Double responsibility of foreign language teachers: Primary student-teachers’ perceptions of linguistic and cultural content

Main Article Content

Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
Marek Krawiec
Francisco Javier Ibañez-Lopez

Abstrakt

Scholars all over the world have been arguing for foreign language instruction which combines linguistic and cultural content. Eliminating the cultural side results in a deficient process. This study explored prospective teachers’ perceptions of both constituents, since they will ultimately be responsible for their implementation in the foreign language classroom. To this end, 137 students from three European universities were chosen and asked to fill out an online questionnaire with Likert scale items. Data was collected and interpreted using the free statistics software package R (R Core Team, 2019). The findings confirmed that the relevance of linguistic / cultural issues was unanimously acknowledged (98,5%), speaking was appointed as the most desired target skill (97,1%), interpersonal relations (88,3%) as the most important aspect of socio-cultural knowledge, and lessons with native speakers (94,2%) as the most relevant classroom resource

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Jak cytować
Sanchez-Sanchez, G., Krawiec, M., & Ibañez-Lopez, F. J. (2020). Double responsibility of foreign language teachers: Primary student-teachers’ perceptions of linguistic and cultural content. Glottodidactica. An International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 47(1), 137-159. https://doi.org/10.14746/gl.2020.47.1.08
Dział
Artykuły

