CHAPTER TWO: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BENUE STATE AND FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY (FCT)
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the review of pertinent literature were done under
the following headings: Historical Evolution of French Language Teaching
Methods in Nigeria, The Approaches to the Conception of French Language
Teaching, French as a Foreign Language in Nigeria, Oral French Proficiency,
Testing Oral French Proficiency, and Theoretical Framework: Communicative
Method:
2.2 Historical Evolution of French Language Teaching Method in
Nigeria
“The history of French language in Nigeria is the history of the
teaching of French language in Nigeria” (Motaze, 1994; Obanya, 1985; Brann,
1975; David, 1975; Madubuko and Okwudishu, 1999; Dele, 2002; Ojeaga, 2002).
These scholars pointed out that French language was first taught in private
secondary schools in Lagos by the British colonial masters. Their aim was to
teach students French culture and civilization.
They used the translation and grammar method in doing this. They were
not interested in teaching these Nigerians how to speak French language.
The aim of the colonial masters was to separate the colonized
indigenes from their Francophone neighbours.
Over the years, teachers, in order to motivate
the students to learn and speak French fluently have applied various teaching
techniques. These are the grammar method, the direct method, the audio-lingual
method and the communicative method. The grammar and direct methods are
regarded as the structural and linguistic approaches while the audio-lingual
and communicative methods are regarded as functional approaches (Kim, 1999;
Ojeaga, 1999; Asobele, 1999:8). Maisamari (1999), Kitao & Kitao (1996), Dunkel
(1999) opine that the reason for the redirection of teaching and testing
techniques from the structural and linguistic approach to the communicative
approach is to enhance oral proficiency in the language.
There is no doubt that this change of teaching method will also bring
about a change in language testing. But the aim of using one method or the
other is to adopt the most effective method to suit the linguistic and social
needs of the learners at a given period. Methodologies in general and French language
methodology in particular are a product of their times.
As educational systems are rooted in the relevance and ideas of their
time, ideas have a habit of coming into and going out of fashion. Many new
approaches are rediscoveries of old methods neglected but re-illuminated.
According to Offorma (2000:148), the issue of relevance has become the primary
concern of education in any society. Students, parents and the government are
all concerned about the relevance of language education in terms of their
needs, interests, and aspirations.
Kitao and Kitao (1996), Harley and Jean (1999),
BeIz (2002), Offorma 20O0), Ojinna (1996) believe that the adoption of one
method or the other in French language teaching must be seen in the light of
relevance. For this change/innovation to be worthwhile, it must make for
improvement in the existing practice or method, Offorma (2000) opines.
Therefore, old, out - moded, nonfunctional methods are less used or abandoned
entirely and new ones introduced because of relevance.
The history of language teaching shows itself swinging like a pendulum
between extremes of methods. Richards (1989), Williams (1990), Littlewood
(1981), Harley and Jean (1996), as teachers have searched for different
solutions. There has been an attempt to view language-teaching methodology as a
continuous upward progress through history. Richards (1989), Williams (1990),
Ojinna (1996) opine that this methodology is not yet perfect but is still
moving towards perfection. But closer analysis of older works on language
teaching reveals surprising similarities with present day methodology.
Dodson (1967, 1983) classified the whole range of teaching methods
into grammar (indirect) method, direct method, oral method, natural method,
bilingual method, language control method, phonetic method, audio-lingual
method, audio-visual method, eclectic (modified) method and communicative
method. This is more elaborated than Williams’ (1990) classification, which
consists of only five methods.
Wilkins (1972), Ojeaga (1999), Williams (1990) classified the methods
used in teaching French language into two: traditional method and modern
method. For the traditional method, emphasis is on the written French and the
correct use of grammar. Here knowledge of grammar is emphasized. Word to word
translation is used to the disadvantage of the learner. It is known as the
grammar-translation or bilingual method.
The modern method, on the other hand, emphasizes oral/spoken French,
(BeIz, 2002; Dodson, 1967; Hymes, 1971: Kitao & Kitao, 1996; Offorma,
2000). It encourages learners to look, listen and repeat what the teacher says.
It aims at equipping learners with the necessary communicative competence. It
is a method, which emphasizes communication in the target language of the
learner. This method is learner-oriented. It involves all the four language
skills: listening, speaking, reading and writing. With the modern method, the
learner of French language is able to understand and express himself in the
language (Kitao & Kitao, 1996; Buscagalia, 1981). Communicative and direct
methods fall into this category.
Williams (1990), Littlewood (1981), Ojeaga (1999) and Wilkins (1972)
traced the historical evolution of French language teaching method to the 17th
century in Europe. The traditional method was in Vogue in Germany in the 19th
century and part of 20th century. As far back as the 17th century,
the Romans provided their sons with Greek tutors. They forced them into active
use of the language. This made them acquire the language the same way as they
had been taught their mother tongue. According to Wilkins (1972), Montaigne’s
father made a similar provision for his learning of Latin but he soon lost
interest when he was out of school. Wilkins (1972) further traced the origin of
traditional method to Comenius in the century, Gouin and Vietor in the 19th
century and Palmer and others in the 20th century. These linguists
wrote at one time or the other against the traditional method out of
dissatisfaction with the method. Their writings in turn produced great changes
in the ways in which languages were taught. Ironically, the language teachers
reverted to old methods at the discovery that the new methods were not
providing satisfactory results.
Wilkins (opcit) opines that the fact that traditional and modern
methods are contrasting terms may be misleading. Her reason is that there is
little in modern methods that are entirely new. There is no evidence of a
continuing tradition in the history of language teaching because each method is
full of diversity. In the words of Williams (opcit) “Plus ça change, plus c’est
la même chose”. That is, the more things change, the more they remain the same.
Williams (opcit) and Richards (1996) also refer to this phenomenon as the swing
of the pendulum. However, if there is any tradition at all in these evolutions,
it is that of alternation between two distinct views of the aims and content of
language teaching. For instance, the “soi-disant” modern methods see the aim of
language teaching as a practical mastery of spoken language. According to Kitao
and Kitao (opcit), Belz (2002), Kim (1998), Littlewood (1981), this method
demands the maximum participation on the part of the learner. It is called the
communicative method.
The other method termed as traditional, views the aim of French
language teaching as the acquisition of the rules that underlie actual
performance. The method itself is viewed as the explicit distinction of these
rules with exercises in the labeling of grammatical forms and the deductive
application of the rules. But it can be observed that there is virtually no
distinction between the traditional and modern method. Onochie (personal
communication, July 18, 2002) opines that there is nothing like communicative
method. According to him, all language
teaching methods are geared towards communication, therefore all
language-teaching methods are communicative methods. This view is in contrast
to the views of Williams, (opcit); Littlewood, (opcit); Wilkins, (opcit):
Broughton, (1978). These scholars believe that there is something like the
communicative method. They therefore discussed the method extensively.
However, the unique thing about the alternation between these
tradition and modern method is that they have been both theoretical and
historical. Both of them have in one way or the other dominated language
teaching in recent times. According to Onidare (1999), the evolution from the
traditional method to the modern method of French language teaching started
with the direct method at the beginning of the 20th century. He observed that
with the direct method, there was more emphasis on “langue Parlée” in French
language teaching.
To Butzbach et al. (1997), one cannot talk of language teaching
methods without mentioning the structuralist theories known as structural
linguistic theory. In Europe, the structuralists like Ferdinand de Saussure,
Chomsky, Sweet and so on, believed more in speech than in writing as well as in
the systematic and descriptive nature of language. In USA, we have Taylor Boar, Sapir and Bloomfield (the founder of
American structuralism). These were the precursors of the communicative method.
They viewed language as a social system. On the other hand, Cormenius and
Plotz, German teachers in the mid-19th century were strong and
influential advocates of the grammar/translation method.
No matter the number of methods that have existed and the new ones
that are forth coming, it has been observed that in the course of language
teaching, the teacher consciously or unconsciously makes use of one or two of
these methods simultaneously. However, there has been a strong tendency for one
or other of these methods to be the dominant one. One can rightly conclude that
historically, French language teaching has always been subject to change. But
the process of change has not resulted from the steady accumulation of
knowledge about the most effective ways of teaching French. It is more or less
the product of changing fashion, the swing of the pendulum and an alternation
of progress and regression. Wilkins (1972), Richards (1996), Dodson (1983),
Williams (opcit), summarize by stating that there has been no way of proving
the effectiveness of language teaching methods. In addition, it has not been so
difficult to convince people of the virtues of a particular approach/method.
Otto and Smith in Norton (1985) among other things feel that a teacher should
carefully observe a student’s total language learning in order to formulate the
best instructional method to use. This observation should consider the child’s
effectiveness in communication in terms of purposes, message and audience.
Nevertheless, the acceptance of the direct and communicative methods
and their effects on language learning and use in the society is a welcome
evolution. This in effect led to the rejection of all other methods as
ineffectual and out moded (Omaggio Harley, 1997; BeIz, 2002).
2.3 Approaches to the Conception of French Language Teaching
Language is another concept that has endless definitions. Linguists,
educationists and psychologists have tried to study and define language from
different angles. Language also exhibits a number of characteristics that make
it a matter of great academic interest to psychologists in particular.
Goodman et al (1987) quoting Whorl (1956) generalizes the meaning of
language. They argue that every language is a vast patterned system which is
different from others, and by which there are culturally ordained forms with
which people not only communicate but also analyze nature, reason and interact
with one another. Ashworth (1988) states that language means different things
to different professionals. A psychologist is interested in speech as forms of
behavior while a sociologist for such things as how speech is affected by
social stratification. To a linguist, language is a pattern of words, sounds
and grammar. To him (Ashworth), language is a means of recording, expressing
and communicating meaning. Brown (1980) is of the same opinion with the
definitions of language by Finnocchairo (1994) and Pei (1966). Language is seen
as a system of arbitrary, vocal symbols that permit all people in a given
culture or other people who have learned the system of that language to
communicate and to interact.
The summary of these definitions according to Brown (opcit) is that language
is systematic, is a set of arbitrary symbols. Those symbols are vocal but
invisible. Those symbols have conventionalized meanings to which they refer.
They are used for communication. Language operates in a speech community or
culture. These definitions represent how almost all other scholars take
language to be. The writer would like to add that language is more than that.
To the writer, language is one’s identity as a being in a society. Human beings
are non-existent without language. This is why babies, dumb people and even
animals according to Weiten (1992), make some specific noises to identify with
others (whether they make sense or not).
Weiten (opcit: 276) confirms from a research carried out on an ape
that language is not unique to human beings. He went on to buttress his point
that there are indications that all basic properties of a rudimentary language
is found in the communication of the ape.
Other researchers debunk this experiment/view by saying that the
language of the ape is stereotyped and not natural. The language of the ape is
not flexible, fluent and complex like that of human language. According to
Matthews et al. (1989), languages are construed as sets of sentences. A
sentence here means any finite, structured object, its history, aspects of its
meaning and finite bits of context. Brown (opcit) is of the same opinion with
other linguists that language is used to communicate one’s needs and for social
interaction. This language must therefore be learned.
To learn a language is to acquire the ability to use the right
sentence type to express whatever one wants to communicate. It is also the
ability to interpret the sentence type produced by others. It can also be
argued that first language learning process is not applicable to French language
learning at later stage in life. Brown (opcit), Norton (1998), Hatch and Brown
(1995), Chomsky (1975) believe that first language learning is an essential
part of the child’s total growth and awareness of the world around him. He
starts off with tabla rasa. Then he starts collecting, selecting and organizing
the experience of a totally new world perceived through his senses. These, he
does by formulating a variety of pre-verbal concepts.
According to Harley (1992, 1999), Harley and King (1989), Hatch et al
(1995), part of the process of learning how to live is the acquisition of skill
to verbalise ones desires and aversions. It also involves labeling ones
concepts so as to make living more sufficient and secure. These scholars opine
that the effectiveness of these verbalizing skills depends on the maturational
level of the child. It also depends on the type of environment as well as his
or her intelligence. To Harley (1999), Brown (1980), Robert (1996), Engel
(1979) Dodson (1983), Skinner (1957), Wilkins (1972) and Chomsky (1975),
language is part of an intrinsic process through which a child learns to
recognize and deal with new situations in life. This can only be achieved
through oral communication. Hence, linguists restrict their attention to spoken
language and more particularly to vocally produced sounds. Their interest in
spoken language is based on the fact that spoken language is used in oral
communication.
The objective for the study of oral communication is for what can be
termed social growth (Brooks et al, 1989; Shoji, 1997; Taylor-Browne, 1990;
Fishman, 1965). As social beings living with others we need to communicate
effectively with each other (Hymes, 1971). No one can live isolated from all
other human beings. Human beings are social creatures with strong social needs.
