Brigham Young University Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive BYU ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations 2010-10-04 An Evaluation of Communicative Activities in First-Year High An Evaluation of Communicative Activities in First-Year High School Spanish Textbooks School Spanish Textbooks Marcella C. Martinez Brigham Young University - Provo Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd Part of the Spanish and Portuguese Language and Literature Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Martinez, Marcella C., "An Evaluation of Communicative Activities in First-Year High School Spanish Textbooks" (2010). Theses and Dissertations. 2397. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/2397 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected].
66
Embed
An Evaluation of Communicative Activities in First-Year ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Brigham Young University Brigham Young University
BYU ScholarsArchive BYU ScholarsArchive
Theses and Dissertations
2010-10-04
An Evaluation of Communicative Activities in First-Year High An Evaluation of Communicative Activities in First-Year High
School Spanish Textbooks School Spanish Textbooks
Marcella C. Martinez Brigham Young University - Provo
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd
Part of the Spanish and Portuguese Language and Literature Commons
BYU ScholarsArchive Citation BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Martinez, Marcella C., "An Evaluation of Communicative Activities in First-Year High School Spanish Textbooks" (2010). Theses and Dissertations. 2397. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/2397
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected].
The study analyzed activities of Spanish Level 1 textbooks used in high school to determine the extent to which they incorporate some of the most respected theories of communicative language learning, in particular the theories of Krashen, Swain, Long and Nunan. Five well known Spanish books were chosen: Realidades, Exprésate, Así se dice, Avancemos, and Aventura. For each book, Chapter 2 and Chapter 5 were chosen to be evaluated by two raters. The activities in these chapters were analyzed according to four criteria derived from the abovementioned theories. Results suggest that textbooks may not be in alignment with major theories of how language is acquired. The majority of the activities may fall under the category of meaningless drills, which it is claimed do not contribute to acquisition of a second language.
Keywords: textbook activities, theories of language, drills, communicative activities
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge and extend my heartfelt appreciation to the following
persons who have made the completions of this thesis possible: Dr. Blair E. Bateman for his vital
encouragement, support, time and guidance. Dr. Cherice Montgomery and Dr. Nieves Pérez
Knapp for their support. Tyler Castle for his tremendous help in rating the activities. All faculty
members, staff and students that I may have come across at Brigham Young University for their
encouragement and assistance. Most especially thanks to my family and particularly my son
Antonio, for being such a good trooper.
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................1
Background of the Study ...............................................................................1
Statement of the Problem ...............................................................................2
The Present Study ..........................................................................................5
Significance of the Study ...............................................................................7
Delimitations of the Study .............................................................................8
Definitions of Terms ......................................................................................8
Organization of the Thesis .............................................................................9
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE .......................................11
Theories of Language Learning .....................................................................11
Language Learning in the Classroom Context ...............................................14
Typologies of Textbook Activities ................................................................15
Research of Textbook Activities ....................................................................17
In total, 74 out of the total 280 were classified as activities that require communication.
This represents 26% of all the activities among all five books, suggesting that the other 74% of
the activities did not have communication as their main focus.
The second approach to evaluating the communicative nature of the textbook activities
involved calculating descriptive statistics for the raters’ scores on each of the four variables.
These are shown in Table 3. Differences between Chapter 2 and Chapter 5 were not significant.
29
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for Each Variable (Mean of Raters 1 and 2)
N Minimum Maximum Mode Median Mean Std. Dev.Mean Understanding 280 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.44 .90Mean Purpose 280 1.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 1.81 .84Mean Opportunities 79 1.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.35 1.07Mean Spontaneity 79 1.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.29 .99
Figures 1 through 4 below show histograms for each variable showing the frequency of each
rating. As can be seen, the ratings for the Understanding variable were the highest of the four.
Ratings for the Purpose variable were the lowest, with the most common rating being 1. This
suggest that publishing companies are aware of the importance of having the language be
comprehensible but lack applicability in how this information can apply to communication
outside of the classroom.
30
Figure 1 Score Frequencies for “Understanding” Variable (Mean of Raters 1 and 2)
As can be seen from the “Understanding” Variable the most common trend was a score of 3
which means that the activity requires understanding of some of the language in order for the
activity to be completed.
31
Figure 2 Score Frequencies for “Purpose” Variable (Mean of Raters1 and 2)
As can be seen from the “Purpose” Variable the most common trend was a score of 1 which
means that the activity is designed to focus exclusively on linguistic forms, with no attention to
meaning, nor does it reflect applicabililty outside of classroom.
32
Figure 3 Score Frequencies for “Opportunities” Variable (Mean of Raters 1 and 2)
As can be seen from the “Opportunities” Variable the most common trend was a score of 2
which means that the students have access to the same information but are able to substitute in
order to make the activity more personal.
