Articulo 3

Incidental Language Learning in Foreign Language Content Courses
Author(s): DARYL M. RODGERS

Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 99, No. 1 (Spring 2015), pp. 113-136
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers
Associations
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43651881
Accessed: 22-11-2019 19:42 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations, Wiley are collaborating

with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal
This content downloaded from 201.131.90.36 on Fri, 22 Nov 2019 19:42:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Incidental Language Learning in
Foreign Language Content Courses
DARYL M. RODGERS
Susquehanna University
Modern Languages
514 University Avenue
Selinsgrove, PA 1 7870
Email: rodgers@susqu.edu
This study examined the extent to which 40 students enrolled in upper level foreign languag
cultural studies content courses showed evidence of incidental language learning over the c
semester. Students completed a cloze passage and provided both writing and speaking samp
beginning and end of the semester. In addition, they completed questionnaires related to the
perceived development, and instructors were interviewed and observed at various intervals
the semester. Instructors' focus was primarily on the content; focus on language was secondary
with incidentally. Some positive evidence of language learning was found, but was mostly
students' writing. Speaking abilities, on the other hand, showed little evidence of s
improvement, and global proficiency, as measured by the cloze test, improved in some cas
in others. Thus, there is some evidence for incidental language learning, but the question
whether more could have been accomplished. It is suggested that an approach that more in
integrates content and language may meet the needs of a greater number of learners and m
potential for more language development.
Keywords : content-based instruction; incidental language learning; language; culture; literat
THE QUESTION OF STUDENTS' SECOND sively on content with, at best, incidental focus on
language development in content-oriented for- form (Zyzik & Polio, 2008) . These courses would
eign language courses remains an understudiedappear to operate under the assumption that
area of research. Previous research in content- students already possess adequate language skills
to be able to access and discuss the content, that
based instruction (CBI) investigated linguistic
instructors no longer need to give explicit
development in a third semester university-level
attention to language development, and that
content-based course (Rodgers, 2006). While
language-focused activities were integrated students
into are making incidental progress in their
the course, the focus of classroom instruction was
language abilities, that is, that they are learning by
primarily the content under study (Italian default
social (Donato & Brooks, 2004; Mantero, 2002;
and physical geography). Although results were Polio 8c Zyzik, 2009). However, according to
generally positive for both content and linguistic Lyster (2007, 2011), although an incidental
knowledge, it was also clear that language approach to language may be typical of commu-
development required further attention. nicative and content-based classroom settings in
Such results lead us to wonder what happens in general, it does not lead to sustained language
the literary/ cultural studies courses typical of development on the part of the learners. This
upper division curricula in most university foreign study, then, investigates whether students in
language departments that focus almost exclu- upper division content-oriented foreign language
courses in a traditional foreign language curric-
The Modern Language Journal, 99, 1, (2015)
ulum make noticeable gains in their language
DOI: 10.1111/modl.l2194 abilities in the course of a semester, that is,
0026-7902/15/113-136 $1.50/0 whether or not there is evidence of incidental
© 2015 The Modern Language Journal language learning.
114 The Modern Language Journal 99 (2015)
BACKGROUND Few studies have examined whether language
development actually occurs in the context of
Content-based instruction is generally these courses, despite the urgent call in the 2007
designed
to teach both language and content area MLAknowl-
Report Foreign languages and higher education:
edge concurrently. As Met (1998) indicated, when for a changed world that the decades-
New structures
it comes to the instantiation of CBI, there is a long two-tier language-literature division that
continuum of approaches. On the one end we exists in the vast majority of North American
find language-driven approaches where content is university foreign language programs should be
used incidentally and primarily as a vehicle within dismantled. In its place, the report advocated the
a curriculum that emphasizes form (e.g., a theme- implementation of a more integrated and holistic
based, skills-focused language course). On the curriculum that incorporates the teaching of
other end of the spectrum, we find a content- language, culture, and literature "as a continuous
driven approach where content learning is the whole" (MLA, 2007, p. 3) . Without a doubt, in the
priority and language development is generally past decade we have witnessed a concerted effort
given secondary importance (e.g., a university from university-level foreign language programs
foreign language literature or culture course). to create more holistic advanced-level curricula
The content-driven classification would also (see Paesani 8c Allen, 2012, for a review of these
describe the CLIL (Content and Language programs) . However, without research, we do not
Integrated Learning) classes that have grown in know whether and to what extent content courses
popularity over the past two decades in Europe as they are traditionally implemented actually
(Banegas, 2012; Nikula, Dalton-Puffer, & Lli- increase language abilities along with content
nares, 2013). We find CBI (and CLIL) used as a learning. Having such evidence, one way or the
curricular guide at all levels of education - other, would be crucial for implementing ped-
primary, secondary, and university (cf. Dalton- agogies that would align with the recommenda-
Puffer, 2011; Swain 8c Johnson, 1997). With tions of the MLA Report.
regard to the implementation of CBI, it may Though research in this area is limited, studies
form part of entire educational programs in do exist that address this issue. Donato and
which the content emerges out of the LI Brooks (2004) investigated whether the discourse
curriculum, as in immersion and dual language in literature courses provides opportunities for
programs (e.g., Genesse 8c Lindholm-Leary, students to develop advanced language profi-
2013; Swain, 2001). Alternatively, it may be the ciency (as defined by the ACTFL guidelines).
foundation of entire foreign/second language Their analysis of classroom transcripts showed a
programs (e.g., Byrnes, Maxim, 8c Norris, 2010). predominance of instructor-led Initiation-Re-
The CBI approach may also be used in specific sponse-Evaluation (IRE) patterns of discourse
classes or courses within language programs: both Discussions were typically dominated by teacher
courses that focus on content not traditionally talk and display questions, and students' contri-
considered part of the foreign/second language butions were often limited to the word, phrase,
curriculum, such as the Italian social and physical or sentence level. Similar to previous research
geography course described in Rodgers (2006); in other contexts and proficiency levels (e.g.,
Musumeci, 1996; Pica, 2002; Swain, 1985),
and courses with a focus on content that conven-
students
tionally tend to be part of such curricula, such as were rarely pushed to modify their
literature and culture courses (e.g., Mantero,output, leading the authors to conclude that
2002; Polio 8c Zyzik, 2009). The latter are there were several missed opportunities to
generally referred to as content, content-ori-advance students in their linguistic abilities.
ented, or subject matter courses. In a similar vein, Mantero (2002, 2006)
This study investigates language developmentexamined text-centered talk in a third-year
introductory Hispanic literature course. Man-
in content-oriented upper division literary/ cul-
tural studies courses, which would be located tero' s analyses revealed patterns of discourse
that were very similar to the IREs of the Donato
toward the content-driven end of Met's spectrum,
or in what Lyster (2007) terms meaning-orientedand Brooks (2004) study. In other words, student-
classrooms. Similar to Polio and Zyzik (2009), teacher interactions centered on the knowledge
Lyster describes these courses as being "organized of facts, gave primary importance to the instruc-
around cultural themes, literary time periods, tor's interpretations of the text, and generally
and literary genres . . . [and] . . . directed toward resulted in few opportunities for students to
students who have chosen to major or minor engage in extended discourse and thus improve
in that particular language" (2007, p. 551). their language proficiency.
Dary l M. Rodgers 115
Two other need to be language

related learners well beyond tha
studies the
importance basic
to the
beginning current
and intermediate-level language
Polio (2008) courses. Polio
and It is entirely possible
8c that, while the
Zyzik
investigated the
discourse extent
that typifies these courses mayto not
advanced-level literature courses focus on form maximize the potential for language learning, the
exposure to copious amounts of written and
in their classroom instruction. The authors
observed a prevalence of incidental spoken

focus input
on combined with the incidental focus
on form
form - particularly recasts - and very little and the opportunities to use language to
nego-
tiation of meaning between instructors complete andthe various assignments related to the
students. Preemptive focus on form was content
present may still lead to improved language
abilities. on
as well, but it was almost entirely focused
vocabulary. Furthermore, and similar to other
Accordingly, the current study has two interre-
lated research
studies in CBI, Zyzik and Polio reported that questions, focused on learner
teacher discourse dominated class time,perceptions
thereby and actual learning outcomes:
further limiting student output. Consequently,
these authors too questioned the efficacyRQ1. Do thea students and instructors in upper
of such
class format in developing students' linguisticlevel undergraduate foreign language
content-oriented courses with literary/
proficiency given the importance that both
cultural themes perceive an improvement in
negotiation of meaning and focus on form are
students' language abilities over the course
thought to have for second language development.
of a semester?
The Polio 8c Zyzik (2009) study provided RQ2. Isanthere evidence for incidental language
in-depth examination of students' and instruc- learning having taken place?
tors' perspectives on language learning in the
context of upper division literature courses. UpperBylevel refers to courses beyond the intro-
employing multiple measures (instructor inter-
ductory and intermediate classes that form part of
views, observations, stimulated recalls, and stu- the university's foreign language curriculum.
dent questionnaires) the authors succeeded in Incidental learning is, as Schmidt (1994) defined
painting a detailed picture of the points of view of it, "learning without the intent to learn or the
students and instructors alike. Instructors had learning of one thing (e.g., grammar) when the
minimal language-related goals for these courses. learner's primary objective is to do something
else (e.g., communicate)" (p. 137). In content
This position was evident in the instructors'
courses, incidental language learning occurs
teaching practices, as language-focused events
within the context of a meaning-focused classroom
were limited and primarily consisted of incidental
focus on form (primarily recasts). When asked where focus on form is typically reactive or
about improvement in students' language skills preemptive
in (cf. Ellis, 2001). In simple terms,
incidental language learning in this study was
the course of the semester, instructors perceived
that students had improved in their receptive operationalized in terms of significant improve-
ment in learners' scores on three tasks: a cloze
(reading and listening) skills and in their writing.
reading passage (a measure of general profi-
They expressed continued concern, however,
about students' speaking abilities. Nonetheless,ciency), two written compositions (one general,
one content-specific), and two speaking samples
these literature professors did not see themselves
(again, one general, one content-specific) while
as having a critical role to play in their students'
language development. Instead, they viewed enrolled in an upper level literary/cultural studies
course. The study focused on improvement in the
language learning as the responsibility principally
expressive skills (speaking and writing) because
of lower level courses, and the result of time spent
studying abroad. Students, by contrast, reportedthey are typically considered in the evaluation of
having both language-related and content-relatedstudents at this level (for example, through written
exams and/ or research papers, as well as oral
goals. They also perceived that they had improved
in some areas (vocabulary, listening, reading, presentations)
and and because they have been the
writing) but not in others (grammar and speak- subject of previous research in this context (e.g.,
Mantero, 2006; Rodgers, 2006; Swain, 1998). Thus,
ing) . However, these were perceptions. The study
did not measure student outcomes in terms of although this study is similar to those of Zyzik and
Polio (2008; Polio 8c Zyzik, 2009) in its choice of
actual language learning. As other studies (e.g.,
instructional context, it goes one step beyond in
Byrnes 8c Kord, 2002; Donato 8c Brooks, 2004)
that it seeks
have highlighted, and Zyzik and Polio (2008) to measure student outcomes in terms
have confirmed, students continue to want toofand
actual language learning in selected areas.
METHOD observations revealed that the approach of all
four instructors typified the traditional approach
Participants and Context
to content courses referenced in previously cited
The participants in this study were studies.
40 adultIn general, students were asked to
second language (L2) learners majoring prepare for a topic beforehand by reading an
(w = 28) or minoring (n=12) in either Frenchassigned literary or nonliterary work or watching
or Spanish at a small, liberal arts university in thevisual media (usually in the form of a film or short
northeastern part of the United States. Six weredocumentary piece). They would then write their
male, 36 were female. They were enrolled inanswers to questions posed by the instructor
one of four upper level content courses offeredrelated to the content. Classes tended to begin
during the academic year, two in French (Classwith a brief review of the readings from the
previous lesson, followed by a more extensive
1, n = 8; Class 3, w = 7) and two in Spanish (Class
2, n = 5; Class 4, ti =20). Just over half of the presentation by the instructor of the content in
participants in this study (w = 22) had already focus, especially when the topic or writer was
spent a semester studying abroad and a similarintroduced for the first time. Subsequently, the
number (tí = 25) reported having taken at teacher conducted a discussion of the reading (s)
least one other content course (e.g., Spanish assigned for that day's lesson, typically by asking
literature) either on campus or while abroad.students to share their responses to questions
Only four participants were enrolled in anotherassigned as homework or given to them in class.
Spanish or French course when they took part inFor example, in one class, when reviewing an
the study. assigned reading of a sonnet by Sor Juana Inés de
Similar to many other university-level curric- la Cruz, discussion focused on factual information
ula, the instructional context in this study (the type of verse and time period in which it was
requires all majors and minors in a foreign written) as well as students' reactions to the
language to enroll in upper level content courses, content.
typically during their junior and senior years,