These needs are sometimes met through communication or oral interaction.
Through this communication, we co-operate with each other to do things we
cannot do alone; things that bring us greater control over our environment and
fuller, more satisfying lives.
Brooks et al (1989),
Cucchiarini et aI. (2000), Nation (1990), Shulz
(1975), Rivers (1975), define speech communication as the process by which
information, meanings and feelings are shared by persons through the exchange
of verbal and non-verbal messages. Speech communication is a process. Process
on its own implies dynamics and change. It implies parts interacting and
influencing each other so as to function as a whole.
According to Brooks et al (opcit), Arnold (1978), Buscagalia (1981),
speech communication can be categorized into intra-personal, interpersonal,
public organizational and cultural. Our main concern in this study is
interpersonal communication. To Brooks et al this refers to persons engaged
directly on overt and covert transmission and reception of messages. It
includes dyadic communication such as two persons visiting ‘ over a cup of
coffee, the job interview, conference between a subordinate and a superior or a
telephone conversation with one’s friend. In each of these two persons
communicate directly with each other. Each is specifically aware of the other;
each can send messages overtly to the
Interpersonal communication also includes small group communication.
The difference between small group and dyadic communication lies in the number
of participants. The small group may be three persons talking in the backyard,
a committee of five persons of any problem-solving group while dyadic
communication s between two persons only. The essential element in both kinds
of interpersonal communication is that of direct, person-to-person interaction.
Brooks et ai (opcit: 31), share the views of other linguists that since man’s
communication (intra-personal, interpersonal etc) ¡s language dependent, it is
important therefore to learn the social use of language (emphasis mine).
Harley (1992), Coady (1997), Williams (opcit), Norton (1983), Brook et
al. (opcit), Brown (opcit) are of the view that teachers should be concerned,
first and foremost with the aim of language teaching. What goal does a teacher
who teaches language and a learner who learns the language set out to achieve.
Unfortunately, teachers are normally faced with the difficult choice of
teaching either parole (speech) or langue (language communication). To Saussure
(1916), Corder (1973), Wilkins (opcit), Grittner (1977), parole is language as
the speech act while langue is language as a system by which we succeed in
understanding or producing utterances. Saussure (opcit), agrees that a language
(langue) is shared by all the members of a particular speech community. In his words “la langue est
l’ensemble des habitudes linguistiques qui permettent à un sujet de comprendre
et de se faire comprendre”. It is an institutionalized
element of their collective consciousness. Because everyone shares in it, it is
possible for them to understand one another. Thus, it is a social habit
partaken by every individual. Halsey & Johnson (1987), Matthew (1989),
Wilkins (opcit) observe that speech (parole) is more or less a product of our
personality, our temperament or our physical incapacities. To Dodson (1983),
Roberts (1996), McConvell (1994), language needs not to be laboriously
monotonous and medium oriented. It can be structured and at the same time be
spontaneous and incidental. They are of the view that language is never static.
Students need to practice improvising, unrehearsed talking off in a natural
manner. This is what the communicative method of teaching French language seeks
to inculcate into students at both primary and secondary school levels.
Dodson (opcit), Harley (1996) believes that spontaneous and improvised
practice helps to make minds more flexible. It inspires confidence in students
in coping with unforeseen, unanticipated situations. it is important that
students are trained to develop alternative ways of saying things. This is only
possible if they are enriched with vocabulary (Harley, 1996; Lapkin and Swain,
1996; Johnson and Swain, 1997; Palmberg, 1987; Smith and Mc Carthy, 1997).
Just as F. de. Saussure tried to distinguish
between langue and parole, Chomsky (1957) and Prajapati (1981) tried to
distinguish competence (langue) and performance (parole). In this case, they
tried to use other terms: competence and performance but which are similar in
meaning/nuance to langue and parole respectively. But Wilkins (opcit) argues
that they are not exact equivalents since Chomsky (1957) would not accept that
competence could be described in terms of collective consciousness. To him
(Chomsky), competence is seen as a set of processes possessed by the individual
and developed in him as part of his maturation. The community only triggers the
mechanism.
Littlewood (opcit: 6) and William (opcit: 69),
Kitao & Kitao (1996), Dunkel (1999), McConvell (1994), Dodson (opcit) view
language use in terms of communicative competence and linguistic competence.
The individual learner must integrate mastery of language structures
(linguistic competence) with the use of the same structures in communication
(communicative competence). He must develop skill in manipulating the
linguistic system to the point where he can use it spontaneously and flexibly
in order to express his intended message-that is performance.
Kitao & Kitao (1996), Maisamari (1999), Taylor-Brown (1990); Ade Ojo
(2002), Shoji (1997), Fancelli (1999), Offorma (2000), Littlewood (opcit) and
Williams (opcit), opine that it cannot be over emphasized that the main aim of
foreign language teaching is for the learner to acquire communicative ability.
Communicative language in general focuses on functional and structural aspects
of language. These combinations bring out the nuance and meanings of the
language under usage.
To Jaggar et al (1985), Jones (1977), Kitao & Kitao (1996),
Onidare (1999) learners’ knowledge about sounds, meanings and syntax is
linguistic competence. They argue that using linguistic form in social contexts
requires learners to know both grammatical and social rules. These enable them
to communicate effectively with their listeners. Therefore, the knowledge of
social and linguistic rules that enables us to speak and interact appropriately
in different situations is called communicative competence. Hymes (opcit: 75)
and Jaggar et al. (1985), see it as the learner’s ability to participate in his
society as not only a speaking but also a communicating member. Onidare (1999)
also tries to distinguish between langue écrite and langue parlée. He goes on
to emphasize that more studies in the use of test scores are needed. We need to
plot on the impact that test of students’ oral proficiency has on the society.
This will enable the writer to ascertain whether the method of teaching French
language at SS3 in FCT and Benue state has any influence on the students’ oral
proficiency.
The above discussions by various authors are justified. Language can
never be used in isolation or by a single person (except in monologue). For it
to assume its rightful role in the society, it has to be spoken to an
appropriate individual in an appropriate situation.
2.4 French as a Foreign
Language in Nigeria
French language in Nigeria can be termed a foreign language and not a
second language (Obanya, 1985:34). First of all, we have to differentiate
between a foreign language and a second language as it pertains to the Nigerian
linguistic situation. In addition, the issue of immersion will be discussed.
The common element in second language situation is that the language
being learned (L2) is not the mother tongue (L1) of any group within the
country (Taeschner, 1978; Thomas, 1988; DaIley, 1992; Obanya Opcit; Lantolf,
2000). It does have some internal social functions especially in a multilingual
country (Blanc, 1994; Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001). An example is the English
language in Nigeria. To Rossell (1996), Roberts (1996), Nation (1993), L2
is normally used as the medium of education. It is introduced at the primary
level of education in private schools in Nigeria. This introduction of second
language (L2) at the primary level is justified by the necessity for
starting at an early age if the language is to become an effective tool of
learning at the higher levels (Riley, 1985; Lapkin, 1991; Obanya, opcit). The
aim is to expand the pupils’ experience through language. This helps to develop
their personality and their sensibilities. To Brann (1973), Swaine (1989),
Roberts (1976, 1996), foreign language is the target language and not the
mother tongue of any group within the country where it is being learned. It has
no internal communication function. Swaine (1976) agrees that the aim of teaching
the language is to increase ease of contact with French language speakers
outside the country.
The writer agrees with Williams (opcit), Ade-Ojo (2002), Offorma (200)
Ezike (2000), that the former notion of the status of French as a foreign
language in Nigeria has in one way or the other led to the inevitable drop in
the standard of French proficiency. This is because then it was not taken
seriously.
Ade-Ojo (opcit), Harley (1999), Thomas (1988), Taylor (1990), Lapkin
(1991) then proposed and implemented the French immersion programme. Ade-Ojo
(opcit), Lapkin (1991), Thomas (1988), Swaine (1987), Wright (1996) Okwudishu
& Madubuko (1999) describe the French immersion programme as where much of
the school curriculum is taught in the target language. In this vein, Harley
(1999) cautions that, there is the dire need to develop students’ lexical
development in French because the current emphasis is that schools should use
educationally enriching authentic French content in regular ‘core’ French
programmes. In most current publications by Harley (1995, 1999), Coady and
Huckin (1997), Nation (1990), Schmitt and Mc Carthy (1997), Harley & Jean
(1999) and so on, it was highly recognized that vocabulary knowledge is very
vital in the development of second language proficiency. French textbook
authors in Nigeria such as Mazaurice (2002), Gordon (1995) are conscious of
this and therefore include vocabulary sections in the primary and secondary
French textbooks.
Harley and Jean (1999) conducted a vocabulary-oriented research
recently in French immersion classrooms. In this research, they examined a
specific aspect of the lexical development of French immersion students’
vis-a-vis core French students, especially their word analysis skills in the
second language - French. Jean and Harley (1999) and Palmberg (1987) are of the
view that the ability to analyze the internal structure of words is vital
because it can provide access to many new words and increase potential
vocabulary in the second language. This is contrary to what obtains in
immersion and core French programmes in Canada. Harley and Jean (1999), Swaine
(1989), Thomas (1988), Taylor and Browne (1990), Lapkin (1999), Engel (1979),
therefore observe that most French as a Second-language materials used, pay little
or no attention to such skills.
The aim of teaching French language in Nigeria determines its
classification as a second language, a foreign language or an alternate
language. Alternate language is a new term used by Wilkins, (opcit: 156) to
describe the target language. It is defined as the mother-tongue of another
group in the same country. For example, in Canada where English and French are
each the L1 of one group and the principal L2 of another. Harley
(1999), Leont’ev (1981), Blooms & Lahey (1978), Chastain (1976), Lindfors
(1980) and Ndahi (1982), in comparing second language with L1/foreign language
argue that at 2 years of age, a child is not interested in recognition of new
living situations. According to Pouiston & James (1975), Brown (opcit) Erasmie
(1975), Nelson (1973), Taeschner (1978), the child has normally learned the
basic concept and can handle situations for ordinary living purposes. While
Harley (1999) is of the view that as far as learning to live is concerned,
there is no similarity between two processes of learning. According to Engel
(1979), this concept cannot be seen in the case of immigrant children. The
latter need to learn French for survival purposes. Their motivating force is
totally different, Iheanacho (1986) opines.
The older child on the other hand, according to
Swaine (1976), Rossell et al. (1996), Candilin (2000), Roberts (1996), Blanc
(1994) and Lantolf (2000) has already at his disposal a first language, which
is securely fixed to the universe of things. This Kramsch (in press), Evans
(1972), Simpson (1979), Okwudishu & Madubuko (1999), observe as an
advantage on the part of the learner of French language as a foreign language
unlike the first language learner who does not have this. Fafunwa (1989) NPE
(1981, 1998), Brown (1997), Emenanjo (1990), Dodson (1967) and Williams
(opcit), further justify the use of mother tongue in learning a foreign or
second language. On this justification they argue that older children are more
mature and that it would seem nonsensical to imitate first language learning
processes totally for learning additional language. All these are arguments to
buttress the use of MT in the modern communicative/direct methods of teaching
French.
According to Harley (1992), the French language learners’ most ardent
wish is to learn how to handle certain known and recurring situations through
the medium of the first language. However, as Lapkin and Swaine (1996), Wright
(1996), Byram (1997), Candlin (2000), DaIley (1992) observe, the learners do
not wish to handle completely new situations in first language terms. This is
the case of all foreign language learners. The learning of French language as a
foreign language in FCT, and Benue State employed these modes during the direct
method era in the 80s.
To Wilkins (opcit), Kramsch (2000), Lantolf (2000, 2001), Oke (1990),
Harley and Hart (1997) and Fischer (1998), second language and foreign language
learners’ lives will not normally provide them with any contact with native
speakers of that language. According to Boughton (1978), Wilkins (opcit), a
language learner will use the language in his own country more often than not
in conversation with another non-native speaker. On the other hand, the foreign
language learner will not use the language in his own country. It is only if he
goes abroad that he will have contact with the native speakers.
There is therefore an urgent need for us to define the status of the
French language in Nigeria in order to adopt appropriate method of teaching it
to enhance its proficiency and usage. The justification for French language
teaching needs not only be for a necessary condition for the expansion of
overseas trade and international relations but as a need for social
interactions within and outside the country (Gundu, 1989; Foder, 1966; Ezike,
2000, Brann, 1973). The provision of an adequate number of foreign language
speakers is now thought to be a necessary condition for the country’s security,
social, political and economic wellbeing. In spite of these and other
functional requirements that can be put upon the language being learned, there
is this argument by Okwudishu & Madubuko (1999), Gudu (1990), Iheanacho
(1986), Eel-Kerg (1987), World Encyclopedia (1972) that the learning of French
language contributes to the education of the individual by giving him access to
the culture of a group of people with whom he does not have daily contact.