Figure 4
33
Score Frequencies for “Spontaneity” Variable (Mean of Raters 1 and 2)
As can be seen from the “Spontaneity” Variable the most common trend was a score of 2 which
means that the activity has some formatted script but the student is able to make some
substitutions.
34
Research Question 1(a): As textbooks progress from the earlier chapters to the later
chapters, do the activities become more communicative in nature?
As explained in Chapter 3, it was hypothesized that the activities in Chapter 5 of each
book would be more communicative than those in Chapter 2 because students’ communicative
ability presumably increases as the course progresses. Tables 4, 5, 6, and 7 below show the mean
rating for each variable for Chapter 2 and Chapter 5, as well as the results of t tests comparing
the ratings for the two chapters. An alpha level of .05 was used to determine statistical
significance.
Table 4
Comparison of Chapters 2 and 5 on “Understanding” Variable Chapter N Mean Std. Deviation2 140 2.346 .88945 140 2.532 .9021
t test for Equality of Means
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean
DifferenceStd. Error Difference
-1.735 278 .084 -.1857 .1071
35
Table 5 Comparison of Chapters 2 and 5 on “Purpose” Variable Chapter N Mean Std. Deviation2 140 1.796 .84165 140 1.839 .8445
t test for Equality of Means
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean
DifferenceStd. Error Difference
-.425 278 .671 -.0429 .1008
Table 6 Comparison of Chapters 2 and 5 on “Opportunities” Variable Chapter N Mean Std. Deviation2 40 2.113 1.04695 39 2.590 1.0442
t test for Equality of Means
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean
DifferenceStd. Error Difference
-2.028 77 .046 -.4772 .2353
Table 7 Comparison of Chapters 2 and 5 on “Spontaneity” Variable Chapter N Mean Std. Deviation2 40 2.038 .96345 39 2.538 .9623
t test for Equality of Means
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean
DifferenceStd. Error Difference
-2.312 77 .023 -.5010 .2167
36
As is evident from the tables, the mean ratings for two of the variables, Opportunities and
Spontaneity, were significantly higher for Chapter 5 than for Chapter 2, suggesting that the
activities did in fact become more communicative as the books progressed. The mean ratings for
the other two variables, Understanding and Purpose, did not change significantly from Chapter 2
to Chapter 5, although the difference for the Understanding variable did approach significance (p
= .08).
Research Question 1(b): Are activities that textbooks explicitly label as “communicative”
actually more communicative than other activities in the book?
As previously explained, some of the activities in each chapter of all textbooks were explicitly
labeled as “communicative.” This research question examined the extent to which these
exercises were in fact more communicative than tasks that were not specifically labeled as
communicative. Because the latter group of activities was not rated on the Opportunities and
Spontaneity variables, the analysis for this subquestion compared the two groups of activities
only on the Understanding and Purpose variables. Tables 8 and 9 below show the mean rating for
each variable for the two groups of exercises, as well as the results of t tests comparing the
means of the two groups.
37
Table 8
Comparison of Activities Labeled “Communicative” With Activities Not Labeled as Such:
“Understanding” Variable
“Communicative” N Mean Std. DeviationNo 20
1 2.264 .9139
Yes 79 2.886 .6838
t test for Equality of Means
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean
DifferenceStd. Error Difference
-5.478 278 .000 -.6224 .1136
Table 9
Comparison of Activities Labeled “Communicative” With Activities Not Labeled as Such:
“Purpose” Variable
“Communicative” N Mean Std. DeviationNo 20
1 1.590 .7530
Yes 79 2.399 .7778
t test for Equality of Means
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean
DifferenceStd. Error Difference
-8.018 278 .000 -.8092 .1009
Summary
In general, the textbook activities did not rate highly on any of the four communicative
variables; they did not come anywhere near the highest rating of the rubric that was used to rate
the activities. As can be seen, the activities labeled as “communicative” scored significantly
38
higher than activities not labeled as such. However, the authors do seem to be making a
conscious effort to make activities more communicative as the book progresses, and the activities
that are specifically designed as “communicative” do seem to provide more communicative
practice than other activities.
This chapter has reported the results of the data analyses for the main research question
and two subquestions. Chapter 5 will discuss conclusions drawn from the findings, implications
for textbook publishers and teachers, limitations of the study, and recommendations for further
research.
39
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The goal of the study was to evaluate the activities in textbooks to determine if the
exercises in the books represented tasks deemed as “communicative.” The study suggests that all
textbooks evaluated across the board have room for improvement as far as making their activities
more communicative. Only 26 percent of the activities were even labeled as such, with the
remaining activities not even claiming to have communication as their main focus. This
information implies that textbooks may not be in alignment with major theories of how language
is acquired. The majority of the activities may fall under the category of meaningless drills.
