University of Helsinki
The LukSuS-project is funded by the Ministry of Education and Culture in 2010 – 2013
Research area: Oral language courses in foreign languages at the upper secondary school; teaching, studying, assessing
Project leader: Docent PhD Raili Hildén
PhD Student: MA Outi Hakola
Partners
Ministry of Education and Culture: Senior Inspector Anna Mikander
The Finnish National Board of Education: Counsellor of Education Paula Mattila
The Finnish National Board of Education: Counsellor of Education Terhi Seinä
The Finnish National Board of Education: Counsellor of Education Anu Halvari
Palmenia Centre for Continuing Education (University of Helsinki): Project planner Irene Wichman
The Federation of Foreign Language Teachers in Finland SUKOL: Chair Kari Jukarainen
Department of Teacher Education (University of Helsinki): Researcher Sirkku Kupiainen and project coordinator Jukka Marjanen (statistical analyses)
from the Centre for Educational Assessment
Goals
Three main goals:
1) gather feedback of the implementation and the impact of the curriculum change by asking foreign language teachers and students about their perceptions and experiences concerning oral language courses
2) collect suitable working methods to diversify teaching and assessment of foreign language skills
3) produce new data to be used both in teacher education and in-service training
The LukSuS- research project aims to gather feedback from both, teachers of foreign languages and students at the upper secondary school level concerning new, oral language courses in foreign languages ; the impact of the curriculum change and experiences about teaching and studying oral language on a separate course.
A new, advanced course in oral proficiency was introduced in the long syllabi of foreign languages in August 2010 as a mandatory part of the language program organized by the municipalities, but optional for the student to select. Oral language courses are organized in following eight languages: English, Swedish, Finnish, German, French, Russian, Spanish, Lappish.
Why?
Speaking as a vital component of communicative language ability has been included globally in the modern language curricula since decades. In the current Finnish syllabi the target levels for each of the four language skills, among them speaking, have been specified in terms of a CEFR related scale. This means that all areas of language teaching, studying as well as evaluating language skills are based on the CEFR in the National Core Curricula at the primary, secondary and the upper secondary school level. However, the status and teaching methods of oral proficiency in mainstream language teaching and learning has varied largely.
In August 2010 a new, advanced course in oral proficiency was introduced in the long syllabi of foreign languages as a mandatory part of the language program organized by the municipalities, but optional for the students at the upper secondary school level to select. Teachers are now in front of a partly new challenge. Oral language courses in foreign languages are to be held in every school at the upper secondary level and the courses include a mandatory oral test produced by the The Finnish National Board of Education (FNBE). This raises questions about:
A) Reliability of assessment
B) Criteria for assessments according to syllabi
Teachers must follow the given criteria when assessing students (Finnish version of the CEFR with 10 levels of proficiency: A1.1 – C2). They do not either have the choice to make final tests of their own as before August 2010 but to order them from a test bank. Tests are similar to all learners of the specific language despite the amount of students participating the courses, or the average level of their oral proficiency.
Theory basis
Teacher competences:
Shulman (1986): Pedagogical content knowledge
Clandinin & Connelly (1992)
Dwyer & Villegas (1993)
Friedrichsen et al. (2008)
Curriculum theory
Eisner & Vallance (1974)
Johnson (1989): Second language curriculum
Calderhead (1996): Teachers´ conceptions of education process
Cheung (2000): Teachers´ beliefs about curriculum design
Attitude theories (conceptions / perceptions / beliefs)
McDougall (1908): Components of attitude
Secord & Backman (1964)
Zanna & Rempel (1988)
Ekeblad & Bond (1994)
Trigwell & Prosser (1996): Changing approaches to teaching
Brown (2002), Dahlin, Watkins & Ekholm (2001): Teachers´ conceptions of assessment
Research problems
1. What practices, experiences and perceptions do language teachers report regarding the course of oral proficiency and the in-service training offered to support its
implementation? (Electronic questionnaire, Spring 2011)
1.1 What practices, experiences and perceptions do language teachers report regarding planning, implementation and assessment of the course of oral proficiency?
1.2 What differences are detected in the practices, experiences and perceptions in relation to certain background variables?
1.3 What experiences and perceptions do teachers report concerning in-service training?
2 What practices, experiences and perceptions do upper secondary students report
regarding the course of oral proficiency? (Electronic questionnaire, Autumn 2011)
2.1 What practices, experiences and perceptions do upper secondary students report
regarding planning, implementation and assessment of the course of oral proficiency?
2.2 /1.2 What differences are detected in the practices, experiences and perceptions in
relation to certain background variables?
3 What working methods are applied on the courses of oral proficiency? (Teacher interviews, Spring 2012)
4 What are the relationships between the indicators of oral proficiency? (Spring / Autumn 2012)
4.1 What is the relationship between the score of the speaking test taken at the end of
the oral course and the overall grade of the course?
4.2 What is the relationship between the score of the speaking test taken at the end of
the oral course and the level grading assigned to it?
How?
Methods
– frequencies, means, modes, medians
– percentage distributions
– comparisons between groups (teachers, students)
– correlations
– factor analysis, IRT-analysis
2. Analysis of the qualitative data: open responses in the questionnaires, classroom observations, theme interviews for teachers
– content analysis
– discourse analysis