According to the World Book Encyclopedia (1972), Ezike (2002), Dada (2000),
Lapkin (1991), Lapkin and Swaine (996’), Okwudishu and Madubuko (1999), Kramsch
and Thomas (in press), learning French as a foreign language can increase one’s
range of communication; one can gain knowledge of the customs and ways of life
of other French speaking countries; it can help add to one’s knowledge of one’s
own language. The learning of French as a foreign language in Nigeria helps to
add to the citizens’ general stock of information. For example, knowledge of
French language will enable one to unlock new fields of knowledge. If one
learns French, he will be able to read books written in French on almost any
subject he may wish to study. Above all, knowledge of French as a foreign
language in Nigeria can help one gain a spirit of broad human tolerance. It
makes one aware that other peoples think, speak and act in ways different from
one’s own.
The issue at stake is how to teach French language to maximize its
functional and social usage. Wilkins (1972), Ojeaga (2000), Ezike (2002) and so
on share the view that during the 2O century, the tradition of French teaching
has been that access to foreign (French) culture was made through reading and
memorization. This helps in developing reading ability. But most modern methods
depend on the learner acquiring knowledge of rules of language structure. The
new emphasis is on spoken language skill Belz (2002), Broughton (opcit), Kîtao
& Kitao (opcit), Williams (opcit), Littlewood (opcit) with the overall
educational aim of foreign language teaching. Wilkins (1972) opines that one is
not providing the learners with the means to survive as tourists abroad but
that there is every likelihood of a large number of people coming into contact
with French people and culture. Okwudishu and Madubuko (1999) are sure that
teaching them to speak French language helps to ensure their cordial
relationship. The materials and methods used in learning French language
therefore are designed to give a practical command of the language. Lapkin and
Hart (1991), Kitao and Kitao (1996) Harley and Jean (1999), Obanya (1985:36)
state that the status of French as second language warrants its being used
within Nigeria as a medium of education and an official language. But as a
foreign language, the learner needs it so that he can form contacts with a
community other than his own. A French context will then be created for a
Nigerian child learning French.
In addition, as Archer (1988), Byram (1997), Kramsch (1993, 2000),
Lantolf (2000, 2001), observe, any explicit cultural content will be drawn from
and has reference to the culture of, for example, the French speaking world,
and in particular France. The reason is that this ¡s the country with which the
child is most likely to have contact. The language teacher tries to achieve
this by the use of audio-visual aids and immersion programme, Ade-Ojo (2002) insists.
French as a foreign language in Nigeria is usually taught at the
secondary school level (Brann, 1970, 1973; Gundu, 1990; Simpson, 1979). This is
in line with the National Policy on Education (NPE 1981, 1998), which
stipulates “the learning of French language is compulsory at the Junior
Secondary level and as an elective at the Senior Secondary level”. Students are
to choose either Arabic or French. Wilkins (1972) sees this as the main
difference between second language and foreign language. Although, in recent
years some private schools teach French at primary levels, BeIz (2002), Kitao
and Kitao (1996) are of the view that practical efforts have not been made.
This boils down to restricting the bulk of French language teaching to
secondary schools. French is now a core subject in NECO Syllabus.
Wilkins (1972), Iheanacho (1986), Fischer (1998), Lantolf and Pavlenko
(2001), Riley (1985), believe that a secondary school student’s motivation for
learning a foreign language (French) may not be as strong as that of a primary
school learner who is excited about the new language. According to Brown
(1980), Aitchson (1984), Buscagalia et al. (1981), Lantolf (2000) he/she learns
it for social interaction. He is not conscious of any mistake he makes. He is
not ashamed to make any lexical, grammatical and phonological error. All he
wants is to exhibit the knowledge of his newly acquired language.
Certain criteria determine the method a teacher uses to teach French
as a foreign language in Nigeria. This relates directly with the impact of
method on this students’ oral proficiency. Such criteria include: attitude of
the teacher towards the aim of learning a foreign language. The aim of teaching
French language will determine the methods the teacher uses to drive home the
language lessons to the students. A positive answer to the following questions
will guide him in his choice of teaching method: Is the teaching of the
language merely to make the students pass examinations, to get good examination
results/promotions? Is it to transmit to the pupils a new culture, set of
values, way of thinking and a new language so that they can communicate and
learn to respect and tolerate peoples different from themselves?
The attitude of a teacher toward how he thinks a child should learn a
foreign language in class also determines the teaching method. Should a student
be a passive learner or an active learner of a foreign language, and a slave to
the method? Does the teacher keep them writing so as to maintain, control and
discipline? Or does he allow some working noise and get students to
communicate, work in pairs, in groups to act out situations in which language
is the practical vehicle for communicating and conveying messages? This is the
obvious aim of the communicative teaching method that enhances student’s oral
proficiency. Chambers et al (1995), McConvell (1994) Williams (1990), Burns et
aI (1983), Ojinna (1996), Richards (1989) are quick to observe that it is
detrimental that teachers tend to return to the method with which they are most
acquainted in moments of crisis. At this stage, the students may be thrown into
confusion though they may not realize the change in methodology out of
ignorance.
Attitude of students to the language will determine the method a
teacher uses. Byne (1977), Lentev (1981) agree that students are aware that
some languages are more favoured than the others. For example, the relative
prestige of French as an international language favours its choice by the
students who are well counselled. Evans (1972), Treffgarne (1975) advice that
this counseling is very necessary because some students skip French language or
are not serious with it out of ignorance. The way students react to language
teachers and the method also determines the instructional technique used in
teaching them the French language (Richards 1989). This reaction can be in
terms of their ability to speak/converse fluently in French (Agar, BeIz. 2002;
1994, Byram, 1997). Language learning is very much an interplay of
personalities. These students are human beings with likes, dislikes, moods,
moments of tiredness and so on. The French language should not be forced on
them. Instead, a method that lures and attracts them to the language should be
used. The communicative method, Kitao& Kitao (1996), Harley (1999) opine,
seems to be the most attractive and active method of learning French language
in Nigerian schools. The teaching method is child centered, method oriented and
teacher oriented. But Kim (1998), Offorma (2000), Littlewood (1981), Williams
(1990), Dodson (1993) observe that young teachers tend to oscillate, favouring
the direct method first while veering towards the Indirect Method when trying
to deal with unruly classes. It is assumed that noisy classes are better
controlled with the Indirect Method (Dodson, 1967).
It is important that both teachers and students are not restricted to
textbooks. Again, textbooks should not be used from cover to cover. They should
only be used as tools and starting points. Textbooks can be manipulated and rendered
more communicative with a little inspiration and imagination. Dodson (1983)
warns that a French teacher must free himself from it. He should rely more on
his own command of language and his professional expertise as to what
linguistic items, idioms, phrases, words need to be drilled, exploited and
extended.
Surprisingly, a very large proportion of pupils are still taught
foreign languages in a formal manner, veering very much towards the Indirect
approach even in mixed ability classes. This will surely affect the SS3
students’ oral Proficiency in these states.
2.5 Oral Language Proficiency
One cannot talk about oral language proficiency without mentioning
human language development. According to Goodman (1987), to be born human is to
be born with a potential for thinking…., for interaction, for communicating and
for developing language,
Language is mainly for interaction. It is only humans who are capable
of the level of interaction we achieve because only humans have sensible
language. Language is necessary for the full sharing of feelings, needs, wants,
experiences and insight. Linguists are of the view that language is the medium
through which thoughts are shared, the medium of thinking and of learning.
Goodman (1989), McConveji (1994) are of the view that the how and why
of language development helps in understanding oral proficiency. Though the
innate and behavioral theories of language development are seen to be
inadequate oral language development has surmounted the obstacles of these
inadequacies. Goodman (1989) tries to explain the inadequacies when he argued
that behavioral theory is inadequate to explain how the learners can create
language.
Unwilling to accept the behavioral language theory, scholars found an
alternative theory called the innate theory. The innate theory according to
Goodman (1989:131), Aitchson (1984), Brown (1980), Burns (1983), Janda et al
(1982), Weiten (1992), was in turn found to be unproductive it causes scholars
to treat language development as uninteresting. Their question is: why study
something if it is innate and happens universally? To them this issue of innate
view also leads to the neglect of the social and personal functions,
circumstances and contexts within which human language is developed. Godman
(1989) then concludes that neither nature (nativist) nor nurture (behavioral)
views can explain how and why language develops. Language development therefore
is inseparable in understanding oral and written language development. The
focus on this issue of innate view also leads to the neglect of the social and
personal functions, circumstances and contexts within which human language
develops.
However, attempt in understanding oral language development has
overcome the obstacles of these inadequate theories. The difference between the
oral and written language development stems from the obvious spontaneous and
universal development of oral language, evidence of which is too overt to be
ignored. Whether oral language was treated as behaviorally conditioned or natively
endowed (BeIz, 2002; Hymes, 1971; Kitac & Kitao, 1996).
The nativists according to Godman (1989) and Weiten (1992) argue that
it is oral language from which humans are preprogrammed. Written language is
only a secondary and abstract representation of oral language. Oral language is
not learned like language but requires “metalinguistic awareness”- that is,
explicit knowledge of how language works for its development. Their view is
that oral language develops very fast, because it is not learned but innate
(Dunkel, 1996; Fairelough, 1992; Brown, 1980; Burns, 1983; Aitchson, 1984). The
writer does not agree with the view that oral language is not learned because
foreign language must have to be learned in order for one to attain certain
oral proficiency. There is also some evidence of language learning in L1
(mother tongue). Goodman (1972), Bee (1985), Tarleton (1988), Osofsky (1987),
Broman (1982) BeIz (2002), Chambers (1995), Ndahi (1989), Bloom and Lahey
(1978) observe that the environment through imitation and repetition enhances
it. The more learners speak a language, the more they are proficient in it.
To Norton (1983) and Weiten (1992), oral language is our chief method
of communication. It is generally agreed that oral language is not done well
despite the fact that it is done often. For this reason, Fox (1976) and Norton
(1983) are of the view that teachers should provide assistance to learners in a
normal natural environment and with the kinds of language experiences that
encourage the growth of oral language. Lamb (1977) then opines that classroom
language teachers should cause learners to engage in conversations,
discussions, oral reading, dramatic plays and choral talking. Unlike the
communicative method advocates, Lamb (1977), Harley & Jean (1999), Lapkin
& Swaine (1996), Harley & Hart (1997), Be{z (2002) emphasize the
importance of vocabulary and intonation development in learners. This according
to them is because children can learn a great deal about pitch, stress and
juncture as clues to meaning. These skills can also be applied to make
Learners’/students’ speech more colourful and interesting. Loban (1976) and
Norton (1983) affirm the importance of oral language and the need for oral
language instruction.
Prior to the introduction of the National Curriculum, the teaching of
French was left almost totally at ‘medium’ level. There was very little scope
to test true communicative ability or to use the language spontaneously
(Dodson, 1983; NPE, 1998; Roberts, 1996; Taylor & Browne, 1990; Shnukal,
1982; Shoji, 1997; Obanya, 1985; Gundu, 1990; Brann, 1970).
The beginning of oral French in the Nigerian school system is worth
noting. After the Nigerian Independence in 1960 and the simultaneous
independence of other West African countries, the French programme in Nigeria
was revised to allow Nigerians to communicate in French. As described by Motaze (1994), “La pratique de
l’oral était donc introduite par WAEC après plusieures colloques sur
l’enseignement reunissant les professeurs du Nigeria, du Ghana et de la Sierra
Leone”. After this meeting la “la recommendation du Colloque du WAEC en 1969
concernant l’oral Français était ensuite adoptée par les écoles”. And thus began the learning, teaching and testing of oral French in
Nigerian secondary schools. The teaching and learning of oral French then led
to the emphasis on accurate pronunciation, intonation, fluency, rhythm and
comprehension of the written language. This inevitably calls for oral
proficiency on the part of the learners.
WAEC (1975), Shnukal (1982), Ojinna (1996), Kitao & Kitao (1996),
Belz (2002), Avognon (2002), Tunde (2002), Widdowson (1981) explicitly state
that the purpose of teaching Oral French is to help the learner acquire the
ability to speak and understand French. Thomas & Dodson (1988),
Taylor-Browne (1990), McConvell (1994), Blanc (1994), Dodson (1967, 1983),
Chambers (1995), Carpenter (1995), Child (1993) are of the opinion that by
using elements encountered in variety of ways such as reading, summarizing,
translating, discussion and debates, language is made more fluid. This renders
students’ manipulation of language more fluent.
