ISSN 1798-4769 Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 229-243, March 2013 Manufacured in Finland. doi:10.4304/jlr.4.2.229-243 My Counry in Europe : A Conen-based Projec for Teaching English as a Foreign Language o Young Learners Eleni I. Korosidou Universiy of Wesern Macedonia, Florina, Greece Eleni A. Griva Universiy of Wesern Macedonia, Florina, Greece Absrac The presen paper oulines he process of inroducing a pilo EFL (English as a Foreign Language) projec, which inegraes conen and language learning. I aimed a developing young learners language skills in English, hrough inegraing English language learning wih he subjec of Geography. The projec was piloed in wo fifh grade (5 h ) classrooms of a Greek primary school. The resuls of he inervenion projec indicaed he posiive effecs of he projec on sudens oral and wrien skills and heir aiude owards foreign language learning. Index Terms foreign language learning, conen-based learning, projec, young learners I. INTRODUCTION This paper oulines he design and implemenaion of an EFL (English as a Foreign Language) projec, which inegraes conen and language learning. Young learners are involved in a number of aciviies wih he aim o enhance sudens foreign language skills hrough anoher subjec- Geography. Over he las years, an ineres has spread o EFL classrooms around he world regarding Conen Based Insrucion (CBI), which "refers o he concurren eaching of academic subjec maer and second language skills" (Brinon e al, 1989, p. 2). CBI inegraes foreign language wih conen learning, puing grea emphasis on learning abou somehing raher han learning abou language. In such a conex, where learners needs and ineress are pu in he cener of he learning process, learners are provided wih a variey of opporuniies for simulaing moivaion and expressing hemselves creaively while learning English a he same ime. Krashen s comprehensible inpu hypohesis (1983) provides a raionale for CBI (Cummins, 1994), where language eaching is inegraed wih conen. A number of benefis seem o accrue o foreign language learning by implemening CBI. Firsly, language learning becomes more ineresing, moivaing and meaningful. Secondly, sudens gain knowledge in various subjecs, develop heir cogniive and sudy skills, and become more independen learners. In addiion, sudens are engaged in meaningful communicaion wih classmaes (Me, 1991; Griva, Semoglou & Geladari, 2010). However, CBI alone does no guaranee success. Facors such as sudens needs in conen area classes as well as heir needs in language skills insrucion are among he mos imporan (Grabe & Soller, 1997). One of he approaches ha can be inegraed ino CBI is he projec approach, as one of is primary goals is o foser independen learning. Sudies in he EFL field have highlighed he advanages of learning a foreign language hrough a projec (Becke, 2005; Gu, 2002). I is ofen saed ha Projec Based Learning (PBL) is clearly an insrucional mehod cenered on he learner, which allows an in-deph invesigaion of a opic worh learning more abou (Erdem, 2002). A review on he exising lieraure on EFL projec-based insrucion indicaes ha i connecs he developmen of skills and conen knowledge wih language (Becke & Slaer, 2005). Working on a projec allows he inegraion of skills (Fried-Booh, 2002) and provides sudens wih opporuniies o communicae, herefore enabling hem o develop heir communicaive compeence. I is ofen observed ha incorporaing projec work in he foreign language classroom resuls in increased self-eseem (Soller, 2006) and auonomy (Skehan, 1998) on he par of he sudens. Learners develop heir cooperaive skills (Coleman, 1992) and have increased engagemen and enjoymen (Lee, 2002) due o he fac ha learning becomes a meaningful experience which sems from heir ineress. Responsibiliy for learning and evaluaion of he learning process and learning oucomes moves from eacher o suden, who needs o adop an acive role, o be criical and able o cooperae, while he role of he eacher during projec work is ha of he coordinaor and advisor and, a he same ime, of he one responsible for creaing he opimum opporuniies for successful language learning (Clark, 2006; Levy, 1997). A. Raionale and Purpose of he Sudy II. THE STUDY
230 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH The basic purpose of his sudy was o implemen a Conen Based Language Teaching projec in order o each EFL o young learners. Moreover, an aemp was made o evaluae he oucomes of foreign language learning hrough he specific projec implemened in a sae primary school in Norhen Greece. Recen sudies have highlighed he advanages of foreign language learning a early sages (Edelenbos e al., 2006; Edelenbos & de Jong, 2004; Johnsone, 2002). EFL research underlines he benefis in children s linguisic, cogniive and emoional developmen, since he use of heir cogniive sraegies (Moon, 2005) as well heir meacogniive skills (Nikolov, 2009) are enhanced. More precisely, he presen projec aimed a: - developing sudens basic reading, lisening, wriing, speaking skills and improve heir vocabulary by using English as a foreign language for communicaive purposes in auhenic siuaions; - providing sudens wih ample opporuniies o learn abou Europe hrough a cross curricular projec and o develop heir inerculural skills; - enhancing sudens sensiiviy regarding culural differences in he European conex as well as human and children s righs; - simulaing heir moivaion for EFL learning by enhancing heir involvemen in experienial learning aciviies. B. Sample The inervenion was piloed on a small scale, in wo fifh (5 h ) grade primary school classrooms in norhern Greece. In Greece, English as a FL is augh as a compulsory subjec in he primary school curriculum from he 3rd grade onwards. Tweny-wo (22) Greek-speaking sudens (mean age=10.85 years-old) paricipaed in his sudy, 8 boys and 14 girls. The sudens, who aended a differen classroom of he same school, were assigned o wo groups. Twelve (12) sudens composed he conrol group and en (10) sudens composed he experimenal