Swain (1985), suggests that in order to develop communicative capability, learners must
have prolonged opportunities to use the second language effectively. Clearly the textbooks fall
behind in achieving this goal as less than half of the activities attempt to be communicative.
Of the four variables rated in the study, the category of Understanding scored the highest,
suggesting that the textbook authors are making an effort to provide information which could be
valuable to the students, as the students must understand the language in order to complete the
given assignment. Yet the mean of this category was under 2.4 for Chapter 2 and Chapter 5
combined. The effort is there, but publishers have a way to go to truly bring activities that would
be more beneficial to the student of a foreign language.
The category labeled as Purpose scored the lowest. The mean for this category was 1.81
What this implies is that many of the activities in the textbook do not carry a purpose that can be
applied outside of the classroom. This is an area that textbooks could improve tremendously; if
the students see some connection to outside the classroom, they may be able to do much better in
their language acquisition.
40
According to Krashen (1984), “second language acquisition occurs when the learner
receives comprehensible input, not when the learner is memorizing vocabulary or completing
grammar exercises” (p. 304). The low ratings in the Purpose category show that textbook
activities are not really reflecting activities that would be applicable to the student outside of the
classroom. The exercises do not provide comprehensible input for the most part, as many of the
purpose activities are just requirements to memorize vocabulary words or practice grammar, with
no apparent applicability to the students’ “real life” communicative needs.
The mean ratings for two of the variables, Opportunities and Spontaneity, were
significantly higher for Chapter 5 than for Chapter 2. This suggests that the activities did in fact
become more communicative as the books progressed. However, the other two variables,
Understanding and Purpose, did not change significantly from Chapter 2 to Chapter 5. It would
be ideal if activities scored higher in all categories and if there were a significant improvement
across all questions since the language of the student should have improved from Chapter 2 to
Chapter 5.
The activities labeled as “communicative” scored significantly higher. The authors do
attempt to make a conscious effort to make activities more challenging as they progressed
through the book, yet they still fall behind as they did not come anywhere near the highest rating
of the rubric that was used to rate the activities.
Implications for Textbook Publishers and Teachers
It is my recommendation that publishing companies look at this study to improve the
structure of the textbook so that they contain activities which are more meaningful and
applicable to outside the classroom. It would be ideal if future textbooks took into account how
language is acquired. Perhaps the area of drills can be minimized and the area of communication
41
can be maximized. Instead of having only 26% of the activities be communicative, it would be
more beneficial for the student to have 74% of the activities be more communicative and with
meaningful purpose.
I would highly encourage teachers to perhaps use the textbook as a guide, but to try to
incorporate other material that perhaps the book publisher does not offer. This may require more
work on the teacher’s part, as it may necessitate more planning to be able to deliver a lesson that
offers more opportunities for the students to communicate. Going outside the textbook may
allow students to do activities that rank higher in understanding, purpose, opportunities for
sharing and spontaneity.
I don’t want to imply that learning grammar is not an important part of language
acquisition or that the textbooks do not provide any valuable learning. I strongly believe that as
learners progress in their language acquisition, they need to have the grammar rules to be able to
communicate effectively. Perhaps initially if the goal is communication only, if learners
communicate with mistakes and get their point across, then they have achieved communication.
At some point, however, one would hope that learners would want to be able to communicate
correctly, and for that purpose they need grammar rules. Having said that, I would like to see
publishers enhance communication by decreasing their emphasis on grammar. The goal should
not be grammar for its own sake but rather as a tool for communication. Students should be able
to explore the learning of a language where they can actually use what they achieve to be able to
communicate in situations outside of the classroom.
Limitations of the Study
This is a small study with only two raters, and I was one of them. The two raters were
from a small rural community and were chosen completely by convenience. It would be
42
interesting to see assessments from other teachers as well as teachers from other states or even
more metropolitan cities.
A second limitation of the study was that it only included activities in the textbook and
not any exercises that may be supplemented by the publishing company. In addition, teachers
may do many activities in the classroom to enhance communication with students in the
classroom, and those actions were not taken into consideration for this study.
Recommendations for Further Research
In future studies of this type, it would be interesting to have more raters to see what kind
of results are generated. Another area for future research would be to compare learning outcomes
in classes that rely heavily on the textbook with those that do not. If the textbook is not utilized
by some teachers, it would be interesting to see if people increase their language skills by using
the textbook compared to students who do not use the textbook. If that is the case, then
researchers could examine what activities teachers are using in the classroom to increase their
student’s language skills. A third line of research for future studies could be to attempt to align
different types of learning activities with theories of acquisition of language and to see which
activities are most effective for students.
43
References
Aski, J. M. (2003). Foreign language textbook activities: Keeping pace with second language
acquisition research. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 57- 65.
Aski, J. M. (2005). Alternatives to mechanical drills for the early stages of language practice in
foreign language textbooks. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 333-343.
Biemer, L. (1992). The textbook controversy: The role of content. In J.G. Herlihy & M.T.
Herlihy (Eds.), The textbook controversy: Issues, aspects, and perspectives (pp. 17-25).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Doughty, C. & T. Pica (1986). ‘Information-gap' tasks: Do they facilitate second language
acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20 305-326.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on Form in classroom second
language acquisition (Applied Linguistics Series). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Dow, P.B. (1992). Taming the textbook tyranny: Reflections of a would-be school reformer. In
J.G. Herlihy & M.T. Herlihy (Eds.), The textbook controversy: Issues, aspects, and
perspectives (pp. 33-42). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Eisner, E.W. (1987). Why the textbook influences curriculum. Curriculum Review, 26(3), 11-13. Ellis, R. (1991). The interaction hypothesis: A critical evaluation. Paper presented at the
Regional Language Centre Singapore. (ERIC document Reproduction Service No. ED
338037)
Ellis, R. (1995). Implicit/explicit knowledge and language pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly,
28, 166-172.
44
Ellis, R. (2002). Methodological options in grammar teaching materials. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos
(Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 155-
179). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Frantzen, D. (1998). Focusing on form while conveying a cultural message. Hispania, 81, 134-
145.
Fuller, G. E. (1987). How to learn a foreign language. Washington, D.C: Storm King Press.
Funston, J. F. (2009). Aventura Level 1. St Paul, MN: EMC.
Gahala, E. M., (2009). Avancemos Level 1 (Teacher’s Edition). Evanston, IL: McDougal Littell.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.). Handbook of
research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-483). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Takenoya, M. (1995). Acquisition of pragmatic rules: The gap between what the language
textbooks present and how learners perform. In M. A. Haggstrom, L. Z. Morgan, & J. A.
Wieczorek (Eds.), The foreign language classroom: Bridging theory and practice (pp.
149-163). New York: Garland.
VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar teaching for the acquisition-rich classroom. Foreign
Language Annals, 26, 435-450.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Communicative classrooms, processing instruction, and
pedagogical norms. In S. Gass (Ed.), Pedagogical norms for second and foreign
language learning and teaching: Studies in honor of Albert Valdman (pp. 105-118.).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wong, W., & VanPatten, B. (2003). "The Evidence is IN: Drills are Out.” Foreign Language
Annals, 36, 403-23.
Woodward, A., & Elliot, D.L. (1990). Textbook use and teacher professionalism. In D.L.
Elliot & A. Woodward, Textbooks and schooling in the United States: Eighty- ninth
yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 178-193). Chicago:
University of Chicago.
47
APPENDIX A
Rating Scales Used With All Textbook Activities
Understanding (extent to which students need to understand the language used in order to complete the activity)
The activity can be completed by the student without understanding the meaning of any of the words
The activity can be completed by the student without understanding the meaning but may require a little effort to obtain meaning (looking at cognates)
The activity requires understanding of some of the language in order for the activity to be completed
The question requires mostof the language to be understood in order for the student to complete the activity
The activity can be completed only with full understanding of meaning
Purpose (extent to which activity focused on communicating meaning, and extent to which activity can be transferred to a real life situation outside the classroom, as opposed to merely practicing linguistic forms)
Activity is designed to focus exclusively on linguistic forms, with no attention to meaning, nor does it reflect applicability to situations outside of classroom
The activity can be answered by making minimum substitutions to the activity given, it is an activity unlikely to be use outside of the classroom
Activity focuses mainly on linguistic forms, with some attention to meaning, this activity may be applicable outside the classroom under certain circumstances
Activity requires attention to form in order to be able to answer correctly, activity may very well be used outside the classroom
The activity is designed to expand beyond grammar concepts allowing the students to create own concepts, this activity helps students apply information and it can be use outside the classroom
48
APPENDIX B
Rating Scales Used With Activities Labeled as “Communicative”
Opportunities for the student to share information (Activities that are depicted as communicative or have a sharing icon will have this extra rating scale)
All students have access to the same information, no negotiation of meaning is required
The students have access to the same information but are able to substitute in order to make the activity more personal
Activity requires interaction but the information is not shared equally. One student may have access to the information while the other student may need to come up with the answers in order to complete the activity
Students have access to information equally and some negotiation of meaning is required to complete the activity
Each student has unique information, the student must negotiate meaning in order to complete the task
Spontaneity (lack of prompting and naturalness)
Activity requires the student to follow a formatted script
The activity has some formatted script but the student is able to make some substitutions
The activity may require one student to have a formatted script while another student has the opportunity to answer although the answer is expected or known
This activity allows both students to share information equally, in this activity the answer is not known or expected
Activity allows students to create open-ended questions or dialogue