Oral Discourse in Foreign Language Education. The Speaking Activities in EFL Textbooks and the CEFR
[eng] The main aim of this dissertation consists in evaluating the oral language taught in EFL textbooks considering the influence of the Spoken Production and Interaction descriptors in the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). The relevance of the two parameters among practitioners in for...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | tesis doctoral |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2016 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad de Barcelona |
| Repositorio: | Dipòsit Digital de la UB |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:diposit.ub.edu:2445/108268 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/2445/108268 http://hdl.handle.net/10803/401329 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Ensenyament de llengües Aprenentatge integrat de continguts i llengües estrangeres Language teaching Content and Language Integrated Learning |
| Sumario: | [eng] The main aim of this dissertation consists in evaluating the oral language taught in EFL textbooks considering the influence of the Spoken Production and Interaction descriptors in the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). The relevance of the two parameters among practitioners in foreign language education such as textbook writers, publishers, teachers as well as researchers has led us to analyse their adequacy and contribution in the design and content of a representative sample of speaking activities in EFL course books published between 2009 and 2013. Furthermore, this research focusses not exclusively on a pedagogical or language policy perspective, but it contemplates other disciplines such as sociolinguistics, applied linguistics and discourse analysis. The CEFR is approached from a twofold perspective: the foreign language policy and the pedagogical counterparts. First, the CEFR has resulted from the Council of Europe’s ratification of the resolutions put forward by Member States in which key notions, such as “plurilingualism”, “democratic citizenship” and “interculturality”, are inextricably related with the development of foreign language education and policy in Europe. And second, the CEFR has derived from two representative projects sponsored by the Council of Europe, the Threshold Level (van Ek 1976) and the Threshold Level English 1990 (van Ek and Trim 1991), which have laid the foundations for communicative or notional-functional language teaching methodology. Indeed, foreign language education in Europe since the 1970s has highlighted the term “communicative competence” and the four language skills. Thanks to the final document definitely published in 2001 by the Council of Europe, the CEFR has provided new terms such as “communicative language activity” to facilitate the integration of the Common Reference Levels among practitioners in the field. The research methodology that guided this investigation showed quantitatively the fulfillment of the illustrative scales of the two Spoken Production and Interaction descriptors in the speaking activity samples. Moreover, there was a qualitative approach that explored, first, the relevance of the four language skills in the speaking activities in EFL textbooks and the two Spoken descriptors; and second, the degree of interdependence between the speaking activities and the statements of the subscales provided in the two Spoken descriptors. Results show the poor fulfillment of the subscales of the two descriptors in the speaking activity samples. In addition, it is notorious the recurrent and vague content of the Spoken descriptors about language use in EFL academic settings. Furthermore, the explicit use and expected performance of the traditional four language skills in the speaking activity sample contrasts with a reasonable use in the CEFR. This means that there is a wide gap between the content of the two Spoken descriptors and the speaking activity samples because the linguistic model promoted in these kinds of practices originates in the world of written language giving evidence that language is taught as a final product rather than as a process, whereas the two major language modalities, written and oral, are seen as opposites. In conclusion, if we assume that literacies are politically constructed and that the borders between orality and writing have developed as a result of the current changing values of literacy, then, those changes ought to be consequently translated into foreign language education practice. In this sense, the dialogical theory should open its path towards more effective ways of implementing alternative and optimal resources advocating for integrating multiliteracies on behalf of future foreign language policies and education. |
|---|