group. Boh groups were augh English as a foreign language by he same eacher-researcher for a long ime before he inervenion. The experimenal group paricipaed in he CBI projec, while he conrol group was augh English in a convenional way, in he PPP (Presenaion-Pracice-Producion) framework. Each group was augh English 3 hours per week. The sudens represened a wide range of abiliy levels (Table Ι, ΙΙ). Each suden is represened by a number from 1 o 12 for he conrol group and from 1 o 10 for he experimenal group as shown below. TABLE Ι STUDENT DISTRIBUTION ACCORDING TO LANGUAGE LEVEL (CONTROL GROUP) Language Level Frequency Suden Rae % High 3 sudens: 2, 7, 11 25,00 Medium 8 sudens: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12 66,66 Low 1 suden: 9 10,00 Very low 0-0,00 Toal 12 12 100,00 TABLE II. STUDENT DISTRIBUTION ACCORDING TO LANGUAGE LEVEL (EXPERIMENTAL GROUP) Level Frequency Suden Rae % High 2 sudens: 1, 7 20,00 Medium 4 sudens: 2, 3, 5, 6 40,00 Low 3 sudens: 4, 8, 10 30,00 Very low 1 suden: 9 10,00 Toal 10 10 100,00 C. Projec Procedure Approximaely he same number of sessions (38-40) was spen on eaching English as a foreign language o he wo groups (experimenal and conrol). As already menioned, he conrol group was augh English in a PPP framework. In he conrol group, planning and eaching was he responsibiliy of he eacher, always done in advance, while emphasis was placed on using he correc forms during wrien and oral aciviies. On he conrary, eacher s role during projec based learning was differen (Levy, 1997). Lesson planning for he experimenal group was no eacher direced, in he sense ha he projec was conduced in cooperaion wih he sudens, according o heir needs and ineress. Therefore, planning and eaching was an ongoing process which was coordinaed and faciliaed bu no direced by he eacher, based on he principles of he projec approach. I is worh menioning ha he sudens have never worked on a projec before, so he eacher explained o hem he basic principles of projec work during a eaching session a he beginning of he projec. Sudens were made aware of he need o work boh individually and in groups in order o accomplish inquiry based aciviies, which included collecing, analyzing, synhesizing and reporing daa boh orally and in wriing. The sudens of he experimenal group were provided wih opporuniies o inerac, o invesigae and use resources, o answer quesions, and o learn more auonomously. Thus, he focus was on successful communicaion raher han correcness of he language in a game-based conex (Haield, 1990). The sages of he projec
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 231 Many scholars focused on he sages of projec work, in an aemp o sequence projec procedures and aciviies. The following sages were used in order for he specific CBI projec work o be successfully implemened (Soller, 1997): Sage 1: Speculaing on a opic The sudens of he experimenal group discussed wih he eacher and agreed on he opic of he projec: My counry in Europe, which was based on he conen of he subjec-area of Geography. Then, he sudens eleced a coordinaor for he projec. A supporive amosphere was creaed, in order o arouse ineres and enable sudens o engage in individual and cooperaive asks during he following projec sages. Sage 2: Srucuring he projec A his sage he paricipans were asked o draw on heir previous experiences regarding he projec s opic and hink of wha hey would like o learn abou i. Then, hey se heir goals and decided on he ways hey could achieve hem. The paricipans formed wo groups, each consising of 5 sudens. I is menioned ha he eacher knew her sudens well enough before he implemenaion of he projec and was aware of heir needs, heir srenghs and weaknesses as well as of heir social relaionships wih classmaes. The paricipans assigned roles and aciviies, decided on heir mehodology, and designed heir research process, hinking of he inquiries hey need o make and he ways hey can gaher and analyze informaion. Each group member was allocaed cerain responsibiliies, so ha everyone could conribue o he final oucome of he projec. Sage 3: Conducing research A his sage he groups gahered informaion from a variey of sources and criically processed i. They worked cooperaively in order o organize, caegorize and synhesize informaion gahered from he Inerne, magazines, encyclopedias and he school library. They were asked o ake noes, summarize and exrac key informaion from exs. The eacher regularly checked he progress of he sudens work wih he members of each group, providing feedback when needed. A he end of his sage he final producs of he projec were produced. The sudens, in cooperaion wih he eacher, decided o group he aciviies ino 5 broad subjec areas, each one consising of several subsecions. The subjec areas were he following: 1) The European counries (geographical feaures, languages, currency, populaion, flags) 2) The climae in he European counries (weaher, clohes, naural disasers) 3) The sighs in Europe (10 European sighs of ineres) 4) European cusoms and radiions (fesiviies, myhs and legends, radiional cosumes, radiional music and songs, food) 5) Children of he world (children s righs, school life, everyday rouine). A cross curricular approach was used during he sudy of he issues relaed o each subjec area of he projec. Foreign language learning was inegraed wih he specific subjec maer (Geography) on he basis of he CBI principles. The sudens managed o creae and presen he following producs: - A European morphological map; - The European flags; - Posers wih picures, phoographs and commens relaed o he opic of he above menioned subjec areas; - Crafs made of plasicine (e.g. The Eiffel Tower made of plasicine); - Shor wrien repors, e mails (exchange e mails wih children aending a muliculural school), poscards, brochures; - A ouris guide; - An English-Greek dicionary projec. Sage 4: Evaluaion A his final sage he sudens organized an end of he school year even, where hey displayed he final producs of he projec in he school and he wider communiy, making