although classes may enroll first and second year
students on the basis of placement. Even so, there Qualitative Instruments
is considerable variation in students' perform-
Instructor Interviews. Instructors were inter-
ance levels, as the initial proficiency scores
viewed at the beginning and end of the semester
confirm. The four focal courses, designated as
content courses at the 300 or 400 level, were largely following the protocol in the Zyzik &
Polio (2008) study (see Appendix A, available in
structured around literary and/or cultural
the online version of this article) . The preliminary
themes in the Francophone, Spanish, or Latin
interview was very general and addressed instruc-
American world that fell within the expertise and
tors' goals for the course. The final interview
interests of the professors teaching them.
addressed which goals the instructors felt they
Broadly speaking, the main differences between
had accomplished, their efforts to help students
300 and 400 level courses lie in the depth of study
increase their language abilities, and their per-
of the content and the additional course require-
ceived improvement of the students' language
ments (e.g., longer research papers). Of the 40
abilities. Instructors were not informed about the
participants, 31 were enrolled at the 300 level and
9 at the 400 level. Classes either met three times a focus of the study. In the final interview, they were
debriefed on its purpose and preliminary find-
week for 65 minutes per class (Class 1 , 2, and 3) or
ings. The interviews were transcribed for closer
twice a week for 95 minutes per class (Class 4) for
a total of 14 weeks. analysis.
The courses were taught by four tenured orStudent Questionnaires. Students were asked to
tenure track professors who were native or near complete a questionnaire at the beginning and
native speakers of the language they taught, end andof the semester largely following the protocol
who held Ph.D.s in some aspect of literary/ in the Polio 8c Zyzik (2009) study (see Appendix B,
available
cultural studies related to that language. As well as in the online version of this article) . The
teaching content courses, they had multiple yearspreliminary questionnaire addressed students'
of experience in teaching language classes at background,
all perceived language abilities, and
levels. Each instructor was observed twice in the their expectations for the course. The final
course of the semester by the researcher or the
questionnaire focused on their perceptions of
researcher's colleague who was well acquaintedimprovement in language as well as content
learning in the course.
with the background and focus of the study. These
Doryl M. Rodgers 117
Class Observations. The observations were con- category (i.e., 23 content, 22 function words) (see
ducted principally to ascertain how much atten- Appendix C, available in the online version of this
tion was being given to language during a regulararticle). The test was piloted with two native
class period and to determine whether all four speakers (one from Spain and one from Latin
courses were similar to the instructional contexts
America). Based on their responses, a bank of
that have been the subject of examinationacceptable
in answers was created. Again, the
previous studies. In line with the study's interest maximum
in score possible was 45.
learning outcomes through incidental focus on To validate the Spanish cloze test 25 students in
form, researcher observations concentrated on two sections of a Grammar and Composition
the nature of class activities in terms of their focus, course that did not include any of the students
particularly on the occurrence of language- involved in this study completed the test at the
focused episodes. Observation protocols con- beginning and the end of the semester. This
firmed that all four classes shared a general course focused on a systematic review of grammar
pedagogical approach, and that classroom dis- and the development of writing skills. On the
course was similar in each of the four classes as initial (beginning of the semester) test, scores
well as to that reported in previous studies. ranged from 0 to 24, with a mean of 11.96
(SD =6.57). At the end of the semester, they
ranged from 1 to 25 with a mean of 14.56
Quantitative Instruments (SD = 6. 1 2) . A paired-samples ¿-test found that the
overall improvement of 2.6 points was significant,
The students were asked to complete three
¿(24) =3.36, p= .001, ¿=0.68. This positive
quantitative assessments of their languageresult,
abil- even in the course of one semester, lends
ities at the beginning and the end of the semester:
support to the use of the Spanish version of the
a cloze test, a writing sample, and a speaking
cloze test as a valid measure of increasing
sample. These were all completed outside of class
language proficiency.
time in a computer lab using the learning
management system Blackboard. Writing and Oral Samples. Following comple-
tion of the cloze test, students provided two writing
Cloze Test. The cloze (i.e., fill in the blank) test
samples followed by two self-recorded oral sam-
for French was developed by Tremblay and
ples. They were given two prompts for the writing
Garrison (2010) . In a subsequent study, Tremblay
and two for the oral samples (see Appendix D,
(2011) provided data that demonstrated how the
available in the online version of this article) . The
results of the cloze test correlated with other
first was general in nature (e.g., recount an event
estimates of learner proficiency and how the cloze
that has had a significant effect on your life and
may be considered a more reliable indicator of
explain why it was so important to you) and the
proficiency than instructional level. It was de-
second related specifically to the content of the
signed as "an independent test that is sufficiently
class. The different prompts were intended to
global in the knowledge (morphosyntactic, lexical
enable students to demonstrate their increased
and discourse competence) and abilities (com-
proficiency at the end of the study in line with the
prehension and production) that it targets" (p.
content of the class. They were constructed in
346) ; as an assessment instrument it was intended
conjunction with the course instructors who had
to discriminate between high beginner and
been asked to provide writing and speaking
advanced proficiency learners. Specifically, from
prompts that would be general enough so that
a text dealing with global warming, Tremblay and
students with limited knowledge of the subject
Garrison had deleted a total of 45 words, of which
matter could still write and say something at the
23 were content words (nouns, adjectives, main
beginning of the semester. No word or time limit
verbs, adverbs, etc.) and 22 were function words
was placed on the writing and speaking samples.
(determiners, pronouns, prepositions, auxilia-
Participants were asked to write/ say as much as
ries, etc.) . They then created a bank of acceptable
they could. Students produced writing samples of
answers, which were used when scoring the test.
an average length of 125 words and produced at
The maximum score possible was 45.
least 1 minute of speech.
In order to create a comparable cloze test for
Spanish for this study, an almost identical article
on global warming was retrieved from the El Pais
Data Analysis
newspaper archives and, to the extent possible, a
matching cloze test was prepared: The same Qualitative Instruments. The instructor inter-
number of words were selected overall and by transcripts were analyzed with a focus on the
view
questions that related to class objectives,