Bibliografia

  1. Al-Nawrasy, O. (2013). The effect of native and nonnative English language teachers on secondary students’ achievement in speaking skills. Jordan Journal of Educational Sciences, 9 (2), 243–254.
  2. Alseweed, M. A. (2012). University students’ perceptions of the influence of native and non-native teachers. English Language Teaching, 5 (12), 42–53. http://files.eric.ed.gov7fulltext/EJ1080168.pdf [access: 10.04.2019].
  3. Babych, N. D. (1990). The basics of linguistic culture. Lvov: Swit.
  4. Barabar, A. / Caganaga, C. K. (2015). Using nonverbal communication in EFL classes. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 10 (2), 136–147.
  5. Bingham, S. / Larson, E. (2006). Using CALL as the major element of study for a university English class in Japan. The JALT Journal, 2 (3), 39–52.
  6. Byram, M. (1989). Cultural studies in foreign language education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  7. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters.
  8. Byram, M. (2003). On being ‘bicultural’ and ‘intercultural’. In: G. Alred, M. Byram & M. Fleming (eds.). Intercultural experience and education (pp. 50–66). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  9. Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship: Essays and reflections. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  10. Byram, M. / Morgan, C. (1994). Teaching-and-learning language-and-culture. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  11. Cabrejas Peñuelas, A. B. (2013). The use of glogs in the English classroom. @tic, Revista de innovación educative, 10, 68–74.
  12. Cook, V. (2001). Second language learning and language teaching. London: Arnold.
  13. Cortés Moreno, M. (2005). ¿Hay que enseñar gramática a los estudiantes de una lengua extranjera?. Cauce: Revista Internacional de Filología, Comunicación y sus Didácticas, 28, 89–108.
  14. Coşkun, A. (2013). Native speakers as teachers in Turkey: Non-native pre-service English teachers’ reactions to a nation-wide project. The Qualitative Report, 18 (57), 1–21.
  15. Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR). https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97 [access: 5.04.2019].
  16. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (1998). Recommendation no. R(98)6 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States concerning modern languages. https://rm.coe.int/16804fc569 [access: 6.05.2019].
  17. Creswell, J. (2012). Educational research: Planning conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Amherst, MA: Pearson.
  18. Damanhouri, M. (2018). The advantages and disadvantages of body language in intercultural communication. Khazar Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 21 (1), 68–82.
  19. Darancik, Y. (2018). Students’ views on language skills in foreign language teaching. International Education Studies, 11 (7), 166–178.
  20. Dervin, F. (2010). Assessing intercultural competence in language learning and teaching: A critical review of current efforts in higher education. In: F. Dervin / E. Suomela-Salmi (eds.). New approaches to assessing language and (inter-)cultural competences in higher education (pp. 157–174). Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.
  21. Ediger, A. (2001). Teaching children literacy skills in a second language. In: M. Celce-Murcia (ed.). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 153–169). London: Heinle & Heinle, Thomson Learning.
  22. George, D. / Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  23. Ghasemi, B. (2011). Utube and language learning. Procedia, 28, 63–67.
  24. Gil Ruíz, E. / Soto Pallarés, C. (2015). Análisis del componente cultural en libros de texto de francés destinados al tercer ciclo de educación primaria. Educatio Siglo XXI, 33 (2), 207–224.
  25. Gower, R. / Philips, D. / Walters, S. (1995). Teaching practice: A handbook for teachers in training. Oxford: Macmillan.
  26. Gozdawa-Gołębiowski, R. (2010). Integracja czy dezintegracja? O roli systemu gramatycznego w kształceniu typu CLIL. Języki Obce w Szkole, 6, 43–51.
  27. Grabe, W. / Stoller, F. L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.
  28. Gracia Busà, M. (2015). Teaching learners to communicate effectively in the L2. Integrating body language in the students’ syllabus. Lingue Linguaggi, 15, 83–98.
  29. Gülsünler, M. E. / Fidan, M. (2011). An empirical work about the use of body language in intercultural communication: Example of Turkey and Germany. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 4 (3), 9–16.
  30. Guzmán-Alcón, I. (2019). Investigating the application of communicative language teaching principles in primary education: A comparison of CLIL and FL classrooms. English Language Teaching, 12 (2), 88–99.
  31. Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. London: Longman.
  32. Huneke, H. W. / Steinig, W. (2002). German as a foreign language. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag GmbH & Co.