heir school-maes, eachers and parens aware of heir work. Moreover, boh he sudens and he eacher-researcher assessed he projec producs and speculaed on he process followed, he experiences and he knowledge gained, he aiudes adoped, as well as on wheher he iniial goals were achieved. The eacher praised he sudens for heir good work and helped hem idenify heir errors, so ha sudens can avoid hem in a fuure projec. The aim was o reflec on language and conen masered and he aciviies used (Soller, 2002) and idenify wheher he eaching mehods used moivaed he sudens o learn and develop heir language skills and learning sraegies. III. EVALUATION OF THE FEASIBILITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EFL PROJECT Evaluaion Insrumens In order o evaluae he achievemen of he goals se and he impac of he inervenion on he developmen of sudens language skills in EFL, a riparie sudy was conduced. Boh quaniaive and qualiaive mehods were used, based on he onological assumpion ha human beings, and consequenly research paricipans are acive agens, capable of assessing siuaions (Harre, 1993). The use of more han wo mehods o collec daa allowed he riangulaion of research findings and assured research validiy (see Bird e al, 1999). Daa was colleced by means of: a) A prees and poses. The es consised of wo pars. In he firs par a ex was given o he sudens (ex lengh: approximaely 100 words) and four (4) open ended quesions, o which sudens were asked o respond freely. The
232 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH sudens had he opporuniy o lisen o and read he ex before hey answered he quesions in wrien form. In he second par of he es hey were asked o summarize he ex orally. The es was adminisered o boh he conrol and he experimenal group, before and afer he experimen was conduced, o assess he improvemen of sudens wriing and oral communicaion skills. b) A eacher-researcher journal, which was kep once a week during he implemenaion of he projec in order o record and reflec on he impac of he inervenion on he learners, he eaching and he learning oucomes. c) Inerviews conduced wih he sudens of he experimenal group o record heir ineres and he degree of heir saisfacion he projec, he difficulies hey encounered, and heir views on conen based language learning. Moreover, a collecion of work samples (wriings, compleed workshees, drawings, collages) creaed during he projec was aken ino accoun for he analysis, in order o ge a complee picure of children s progress. A. Pre-es and Pos-es IV. RESULTS The saisical package SPSS for Windows was used for he analysis of he daa colleced from he pre- and poses. The prees was disribued in he end of January, while he poses in he beginning of June. Firs par of he pre- and poses The analysis of he daa colleced from he firs par of he pre- and poses was made on he basis of he following five (5) crieria: 1) Lengh of he produced exs (number of words); 2) Sudens communicaive compeence (1-10 assessmen scale); 3) Inappropriae pragmaic and/ or semanic use of words; 4) Synacically inaccurae and/ or ellipical phrases produced; 5) Spelling misakes. The resuls for each one of he aforemenioned crieria are shown in he following ables. 1) Lengh of produced exs TABLE III. PRETEST DATA ON LENGTH OF PRODUCED TEXT (NUMBER OF WORDS) IN THE WRITTEN QUESTIONS (EXPERIMENTAL GROUP) Suden Quesion 1 Quesion 2 Quesion 3 Quesion 4 Toal number of words Suden 1 62 27 27 23 139 Suden 2 17 17 12 19 65 Suden 3 19 14 12 13 58 Suden 4 17 20 14 12 63 Suden 5 24 33 22 17 96 Suden 6 21 21 7 10 59 Suden 7 20 21 19 11 71 Suden 8 10 22 10 8 50 Suden 9 27 11 10 10 58 Suden 10 19 10 10 14 53 TABLE IV. POSTTEST DATA ON LENGTH OF PRODUCED TEXTS (NUMBER OF WORDS) IN THE WRITTEN QUESTIONS (EXPERIMENTAL GROUP) Suden Quesion 1 Quesion 2 Quesion 3 Quesion 4 Toal number of words Suden 1 44 41 18 29 132 Suden 2 20 14 16 14 65 Suden 3 25 23 8 16 73 Suden 4 18 16 8 14 56 Suden 5 21 20 10 12 63 Suden 6 36 18 18 11 83 Suden 7 30 21 17 14 82 Suden 8 22 13 7 13 55 Suden 9 15 8 8 10 41 Suden 10 25 19 12 26 82
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 233 TABLE V. PRETEST DATA ON LENGTH OF PRODUCED TEXT (NUMBER OF WORDS) IN THE WRITTEN QUESTIONS (CONTROL GROUP) Suden Quesion1 Quesion 2 Quesion 3 Quesion 4 Toal number r of words Suden 1 28 21 21 23 93 Suden 2 30 32 25 28 115 Suden 3 20 17 15 13 65 Suden 4 16 23 9 15 63 Suden 5 20 15 11 14 60 Suden 6 19 22 8 11 60 Suden 7 22 16 11 15 64 Suden 8 20 11 8 12 51 Suden 9 20 18 9 16 63 Suden 10 28 15 11 12 66 Suden 11 46 35 41 52 174 Suden 12 34 19 9 25 87 TABLE VI. POSTTEST DATA ON LENGTH OF PRODUCED TEXT (NUMBER OF WORDS) IN THE WRITTEN QUESTIONS (CONTROL GROUP) Suden Quesion 1 Quesion 2 Quesion 3 Quesion 4 Toal number of words Suden 1 29 19 17 23 88 Suden 2 21 21 19 24 85 Suden 3 23 22 18 20 83 Suden 4 23 23 9 13 68 Suden 5 21 19 16 13 69 Suden 6 21 20 15 14 70 Suden 7 27 17 16 16 76 Suden 8 28 14 11 11 64 Suden 9 21 19 9 11 60 Suden 10 30 27 17 19 93 Suden 11 54 59 36 55 204 Suden 12 27 19 18 23 87 The analysis of he daa presened above led o he following resuls. TABLE VII. N Pair 1 Prees 71,20 10 27,071 8,561 Poses 73,20 10 24,818 7,848 TABLE VIII. MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION (CONTROL GROUP) N Pair 2 Prees 80,08 12 34,608 9,990 Poses 87,25 12 38,255 11,043 I is noeworhy ha here was no significan difference in eiher he experimenal or he conrol group regarding he lengh of produced exs beween he prees and he poses. 2) Communicaive Compeence The resuls presened in he Tables IX, X and XI, XII indicaed ha here is significan difference in communicaive compeence for boh he experimenal and he conrol group beween prees and poses. As far as he experimenal group is concerned, he mean score was m=5,70 before he inervenion while m=7,40 afer he inervenion (= -7,965 =9 p < 0.005). These daa suggesed ha CBI provides sudens wih opporuniies o inerac and become engaged in purposeful communicaion, hus improving heir communicaive compeence. Significan difference in he communicaive compeence was also observed beween pre-es (m= 8,08) and poses (m=8,67) for he conrol group (=-2,548 ( =11 p <0.05). TABLE IX. N Pair 1 Prees 5,70 10 1,767,559 Poses 7,40 10 1,713,542
