Aportes de las OSC al desarrollo

Action research takes time to develop and I found it challenging to shift the study to fit the needs of the students in my classroom this year. My study development began three years ago and the students I worked with this year were very different from the time I began to conceptualize this project. This further highlights the importance of classroom ecology being unique to each class. For a future study, I want to continue investigating the construct of willingness to communicate because of the way that this study has had an impact on my current approach to foreign language education. As a practitioner, I am unable to step away from this study and put it on a shelf. Findings from this study have already sparked ideas of other studies I could conduct within my classroom. For example, I would like to observe Info-Gap activities across a year of study to deepen my understanding of the influence of content and contextual factors on student willingness to communicate and the role of translanguaging and the use of L1 in interpersonal communication tasks. Info-Gap activities offer many opportunities for students to practice communicative competence and develop their foreign language interpersonal oral communication while simultaneously keeping in mind the facilitating role of L1 on L2.

The memory that is with me most from this study is the way my classroom sounded during the study. While I collected the baseline data, students sounded frustrated, discouraged and bored. In the second half of the study when I showed students the topic of study and the considerations I took from their responses, student talk was filled with laughter. This reaction is not to be taken for granted. Students were having fun while communicating. With high stakes tests in most content areas, students have expressed the feeling that school is not fun or engaging. During my study, my

classroom became a dynamic space for communication. As an action researcher, this unanticipated outcome is one that I hope to continue to promote within my classroom.

References

A+ Schools (2017). Report to the community 2017. A+ Schools. Retrieved from: http://www.aplusschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2017-High-Schools.pdf

ACTFL (2012). ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelinesand- manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012

ACTFL (2015). Foreign language enrollments in k-12 public schools: Are students ready for a global society? American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Retrieved from: https://www.actfl.org/news/reports/foreign-language-enrollments-k-12-public-schools- are-students-ready-global-society

Brooke, F.B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77 (2), 262-274.

Buss, R. R., & Zambo, D. (2016). Using action research to develop educational leaders and researchers. In J. A. Perry (Ed.), The EdD and the Scholarly Practitioner. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 137- 152.

Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. Modern Language Journal, 95, 401–417.

Cao. Y. (2011). Investigating situational willingness to communicate within second language classrooms from an ecological perspective. System 39, 468-479.

Cao, Y., & Philp, J. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System, 34(4), 480–493.

Clément, R., Baker, S.C., MacIntyre, P.D., 2003. Willingness to communicate in a second language: the effect of context, norms and vitality. Journal of Language and Social

Psychology 22 (2), 190–209.

Erlam, R., & Ellis, R. (2018). Task-based language teaching for beginner-level learners of L2 French: An exploratory study. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 74 (1), 1-26. Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity,

and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 474-509.

Glisan, E. W., & Donato, R. (2017). Enacting the work of language instruction: high-leverage

teaching practices. Alexandria, VA: The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign

Ketsman, O. (2012). Expectations in the foreign language classrooms: a case study. The Qualitative Report. Retrieved from https://link-gale.com.pitt.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/ A350792543/AONE?u=upitt_main&sid=AONE&xid=ad2c3cb6

Krepel, R. & Sinclair, E. (2019). Motivating secondary students to speak in Spanish outside of structured classroom activities. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 9 (1), 115-127.

MacIntyre, P.D. (1994). Variables underlying willingness to communicate: A causal analysis.

Communication Research Reports, 11, 135-142.

MacIntyre, P.D., Zoltán, D., Clément, R., & Noels, K.A. (1998). Conceptualizing Willingness to Communicate in a L2: A Situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern

Language Journal, 82 (4), 545-562.

MacIntyre, P.D., Baker, S.C., Clément, R., & Donovan, L.A. (2002). Sex and age effects on Willingness to Communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language Learning, 52 (3), 537-564. Martin-Beltrán, M. (2014). What do you want to say? How adolescents use translanguaging to

expand learning opportunities. International Multilingual Research Journal, 8, 208–230. McCroskey, J.C. & Baer, J.E. (1985, November) Willingness to communicate: The construct and

its measurements. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association convention. Chicago, IL.

O’Connell, M.E. & Norwood, J.L. (2007). International Education and Foreign Languages: Keys to Securing America’s Future. National Academies Press.

Pawlak, M. & Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A. (2015). Investigating the dynamic nature of L2 willingness to communicate. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology

and Applied Linguistics, 50, 1-9.

Peng, J. E. (2012). Towards an ecological understanding of willingness to communicate in EFL classrooms in China. System, 40, 203–213.

Peng, J.-E., &Woodrow, L. (2010). Willingness to communicate in English: a model in the Chinese EFL classroom context. Language Learning, 60(4), 834–876.

Shrum, J.L., & Glisan, E.W. (1994). Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Subtirelu, N. (2013). A language ideological perspective on willingness to communicate. System,

42, 120-132.

Tavakoli, E., & Davoudi, M. (2017). Willingness to communicate orally: The case of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46, 1509-1527.

Vongsila, V. & Reinders, H. (2016). Making Asian learners talk: Encouraging willingness to communicate. RELC Journal, 47 (3), 331-347.

Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in second language: The Japanese EFL Context.

The Modern Language Journal, 86 (1), 54-66.

Zarrinabadi, N. (2014). Communicating in a second language: Investigating the effect of teacher on learners’ willingness to communicate. System, 42, 288-295.