The evaluators efforts
provided four tofor
sets of ratings
improve students' language abilities,
both the writing and
and the speaking inof each
samples
particular instructors' perceived
participant: oneimprovement
for the response to the general
of the students' performance.
prompt andTheone for notes from
the response to the content
the class observations were used
prompt, both atto help form
the beginning a the
and at end of
general impression notsemester.
only of the
An intra-class type
correlation of
coefficient
interaction that occurred was in calculated
these for courses, but as a measure
each set of ratings
also of how often instructors focused
of interrater on This
reliability. language-
resulted in a total of
related issues and how these were addressed four correlation coefficients for both the speaking
(recasts, explicit correction, etc.) . Following
andZyzik
the writing samples (for a total of eight) for
and Polio (2008), occasions in which the instruc-
both Spanish and French. These coefficients were
tor targeted not only morphosyntax but
thenalso
averaged for each language to give an
vocabulary, pronunciation, and discourse prag- interrater reliability coefficient of .76
average
matics were identified. Finally, student question-
and .79 for Spanish speaking and writing samples
naires were analyzed with a focus on their respectively,
goals for and .87 and .86 for French speaking
the course, as well as their perceptions related to
and writing samples respectively. The reason for
what they learned and their improvement in difference in reliability between lan-
the slight
language use. guages may stem from the fact that there were
more participants to rate in Spanish than in
Quantitative Instruments. Participants'French,
profi- thereby increasing the probability that
ciency scores were analyzed using a repeated
ratings would diverge.
measures ANOVA, with time (beginning vs. Theend
ratings for the speaking and writing
samples were then averaged across raters to
of the semester) as the wi thin-subjects variable
and class (1-4) as the between-subjects variable.
provide an average initial and final rating on
Given that the topic and the instructor
thewere
responses to the general prompt, on re-
different for each course, possible differences
sponses to the content prompt, and overall, that
is, by collapsing the performance ratings for
between groups (i.e., one class could demonstrate
language learning while another might not) were to the different prompts. These aver-
responses
accounted for by including 'class' as a between-
ages were used in a repeated measures ANOVA
subjects variable. with the factors time (beginning vs. end of the
Three native speakers of each language semester) and prompt type (general vs. content-
(French and Spanish) evaluated the writing based) as wi thin-subjects variables for both speak-
and speaking samples based on a rubric ing and writing samples. Again, class (1-4) was
provided to them by the researcher (see entered as the between-subjects variable.
Appendix E, available in the online version of
this article). The speaking samples were eval-
RESULTS
uated for content, fluency, pronunciation,
vocabulary, and grammatical accuracy, and given Classroom Observations
a score with a maximum of 25 points. The
writing samples were evaluated for content, Classroom observations showed a generally low
organization, vocabulary, and grammatical ac- incidence of student contributions beyond the
curacy, and given a score with a maximum of 20. sentence level; contributions were in response to
The speaking rubrics were developed specifically teacher-directed questions focused on the inter-
for the study and adapted from the SOLOM pretation or significance of a particular word,
(Student Oral Language Observation Matrix), phrase, or concept. In short, teacher-led IRE
an evaluation tool developed by the San Jose (Initiation-Response-Evaluation) discourse pat-
Bilingual Consortium and available online (as terns predominated. There were a few exceptions
cited in Peregoy & Boyle, 2008). The writing to this format. Because Class 4 was larger than the
rubrics were also developed specifically for the other classes, the instructor often put students in
study and adapted to be similar in nature to small groups to ensure they all had the oppor-
those used to evaluate speaking. 'Organization' tunity to share their answers and ask questions.
was included in the writing rubric as a means of This phase generally lasted 5 to 10 minutes and
evaluating how well participants had used was followed by teacher-fronted whole-class dis-
discourse connectors (e.g., so, then, afterwards) cussion. But even in this format students rarely
to give some flow and structure to their writing engaged in any type of oral production beyond
even though the samples were quite short. the sentence level.
Dary l M. Rodgers 119
Instructor focus was the communication of comment on the appropriateness and compre-
meaning, that is, the exchange of ideas hensibility
related of the content, but then also about
primarily to the subject matter rather than
what she termed "the shape, or the form, the
language-related issues. When instructors at-
grammatical forms" of the writing. The instructor
tended to language, this took place in the of form
Class 3 would have her students work in small
of recasts (for grammar and pronunciation) and inand then write their ideas (concerning
groups
the provision of unknown vocabulary. For characters,
exam- thematic questions, etc.) on the
board, and would then review both the content
ple, during a class discussion of Latin American
and theof
poetry, the instructor of Class 4 provided a recast language of what they wrote.
the correct form of noun-adjective agreement.
So, sometimes it was, you know a lot of times it was just
EXCERPT. Recast: Noun-Adjective Agreement correction of verbs and adjective agreement, having
Instructor: ... la vida es muy. . . [indicates that
them figure out what was going on in the sentence,
student should
but especially the questions because they're hard. It
complete the was also a concern - the structure. So anytime
sentence] language elements came up on the board, then we
'. . . life is very . . .' went over them. But that was the way I incorporated
Student: corto [feedback]. (Class 3 instructor)
'short' [incorrect adjective agreement]
Instructor: Sí, la vida es muy corta
The instructor did not clarify just how often she
'Yes, life is very short' [correct had
adjective
students write on the board and then
agreement]
employed this language-focused process; this ha
In addition, there were a few instances of not taken place during the observation days
However, it was apparently frequent enough fo
preemptive focus of form. For example, before
reading short dialogs written in the vulgarher to have mentioned it as her means of providin
feedback on students' written work. The instructor
language of the Zarzuelas, the instructor of Class
for Class 4, on the other hand, made clear that,
2 provided her students with the modern form of
although she provided some language-focused
difficult forms (e.g., me ha comendo = convencido,
'convinced'). There were also occasions of feedback on written work, it was done infrequently.
student-initiated form-focused episodes in which

a student either asked the meaning of unknown Once in a while I do something called errores comunes
vocabulary or requested the equivalent of English I pick up a small mistake, or major mistakes, that
and
they make on their compositions and I would bring
words in the target language. For example, one
that to their attention. There was nothing systematic
student asked for the meaning of the Spanishabout that. (Class 4 instructor)
word pimpollo 'hunk') , while another asked how to
say 'to speak derogatorily' in Spanish.
Regarding speaking, the instructor of Class 4
admitted occasionally giving feedback on pro-
Instructor Interviews: Focus on Language nunciation, whereas the Class 3 instructor con-
fessed to being hesitant to interrupt the students
The interviews provided further insight into the
approach the instructors employed. Specifically,at all when they were speaking. In Class 2, the
instructor
during their final questionnaires, instructors were
stated that her feedback on speaking
asked whether and how they focused on improv- was limited to indicating whether or not she had
understood
ing students' language abilities and whether they
the ideas students were trying to
communicate. When students' utterances were
provided language-focused feedback to their
students. The Class 1 instructor remarked that difficult to understand (due to pronunciation or
she felt it was difficult to deal with language grammatical errors) she would simply ask them to
because of all the content she needed to cover. repeat or reword what they had said. The Class 1
She did mention instructing her students instructor
on how made no specific mention of providing
feedback on students' speaking.
to structure their writing, as well as providing
them with "a long feedback piece" on their written
essays "telling them what was wrong with their
Instructor Interviews: Goals and Perceptions
writing." The provision of some type of feedback
The instructors' teaching behavior in the
on writing was a common practice. The instructor
for Class 2 remarked that when she would give was consistent with the goals they had
classroom
back corrections on papers, She would established
first for their courses. In the preliminary
interviews all four instructors had indicated that whether or not her students had made any
their primary goal was to provide students withimprovement in their language use. She pointed
out that the students' linguistic abilities were
critical and contextual frameworks for approach-
ing the literary and cultural works under exami-
strong from the very beginning and that, within
nation. One of the objectives for the instructor of
obvious limitations, they were able to express their
ideas
Class 2, for example, was for students to "acquire a accurately. She did note that students
learned the course-specific vocabulary and were
basic knowledge of how to analyze visual culture/'
ableto
while for the Class 3 instructor an objective was to use it in both oral and written contexts.
"learn a foundation of knowledge of the under-

standing of the French colonial system." When Student Questionnaires
asked about their expectations for students'
The analysis of student questionnaires revealed
improvement in language, the instructor of Class
1 stated that she hoped her students would
that at the beginning of the semester 83% of
participants had content-related goals for the
become "more comfortable" in expressing their
ideas. Another (Class 4) hoped her students
course, such as "I hope to learn a lot about
would "continue their development of the Spanish culture from different Spanish-speaking
language" through exposure to different varieties
countries around the world" and "I expect to have
of Latin American Spanish. Yet another (Classa better
3) understanding of the Francophone
expected that her students would finish world."
the At the same time, 50% of participants
also expressed language-related goals: "I hope to
course with various reading strategies as a result
of their considerable experience with different
become a better speaker and understand more
types of reading. Spanish when it is spoken to me," and "I hope to
When asked about their students' goals learn
and more about the workings of the French
expectations for their courses, all four instructors
language itself." At the end of the semester, when
focused on content-related goals. Only the
asked what they got out of the course, a similar
instructor of Class 4 mentioned a language-
number of participants (80%) mentioned greater
related goal. She asserted that students "arecontent
all knowledge, while only 13% made men-
interested in improving their language skills;tion
andof having improved their language skills.
Participants were also asked to rate their
I made it very clear that the language of the
classroom was Spanish, and really, theyabilities
are on six different language skills (speaking,
adhering to that." At the end of the semester,
writing, listening, reading, grammar, and vocabu-
she felt that most of them had achieved high
lary) at the beginning of the semester on a scale of
comfort levels with speaking, although she 1-5
was(very weak to superior) . They were then asked
unsure as to "whether it was improvement because
to rate their perceived level of improvement in the
they really were speaking Spanish better, or same
they skills at the end of the semester, again on a
felt freer to speak Spanish in class." Two other scale of 1-5 (none to enormous). A summary of
instructors (Classes 1 and 2) also noted increased these ratings can be found in Table 1. Non-
levels of participation, which they associated withparametric tests were conducted on ratings to
improved speaking skills. Writing skills were only determine whether there were any significant
mentioned by one instructor (Class 2) who had differences in students' perceptions of their
noted a marked improvement in her students' improvement in language abilities as a group
writing. She acknowledged that she had given and between each of the four classes. The results
considerable attention to writing and, thus, are summarized in Table 2.
attributed the students' progress to the extensive As indicated in the first half of Table 1,
comments about content and form that she had participants' initial self-ratings clustered around
provided on each writing assignment. Further- "3," implying that they generally believed that they
more, she mentioned that she had encouraged had a "good" level of each skill. With regard to the
students to rewrite their final essays and incorpo-significant differences among their linguistic
rate her comments and suggestions in their skills, Table 2 shows that overall students initially
revisions. viewed their listening skills as the strongest, and
Thus, while three instructors believed that their
significantly better than their speaking, grammar,
students had possibly improved their speaking and vocabulary skills. They also rated their
skills, only one of them observed a noticeable reading skills as being significantly stronger
improvement in her students' writing, and none than their speaking. Regarding their perceptions
of them mentioned the receptive skills. Finally, of improvement over the course of the semester,
the instructor of Class 3 was unable to ascertain participants generally perceived the least amount
TABLE 1
Means (and Standard Deviations) for Student Initial Self-Ratings and Final Perceived Improvement Ratin
Measure All (w = 40) Class 1 (n = S) Class 2 (n = 5) Class 3 (n = 7) Class 4 (n = 20)

