UNIVERSITE NORBERT ZONGO

Burkina Faso
------------
Unité-Progrès-Justice
ECOLE NORMALE SUPERIEURE
------------
SECTION DE L’ENCADREMENT
PEDAGOGIQUE DU SECONDAIRE

------------

Using English as the language of instruction: An

investigation on teachers’ practices in 5è classes in
Burkina Faso
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Advanced
Certificate in Teacher Evaluation and Supervision in TEFL

Presented by : Under the supervision of:

Mahamoudou OUBDA Dr Paulin SOME

June 2018
In fond Memory of My Grandmother

i
 Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to all those persons who contributed to the
achievement of this work. I am profoundly indebted to my supervisor, Dr Paulin SOME
who has generously offered his expertise and continuous encouragement in guiding me
through the whole research process. Without his constructive assistance, it would have been
impossible for me to complete this work. Thank you for your invaluable support and
assistance.

Moreover, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all the teachers and the students
who participated to this study. I do not forget the administrations of the schools in which the
research was carried out. Thank you for your enthusiasm and total collaboration.

I am also thankful to my trainee colleagues BELEM Sidiki, BARRY Tidiani,

KAGAMBEGA Idrissa, and BOUSSIM Tonguira for their smart remarks when discussing
issues involved in my study. In the same vein, I show my gratefulness to the English
inspectors Zongo Abdoulaye Ouattara Awa/ Dahani and Sanon Raoul for their availability
to proofread my work and make relevant comments and suggestions to improve it. I
appreciate the time you invested on my behalf.

My thanks also go to Sawadogo Moumini for his technical assistance, and MANE
Hamado who supported me during the administration and the collection of the data.

Last but not the least, I owe special thanks to my wife WOBGO Fatimata, and my children
Abdel Nasser, Amelle kenza and Imane for their understanding because I have not been
always available for them during these two years of training.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication .................................................................................................. Erreur ! Signet non défini.
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................ii
Table of contents................................................................................................................................iii
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................. vii
List of figures and graphs ................................................................................................................. viii
List of tables ..................................................................................................................................... viii
Abbreviations and acronyms.............................................................................................................. ix
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION .......................................................................................... 3
I.1. Purpose of the study ................................................................................................................ 3
I. 2. Statement of the problem ....................................................................................................... 3
I.3. Objectives of the research ....................................................................................................... 5
I.4. Research questions and hypotheses ........................................................................................ 5
I.4.1. Research questions ........................................................................................................... 5
I.4.2. Research hypotheses ........................................................................................................ 5
I.5. Rationale of the study .............................................................................................................. 6
I.6. Context of the study ................................................................................................................. 8
I.6.1. The status of English language in the educational system................................................ 8
I.6.2. The teachers’ profiles ........................................................................................................ 9
I.6.3. The syllabus ..................................................................................................................... 10
I.7. Scope and limits of the study ................................................................................................. 11
Chapter II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................................................................................. 12
II .1. Theoretical perspective ........................................................................................................ 12
II.1.1. The sociocultural theory................................................................................................. 12
II.1.1.1. The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) .......................................................... 14
II.1.1.2 Scaffolding ............................................................................................................ 15
II.1.2. Krashen’s Monitor Model .............................................................................................. 16
II.1.2.1. Acquisition- Learning Hypothesis ............................................................................ 16
II.1.2.2. Monitor Hypothesis................................................................................................. 17
II.1.2.3. The Natural Order Hypothesis ................................................................................ 17
II.1.2.4. The Input Hypothesis .............................................................................................. 17
II.1.2.5. The Hypothesis Filter............................................................................................... 18
II.2. Language Teaching Approaches/Methods and teachers’ use of the target language.......... 19
II.2.1. The Natural Approach .................................................................................................... 19
II.2.2. Total Physical Response ................................................................................................. 20

iii
 II.2.3. The communicative language teaching.......................................................................... 21
II.3. Proficiency in the target language ........................................................................................ 24
II.4. Using the target language as the medium of instruction ..................................................... 26
II.4.1. The role of target language input ................................................................................. 26
II.4.2. The role of target language interaction ......................................................................... 29
II.4.2.1. Long’s Interaction Hypothesis ................................................................................. 30
II.4.2.2. The Initiative-Response-Follow-up (IRF) ................................................................. 32
II.4.3. Some strategies for teaching in the target language and making input comprehensible.
.................................................................................................................................................. 34
II.4.3.1. Comprehensible input ............................................................................................. 34
II.4.3.2. Intake....................................................................................................................... 36
II.4.3.3. Managing and organizing classroom interactions .................................................. 36
II.4.3.3.1. Planning lessons and ensuring that learners know the learning objectives for
the lessons........................................................................................................................ 36
II.4.3.3.2.Teaching learners some specific strategies of making sense of the target
language ........................................................................................................................... 37
II.4.3.3.3. Monitoring and assessing target language use ................................................ 38
II.4.3.3.4. Conducting comprehension checks to ensure understanding ......................... 38
II.4.3.3.5. Eliciting talk that increases in fluency, accuracy, and complexity over time. .. 39
II.4.3.3.6. Creating a classroom environment conducive to learning .............................. 39
II.4.3.3.7. Linking new concepts to the background knowledge of students................... 39
II.4.3.3.8. Providing a meaningful context for all classroom language use ...................... 39
II.4.3.4. Using various modification strategies ..................................................................... 40
II.4.3.5. Making an appropriate use of the first language in the foreign language classroom
.............................................................................................................................................. 41
II.4.4. The target language use during instruction: from theory to practice ........................... 44
II.4.5. Students’ reactions to the teachers’ use of the target language. .................................. 48
Chapter III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 49
III.2. The research field ................................................................................................................. 50
III.3. Target population and sampling .......................................................................................... 50
III.3.1. Teacher sample ............................................................................................................. 51
III.3.2. Pupil sample .................................................................................................................. 57
III.4. Data collection instruments ................................................................................................. 59
III.4.1. The questionnaire ......................................................................................................... 59
III.4.2. Classroom observations ................................................................................................ 59
III.4.3. The interview................................................................................................................. 60
III.4.4. The documentary analysis............................................................................................. 60

iv
 III.5. The research procedure ....................................................................................................... 60
III.5.1. The piloting stage .......................................................................................................... 61
III.5.2. Lesson observations ...................................................................................................... 61
III.5.3. Administration of the questionnaire and the documentary analysis ........................... 62
III.5.4. The administration of the interviews and the documentary analysis .......................... 62
III.6. Difficulties............................................................................................................................. 63
CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ...................................................................... 64
IV.1. EFL Teachers’ use of English in 5è classes ................................................................................ 64
IV.2. Obstacles in the use of the English language ....................................................................... 66
IV.2.1. Obstacles involving teachers training issues................................................................. 66
IV.2.2. Obstacles involving students’ factors ........................................................................... 68
IV.2.3. Obstacles beyond teachers’ control ............................................................................. 69
IV.3. Strategies used by teachers to make the language comprehensible. ................................. 70
IV.3.1. Management and organization of classroom interactions ........................................... 70
IV.3.1.1. Teaching specific language learning strategies. ..................................................... 70
IV.3.1.2. Ensuring that pupils know the objectives of the lesson ........................................ 71
IV.3.1.3. Creating a cooperative and interactive atmosphere conducive to learning. ........ 72
IV.3.1.4. Using the target language in context. .................................................................... 73
IV.3.2. Use of various modification strategies ......................................................................... 76
IV.3.3. Appropriate use of French ............................................................................................ 80
IV.3.3.1. Separate French from English. ............................................................................... 80
IV.3.3.2. Avoid translation .................................................................................................... 81
IV.4. Assessment of the research hypotheses ............................................................................. 82
IV.4.1. Assessment of hypothesis 1: The teachers do not use English as the medium of
instruction in 5è classes. .......................................................................................................... 82
IV.4.2. Assessment of hypothesis 2: The teachers are confronted with many obstacles in the
use of English............................................................................................................................ 82
IV.4.3. Assessment of hypothesis 3: The teachers do not use a variety of strategies for
making the input comprehensible. .......................................................................................... 83
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. ....................................................... 86
V.1. Implications ........................................................................................................................... 86
V.1. 1. Training teachers........................................................................................................... 86
V.1. 2. Collaboration among teachers. ..................................................................................... 86
V.1. 3. Shifting toward communicative language teaching...................................................... 87
V.1. 4. Scaffolding ................................................................................................................... 88
V.1. 5. Optimizing the Exploitation of the New Syllabus ......................................................... 89
V.2. SUGGESTIONS ....................................................................................................................... 90

v
 V.2.1. To the authorities in charge of education...................................................................... 90
V.2. 2. To the teachers ............................................................................................................. 92
V.2. 2. 1. Increase the English use through self-improvement. ........................................... 92
V.2. 2. 2. Avoid excessive concern for students’ comprehension. ....................................... 92
V.2.2.3. Practice differentiated instruction .......................................................................... 93
V.2.2.4. Improve the language proficiency .......................................................................... 93
V.2.2.5.Focus teaching on proficiency and communication. ............................................... 94
V.2.2.6. Use a variety of strategies during lessons to make input comprehensible. ........... 94
V.2.2.7. Model and practice class norms in English ............................................................. 95
V.2.2.8. Create a safe classroom environment .................................................................... 95
V.2.2.9. Address the lack of didactic materials .................................................................... 96
V.3. Limitations of the study ........................................................................................................ 97
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 98
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 99
Appendixes ......................................................................................................................................... X
Appendix1: Questionnaire to the teachers .................................................................................... X
Appendix 2 : Questionnaire aux élèves ..................................................................................... XVIII
Appendix 3: Classroom observation grid. ................................................................................. XXIII
Appendix 4: Letter granting authorization for reasearch........................................................ XXVI
Appendix 5: Circular Letter of the Ministry of Education stating the goal of teaching foreign
languages in the secondary schools in Burkina Faso ............................................................... XXVII

vi
 Abstract
This study sought to investigate EFL teachers’ current practices with regard to the use of
English as the target language in 5è classes. It also discussed the sources of teachers’
difficulties in using English with their pupils. The investigation was carried out in the
Region of “Centre- Est” and it involved thirty-six (36) teachers and one hundred and fifty
pupils from twenty-two (22) private and public schools. Methods of gathering data included
questionnaires, class observations, interviews and documentary analysis. Despite the
prevailing idea of extensive target language use, the reported data showed that there is a
wider distribution in the use of English among teachers. Moreover, the study pointed out that
teachers do not use a variety of strategies to help the pupils understand their language. The
findings also revealed obstacles impacting teachers’ utilization of the English language. This
study identified and described recommendations which could help teachers increase their
English use in 5è EFL classes, and subsequently enhance their pupils’ language acquisition.

Key words: target language, input, English as a medium of instruction.

vii
List of figures and graphs
Figures
Figure 1: Representation of the first series of questions before using French ............................... 44
Figure 2: Representation of the second series of questions before using French........................... 44
Graphs
Graph 1: Graphical representation of teacher respondents according to studies .......................... 54
Graph 2: Teachers’ professional qualifications. ............................................................................... 55
Graph 3: Teachers’ professional experience. ................................................................................... 56
Graph 4: About the language (s) the teachers used during instruction........................................... 65
Graph 5: Pupils’ views about the language (s) the teachers used during instruction ..................... 65
Graph 6: About teaching specific learning strategies ...................................................................... 71
Graph 7: About the statement of the lesson objectives .................................................................. 72
Graph 8: About the cooperative and interactive classroom ............................................................ 73
Graph 9: Teachers’ views about the frequency of purposeful activities they use in the lessons ... 75
Graph 10: Pupils’ views about the frequency of purposeful activities used during lessons............ 76
Graph 11: Situation of the use of paraverbals ................................................................................. 78
Graph 12: Teachers’ views about the frequency they use visuals ................................................... 79
Graph13: Pupils’ views about the frequency in the use of visuals .................................................. 79
Graph 14: About the separation of French and English ................................................................... 80
Graph 15: About teachers’ use of translation .................................................................................. 81

List of tables
Table1: Hours and coefficients for the teaching of English ............................................................... 9
Table 2: Teacher respondents’ distribution ..................................................................................... 52
Table 3: Characteristics of teacher sample ...................................................................................... 53
Table 4: Student respondents’ distribution ..................................................................................... 57
Table 5: Characteristic of learner sample ........................................................................................ 59
Table 6: Obstacles involving factors related to training issues ........................................................ 68
Table 7: Obstacles involving students’ factors ................................................................................. 69
Table 8: Obstacles involving factors beyond teachers’ control ....................................................... 70

viii
 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ACTFL: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages

CAP-CEG: Certificat d’Aptitude au Professorat des Collèges d’Enseignement Général.

CAPES : Certificat d’Aptitude au Professorat de l’Enseignement Secondaire

CEFRL: Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

CLT : Communicative Language Teaching

CEG ; Collège d’Enseignement Général

DEUG : Diplôme d’Etudes Universitaires Générales

EFL: English as a Foreign Language

ENS/UNZ: Ecole Normale Supérieure de l’Université Norbert Zongo

I.R.F: Initiative- Response-Follow-up

LEP: Limited English Proficient

L1: First Language

L2: Second/ Foreign Language

PPP: Presentation, Practice, and Production

TEFL: Teaching English as a Foreign Language

TPR: Typical Physical Response

ZPD: Zone of Proximal Development

ix
 Introduction
It is now a truism to state that English language is spreading rapidly around the world. In
many parts of the world and especially in Europe, English is seen as the “lingua franca”
because it is the medium of communication for speakers of different first languages. For
Doughty (2013), it is believed that English will become even more dominant in the future.
The most common factors accounting for this surge in international use include
globalization, economic development, internationalization, technological development and
the expansion of education (Coleman,2011c)). Additionally, English has gained an
important role in many sectors of life. It is present in the media, education, tourism, business,
and information technology.

In regards to the importance of English, there is a growing tendency for countries to adopt
it as the language of instruction. In Burkina Faso, even if it is not the case for the time being,
it’s worth mentioning that English was introduced early in the educational system, precisely
in the post-primary and secondary schools. In these levels, English is taught and learnt as a
foreign language with the goal of developing the students’ ability to communicate freely and
spontaneously in this language.

In this teaching and learning context in which language proficiency is the goal, learners
need to be exposed to as much comprehensible target language input as possible. As
Lightbown and Spada (2006:13) put it, “language acquisition is based on the availability of
natural language in the learner’s environment”. This justifies why since the late 1800’s,
many different learning approaches and methods have emphasized the immediate use of the
target language as a communicative tool in the classroom. It is the case of the Direct Method,
the Audiolingual Method, the Situational Language Teaching, the Total Physical Response,
the Natural Approach and the Communicative Approach.

The 2010 revised version of the syllabus for teaching English in Burkina and the
supervisors’ lesson evaluation sheet stress communicative skills and functional use of the
language. Teachers are therefore required to use the English target language as the medium
of instruction and communication in the classroom. However, class visits reveal a great
diversity in the amount of the English use among EFL teachers. Additionally, their language
does not satisfy the features of comprehensible input which facilitates acquisition.

In deciding to think over this topic, “using English as a means of instruction: an

investigation on teachers practices in 5ème classes”, my main goal is to contribute to
1
improve teachers’ English use in language classes. So, the study assesses how effectively
teachers use English in 5ème classes in order to infuse the learning environment with
maximum comprehensible input. Concretely, it explores the amount of English teachers use
during instruction. It also identifies obstacles which affect teachers’ use of the target
language. Lastly, it examines the teaching strategies for making the language
comprehensible.

The research includes theoretical and practical aspects. The theoretical aspects deal with
background information, findings from literature in relation to the topic and research
methodology. As for the practical aspects, they concern the analysis and interpretation of the
data collected from class observations, interviews, documentary analysis and questionnaire.
They also involve suggestions made to help teachers improve their use of the target language.

2
Chapter I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

I.1. Purpose of the study

The present study is an exploratory enterprise which sets out to examine the current
practices with regard to the teachers’ use of English as a means of instruction in 5ème
classes. Therefore, it seeks to collect information about the frequency in EFL teachers’ use
of English and the types of strategies they convey to make this target language meaningful
and comprehensible. It also intends to explore the obstacles teachers face while teaching in
English. The ultimate goal is to make suggestions to improve teachers’ use of the target
language in class, and hence, foster their students’ language development.

I. 2. Statement of the problem

The communicative approach to second or foreign language teaching advocates the use
of the target language as the main means of instruction and communication in the classroom.
The goal is to help students in the process of the language acquisition. Indeed, according to
Ceo-Difrancesco (2013:2), “Researchers have urged world language instructors to maximize
their use of the target language during instruction to create a target language atmosphere in
their classrooms and a context for real communication in order to set an example for and
promote student production, especially given the fact that there may be few opportunities for
students to encounter input outside of the class setting.”

In the context of Burkina Faso, the official instructions target the communicative goals
in teaching and learning English as a foreign language. The classroom environment is also
the only source of target language input the learners receive. It is therefore crucial for
teachers to supply target language in sufficient quantity during language classes. However,
based on what I have experienced on the field, I can say that there is a tension between the
official guidelines and the reality as far as the target language use is concerned. As a matter
of fact, practice varies from one teacher to another. If in some classes, teachers used the
target language most of their instructional time, however, French still dominated other
teachers’ language classes. To describe this situation, Somé (1990) states that an important
point in relation to the use of the language itself is that it proves difficult to be used in the
classroom by the learners as well as the teachers. For the latter, this is due to the fact that
fluent non-native speaker teachers persist too rigidly in speaking nothing but English in the
English lesson, which may be a danger (Willis, 1981: quoted in Paré, 1990). He argues that
those teachers actually keep using English exclusively in the hope that their students will

3
gradually get into the habit of speaking the language in the class too. By contrast, less fluent
teachers may also lose confidence when expected to perform in English and perhaps lose the
ability to establish a good rapport with their classes. He comes to the conclusion that the
fluent teachers adopt this strategy perhaps to take the only opportunity offered to them to
keep up their level of English while the less fluent teachers use the students’ language of
instruction, French, perhaps because students and teachers are in the same boat, that is, they
are all learners. Within this context, some students are deprived of useful comprehensible
input as they have little exposure to the target language.

Besides, teachers’ language is not relevant enough as it focuses on form rather than on
meaning. In many 5è classes I have observed, teachers did not base their use of English on
rich contexts or situations to communicate meaningful messages. During the presentation
or practice of a given language item, they just provided their students with isolated discrete
sentence patterns. Such activities as dialogues, songs or games were neglected; even though
they are assumed to make sense or meaning out of the content for the learners. The
elaboration in 2010 of a communicative-based syllabus with topics or themes based on
lessons, provide teachers with meaningful contexts in which to use the target language. But,
the problem with this syllabus as kambou (2010:16) reveals, is that many teachers face
difficulties to implement it.

In addition, during interaction, teachers did not use sound means to assist learners at the
Novice and Intermediate levels of proficiency. For beginners, the use of visual aids and body
language could help get the “gist” of what is being said and make the language use rich and
playful. But, during the language classes I have attended, I noted that teachers rarely used
these contextual clues to make the language comprehensible. They did not also adjust their
language to their learners’ competence. Worst, they took more time to present and explain
the new language material with the assumption of making it clear and comprehensible to
their students. But, as Ur (2009) underlined, students have only a limited attention span;
they cannot listen to teachers for very long at maximum attention. So, I assumed that not
much of the teachers’ target language is comprehensible since there is more focus on the
message the learners receive than on the form. However, Curtain (2016), referring to
Krashen’s theory on second language acquisition, states that learners should be surrounded
with comprehensible input or language to facilitate the new language acquisition. This input
should be both meaningful and interesting to the learner. Otherwise, the brain is not likely
to engage either with the language or the information it carries.

4
 The current situation of the use of the target language in our country is not therefore
satisfactory and justifies my choice to investigate this issue with the hope that the results will
contribute to create classroom contexts where the use of the target language becomes “a
representation of what it feels like to be in the place where that language is spoken.”(Curtain,
2016:3).

I.3. Objectives of the research

The study aims at analyzing current practices with regard to teachers’ use of English as the
medium of interaction in 5ème classes and to make proposals for improvement. In order to
achieve this main objective, I set up specific objectives which are formulated as follow:

- To identify the current practices related to the EFL teachers’ use of English as the
language of instruction in 5ème classes.

- To identify the obstacles which impede the EFL teachers’ use of the target language.

- To suggest strategies teachers can use to improve their use of the target language.

I.4. Research questions and hypotheses

I.4.1. Research questions

In order to reach the above-mentioned objectives, I formulated the following research
questions.

1. Do the EFL teachers use English as the language of instruction in 5è classes?

2. What obstacles do the EFL teachers face in the use of English?

3. What strategies do the EFL teachers use to facilitate and support students’ comprehension
in this target language?

I.4.2. Research hypotheses

My research is based on the following anticipated answers to the research questions above:

1. The teachers do not use English as the medium of instruction in 5è classes.

2. The teachers are confronted with many obstacles in the use of English.

3. The teachers do not use a variety of strategies for making the input comprehensible.

5
I.5. Rationale of the study
 Personal reasons
The reasons underlying my decision to undertake this study sprang from my own
experience as an English teacher. The very first years of my profession as an English teacher,
I spent difficult moments with the students precisely those of the post-primary schools
because I used English for teaching in their classes. My belief in the effectiveness of the use
of the target language as the medium of instruction was inspired by an Irish colleague who
was teaching English in our country within the framework of the fellowship between Ireland
and Burkina Faso at the educational level. All along the unique school year spent with her,
I remarked that she conducted her lessons in English and her students’ performances were
very impressive. Indeed, they were good at Listening-comprehension and their achievements
during the common tests organized by English teachers were globally better than the rest of
the learners.

The following year, posted in another Grammar-school, I decided to follow her example,
convinced of the benefits learners would gain from their teachers’ use of the target language
in classroom interaction. But it is worth mentioning that I did not undergo any pre-service
training when I engaged in the teaching profession; so I was not aware of the current trends
in English language teaching and learning methodologies. Thus, in the post-primary classes,
my lessons, essentially based on grammar, were characterized by long hours of rules
explanations in the target language followed by mechanical drillings. During my lesson
hours, whatever the level, only the target language is used as a means of instruction and
classroom management. Not surprisingly, difficulties arose as students began protesting
against my teaching practices. My memory is still fresh with these students of a 5ème A
class who complained vehemently to their form teacher, asking for a new English teacher.
In reality, at that time, English teachers in this school did not have the same practices. While
I was struggling to use only the target language in my classes, some colleagues mixed
English with French and others conducted their lessons in French. This is what students
underlined when they were protesting.

But despite these protests, I did not renounce using only English in my classrooms. I had
a bad reputation and many other students did their best to avoid me in a given class for fear
of being obliged to converse with me in English. At the beginning of the year, they even did
not hesitate to express their satisfaction of not being in my class. But with the time, thanks
to the experience gained after some years of teaching, I became flexible in the use of English.
6
More globally, even if English still dominated my lessons, I introduced French, mainly in
beginners’ classes to deal with discipline issues and some grammar and vocabulary lessons.
I also modified my input and used pictures as well as physical movements to make the target
language comprehensible. Two years later, students of the 5è A class which I mentioned
above, who were now in 3è, asked for their new teacher to teach in English and this news
brought me some comfort. Since this period, I have been reflecting on the use of the target
language and how to address obstacles to which teachers are confronted.

As a trainee inspector, the Research work is part of the requirements for the Advanced
Certificate in Evaluation and Supervision in TEFL. Fulfilling this requirement provides me
with an opportunity to have a deep insight into the teachers’ use of the target language so as
to help them with some suggestions to better their practices.

 Professional reasons
The use of the target language as the means of instruction in beginners’ classes is a
challenge to EFL teachers. Working as an advisor, when occasions were offered to discuss
this topic with the teachers, they always shared concerns about its implementation. While
some evoked the resistance of the students or their low level, others told me that it is time-
consuming and requires a lot of energy and sacrifice. I am also quite sure that some teachers
do not use English because they are afraid of losing face even if they don’t admit it openly.
Indeed, in 2015, during the class visits organized by ENS/UK in the framework of the
preparation of the teacher trainees for the practical examination, two trainee teachers asked
us (the inspector and I) to conduct the feedback in French. We wondered how they would
conduct their lessons once their exams were over as they would not be in the same conditions
of pressure. But I know from research on the process of foreign language acquisition that
the teachers’ language input facilitates their students’ language acquisition. It is therefore a
duty for supervisors to address this challenge in order to promote the teaching and learning
of ELF. As an inspector-to-be, the present research constitutes our own contribution to
provide teachers and supervisors with practical pedagogical tools on the use of the target
language.

 Scientific reasons
This research also comes from my willingness to contribute to research in EFL Teaching
and learning by investigating the domain which does not receive much attention despite its

7
importance. The objective is to open the door for other researchers who could explore other
aspects related to the teachers’ use of the target language.

I.6. Context of the study

In this section, I consider the context in which the study is conducted. Aspects such as
the status of the English language, the syllabus and the teaching methodology, the didactic
resources and the teachers’ profiles are concerned.

I.6.1. The status of English language in the educational system

In Burkina Faso, French is the most important language in our educational system. As an
official language used in all the sectors of the national life, French is not only a subject taught
in school but also a medium of instruction for other subjects. On the contrast, officially,
English is taught as a foreign language at the post-primary and secondary levels and
informally in some private primary schools. It was introduced in our teaching and learning
system in 1947(Milogo, 1981 quoted in Zongo, 2016) but at that time its objectives were not
clearly stated and it also lacked sound syllabus and textbooks (Sawadogo, 2016 quoted in
Nazotin, 1995). It is only in 1983 that the authorities in charge of the education assigned
objectives to the teaching and learning of foreign languages including English. Indeed,
according to the circular letter Nº 105 / MENAC/ICESD (1983) of the Ministry in charge of
Education, Art and Culture at that time, the teaching and learning of foreign languages
should target the acquisition of communicative competence. Kima (1998:6) quoted by
Gaméné (2009) translated the passage related to these objectives as follows:

“From now on, the teaching of modern languages…..should

mainly aim at acquiring a sound linguistic competence, which
means that the objectives of this teaching should not only be the
mastery of languages rules, but also and mainly the ability to
communicate fluently in the language”.

Another characteristic which underlines the poor environment in which English language
evolves is the time allotted to its teaching but also its coefficient according to the class levels.
The following table shows the difference with French language.

8
 Table1: Hours and coefficients for the teaching of English
Levels 6è 5è 4è 3è 2nd A 2nd C 1ère D & Tle D 1ère A & Tle A

Number of French 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 5
hours per week
English 5 5 3 3 3 3 2 3

Coefficients French 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 5

English 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 4

Source: from Zongo, 2016

In this French-led teaching and learning environment in which English teachers are
evolving, working towards the achievement of the communicative goals as assigned by the
official instructions is a real challenge for them. EFL as Sawadogo (2014:3) puts it “is much
more a subject matter learnt and used at school rather than a language for communication.
Learners do not see the purpose of developing the proficiency except for those with special
needs.” Only Classrooms offer the possibility for students to receive and engage with the
English language input. But as the figures above show, the time allotted to the teaching and
learning of English is considerably reduced after 6ème and 5ème classes. That is why I
think that maximizing the use of the target language in the beginners’ classes is a serious
option to be considered.

I.6.2. The teachers’ profiles

In Burkina Faso, English teachers broadly fall into two categories. The first category is
composed of DEUG II and Licence holders who received a pre-service training in a training
school. The DEUG II holders are recruited among students in Linguistiques, Lettres
Modernes and English. As for the Licence, only those who studied English are concerned.
After two years training crowned with success, the DEUG II holders are rewarded the
“Certificat d’Aptitude au Professorat de Collèges d’Enseignement Général” (cap-ceg) and
are allowed to teach French and English from 6ème to 3ème classes with twenty-two hours
load per week. The licence holders are rewarded the “Certificat d’Aptitude au Professorat
de l’Enseignement secondaire” (CAPES) and can teach English from 6ème to Terminale
with eighteen hours load per week.

9
 The second category of teachers concerns those who do not benefit from any pre-service
training when they engage in the teaching profession. They are recruited with the same
academic degrees as their colleagues who undergo a professional training. Thus, teachers
who are recruited with DEUG II in Lettres Modernes, Linguistiques, Sociologie or English
teach French and English in the Post-Primary classes. As for licence holders, they teach only
English at the post-primary and secondary levels.

In addition to these categories, we can add the primary teachers, holders of university
degrees who are converted into post-primary and secondary school teachers. Since 2016,
within the framework of job creation program, short term post-primary teachers have been
recruited among the young unemployed , holding at a least a DEUG II degree in ‘Lettres
Modernes’, ‘Linguistiques’, ‘Sociologie’, ‘art et communication’ or English to teach French
and English. It’s also worth mentioning that in some private schools, teachers are recruited
among students of psychology and other scientific subjects and some of them have no more
than baccalaureate level ( Sawadogo: 2014).

I.6.3. The syllabus

Officially, the syllabus which should be in use in the first cycle is the one adopted in
2010. It copes with the communicative goal that is assigned to the English. For example, at
the level 5è, the outcomes clearly state that the “learners will be able to produce in speech
and writing meaningful language related to their immediate environment”. That’s why, the
syllabus takes into account the notions and the functions of the language, with topics or
themes based on lessons. Teaching and learning English should be therefore organized
around the four skills and not be limited to a mere mastery of the isolated grammatical
elements. But what is given to see during class visits is that teachers do not use this syllabus.
This is what some inspectors have already underlined in their work. For Kambou (2016),
Sawadogo (2016) and Zongo (2016), teachers are confronted with different kinds of
difficulties in the implementation of the new syllabus. Consequently, many continue with
the old one. This syllabus was promulgated under” decision nº321/ENAC/SD/ du 17 Juillet
1984” (Zongo: 2016: quoted from Zida: 2010) and consisted of a list of grammatical
structures that teachers implement following the 3 Ps (Presentation, Practice, Production)
methodology. But as Gaméné (2009) has already revealed through his work on teaching
Grammar in 3ème classes, teachers’ practices do not take into account the communicative
features. They are oriented towards the grammar-translation and audio-visual methods.

10
 The difficulties encountered in the implementation of the new syllabus and the traditional
teaching methods do not create learning contexts which support the teachers’ use of the target
language. However, for Curtain (2016), “students do not want to learn Grammar rules and
isolated Vocabulary words, they want to speak in the target language”. So, there is a
necessity to provide teachers with textbooks on the syllabus and a training on
communicative language teaching.

I.7. Scope and limits of the study

The present research is basically an exploratory study which aims at getting into a deeper
insight of the teachers’ practices with regards to the use of the target language in order to
help the beginner students in the process of the foreign language acquisition.

I am aware that I cannot cover all the facets of this topic in only one study. That is why
this study will mainly investigate teachers’ practices in relation to the use of the target
language in 5ème classes and check whether these practices can facilitate learners’ language
development.

I have also decided to focus on 5ème class learners because in the context of teaching and
learning EFL, they are considered as beginners, along with the pupils of 6ème. This learning
stage is judicious for the teachers’ use of the target language to engrain in the learners the
habit of hearing the target language. As the saying goes “the sooner the better.” In addition,
at this level, the students are still very motivated to learn English as it is only their second
year of contact with this language. They are therefore eager to listen to the teacher speak to
them in the target language. The time allocation at this class level as well as in 6eme is also
the most significant (five hours). Using the target language and providing the students with
comprehensible input is a key issue as it will shape the students’ perception of the target
language, and determine their attitude towards the use of this language for the coming years.

Besides, I limited this study to the “Direction Regionale du Centre-Est” because of time
constraints and financial reasons. The choice of this Region is also justified by the fact I have
worked in the “Centre-Est” for seven (7) years as an English teacher and then as a trainee-
advisor during one school-year.

However, I hope that the limited coverage of the investigation does not affect negatively
the quality of my work and it will yield significant suggestions to help teachers improve their
use of the target language for the benefit of their students.

11
Chapter II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The key purpose of the present chapter is to explore what other research has said about the
use of the target language by foreign language teachers. This can permit to get a good
understanding of the topic and to base the analysis of the research findings on sound
theoretical principles. It starts with the theories and language teaching approaches or
methods related to the teachers’ use of the target language. Then, the review of literature
deals with the proficiency in the target language, the role of the target language input and
the target language interaction. It also explores literature related to strategies for providing
comprehensible input. The last part examines teachers’ attitudes toward the use of the target
language and the students’ reactions.

II .1. Theoretical perspective

I placed the current work under the socio cultural theory, and Krashen’s Monitor model
which better account for the teachers’ target language use within the framework of
communicative approach to foreign language teaching and learning.

II.1.1. The sociocultural theory

Sociocultural theory is a theory of the development of higher mental practices which
regards social interaction as the core of communication and learning process. Initially
proposed by Vygotsky, it refers to the human learning processes in general, which include
language learning. Later, researchers such as Lantolf, Donato, Thorne, Pavlenko, Swain and
Lapkin (Ivana, 2012) extended Vygotsky’s theory to second language acquisition and
focused mainly on how second language acquisition can be explained through the
sociocultural perspective, that is, how second language learners acquire language when they
collaborate and interact with other speakers.

One of the outstanding features of the sociocultural theory is considering learning as social
in nature where meaning is derived through language use within social context. Contrary to
the followers of cognitive theories who believe in mediation between stimulus and response,
Vygotsky’s (1978) theory investigates the context of the behavior or the social situation
where the action occurs. The basic assumption in this theory is that learning and cognitive
development (which include language as well) occur as a result of social interactions. It
argues that “while human neurobiology is a necessary condition for higher order thinking,
the most important forms of human cognitive activity develop through interaction within

12
social and material environments” (Lantolf and Thorne, 2006a :201). Such cultural and
linguistic settings include family life, peer groups, schooling and organized sport activities.
In other words, interaction with people and artefacts from the environment are essential in
the development of thinking. Vygotsky (1986) considered Language as an important
mediational tool in the development of learners’ higher mental processes. It enables the
developing communicative and cognitive functions to move from the ‘inter psychological’
to’ intra psychological plane’ that is, from the social to the personal level. This procedure
necessitates children’s active involvement in social interactions with peers and adults. As
Pavlenko and Lantolf (2000) argue, children have agency and intentions which enable them
to learn and construct their understandings through interaction with the environment.
Therefore, from the sociocultural perspective, language is of interest not only for
communication but for thought itself in its functional sense. Thus, Lightbown and Spada
(2006) explained that sociocultural theory views speaking and thinking as “tightly
interwoven”. People internalize what is being said in the communicative process (by them
as well as by others) and through this activity, they gain control over their mental processes
or in other words, speaking mediates thinking.

In addition, the opportunity of using language as a means of making sense of experiences

with others is a crucial step in learning to use language meaningfully, appropriately and
effectively (Park 2005). It enables the child to internalize the language and carries it into
further performance. The value of imitation is also emphasized for children’s language
learning, arguing that internalization through imitation is not a matter of just miming and
copying but entails an active, and frequently creative reasoning process (Lantolf and Thorne
2006, Speidel and Nelson, 1989).

The sociocultural theory also views learners as active meaning-makers and problem-solvers
in their learning process. As Hatfield (1996) underlines, learning in sociocultural theory is
done through problem-solving activities which engage learners in the use of the language as
a tool to complete tasks rather than learning it as an end in itself. Confirming Mitchell and
Myles’ (2004) point of view, GUOXING (2004) states that learners in this sense are
responsible for their own learning environment and the environment can nurture and scaffold
them. However, it is worth mentioning that the sociocultural perspective is not on the
individual but on the individual’s surroundings. Wertsch (1991), emphasizes that
sociocultural view should be distinguished from the other perspectives such as
constructivism based on the context or surrounding of the learner. Learning is considered as

13
the product of shared activity and the traditional teacher-student relationship should be
changed to one that leads to collaborative learning (Zhang, Fanyu, and Duy, 2013). When
learners get involved in doing certain tasks, with the help of another learner or the teacher,
they internalize the way to carry out the same task by themselves. Norris et al. (1988) for
instance, state that the best way to learn and teach a language is through social interactions.
[…. They] allow students to work towards a clear goal, share information and opinions,
negotiate meaning, get the interlocutor’s help in comprehending input and receive feedback
on their language production. This explains why the teachers’ use of the target language is
so important for the children’s language development because the cooperative learning
entails as Ohta (2001) stated, “vicarious” participation in which learners observe the
linguistic behavior of others and attempt to imitate it through private speech or dialogue with
the self.

Underlying the relevance of the sociocultural theory, (Pavlenko and Lantolf 2000, cited in
Davies, 2007) stated that one of the key contributions of the sociocultural theory to the issue
of the learning process is that of the ‘participation’ which combines the social context with
individual acquisition. In other words, in order for an individual to become a competent
speaker of a language, the mere personal effort would not result in the mastery of the
language unless he benefits from other people’s( especially adults) participation to negotiate
through the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).

II.1.1.1. The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is as Smidt (2009) notes, one of Vygotsky’s
central contributions to teaching and learning. This concept shows that a zone exists between
current knowledge and potential knowledge. Vygotsky states that this zone is where learning
occurs for a child. According to Vygotsky(1978:86), the Zone of Proximal Development
(ZPD) is “ the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent
problem-solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem-
solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers”. To bridge the
gap between Vygotsky’s theory of ZPD and its utility in foreign language classroom, Ohta
(2001) presented an adapted version of Vygotsky’s definition suitable to this context: “for
the L2 learner, the ZPD is the distance between the actual development level as determined
by individual linguistic production and the level of potential development as determined
through language produced collaboratively with a peer or teacher.” In other words, a student

14
who is in the process of learning a concept in the foreign language may benefit from working
with a more knowledgeable peer in the target language who can help them navigate through
the ZPD (Bridget C. Pinsonneault, 2008). According to Vygotsky (1978), the ZPD helps in
determining a child’s mental functions that have not yet matured but are in the process of
maturation, functions that are currently in an embryonic state but will mature tomorrow.
(Shayer 2002, cited in Turuk 2008, vol.5) claims that a crucial feature of learning according
to Vygotsky is that it creates a ZPD, that is to say, learning awakens a variety of internal
developmental processes that are able to operate only when the child is interacting with
people in his environment and in cooperation with his peers. Once these processes are
internalised, they become part of the child’s independent developmental achievement.

The ZPD has proved a very attractive concept for educators but its interpretation has been
controversial. Shayer (2002) claims that Vygotsky himself did not offer much practical
advice as to how ZPD might be successfully applied in classrooms. So, what means can help
learners progress from one level to the next in school contexts? The concept of scaffolding
has been developed in neo-vygotskyan discussions.

II.1.1.2 Scaffolding
Scaffolding has been connected to Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). As
stated above, to expand and bridge the ZPD, learners need to receive support from an expert
through scaffolding. Borrowed from the field of construction, where a scaffold is a
temporary structure erected to help with the building or modification of another structure,
Wood et al. (1976) adopted the scaffolding metaphor to explain the role that adults can play
in joint problem-solving activities with the children. Donato (1994) extends the notion by
suggesting that scaffolding is a framework for peer interaction and individuals can scaffold
one another. The concept of scaffolding therefore suggests that the knowledgeable person
(adult, teacher or peer) helps the less knowledgeable (child or student) to accomplish a task
which he or she would not otherwise be able to do by himself or herself. It is also interpreted
as anything a learner benefits from or consults with, which might be a dictionary, grammar
books, and the traditional classroom technique of Initiative, Response and Follow-up (IRF)
or any corrective feedback provided by the teacher.

According to McKenzie (1999), scaffolding provides such advantages as give clear

directions for the students, clarify purpose of the task and therefore help the learners pursue
their goal. It also offers assessment to clarify expectations, points students to worthy sources

15
and reduces uncertainty, surprise and disappointment. Lastly, it delivers efficiency and
creates momentum. As Donato (1994) puts it, “scaffolded performance is a dialogically
constituted interpsychological mechanism that promotes the novice’s internalisation of
knowledge co-constructed in shared activity” (p.41).

The concept of scaffolding is essential in the EFL context. As Turuk (2008) points out,
foreign language learners need coaching and explicit instruction in order to appropriate the
fundamental skills of the language. There is still a need for learning tasks and stages to be
grated to facilitate easy understanding and knowledgeable persons (teachers, instructors) to
take learners through different layers of knowledge and understanding before being left on
their own. The teachers’ target language should also be scaffolded to sustain effective
communication in the classroom, and provide learners with ample input which could
facilitate language acquisition. Teachers’ ability to use the target language through fine
tuning it makes it comprehensible for learners. Supports for communication such as
language ladders or picture prompts, body language, linguistic modifications and continuous
modeling are all part of scaffolding.

II.1.2. Krashen’s Monitor Model

The rationale for the teachers’ use of the target language in classes is based on the Monitor
Model, a theory on the second or foreign language acquisition developed by the linguist
Stephen Krashen in the 1980s. According to the Monitor Model, five (05) hypotheses
account for the acquisition of a second language: The acquisition- learning distinction, the
Natural order hypothesis, the Monitor hypothesis, the Input hypothesis and the Affective
Filter hypothesis.

II.1.2.1. Acquisition- Learning Hypothesis

According to Krashen (1982), there are two ways of developing language ability: the
language acquisition and the language learning. The acquisition is the product of a
subconscious process very similar to the process children undergo when they acquire their
first language. It requires meaningful interaction in the target language (natural
communication) in which speakers are concentrated not in the form of their utterances, but
in the communicative act. Language learning, on the other hand, is the product of formal
instruction and it comprises a conscious process which results in conscious acceptance of

16
knowledge about the language, for example knowledge of grammar rules. For Krashen,
learning is less important than acquisition.

This theory is important for the EFL teachers to consider when dealing with teaching
approaches and practices. As it stipulates that the optimal way a language is learned is
through natural communication, the ideal is to create situation wherein language is used in
order to fulfill authentic purposes. This in turn helps students to acquire the language instead
of just learning it. (Olenka Billash, 2009).

II.1.2.2. Monitor Hypothesis

This hypothesis further explains how acquisition and learning are used. According to Mc
Laughlin (1987, quoted by Mitchell and Myles, 2004), the Monitor Hypothesis states that
‘learning has only one function, that is as a Monitor or an Editor’, and that learning comes
into play ‘only to make changes in the form of our utterance after it has been produced by
our acquired system’. Acquisition ‘initiates’ the speaker’s utterances and is responsible for
fluency. Thus, the Monitor is thought to alter the output of the acquired system before or
after the utterance is actually written or spoken, but the utterance is initiated entirely by the
acquired system. Krashen states that monitoring can make some contribution to the
accuracy of an utterance but its use should be limited. He suggests that the ‘Monitor’ can
sometimes act as a barrier as it forces the learner to slow down and focus more on accuracy
as opposed to fluency.

II.1.2.3. The Natural Order Hypothesis

According to Krashen, learners acquire parts of language in a predictable order. For any
given language, certain grammatical structures are acquired early while others are acquired
later in the process. This hypothesis suggests that this natural order of acquisition occurs
independently of deliberate teaching, and therefore, teachers cannot change the order of a
grammatical teaching sequence.

II.1.2.4. The Input Hypothesis

The Input Hypothesis is the masterpiece of Krashen’s five (05) hypotheses of the theory of
second or foreign language acquisition. It addresses the question of how we acquire the
second or foreign language. According to Krashen (1982), language is only acquired in one
condition- by understanding messages or by receiving ‘comprehensible input’. The
comprehensible input refers to the language that learners need to receive and it is a bit higher

17
than their current level or stage of language competence. Krashen defined it in details in his
“i + l “hypothesis”. The letter ‘I’ stands for input, which corresponds to the students’ current
language proficiency level. The ‘+l’ is exposure to slightly more advanced language that
leads to acquisition. To understand this language input, (i+1), the comprehension hypothesis
states that we can use the language we have already acquired, our knowledge of the world
and the context. As for the beginners, pictures as well as body movements are necessary to
make this input comprehensible. Krashen (1985) also mentioned that if the input hypothesis
is correct, it has two corollaries. The first is that speaking is a result of acquisition, not its
cause. The ability to speak is a result of building competence via comprehensible input. The
second corollary is related to teaching grammar. If input is understood and there is enough
of it, the necessary grammar is automatically provided. The language teacher needs not
attempt deliberately to teach the next structure along the natural order. It will be provided in
just the right quantities and automatically reviewed if the student receives a sufficient
amount of comprehensible input.

The input theory provides implications for teaching and learning EFL in beginner classes.
Teachers should fill the language classrooms with comprehensible input to expose learners
to language input in large quantities. That’s why, the American Council on the Teaching of
Foreign Languages (ACTFL) in its 2012 position statement on the use of target language
recommends the use of the target language for a minimum of 90-plus percent of the time
(Curtain, 2016). To make this input comprehensible for beginners, Krashen (1985) indicates
that teachers should use pictures, realia, body movements to create contexts for the use of
the target language. They should also modify their speech and base their teaching on
activities such as songs, games and stories.

II.1.2.5. The Hypothesis Filter

According to Ricardo Schutz (1998) The Affective Filter hypothesis embodies Krashen’s
view that a number of ‘affective variables’ play a facilitative but non-causal role in second
language acquisition. These variables include: motivation, self-confidence and anxiety.
Krashen claims that learners with high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-image and a
low level of anxiety can do better in foreign language acquisition. Low motivation, low self-
esteem and debilitating anxiety can combine to ‘raise’ the affective filter and form a ‘mental
block’ that prevents learners from utilizing fully comprehensible input they receive for
language acquisition. In other words, when the affective filter is ‘up’, it impedes language
acquisition.

18
 The language classroom is very different from other classrooms because the lessons are
conducted in a language in which the learners are far from being proficient. For Jones (2004),
this may have an impact on the learners’ willingness to contribute in the target language due
to anxiety about being asked to perform in front of classmates, because it brings the risk of
embarrassment. According to (Crichton( 2006), although privately, secondary school pupils
admit that making mistakes is part of the learning process, Horwitz et al. (1986) and Young
(1999) state that they are at an age where their peers’ opinions are significant and social
factors such as their fear of ridicule for making mistakes is prominent. This unease may be
exacerbated by being asked to take the risk of speaking in front of their peers whose opinion
may well be regarded as central to the individual pupil’s self-esteem.

Teachers should therefore create a safe and positive emotional environment in order to
lower their students’ affective filter, and contribute to their success. They must avoid
overemphasizing on error correction or laughing at mistakes made by the learners. They
should also institute a policy in the class that prohibits students from making fun of their
peers. Olenka (2009) added that teachers should let the students know who they are as
persons so that they can start to trust them and feel comfortable around them. Furthermore,
the students should know what the teachers expect from them and what they can expect from
the teachers. When speaking to the students, teachers should use humour, address the
students by name, use eye contact, positive language and try to interact outside of the
classroom.

II.2. Language Teaching Approaches/Methods and teachers’ use of the

target language.
On the field of teaching and learning foreign language, there are many approaches/methods.
But for the purpose of my study, the Natural Approach, the Total Physical Response and the
communicative language teaching were taken into account as they were considered relevant
to our topic.

II.2.1. The Natural Approach

The Natural Approach was developed by Tracy Terrel and Stephen Krashen in the late
1970s and early 1980s. Krashen and Terrel (1998) identified the Natural Approach with
what they call “traditional” approaches to language teaching. Traditional approaches are
defined as “based on the use of language in communicative situations without recourse to

19
the native language”- and perhaps, without references to grammatical analysis, grammatical
drilling, or a particular theory of grammar. Krashen and Terrel (1983:9) noted that such”
approaches have been called natural, psychological, phonetic, new, reform, direct, analytic,
imitative and so forth”. So, the term natural, as Jack C. Richards and Theodore S. Rodgers
(1994) underlined, means that the principles underlying the method were believed to
conform to the principles of naturalistic language learning in young children. Krashen and
Terrell see communication as the primary function of language, and since their approach
focuses on teaching communicative abilities, they refer to the Natural Approach as an
example of a communicative approach.

