Je change, donc je suis
When I tell people that I teach French for a living, their reaction, if they're over 35 years old,
combines something of a negative nod of the head with a tinge of apology in their tone and usually a little grin on the side. Most people of that age will tell you that they found learning French difficult and that they never really learned how to speak it. I don't expect that my students, if they see me in 20 years time, will have the same reaction. Learning French today is not like it was 20 or 30 years ago. And, it is not likely to be the same in another 20 years. Times have changed and so have methodologies. This essay looks at just how second-language methodology has evolved in the past and how, in order to keep pace, it will need to evolve in the future.
Je change, Tu changes, Nous changeons
Methodology in second-language teaching has evolved significantly during the past 30 years.
During the 1950s, 1960s and even somewhat throughout the 1970s, language teaching largely involved the transmission of structural rules, and emphasized writing, grammar and analysis of form (Rehorick,1995). The Audiolingual Method, Direct Method and Grammar-Translation Method represented some of the major trends in the teaching of French during this time. These approaches were based essentially on an objectivist philosophy characterized by a teacher-centred, product-oriented and highly-structured classroom. Certain methods, such as the Audiolingual Method, were directly inspired by Skinner's behaviourist psychology which emphasized habit formation with considerable drill and practice (Rivers,1968).
Second language teaching in the eighties and nineties represents a major departure from the traditions of the earlier years. No doubt, the success of French Immersion programs inspired a shift of focus that resulted in a more communicative approach to language teaching. Using content to teach a language shifted the emphasis away from form, analysis and rules. Conveying meaning, communicating one's interests, whole use of language, and a much greater tolerance for errors in grammar and pronunciation became characteristic of the new approach to teaching and learning French. As well, the communicative approach favoured more experiential and contextualized learning, personal expression, authentic activities and student-centered work.
Changes in methodology do not occur spontaneously or rapidly. Instead, they evolve along a continuum of progressive change. The widespread growth of immersion programs likely forced or encouraged change that otherwise might have occurred at a much slower rate. At the same time, not all classrooms are representative of the shift in methodology described above. No doubt many teachers use a combination of approaches that reflect different methodologies, some old, some new. There may well still be many teachers who rely on very traditional approaches. Nonetheless, pervasive acceptance of the new methodology is evident in teachers' journals and in the research literature. Thus we can affirm with some confidence that there has been a definitive change in French language methodology over the past thirty years.
Plus ça change...
If we think of change in terms of a continuum, then we can envisage a continuation of the evolution in second-language methodology. Just as teaching evolved from a reliance on methods such as the Audiolingual Method and the Direct Method, so too might we expect an evolution in current methodologies from a communicative approach to some newer form. But how should second-language teaching evolve? Have we not sufficiently improved our methods? What factors might influence yet another shift in language methodology? How can we expect to further improve students' performance? Why does methodology need to evolve?
We can begin to answer these questions by recognizing that schools and teaching must react to and reflect the changes that occur in society and in their students. This is not an easy task since society is changing rapidly and profoundly. We are entering a new millennium, a new age, one which Negroponte (1995) terms the 'digital age'. The digital age is an age of bits instead of atoms, an age of 'ubiquitous computing' with smart cards, smart cars, 'wearable media' and 'digital butlers'. Most importantly, it is an age of 'exponential change'. While Negroponte's vision of the digital future may appear somewhat utopic, it does make us aware that the momentum of change is building and that schools will ultimately have to keep pace with it.
How are schools doing at keeping pace? Not too well according to Lewis Perelman, author of School's Out. Perelman (1992) argues that schools are out of sync with technological change:
...the technological gap between the school environment and the "real world" is growing so wide, so fast that the classroom experience is on the way to becoming not merely unproductive but increasingly irrelevant to normal human existence. (p.215)
Like Perelman, Papert (1993) argues that schools are failing to keep pace with the changes taking place in society. Papert begins his book The Children's Machine with the parable of the time-travelling teachers and surgeons from an earlier century. The surgeons, finding themselves in the hospital of the nineties, are bewildered by the modern devices, techniques, equipment and apparatus in use. Indeed, the operating room bears little or no resemblance to what existed earlier in the century. The experience of the teachers however, is quite different. Their time travel visit to the 'modern' classroom reveals that little has changed over the course of the century and that they could just as easily take over the lesson from where the 'modern' teacher left off. The moral of the story, so to speak, is that society has indeed changed but, as Papert notes, schools have not:
In the wake of the startling growth of science and technology in our recent past, some areas of human activity have undergone megachange. Telecommunications, entertainment and transportation, as well as medicine, are among them. School is a notable example of an area that has not. (p.2)
The future is not what it used to be
Both Papert and Perelman remind us of the challenges ahead for educators. While their tone is somewhat admonishing and urgent, they nonetheless convey a sense of excitement that can be a source of inspiration and motivation for teachers willing to take up the challenge. Perhaps more than any other area of the curriculum, the teaching of a second language lends itself ideally to the integration of technology. Likewise, perhaps more than any other area, it can benefit from the possibilities that technology has to offer. Certainly, if second-language methodology is to evolve, this is one of the important directions it will need to take not only in order to reflect societal changes but in order to tap the potential that technology can offer it.