234 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH TABLE X. STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST (EXPERIMENTAL GROUP) Pair 1 Toal -1,700,675,213-2,183-1,217-7,965 9,000 TABLE XI. MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION (CONTROL GROUP) N Pair 2 Prees 8,08 12,996,288 Poses 8,67 12,985,284 TABLE XII. STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST (CONTROL GROUP) Pair 2 Toal -,583,793,229-1,087 -,080-2,548 11,027 3) Inappropriae pragmaic or semanic use of words A significan improvemen was observed regarding he correc semanic and pragmaic use of words for he experimenal group in he poses (=4,204 (=9 p<0.005). As presened in he ables XIII. and XIV., he mean score was m= 6,25 pragmaic and/or semanic misakes before he inervenion, while m=3.37 afer he inervenion. Saisically significan difference was recorded beween pre- and poses for he conrol group sudens, (=2,972 (=11 p< 0.05); fewer pragmaic and/or semanic misakes were recorded in he poses (m=1,67) compared o hose in he he prees (m=2,64). TABLE XIII. N Pair 1 Prees 6,2530 10 3,68215 1,16440 Poses 3,3770 10 2,51479,79525 TABLE XIV. STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST (EXPERIMENTAL GROUP) Pair 1 Toal 2,87600 2,16356,68418 1,32828 4,42372 4,204 9,002 TABLE XV. MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION (CONTROL GROUP) N Pair 2 Prees 2,6475 12 1,13111,32652 Poses 1,6792 12,85327,24632 TABLE XVI. STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST (CONTROL GROUP) T T Df Df Pair 2 Toal,96833 1,12884,32587,25110 1,68557 2,972 11,013 4) Dicaion misakes
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 235 No significan difference was revealed regarding he spelling misakes made by he sudens for boh he experimenal and he conrol group. However, i is worh menioning ha he difference observed beween he pre- and poses mean of dicaion misakes for he experimenal group was greaer han ha for he conrol group. As presened in he ables below, he mean score of spelling misakes was higher (m= 4,82) before he inervenion han he score afer he inervenion (m=3,15). As far as he conrol group is concerned, he mean score of spelling misakes was higher (m= 3,16) before he inervenion han he score afer he inervenion (m=2,93). Second par of he pre- and poses The analysis of he daa colleced for he second par of he pre- and poses was made on he basis of he following five (5) crieria: 1) Lengh of he orally produced exs (number of words) 2) Sudens overall communicaive compeence (1-10 assessmen scale) 3) Inappropriae pragmaic and/ or semanic use of words 4) Synacically inaccurae and/ or ellipical phrases produced 5) Pronunciaion (1-10 assessmen scale). The processing of he daa colleced from he ranscripions led o he resuls presened in he following ables for each of he above menioned crieria. 1) Lengh of he orally produced exs (number of words) TABLE XVII. PRE- AND POSTTEST DATA ON LENGTH (NUMBER OF WORDS) OF THE ORALLY PRODUCED TEXT (EXPERIMENTAL GROUP) Suden Prees Poses Suden1 60 74 Suden 2 28 47 Suden 3 25 41 Suden 4 28 43 Suden 5 27 44 Suden 6 33 42 Suden 7 11 47 Suden 8 30 35 Suden 9 23 42 Suden 10 29 30 TABLE XVIII. PRE- AND POSTTEST DATA ON LENGTH (NUMBER OF WORDS) OF THE ORALLY PRODUCED TEXT (CONTROL GROUP) Suden Prees Poses Suden 1 49 77 Suden 2 60 87 Suden 3 32 38 Suden 4 23 25 Suden 5 27 39 Suden 6 27 26 Suden 7 69 47 Suden 8 26 39 Suden 9 39 26 Suden 10 74 54 Suden 11 32 57 Suden 12 24 40 The resuls presened in he Table XIX. and XX. show he saisically significan difference observed for he experimenal group in relaion o he lengh of heir orally produced exs beween he prees and he poses. TABLE XIX. N Pair 1 Prees 29,40 10 12,285 3,885 Poses 44,50 10 11,597 3,667 TABLE XX. STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST (EXPERIMENTAL GROUP) Pair 1 Toal -15,100 9,492 3,002-21,890-8,310-5,031 9,001
236 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH Saisically significan difference was revealed beween prees and poses for he sudens of he experimenal group, =-5,031 (=9 p< 0.005); however no saisically significan difference was revealed beween prees (m=40,17) and poses (m=46,25) for he sudens of he conrol group. 2) Overall communicaive compeence Significan difference was observed beween wo paired groups ( es for paired groups) regarding he overall communicaive compeence for boh he experimenal and he conrol group. As shown in he ables below (Table XXI., XXII.) he overall communicaive compeence of he experimenal group was improved, =-7,746 (=9 p<0.005). Significan difference was also observed for he conrol group (Table XXIII. and XIV.), =-4.180 (=11 p< 0.005). TABLE XXI. STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST (EXPERIMENTAL GROUP) Pair 1 Toal -2,000,816,258-2,584-1,416-7,746 9,000 Df TABLE XXII. STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST (CONTROL GROUP) Pair 2 Toal -,750,622,179-1,145 -,355-4,180 11,002 Df TABLE XXIII. N Pair 1 Prees 5,20 10 1,549,490 Poses 7,20 10 1,229,389 TABLE XXIV. MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION (CONTROL GROUP) N Pair 2 Prees 6,83 12 1,337,386 Poses 7,58 12 1,564,452 Concerning he experimenal group, a greaer improvemen was recorded in relaion o heir communicaive abiliy, since hey performed beer in he pos-es (m=7,20) compared o heir performance in he pre-es (m=5,20). (Table XXIV.). I is indicaed ha, alhough here was a greaer difference in he prees beween he mean of he experimenal and he conrol group, he difference did no remain he same afer he inervenion. I is indicaed ha he sudens of experimenal group made a greaer improvemen of heir overall communicaive compeence afer he implemenaion of he inervenion. 3) Inappropriae pragmaic and/ or semanic use of words The resuls shown in he ables below are relaed o he inappropriae pragmaic and/ or semanic use of words of he wo groups in he prees and he poses. TABLE XXV. N Pair 1 Prees 10,45 10 6,745 2,133 Poses 4,3730 10 2,49910,79028 TABLE XXVI. STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST (EXPERIMENTAL GROUP) Pair 1 Toal 6,07700 6,53666 2,06707 1,40095 10,75305 2,940 9,016 T
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 237 Significan difference was observed beween prees and poses for he experimenal group (Table XXVI.), =-2,940 (=9 p< 0.05), since here was a greaer number of misakes (m=10,450 in relaion o he pragmaic and/ or semanic use of words before he inervenion han hose (m= 4,37) afer he inervenion (Table XXV.). No significan difference was observed beween prees and poses for he conrol group (Table XXVIII.). I is herefore indicaed ha here was greaer improvemen beween pre- and poses for he experimen group in comparison wih he conrol group (Table XXV. and XXVII.). TABLE XXVII. MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION (CONTROL GROUP) N Pair 2 Prees 6,0692 12 3,42988,99012 Poses 5,0917 12 3,70624 1,06990 TABLE XXVIII. STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST (CONTROL GROUP) Pair 2 Toal,97750 3,19828,92326-1,05459 3,00959 1,059 11,312 4) Synacically inaccurae and/ or ellipical phrases produced Tables XXIX. and XXX. presen he resuls from he analysis of he daa colleced regarding he synacically inaccurae or ellipical phrases ha he sudens of each group, experimenal and conrol, produced. Tables XXX. and XXXII. indicae ha here was saisically significan difference beween prees and poses for boh he experimenal and he conrol group. TABLE XXIX. N Pair 1 Prees 11,6630 10 7,54816 2,38694 Poses 3,2200 10 2,36182,74687 TABLE XXX. STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST (EXPERIMENTAL GROUP) Pair 1 Toal 8,44300 7,68667 2,43074 2,94428 13,94172 3,473 9,007 Concerning he experimenal group, saisical differences ( =3,473 (=9 p<0.05) were produced beween he prees resuls (m=11.66) in relaion o synacically inaccurae and/ or ellipical phrases and hose produced afer he projec (m=3,22). Regarding he conrol group, saisical differences (=4,461 =11 p<0.005) were revealed beween he prees resuls (m=4,01) in relaion o synacically inaccurae and/ or ellipical phrases and hose produced afer he projec (m=1,86). TABLE XXXI. MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION (CONTROL GROUP) N Pair 2 Prees 4,0138 12 1,92433,55551 Poses 1,8642 12 1,40468,40550 TABLE XXXII. STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST (CONTROL GROUP) Pair 2 Toal 2,14958 1,66935,48190 1,08893 3,21024 4,461 11,001
238 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 5) Pronunciaion The resuls of es for paired groups are presened in he following ables XXXIII., XXXIV. for he experimenal group and 11.3, 11.4 for he conrol group. TABLE XXXIII. N Pair 1 Prees 6,80 10 1,229,389 Poses 8,20 10 1,033,327 TABLE XXXIV. STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST (EXPERIMENTAL GROUP) Pair 1 Toal -1,400,699,221-1,900 -,900-6,332 9,000 T As indicaed in he ables above, here was a considerable improvemen beween prees (m=6,80) and poses (m=8,20) in he pronunciaion of he experimenal group (=-6,332 (=9 p<0.005) (Tables XXXIII., XXXIV.). I is also indicaed ha here was no saisically significan difference beween he prees and poses for he conrol group, regarding heir pronunciaion in English as a foreign language. B. Teacher-researcher Journal The eacher-researcher kep en (10) journal records during he projec. The qualiaive analysis of he researcher journal records led o he creaion of four ypologies, and several caegories and subcaegories under each ypology (Table XXXV.). A) Teaching Process, where he following caegories are included: 1) Goals, 2) Techniques, 3) Teaching aids, 4) Classwork B) Teacher s role, where he following caegories are included: 1) Communicaion in class, 2) Ways o provide sudens wih help C) Suden s Aiude, where he following caegories are included: 1) Sudens aiude oward he projec 2) Paricipaion in projec 3) Difficulies faced during he projec D) Overall assessmen of he inervenion, where he following caegories are included: 1) Problems faced during he projec, 2) Learning oucomes, 3) Broader developmen of values and aiudes, 4) Possible changes o improve he eaching/ learning process. TABLE XXXV. JOURNAL RECORDS: TYPOLOGIES, CATEGORIES, SUBCATEGORIES AND FREQUENCIES Typologies Caegories Subcaegories Frequency A) Teaching Process 1.Goals i. developmen of linguisic skills 10 ii. developmen of cogniive skills 10 and sraegies iii. developmen of social emoional 8 skills and sraegies iv. ime managemen (compleion of asks, aciviies) 6 v. sudens undersanding of learning goals 5 2. Techniques i. narraion 2 ii. dialogue 3 iii. discussion 7 iv. brainsorming 4 v. eaching wih 8 mulimedia vi. experienial learning 9 (role plays, drama) vii. inquiry-learning aciviies 9 3.Teaching aids i. objecs 6 ii. posers 4 iii. books 3 iv. projecor 7 v. picures 7 vi. drawings 8 vii. compuer 8 viii. various maerials (paper, plasicine, colorful cardboard) 9
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 239 ix. phoos 4 x. phoocopies 4 xi. maps 4 4.Classwork i. pair work 6 ii. group work 8 iii. working individually 2 iv. cooperaion beween 5 eacher-class B) Teacher s Role 5. Communicaion in class i. use of moher ongue (L1) 3 ii. use of second language (L2) 10 iii. nonverbal communicaion (facial expressions, 7 gesures, immiaion) iv. use of visual aids o convey meaning 8 v. use of L1 o give insrucions/ clarificaions 7 6. Ways o provide sudens wih help i. encouragemen 7 ii. insrucions for he aciviies 7 iii. decreasing anxiey 7 iv. reminding iniial goals 6 v. organizing sudens work 3 vi. asks direced by sudens 8 ineress vii. differeniaed aciviies (according o sudens 6 needs) viii. focus in creaiviy 6 ix. differeniaion in feedback 7 C) Suden s Aiude D) Overall evaluaion of he inervenion 7. Sudens aiude oward he i. learning as a pleasurable experience 8 projec ii. ineres for experienial