Teachers’ use of the target language is essential in the Natural Approach. As a matter of
fact, the Natural Approach is grounded on Krashen’s views of language acquisition. The
approach follows his five (05) hypotheses for language acquisition which are the Acquisition
/Learning Hypothesis, the Monitor Hypothesis, the Natural Order Hypothesis, the Affective
Filter Hypothesis and the Input Hypothesis. These five hypotheses imply the foreign
language teacher is the primary source of comprehensible input in the target language, and
he should incorporate plenty of comprehensible input in his lessons while providing a
multiplicity of nonlinguistic clues to assist students in interpreting the input. To lower the
affective filter, the teacher should create a classroom atmosphere that is interesting and
friendly. This characteristic is achieved through such techniques as not demanding speech
from the students before they are ready for it, not correcting students’ errors and providing
activities that center on meaningful communication rather than on form.

II.2.2. Total Physical Response

Total Physical Response or TPR is a language teaching method developed by James Asher,
an American professor of psychology, in1965. According to Jack C. Richards and Theodore
S. Rodgers (2001), TPR is a language method built around the coordination of speech and
action; it attempts to teach language through physical (motor) activity.

Richards and Theodore S. Rodgers (2001), quoting Asher (1981) stated that TPR uses
command forms as children respond physically before they respond orally. TPR has the
teacher give students commands in the target language. Most of this method centers on using
a verb in its imperative form. For Asher (2000), the best language acquisition experience is
to comprehend the target language before speaking the target language. He claims his

20
method allows for this to occur, in that the students are showing it through their response to
commands before speaking. So, Listening comprehension is a suitable activity for TPR.

Total Physical Response is based on the theory that the memory is enhanced through
association with physical movement. It is also closely associated with theories of mother
tongue language acquisition in very young children. Indeed, Asher (1981), quoted by
Richards and Theodore S. Rodgers (2001), considers first and second language acquisition
to be comparable processes. He assumes that students can learn a second language the same
way infants learn their first language. Children develop listening skills before they can speak.
For him, in all languages throughout history, infants do not acquire speaking before
comprehension. These skills are acquired as children respond physically to spoken language
in the form of commands. So, for example, when a caregiver says, “Pick up your doll”, the
child does so without saying anything at first. Speech evolves as a basic in listening skills is
acquired. Therefore, Asher stated that listening skills in the foreign language should be
acquired in conjunction with physical movement.

In this method, only the target language is used to direct physical responses from the
students. This exposure of the learners to the target language is made less complex as most
of this method centers on imperatives accompanied by teachers’ physical movements to
transfer or communicate information. And since it is a method that does not require the
foreign language learner to speak at first, it lowers the affective filter of the learner.
Therefore, the learning environment becomes stress free in the sense that the children are
required to respond through movement instead of doing it orally, when first learning the
target language. Young children like also activities that involve movement and have difficult
time sitting still for long periods of time.

II.2.3. Communicative language teaching

The communicative approach is the product of educators and linguists who had grown
dissatisfied with the audio-lingual and grammar -translation methods of foreign language
instruction. Until the later part of the 20th century, the theoretical foundations of language
were firmly anchored in behavioral psychology and structuralism which held that learning
mainly took place through a process of repetition and habit forming. Language teaching was
typically divided into four skills categories, including the active skills of speaking and
writing as well as the passive skills of listening and reading (Savignon, 1991). Foreign
language lessons often centered on rehearsing a fixed repertoire of grammatical patterns and

21
vocabulary items until they could be reproduced easily and precisely, with a low tolerance
for error. However, Richards (2006) points out that because the focus of learning was
primarily confined to accuracy of production rather than meaningful interaction, individuals
taught according to this approach, experienced considerable difficulty in real-life
communicative encounters.

When the communicative approach was first developed in the 1970s, it was seen as the
definitive response to the shortcomings of previous approaches and the communication
needs of a globalized world (William Littlewood, 2013). The communicative language
teaching is based on the theory that the primary function of the language use is
communication. Arguing against Chomsky (1957), Hymes (1971) proposed that knowing a
language involves more than knowing a set of grammatical, lexical, and phonological rules.
In order to use the language effectively, Hymes (1971) posited, learners need to develop
communicative competence, that is to say, the ability to use the language they are learning
appropriately in a given social encounter.

Canale and Swain (1980) defined communicative competence as the ability to enact
appropriate social behaviors, and it requires the active involvement of the learners in the
production of the target language. Such a notion encompasses a wide range of abilities: the
knowledge of grammar and vocabulary (linguistic competence); the ability to say the
appropriate thing in a certain social situation (socio linguistic competence); the ability to
start, enter, contribute to, and end a conversation, and the ability to do this in a consistent
and coherent manner (discourse competence); the ability to communicate effectively and
repair problems caused by communication breakdowns (strategic competence). In sum, the
communicative approach, as Lightbown and Spada (2006) put it, aims to use the target
language as much as possible as the means of communication in the classroom in a natural
and meaningful way, while also addressing the need to understand the form of the language.

Authors offer various views of Communicative Language Teaching within the framework
of communicative competence proposed by Canale and Swain. So, as frequently
misunderstood, Communicative Language Teaching is not a method per se. That is to say, it
is not a method in the sense by which content, a syllabus and teaching routines are clearly
identified (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). Communicative Language Teaching has left its
doors wide open for a great variety of methods and techniques. There is no single text or
authority on it, nor any single model that is universally accepted as authoritative. By and
large, it uses materials and utilizes methods that are appropriate to a given context of
22
learning. This is reflected in Howatt’s (1984) distinction between a “strong” version and a
“weak” version of the communicative language teaching (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). The
“strong” version has similarities to the Direct Method where the focus is on ‘using the
Foreign Language to learn it’, where grammar is learnt inductively as the learners
experiment with the different forms of the language. the “weak” version emphasizes the
importance of providing learners with opportunities to use their ‘foreign language’ for
communicative purposes within a wider programme of teaching and learning which includes
a focus on grammar structures, which may include some instruction in the students’ L1. The
“weak” version is widely accepted as the most effective means of all the approaches that
have been used so far in teaching school pupils to communicate in a foreign language
confidently and competently (HLMIe 1990, DFES, 2003). A common approach within this
model is Presentation, Practice, and Production (PPP). Learners progress from the
presentation of new language by the teacher to controlled pair or group practice before using
the language independently. Teachers can make use of activities such as games, role plays
and simulations in order to create contexts for their target language use and give students
opportunities to use this language to express their own meanings.

Despite the lack of universally accepted models, from early, there has been some degree of
consensus regarding qualities required to justify the label ‘CLT’ which Wesche and Skehan
(2002) described as follow:

Activities that require frequent interaction among learners or with other interlocutors to
exchange information and solve problems.

Use of authentic texts (non-pedagogic) texts and communication activities linked to “real
world” contexts, often emphasizing links across written and spoken modes and channels.

Approaches that are learner-centered in that they take into account learners’ backgrounds,
language needs, and goals and generally allow learners some creativity and role in
instructional decisions.

These features above show that Communicative Approach to teaching and learning foreign
language presupposes that learners will be given opportunities to use language. A language
which reflects the ‘real world’ as much as possible so that learners are prepared for
conversations with native speakers outside the classroom. It is an implicit call for teachers
to set communicative tasks where the students work either in pairs or in groups. A genuinely
communicative activity as described by Gatbonton and Segalowitz (2005:331) “… involves

23
at least two participants working together to complete a task by exchanging information
possessed by one and not the other.” In this way, the interaction functions like a catalyst that
promotes language acquisition as learners make changes in their language when they interact
or negotiate meaning. Pica and Mayo (2000) show that through the negotiation of meaning
found in group work and pair work interactions, learners are provided with opportunities to
receive comprehensible input as well as produce the comprehensible output in the target
language, both of which are important when establishing conditions necessary for L2
language learning. As a matter of fact, the process of negotiation between learners takes
place during the course of their interaction when either interlocutor signals that the other’s
message has not been understood. These signals arise in the forms of questions or comments
about the language, called the trigger. The other responds by repeating the message,
modifying the message in more simplified terms, repeating a segment of the utterance or
paraphrasing the utterance until the message is understood by all interlocutors. These
modification strategies are used during interaction to repair communication or negotiate the
meaning of the intended message. In these language classes where learners are expected to
take an active part in the interaction, the teacher will play the role of interlocutor, pushing
the learners to respond by collaborating with them to make meaning in the target language.

In order to be able to interact just as they did when learning their first language, the
Communicative Approach advocates teachers’ maximum use of target language during
instruction. For Swain (1985), the exclusive or nearly exclusive use of the target language
has been justified under what has come to be called a “maximum exposure hypothesis”, that
is, learners need as much exposure to the target language as possible because the greater
the amount of input, the greater the gains in the new language input. When learners live in
a target language culture, as learners of a ‘second language’, they are exposed to the language
outside the classroom, in the streets, business and in the media. For the learners in their own
culture as well as learners of foreign language, exposure to the extensive target language
outside the classroom may be less feasible unless the learner has ready access to native
speakers.

II.3. Proficiency in the target language

In this section, I examine the issue on the proficiency in the target language. The intention
is to underline the importance of the teachers’ use of the target language in lessons.

24
 Omaggio Hadley (2000) defined the term proficiency as the degree or level of competence
(what a person knows about a language) and performance (how a person can use a language)
in a second or foreign language. There is a variation in the degrees of proficiency each person
attains as a result of a variety of individual learner differences. These factors include
motivation, aptitude, life experiences and learning style preferences.

Since the ultimate goal of foreign language teaching is the acquisition of the ability to
communicate in meaningful and appropriate ways with users of other languages, the
Communicative Language Teaching has spawned various movements such as the proficient
– based movement. While the early days were concerned with finding best designs and
practices, the proficient – based movement contributed to the field of language teaching by
putting forwards a set of proficiency guidelines. The Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages (CEFRL) provides a common basis for describing the skills needed
to reach different levels of language proficiency. It outlines various levels of language
proficiency in the modalities of listening, spoken interaction, spoken production, reading and
writing. The proficiency guidelines are arranged into three (03) broad levels of performance,
ranging from proficient, to independent and basic, with the levels being further subdivided,
creating a framework of six global levels of performance (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 and C2). The
common reference points are based on a set of statements that describe what a learner can
do and allow for an accurate assessment of his language proficiency.

In the context of teaching and learning EFL in Burkina, the level A2 best describes the
levels of performance expected from the learners in the present study. Indeed, it is at this
point that the majority of descriptors stating social functions are to be found, like use simple
every day polite forms of greeting and address; greet people, ask how they are and react to
news; handle very short social exchanges; ask and answer questions about what they do at
work and in free time, make and respond to invitations; discuss what to do, where to go, and
make arrangements to meet; make and accept offers.

Proficiency is not typically attained through the adoption of one specific methodology or
approach but rather, a contextualized, eclectic, and flexible approach that is responsive to
learners’ needs and preferences is what ensures that students will be successful on their road
to developing language proficiency (Omaggio Hadley, 2000). Regardless of the
combination of methodologies used, the key components to developing language proficiency
is the provision of comprehensible input, production of student output and provision of
opportunities for interaction in and with the target language. But, for the sake of my study, I
25
explored the use of the target language by teachers in language classes as it provides
opportunities for provision of input and interaction in the target language.

II.4. Using the target language as the medium of instruction

In this section, first, I consider literature in favour of teacher’s maximum use of the target
language in the classroom. Then, the research study deals with literature findings derived
from literature in relation with strategies for teaching in the target language, and making the
input comprehensible. Lastly, I present findings that reveal the extent to which teachers
around the world use second/foreign language during instruction. I also explore students’
reactions to the teachers’ use of the target language.