Consequently, the objective of implementing the oral skill is to have
students demonstrate the understanding of words, sentences and names as they
hear them. To be able to achieve this purpose, they are required to repeat or
imitate sounds and distinguish between phonemes correctly. Ojinna (1996)
suggests that strategies for obtaining oral proficiency should include.
- Memorisation and
dramatization of dialogues that contain everyday speech in everyday context. In
this case students are made to memorize the dialogues and dramatise them with
all the intonative characteristics for effective delivery and meaning.
- Operational repetition,
which can be in form of patterned drills, questions and answers, laboratory
work, songs, poetry and recitation.
- Have several students
read aloud while the teacher corrects pronunciation. Students who acquire the
above skills will be able to express their intentions to their listener’s
understanding.
Apart from the above suggestions on how to improve learners’ oral
proficiency, Norton (1983) opines that a positive classroom environment is
critical to the development of oral language skills. In such an environment,
the teacher must have the knowledge necessary for eliciting oral language. He
should also be able to evaluate a child’s oral language and provide effective
instruction. Efforts should be made to provide an environment conducive enough
to develop oral language by using oral stimulating projects or activities; she
also suggests that opportunities should be provided for children/learners to
interact in pairs, small groups and large groups. This will make them speak
frequently and thus improve their oral proficiency. Norton (1983) suggests
several instructional methods for improving oral language skills-conversation,
especially through show and tell, telephone activities and teachers’ role in
promoting the learners self-confidence as a speaker.
What really led to the above suggestions on the
improvement of oral proficiency in language, French language inclusive are the
studies carried out by linguists. Wilkins (1972:156) is aware of lack of oral
proficiency in learning a foreign language. He and other foreign language
teachers for example, note that French language teaching “does not get beyond
the stage of progressive accumulation of linguistic knowledge”. It may be
argued that this was so then because this was a period when grammar/translation
method of teaching French language was in vogue. The communicative need/problem
at that time must have given birth to the search for a better method, which
would enhance communication.
Then, the language teacher was the only person
saddled with the responsibility of providing exposure to the language and when
that exposure was sometimes for as little as one hour a week, it is evident
that in few situations, French language teaching could reach the point where
techniques resembled those of mother tongue teaching.
Wilkins (1972), Dele (2002), Ojeaga (2002), Ezike
(1999), lheanacho (1986), Kitao & Kitao (1996), Hymes (1971) reason that
oral proficiency was lacking that time because practice only took place in the
language lesson. The overall progress in the learning of oral language was very
slow. Where the number of hours is very few, practice may have to be dispensed
with. The learners’ knowledge will be latent to be developed into practical
ability only if he/she finds himself in a more intensive contact situation.
Another factor that can influence oral
proficiency is motivation (Maisamari, 1999; Littlewood, 1984; Richards, 1996;
Broughton, 1978; Ojeaga, 2002; Rivers, 1975). People have different motives for
learning language. These are integrative and instrumental motivation. Some
students are better motivated than the others. Some are well motivated while
others are poorly motivated. A student may be studying a language because he
wants to. Another student may on the other hand, be studying it because he has
to. Surely, the former is better motivated.
To Wilkins (1972), Maisamari (1999), Broughton
(1978), Ojeaga (2002), motivation has to do with the reasons for learning and
with attitudes towards the language, the group that speaks the language as a
mother tongue and towards bilingualism. Teachers always try to motivate
students’ language interest and oral proficiency through the learning process
itself. Planning teaching so that learning becomes an interesting and
entertaining process does this also.
Those who study French language because they want
to know more about the culture and values of French people, the speakers of the
language and because they hope to live in the country concerned are integrative
motivated. They are most successful and most proficient in oral French
language.
Williams (1990), Littlewood (1981, 1984),
Widdowson (1981), Ade Ojo (2002), Lapkin & Hart (1991), Roberts (1983),
Swaine & Bud (1989) believe that students can acquire oral proficiency in
the classroom as social context by immersion method. They can learn other
school subjects through the French language. This can help them immensely to
reach a high degree of proficiency in French without even receiving formal
introduction to it. In this case, the teaching provides the learner with useful
knowledge and at the same time engages him in purposeful communication in the
French language.
According to Littlewood (1981, 1984), Schulz (1975), Williams (1990),
Fancelli (1999), Butbach (1997), Kramsch (2000), simulation and role playing
have been widely used to teach French language in order to enhance oral
proficiency. The techniques involved include: role-playing through imagination
of true-life situation being acted in the classroom, debate or discussion of a
real or simulated issue. These in one way or the other helps to improve
learners’ oral French proficiency.
Broughton et al. (1980), Kitao & Kitac (1996), Omaggio (1997),
Buscagalia (1981) therefore suggest that it is important for a student to
produce naturally the language to which he has been presented and which he has
practiced in various more controlled situations. This is particularly important
not just in later stages of a given teaching cycle, but at the more advanced
levels of attainment. This can be judged the stage when the student or learner
feels he now has the basic machinery to say what he wants rather than what he
is channeled into saying. Here, the student insists on moving to freer oral
production much more quickly than the “debutants” or “faux-debutants”. From the
writer’s point of view, this is not an easy thing to accomplish. It then calls
for considerable creative thought on the part of the teacher to provide
situations and stimuli that will make the students to make active use in a
communicative way of the language they have learnt. In so doing, the writer
opines that the SS3 performance in oral French will be highly improved in F.C.T
and Benue State for now and in future.
2.6 Testing Oral French Proficiency
Students are assessed at the end of each academic year with grades or scores that they obtained in a test
(Newfields, 1995). In such tests, teachers
take into consideration such factors as the pedagogical merits of their evaluation tools, the
reliability of their measures and the practical concerns of implementation of a given diagnostic procedure when
these grades are awarded.
Williams (1990) describe language testing as a sample of language
behavior. The latest innovation in communicative language testing is the use of
visual stimuli, in form of OHP, Flashcards and so on. These are used to provoke
practical communicative language. By using these, visual resources can be
exploited at whatever level one wishes. They help to motivate and focus
students’ attention.
In a language test, a student is presented with a set of items to be
answered or tasks to perform both orally and in writing. Normally, it is the
students’ competence (underlying ability) or performance (observed ability)
that is tested. Hymes (1971) and Dada (1997) are of the view that communicative
competence of students should be tested. This involves testing the
socio-linguistic rules by which individuals use language appropriately in
social situations according to the speech event, the social context, the
interlocutors and their social distance.
Various testing agencies have made honest effort
to develop tests, which are presently being used by members of the teaching
profession. FSI oral testing model represents degrees of proficiency on an
eleven-point scale with detailed definitions for the different language skills.
Okwudishu, (1980), Malabonga (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 20002), Bachman (1990),
Heltsley and Mary (1993), Smith (1993), Newfield (1994) on their part, use
different procedure to carry out oral evaluation on students. Studies carried
out by these scholars reveal that oral proficiency tests can be in form of
computerized oral proficiency instrument (COPI), the Real Time Oral Assessment
inventory (ROTI), used for large size class, Investigative Testing, Oral
Proficiency Testing-One Approach for college classes. But a close observation
reveals that these test measures fail to consider the impact of methodologies
used in teaching French language on student’s oral proficiency. The writer aims
to fill this gap in this study carried out on SS 3 students in FCT and Benue
State.
However,
Computerized Oral Proficiency Instrument (COPI) is developed in Arabic, Chinese
and Spanish by the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) in collaboration with
the National Language Resource Center (NCLRC) (Malabonga, 2002). The
development of this instrument was spurred by the urgent need to build on
activities in oral proficiency assessment. The COPI is envisaged to be the next
generation of the Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview (SOPI). According to
Malabonga (2000), SOPI is a tape-mediated foreign language-speaking test
originally developed at CAL in 1985.
The aim of the COPI was to use the advantages of
multimedia computer technology to improve the SOPI. To do this, examinees
(students) are given more control of various aspects of the testing situation.
The raters’ (examiners’) efficiency in scoring the test is also increased. The
writer observes that one good thing about COPI is that it allows students
choice in the following aspects: thinking and response time, speaking functions
and topics, level of task differentiation and language directions. The COPI
also enables the examiner (rater) to “rewind” or “fast-forward” students’
responses with a single click. By this means, the examiner can easily navigate
from one task to another or from one examinee (student) to the next. This
instrument is very convenient for both the examiner and the examinees. It is
worthy to mention here that the COPI is scored following the criteria of the
Speaking Proficiency Guidelines (SPG) of the American Council on the Teaching
of Foreign Language (ACTFL).
According to Malabonga (2002), the COPI project
involved two phases. The first phase is the adaptation of existing testing
materials from SOPI in Spanish, Arabic and Chinese, and from CAL’s bank of SOPI
tasks, to a computer-administered format. The second phase is research that
compared the face-to-face Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI), the tape- mediated
SOPI, and the computer-administered COPI. This study by Malabonga (2002) is
aimed at assessing the following: examinee (students’) proficiency, students’
effective reaction to the tests, examiner’s efficiency in scoring the tests and
the examiners’ affective reaction to scoring the tests. Although the result of
this study is yet to be published, there is no doubt about the validity and
reliability of the instrument.
Certain
careful steps are taken in the conduct of the COPI study. These include: a
self-assessment of the students’ proficiency level, a task in which students
are allowed to listen to a person responding to a task and practicing on the
same task, several picture-based, topic-based and situation-based tasks, and
feedback on the level of task that the examinee took. These steps, it is hoped
will have some positive effects on the results of the study when eventually it
is published.
In
another study using the oral proficiency testing known as Real Time Oral
Assessment Inventory (RTOI), Newfields (1994, 1995) attempts to develop a
procedure to assess the oral proficiency of large classes in a way that will
allow students to promptly respond to a range of questions. This type of
testing though in Japan is most suitable for Nigerian French language classes
at the JSS level where there are up to 80-150 students in a class, the writer
observes.
The instrument, “Real Time Oral Assessment
Inventory (RTOI)” is very appropriate in that students must answer all
questions in a period of three seconds-a time frame approximating real time;
the feedback to all answers is immediate and the test is oral in focus.
Newfields (1995) lists and briefly describes each
of the several steps involved in this testing procedure. These include
pre-activity, pair work and
Teacher check, dividing the class, starting point and explanation
demonstration, student practice and grading. Space and time would not permit
the writer to describe each of these steps in details. However, a summary of
the study by Newfields (opcit) will suffice.
Newfields (opcit) in addition to describing some of the steps
associated with oral proficiency testing in large college classrooms also
outlined one model of oral proficiency testing he is developing. There is need
to evaluate the reliability of this test even though the practicality and
pedagogical value are assured. The aim of this test is not to test students’
English “knowledge” but to test the students’ ability to respond to oral
questions in front of a large audience in a way that is communicatively and
grammatically appropriate (Templin 1995). This type of test favours only
students who are not shy and who do not have audience phobia (Smith, 1993;
Laing, 1991; Newfields, 1994; Robinson, 1992; Chalhoud-Deville, 2001).
From language teachers’ experience in general and French language
teachers’ experience in particular, many students are very anxious about oral
language testing. They have what can be termed “test phobia”. This is found
among students who have not been in a French country before or who do not have
the ‘gift of tongues’ (Bachman, 1990; Brann, 1975; Chambers, 1993; Child et al,
1993; Newfields, 1995; Smith, 1993 ;). RTOI tries to eliminate this “phobia” by
allowing students decide on the questions to be asked and to collectively
decide if the answers are correct. They also have a voice in the final
students’ grading. By so doing, the RTOI fulfills the criteria for “humanistic
testing” proposed by Smith (1992, 1993), Newfields (1995), Godwin-Jones (2001),
Chambers (1995), Carpenter et at (1995), Cucciarini et al (2000),
Chalhoud-Deville (1995), Robison (1992), Ross (1992), Noton (1983), BeIz
(2002). The RTOI is preeminently a student – centered assessment tool according
to Newfields (1995), Bachman (1990), Heltsley and Mary (1993).
It has been observed that teachers are likely to have mixed feelings
about these testing processes. To French language teachers, oral testing takes
away time from valuable class time. The examinations are often a burden to
administer especially in a large class. This is energy sapping, and time
consuming. Therefore, Newfields (1995) is sure that RTQI is one way to reduce
the burden associated with oral proficiency testing for both teachers and
students in large classrooms.
In this section, emphasis is laid on the oral French proficiency
tests. A typical proficiency test measures ability to carry out some
communicative task in the French language. Wiiliams (1990), Child (1993),
Okwudishu (1982) are of the opinion that the ability to communicate is the
major goal of foreign language instruction. But in the eighties and seventies,
the objectives of French language teaching were geared towards the mastery of
grammatical structures (Okwudishu, 1982). This was the period when OPT was in
its infancy. The evaluation of discrete linguistic knowledge alone, Jones
(1977), Okwudishu (1982), & Williams (1990) observe, does not evaluate
total integration of skills necessary for communication. Then, there was a call
for the development of valid tests of communicative competence, which should be
concerned with genuinely important skills. Such tests should in addition
reproduce as closely as possible the real-life conditions under which the
student is going to perform the task being tested.
It assesses what can be done with the language in the world outside
(the society) observes Kitao & Kitao (1996), as distinct from the language
used in the classroom. In a nutshell a test is designed to predict language
performance. Dada (1997) is of the view that test titles must reflect skills
like listening comprehension, oral composition, reading comprehension, oral
reading, and tests of grammar, dialogue and so on. To Maisamari (1999), a
language (French) test is used to assess the learner’s ability to use two or
more skills simultaneously. It is concerned with the global view of
proficiency.
Jones (1977), Okwudishu (1982), Bachman (1995), Maisamari (2000)
Carpenter et al (1995), Chalhoub-Devilie (1995), Newfields (1994), Robison
(1992), Stansfield et aI. (1992) Agrelo-Gonzaiex (1992), review the history of
testing during the past decades. They identified major trends in testing as
pre-scientific (mainly prior to World War II), “psychometric structuralism
“(beginning in the 1950’s), integrative-socio-linguistic real-life
communicative testing.
A close look at the current test models reveals that testing is now
regarded as a science not an art. Jones (1977) comments that in the past the
language teacher needed no special training to perform the function of testing
as he relied on knowledge of the language and intuition to make judgments about
students’ proficiency. The use of computers recently has replaced the teachers.
According to Fulcher (1999) computers have been used in language
assessment since at least 1960s. The PLATO project at the University of
Illinois pioneered the use of network computers for language practice and
testing. However, the use of computers in language testing did not become
widespread and generally available until the advent of the personal computer in
the late seventies and early eighties. Among the better-known software packages
from the early (Dos) days is Calis from Duke University, designed for active
drill and practice of grammar and vocabulary rather than formal assessment.
Most recently, Dunkel (1999), and BeIz (2002), describe what a
computer-adaptive test (CAT) is, examine its roots and point out the challenges
that this innovative approach to assessment presents. CAT is derived from
computer-based testing (CBT). It dates back to 1900s (Reckase, 1989; Dunkel,
1999). According to Dunkel (1999), it was in the 1970s that Pioneer Frederick
Lord (1970, 1980) succeeded in working out the theoretical structure and
practical technicalities of creating mass administered tailored tests using the
computer. Today, many L2 researchers, practitioners and experts in
testing fields are actively engaged in designing, developing and using
computerized placement and achievement tests (Chaloud-Deville, 1995; Jones
& Spolky, 1995; Dunkel, 1996, 1997; Madsen & Jones, 1979).
Dunkel (1999) is excited to note that powerful microcomputers are not
only used nowadays to affect a redesign of the structure and content of school
curricular and the entire process of instruction and learning, but they also
have a decided impact on the types of tests created and used to assess that
learning. To Dunkel (1999), Madsen & Jones (1979), computerized testing is
without doubt viewed as a practical alternative to paper-and-pencil testing
being widely used in Oral French testing in Nigeria. Happily, Kaya-Carton et al
(1991) have developed a computer adaptive test of French reading proficiency.
It is hoped that very soon, oral French testing will be computerized if cost,
availability and usability permit.
Users of CAT have attested to its high validity, reliability, test
security and usability of the CAT scores as well as the integrity of the
examinees’ scores records (Dunkel, 1999).
BeIz (2000), Fulcher (1999), Dunkel (1999) are
confident that computer adaptive testing shows promise in becoming a regular
component of standardized foreign language assessment in the coming century,
particularly for licensing and certification purposes.
The writer believes that many benefits accrue to
examinees and administrators alike when using CAT. In order to reap such
benefits, many checks and balances need to be put into place so that the
pitfalls in the development and uniformed use of CAT are eliminated. It is also
very important that developers and users alike need to understand fully what a
CAT is and how it operates. They also need to be aware of what the underlying
psychometric model used in their CAT posits in terms of the one-dimensional or
multidimensional IRT model selected. They need to understand what the selected
IRT model means in terms of the dimensionality of the content and tasks
associated with the items. In addition, they need to be familiar with how the
IRT statistical parameters of the test items are estimated after their
trailing. Above all, they must know what is necessary to implement a valid and
reliable CAT.
The
writer, therefore, is of the opinion that CAT is worth introducing in NECO and
WAEC testing programmes in Nigerian Senior Secondary Schools. For this to be
effective, the following criteria needed to produce such a CAT as enumerated by
Dunkel (1999), are adhered to.
- A
calibration item bank large enough to administer valid, reliable and
well-targeted items across the range of candidates’ ability.
- Test features such as content specifications, targeted test
difficulty and appropriate stopping rule.
- A software program that
administers items from the item bank according to design specifications.
- Hardware
and software adequate for speed, storage and necessary graphics
- Educational
programs to ensure that candidates understand how the CAT functions.
- Report
systems that are secure, useful and transparent to users and examinees.
Dunkel (1999) believes that fulfilling these
requirements may help to strengthen the validity, reliability and utility of L2
CATS, while Green et al fear that mishandling them could have adverse effects.
Dunkel (1999) warns that the danger facing CAT users and developers could arise
from the innovative and complex aspects of the system. This arises from the
fact that CAT initiates a new paradigm of testing that requires users and
developers to become knowledgeable and comfortable with the characteristics
that differentiate it from conventional or paper-and-pencil testing. It is the
duty of language testing researchers to inform and educate others about these
aspects so that the strengths of CAT can be harnessed and the pitfalls avoided.
CAT seems to yield very positive conclusive results lacking in previous years’
research into testing studies in language.
Maisamari (1999), Dunkel (1999), BeIz (2002),
Kitao & Kitao (1996) are of the opinion that language testing should
reflect the language teaching method. This means that there will be
communicative approach to testing to reflect the communicative method of
teaching the French Language.
Kitao & Kitao (1996) dwelt in detail on the
communicative approach to language testing. To them communicative language
tests are intended to be a measure of how the candidates are also to use
language in real life situations. They are of the opinion that in testing
productive skills, emphasis is placed on appropriateness rather than on ability
to form grammatically correct sentences. While in testing receptive skills, emphasis
is placed on understanding the communicative intent of the speaker or writer
rather than on picking out specific details. Normally, both productive and
receptive skills are combined in communicative testing, so that the candidates
must both comprehend and respond as in real life. The different skills are not
used in isolation. For example, in taking part in a group discussion, students
need to use both listening and speaking skills.
Kitao & Kitao (1996), Maisamari (1999) note
that few tests are completely communicative, while many tests have some element
of communicativeness. They cited an example that a test in which candidates
listen to an utterance on a tape and then choose from among these choices, the
most appropriate response is more communicative than one in which the
candidates answer a question about the meaning of the utterance. But, they are
of the view that it is less communicative than the one in which the candidates
are face-to-face with the interlocutor (rather than listening to a tape) and
are required to produce an appropriate response.
Kitao & Kitao (1996), Maisamari (1999), Jones
(1977), Broughton, et al (1978), Littlewood (1981) observe that communicative
tests are often very context-specific. Thus, a test for candidates who are going
to British Universities as students would be very different from one for
candidates who are going to their company’s branch office in France. If
possible, a communicative language test should be based on a description of the
French language that the candidates need to use. Though communicative testing
is not limited to French for specific purposes situations, the test should
reflect the communicative situation in which the candidates are likely to find
themselves. But in cases where the candidates do not have a specific purpose,
the French that they are tested on can be directed towards general social
situations where they might be in a position to use French.
This basic assumption influences the tasks chosen
to test language in communicative situations, Kitao & Kitao (1996)
emphasize. For example, a communicative test of listening would test not
whether the candidates could understand what an utterance means but place it in
a context and see if the candidates can respond appropriately to it. This is
almost what obtains in WAEC and NECO oral proficiency examinations. .
The writer agrees with kitao & Kitao (1996),
Dunkel (1999) and BeIz (2002) that students should be prepared well ahead of
time for the kind of test they are going in for. The course material should
cover the sorts of communicative tasks they are being asked to perform in an
achievement test situation. There is no way examinees are expected to correctly
perform such functions as requests and apologies appropriately and be evaluated
on it, if they have been studying from a structural syllabus and so on.
In communicative testing, the issue of the
reliability of the results is de-emphasized. Rather, tests intended to test
communicative language are judged on the extent to which they simulate real life
communicative situations (Kitao & Kitao, 1996; Williams, 1990; Littlewood,
1981; Masamari, 1999).
Integrative testing is the same as communicative
test. It involves the use of functional language rather than language usage.
The idea of communicative testing is born out of the notion that language is
taught as communication. Communicative (French) language testing according to
Williams (1990) is concerned with the importance of the meaning of utterances
rather than their form and structure.
The question now arises on how best to evaluate
communicative tests. For sure, real life situations do not always have
objectively tight or wrong answers. Kitao & Kitao (1996), Jones (1977),
therefore suggest that band scales be developed to evaluate the results. Each
band normally has a description of the quality and sometimes quantity of the
receptive or productive performance of the examinee. With this, the
scores/performance of the examinees can be accurately observed, recorded and
evaluated.
However, as Kitao & kitao (1996), Jones
(1977) rightly observed, it is not always possible to make language tests
communicative. It is only possible to give them communicative elements. This
can have beneficial backwash effects. Students are therefore encouraged to
study for more communicative tasks such as speaking/listening, reading and
writing. This will have a positive effect on their language learning.
For this purpose, WAEC syllabus (1998-2003)
stipulates that French oral testing should include;
1. Dictation which tests candidate’s
ability to listen to, understand and produce correctly in writing a simple and
non-technical French passage based on common local experience.
2. Listening comprehension:
Here, candidates’ ability to listen to and understand a straightforward passage
in French is tested. The test is based on a passage to be read aloud by the
examiner. It contains issues of general interest. The candidates are expected
at the end of the reading to answer in writing, ten multiple-choice objective
questions based on the passage.
3. Reading: This aims at
testing candidates’ ability to read aloud in French. Candidates are allowed to
read a simple passage of reasonable length. Particular attention is paid to
candidates’ intonation, fluency and expression.
4. Conversation:
This tests candidates’ ability to converse freely, fluently and correctly in
French. Topics to be discussed are drawn from background studies and themes of
general interest. The knowledge of these topics is based on Francophone West
African countries and France with emphasis on their interrelationship with the
student’s home country.
The National Examinations Council (NECO) syllabus
is a bit similar to that of West African Examination Council (WAEC). It only
differs with few modifications and additions. NECO Oral French examination sets
out to test students on: -
Dictation, listening comprehension, dialogue and
reading. In reading, students are asked to read aloud twice, in order to test
for pronunciation, accuracy and intonation (PAI) in the first reading. The
second reading tests candidates’ articulation, fluency and expression (AFE).
The candidate is also tested on oral exposition. Here, five selected questions
based on real life experience, culture, politics, current affairs are tested.
This allows for free speaking with confidence and accuracy.
NECO syllabus tries to steer towards the testing
of oral French proficiency through the communicative method. Now that the
communicative method is used in teaching French language, it sets tasks, which
approximate as closely as possible those facing the students in real life.
Candidates are therefore judged ¡n terms of the effectiveness of the
communication, which takes place rather than the linguistic accuracy.
To Newfields (1995), the issues of pedagogy,
reliability and practicality are pari parsu to oral proficiency testing.
Newfields (1995), Jones (1977) and Okwudishu (1982) are of the view that the
aim of tests is to help teachers, administrators and students to assess the
latter are performance. Tests according to Newfields (1995), Lado (1961) are
not only designed to dispense grades but serve evaluation and educational
functions. Prompt feedback therefore is crucial to enable students know the details of their test performance in order to preserve its
pedagogical value. prompt point-by-point feedback not only assures student of
their performance but also prevents the teachers and the students from
manipulating test results. This is one of the merits of RTOI oral examination
procedure described by Newfields (1995).
The term “wash back” is being investigated
more carefully than ever before according to Fulcher (1999), because of the
ethical consequences of test use on teaching practice. Study by Fulcher (1999)
reveals that the So-called “wash back” hypothesis was formulated by Wall and
Anderson in 1993. Since then a number of studies investigating wash back have
appeared as is testified by Alderson & Hamp-lyons (1996) and Hamp-lyons
(1997). This early research indicates that the relationship between testing and
teaching is much more complex than we think. An expansion of the notion of wash
back is that of “impact” which seeks to investigate the relationship between
test use and the society in which it is used.