  33. Kalayo, H. (2007). Teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL). Pekanbaru: Alaf Riau Graha UNRI Press.
  34. Kic-Drgas, J. (2017). Aspects of intercultural communication in LSP teaching. In: M. Krawiec (ed.). Cross-curricular dimensions of language learning and teaching (pp. 95–106). Leeds: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  35. Kłos, M. / Sikorzyńska, A. / Czarnecka-Cicha, B. (2012). Program nauczania języka angielskiego: liceum ogólnokształcące, liceum profilowane i technikum. Warszawa: Pearson.
  36. Komorowska, H. (2002). Metodyka nauczania języków obcych. Warszawa: Fraszka Edukacyjna.
  37. Kondrat, L. (2010). Czy warto uczyć się matematyki po francusku? Języki Obce w Szkole, 6, 126–133.
  38. Krajewska, M. (2012). Program nauczania języka angielskiego dla szkół ponadgimnazjalnych: poziom IV.1. Warszawa: Macmillan Polska.
  39. Krawiec, M. (2007). Metoda projektu w kształtowaniu świadomości kulturowej dzieci w wieku 10–13 lat: Wykorzystanie zasobów percepcyjno-asocjacyjnych uczniów do prezentacji treści kulturoznawczych na lekcji języka angielskiego. Poliglota, 1 (5), 58–71.
  40. Krawiec, M. (2008). Cultural representations of Britain and the British nation in the context ofteaching English at the primary school level: Analysis of the course book material: A case study. Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici – English Studies, XV, 71–78.
  41. Krawiec, M. (2010). Elementy kulturoznawcze w nauczaniu języków obcych: Rozwijanie socjokulturowych kompetencji uczniów – implikacje glottodydaktyczne. Języki Obce w Szkole, 4, 13–20.
  42. Krawiec, M. (2012). Stereotypes in foreign language learning and teaching. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 1 (2), 19–31.
  43. Krawiec, M. (2013). Project work based on tour leading activities as a way of developing students’ cultural knowledge about urban surroundings. In: E. Wąsikiewicz-Firlej / H. Lankiewicz (eds.). From classroom to workplace: Advances in applied linguistics (pp. 59–69). Piła: Wydawnictwo PWSZ im. S. Staszica.
  44. Krawiec, M. (2015). Socio-cultural elements in foreign language teaching and learning and the development of intercultural competences of students: Theoretical considerations. In: M. Krawiec(ed.). Current issues in foreign language teaching and learning (pp. 164–183). Regensburg: Sprachlit
  45. Verlag.
  46. Krawiec, M. / Mikłasz, A. (2018). Key competences of foreign language teachers identified by scholars and secondary school students. In: M. Krawiec / R. Pritchard (eds.). Seize the day: New perspectives on foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 11–26). Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač.
  47. Król, J. (2002). Mieszkamy we Francji. Języki Obce w Szkole, 5, 66–68.
  48. Mcclure, E. (2015). Predictable charts. An effective strategy to engage and impact learners. The Reading Teacher, 69 (5), 505–508.
  49. Marcinkowska, H. (2002). Tematyka krajoznawcza na lekcjach języka niemieckiego – Landeskunde in Deutschunterricht. Języki Obce w Szkole, 1, 57–61.
  50. Mariño, C. (2011). Reflecting on the dichotomy native-non native speakers in an EFL context. Anagramas, 10 (9), 129–142.
  51. Nejati, M. (2010). Annals of language and learning. London: Universal.
  52. Niemeier, S. (2004). Linguistic and cultural relativity: Reconsidered for the foreign language classroom. In: M. Achard / S. Niemeier (eds.). Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 95–118). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gryuter.
  53. Piotrowska, E. / Sztyber, T. (2017). Program nauczania języka angielskiego dla II-ego etapu edukacyjnego. Warszawa: Macmillan Polska.
  54. OJRM 2014 – Decree no. 198/2014, of 5th September, establishing the primary education syllabus in the Region of Murcia. Official Journal of the Region of Murcia 206, Murcia, 6th September 2014.
  55. Pfeiffer, W. (2001). Nauka języków obcych: Od praktyki do praktyki. Poznań: Wagros.
  56. Pfeiffer, W. / Sivasubramaniam, S. (2016). Exploration of self-expression to improve L2 writing skills. Per Linguam, 32 (2), 95–108.
  57. Pogwizd, T. / Sekwerda, M. (2002). Jak poznać Francję na lekcji języka francuskiego? Wprowadzanie elementów cywilizacyjnych na lekcji języka obcego. Języki Obce w Szkole, 3, 63–67.
  58. Pratolo, B. W. (2019). Integrating body language into classroom interaction: The key to achieving effective English language teaching. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7 (3), 121–129.
  59. R Core Team (2019). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Viena: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
  60. Rakhimova, A. E. / Yashina, M. E. / Mukhamadiarova, A. F. / Sharipova, A. V. (2017). The development of sociocultural competence with the help of computer technology. Interchange, 48 (1), 55–70.