II.4.1. The role of target language input

Input refers to the language the learner is exposed to, that is to say from reading or listening,
or the case of sign language from visual language (Gass and Mackey (2007)). This definition
includes everything that the learners encounter: what the instructor says and uses; what is
read and viewed; what learners access, and online resources whether websites or video chats
etc.…

In language classes, teachers’ talk serves as the target language input for the learners.
Richards (1992:471) defined teacher talk as “that variety of language sometimes used by
teachers when they are in the process of teaching. In trying to communicate with learners,
teachers often simplify their speech, giving it many characteristics of foreign talk and other
simplified styles of speech addressed to language learners”. Having studied the second
language acquisition for many years, Rod Ellis (1985:145) has formulated his own view
about teacher talk: “Teacher talk is the special language that teachers use when addressing
L2 learners in the classroom. There is systematic simplification of the formal properties of
the teacher’s language”. This reflection can be extended to EFL contexts as well. For Wong-
Fillmore (1985), the language used by teachers in the language classroom is different from
the language in subject lesson. It serves not only as a means of transferring knowledge and
information for learning but also as the object of the learning and teaching that students must
acquire. In her study on characteristics of teacher talk, she raised the point that not all teacher
talk worked as input for learners. For teacher talk to serve as appropriate input, it should
have the following features:

26
 a) Clear separation of language: a language teacher should make no mixing or
alternation between the students L1 and the target language.

b) Emphasis on communication and comprehension: this is done by making

modifications and adjustments in the language the teacher uses.

c) Grammaticality and appropriateness of language used in the lesson: the language

used by the teacher is entirely grammatical and appropriate.

d) Repetitiveness: there is a high use of repetition

e) Repeated use of pattern and routines.

f) Inviting students’ participation: teachers may involve students in their lessons by

using turn allocation procedure.

g) Richness of language: the language of the teachers is rich and playful.

In many approaches to foreign language acquisition, input is seen as being a highly

important factor in acquisition and research demonstrates that the amount of input learners
receive impacts their proficiency development. According to Turnbull (2001), the
fundamental theoretical rationale for maximizing teachers’ use of the target language is to
expose learners to as much target language input as possible, thereby having positive effects
on target language proficiency. Creating a target language environment sends to the students
the message that the target language is a means of real communication. As the teacher models
effective use of the target language in authentic situations, this can motivate the learners to
do likewise.

In terms of English language learning in Burkina, the time available for the students is
limited. Most often, the students’ primary, if not only, contact with English is in lessons. As
a result, the EFL teacher often becomes, as Crawford (2004) and Turnbull (2001) put it, the
sole linguistic model of the target language. For Bateman (2008) it is therefore crucial for
teachers to maximize the amount of target language used in the classroom setting; thus
exposing foreign language learners to as many functions of the language as possible.

In the same vein, Halliwell and Jones (1991), Meiring and Norman (2002) argue that the
use of the target language as the normal language of interaction in the language classroom
deeply impact the students’ language proficiency as it develops an awareness of language
through the use of L1/L2 clarifications and comparisons, improves learners pronunciation in

27
the target language and develops students problem-solving skills as learners attempt to repair
communication breakdowns. In addition, it enables learners to deal with the unpredictable
nature of authentic language use, motivates learners to autonomously create new and
authentic speech and develop a cultural awareness and alternative points of view around the
world. It also conveys to learners that language is a genuine vehicle for communication
rather than an intellectual exercise. Indeed, if the teacher treats the language as more than
just a subject but shows the value of the language by using it, students will be more likely to
gain a better appreciation of the language. They can use that teacher as an example or model
for production. Lastly, it promotes confidence and facility with Listening –comprehension
and facilitates experimentation with the target language.

Curtain (2016) shares the same conviction when she stated that when teachers use the target
language for all classroom purposes, the language is used for communication and there is
more motivation to learn. She reported that if learners are speaking the target language 50%
of the time, students will be learning the target language 50% of the time. During the other
50% of the time when the teacher is speaking L1, students will be learning about the
language. Thus, the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) in
its 2012 position statement on the use of target language recommends the use of the target
language for a minimum of 90-plus percent of the time. It is especially important for the
teacher to use the new language for regular classroom tasks, such as giving directions,
organizing activities and managing behavior.

Turnbull (2001) refers to his 1998 research study in which the teachers’ use of the target
language impacted the students’ language proficiency in the target language. He studied four
grade nine (9) teachers over a period of eight (08) weeks and observed that the amount of
French the teachers speak in class ranged from 9 to 89%. He found that students of the
teachers who spoke primarily in the target language outperformed students in all measures
of general proficiency and achievement in classes where the teacher spoke less of the target
language. Turnbull (2001) also refers to a number of empirical studies conducted in the
1960s and 1970s as evidence that the teachers’ use of the target language positively impacted
the learners’ proficiency in the target language. Although differences existed in the settings
and levels of instruction, both found that there was positive relationship between the amount
of target language the instructors used, and the students’ achievement and proficiency in the
target language.

28
 Wong-Fillmore (1985) also agrees that it is important for second/ foreign language learners
to be exposed to as much target language as possible, and that the amount of target language
input the teacher provides, directly affects students’ target language proficiency. She
conducted several three-year longitudinal studies of approximately 40 elementary schools
serving limited English proficient (LEP) students. She concluded that classrooms differ in
the degrees to which they promote language learning and in the language skills students
develop based on the amount of target language the teacher uses. She argues that teachers
can greatly influence language learning in their classes depending on their use of the target
language during classroom instructional events, and by the opportunities they make available
for students to use the target language during instruction.

II.4.2. The role of target language interaction

My study focuses on the teacher’s use of the target language. So, in this section of the
review of literature, I explore research findings which deal with the role of teacher’s
interactional moves in students’ language acquisition.

The New Oxford Dictionary defines the noun “Interaction” as a “reciprocal action or
influence”. For Vera Lucia (2011), the word “interaction” is formed by the prefix “inter”,
which implies togetherness, reciprocity and the noun “action”. So interaction is a mutual
activity which requires at least the involvement of two persons and which causes mutual
effect. Ellis (1990:1) defines interaction as “social behavior that occurs when one person
communicates with other”. For Alexander (2000:397), “interaction can be defined as an
exchange containing either a complete Initiation- Response- Feedback (IRF) sequence or a
partial Initiation- Response one”. Interaction is a characteristic of any living species and is
crucial for language acquisition. Ellis (1990) sees interaction as the primary purpose for our
species’ specific language capacity.

Ellis (1990:12) as cited in Kaboré (2015:24) defined classroom interaction as “… not only
to those exchanges involving authentic communication but to every oral exchange that
occurs in the classroom, including those that arise in the course of formal drilling”. He
argued that “interaction is meaning-focused and carried out to facilitate the exchange of
information and prevent communication breakdowns. However, classroom interaction is of
a particular nature and has a range of functions including formal instruction, whole class and
task management and development of group cohesion”. So, classroom interaction involves
everything communicative that intervenes in classroom.

29
 Considering Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory, interaction is a key factor in learner’s
foreign language development. Allwright (1984) described it as the fundamental fact of
classroom pedagogy. For Van Lier (1996:147), “interaction is the ‘engine’ that drives the
learning process”. Indeed, studies demonstrate that foreign language interaction facilitates
language development. A study by Wong-Fillmore (1982) identified ‘effective L2
classrooms’ as ones where learners were called upon frequently to respond, either
individually or as a group. Block (2003:104, cited in Crichton, 2011:39) states that the
‘acquisition metaphor… should be complemented…by the participation metaphor. Sfard
(1998) argues that participation allows the learner to become a member of a community
through developing the skills necessary for communicating within that community.

Hatch and (1978) and Long (1981, 1996) for instance, consider interaction as essential to
second language acquisition. Hatch (1978) disagrees that learners first learn structures and
then use them in discourse. She considers the reverse possibility. “One learns how to do
conversation, one learns how to interact verbally and out of this interaction, syntactic
structures are developed (p.404)”.

II.4.2.1. Long’s Interaction Hypothesis

The Interaction Hypothesis developed on the basis of the social constructivist and
interactionist theories of language learning was introduced by Michael Long, a
second/foreign language acquisition expert in 1996. Long views interaction and input as two
essential components for language acquisition.

According to Brown (2000), Long defined the Interaction Hypothesis in that

‘comprehensible input’ (language and concepts that are mostly understandable to the learner)
“is the result of modified interaction (modifications made by the native/ proficient second
language speaker to create comprehensible input. Long (1981, cited in Ellis 1999), agreed
with Krashen that comprehensible input is necessary for language acquisition but he focused
more on the question of how input could be made comprehensible. In his view, the “modified
interaction” is the necessary mechanism for making the comprehensible input. Lightbown
and Spada (1993) also stated that in Krashen’s input hypothesis, comprehensible input itself
remains the main causal variable, while long claims that a crucial element in language
acquisition process is the modified input that learners are exposed to and the way in which
other speakers interact in conversations with learners. The interaction Hypothesis posits a
three-process: (a) interactional modification makes input comprehensible; (b)

30
comprehensible input promotes language acquisition; (c) therefore interactional
modification promotes language acquisition. For long (1996), especially negotiation work
that triggers the native speaker’s or more competent interlocutors’ interactional adjustments,
facilitates language acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities,
particularly selective attention and output in productive ways. As a matter of fact, during the
negotiation works, the learner’s attention is, as Gass and Torres (2005) underlined, directed
to the discrepancy between what he/she knows about L2 and what the L2 really is and the
areas of L2 in which he does not have any information. In this case, negotiation is the initial
step to learning and it is one part of interaction. This interaction between the learner and
other students or the learner and the teacher results in language acquisition on the part of
the learner, meaning he has internalized this chunk of language and will be able to produce
it later when needed.

Ellis (1985) also refers to Interaction Hypothesis as the conversational exchanges that arise
when there is breakdown in communication which interlocutors attempt to overcome. One
of the participants in a conversation will say something that the other does not understand;
the participants will then use various communicative strategies to help the interaction
progress. He believes that acquisition is promoted when the input to which students are
exposed is made comprehensible through the interaction modifications that arise when
meaning is negotiated. As Long (1983) believes, when meaning is negotiated,
comprehensibility is usually increased and learners tend to focus on salient linguistic
features.

Interactions often result in learners receiving negative evidence. That is, if learners say
something that their interlocutors do not understand, after negotiation the interlocutors may
model the correct language form. In doing this, learners can receive feedback on their
production and on grammar that they have not yet mastered. The process of interaction may
also result in learners receiving more input from their interlocutors than they would
otherwise. Furthermore, if learners stop to clarify things that they do not understand, they
may have more time to process the input they receive. This can lead to better understanding
and possibly the acquisition of new language forms.

The Interaction Hypothesis claims that the ‘checks’ are the key to second language
acquisition as they facilitate the creation of comprehensible input. The simplest of which are
known as modification checks. Some examples of these modification checks are:

31
 1) Comprehension checks: the native speaker makes sure that the non-native speaker
understood.

2) Clarification requests: efforts by the learner to get the native speaker to clarify
something that has not been understood.

3) self-repetition or paraphrase: the native speaker or the non-native speaker repeats

his/her sentences either partially or in their totality.

Pica and Doughty (1985) also consider some other conversational modifications which
facilitate students’ language acquisition:

Repairing: When the speaker repeats/paraphrases some parts of the other speakers’
utterance in order to overcome a communication problem” and recasting: When the speaker
repeats/paraphrases some parts of the other speakers’ utterance in order to help establish or
develop the topic of conversation”.

Long (1983) includes other linguistic adjustments such as elaboration, slower speech rate,
more use of stress, pauses, shorter utterances, less complex utterances, few ‘wh’ questions,
few idiomatic expressions, high average lexical frequency of nouns and verbs. He stated
that modified input is evident in first language acquisition in the form of “motherese” and is
realized in Second language Acquisition by native language using “simplified codes” such
foreigner talk, child language, pidgins, early second language forms, telegraphese etc…..

Lastly, the Interaction Hypothesis supports the use of authentic situations in the classroom.
Through natural interaction with classmates, their teacher and native speaker, the student
gains self- awareness that facilitates advancement in the target language.

II.4.2.2. The Initiative-Response-Follow-up (IRF)

Interaction in language classes often involves teacher-learner interaction and learner-
learner interaction. Teacher-learner interaction is “when the teacher controls the discussion
and students have part of the contribution in the interaction such as explaining a new
grammar rule on the board, drilling or asking students’ questions” (Al- Zahrani, 2014:45).
In EFL teaching context in Burkina Faso, the teacher-learner interaction most often
intervenes within the IRF (Initiative- Response-Follow-up (IRF) framework.

The framework involves three (3) turns: the teacher’s initiation (I), most often a question,
the learner’s response (R), followed by the teacher’s follow-up (F) to confirm or disconfirm

32
the pupil’s answer (Crichton, 2011). Teachers’ responses were originally termed as
feedback which was revised as follow-up due to the many ways of addressing the learners’
responses. In fact, these ways are viewed as giving the learners a positive or negative
reaction to their utterance.

Seedhouse, (1996) states that an interesting point about the IRF model is that it is prevalent
in almost every study of caregiver-child conversation. This may be due that in classroom or
in caregiver-child conversation, the focus is on instruction or learning through dialogue.
Mercer (1992) defends the model’s potential to allow the teacher to monitor the children’s
knowledge and understanding, to guide their learning and to highlight what is viewed to be
educationally significant or valuable. Through the use of questioning, teachers can get a
clear view of what the learners know, in order to move the learning to a further
developmental level. Their reaction to learners’ responses also provides further interaction
and gives opportunities for learners to negotiate meaning.

Teachers’ questioning forms a large part of the interaction which takes place in the
classroom. Teachers employ different strategies when questioning learners. They use
display questions to assess pupils’ understanding of key concepts or how to use the language
accurately (Crichton, 2011:42). Display questions are those questions to which teachers
already know the answers. They are seen as a necessary and useful tool for assessment of a
pupil’s teaching (Mercer, 1992). However, they limit the learners’ opportunities to develop
an extended and meaningful exchange.

In addition, teachers use referential questions when interacting with their pupils. Unlike
the display questions, referential questions are less predictable. For Walsh (2006:67), “the
teacher does not know what answer the learner will provide, thus making the question more
genuine”. Referential questions are seen as promoting more natural communication than a
distorted version realized through displayed questions (Long and Sato, 1983).

Teachers can also make use of tag questions as a means of classroom. According to Tottie
and Hoffman (2006), a tag question usually follows a statement and has a variety of
functions. Tag questions may be used for emphasis, for confirmation of understanding, to
show support of another utterance or to seek agreement. Lastly, they can make use of open
negotiation as alternatives to question. For Dashood (2005), ‘open negotiation’ are seen as
promoting longer learner turns. Dillon (1994:77-78) provides examples of alternatives to

33
question, including expression of interest in the learner’s answer by the teacher, making a
reflective comment, stating a point of view, or referring to other students utterances.

Some language experts have criticized the IRF pattern for not promoting effective
interaction. They underlined the fact that the learning process is teacher-centered within this
pattern framework, providing learners with less opportunities to use language for
communication. As Chaudron (1988) argues, “teacher’s talk takes up the largest proportion
of classroom talk. It represents approximately two-thirds of the discourse in both L1 and L2
classrooms. Markee (2000: 7) reinforces this idea when he states that “this speech exchange
is characterized by unequal power relationships”.

However, in modern language classrooms, Nassaji andWell (2000) state that the IRF model
of interaction appears to be still prevalent. It is therefore necessary for teachers to use
strategies to increase learners’ target language contributions to interaction within the IRF
pattern. In this perspective, Tuan and Nhu (2010:35, cited in Kaboré, 2016: 23) make the
following suggestion: “The success of the teacher-learner interaction is determined by the
teacher’s teaching style. The teacher’s duty is to provide guidance and inspiration, decide
what questions to ask, and how to ask them and create learning situations which stimulate
learners to listen, read, write, discuss, ask questions, perform tasks, solve problems and
engage in other activities. The teacher needs to apply the flexible teaching in classroom. The
teacher behaves warmly towards learners and fosters interpersonal communication skills and
patterns of cooperative interaction, whereby learners will have more opportunities to express
their ideas, join classroom activities and interact with the teacher.

II.4.3. Some strategies for teaching in the target language and making
input comprehensible
In this section, the research study deals with literature findings in relation with strategies
for teaching in the target language and making the input comprehensible. But before dealing
with the strategies, I describe the notions of comprehensible input and intake.

II.4.3.1. Comprehensible input

The target language of the teacher in a classroom is essential in shaping the students’
language. However, simply deciding to use the target language is not enough. Teachers
should ensure that students receive comprehensible input. The quality of teachers’ target
language is crucial in students’ language development. According to second/foreign

34
language acquisition theory, plenty and high- quality input is the necessary element for
successful language learning. The Input Hypothesis developed by Krashen (1985) insists
on the need for teachers to provide ‘comprehensible input’ in order to facilitate language
acquisition of the new language. This input should be meaningful, that is to say that the
information that instructors process must be clearly relatable to the learners’ existing
knowledge. According to Ausübel (1968), this existing knowledge must be organized in
such a way that the new information is easily assimilated or ‘attached’ to the learner’s
cognitive structure. For him, features of language, be they grammar, vocabulary,
pronunciation or something else, can only make their way into the learner’s mental
representation of the language system if they have been linked to some kind of real-world
meaning. So, while listening to the teacher, leaners need a strong context or supporting
visuals to make the language content meaningful for them. The input should be also so
interesting and relevant that the learners may ‘forget’ that the message is encoded in a foreign
language. As lee and van patten (2003a: 38) put it, “the language that the learner is listening
to, must contain some message to which the learner is supposed to attend.

In language learning, input cannot be meaningful unless it is comprehensible. For Lee and
Van Patten (2003a: 38), this means that “the learner must be able to understand most of what
the speaker is saying if acquisition is to happen. [….], the learner must be able to figure out
what the speaker is saying if he is to attach meaning to the speech stream coming at him”.
If the language that teachers provide to learners is incomprehensible, they are giving them a
challenge that is too difficult to achieve. This often leads to frustration, decreased motivation
and the desire to simply give up. Equally, if the input is too simple and does not stretch the
learners, their language skills will not develop and they may become bored. That’s why for
Krashen and Terrel (1998), language is acquired by understanding messages via
comprehensible input. This input should be at a level just beyond that of the learner, at ‘level
i+l, ‘I’ being the present level of competence of the learner. Krashen (1985) states that by
exposing the learners to the comprehensible input, they ‘notice the gap’ between what they
know how to say and what they do not know, thus triggering more attention to the form of
the language and vocabulary items used by the interlocutor (Doughty and Williams, 1998)

To provide comprehensible input more effectively for learners, teachers should ensure that
it is converted into intake by learners.

35
II.4.3.2. Intake
While a consensus seems to arise among researchers that target language rich environment
is beneficial for students, being exposed to input, however, comprehensible does not
guarantee intake by the learner. In the classroom then, as Gass (1997) recommends, an
emphasis should be on ‘comprehended’ input or ‘intake’. B. Kumaravadivelu (1994)
considers intake as an abstract entity of learner language that has been fully or partially
processed by learners, and fully or partially assimilated into their developing system. Such
an entity is the result of as yet undetermined interaction between input and intake factors
mediated by intake processors. Intake factors refer to learner-internal and learner-external
factors that are brought to bear on the process of converting a subset of input into intake.
The major factors of intake are: individual factors(age and anxiety), negotiation factors(
interaction and interpretation), tactical strategies ( learning strategies and communication
strategies), affective factors (attitudes and motivation), language knowledge factors (
language knowledge and metalanguage knowledge), environmental factors( social context
and educational context). This suggests that the teacher has to be sensitive to a much wider
variety of factors in the classroom than merely achieving the pedagogical aim of the lesson,
taking affective and social factors into account (Crichton, 2011).

Converting input into intake depends therefore on the teachers’ ability to use various input
strategies. There are several key strategies that teachers can employ to assist students in
comprehending the new spoken language. Ceo-Difrancesco (2013) argues that if these
strategies are applied as a total package, teachers can consistently surround students with
target language, while providing learners with the level of support necessary for them to
participate actively in language tasks.

II.4.3.3. Managing and organizing classroom interactions

To make the input comprehensible, teachers need to manage and organize their
classroom interactions.

II.4.3.3.1. Planning lessons and ensuring that learners know the learning
objectives for the lessons
Teachers should think of planning their lessons to consider the instructions, transitions and
possible students’ responses and questions in order to predict and plan for use of effective
and comprehensible target language. Teachers should also state the objectives of the target

36
lesson so as to focus the language and the input both for the teacher and the learner since it
gives students an advance organizer and so capturing their energy and commitment.

II.4.3.3.2.Teaching learners some specific strategies of making

sense of the target language
Duff and Polio(1990), and Halliwell and Jones(1991), cited in Whitaker( 2010), argue that
instructing students to interpret the general meaning of a message without the reliance on
understanding and decoding individual words also facilitates language acquisition. Messages
are understood using more than just language alone. For Halliwell and Jones (1991) and
Omaggio Hadley (2000), successful language learners simultaneously employ a variety of
strategies to interpret the meaning of the communicated message including: interpreting the
context in which the language is used: employing their knowledge of how the world works
and engaging their ability to read intonation patterns, facial expressions and other social
signals. So, learners can understand the intended message even if they do not understand the
words and structures used. It comes to the instructors to teach to students to attend to the
context and key words in a sentence in order to contribute to success in comprehension and
increase intake. Explicitly teaching students to employ language learning strategies provide
them with more opportunities to increase the amount of intake they receive from the target
language input. These strategies include as Kumaravadivelu (1994) suggests, teaching
metacognitive, cognitive and social/affective strategies to enhance students’ abilities to
function in a target language environment. Metacognitive strategies refer to higher order
executive strategies such as thinking about the learning process, planning for and monitoring
learning as it takes place and self-evaluation of the learning after the learning activity.
Cognitive strategies refers to specific steps such as summarizing, deducing, transferring and
elaborating. Social/affective strategies refer to interpersonal strategies including cooperative
learning, peer group discussion…

Chambers ( 1991), Halliwell and Jones (1991), Levine (2003) add that instructors should
teach learners to listen for cognates and for the overall gist of the communicated message
rather than deriving meaning from individual words in a sentence.

As for Ceo-Francisco (2013), she sustains that students need also to know that language
learning is a process of practice as well as trial and error. Risk taking and making educated
guesses are vital in acquisition process in which everyone learns at a different space.
Ambiguity is part of the comprehension process.

37
 Wilkerson (2008) agrees that students be explicitly taught strategies for language learning
in order to ensure that the target language is made comprehensible and is effectively used
during instruction. In her research study, Wilkerson identified distinct characteristics of one
instructor who effectively remained in the target language. This instructor began the first day
of class by clearly identifying the importance of interacting in the target language and
outlined her expectations in the student’s L1. She assured her students that her message
would be made comprehensible through the use of props, gestures, facial expressions and
voice modulation. Through the semester, the instructor began class in the L1 to outline the
goals and activities for the lesson and closed each lesson in the L1 to summarize, point out
new structures, and give out new contexts in which students could apply what they had
learnt. She provided the students with a repertoire of phrases in the L2 that could be used for
clarification or repetition of a word or phrase, to ask a peer for assistance or to refuse a turn.
These explicitly taught strategies prevented breakdowns in communication and allow the
class to be conducted primarily in the L2. The study revealed that the students exposed to
this environment were the most effective communicators in the target language when
compared to students in the other four settings.

II.4.3.3.3. Monitoring and assessing target language use

Curtain (2016) states that keeping track of student language use and building it into
assessment helps to ensure a climate of target language use. Caleb (2013) adds that
instruction and assessment are simultaneous activities as one constantly informs the other.
Assessment facilitates scaffolding to give students greater ability.

II.4.3.3.4. Conducting comprehension checks to ensure

understanding
Learners benefit from showing their understanding frequently. Frequent comprehension
checks help learners to feel that their efforts are valued and understand what they need to
improve upon. They also give teachers necessary data to adjust instruction. Ceo-Francisco
(2013) admits that teachers can check for comprehension without resorting to the students
L1. Students can utilize specific gestures to demonstrate comprehension. They can act out
actions the teacher describes, draw what they hear or signal comprehension with hand
raising, pointing, standing or showing a number or card.