These developments have recently widened
the debate on language testing, to include not just the technical aspects of development
and implementation, but the entire context in which test development and
delivery is undertaken and implemented.
Another important issue in oral proficiency
tests is reliability. According
to Fulcher (1999), the whole history of the study of reliability is essentially
a striving for fairness. She laments that many of the well-known examination
boards or councils still do not understand the concept, let alone calculate it.
But according to the studies carried out by Newfields (1994), it can be
observed that four tests are held each academic year in Japan’s EFL classes in
order to obtain the reliability of students’ oral proficiency. This seems
cumbersome for teachers. It then results in their preference of spending more
hours teaching them than giving oral tests.
Laing (1991) and Newfields (1994) suggest that
the process of testing is like tallying up large scores and assessing individual’s skill. North
(1993) and
Newfields (1994) observe that students’ performance varies over time. It is not adequate enough to base student’s grade
in a French language class on merely a few tests. The student can only feel his/her skill
has not been
adequately measured if this is done. The chance of an inflated or deflated score is high if a student is given few
tests.
Newfields (1994) then recommends that six
examinations be held in an academic year to adequately test students’ oral proficiency. He
assures that
this figure is high enough to warrant a degree of accuracy and reliability. Of course, the more frequently a
measure (test) is administered, the higher its degree of reliability.
Another question that arises is: How practicable
is oral proficiency testing in a large class of 50 to 150? For such a large class, the
concern of many
teachers about oral test is the ease of administration. In that case many teachers tend to “dodge”/shy away from
assessing individual students orally. They cling to multiple choice/doze formats, Maisamari (1999) or any other convenient testing formats
(Jones, 1977; Newfields, 1994). Newfields (1994) doubts whether such written examination can accurately access oral proficiency. However, this
is the best “option” for shy students who never speak in actual conversation as they often manage
to fill in
the right blanks on a test sheet.
McConvell (1994), Okwudishu (1982), Heltsley and
Swanson (1993), stansfield
(1992), observe that instead of conducting individual oral examinations, some teachers find ¡t more
practical to conduct interviews in pairs or small groups. This can only be possible and convenient for a
class of less
than 30 (thirty) students.
Newfields (1994) further observes that many
teachers now tend to ignore the issue of final examinations entirely. Instead, they base
their final scores
on quantifiable aspects of classroom performance such as attendance, completed homework or the cumulative
results of mini-quizzes.
To Newfields (1994), Chambers et al (1995),
Chalhoub (1995), Child (1993), this can only be regarded as a valid way of measuring
classroom performance.
On the other hand this cannot be regarded as a valid measure of French ability. He opines that a
serious student who attends class faithfully, turns in the recommended assignments and makes attempts to speak, might receive a higher grade
than one who is occasionally
absent, even though the latter student may have better oral skills.
Chambers, (1993) in his study of the reliability
of teachers’ assessments
of the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) in modern languages, collected language teachers’
opinions about various marking criteria types. The semi-structured interviews used for
gathering opinions
also required teachers to assess tape-recorded free conversations by 30 GCSE candidates. .
In ROTI testing procedure by Newfields (1994),
Kitao & Kitao (1996), Pavlou (1994), Starr (1969), the testing procedure takes less than 30 minutes to administer. It is worthy to note that
the grading of the examination
is part of the administration process, as the students know precisely how well they have done within moments
of completing the examination.
This is exactly what obtains ¡n NECO oral examination.
Validation of oral proficiency tests is another
issue worth mentioning.
Validity is an important issue with far reaching implications for testing. Its history dates back to 50 years ago.
Validity can be defined as a property of test scores and their interpretations and not of tests.
Groot (1979) Bachman (1980), Barley (1998),
Fulcher (1999) observe
that unlike tests of reading, writing and listening, most oral tests have not been adequately subjected to large-scale
validation studies. To this end, Groot (1979) calls for a large-scale convergent-divergent validation study of important types of oral
proficiency tests during the 1979 TESOL convention in Boston.
The most recent edition of the standards for
Educational and Psychological
testing (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association and National
Council on Measurement and Education, 1985) included that validity is the most important consideration in test evaluation. The importance
is evidenced and reinforced
by the fact that no new test can be introduced and no text on testing and/or psychometrics is considered
complete without mentioning validity. Because of its wide recognition, many scholars try to define
it.
To Chambers (1995), Lazaraton (1992), Stansfield
(1992), Davidson (1998)
the use of “free conversation” to describe structured interviews where the teacher does most of the questioning
and the student supplies most of the information is inaccurate unless the format of tasks can genuinely allow the exchange of previously
unknown information. Newfields (1995), Ross (1992), Robinson (1992) try to avoid this rigidity of teacher/student questioning and answer by
allowing the student to do the questioning while he assumes the role of the student.
Apart from reliability, washback, validation,
practicability, pedagogical and “free conversation” issues in oral proficiency testing, Pavlou
(1994) discussed
the role of cohesion in communicative competence as exemplified in oral
proficiency testing. In his study, he analyzed the cohesion of oral reports given by 16 Cypriot High
School students studying EFL using a modification of M.A.K. Halliday and R. Hasan’s rating
scale. It then
compared the objective cohesion ratings with impressionistic grades of cohesion assigned by three experienced raters
or examiners. The study reveals that the only objective cohesive device that correlates with
the rater’s
grades for cohesion is the use of referential pronouns.
The main concern of this study is not on the test
models per se but on1 the comparison of the SS3 students’ performance in NECO Oral French examination in FCT and Benue state in the years
2000, 2001 and 2005 with the view of justifying the advantage of the communicative method.
It is after
identifying how proficient students are when the communicative method is used in teaching that a currently
acceptable, valid and reliable, test model is used to ascertain such proficiency. Recall that the
teaching method in
question here is the communicative method. If this study succeeds in proving that the SS3 students’ Oral
French performance is better in Benue state or FCT, it will go a long way in posing
challenges to the
state where performance is lower. It will also help in sensitizing the teaching profession to the potentialities of the
communicative method. However, there are always the pros and con’s of every teaching method but when the advantages outweigh the
disadvantages it is readily acceptable.
2.7 Theoretical Framework: The Communicative
Method
As mentioned earlier, the last two decades have
seen profound evolution in the
French language teaching methods globally (Ojeaga, 1999; Adogboku, 2002; Okoli, 1999). French Language, Nigeria’s envisaged second official language is not left
out in this methodological evolution. According to Valdman (1996), innovative foreign language techniques employed currently are characterized by
comprehension and speaking ability, presentation of authentic target language samples by the use
of native
speakers in the class.
Communicative method of French language teaching
as an innovative
teaching method has as its major objective, the improvement of communicative skills in learners in formal and
informal sectors. This means that this method is applicable to both children and adults across
regular and
professional/special class settings (Ojeaga 2002). By using textbooks that focus on systematic application of the
communicative method, it is believed that teachers will be better equipped to assist students in
the four language
skills but most especially in speaking and listening. This will in no small measure help to accelerate their oral
competence, eliminate undesirable or incorrect responses and help maintain students’ fluency
in oral
French language.
From studies carried out by Dodson (1967),
Offorma (2000), Fancelli (1999), Williams (1990), Littlewood (1981), Kitao & Kitao (1996),
it was observed
that the direct method did pave way for more communicative, oral based approach, and as such represents an
important step forward in the history of language teaching. This new method is known as the communicative method. The communicative method is
the newest of the methods
used in teaching French language in Nigeria. It dates back to the year 1995-1996 when the CFTD, Jos organized a
workshop on French language
teaching method in all the states of the country. It emphasizes the use of French in everyday life in Nigeria
(Kitao & Kitao, 1996, Offorma, 2000; Kim, 1999; Fancelli, 1999). This is with the intention of making French a second official language and no more a
foreign language.
Furthermore, the communicative approach is not
limited to oral skills. Reading and writing skills need to be developed to promote, pupil’s confidence in all four-skill areas (Offorma,
2000; Dodson, 1983; Fancelli, 1999; Roberts, 1996; Beltz, 2002; Kitao & Kitao, 1996). This
method aims at
making the learner proficient in oral and writing skills. It gives the teacher an opportunity to employ mother-tongue in
explicating concepts that could pose difficulty in language learning (Fafunwa, 1989). The teacher does
not translate
but asks questions to give the learners clues to the meaning of what is being presented. This in a nutshell,
summarizes what the communicative method is all about.
The above definition also draws a marked
difference between the communicative method and the direct method despite the fact that
Ojeaga (1999)
classified both methods under the modern method (la method moderne) of teaching French. The fact that they
belong to the same group warrants their being very identical in all aspects, the writer opines.
Dodson (1967, 1983), Dunkel (1999), BeIz (2002),
Keyon & Malabonga
(2001) do not conceive communicative approach as a highly structured method of teaching. Rather they opine
that it is a broad assembly
of ideas from a range of sources, which have come to be accepted as “good practice” by many contemporary
teachers. But the writer views the communicative method as an innovation in the teaching of French. It is an attempt to make the teaching and
learning of the language relevant to both the teacher and learner. As stated earlier, the: communicative method aims at equipping learners
with the necessary communicative
competence. It emphasizes communication in the target language of the learner. It is learner oriented.
The communicative method emanated from the essence of learning of language for communication, Kitao & Kitao (1996), Burns (1983), Williams
(1990), Hatch & Brown (1995), Harley (1995), Haastrap (1991), and not for grammatical rules. But
Harley &
Jean (1996), BeIz (2002), argue that it does not ignore the grammatical, lexical, and phonological aspects of language. It
treats them with communicative
competence.
The unique thing about this method Offorma
(2000), Kitao & Kitao (1996) observe, is that it tries to bring into the classroom the
learners’ fife experiences
and relates them to what they experience outside the school and to what they do in the school. The needs of
the learners guide how the lesson contents are selected in the use of the communicative method.
This is
because the aim is to help the learners use the language and to be competent. According to Rao (1999) and Onidare (1999), “on voudrait
que l‘étudiant soit capable de communiquer dans une
langue étrangère”. For a better practical use, the communicative approach
lays more emphasis on active modes of learning by making use of pair work and group work.
But Dodson
(1967) argues that often, this is not properly exploited enough by the teacher, out of fear of making the class
noisy. He goes further to recommend that the teacher’s expertise in classroom management is required to effectively make students work in
pairs and groups. One of the ways of good class control Dodson (1983) opines, is to get all the
students involved.
The lesson should be made as interesting as possible. Being a language class, there should be primacy of oral
work. Students should be made to make “noise” ¡n the French language. The emphasis is on oral
and listening
skills in the classroom. Contact time with language is very important as it paves way for more fluid command
of the language, facility and ease of expression. The students will not only hear the teacher
but will also
have personal contact themselves with language.
Communicative method will afford them the
opportunity to practice sounds themselves, permutating sentence patterns and getting the
chance to make
mistakes and learn from doing so. This method reflects the naturalistic language acquisition process.
According to Harley and Jean (1999) and Harley’ (1992), in French immersion programmes, where much of the school curriculum is taught in French,
students need to have good lexical development. Lapkin & Hart (1991), Harley and Jean (1999),
Taylor Browne
(1990), Ade-Ojo (2002), in their various studies on immersion outlined the importance of authentic French
content in regular core French programmes, as well as lexical development. These are important in enhancing meanings in communication. Other recent
publications like Coady
and Huckin, (1997), Harley (1995), Harch and Brown, (1995), Nation (1990), Harley and Jean (1999), recognise the key
role of vocabulary knowledge
in the development of French language proficiency in the immersion programme. Students should be well
versed in word/vocabulary for better fluency in testing and conversation. In immersion and core French programmes in Canada, most French language
materials currently in use, pay little or no attention to the use of vocabulary. The
emphasis is more on
communication. As far as the message is understood, communication has taken place. .
The root of the communicative method can be
traced to the structural linguistic theories and cognitive and constructive theories, which aim
at making
learning language more interesting. The communicative method is more functional and has the oral fluency of the
student at heart. Fancelli (1999) and Littlewood (1981) are of the view that in France, the July
1971 ordinance
gave birth to a new method of teaching the communicative method. This is borne out of the need to teach
adults and immigrants a foreign language for integrational and interactional purposes. Von
Raffer (1979),
Roberts et al. (1983), Okoli (1999), Kim (1999), Offorma (2000) observe that the communicative method is used in
teaching beginners (debutants),
adolescents, businessmen and professionals French as a foreign language. Its interest, Lantolf (2000)
opines, is on the learners, according to their socio-cultural and socio-economic background and their specific needs. This is a movement from F. de
Saussure’s structuralism to Chomsky’s functionalism, from written French to spoken French (Kim, 1999). The practical effectiveness of the
communicative method in French language teaching makes Kim (1999) to wonder how one can explain such sudden change from “passivité inquietant de
l’enseignement ………………….. à la creativité rasssurante de l’enseignement...”.