Developments and progress in the Internet and the World Wide Web offer students learning French the possibility of virtual travel. They can explore the Louvre, visit French cities and towns, listen to French music, explore French libraries and so much more. They can communicate with their peers in France, Québec and many other parts of La Francophonie in order to exchange ideas, collaborate on projects, establish relationships, or ask questions. The Internet offers students an opportunity for authentic, meaningful, communicative language activities. It allows students access to an enormous bank of information for any type of research into all aspects of French society and culture. It provides them with dictionaries, encyclopedias and many other tools with which to study and learn.
Not only does student use of the Internet change what students do, it potentially affects the role of the teacher as well. Here perhaps is the area where methodology will be most affected. Providing students with access to online technologies will allow them to interact more directly with information and with their peers. Second-language learners will increase their skills by interacting directly with French sources and individuals.
This will mean that
there will be a shift of power or control in the classroom whereby the teacher will be a facilitator, not the prime provider of knowledge, but one who guides students in their own meaningful and personalized search for knowledge and information. If teachers are willing to relinquish some of the control they normally exert in the classroom, they will likely find that students learn better and that, as teachers, they benefit as well. In Power and Pedagogy, a digital book about educational reform through technology, McClintock (1992) describes how an informant from the future looking back on the twentieth century sees the new role of the educator:
In the old system, teaching had been a highly repetitive profession, with few challenges to sustained self-development in it, for the material in the syllabus and in the text, year after year, had remained static. But the integrated, multi-faceted computer-based curriculum comprised an inexhaustible resource that teachers could continue to explore with verve throughout their careers. As a result, in the twenty-first century, the profession gained significantly in stature.
If it ain't broke..break it!
There's a popular saying that aims to preserve the status quo: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Such attitudes have, unfortunately, sustained traditional practices in many areas including the teaching of French. Attitudes and beliefs are at the core of methodology. Changing one's method of teaching most often requires a corresponding change in one's thinking and in one's beliefs and attitudes. Changing one's beliefs and attitudes requires finding new answers to some old questions such as: What is learning? What is knowledge? How do we learn? How do we know what we know? We can rely to a certain extent on our intuition and our knowledge and experience to provide answers to these questions. We can also look to theory to inform our beliefs and guide our actions and methods. Theories help us to both make sense of the world as it is, and to envision new worlds (Wilson,1997a).
Learning theories generally provide the basis for teaching methodology just as B.F. Skinner's Behaviourism provided the rationale for the Audiolingual Method. Theories evolve from one period to another and, as well, vary often from one perspective or person to another. For this reason, providing an answer to the above-mentioned questions is a lot less obvious than it may seem. Furthermore, even once theorists agree on answers, there are not always easy ways of translating the results into practice in the classroom. Knowing and doing are distinct processes and one does not necessarily follow from the other. Acting on the basis of one's beliefs, particularly in teaching can be a difficult task because institutionalized, systemic practices and behaviours pose obstacles to any departure from the norm.
Moving from theory to practice is probably the biggest challenge facing educational change and reform. Yet, we cannot hope to improve teaching and learning without meeting this challenge. The starting point is, of course, having a theory or a set of beliefs to guide our actions. The learning theory which is being presently advocated by many theorists, writers, researchers and educators is that of constructivism. Wilson (1997b) describes constructivism as "an
underlying philosophy or way of seeing the world" which includes notions about the nature of reality, of knowledge, of human interaction and of science. Constructivism can be a difficult theory or philosophy to describe since it encompasses such a wide range of beliefs (Jonassen,1991). In fact, Prawat (1996) identifies at least six alternative perspectives of constructivism. Generally, most constructivists will agree that knowledge is constructed by the individual
and that meaning is intimately connected with
experience (Hanley,1994).
While constructivism is well known as the basis of a learning theory for the teaching of mathematics, it has not as yet received much attention in the field of second-language teaching. Nonetheless, constructivism can provide second-language methodology with a solid and coherent rationale for improving and changing how we teach French. According to a leading theorist von Glasersfeld (1989), constructivism implies that learning should emphasize meaning and understanding rather than the training of behaviour, that teachers should assume that students' actions are rational given the way they make sense of their world, and that students' errors should be seen as opportunities to learn about students' understanding of the world. Hanley (1994) describes constructivist teaching as a
...bold departure from traditional objectivist classroom strategies. The goal is for the learner to play an active role in assimilating knowledge onto his/her existing mental framework. The ability of students to apply school-learned knowledge to the real world is valued over memorizing bits and pieces of knowledge that may seem unrelated to them. The constructivist approach requires the teacher to relinquish his/her role as the sole information-dispenser and instead to continually analyze his/her curriculum planning and instructional methodology. (p.8)
All dressed up and no place to go?