learning aciviies 8 iii. ineres for inquiry learning aciviies 5 iv. acive paricipaion during eamwork 7 v. aking responsibiliy 7 vi. aking iniiaive 7 vii. developmen of managemen skills 8 8. Paricipaion in he projec i. paricipaion in creaive aciviies (handicrafs) 9 ii. paricipaion in role plays, drama 9 iii. paricipaion in inquiry learning aciviies 5 iii. paricipaion in informaion processing 5 iv. paricipaion in presenaions 9 9. Difficulies faced during he projec i. difficuly in undersanding 4 inquiry learning aciviies ii. difficuly during pair work/ group work 2 iii. difficuly when working individually 3 iv. difficuly in lisening comprehension 4 v. difficuly in reading comprehension 2 vi. difficuly in speaking 2 vii. difficuly in wriing 5 viii. difficuly in processing informaion 5 10. Problems encounered during he i. class managemen by he eacher 2 projec ii. noise during group work 3 iii. cooperaion problems among sudens 3 iv. allocaion of ime by he sudens 4 v. sudens being indifferen 3 11. Learning Oucome i. use of second language for communicaion 9 ii. vocabulary consolidaion 9 iii. acquiring new vocabulary 10 iv. social skills developmen 9 v. inquiry skills developmen 5 vi. self-assessmen skills developmen 5 vii. use of new echnologies during learning 10 viii. pleasure and enjoymen 9 12.Broader developmen of values i. ineracive aciviies 8 and aiudes ii. assising each oher 7 iii. cooperaion 9 iv. self confidence 6 v. aking responsibiliy for learning 6 vi. posiive aiude oward second language 7 vii. self-acing in learning 9 (using dicionaries, reading maps, ec) viii. acceping and respecing difference (culural, 7 linguisic, religious)
240 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 13. Suggesions for he improvemen of he eaching/ learning process ix. developmen of social sensiiviy 3 i. discussing cooperaion problems during group work 4 ii. decreasing compeiion among sudens 6 iii. beer processing of informaion by sudens 4 iv. using second language more ofen 4 C. Sudens Inerviews The inerviews were conduced wih he sudens of he experimenal group in heir moher ongue a he end of he inervenion, o record heir aiudes owards he projec. I is noed ha each suden could give more han one answers for each of he following caegories. 1 s Quesion In he firs quesion Wha did you like mos abou he projec? mos sudens (90%) answered ha hey liked cooperaing wih heir classmaes, dealing wih opics of heir ineres (80%) and creaive aciviies (80%). Sudens said ha I liked working in a group. We someimes had problems bu i was nice and fun working wih ohers and doing hings ogeher (suden 1), I liked working in a group. When you cooperae wih ohers you learn more and you are no alone (suden 9), I liked learning new hings ha I was ineresed in I know abou hese opics really well now (suden 3). In addiion, some sudens (30%) referred o he pleasure and enjoymen hey derived during projec work. They said ha: I liked everyhing abou he projec..i was no like having a class. We learned a lo bu i was so much fun (suden 2), «...I liked he role plays A firs I didn know how o communicae in English bu hen I learned (suden 9). 2 nd Quesion Mos sudens, despie he fac ha hey liked working in a group, seemed o encouner difficulies wih cooperaing in he group (40%) (see 1 s Quesion). A suden noed ha:..i was difficul o cooperae wih ohers..we someimes had problems because some sudens didn do wha hey had o or missed he deadlines.. (suden 3). Some oher sudens said ha: I was difficul for me o wrie senences and exs.. bu I learned how I can do i (suden 8), I was difficul for me o learn how o find informaion for various opics... (suden 6),..I had difficulies in finding informaion and organizing i in order o presen i.. (suden 4),..I was difficul for me o wrie summaries and hen o presen my work in class (suden 5). 3 rd Quesion In he 3 rd quesion Wha would you like o do in anoher/ differen way?, sudens were asked o repor wha hey would like o do in anoher or differen way in he projec process. The majoriy of hem (80%) expressed heir enjoymen and saisfacion wih he projec. I is worh menioning ha wo sudens did no give any specific answer o ha quesion, since hey could no hink of an alernaive way. 4 h Quesion In he quesion Wha did you learn in he foreign language ha was new?, mos sudens (70%) repored ha hey learned new vocabulary when asked wha hey hink hey have learned a he end of he projec. Five ou of en sudens (50%) menioned ha hey developed heir wriing skills. Specifically, hey said: I learned a lo of new words.. I really improved my English.., (suden 7), I learned new vocabulary.. and I really waned o learn more.. (suden 2), I learned how o wrie senences and exs. I was no used o wriing exs in English during previous courses.. (suden 2). Some sudens also referred o he posiive impac of he projec on he developmen of heir speaking skills; specifically a suden repored: I learned how o communicae in English..how o give direcions, how o answer quesions.. (suden 5). 5 h Quesion In he las quesion, sudens were asked if hey would like o paricipae in a projec in he fuure. All sudens were enhusiasic abou paricipaing in a projec again, and hey menioned various reasons for heir posiive replies. Mos of hem (80%) referred o he fac ha learning was a pleasurable process when working on a projec. Moreover, sudens said ha language learning hrough a projec helped hem learn new hings (60%) and learn how o cooperae in a group (40%). Some (20%) also menioned ha hey were able o improve heir English. Learning English hrough using a exbook is more difficul..working on his projec is easier and more fun.. (suden 7).. I would like o paricipae in a projec again. There are no exbooks, i is more fun..and we can work in groups (suden 2). I would like o paricipae in a projec nex year in order o learn more new hings.. (suden 8). V. DISCUSSION This paper aimed a presening he design and implemenaion as well as he evaluaion of he feasibiliy of a conenbased projec aiming o develop young learners skills in English as a foreign language. The general overview of he daa illusraed ha sudens favor he inegraion of conen and language. Consisen wih oher sudies he resuls seem o confirm ha Conen-based projecs help o foser sudens posiive aiudes
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 241 owards language learning (Lasagabaser & Sierra 2009), since hey seem o moivae sudens o learn he arge language in real-life seings (Infane e al. 2009; Naves, 2009). In he specific projec, i was indicaed ha working on a projec was a pleasurable learning experience which included several benefis regarding language learning, simulaed learners and helped hem creae posiive aiudes o foreign language learning. The journal records and he inerviews conduced wih he experimenal group led o he conclusion ha he paricipans experienced learning in an enjoyable way, as hey used he foreign language for auhenic communicaion, by combining learning wih having fun. I was revealed ha he sudens of he experimenal group showed coninuous enhusiasm and ineres in he learning process from he beginning o he end of he inervenion. Their moivaion was simulaed and resuled in making hem feel more confiden and use he English language for purposeful communicaion in a relaxed learning conex. The learners had he opporuniy o inerac and cooperae in order o achieve common goals, as well as o share ideas and learn from one anoher by working in a group (Krechevsky & Sork, 2000). In he exising lieraure i is ofen saed ha Conen Based Insrucion and Projec Based Learning can enhance he developmen of skills in he foreign language, as here is ofen considerable improvemen observed in all four skills and especially regarding sudens communicaive compeence, heir lisening comprehension and speaking skills (Fried- Booh, 2002), as well as heir managemen skills (Gardner, 1995; Coleman, 1992). The resuls of his sudy suppor he aforemenioned observaions. More specifically, he resuls of he pre- and poses for he experimenal group indicaed sudens progress concerning boh heir abiliy in reading and wriing and heir communicaive compeence (improvemen in lengh of orally produced exs, improvemen of heir pronunciaion and less synax or pragmaic/ synacic misakes). In addiion, here was significan improvemen in all sudens wriing skills. Sudens avoided misakes and were able o convey meaning afer he end of he inervenion. In comparison wih he conrol group, i was observed ha he sudens of he experimenal group made a greaer progress compared o he conrol group. In addiion, he experimenal group had he opporuniy o access auhenic maerial, o use boh oral and wrien speech purposefully, always dealing wih opics of heir ineres. The sudens who paricipaed in he projec fel ha hey enjoyed learning hrough a projec, and hey were proud of heir conribuion o he final oucomes of he projec as well as of heir work and learning in he field of he foreign language. They were given simuli and opporuniies for creaive hinking and paricipaion in a game-based conex, where sudens realized ha learning a foreign language can be more han a boring process. In addiion, hey were involved in meacogniive sraegies sraegies, such as making inquiries, managing heir ime, planning and evaluaing heir learning. Even hesian sudens gradually had acive paricipaion in group aciviies and fel more self-confiden and posiive owards foreign language learning. Neverheless, he sudens encounered some difficulies due o he fac ha hey were no familiar wih projec work. During he firs sessions he sudens ofen fel confused in relaion o idenifying and processing specific informaion; even when collecing i, i was difficul for hem o summarize or synhesize i. The eacher assised he sudens by illusraing ways and providing hem wih examples for criical processing of informaion. In addiion, sudens were no used o working in groups before he implemenaion of CBI projec; however, hey gradually learned how o lisen o heir classmaes views and how o cooperae, assigning differen roles. Concluding, i is noed ha he specific EFL projec was a small scale projec; herefore i is considered necessary o implemen i across more primary schools in order o beer examine is effeciveness and o validae he posiive impac of CBI and PBL in learning English as a foreign language. REFERENCES [1] Becke, G.H. (2005). Academic language and lieracy socializaion of secondary school Chinese immigran sudens: Pracices and perspecives. Journal of Asia Pacific Communicaion, (1), 191-206. [2] Becke, G.H. & Slaer, T. (2005). The projec framework: a ool for language, conen, and skills inegraion. ELT Journal. 59(2), 108-116. [3] Bird M., Hammersley M., Gomm R., & Woods P. (1996). Educaional Research in Acion: Research in Acion. Milon Keynes: The Open Universiy Press. [4] Brinon, D., Snow, M. & Wesche, M. (1989). Conen-based second language insrucion. New York: Newbury House. [5] Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages o Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge Universiy Press. [6] Clark, A. (2006). Changing classroom pracice o include he projec approach. Early Childhood Research & Pracice, 8(2). hp://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v8n2/clark.hml (assessed 8/10/2007) [7] Coleman, J. A. (1992). Projec-based learning, ransferable skills, informaion echnology and video. Language Learning Journal (5), 35-37. [8] Cummins, J. (1994). Knowledge, power and ideniy in eaching English as a second language. In F. Genesee (Ed.), Educaing second language children: The whole child, he whole curriculum, he whole communiy. New York: Cambridge Universiy Press, 33-58. [9] Edelenbos P., Johnsone J. & Kubanek A. (2006). The main pedagogical principles underlying he eaching of languages o very young learners: Languages for he children of Europe, Srasbourg: Council of Europe. [10] Edelenbos, P. & de Jong, J. H. A. (2004). Teaching Foreign Languages in he Neherlands: a siuaional skech. Enschede: NaB MVT. [11] Erdem, M. (2002). Proje Tabanlı Öğrenme. Haceepe Universiesi Egiim Fakulesi Dergisi. 22, 172-179.
242 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH [12] Fried-Booh, D.L. (2002). Projec work (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford Universiy Press. [13] Gardner, D. (1995). Suden produced video documenary provides a real reason for using he arge language. Language Learning Journal, 12, 54-56. [14] Grabe, W. & Soller, F. (1997). Conen-based insrucion: Research foundaions. In M. A. Snow & D. Brinon (Eds.), The conen-based classroom: Perspecives on inegraing language and conen. Whie Plains, NY: Longman, 5-20. [15] Griva, E., Semoglou, K. & Geladari, A. (2010). Early Foreign Language Learning: implemenaion of a Projec in a game based conex. Seleced Volume: Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, ELSEVIER, Volume 2, 3700-3705. [16] Gu, P. (2002). Effecs of projec-based CALL on Chinese EFL learners. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, l (12), 195-210. [17] Haield, J. (1990). Inermediae communicaion games. London: Nelson. [18] Harre, R. (1993). Social Being, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell. [19] Infane, D., Benvenuo, G. & Lasrucci, E. (2009). The Effecs of CLIL from he Perspecive of Experienced Teachers. In D. Marsh, P. Mehiso, D. Wolff, R. Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M.J. Frigols-Marin, S. Hughes and G. Lange (eds), CCN, Universiy of Syvaskyla: Finland, 156-163. [20] Johnsone R. (2002). Addressing he age facor : some implicaions for language policy. Council of Europe: Srasbourg. [21] Krechevsky & Sork, (2000). Challenging educaional assumpions: Lessons from an Ialian-American collaboraion. Cambridge Journal of Educaion, 30, 57-74. [22] Lasagabaser, D. & Sierra, J.M. (2009). Language Aiudes in CLIL and Tradiional EFL Classes. Inernaional CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 4-17. [23] Lee, I. (2002). Projec work made easy in he English classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 282-290. [24] Levy, M. (1997). Projec-based learning for language eachers: reflecing on he process. In R. Debski, J. Gassin, & M.Smih (Eds.), Language learning hrough social compuing, Melbourne: Applied Linguisic, 181-191. [25] Me, M. (1991). Learning language hrough conen: Learning conen hrough language. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 281-295. [26] Moon, J. (2005). Children Learning English. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann. [27] Naves, T. (2009). Effecive Conen and Language Inegraed Programmes (CLIL). In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe and R.M. Jimenez Caalan (eds), Conen and Language Inegraed Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe. Brisol: Mulilingual Maers, 22-40. [28] Nikolov, M (ed.) (2009). The Age Facor and Early Language Learning. Berlin, New York: Mouon de Gruyer. [29] Singleon, D. (1995). Inroducion: A Criical Look a he Criical Period Hypohesis in Second Language Acquisiion. Ιn The Age Facor in Second Language Acquisiion, Singleon, D. and Z. Lengyel (eds.), Mulilingual Maers Ld, 1-289. [30] Skehan, P. (1998). A cogniive approach o language learning. Oxford: Oxford Universiy Press. [31] Soller, F. (2006). Esablishing a heoreical foundaion for projec-based learning in second and foreign language conexs. In G.H. Becke & P.C. Miller (Eds.), Projec based second and foreign language educaion: Pas, presen and furure. Greenwich, CT: Informaion Age Publishing Inc, 19-40. [32] Soller, F. L. (2002). Conen-Based Insrucion: A Shell for Language Teaching or a Framework for Sraegic Language and Conen Learning? Keynoe presened a he annual meeing of Teachers of English o Speakers of Oher Languages, Sal Lake Ciy. (online a CoBaLTT websie) [33] Soller, F. L. (1997). Projec work: A means o promoe language and conen. English Teaching Forum 35 (4): 2 9, 37. Eleni I. Korosidou is an EFL eacher. She graduaed from he School of English Language and Lieraure- Arisole Universiy of Thessaloniki, in 2005. She received MA degree in Teaching Mehodology and Curriculum Design- Universiy of Wesern Macedonia. She has been eaching English as a Foreign Language in Primary and Secondary Educaion for he las seven years. Her curren ineress include Foreign Language Teaching and Learning, Language Assessmen and Compuer Assised Language Learning. She has paricipaed in educaional conferences. Eleni A. Griva is an Assisan Professor a he Universiy of Wesern Macedonia Greece, School of Educaional Sudies (Deparmen of Primary Educaion). She graduaed from he School of English Language and Lieraure and he School of Ialian Language and Lieraure- Arisole Universiy of Thessaloniki. She holds a Maser of Science in Educaion, a Maser in Applied Linguisics and a Ph.D. in Educaion. She has a long eaching and academic experience in Primary, Pos Secondary and Teriary Educaion. She has been eaching he following courses a posgraduae and undergraduae: FL/SL language learning and eaching, Language learning sraegies, Bilingualism and Bilingual Educaion, Bilingualism and language developmen, Modern approaches and mehods of language eaching, Teaching Greek as a foreign/second language. Her research ineress include: Learning and Teaching Modern languages, Bilingualism/mulilingualism/muliculuralism, Language learning sraegies, Language Pracices, Language policy, eacher developmen. She is member of six PhD commiees and she is eiher supervisor or member of 48 Maser commiees. She has paricipaed in a number of research projecs relaed o mulilingual learning of primary and secondary educaion sudens, mealinguisic awareness and sraegy use of young EFL learners, Early L2/FL learning, bilingual elemenary sudens reading and wriing sraegies.
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 243 Dr Eleni A. Griva has been member of: a) he Inernaional Associaion of Mulilingualism, b) he Greek Sociey of Applied Linguisics, b) he Cross-border Scienific Commiee of cooperaion beween "Fan S. Noli" Universiy of Korce-Albania, Universiy of Biola-FYROM and Universiy of Wesern Macedonia-Greece. She has published wo books, and she has been auhor and co-auhor of 92 papers in Inernaional and Greek journals, colleced ediions and Conference Proceedings. She has also paricipaed in 88 Inernaional and Naional Conferences.