Speaking (initial) 3.33 (.89) 2.75 (.71) 3.80 (.84) 3.57 (.98) 3.35 (.89)
Listening (initial) 3.73 (.85) 3.00 (.76) 4.40 (.89) 3.86 (.90) 3.80 (.70)
Reading (initial) 3.58 (.75) 3.50 (.54) 3.80 (.84) 3.57 (.79) 3.55 (.83)
Writing (initial) 3.48 (.68) 3.25 (.71) 4.00 (.71) 3.71 (.49) 3.35 (.67)
Grammar (initial) 3.33 (.89) 3.13 (1.13) 3.80 (.84) 3.71 (.76) 3.15 (.81)
Vocabulary (initial) 3.33 (.66) 2.75 (.46) 3.60 (.55) 3.57 (.79) 3.40 (.60)
Speaking improvement 3.00 (.85) 3.25 (.46) 4.00 (.71) 2.71 (.95) 2.75 (.79)
Listening improvement 3.50 (.85) 3.88 (.64) 4.20 (.45) 2.71 (.76) 3.45 (.83)
Reading improvement 3.50 (.64) 3.25 (.46) 4.00 (1.00) 3.71 (.49) 3.40 (.60)
Writing improvement 3.13 (.79) 3.50 (.53) 4.00 (.71) 2.57 (.79) 2.95 (.69)
Grammar improvement 2.68 (.83) 2.63 (.52) 3.40 (.55) 2.57 (.98) 2.55 (.89)
Vocabulary improvement 3.30 (.72) 3.38 (.52) 4.20 (.45) 2.86 (.69) 3.20 (.70)
Note. The initial self-ratings are based on the scale 1 = very weak, 2 = weak, 3 = good, 4 = ver
5 = superior; the perceived improvement ratings are based on the scale 1 = none, 2 = minimal, 3 = som
lot, 5 = enormous.
of improvement in their grammar and in higher their (closer to "4" or "very good") than those of
speaking. the other three classes for all skills. Similarly, the
Turning to between-class differences, we find level of improvement perceived by Class 2 was in
several notable differences in the initial self- the "4" or "a lot" range for all skills, except
ratings and perceived improvement. As Table
grammar,
1 for which these students perceived
shows, the self-ratings of Class 2 tended "some"
to be improvement. The other three classes
TABLE 2
Summary of Significant Differences in Skills for Students' Initial Self-Ratings and Final Perceived Improvement
Ratings
Category Comparison Sig. Level

Students' initial self-ratings in skills (all students) Listening > Speaking p=.002
Listening > Grammar p = .012
Listening > Vocabulary p = .002
Reading > Speaking p = .04
Students' perception of improvement in skills (all students) Listening > Speaking /?=.000
Reading > Speaking p = .001
Vocabulary > Speaking p = .019
Speaking > Grammar p = .007
Listening > Grammar p = .000
Reading > Grammar p = .000
Writing > Grammar p = .000
Vocabulary > Grammar p = .000
Students' perception of improvement in skills (by class) Speaking:
Class 2 > Class 3 p= .030
Listening:
Class 2 > Class 3 p- .010
Writing:
Class 1 > Class 3 p = .040
Vocabulary:
perceived improvement inwas

all categories
15.85 aswhile
out of a possible 45, either
at the end of
the semester
"minimal" or "some." These it increasedare
findings to 17.02. There were
consis-
tent with the significant differences
some noticeable incourses
differences between the in
perceptions of each class the
found
beginninginandTable
end of 2. Theproficiency
semester
level of perceived improvement for
scores. Indeed, Class
scores ranged 2 was
from 4 to 29 for
significantly greater thanthe
that of all other
first proficiency three
test and from 4 to 32 for the
end ofthan
classes for vocabulary, greater semester test. Results
Classes 3 and of the
4 repeated
measures
for speaking and writing, and ANOVA3
Class found
for a main effect for the
listening.
between-subjects
Class 1 perceived significantly greater variable 'class,' F( 1,36) =4.15,
improve-
ment in their listening p< and writing
.05, rjp2 (effect size) than
= .26, anddid
for the within-
Class 3. subjects variable 'time,' F( 1,36) =6.39, /><.05,
?7¿2=.15, as well as a significant interaction
Comparing student and instructor perceptions,
while students in Class 1 perceived greatestbetween time and class, 7^(3,36) = 3.05, p<. 05,
improvement in their writing and listening skills,Y]p - . 20. Post hoc tests, with a Bonferroni
the instructor made no mention of either. The adjustment for multiple comparisons, showed
that the improvement was significant for only
perceptions of the instructor of Class 2, however,
twoShe
were more in line with students' perceptions: of the classes: Class 1 (/?=.01) and Class 3
(/>=.03).
had noted an improvement in the speaking skills of
Given the wide range of scores and large
those students who had participated; for writing
she had indicated a perceived improvement in deviations, and given the relatively small
standard
students' grammar and vocabulary. She made number
no of participants in three of the four
comment regarding any of the other skills. classes, proficiency results were also examined in
Students in Class 3 did not appear to perceive
terms of the number of students whose scores
the same improvement in their vocabulary decreased,

that remained unchanged, improved, or
their instructor did (ranking it in the "minimal"
improved by 5 or more points (i.e., by approx-
range). They did, however, indicate "some" imately 10%) in the course of the semester. As
perceived improvement in their reading skills
Table (at4 shows, almost half of participants' scores
a respectable 3.71 out of 5), in line with the decreased or remained unchanged while
either
the other half increased. Nine of these increased
instructor's stated objective to improve students'
by between 1 and 3 points while the other ten
reading strategies. Finally, whereas the instructor
of Class 4 indicated a possible perceived improve-
increased by 5 points or more. Of these ten, nine
increased by between 5 and 8 points, while one
ment in speaking (or at least comfort in speaking)
skills, and no mention of any other skills, the
participant's score (Student 6, Class 1) increased
students in that class ranked speaking improve-
by an impressive 14 points. Half of the ten had
initial scores between 14 and 18 and final scores
ment as "minimal," but saw "some" improvement
between
in their listening and reading abilities as well as 20 and 26 points. Two began and ended
with relatively high scores (Student 9, Class 2:
their vocabulary. However, how do these percep-
tions compare to the quantitative measures 23- >30of points; Student 19, Class 3: 21- >27
student language learning? points) . Student 6 actually began with a relatively
low score of 7, which he increased to 21. However,
two others began with some of the lowest scores of
Proficiency Test
the entire group and ended with still low (albeit
As Table 3 shows, the average score of the improved) scores (Student 5, Class 1: 4- ► 9
proficiency test at the beginning of the semester points; Student 30, Class 4: 10- >15 points).
TABLE 3
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Proficiency Test Scores at the Beginning and End of the Semest
All Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4

Measure (w = 40) (n = 8) (n = 5) (n= 7) (n = 20)
Proficiency 1 15.85 (6.21) 12.62 (7.89) 17.2 (5.76) 21.29 (4.09) 14.9 (5.23)
(Semester beginning)
Proficiency 2 17.02 (6.92) 16.38 (7.71) 17.6 (8.96) 24.57 (5.00) 14.5 (4.87)
(Semester end)
Note . Maximum score: 45.
Daryl M. Rodgers 123
TABLE 4
Comparison of End and Beginning of Semester Proficiency Test Scores
Proficiency 2 vs. 1 All (n = 40) Class 1 (w = 8) Class 2 (w = 5) Class 3 (n - 7) Class 4 (n = 20

Decreased 16 3 3 1 9
Unchanged 5 0 0 0 5
Increased 19 5 2 6 6
Increased by > 5 points 9 4 13 2
Thus, having an initially

The results for the analyseslow of thescore
writing di
automatically guarantee
samples can be found ingreater
Table 6. When compared incre
indeed any increase at
to the initial all,
ratings, as
the average was
scores at the endthe c
many other students).
of the semester were slightly higher for the group
as a whole and for each
Using a by-class analysis, we class,find
overall and for each
that the
for half of Class 1 and a little less than half of Class prompt. The only exception was the average
3 increased by 5 or more points. In Class 2 thescores on the general prompt for Class 1. Results
yielded a significant main effect for both time,
score of only one of the five students increased by
the same margin, and in Class 4 only 2 of 20 scores
/*1(1,35) =8.98, p< .01, r]p= .20, and for prompt
increased by 5 points or more. These results
type, /*1(1,35) = 6.04, p< .05, r'p - .14. There was
mirror those of the repeated measures no significant effect for class and no interaction
ANOVA previously reported in favor of Classeseffects were found. These findings indicate that
1 and 3. the scores on the end of the semester writing
samples were indeed significandy higher inde-
pendent of prompt type and of the class in which
Speaking and Writing Samples
students were enrolled. They also tell us that
The results of the speaking samples are students' scores on the general prompts were
provided in Table 5. They show average scores significandy higher than those on the content
to be very similar across time and prompt type for prompt regardless of class, both at the beginning
and at the end of the semester.
all classes and for the group as a whole. Indeed,
results of the repeated measures ANOVA revealed Closer inspection of the raw speaking and
no main effect for class, time, or prompt type. The writing scores in terms of individual and class
only significant outcome was the interaction differences was conducted. Table 7 shows the
between class and prompt type: i^3,36) =4.18, number of students who made a 10% or greater
p<. 05, ?7p2 = .26. A post hoc Bonferroni test improvement in their speaking and writing scores
found that for Class 3 (p= .02) only, the average in the course of the semester. For speaking this
speaking score on the content prompt type was the equivalent of an increase of 2.5 points or
(22.25) was significan tly better than that of the more; for writing it meant at least a 2-point
general prompt type (21.43), regardless of time increase. The numbers for speaking were very low
(i.e., the beginning or end of the semester). indeed, confirming the results already reported
TABLE 5
Means (and Standard Deviations) for Speaking Scores at the Beginning and End of the Semester Overa
for General and Content Prompts N= 40

Measure (n = 40) (n = 8) (n = 5) (n = 7) (n= 20)
Speaking overall (beginning) 20.83 (1.94) 19.59 (2.30) 21.70 (1.40) 22.27 (1.58) 20.61 (1.32)
Speaking overall (end) 20.80 (1.98) 19.70 (2.61) 22.20 (1.09) 21.41 (2.00) 20.68 (1.42)
Speaking general prompt 20.83 (2.11) 19.48 (2.61) 22.53 (1.43) 21.90 (2.04) 20.57 (1.69)
(beginning)
Speaking general prompt (end) 20.66 (1.94) 19.21 (2.60) 20.07 (1.17) 20.95 (1.99) 20.78 (1.49)
Speaking content prompt 20.84 (1.78) 19.71 (2.20) 20.87 (1.54) 22.64 (1.27) 20.65 (1.40)
(beginning)
Speaking content prompt (end) 20.94 (1.98) 20.19 (2.73) 22.33 (1.31) 21.86 (2.05) 20.57 (1.56)
Note. Maximum score: 25.
TABLE 6
Means (and Standard Deviations) for Writing Scores at the Beginning and End of the Semester Over
General and Content Prompts iV=40