Essentially, what is required to bring about change in methodology to reflect changes in society and in theory is a personal change. In general, what goes on in the classroom is determined by the teacher. The approach, methodology, activities and philosophy are largely his or her choice. Thus, changing methodology in second-language teaching is, to a large extent, dependent on the individual teacher's willingness to change. This is not an easy task. It takes courage, imagination, time, energy and commitment. It means understanding the
answers to the important questions asked in this essay and being willing to act based on these answers.
I have always believed that teaching French is very different from teaching any other subject in the curriculum. The fact that students come to French class already having internalized an entire set of knowledge, rules and experiences about their own language makes teaching the second-language a very challenging adventure. Using content to teach French as one does with Immersion, makes teaching French an even more complex activity. However, having accepted these challenges, I recognize that, perhaps more than any other activity, teaching a second-language also allows for flexibility in approach, interdisciplinary learning, integration of technology, and individualized learning. Perhaps more than any other area of the curriculum, teaching French lends itself to innovation, individual styles and experimentation.
Je webbe, tu webbes, nous webons
More than ever, the time is
ripe for change. Technological developments are breaking new grounds, opening new vistas, creating new paradigms and new roles. Those teachers who are already actively using technology in their classrooms have discovered new ways of teaching skills. They have no doubt realized that student use of the Internet allows for learning experiences that are as exciting and motivating for the teacher as they are for the students. Opening the classroom door to discover new worlds, new friends and new ideas makes adopting a different approach inviting rather than challenging.
Many examples of new learning experiences can be found described online. One such example is that of an Internet project called: Je Webbe, Tu Webbes, Nous Webons. I designed this project largely out of an interest in experimenting with new methodologies and I was inspired in my efforts by reading about constructivist philosophy. The experience, while it is still ongoing, has reinforced my belief that it is most times worth taking risks and trying something completely new. I know that this project is just the start of a new approach that I want to take with teaching. The project is very simple and involves students producing web pages about themselves in French. Their pages are posted to a site in France, Les Enfants du Net, thanks to a contact that I made online.
and includes links to the students' pages.
One of the unexpected spinoffs of this project is the effect that it is having on other classes in the school. Some of the students are showing teachers how to create Web pages, another teacher is now planning to do a similar project in a different subject area, and many of the children have since pressured their parents into getting Internet accounts so that they can work on their projects at home. I have begun to receive e-mail messages from my students who are now online and I have been approached by parents who have remarked on how this project has motivated and interested their child.
Perhaps, most important is the effect the project has had on me. The classes I have with this group of students are more exciting, stimulating and rewarding than any other teaching experience I have had. I have had to rethink and reorganize a lot of things that I took for granted especially when it came to my role and how I saw it. Mostly, I am enjoying being a learner as well as a teacher. For me and for the students, changing and experimenting with methodology has been a positive experience. I now have even more confidence to follow through on my beliefs about teaching and learning. In light of this experience, I plan to continue experimenting, learning and questioning what I believe and what I do. It is the knowledge that I can change what I do that keeps me going, that fuels my enthusiasm and that provides the rationale for how I act. Je change, donc je suis has become my motto, one that I know will serve me well as a teacher in the new millennium.
References
Hanley, S. (1994). On Constructivism. The University of Maryland, MD.
Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism Versus Contructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39 (3), 5-14.
McClintock, R. (1992).
Power and Pedagogy. Institute For Learning Technologies, Columbia University, New York.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being Digital. New York: Vintage Books.
Papert, S. (1993). The Children's Machine. New York: Basic Books.
Perelman, L. (1992). School's Out. New York: Avon Books.
Prawat, R. (1996). Constructivisms, Modern and Postmodern. Educational Psychologist, 331 (3/4), 215-225.
Rehorick, S. (1995). Principals in Practice in Supervising the Immersion Classroom. Le Journal de l'Immersion, 18 (3), 21-27.
Rivers, W. (1968). Teaching Foreign Language Skills. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Constructivism in Education. In Husén T., Postlethwaite, T.N. (eds.) (1989) The International Encyclopedia of Education, 1st edn., Supplementary Vol. 1. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Wilson, B. (1997 a). Thoughts On Theory in Educational Technology Educational Technology, January/February (pp. 22-27).
Wilson, B. (1997 b). Reflections on Constructivism and Instructional Design in C. R. Dills and A. A. Romiszowski (Eds.),
Instructional Development Paradigms, Englewood Cliffs NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
© 1997, Elizabeth Murphy, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada