The implementation of Competency Approach in Algerian Foreign Language Classroom

334 Pages·2017·2.04 MB·English

People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria
Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research
University of Mohamed Lamine Debaghine Sétif 2
Faculty of Letters and Languages
Department of English Language and Literature

Thesis
Submitted in Candidacy for the Degree of
“Doctorat En-Sciences”
in Psychopédagogie et Enseignement des Langues Etrangères
By: Mrs. MIRZA Chahrazed

The implementation of Competency Approach in

Algerian Foreign Language Classroom: The Impact of

Social Interactions on Knowledge Construction Process

and the Development of Learning Competences

Board of Examiners:
Chairman: Pr Hacene SAADI Professor Université Mentouri de Constantine
Supervisor: Pr. Said KESKES Professor Université MLD Sétif2
Examiner : Pr Riadh BELOUHAM Professor Université Mentouri de Constantine
Examiner: Pr Abdelhak NEMOUCHI Professor Université LBM Oum El Bouaghi
Examiner : Pr Nawelle ABDELATIF Professor Université MLD Sétif

2016-2017
i
D E C L A R A T I O N

I hereby declare that the substance of this thesis is entirely the result of my
investigation and that due reference or acknowledgement is made, whenever
necessary, to the work of other researchers.

Date: 11/09/2016
Signed :Chahrazed Mirza
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to my supervisor, Professor Said KESKES who has supported
and encouraged me with this research and have been ever so patient with me. Your
proactive supervisions as well as your detailed critical comments have been very
invaluable. Your assistance went a long way in ensuring the compilation of the thesis.
Great thanks to my research participants (Inspectors, Teachers, and Learners)
who allowed this research to take place. Although your identity has been disguised you
were very kind and cooperative during this research.
iii
DEDICATION

I would like to express my gratitude to my family who supported me during the
many challenges encountered along this journey and without whose support this thesis
would not be possible.
I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge my friends the
Semchedines’, the Abouda’s and Samra Choubane who have been so tolerant,
supportive and insightful during this study. You have been instrumental in helping me
to complete this thesis.
iii
ABSTRACT

Researchers suggest that successful implementation of the CBA leads to the creation
of different types of mediated socio-educational interactions that support the
collaborative process of knowledge construction. However, the existing literature does
not indicate whether the qualities of socio-educational interactions, as well as the
affordances of use of the CBLT by teachers in Algeria offer the social and cognitive
support necessary for the collaborative knowledge construction process to take place.
The aim of the present study is to examine the extent to which classroom discussions,
mediated by the affordances of the scaffolding of teachers and the new program, reach
high levels of collaborative knowledge construction. This thesis develops two
methodological frameworks for the presentation of structural patterns of classroom
interactions and the analysis of the impact of the affordances of teachers’ efforts to
implement the CBLT on learners’ learning opportunities from a socio-constructivist
perspective. This study examines through interviews with inspectors and teachers and
video recordings of classroom lessons, the quality of training, teaching, and learning
experiences of two different middle school groups of learners of English in Algerian
schools, taught by two different teachers with different teaching backgrounds. Results
show that teachers provide different types of scaffolded interactions which lead to the
creation of different patterns of classroom interactions and exchanges that affect
differently learners’ engagement in the collaborative knowledge construction process.
Trained teachers have a better understanding of the learning principles of the CBLT.
They could create interactions with positive affordances for learners to perform
different interactive and negotiation roles for active engagement in the collaborative
knowledge process. However, results show that untrained teachers failed at providing
their learners with the socio-cognitive support they needed to create ZPD for
collaborative knowledge construction. Besides, results show that teachers’ teaching
styles, task design and size of classes play an important role in supporting the
collaborative knowledge construction process.
iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATONS AND ACRONYMS