Measure (ra = 40) (n = S) (w = 5) (n= 7) (n = 20)
Writing overall (beginning) 14.30 (1.92) 13.14 (2.45) 14.80 (1.56) 15.49 (1.51) 14.23 (1.71)
Writing overall (end) 15.08 (2.00) 13.72 (2.87) 16.50 (1.61) 16.07 (1.77) 14.93 (1.41)
Writing general prompt 14.72 (2.11) 14.47 (2.52) 15.20 (1.28) 15.83 (1.16) 14.42 (1.71)
(beginning)
Writing general prompt (end) 15.43 (1.94) 14.36 (3.28) 17.07 (1.98) 16.02 (1.62) 15.23 (1.96)
Writing content prompt 13.94 (1.78) 11.79 (3.41) 14.40 (2.30) 15.14 (2.03) 14.28 (1.96)
(beginning)
Writing content prompt (end) 14.75 (1.98) 13.08 (3.24) 15.93 (1.64) 16.12 (2.40) 14.75 (1.49)
Note. Maximum score: 20.
from the repeated measures ANOVA. Although

were identical. However, it is worth noting that of
16 participants showed some increase in their
the 11 students showing improvement in re-
overall speaking scores (ranging from 0.34 tosponse
2.17 to the general prompt only 3 also
points), no student score increased by 10% or
improved with the content prompt. In other
more. When we consider only the speaking words, the same students did not necessarily show
samples based on the content prompt we find better performance on both prompts.
four students showing notable improvement.
For writing, the numbers were clearly better -
again, in line with the repeated measures ANOVA
Triangulating the Data
results previously reported. Twenty-eight students
showed some increase in their overall writing As Table 8 displays, 25 of the 40 participants
scores (ranging from 0.33 to 3.42 points). raised their scores by a minimum of 10% on at
However, just under a third of all students least one of the three measures (proficiency test,
improved their writing abilities by 10% or more. speaking samples, and writing samples) . Of these
When we consider the results for each class, the 25, 8 learners improved their scores to the same
numbers of students improving are similar, but degree on more than one measure. Included in
the proportions are not. While 60% of Class 2 this number are those participants who improved
substantially improved their writing overall, the their scores for only one of the speaking or writing
percentages in the other classes were smaller prompts (general or content). Student 28, for
(20% of Class 4, 25% of Class 1, and 43% of Class example, improved her proficiency score and her
3) . Regarding prompts, as reported in Table 6, thewriting score but only for the content prompt and
average scores on both prompt types increased not overall (i.e., not when the scores on the
(significantly) , and these improvements held true general and content prompts were averaged
for all but one class. Table 7 indicates that together). Student 40, on the other hand,
when we consider those students who made the substantially improved his writing abilities overall
most improvement in their performance and (i.e.,
when we consider the prompts separately, but
10% or more), we see that overall the numbers he did not make similar gains on the proficiency
. TABLE 7
Number of Students Making >10% Improvement in Speaking and Writing from Beginning to End of Semester
Overall and for General and Content Prompts

Measure (w = 40) (n = 8) (n = 5) (n = 7) (w = 20)
Speaking (overall) 0 0 0 0 0
Speaking general prompt 0 0 0 0 0
Speaking content prompt 4 110 2
Writing (overall) 12 2 3 3 4
Writing general prompt 11 1 2 1 7
Writing content prompt 11 3 1 2 5
TABLE 8
Individual Students Who Made >10% Improvement in Proficiency, Speaking, and/or Writing Measure
Whether or Not They Had Studied Abroad and/or Had Previously Taken a Content Course
Speaking Writing
Measure/Student Study Other Content
(n = 25) Class Proficiency O G C O G C Abroad Course
5 1 X
6 IX XX
7* IX XXX
8* 1 X X
9 2 X X X
10 2 X X X X X
11 2 X XX
12 2 X X X X X
13 2 X X X X X
15 3 X X X X X
16 3 X X XX
18* 3 X XX X
19* 3 X X X X X X
21 4 X (X)
22* 4 X X X X
24 4 X
25 4 X
28* 4 X X XX (X)
30* 4 X XX XX
31 4 X X X X
33* 4 X X X X X (X)
37 4 XX
38 4 X X X X X
40 4 XXX
Note. *indic
G = general;
test studied abroad nor previously

or speak taken a content
would course. In order
not to test whether there was a be
improving relationship between having studied abroado or
achieved notable increases in the scores for the previously taking a content course and score gains
(by 10% or by any degree) on any one of the
proficiency test as well as on the test of speaking
and writing (albeit for content only) . study's measures, Chi-Square tests were run. None
of these proved to be significant and so one
In an effort to find possible commonalities
among those students who performed well, cannot
the conclude that there was a significant
relationship between performance improvement
background data they provided in their question-
and study abroad or previous experience in a
naires were analyzed. Specifically, two possible
contributing factors were examined: study abroad
content course.
experience and previous experience in a content

course. Of the 40 participants in the study, 22
DISCUSSION
indicated that they had studied abroad, and 25
The
had previously taken a content course. As Table 8 first research question asked whether th
students and instructors in the upper leve
shows, of the 25 students who improved substan-
tially on at least one measure, 14 had studied
literary/ cultural studies courses in this stud
abroad and 17 had previously taken at leastwould
one perceive an improvement in student
content course; 7 had neither studied abroad nor
language abilities over the course of a semester
The8 results indicated that only 13% of th
previously taken a content course. Of the
learners who made improvement in moreparticipants
than made mention of the fact that the
one measure, 5 had studied abroad and 6 had language use had improved, despite the fact th
previously taken a content course; 2 had neither
half of them had indicated that they had come t
the course with language-related goals.

encouraging, especially As
in light of in
the fact that
previous studies, students perceived
the primary the
focus of these least
courses was on content
amount of improvement and in not
their
language.
grammar and
speaking skills. This is perhaps Why the majority
not of students making the
so surprising
given that in their initial greatest
ratings,improvement over theand
speaking course of the
grammar also scored the semester lowest. would Interestingly,
be found in two of the four
however, three of the four instructors had courses is not clear. The answer does not appear
perceived some improvement in their students'
to lie in initial ability since Class 1 had the lowest
speaking abilities. Conversely, as a group the
beginning average proficiency score while Class 3
learners perceived most improvement in theirhad the highest. Both were French classes, but the
receptive skills (listening and reading) while
instructors and topics were different. Class
instructors made no mention of improved observations and instructor interviews did not
indicate that these instructors were doing any-

receptive skills. Unlike students, however, the
instructors were not asked directly to commentthing
on particularly different that could have led to
specific skills. They were simply asked whether
a greater improvement in students' proficiency.
they had noted any improvement in theirThe results may simply depend on individual
students' language abilities in general. In re-learner differences. Another possibility for the
sponse they chose to focus on improvement differences may be the motivation of the language
groups. Although a review of the literature
principally in terms of speaking and, to a lesser
extent, writing. This emphasis on the expressive
regarding motivation is beyond the scope of this
skills is likely due to the fact that the assessmentarticle,
of it is clear that motivation has been shown
student outcomes in the courses themselves was
to be an important individual factor affecting
either speaking- or writing-based. student success in second language learning (cf.
The second research question focused Dörnyei,
on 2005) . When asked why they enrolled in
actual student outcomes in terms of language the course, 9 of 15 (60%) of the students in
learning. As class observations confirmed,French
the mentioned interest in improving their
focus on language in the courses was predom- language, interest in the subject matter, or their
love for the language. In Spanish, only 9 of 25
inantly incidental - typically recasts or provision
(36%) gave the same reasons. Two-thirds of
of unknown vocabulary. As interviews established,
students in Spanish, on the other hand, said
instructors had almost exclusively content-related
they were taking the course to fulfill a require-
objectives, while students expressed both content
and language-related objectives. The goal, then,
ment. This difference in motivation for taking the
was to ascertain whether or not students demon- course, then, may have also contributed to
strated evidence of incidental language learning
differences in overall success in language learning
in the context of upper level content-oriented
as measured by the proficiency test. Finally, the
difference in results may simply be an artefact of
courses based on literary/ cultural studies themes.
the proficiency tests. The Spanish test was
The results indicate that, although overall im-
provement in proficiency (as seen in the cloze specifically
test designed for this study. Although
every effort was made to ensure it was as close
results) was mixed, there is evidence for language
learning, primarily in students' writing abilities.
to the French version as possible and its validity, it
Convincing evidence for improved speaking is entirely possible that it may not have been as
abilities was lacking. effective in measuring proficiency improvement,
First, let us consider the proficiency test.especially
The when these gains were rather small. The
fact that almost half of all learners showed some point, however, is that the proficiency measure
level of improvement, and that one quarter made provided some evidence of language learning
an improvement of 10% or greater on this having test taken place.
should be seen as a positive outcome. This is Results on the writing samples provided the
noteworthy in as much as the test was not clearest evidence of language learning over the
course of the semester. There are some likely
originally designed to discriminate between
learners at roughly the same general proficiency
reasons for the positive results in writing. First,
level, that is, students enrolled in upper whenlevel learners write, they generally have more
undergraduate courses, but to discriminate time be- and control over what they produce.
Consequently, it is perhaps easier for them to
tween a variety of proficiency levels ranging from
beginner to advanced (Tremblay, 2011). The demonstrate
fact the gains they have made. Second,
that in the span of just one semester global students in all courses engaged with numerous
language proficiency did improve is indeed texts of a variety of genres related to the content
they were studying.
capable of expressing their thoughts Both
about it at
language the beginning of
research the semester,
has likely due to the t
shown
benefits of already strong language
reading on abilitieswriting
they possessed,
Shanahan, 2000;
as attested to by Ito, 2011).
the course instructor. The fact T
nection appears to differences
that no significant be reinfor
arose in speaking
are involvedabilities
in purposefully
overall was unexpected and perhaps even
textual information
somewhat disappointing ininto light of the fact rela
that
(Grabe, 2003), as
the class sizeswould
were relatively small,beespeciallythe
for
majority of Classes 1-3, and should have been
writing conducive to
assignme
these content developing
courses.
speaking skills. SpeakingFinally
was also an
upper level content courses
essential part of all four courses. All four syllabi in
was an mentioned the importance
important component of oral participation o
out-of-class in class and the need to complete at least one
assignments and
in all four (fairly lengthy) oral
courses presentation as part of the in t
involved
assignmentscourse
(e.g.,
evaluation. So, although
homewor oral work ac-
search projects)
counted for comprised
a smaller portion of the class grade a s
sometimes more
relative to writing, itthan 50%
was still a central component -
described in of the course. course
the syllabi
To be sure, Of course, some students - 40% to be
developing exact -
writin
clearly an showed some minor increase course
important in their overall co
instructors. speaking scores. However, only
Although no student improved
on
improvement by in their
10% or more. It is noteworthystudent
perhaps that the
interviews, four four
all students who did demonstrate
instructorsa substantial
of focusing on
gain instudents' writin
their speaking ratings did so only on their
exams, or in-class
content prompts.writing
Previous work in CBI hasactiv
shown
the practice of having
that speaking students
tends to lag behind writing develop-
and meaningfulment (cf.writing
Rodgers, 2006). It may be tasks
that when
information they
speaking had
development been
does occur, it manifests re
discussing in
itself class,
at least initially in ancombine
improved ability to
amount of instructor feedback aimed at both discuss the content being studied. This would
content and language issues, seems to have ledto
seem tomake sense intuitively given that most of
the class
improvement in these students' writing ability. It discussions throughout the semester
is also noteworthy that, for writing, students would have been focused on analyzing the
performed slightly (yet significantly) better on and reaching a better understanding of
material
the general prompt than on the content prompt. its significance. It would also be in keeping with
This is also a positive result in that it implies thethat
argument other researchers have made
improvement in writing was not limitedregarding to the the complex connection between
content being studied but was transferable to and content development in content-
language
students' general writing abilities. The impor- based classes (cf. Zuengler & Brinton, 1997).
tance of being able to use newly acquired Given the small numbers involved, this possibility
linguistic knowledge in a variety of contexts was would need to be investigated further before firm
an issue underlined by previous research in conclusions can be reached.
content-based instruction (e.g., Rodgers, 2006; One is left wondering why speaking remains a
Swain, 1998). challenge in this context. To be sure, when
Evidence for improvement in speaking, on the compared to writing, learners have less time and
other hand, was less convincing. No significant control at their disposal when speaking. Thus,
improvement was found in participants' speaking lack of improvement may simply be performance-
abilities as a whole in the course of the semester. related. Perhaps the brief speaking samples are
The fact that average performance on the content unrepresentative of the actual improvement
prompt was significantly better for Class 3 only students
was made in their speaking abilities. Pre-
not very revealing as the advantage was seen at
sumably the class instructors would be in the best
both the beginning and the end of the semester. position to judge overall development in their
This result may instead imply that the content students' language skills. Three of the four
prompt to which these students responded indicated was that they perceived some improvement
perhaps not specific enough to the content of in thetheir students' speaking abilities. Perhaps this
course. These students were clearly already improvement was simply due to increased ease in
speaking, as the instructors themselves