  61. Rozporządzenie Ministra Edukacji Narodowej z 14 lutego 2017 r. w sprawie podstawy programowej wychowania przedszkolnego oraz podstawy programowej kształcenia ogólnego dla szkoły podstawowej, w tym dla uczniów z niepełnosprawnością intelektualną w stopniu umiarkowanym lub znacznym, kształcenia ogólnego dla branżowej szkoły I stopnia, kształcenia ogólnego dla szkoły specjalnej przysposabiającej do pracy oraz kształcenia ogólnego dla szkoły policealnej. Dziennik Ustaw Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej 2017, poz. 356.
  62. Róg, T. (2013). Polish research on intercultural competence in applied linguistics. In: E. Wąsikiewicz-Firlej / H. Lankiewicz (eds.). From classroom to workplace: Advances in applied linguistics (pp. 31–44). Piła: Wydawnictwo PWSZ im. S. Staszica.
  63. Róg, T. (2014). Intercultural training in contemporary education: Theoretical positions and their consequences. In: M. Krawiec (ed.). Cross-curricular dimensions of language learning and teaching (pp. 201–217). Leeds: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  64. Róg, T. (2017). The cross-curricular nature of the storyline method in language education. In: M. Krawiec (ed.). Foreign language education and its cross-curricular links (pp. 179–193). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  65. Rubio, F. D. / Lirola, M. M. (2010). English as a foreign language in the EU: Preliminary analysis of the difference in proficiency levels among the member states. European Journal of Language Policy, 2 (1), 23–39. https://search.proquest.com/docview/232417618?accountid=17225 [access: 12.05.2019].
  66. Rzeźnik-Konopa, H. (2006). Frankofonia na lekcjach języka francuskiego. Języki Obce w Szkole, 3, 120–123.
  67. Sánchez-Sánchez, G. (2018). Exploring the role of the foreign language primary teacher: Student--teachers’ perceptions and expectations. In: M. Krawiec / R. Pritchard (eds.). Seize the day: New perspectives on foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 27–39). Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač.
  68. Sánchez-Sánchez, G. / Krawiec, M. (2018). Mediating in intercultural communicative challenges issued in the language classroom: A new objective in training programs for new teachers. Lingua Posnaniensis, 60 (1), 97–105.
  69. Shahed, F. H. (2013). ‘Culture’ as a skill in undergraduate EFL classrooms: The Bangladeshi realities. TEFLIN Journal, 24 (1), 97–112.
  70. Siek-Piskozub, T. (2013). Simulation as communication, culture and creativity (3 in 1). In: E. Wąsikiewicz-Firlej / H. Lankiewicz (eds.). From classroom to workplace: Advances in applied linguistics (pp. 16–29). Piła: PWSZ im. S. Staszica.
  71. Siek-Piskozub, T. (2014). Intercultural communicative competence: A natural need. In: M. Krawiec (ed.). Cross-curricular dimensions of language learning and teaching (pp. 91–200). Leeds: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  72. Siek-Piskozub, T. (2018). ICC in Polish foreign language education: Challenges and options. In: M. Krawiec / R. Pritchard (eds.). Seize the day: New perspectives on foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 41–73). Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač.
  73. Solak, E. / Altay, F. (2014). Prospective EFL teachers’ perceptions of listening comprehension problems in Turkey. Journal of International Social Research, 7 (30), 190–198.
  74. Stefańska, J. (2017). Program nauczania języka angielskiego dla klas IV–VIII. Warszawa: Pearson.
  75. Szczepaniak-Kozak, A. (2013). Criteria for coursebook evaluation in view of effective development of intercultural communicative competence. In: E. Wąsikiewicz-Firlej / H. Lankiewicz (eds.). From classroom to workplace: Advances in applied linguistics (pp. 71–90). Piła: PWSZ im. S. Staszica.
  76. Szpotowicz, M. / Szulc-Kurpaska M. (2009). Teaching English to young learners. Warszawa: PWN.
  77. Tosuncuoğlu, I. (2018). Forming well organized writing activities. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6 (6), 122–127.
  78. Ucán, J. L. B. (2010). Benefits of using extensive listening in ELT. Personal website. http://fel.uqroo.mx/adminfile/files/memorias/borges_ucan_jose_luis.pdf [access: 10.04.2019].
  79. Ur, P. (1991). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  80. Vo, Y. (2013). Developing extensive listening for EFL learners using internet resources. Hawaii Pacific University TESOL Working Paper Series, 11, 29–51.
  81. Wagner, E. (2010). The effect of the use of video texts on ESL listening test-taker performance. Language Testing, 27, 493–513.
  82. Waring, R. (2010). Extensive listening. Rob Waring’s Websites. Personal website. http://www.robwaring.org/el/ [access: 10.04.2019].
  83. Widdowson, H. (2001). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  84. Yükseltürk, E. / Altiok, S. / Baser, Z. (2018). Using game-based learning with kinect technology in foreign language education course. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21 (3), 159–173. https//search.proquest.com/docview/2147863400?accountid=17225 [access: 11.04.2019].