AEF Algerian English Framework
CBA Competency-Based Approach
CBLT Competency-based language Teaching
EFL English Foreign Language
Gr1 Group One
Gr2 Group Two
I Initiations
IC Initiation Continuity
I-IC-R-RC-F Five Part Exchange; Initiation-Initiation Continuity-Response-
Response Continuity-Feedback
IC-R-F Three Part Exchange; Initiation Continuity-Response-Feedback
IC-R-RC-F Four Part Exchange; Initiation Continuity-Response-Response
Continuity-Feedback
I-R-RC-F Four part Exchange; Initiation-Response-Response Continuity-
Feedback IRF Initiation-Response-Feedback System
L2 Second Language
R Response
RC Response Continuity
T1 Teacher 1
T2 Teacher 2
ZPD Zone of Proximal Development
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Proportions of Trained Against Untrained Teachers…………………………123
Figure 2.2. Teachers’ Who Implement CBA against Those Who Do not…………………124
Figure 2.3: Teachers’ Reflections on the Learning Theories Underlying the
Conception of CBA…………………………………………………………...126
Figure 2.4. Teachers’ Definitions of the Concept Competence .......................................... 130
Figure 2.5. Teachers’ Definitions of the Concept of Competence ...................................... 131
Figure2.6. Teachers’ Definitions of the Concept of Collaborative Knowledge
Construction Process ........................................................................................ 132
Figure 2.7. Teachers Invite Learners to Share Ideas ........................................................... 137
Figure 2.8. Teachers Invite Learners to Disagree ................................................................ 138
Figure 2.9. Teachers Invite Learners to Negotiate Meaning ............................................... 139
Figure 2.10. Teachers Ask Exploratory Questions ................................................................. 140
Figure 2.11. Teachers Invite Learners to Use Challenge Negotiation Function ................... 141
Figure 2.12. Teachers’ Invitation to Learners to Reflect on their Learning Process………. 142
Figure 2.13. Teachers Involve Learners in Interaction ........................................................... 143
Figure 6.1. Classification of G1’s Exchanges into Phases of Knowledge
Construction ……………………………………………………………………230
Figure 6.2. Classification of G2’s Exchanges into Phases of Knowledge
Construction.....…………………………………………………………………230
Figure 6.3. Distribution of IRRCF Exchanges into Phases of Knowledge
Construction G1 .................................................................................................. 233
Figure 6.4. Distribution of IRRCF Exchanges into Phases of Knowledge
Construction G………………………………………………………………….233
Figure 6.5. Classification of Gr1’s ICRF Exchanges into Phases of Knowledge
Construction ………...…………………………………………………………238
Figure 6.6. Classification of Gr2’s ICRF Exchanges into Phases of Knowledge
Construction……………………………………………………………………238
Figure 6.7. Distribution of G1’s ICRRCF Exchanges into Phases of Knowledge
Construction……………………………………………………………………240
Figure 6.8. Distribution of G2’s ICRRCF Exchanges into Phases of Knowledge
Construction….. ............................................................................................ ….241
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Content Models of Knowledge Construction Analysis .............................. 85
Table 2.2. Model of Knowledge Construction Analysis ............................................... 92
Table 4.1. Teachers’ Interactive Roles ....................................................................... 156
Table 4.2. Learners’ Interactive Roles ....................................................................... 157
Table 4.3. Model of Knowledge Construction Process Analysis .............................. 163
Table 4.4. Negotiation Functions of Teachers’ Turn ................................................. 165
Table 4.5. Initiation-Information Request by T1 and T2 ............................................167
Table 4.6. Initiation-Inform by T1 and T2 .................................................................. 167
Table 4.7. Initiation-Comprehension Check by T1 and T2…………………………168
Table 4.8. Initiation-Explanation Requests by T1 and T2………………………….168
Table 4.9. Initiation-Disagreement by T1 and T2 ....................................................... 169
Table 4.10. Initiation- Exploratory Request by T1 and T2 ........................................169
Table 4.11. Initiation-Clarification by T1 and T2...................................................... 170
Table 4.12. Initiation-Argument by T1 and T2 .......................................................... 170
Table 4.13. Initiation-Application Requests by T1 and T2 ....................................... 171
Table 4.14. IC-Information Requests by T1 and T2 ................................................. 171
Table 4.15. IC-Inform by T1 and T2… .................................................................... 172
Table 4.16. IC- Exploratory Request by T1 and T2.................................................. 172
Table 4.17. IC- Clarification by T1 and T2 .............................................................. 173
Table 4.18. IC-Assertion by T1 and T2 .................................................................... 173
Table 4.19. IC-Challenge by T1 and T2 ................................................................... 174
Table 4.20. IC-Reflective Requests by T1 and T2 .................................................... 174
Table 4.21. IC-Application Requests by T1 and T2 ................................................. 175
Table 4.22. R-Inform by T1 and T2 ........................................................................... 176
Table 4.23. R-Accept by T1 and T2 .......................................................................... 176
Table 4.24. R-Explanation by T1 and T2 .................................................................. 177
Table 4.25. R-Clarification by T1 and T2 .................................................................. 177
Table 4.26. R-Argument by T1 and T2 ...................................................................... 178
vii
Table 4.27. RC-Accept by T1 and T2 ........................................................................178