in this and other studies insuggested.
which the majority of
Nonetheless, if greater comfort translated
student utterances into
are limited to responding to
instructors'
greater fluency in the learners' questions-this
speech, often with
tooone isor two
words instructors
a positive sign and one that - does not appear to would
allow students the
hope to see in all their students. In to
opportunities they need contrast,
make a noticeable and
measurable
however, the students lamented improvement
that theyinsaw their oral
very abilities.
little improvement in theirThus,
own when speaking
it comes to developing
skills. oral It
language
is possible - and perhaps even
abilities, probable
the key factor may be - thethat
inclusion of
speaking tasks
learners underestimated their that engagelearning.
language learners in extended
discourse,
It may also be that students' thereby providing
expectations the opportunities
were too to
high regarding the amount of improvement
develop advanced level language functions (cf.
possible in one semester. Donato Either 8c Brooks,
way,2004) .based on
the objective measures used The in question remains, then,
this study, we whether
must or not
conclude that improvement in speaking
language learning could be greater.was
The answer is
modest at best. most probably 'yes' - particularly for speaking,
Based on class observations and student ques-and possibly even for writing. A more balanced
and integrated approach that incorporates the
tionnaires, it seems that the quality and quantity
of time spent on developing oral abilities in the
teaching of language, culture, and literature as a
continuous whole, as advocated by the 2007 MIA
course of the semester may have been insufficient
to have made a noticeable difference in speakingReport and other research (e.g., Byrnes et al.,
proficiency. Given the importance that modified 2010; Norris 8c Pfeiffer, 2003; Steinhart, 2006)
output is thought to have on language acquisition
would undoubtedly lead to even greater gains in
(Gass & Mackey, 2007; Swain, 2005), if learners language learning. For many instructors such an
are given relatively few opportunities to produce
approach would likely require an entire paradigm
shift. It could possibly necessitate a rethinking
oral output and, when they do, they receive little
to no corrective feedback, it may not be and so restructuring of the way content specialists
surprising that they make only minimal progress currently design their courses and maybe even
in their speaking skills over the course of the entire programs.
semester. In this study, feedback on speaking was As Paesani and Allen (2012) report, there
limited, and predominantly consisted of recasts already
or exist a number of successful attempts to
provision of unknown vocabulary. Thus, students develop such curricula, which might be used as
blueprints for practitioners intent on doing the
were rarely called upon to explicitly modify their
oral output. The feedback instructors provided same. These range from the genre-based ap-
on learners' writing, on the other hand, was proach of the German program at Georgetown
incidental but explicit (Ellis, 2001). Instructors
(Byrnes et al., 2010) to the input-to-output textual
provided overt corrections and even some meta- analysis approach described by Weber-Fève
linguistic feedback on the problems they encoun-(2009). Possibly, such modifications would re-
quire a reduction in the quantity of content
tered in student writing. It may be that the
explicitness of this type of incidental focus taught
on in the upper level content courses as they
form was a contributing factor to improvementarein currently conceived. Instructors' willingness
to adopt such major changes may depend on how
writing. Perhaps if instructors had gone beyond
the implicit and incidental approach to dealing
well informed they are of the positive results (in
terms of the quality of language learning) that
with learner errors in speaking that typified this
and other similar contexts, and had instead have already come out of these newly designed
systematically provided a more explicit focusprograms
on (e.g., Byrnes, 2009, 2012; Ryshina-
language problems and difficulties, they couldPankova 8c Byrnes, 2013). One is left to wonder,
have contributed to more significant language therefore, what could have taken place in the
development in the oral skills. Whether suchclasses
a involved in this study had there been a
change would make a difference could be more the theoretically and pedagogically aware ap-
focus of future research in this area. proach to teaching language and content.
Feedback that is form-focused, however, ad- It is important that instructors be aware of what
dresses only one component of overall oral is happening in their classes as far as language
proficiency. To develop the fluency and complex-learning is concerned as well as the expectations
ity of student oral language use, opportunities for of their students in those classes. As Scott and
extended discourse are essential (Toth, 2011). Tucker (2002) pointed out, students at all levels
The IRE discourse pattern found to be prevalent should be considered language learners. The
results of thelanguage) . Putting these suggestions

student into practice
question
show that would undoubtedly require
students time, energy, and
certainly
learners. Although they
possibly a reduction in total wer
content covered. As
being enrolled in
instructors weigh content cou
the potential benefits and costs,
an interest in the
they should be made subject ma
aware of the insights we now
participants havealso
about what canexpected
realistically be achieved in
language abilities at
terms of language learning the
in their sam
courses as they
nately, veryare conventionally
a small taught. percenta
felt that they had
Finally, there actuall
was a relatively high degree of
disconnect variability in learner outcomes
between in this study.
studen
perceived results, while
Learners who demonstrated not
significant improve-
study, is an ment varied across measures and, in the
important case of
elemen
into consideration for
the speaking and writing prompts, withinlong
meas-
overall student satisfaction
ures. Why gains were found for some learners and (
2013) . It may not
beothers appeared to be due to individual
worthwhile fo
the time to discuss with their students at the differences. It seems reasonable, nonetheless, to
beginning of the semester what reasonable
suggest that instructors who adopt a more
deliberate and systematic approach to focusing
expectations might be for their courses. Perhaps
on language
students should be made aware of the findings of within the context of their content
this and other studies that show that it is possible
courses may thereby meet the linguistic needs of a
greater number of learners.
to make significant gains in their content knowl-
Regarding future research directions beyond
edge in conjunction with their reading, listening,
thosebealready mentioned, perhaps the most
and even writing skills. In that case, they may
more willing to accept that their speaking skillsis to compare traditional content courses,
obvious
may not improve to the same degree and,such as those under examination in this study,
in any
case, should not be used as the sole gauge for
and content courses that purposefully attempt to
whether the course helped them to improve integrate
their both content and language. Although
overall language abilities. similar studies exist, they are primarily descrip-
For instructors of content-oriented foreign
tive. Clearly, additional studies could contribute
to the ongoing discussion and help in the
language courses who wish to make some changes
articulation of more effective content-oriented
in their courses, though not entirely restructuring
them in order to maximize the potential for It could also prove instructive to examine
courses.
language learning, there are smaller but worth-
improving language abilities by focusing on more
specific features. These could be related to the
while steps that can be taken. Polio and Zyzik
(2009), for example, provide practical sugges-
development of the learners' morphosyntax (e.g.,
tions on how to incorporate more language- subject-verb agreement, narration of the past,
focused activities in current content courses. expression of opinions, etc.), their use of
These include the possibility of creating discoursehybrid markers (e.g., connectors, filler words)
classes whereby students complete computer- or even their expanding lexicon. It may prove
based language-focused activities relatedeasier to the
to trace learners' progress - in both tradi-
content outside of class or in break-out sessions tional and integrated content courses - when we
(in a similar vein to science labs) held once a analyze
week specific areas of language development as
to review language issues, again in conjunction opposed to general proficiency.
with the content. They may also take the formBefore of concluding, there are some limitations
in-class language-focused activities that naturally
to this study that should be acknowledged. With
regard to the writing and speaking samples a
arise out of the content being studied (cf. Eigler,
2010; Rodgers, 2006). These activities may focus minimum or maximum length was not specified.
on grammatical structures (e.g., how aspect is though the majority of participants wrote an
Even
conveyed using perfective and imperfective forms average of 125 words and produced at least one
minute
in a paragraph from a story students just read) , on of speech, a longer speech or writing
stylistic features (e.g., comparing journalistic
sample might have provided a more representa-
tivetostudent performance and would therefore
language to that of the more informal writing
which students might be more accustomed), orallowed the raters to make a more precise
have
on discourse markers (e.g., how native speakers
judgment of the learner's proficiency.
make use of a range of words and expressionsAnother
to possible limitation is the validity of the
Spanish proficiency test. Although every effort
aid in the flow of both their spoken and written
was made to produce a version

