clarify this, I asked students in the final e-mail interview to explain to me what they were measuring when they gave me their ³interest² readings:

What did you consider to be ³interest² when giving me your weekly 1-5 ratings?

STUDENT A

STUDENT B

STUDENT C

I wrote down my interest in the way the hour went.

Sort of how I was feeling that day, and how that was working with my Norwegian.

How interested I was in Norwegian at the time.

Elements of my vague notions can be seen in all three answers, but it is clear that I must be more precise if I use such a scale in the future.

      It is interesting that, despite not being clear on the criterion for the interest reading, I was clear on the performance self-rating.  I asked students to rate themselves on a scale from 1 (³A²) to 5 (³F²) in terms of what grade they thought they would get were the exam to be held on that day, covering only material they should have learned by that point in the semester.

IMPLICATIONS

For this group

      The implication of this piece of Action Research as it pertains to these students is for us to understand the progression of the semester.  Performance improved over time, and  interest ­ by any definition ­ increased.  Feedback gained about individual activities will help inform us how we wish to proceed next semester.

      All students indicated that at the end of this semester, they feel competent to begin next semester with increased ³Norwegian-only² dialog time.  I believe that doing so will lead to increased genuine communication in Norwegian among the group, and will help meet the students¹ expressed needs.

      I asked the students if they would be interested in continuing with Action Research next semester.  All three readily agreed.  We will discuss how this can happen, and to what end we wish to pursue this.

For me as a Conversation Partner

      This piece of Action Research has shown me the importance of remembering the basics of second language instruction for adults: understand and respond to the needs of the students first, and encourage students to be active participants in the learning process.  It has also encouraged me to think critically about theoretical frameworks of language instruction, and to tailor my approaches to the context in which my students are learning.  I must remember the realities of coaching independent learners of a language in a mere sixty minutes a week.

      Further Action Research can be helpful for me as a Conversation Partner with students in the future.  It will help me track student progress.  More importantly, it will help me understand the uniqueness of each student and each group, and make me more cognizant of structuring our sessions accordingly.

For the Five Colleges Foreign Language Resource Center

      The FCFLRC was not aware of the details of this Action Research.  They were merely told that I would be conducting research on my own facilitation of the conversation group.  There were no objections to my conducting the research, and nobody indicated any interest in seeing the results.  However, I can see where the findings of this Action Research could have positive implications for the program as a whole.  Perhaps Action Research can be expanded to include more Conversation Partners in an attempt to document the various forms facilitation is successful with different languages, students and facilitators.

A FINAL THOUGHT

      The Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen has written: ³A community is like a ship; every one ought to be prepared to take the helm.²  Action Research provides ways for each practitioner to see herself in many ³ships² (her own practice, her interaction with her consultees, the organization in which she works), and in what ways she can better prepare herself to join with others to take the helms of each one.

REFERENCES

      Arthur, L., and Hurd, S., Eds. (1995).  The Adult Language Learner: A Guide to Good Teaching Practices.  EDRS Microfiche Availability.

      Baker, C.  (1996).  Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2d Edition.  Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

      Bliss, B. (1998).  Developing functional communication skills in adult ESL students.  EDRS Microfiche Availability.

      Coyle, J.M., and Bisgyer, D.M. (1999).  What constitutes Œgenuine¹ communication in the adult L2 classroom?  A search for definition through classroom observation research.  EDRS Microfiche Availability.

      Jones, F.  (1998).  My 10 favorite ESOL teaching games.  EDRS Microfiche Availability. 

      Mellor, Jeff.  (1997).  Learn to speak German: How the course is structured.  Die Unterrichtspraxis: Teaching German, 30, 2, p 185-90.