Table 4.28. RC-Clarification by T1 and T2 ............................................................... 179
Table 4.29. RC-Argument by T1 and T2 ................................................................... 179
Table 4.30. RC-Rejection by T1 and T2 .....................................................................180
Table 4.31. RC-Assertion by T1 and T2 .....................................................................180
Table 4.32. RC-Challenge by T1 and T2 ................................................................... 181
Table 4.33. RC-Justify by T1 and T2……………………………………………….181
Table 4.34. RC-Concession by T1 and T2 .................................................................. 182
Table 4.35. RC-Consensus Building by T1 and T2 ................................................... 182
Table 4.36. RC-Reflective Requests by T1 and T2 .................................................... 183
Table 4.37. RC-Meta-Cognitive Requests by T1 and T2 ........................................... 183
Table 4.38. F-Inform by T1 and T2 ............................................................................ 184
Table 4.39. F-Accept by T1 and T2 ........................................................................... 184
Table 4.40. F- Disagreement by T1 and T2 ............................................................... 185
Table 4.41. F-Clarification by T1 and T2 ................................................................... 185
Table 4.42. F-Argument by T1 and T2 ....................................................................... 186
Table 4.43. F-Assertion by T1 and T2 ....................................................................... 186
Table 4.44. F-Concession by T1 and T2 .....................................................................187
Table 4.45. F-Consensus Building by T1 and T2 ....................................................... 187
Table 4.46. Negotiation Functions of Learners’ Turn ................................................ 189
Table 4.47. I-Information Request Gr1 and Gr2 ......................................................... 190
Table 4.48. IC-Information Request Gr1 and Gr2 ..................................................... .191
Table 4.49. R-Inform by Gr1 and Gr2 ........................................................................ 192
Table 4.50. R-Accept by Gr1 and Gr2 ....................................................................... .192
Table 4.51. R-Corroboration by Gr1 and Gr2……………………………………….193
Table 4.52. R-Explanation Request by Gr1 and Gr2 .................................................. 193
Table 4.53. R-Explanation Request by Gr1 and Gr2 .................................................. 194
Table 4.54. R-Disagreement by Gr1 and Gr2 ............................................................. 194
Table 4.55. R-Rapid Agreement by Gr1 and Gr2 ...................................................... .195
Table 4.56. R-Exploratory Requests by Gr1 and Gr2 ................................................. 195
Table 4.57. R-Clarification by Gr1 and Gr2 .............................................................. 195
ix
Table 4.58. R-Argument by Gr1 and Gr2 ................................................................... 196
Table 4.59. R-Rejection by Gr1 and Gr2 ................................................................... 197
Table 4.60. R-Assertion by Gr1 and Gr2 ................................................................... 197
Table 4.61. R-Challenge by Gr1 and Gr2 ................................................................... 198
Table 4.62. R-Justify by Gr1 and Gr2 ......................................................................... 198
Table 4.63. R-Summarize by Gr1 and Gr2 ................................................................. 199
Table 4.64. R- Meta-Cognitive Statements by Gr1 and Gr2 ...................................... 199
Table 4.65. R-Application by Gr1 and Gr2 ................................................................ 200
Table 4.66. RC-Inform by Gr1 and Gr2 ..................................................................... 201
Table 4.67. RC-Accept by Gr1 and Gr2 ..................................................................... 201
Table 4.68. RC-Corroboration by Gr1 and Gr2 ......................................................... 202
Table 4.69. RC-Disagreement by Gr1 and Gr2 .......................................................... 202
Table 4.70. RC-Rapid-Agreement by Gr1 and Gr2 ................................................... 202
Table 4.71. RC- Exploratory Request by Gr1 and Gr2 ............................................... 203
Table 4.72. RC-Clarification by Gr1 and Gr2 ............................................................ 203
Table 4.73. RC-Argument by Gr1 and Gr2 ................................................................ 204
Table 4.74. RC-Rejection by Gr1 and Gr2 ................................................................. 204
Table 4.75. RC-Assertion by Gr1 and Gr2 ................................................................. 204
Table 4.76. RC-Challenge by Gr1 and Gr2 ................................................................ 205
Table 4.77. RC-Justify by Gr1 and Gr2 ..................................................................... 206
Table 4.78. RC-Concession by Gr1 and Gr2 .............................................................. 206
Table 4.79. RC-Consensus Building by Gr1 and Gr2 ................................................ 207
Table 4.80. RC-Summarize by Gr1 and Gr2 .............................................................. 207
Table 4.81. RC- Meta-Cognitive Statements by Gr1 and Gr2 .................................... 208
Table 4.82. RC-Application by Gr1 and Gr2 .............................................................. 208
Table 5.1. Classification of T1 Interaction into Phase of Knowledge Construction 217
Table 5.2. Classification of T2 Interactions into Phase of Knowledge Construction 219
Table 5.3. Classification of Gr1 Learners’ Interactions into Phases of Knowledge
Construction ............................................................................................. .221
x