cases but not in that was
others. This study, com-
then, provides
parable in every aspect tosomethe evidence
French of incidental
one,language
it was learning
not subjected to the same rigorous
having occurred. Theanalyses ashowever,
question remains,
those performed on the French
whether more couldversion by
have been accomplished in
Tremblay and Garrison (2010). For language
terms of improved this abilities
study, if instructors
the fact that a significant had adopted a more
difference integrated pedagogical
emerged in a
course focused on language approach
skilltodevelopment
teaching language andwas content.
Such anvalidity.
taken as support for the test's approach mayIn meet the needs
order to of a
greater
improve its validity it should number offor
be tested learners
itsand maximize the
ability
to measure gains in the proficiency of students
potential for more language development. The
enrolled in Spanish courses atthis
hope is that a study
variety of to the
can contribute
different levels. In addition, the use of more growing body of research in this field that will
widely recognized integrative tests of proficiency allow instructors, curriculum directors, and even
(e.g., the ACTFL OPI and WPT) would have students to have a clearer understanding of the
obviated the creation of the general speaking and benefits and limitations of the current content-
writing measures in this study. Furthermore, oriented courses in their foreign language
given the great deal of aural and written input programs.
learners receive in content courses, it is possible
that measures of receptive skills should have been
included to capture other areas of potential ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
language development.
Finally, conclusions regarding instructional
I would like to thank Wanda Cordero-Ponce for all
effectiveness are mitigated by the fact that they
are based on only two classroom observations of her help in designing the study and data collection. I
would also like to thank Diane Musumeci, Anita
each instructor and not on a robust analysis of
Saalfeld, and the anonymous reviewers at the ML/ for
several transcripts from audio or video recordings their invaluable feedback on various versions of this
of classroom interactions. Without such detailed article.
descriptions, it is unclear how exactly each
instructor regularly engaged with students,
whether all instructors engaged in a similar
REFERENCES
fashion, or whether interaction was similar to
what has been documented in previous work.Banegas, D. L. (2012) . Integrating content and language
Results are also mitigated by the relatively low in English language teaching in secondary edu-
number of participants in the study. cation: Models, benefits, and challenges. Studies in
Second Language Learning; and Teaching, 2, 111-136.
CONCLUSION Busse, V., & Walter, C. (2013). Foreign language
learning motivation in higher education: A
This study set out to examine the extent longitudinal
to study of motivational changes and
their causes. Modern Language Journal, 97, 435-456.
which students enrolled in upper level foreign
Byrnes, H. (2009). Emergent L2 German writing ability
language literary/culture content courses showed
in a curricular context: A longitudinal study of
evidence of incidental language learning in the
grammatical metaphor. Linguistics and Education ,
course of a semester. Although students had both
20, 50-66.
content and language goals for the courses, Byrnes, H. (2012). Conceptualizing FL writing develop-
instructors tended to focus almost exclusively ment in collegiate settings: A genre-based systemic
on the development of content knowledge, and functional linguistic approach. In R. M. Manchon
focused on language-related issues in a predom- (Ed.), L2 uniting development: Multiple perspectives
inantly incidental and reactive fashion. They did, (pp. 190-218). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
however, provide a reactive yet more explicit focusByrnes, H., & Kord, S. (2002). Developing literacy and
to language when dealing with students' writing. literacy competence: Challenges for foreign lan-
guage departments. In V. Scott & H. Tucker
It has been suggested that this may have played a
(Eds.), SLA and the literature classroom: Fostering
part in the positive outcomes seen in student
dialogues (pp. 35-73). Boston: Heinle 8c Heinle.
writing, which provided the strongest case for Byrnes, H., Maxim, H. H., 8c Norris,J. (2010). Realizing
language learning having occurred. Speaking advanced foreign language writing development
abilities, on the other hand, showed much less in collegiate education: Curricular design, peda-
evidence of improvement, and global proficiency, gogy, assessment. Modern Language Journal, 94,
as measured by the cloze test, improved in some 1-221.
Dalton-Puffer,
Journal C. (2011).
of Immersion Con
and Content-Based Language
integrated Education, 1, 70-100.
learning: From prac
Annual Norris,of
Review J. M., 8c Pfeiffer,
Applied P. C. (2003). Exploring the use
Lingui
Donato, R., 8c and usefulness of ACTFL
Brooks, F. oral proficiency
(2004) ratings . L
advanced speaking functions:
and standards in college foreign language depart-
(dis) connection.
ments. Foreign
ForeignLanguage Annals, 36, 572-581.
Langua
199. Paesani, K, 8c Allen, H. (2012). Beyond the language-
Dörnyei, Z. content
(2005). Thedivide: Research on advanced foreign
psychology o
Individual language instruction at in
differences the postsecondary
second level. la
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Foreign Language Annals , 45, s54-s75.Erlbaum
Eigler, F. (2009). From
Peregoy, S. F., 8c Boyle, O. F. (2008) compreh
. Reading, writing and
Literary texts in
learning in ESL:the
A resource book advanced
for teaching K-12
classroom. ADFL Bulletin,
English learners (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn 8c 41,
Bacon. 24
Ellis, (2001). R.
Introduction:
Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it
focused assist the interactionalLanguage
instruction. and linguistic needs of L
Fitzgerald, J.,classroom8c Shanahan,
language learners. Modern Language T
writing relations and
Journal, 86, 1-19. their dev
tional Polio, C., 8c Zyzik, E.35,
Psychologist, (2009). Don 39-50.
Quixote meets strand
Gass, S. M., 8c estar. Multiple perspectivesA.
Mackey, on language learning
(2007).
output in second language
in Spanish literature classes. Modern Language a
VanPatten & J. Journal,
Williams
93, 550-569. (Eds.),
language Rodgers, D. M. (2006). Developing
acquisition (pp. content and form:
175-1
Lawrence Erlbaum. Encouraging evidence from Italian content-based
Genesse, F., 8c Lindholm-Leary, K. (2013). Two caseinstruction. Modern Language Journal, 90, 373-386.
studies of content-based language education.
Ryshina-Pankova, M., & Byrnes, H. (2013). Writing as
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language learning to know: Tracing knowledge construc-
Education, 1, 3-33. tion in L2 composition. Journal of Second Language
Grabe, W. (2003). Reading and writing relations: Writing, 22, 179-197.
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in
Second language perspectives on research and
practice. In B. Kroll (Ed. ) , Exploring the dynamics of search of useful definitions for applied linguistics.
second language writing (pp. 242-262). Cambridge: AILA Review, 11, 11-26.
Cambridge University Press. Scott, V. M., 8c Tucker, H. (2002) . Introduction. In V. M.
Ito, F. (2011). L2 reading-writing correlation in Scott 8c H. Tucker (Eds.), SLA and the literature
Japanese EFL university students. The Language classroom: Fostering dialogues (pp. ix-xvii). Boston:
Teacher ; 35, 23-29. Heinle 8c Heinle.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through Steinhart, M. M. (2006). Breaching the artificial
content: A counterbalanced approach. Philadelphia/ barrier between communicative competence
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. and content. Modern Language Journal, 90, 258-
Lyster, R. (2011). Content-based second language 262.
teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some
in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. roles of comprehensible input and comprehen-
610-630). New York: Routledge. sible output in its development. In S. M. Gass 8c C.
Mantero, M. (2002). Bridging the gap: Discourse in text- Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition
based foreign language classrooms. Foreign Lan- (pp. 235-256) . Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
guage Annals, 35, 437-456. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious
Mantero, M. (2006). Applied literacy in second lan- reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.),
guage education: (Re) framing discourse in liter- Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition
ature-based classrooms. Foreign Language Annals, (pp. 64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University
39, 99-14. Press.
Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content

Met, M. (1998). Content-based instruction: Defining terms,
making decisions. Washington, DC: The National teaching through collaborative tasks. The Cana-
Language Resource Center. dian Modern Language Review, 58, 44-63.
MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages. (2007) . Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and
Foreign languages and higher education: New structures research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in
for a changed world. Accessed 7 November 2013 at second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-484) .
http://www.mla.orff/pdf/forlane_news_pdf Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher-learner negotiation in Swain, M., & Johnson, R. (1997). Immersion education:
content-based instruction: Communication at A category within bilingual education. In R.
Johnson 8c M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education:
cross-purposes. Applied Linguistics, 1 7, 286-325.
Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., 8c Limares, A. (2013). International perspectives (pp. 1-16). New York:
CLIL classroom discourse. Research from Europe. Cambridge University Press.
Toth, P. D. (2011). Social and cognitive factors in Weber-Fève, S. (2009). Integrating language and
making teacher-led classroom discourse relevant literature: Teaching textual analysis with input
for second language development. Modern Lan- and output activities and an input-to-output
guage Journal, 95, 1-25. approach. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 453-
Tremblay, A. (2011). Proficiency assessment standards 467.
in second language acquisition research: "Cloz- Zuengler, J., & Brinton, M. (1997). Linguistic form,
ing" the gap. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, pragmatic function: Relevant research from con-
33, 339-372. tent-based instruction. In M. A. Snow 8c M. Brinton
Tremblay, A., & Garrison, M. D. (2010). Cloze-tests: A (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on
tool for proficiency assessment in research on L2 integrating language and content (pp. 263-273). New
French. In M. T. Prior, Y. Watanabe, & S. K. Lee York: Longman.
(Eds.), Selected proceedings of the Second Language Zyzik, E., 8c Polio, C. (2008). Incidental focus on form
Research Forum 2008 (pp. 73-88). Somerville, MA: in Spanish literature courses. Modern Language
Cascadilla Press. Journal, 92, 50-73.
APPENDIX A
INSTRUCTOR INTERVIEWS
Preliminary Instructor Interview
1. What kinds of courses do you typically teach here?

2. What kinds of courses did you teach while pursuing your graduate degree? Are they
from the courses you teach now?
3. What are your objectives for the course you are currendy teaching? What do you ho
will have learned by the end of the semester?
4. What do you believe to be your students' goals and expectations of the course?
5. Which aspect(s) of this course do you expect students to have the most difficulty wi
6. What is your general opinion of your students' language abilities in Spanish? Are t
skills ever an impediment in understanding and/or discussing the material?
7. Follow up to question 6: If you feel that their language skills are weak, why do you t
8. What is your opinion about using English in the classroom? Do you ever use Englis
teaching? When and why?
9. How are the students evaluated? How much does language proficiency affect their
their grade on individual assignments?
Final Instructor Interview
1. What is your opinion of how this class went this semester? Did you feel that the students learned
what you had hoped? Why or why not? Would you do anything differendy the next time you teach
this class?
2. Which aspect(s) of this course did students have the most difficulty with? Why?
3. Do you believe that the students' goals and expectations were met? (If not specifically
mentioned in question 1) Did you feel that the students' language skills improved? If so, in which
areas? What was the reason for the improvement or lack thereof?
4. Did you take any steps to help them improve their language skills? (If not mentioned)
5. Did you provide the students with feedback on their oral and written language?
6. All of the instructors commented on the low proficiency of their students. What do you think
should be done to solve this problem?
7. Do you believe that the researcher presence and/or stimulated recall task affected your teaching?
8. Do you think that your students were reading English translations of the texts? If so, what is
your opinion of this practice?
9. Think about the strongest student in your class. What characteristics are causing you to say that
the student was so good? The weakest?
APPENDIX B
STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES
Preliminary Student Questionnaire (final section only )
1 . Why did you enroll in this course?