In another study, Dodson (1967, 1983), Obanya
(1985) traced the origins
of the approach further to 1960s and 70s. This is the period when foreign language learning was widely extended
with the establishment of comprehensive schools. As a result of this, virtually all children were
taught French
language (Obanya, 1985). This in turn created pressure for a change in teaching methods and curricular to suit
the needs of non-traditional
groups of learners (Offorma, 2000; Obanya, 1985; BeIz, 2002; Ojinna, 1996; Williams, 1990). But what gave rise
to the immediate and pressing need of a more communicative approach of French language teaching according to Richards (1996), Williams
(1990), Dodson (1967, 1983), Obanya (1985), Kim (1999) is the glaring recognition of the inadequacy of traditional grammar/translation
methods and also of structural method with emphasis on meaningless pattern drills and repetition Therefore, new syllabuses took into
account the needs of different pupils (Williams, 1990; Dodson, 1967; Byram, 1997; Agar,
1994; Kitao
& Kitao, 1996; Harley & Jean, 1999; Brann, 1970; Gundu, 1999; Simpson, 1979; Goodman, 1972). This is to
contrast traditional academic syllabuses where learner’s goal was an in-dept. mastery of target
language (Williams,
1990; Offorma, 2000; Fancelli, 1999; Kim, 1999). This focus was on the less academic pupil such as immigrants,
professionals, tourists, diplomats who need a more ‘pay-off’ in terms of usefulness for
practical purposes
(Beiz, 20Q2; Harley & Jean, 1999; von Raffer Engel, 1979; Maisamari, 1999; Dodson, 1967; Fishman, 1965;
Blanc, 1994; Harley & Johnson, 1987; Oke, 1990; Richards, 1989; Kitao & Kitao, 1996).
Many studies as shown above, have recognized the
value of the communicative
method and have recommended its widespread use: The most noted of these studies and those that gave
early impetus to improving staff utilization and full participation of students were done by the
Centre for French
Teaching and Documentation (CFTD) in conjunction with the Alliance Française and dates back to the recent
past-I 995/1 996 in Nigeria. With the co-operation of the Nigerian Association of French Teachers (NAFT), the communicative method has undergone a
steady, rapid growth among both old French teachers and the newly recruited ones. An indication of how quickly the method has come to
stay can be seen in the use of “Transafrique” at the national level. Undoubtedly, the
popularity of the
communicative method is greatly enhanced by the Center for French Teachers and Documentation (CFTD)’s yearly
workshops. Teachers using this method recognize that students learn from teachers, by themselves and from each other. In examining these three
processes, the communicative
method teachers should find a basic way to plan their lesson notes.
The most interesting thing about the
communicative method Offorma (2000), Dodson (1967, 1983, 1985), Williams (1990), Litlewood (1981), Fancelli (1999), Ukeje (1996), Kitao & Kitao
(1996) stress, is that it focuses on language as a medium of communication. This is borne out of the fact that the method recognizes that all communication
has a social purpose. Leaners always have something to say or find out. Therefore the main
aim of
using the communicative method is to enable students to communicate, to really utilize French language-understanding
it and expressing themselves
in French both orally and in writing. It is not necessary here for the student to master the linguistic nature of
the language (lexic, grammar, semantics, phonology and syntax).
In contrast to this opinion, Dodson (1985),
Williams (1990), Littelwood (1981), Lazaraton (1992), Robinson (1992) and Swaine (1976) argue that grammar can still be taught but ¡n a less
systematic manner. However, they advise that it should be done in traditional ways alongside more
innovative approaches,
as it is obvious that communication depends on grammar. Therefore any disregard of grammatical form will
virtually guarantee breakdown in communication.
Littlewood (1981) on the other hand agrees that
the main aim of learning
a foreign language is to acquire communicative ability. But he agrees that communicative language in general
should focus on both the functional and structural aspects of language. These combinations
bring out the
nuance and meanings of the language under usage. In this case, Littlewood (1981), Harley & Jean (1996),
Richards (1996), Aitchson (1984) are of the view that the structural aspect of language pertains to the grammatical system. This system does no other
thing than describing ways in which linguistic items can be combined. For example: “Je suis étudiante” instead of “Je est étudiant”, “le ciel est bleu”
instead of “la ciel sont bleux”. A good knowledge of these
linguistic facts and usages according to Littlewood (1981), Williams (1990), Harley & Jean (1999), Aitchson
(1984), Janda
et aI (1982), Burns (1983), Ezike (2002) makes up learner’s linguistic competence. With this competence, he can produce
new and accurate sentences
to match the meanings he needs to express without making any mistake.
Headbloom (1979), Wilkins (1972), Dodson (1967),
Richards (1996), Aitchson
(1984), Prajapati (1981) etc. do not see anything wrong in making mistakes in speaking. a foreign language. To them
errors are natural parts of learning language. They opine that learners who are trying their
best to use a
target language creatively and spontaneously are bound to make errors. This is always evidenced in a
communicative method class. When such errors arise from students, Dodson (1983), Headbloom (1979), Littlewood (1981), Williams (1990) advise that
constant correction is unnecessary and even counterproductive. They are of the view that correction should be discreet and well noted by
the teacher. Learners should be allowed to talk and express themselves as far as what they
are saying
makes meaning to the hearer. In this case, the form of language becomes secondary (Dodson, 1967; Kim, 1999;
Littlewood, 1981; Fancelli, 1999).
To Francelli (1999), Stephens (1983 p. 485),
Kitao & Kitao (1996), Ojeaga (1999) and BeIz (2002), the communicative method is used to “realiser les actions de la vie courante”. These
include social skills such as:
a) Greeting others. For
example, - to state one’s name when asked.
- To greet adults and peers by name
- To respond to introduction by shaking hands and
saying “Bonjour’ Comment
ça va?”
- To introduce oneself to another person
- To
introduce two people to each other
b) Making conversation - to make relevant remarks in
a conversation with
peers/adults
- To
initiate conversation with peers/adults in an informal situation
c) Task — oriented - to answer or attempt to answer
question when called
on by the teacher
- To ask
question appropriate to the information needed etc.
The activities above is what Littlewood (1981),
Williams (1 (1999),
Francelli (1998), Ukeje (1996) and Dodson (1967), refe communicative activities. These involve a
situation where the student is engaged in activities where his main purpose is to communicate
meanings effectively
to a partner. It is the duty of the teacher or the other partner to design the activity so as to provide an
opportunity for students to produce language that they have learnt in the classroom through open or cued dialogues. In communicative activity according to
Kramsch & Thorne (in press), the learner uses the linguistic repertoire he has learnt to communicate specific meanings for specific
purposes.
Studies carried out by Riley et al. (1984), Lapkin Hart (1991),
Corbeil (1985), Dodson (1983), Taeschner et al. (1978), Williams (1990), Littlewoocl (1981), Kim (1999), Ukeje (1996)
and Fancelli (1998) reveal that such classroom activities maximize opportunities for learners to use
target language
in a communicative way for meaningful activities. Emphasis should be on meaning; that is, messages they are
creating or task they are completing. Less emphasis should be laid on the form, that is the correctness of language and language structure as
in first language acquisition.
According to Littlewwod (1981), Ukeje (1996),
Butzbach (1997), Fancelli
(1999) and Norton (1985), communicative activities help to provide whole-task practice. In French language teaching,
various communicative activities, structured to suit the learners’ level of ability are
practiced. It is called
simulation. It involves such activities as songs, Abrates (1983). Wilcox
(1995), Kim et aI (2002), role-plays, pantomime, round-table discussions etc.
Dodson (1967) and Eke (2002) try to distinguish
between as a
‘medium’ level communication and as a ‘message’ level communication. Roger (1991) cited the example of
a young lady Frenchteacher teaching year 12 pupils to say how old they are-tu
as quel age?’ Here,
they are merely practicing the pattern in the French language. Their sole purpose is mastering the construction. In
the actual sense, the teacher knows the age of the class. The students on their own part also know
that the
teacher knows their age. According to Dodson (1967), Kim (1999), Eke (2002), Fancelli (1999) and Onidare (1999), they
are all performing at “medium” level, which is practicing how to say ¡t in the language but
with no added
purpose. The writer does not agree with this view. In most practical cases, the French teacher does not know the names
and ages of the students.
He/she asked to know their names to facilitate her calling them to answer questions. Dodson (1967) is conscious of
the existence of the writer’s view when he cites in another example in which a curious
member of the
class may suddenly raise his hand and ask the young French teacher “tu as quel age?” Roger et aI (1991).
Here, the language is being used at a totally different and higher level called ‘message’ level.
The student
does not know the teacher’s age. He is actually using the construction practiced at the ‘medium’ level for
a specific purpose; namely, that of finding out the teacher’s age (Galadima, 2000).
Williams (1990), Chambers (1995), Corbeil (1984),
Littlewood (1981), Dodson
(1967) and Brown (1980) point out that students have to practice language at ‘medium’ level first in order to be
able to exercise ‘t at ‘message’ level. The problem is that a great number of teachers do not
go beyond
‘medium’ level. They do not use the language for true purposes of sending and receiving ‘messages’. They teach
students ‘about’ the language, about its patterns and rules, rather than teaching how to use
it actively
for real purposes (Williams, 1990; Harley & Jean, 1999; Wright, 1996; Treville, 1993; Ojeaga, 1999; Onidare,
1999; Banjo, 1981).
Littlewood (1981), in summarizing the purposes of
the communicative activities
otherwise known as ‘les actes de parole’ outlined some vital contributions that ‘les actes de parole’ can make
to language learning. These include provision of whole task practice, improving motivation
when learners
are made to use language as a means of communication rather than as a structural system. For example:
Bola: Bonjour Emeka. Comment vas — tu?
Emeka: Je vais très bien. Je suis en bonne santé
en ce moment.
Bola: Comment va ta mère?
Emeka: Elle ne va pas très bien. Elle est malade.
Elle est souffrante.
Bola: Où a — t — elle mal exactement?
Emeka: Elle a mal à Ja tête, elle a mal au cou,
elle a mal aux yeux. Elle a mal
partout. Elle a de la fièvre. Elle va voir le docteur.
Bola: Ah, c’est dommage. Que Dieu la geurisse.
Emeka: Merci Bola. Au
revoir.
The above actes de parole can be used in learning
the parts of the body
(Le corps humaine) and about the condition of one’s health (Pours parler de la santé). The learning will make more sense to them if
their conception
is uplifted rather than contradicted. Les actes de parole (communicative activities) also allow for natural
learning as can be seen above because most language learning can take place only through
natural processes.
These processes operate when a person is involved in using language for communication. They can create a
context, which supports learning. This is because they provide opportunities for positive
personal relationship
among learners and between learners and teachers. These relationships can help to humanize the classroom
and to create an environment
that supports the individual ¡n his effort to learn. In this way, the use of the communicative method seeks to
personalize and localize language and adapt ¡t to the interest and purpose of pupils. This is
because learners
always easily retain meaningful language (Dodson, 1983).
When speakers activate their rules ¡n varied
situations and convert their knowledge or competence into behaviour, we can refer to that behaviour as speech or performance. This is in
line with Ferdinand de Saussure (1916), Chomsky (1972), Lttlewood (1981), Williams (1990) and
so on view of
performance. This buttresses the fact that what we observe in the classroom as children listen, speak, or write are
aspects of their communicative
performance. Dunkel (1990), Kitao & Kitao (1996), Jones (1977), Okwudishu (1982), Oke (1990), Atchison
(1984) observed that1 sociologists (those who study the social aspect of language) have
observed and
demonstrated that individual performance does not consist of a single style of communication but a variety of styles.
For example, we speak differently with a stranger in a position of authority, a close friend
or a family member
or a casual acquaintance. This is clearly seen in French language in the usage of ‘Tu” and “Vous”, “Bonjour”,
“Salut” (Fancelli, 1999; Offorma, 1995, 2000:149). Offorma (2000) opines that these expressions have
very strong
link with the culture of the language community and so the culture is embedded
in the language.
Brown (1973) and Wells (1981), ¡n their research
tried to prove that learners of foreign languages acquire linguistic and communicative competence through interaction with people. As
learners acquire language functions, they also begin to learn rules for differentiating among
social situations.
This is why Fulcher (1999) is of the view that interest in socio linguistics should be combined with both language
teaching and language
Another unique thing about the communicative
method usage is that it allows the use of idiomatic everyday language e.g. ‘bof bof’, ‘j’
sais pas’, ‘ma
boum’, ‘sympa’, ‘salut’ (Dodson, 1983; Kim, 1999; Fancelli, 1999; Offorma, 2000; Littlewood, 1981; Buscagalia,
1981; Byram, 1997; Scollon & Scollon, 2001). This is the kind of language used ¡n
communication between
people who are very close. It enhances their close relationship and makes them feel at ease and at home with each
other. This type of language is not a medium nor a grammatical nor an oriented formal language. It is more of an informal language.
In a communicative language class, topical items
with which pupils are
already familiar in their own language are used to motivate and arouse pupils’ interest. This leads to more active
participation of students in the class. For example, the use of students’ names in the class, their
everyday life
experiences both at school and at home.
While Littlewood (1981), Williams (1990),
Francelli (1999) call this communicative activities acte de parole; Kim et al (2002), Roger et al (1996), Kim (1999) and Butbaz (1995) are of the
view that communication embraces a whole spectrum of functions like seeking information, apologizing, expressing likes and dislikes and
notions like apologizing for being late, asking where the nearest post office or hospital is etc.
All these have
been imbibed in the current French textbooks at both primary and secondary school levels. The writers of Transafrique
and On Y Va were quite conscious of a spectrum of functions and notions. They are
therefore included
in these modern communicative textbooks.
In addition, the writer discovers that new
syllabuses based on the communicative method offered some communicative ability from early stage. This can be found in the graded objective
in French language movement
that flourished in 1990s and early 2000s. It raised pupils’ motivation through short-term objectives and
through teaching language that is appropriate to a range of relevant topics and situations. For example, shopping, reading in the libraries,
travelling, hobbies, exchanges, dining out etc.
Thus, in all communicative activities, the
teacher creates a situation and sets an activity in motion. Dodson (1983), Wright (1996) and
Littlewood (1981)
advise that the classroom should provide opportunities for rehearsal of real-life situations and provide opportunity
for real communication This can only be achieved when emphasis is on creative role-plays,
simulations surveys,
projects, play lets (Littlewood, 1981; Harley and Hart, 1997; Roberts et al, 1983; Swaine, 1976; Engel, 1979;
Dodson, 1983; Fishman, 1965; Blanc, 1994; Williams, 1990). In using the communicative
techniques mentioned
above, spontaneity and improvisation and not just repetition and drills are made use of.
For example:
In the Library (Dans la bibliotheque)
Eleve : Bonjour Monsieur.
Bibiilothèquist : Bonjour,
ça va?
Eleve : Ça va. Je veux
emprunter un livre de Français.
Bibilothèquist : Lequel?
Eleve : Je Nouveau Sans
Frontiers
Bibilothèquist : Tiens
Eleve : Merci.
In the bank (À la banque)
Au guichet
Danielle: Bonjour, monsieur. Je désire retirer et le
retrait de fonds.
Le Caissier: Préférez — vous des billets de 100 ou
de 50?
DanielIe: Peu importe, car je vais acheter
immédiatement des chèques de voyage. Où est —
ce que je peux les obtenir?
Le Caissier: Au guichet à gauche, mademoiselle. Bon
voyage!
At the
restaurant (Au restaurant)
André: Garçon, la carte du jour, s’il
vous plaît?
Garçon: Voilà, monsieur. Qu’est — ce que
vous désirez?
Alice: J’ai grand faim. Une soupe à
l’oignon, du rosbif, avec des pommes frites et une salade de tomates, s’il vous
plaît.
Garçon: Et vous monsieur?
André: Des hors-d-œuvre variés, du poulet rôti et des haricots verts
s’il vous plaît.
Garçon: Et comme boisson?
André: Une bouteille de vin rouge,
s’il vous plaît.
Garcon: Tout de suite, monsieur.
Andre: Merci.
At the railway station (A Ia
gare).
Jacques: Deux billets d’aller et retour
pour Marseille, s’il vous plaît.
Employé: Première ou deuxième classe?
Jacques: Deuxième classe, s’il vous plait.
Pierre: Prenons des couchettes. Nous
pouvons dormir la nuit.
Jacques: Bon: Sert — on le déjeuner,
monsieur?
Employé: Oui, dans le wagon — restaurant.
Jacques: Le train part à dix heures
précises, n’est — ce pas?
Employé: Oui, tous les trains sont à
l’heure.
Pierre: De quel quai part le train?
Employé: Du quai numéro six.
Pierre: Jacques, le train va partir.
Jacques: Oui, sortons sur le quai.
Pierre: N’oublie pas les valises et
les journaux.
In all these situations described above, the main role rests on the
leaners that are responsible for conducting the interaction to its conclusion.
Learners must be sensitized on the need to be independent of the teachers’
control as they move higher in the class. The teacher on his part builds in
this confidence and independence on the learners by:
- Testing a group initial response to undirected activity by
introducing it in a simpler form at first.
- Making sure that the learners understand what they are required to
do in an activity by demonstrating it with members of the class to the view of
others in form of “jeu de role”. For example, some activities can be performed
in pairs, groups and as a class under the teacher’s direction (Newfields, 1994;
Beltz, 2002, Ojeaga, 2002). According to Dunkel (1999), Beltz (2002), Kitac
& Kitao (1996), Wesche (1983), Littlewood (1981), Kim et al (2002),
students’ communicative ability ¡s tested during the communicative activities
in form of jeu de role-oral exercises, hide and seek games, riddles and jokes,
songs etc. The use of games (le jeu) in the communicative method was
extensively discussed by Ukeje (1996). She is in agreement with other linguists
that the aim of teaching modern languages; for example French language, is to
teach the learners how to express themselves in that language ¡n any situation
in life. The teacher must be an active actor ‘un animateur’ who gives all
necessary attention to the learner as he/she strives towards spontaneous and
easy/free expression. This ¡s why Fancelli (1999), Okwudishu and Madubuko
(1999), Valdman (1966), Mills (1982), Norton (1983), David (1975) call the
French teacher a special unique teacher because of the special way he handles
the communicative method. He is an initiator, facilitator, guide and animator
in order to motivate the students.
Le jeu therefore can be
defined as “activité physique ou mentale purement gratuite qui n’ a dans la
conscience de celui qui s’y livre, d’autre but que le plaisir qu’elle procure”
(Petit Roberts, 1997). It is used to: “motiver, de
faire agir, de susciter imagination et de faire re-créer” in order to create
entertaining and interesting activities in the language classroom. Ukeje (1996)
affirms the views of Fines J. and Verrier, Littlewood (1981), Norton (1983),
Okwudishu & Madubuko (1999), Mills (1982) that children learn through play.
They test their perceptions of reality to find out whether they are accurate
and whether they will fit with one another in moving working model. The writer
is in accord with Ukeje (1996), Kim (1998), Bulus (1998), Fancelli (1999),
Butzbach (1997), Maisamari (1999) that these role- plays facilitate in no small
measure the students learning of the language. It then justifies Confuius’ view
that “what I hear I forget, what I do I remember”. Ukeje (1996) then concludes that “si, en faisant
je me souviens, si, en m’amusant et en me divertissant, j’apprends mieux’. The writer is of the opinion that with the use of the communicative
method, role-play that enhances students’ oral proficiency has been accorded
its rightful place in the teaching of the French language.
Blanc (1994), DaIley (1992), Dodson (1983), Leont’ev (1981), Swaine
(1976), Swaine & Bild (1989) opine that to be bilingual/multilingual calls
for a unique desire rather than a natural urge to satisfy some psychological,
scholarly, cultural, intellectual and social tendency. Brown (1980) sees the
desire to be bilingual as a way of life where tasking effort is made to “reach
beyond the confines of your first language into a new language, a new culture,
a new way of thinking, feeling and acting”. Ukeje (1996) summarized the role of
play in learning modern language as linguistic, psychological and
socio-cultural roles. This to the writer means that the teacher has to
carefully choose a play in order to arouse the learner’s imagination and
interest. It also develops his linguistic and communicative competence in the
French language class, Buscagalia (1981) emphases.
Platt (1989:8-12) also conceived the idea of the communicative method
in her study. According to her, children in collaboration with their teacher
are simultaneously learning language, learning through language and learning
about language by using it to listen, read, discuss and decide on a plan, about
the world of gardening and about the nature and function of language itself
respectively.
Events such as garden planning, cooking planning, giving directions,
travelling, banking transactions and so on, serve to carry these three aspects
of language development forward, simultaneously and without direct teaching. In
this way, learners are learning language naturally while focusing on meaning
with little direct consciousness of learning or practicing forms. Here the
teacher has provided a social and intellectual context that supported language
learning and use. He used resources of space, materials and time to provide a
home-like environment that was hospitable to the children’s needs to move, to
rest, to interact and to create.
Another method according to Simon (1980), Harley (1992), Johnson and
Swaine (1997), Lapkin and Swaine (1996), Ade-Ojo (2002), Okwudishu and Madubuko
(1999) is language immersion - that is taking regular curriculum in another
language (French). “French immersion and French Emphasis” is described as a
school where children enroll in the French immersion classes and learn their
subject matter in French. In an immersion school, as can be found in the French
village, Badagry in Nigeria, according to Ade-Ojo (2002), students use French
rather than English, They are taught throughout the day in French, learning to
speak, read, write and think in that language, while mastering basic skills in
the school curriculum. Evidence has shown that students will become more
competent faster in communicating ¡n a foreign language by being immersed in
the language and the culture in which the language is used (Swaine & Bus,
1989; Ade-Ojo, 2002; Roberts et al, 1983; La 1991; Taylor-Browne, 1990; Thomas
& Dodson, 1988; Simon, Okwudishu & Madubuko, 1999). The writer agrees
that in addition to fluent in French, students gain deeper insight into the French
culture. This wiII enhance better and easier interaction with French people.
Ade-Ojo (2002) went further to explain ¡n detail what French immersion
programme really entails. In his reply to an interview in the Punch Newspaper
July 12, 2002, p. 36, he described immersion programme at the French Village
Badagry as a programme that puts at the disposal of the learner facilities that
would enable him to be “immersed” in the language. All that the language is
characterized with will be made available to the learner-the life, the culture
in which the language is based, the use of the language and the involvement of
the student in the activities that would force him to speak French. It is like
bringing the learner to an environment in which he will have to use the language.
It also involves sensitizing students to see the need for the use of the
language.
The programme, according to Ade-Ojo (2002) has been very successful in
the Nigeria society. The main aim of establishing this, institution at Badagry
is to find a very urgent domestic programme. He further testifies with pride
that “students who come here gain more than they would have gained abroad...”
This means that the immersion programme is very practical anywhere. If such a
programme is practiced in FCT and Benue State, it will go a long way to enhance
SS3 oral proficiency in the French language. In immersion programme, students
are guided, monitored and given the best orientation to get them to be very
deeply involved in the language (Ade-Ojo, 2002).
The communicative method therefore can be likened to total immersion
programme at the French Village, Badagry Lagos. Ade-Ojo (2002), Taylor-Browne
(1990), Dodson et al. (1988), Lapkin & Hart (1991), Blanc (1994), Swaine et
al. (1989), Norton, (1983), are of the view that the use of target language
(French) in normal medium will improve students acquisition of vocabulary. Such
vocabulary acquisition is still lacking in French language classes in Nigeria
Secondary Schools. Hence, very low oral proficiency among graduating students
are recorded.
To Offorma (2000), Williams (1990), Littlewood (1981), Dodson (1985),
Kitao & Kitao (1996), communicative approach is much more Pupil (oriented
because it is dictated by pupils’ needs and interests. The account is on
functional usable language. The aim of learning French is to prepare students
for any future French language encounter. Thus, learners should be able to go
to a French country well prepared for reality they wills encounter there. There
is every need to prepare them linguistically in French in order to be able to
cope and survive in a variety of everyday situations.
The theoretical framework has been very extensively reviewed in view
of the fact that it is this model that provides the platform for the present
study.
2.8 Summary
The above information on the historical evolution of French language teaching method in Nigeria, approaches
to the French as a foreign language
in Nigeria, oral French proficiency, testing oral French proficiency and
theoretical framework: communicative method is the panorama of language studies
by seasoned language educators.
It has helped to widen our knowledge on the current trends in Oral
French teaching and learning with emphasis on students’ proficiency/performance
in the language. This will help the researcher to know where SS3 French
students in FCT and Benue State are lacking in their oral proficiency. It will
also help in appreciating the effect of the use of/ the communicative method in
SS3 oral proficiency at the various periods when it is in vogue.
The unique feature of this study is that it has deviated from dwelling
on the various teaching methods, oral proficiency, testing, and the status of
French in Nigeria as reviewed in this section. Instead it focuses on the test
outcomes of students in NECO Oral French examinations. These outcomes are
reflected in their scores, which in turn judge their performance individually
and at state levels.
Post a Comment