2. What do you hope/expect to learn in this course?
3. What do you expect to be the most difficult aspect of this course?
4. Are you interested in the subject matter of this course? Please comment.
5. Are there (French) courses that you would be interested in taking that are currently NOT o
at this university? Please explain.
6. If you have (French) as your primary/ secondary major (or minor), what career goals do yo
after graduating? Will you use (French) in your chosen field?
Final Student Questionnaire
1. Please rate your knowledge of the subject matter (content) of the course after taking this
(1 = none; 2 = minimal; 3 = some; 4 = a lot; 5 = extensive) .
2. What did you get out of this course? Is it what you hoped/expected to get out of it at the begin
3. After taking this course, please rate your perceived improvement in the following areas
(1 = none; 2 = minimal; 3 = some; 4 = a lot; 5 = enormous)

Speaking ability 1 2 3 4 5
Listening skills 1 2 3 4 5
Reading comprehension 1 2 3 4 5
Writing skills 1 2 3 4 5
Vocabulary knowledge 1 2 3 4 5
Grammar 1 2 3 4 5
4. A) Overall, do yo
this course? Why o
B) What additional
course?
C) Did you do anything on your own to improve your language abilities? Please explain.
5. Which aspect(s) of this course did you find to be the most difficult? Please explain.
6. How do you feel about your overall effort in this class? My effort was:
MINIMAL AVERAGE VERY GOOD EXCEPTIONAL
7. Please comment on your self-rating above. Did yo

various assignments?
8. Are there any other comments you would like to
APPENDIX C
CLOZE TEST
"La concentración de C02 en el aire sube más rápido de lo esperado "

Los conocimientos científicos del clima (1)
espectaculares desde que, (2)
Intergubernamental (4)
de que el cambio climático es una realidad. (6)
el aumento de las emisiones (8)
(10)
Sin embargo, los datos registrados demuestran (15)
la Tierra ha ( 1 7)
milímetros (18)
Los (20)
actuales del IPCC e incluso (22)
El último estudio, (25)
subiendo (27)
El crecimiento de la economía (29)
18% a la menor eficiencia de absorción de C02 (33)
(sumideros); un 17% al aumento de la

variación de (35)
balance del volumen de emisiones, por un lado, y la capacidad de los sumideros. "La evolución (38)
largo plazo de este equilibrio determinará en gran (39)
cambio climático inducido (41)
estabilizar las concentraciones de C02 en el aire en (43)
Canadell y (44)
APPENDIX D
ASSIGNMENTS
Writing Assignments
1. General Question
(All Groups) Recount an event that has had a significant effect of your life and explain w
important to you.
2. Content Questions
(Class 1 ) : Recent studies talk about "Le nouveau visage de la France. What triggered such an
What are these new faces and what do they "replace?
(Class 2): In recent years many have argued that what was once considered to be typical
identity (both its culture and its people) has changed. How has Spanish identity changed
(Class 3) : In the late 19th-early 20th century, France had the second largest colonial empire in
(Great Britain had the largest) . What do you think motivated the French to colonize so many
and how do you think their imperial history might relate to immigration issues today?
(Class 4) : What are some of the most pressing political and social issues confronting Spani
Spęąking Assignments
1. General Question
(All Groups) Talk about the last vacation you took. Where did you go, with whom, where d
what did you do, did you have a good time, etc.?
2. Content Questions
(Class 1 and Class 3) : When yo

mind and in what sense are t
(Class 2): When you think of
and in what sense are they r
(Class 4) : When you think of
would you consider them to
APPENDIX E
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Evaluation Crìterìa for Speaking Samples
Rating Message Fluency Pronunciation Grammar Vocabulary

5 Message is clear and Speech fluent and Pronunciation rarely Excellent contro
comprehensible effortless affects intelligibility grammar; rarely appropriately
makes mistakes in (appropriate and
grammatical usage varied use of words)
and word order
4 Message is mostly Generally fluent; Pronunciation Good control of Vocabulary use is

clear and occasional lapses occasionally affects grammar; mostly appropriate
comprehensible while searching for intelligibility occasionally makes (use of words is
correct manner of grammatical and/or generally appropriate
expression word order errors and varied, although
a few repetitions and
errors occur)
3 Message is sometimes Frequent disruptions Pronunciation Modest control of Vocabulary use is
difficult to in search of correct frequently makes grammar; makes somewhat
comprehend manner of speech unintelligible frequent errors of appropriate (use of
expression grammar and word words is generally
order appropriate, but
some repetition and
errors occur)
2 Message is frequently Usually hesitant; Pronunciation very Limited control of Vocabulary use is
unclear and often forced into frequently makes grammar; multiple often inappropriate
incomprehensible silence by language speech unintelligible instances of grammar (use of words is
limitations and word order mostly inappropriate;
errors; must often many repetitions
rephrase and/ or errors occur)
restrict him/herself
to basic patterns
1 Message is almost Speech halting and Pronunciation makes Almost no control of Vocabulary use is
entirely unclear and fragmentary speech virtually grammar or word largely inappropriate
incomprehensible unintelligible order whatsoever (use of words is
mostly inappropriate;
mostly repetitive and
erroneous)
For each speaking sample, indicate with an "X" across the block in each category that descr
of the speaker's abilities.
TOTAL:
Evaluation Cńteńafor Writing Samples
Rating Content Organization Grammar Vocabulary

5 Content is clear Very well- Excellent control Uses vocabulary
and organized (ideas of grammar; rarely appropriately (accurate
comprehensible flow logically; makes mistakes in spelling, including
presence of grammatical usage accents; appropriate and
connectors; and word order varied use of words)
accurate use of
connectors)
4 Content is mostly well-organized Good control of Vocabulary use is mostly
clear and (ideas flow grammar; appropriate (spelling is
comprehensible logically; presence occasionally makes mostly accurate, including
of connectors; grammatical and/ accents; use of words is
some inaccurate or word order generally appropriate and
use of connectors) errors varied, although a few
repetitions and errors may
occur)
3 Content is Some evidence of Modest control of Vocabulary use is
sometimes difficult organization grammar; makes somewhat appropriate
to comprehend (some ideas do not frequent errors of (spelling is sometimes
flow logically; grammar and word inaccurate, including
limited but largely order accents; use of words is
accurate use of generally appropriate, but
connectors) some repetition and errors
occur)
2 Content is Limited evidence Limited control of Vocabulary use is often
frequently unclear of organization grammar; multiple inappropriate (spelling is
and (many ideas do instances of often inaccurate,
incomprehensible not flow logically; grammar and word inclu
limited and order errors; must words is mostly
inaccurate use of often rephrase inappropriate; many
connectors) and/or restrict repetitions and errors
him/ herself to occur)
basic patterns
1 Content is almost No clear evidence Almost no control Vocabulary use is largely
entirely unclear of organization of grammar or inappropriate (spelling is
and (ideas do not flow word order mosdy inaccurate,
incomprehensible logically; no use of whatsoever including accents; use of
connectors) words is mostly
inappropriate; mostly
repetitive and erron
For each writing sample, indicate with an "X" across the block i
the writer's abilities.
TOTAL:
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article at
web-site.

Articulo 3

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Articulo 3

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Incidental Language Learning in Foreign Language Content Courses

Author(s): DARYL M. RODGERS

National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations, Wiley are collaborating

Keywords : content-based instruction; incidental language learning; language; culture; literat

© 2015 The Modern Language Journal language learning.

Two other need to be language

observed a prevalence of incidental spoken

typically during their junior and senior years,

questions that related to class objectives,

student-initiated form-focused episodes in which

"learn a foundation of knowledge of the under-

Measure All (w = 40) Class 1 (n = S) Class 2 (n = 5) Class 3 (n = 7) Class 4 (n = 20)

Category Comparison Sig. Level

perceived improvement inwas

the same improvement in their vocabulary decreased,

All Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4

Comparison of End and Beginning of Semester Proficiency Test Scores

Proficiency 2 vs. 1 All (n = 40) Class 1 (w = 8) Class 2 (w = 5) Class 3 (n - 7) Class 4 (n = 20

Thus, having an initially

All Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4

All Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4

from the repeated measures ANOVA. Although

All Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4

test studied abroad nor previously

experience and previous experience in a content

the course with language-related goals.

indicate that these instructors were doing any-

speaking, as the instructors themselves

results of thelanguage) . Putting these suggestions

was made to produce a version

Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content

Preliminary Instructor Interview

1. What kinds of courses do you typically teach here?

Preliminary Student Questionnaire (final section only )

1 . Why did you enroll in this course?

Final Student Questionnaire

(1 = none; 2 = minimal; 3 = some; 4 = a lot; 5 = enormous)

MINIMAL AVERAGE VERY GOOD EXCEPTIONAL

7. Please comment on your self-rating above. Did yo

"La concentración de C02 en el aire sube más rápido de lo esperado "

espectaculares desde que, (2)

de que el cambio climático es una realidad. (6)

Sin embargo, los datos registrados demuestran (15)

actuales del IPCC e incluso (22)

El último estudio, (25)

El crecimiento de la economía (29)

18% a la menor eficiencia de absorción de C02 (33)

(sumideros); un 17% al aumento de la

largo plazo de este equilibrio determinará en gran (39)

cambio climático inducido (41)

estabilizar las concentraciones de C02 en el aire en (43)

(Class 1 and Class 3) : When yo

Evaluation Crìterìa for Speaking Samples

Rating Message Fluency Pronunciation Grammar Vocabulary

4 Message is mostly Generally fluent; Pronunciation Good control of Vocabulary use is

Evaluation Cńteńafor Writing Samples

Rating Content Organization Grammar Vocabulary

Potrebbero piacerti anche