38
 II.4.3.3.5. Eliciting talk that increases in fluency, accuracy, and
complexity over time
Asking yes/no questions keeps learners at the Novice level, since the natural response is
not more than a single word. Educators need to carefully consider how they are expanding
the types of questions, prompts, and descriptions they are modeling to identify how they are
guiding learners to higher levels of performance. One step is simply to ask learners to add
more details by adding who, what, where, when, how and even why to a basic question. As
learners practice asking such questions in interpersonal tasks, they help each other improve
and expand their language over time.

II.4.3.3.6. Creating a classroom environment conducive to

learning
According to Condron Flores (1998) and Hall (2001), instructors can create a community
of learners and a cooperative and interactive atmosphere by treating all information that is
communicated by class members as important. Teachers’ responses show interest in the
content of students’ responses, not simply the grammatical correctness of the utterance.

II.4.3.3.7. Linking new concepts to the background knowledge of

students
Language itself does not carry meaning for the learner; rather, the message is made
comprehensible by connecting the intended message with the learner’s existing schemata
(Omaggio Hadley, 2000). Background knowledge is therefore an important element in
comprehension since the process of understanding language involves drawing on
experiences and information already stored in memory. By tapping into background
knowledge, teachers can help students relate what they already know about a topic to the
process of gaining new information (Helena Curtain (2013).

II.4.3.3.8. Providing a meaningful context for all classroom

language use
Curtain (2016) states that teachers should provide opportunities for their students to acquire
language in meaningful context. Creating a meaningful context ensures that the language
tasks are purposeful. A meaningful context is the basis for comprehensible, authentic, real-
world learning experiences that may range from the simple to the complex. As Lee and Van
Patten (2003: 17) claims, “features of language…. can make their way into the learner’s
39
mental representation of the language system if they have been linked to some kind of real-
world meaning”. The context could be very basic such as providing visuals or songs. It could
also be complex such as organizing all activities around an integrated thematic unit.

II.4.3.4. Using various modification strategies

Whitaker (2010) states that Researchers agree that modifications to both the classroom
management environment and verbal adjustments must be made to ensure that target
language input become comprehensible intake. Modifications to the classroom environment
should include the implementation of familiarized routines and formulaic starters to signal
when activities begin and end. Wong-Fillmore (1985: p.29-30) quoted by Whitaker
(2010:23) argues that language used by the teachers when adhering to classroom routines
“tend to be routinized, consistent and therefore familiar…and provide(s) a kind of scaffold
for the interpretation and learning of the new materials”. Indeed, predictable activities and
routines make students feel comfortable and safe in language classes because they know
what to expect. The more relaxed or comfortable students are in classrooms, the fewer
obstacles to comprehensible input exist. Bateman (2008) suggests that teachers should
explicitly teach and post common classroom expressions and questions in the target language
and provide students with “coping cards” containing necessary expressions to ensure that
target language input becomes comprehensible. Providing learners with such language
basics that assist in the running of the classroom and basic classroom instructions also help
to lower anxiety and create an atmosphere where learners feel safe and comfortable.

In addition, Linguistic modifications are necessary to turn target language input into
comprehensible intake on the part of the students. Authors as Bateman (2008), Chambers
(1991),Duff and Polio (1990), Halliwell and Jones(1991) consider teachers’ slower speech
rate, simplification of syntax and vocabulary, repetition of utterances, dramatization,
circumlocution, rephrasing, paraphrasing and using high frequency patterns and expressions
as some of these modifications. Hatch (1983) admits that such speech modifications
potentially aid with the comprehension process as clear enunciation, repetition and slower
speech rate make language acoustically more salient and provide a greater chance for the
learners to perceive language structures and process form-meaning connections. Likewise,
simplified syntax or modifications of input further reduce the burden on process and increase
the chance that the learner will hear certain forms and structures (Lee and Vanpatten, 1995a).

40
 Researchers also suggest using nonlinguistic modifications to make input comprehensible.
for Curtain (2016), novice learners learn best in concrete situations; so the more frequently
the use of visuals, including props, pictures, graphs, chalkboards and overheads can
accompany use of the target language, the greater the impact of the language itself. She
adds that linking the use of the target language with gestures, body language and
demonstrations can provide additional context and increase appeal for some learners. In the
same vein, Ceo-Difrancesco (2013) argues that instructors can utilize graphic organizers
such as Venn diagrams, concept maps, T charts, tables and bar graphs to assist learners with
comprehension and to train them in the application of higher order thinking skills. She
continues to say that the use of modeling or acting to convey meaning is an essential
technique to assist student comprehension. Teachers can pair the modeling with spoken
language while using exaggerated gestures or props to model or act out every step of the
process or direction lines. This can provide a positive challenge for the students as they
consider all the contextualized clues, take risks and guess the meaning of the target language.

II.4.3.5. Making an appropriate use of the first language in the

foreign language classroom
Whitaker (2010) declares that a more controversial strategy for converting target language
input into comprehensible intake involves the incorporation of the learners’L1 during
instruction. If few researchers or theorists would disagree with the essential role of the target
language input in the language acquisition process, not all of them believe that the use of L1
as a learning strategy in the foreign language classroom is desirable. While some researchers
as Chamber (1991), Franklin, C. E.M (1990), Halliwell and Jones (1991), Wong-Fillmore
(1985) promote the use of target language exclusively, others as Cook (2001), Duff and Polio
(1990), Auerbach (1993), Levine (2003), Macaro (2000), Turnbull (2003), even if they
emphasize the importance of the target language, admit the value of the L1 in the classroom
as a language learning tool.

‘English only’ advocates do not see value in the L1 whatsoever. For them, any time spent
in the L1 subtracts from critical target language input. Their hypothesis is that students
acquired the L2 in the same way as they acquired their mother tongue , with caregivers
ensuring a constant stream of comprehensible input in the target language , while being
immersed in that target language(Cook 2001,2008). This position is mainly based on
Krashen’s (1982) comprehensible input theory that provide learners with language that is
understandable and available for use. Indeed, Wong-Fillmore (1985) argues that the process

41
of code switching is futile and that language learning occurs when students attempt to
negotiate the meaning of the message delivered in the target language. He suggests that those
students who are accustomed to hearing their instructors use the L1 in the classroom have
the tendency not to pay attention when they hear the target language and thus do not benefit
as much from the input they do receive. Chamber (1991), Franklin, C. E.M (1990) observe
that the practice of translation has a negative impact on language learning as students ignore
the target language message and anticipate only the L1 translation. They agree that teaching
only through the target language makes the language real, allows learners to experience
unpredictability and develops the learners’ own interlanguage system. Franklin, C. E.M
(1990) states that when the teacher resorted to speaking the shared L1 language, the message
that is given to the students is to use L1 when they have something real to say and the foreign
language when they are doing exercises, question-and-answer work and other unreal (non-
communicative) things. Macdonald((1993) argues in the same sense when he states that the
target language should be used at all times to motivate students into seeing that the target
language is not only immediately useful but also that they are able to start using it
immediately. He also states that students will feel success and enjoyment at seeing that they
are able to understand and use the target language which will help assist in their language
acquisition. He concludes by stating that relying too much on the L1 for instruction in the
typical classroom setting where time is quite limited is a waste of time and actually
demotivating to students.

In countering this ‘only English’ argument, Auerbach (1993) and others acknowledge the
pedagogical use of the students’L1 as a scaffold to language acquisition and encourage its
incorporation as a language learning strategy. They argue that the inclusion of the L1 in the
L2 classroom “has been theoretically justified, verified by research, and pedagogically
accepted, while its exclusion is based on unexamined assumptions” (Brook-Lewis, 2009,
p.217). Thus, Macaro (2001) claims that although teachers should aim at maximizing their
target language use, the total exclusion of the L1 from the classroom deprives students from
a valuable tool for language learning. In his 2001study, Macaro found that the language of
thought for beginning and intermediate students was the L1and concluded that L1should be
incorporated in the foreign language classroom to assist in cognitive processing. He argues
that the process of making key words association between the L1 and L2 is a valuable
language acquisition tool for the processes of memorization and language production. The
incorporation of the L1 helps with semantic processing, reduces memory constraints by

42
chunking L2 structures into semantic clusters, increases confidence and lowers the affective
filter in the learner by converting input into familiar terminology and clarifies grammar roles
through L1 translation. Turnbull (2001, cited by Gregory Lynn Thompson, 2006) posits that
one of the ideas to consider is that of maximizing the target language usage in the classroom
wherein the use of the L1 is not seen as detrimental to listening acquisition. He states, “A
principle that promotes maximal teacher use of the target language acknowledges the L1 and
target language can exist simultaneously” (p.535). Butzkamm (2003) agrees that the role of
L1 is important for language learners as a basis to build on when learning a foreign language
and should not be banned from the classroom. Learners come to the foreign language
classroom with a language system (or two if the child is bilingual since the composition may
include children of immigrants or of bilingual families) which is already sophisticated, and
which allows learners to process new information, make connections and retrieve
experiences from memory. Cook (2001) also argues that L1 use is an effective pedagogical
tool if used purposefully and in short bursts in order to increase comprehensibility and
efficiency in the classroom. He identifies that while students should be exposed to the target
language as much as possible, the judicious use of the L1 can permit teachers to convey
meaning more effectively, to expedite the process of giving instructions and explanations
and to efficiently organize the class. As matter of fact, Cook (2001) claims that learners’
first language may be used effectively to introduce vocabulary and grammar concepts which
learners may find difficult or need more time to interpret. He states that classroom
management is also an area where learners’ first language can be used more effectively.

Curtain (2016) shares the idea of judicious use of L1. She observed that there may be an
emergency in which the welfare of the students is at stake or there may be emotional upsets
in which individual students need a conversation in the L1. There may be extremely
important concepts in a teachable moment that absolutely may not be communicated in the
target language. For novice level learners also, the teacher may want to explain proficiency
levels and objectives in the students’L1. However, Curtain (2016) warns that the use of the
L1 should be intentional and a conscious decision, but not just something the teacher slides
in without thinking. The following series of questions adapted from Curtain and Dahlberg
can be helpful in deciding when and if using the students L1 instead of the target language
is appropriate.

43
Figure 1: Representation of the first series of questions before using
French

If the answer to these questions is “no”, there is another series of questions to consider.

Figure 2: Representation of the second series of questions before using

French

Can I substitute a different concept?

Can I delay this topic until the students are ready to do it in the target
language?

Adapted from Curtain and Dahlberg (2016, p.97).

If after all these deliberations, the teacher makes the final decision to use the students’L1
for a given purpose, it will still be important to keep that to 10% or less according to the
American Council on the teaching of Foreign Languages in its 2012 position statement on
the use of target language.

II.4.4. The target language use during instruction: from theory to

practice
According to Whitaker (2010), many teachers agree that L2 instruction should be through
the medium of target language, yet there is discrepancy between theory and practice.
Crawford (2004, quoted by Crichton, 2010) noted that studies into the actual degree of the
target language use in the classroom have produced results which vary considerably and call
into question how much target language some language learners are experiencing. Crawford
Can I find a way to communicate the idea in the target idea?
identified three (03) studies in the period 1998-2003, which found that teacher use of the
target language variedCan I simplify
from the concept
17 to 100% (Calmanorand
theDaniel
information?
1998, Turnbull 2000, Hou and
Zhao 2002).Can
HerI own study of Australian
add concrete teachersorofexperiences
materials, visuals foreign languages found
to enrich .the that a number
context
of teachers and towith
disagreed makethethe concept orofthetarget
desirability information comprehensible
language in medium of
use as the main
the new language?

44
instruction in the classroom, the majority of teachers of younger children in the primary and
early secondary classes expressing reservations. Although the majority of teachers of older
classes agreed that using the target language was desirable, they acknowledged that they
tended to use the students’L1 as the language of instruction. The majority used the target
language less than 40% in a week, the exception being the level used with senior pupils,
where just over half (50.20%) of teachers used more than 60% of target language in a week.

Crawford determined that the amount of target language teachers used in the classroom
varied, depending on the teachers’ goals for the program and experience in the target culture.
She found that teachers who were proficiency oriented in their goals for the program, and
had spent a year or more in a country where their target language was spoken, were
significantly more likely to agree with promoting target language use in the classroom.
Conversely, less-proficiency-oriented teachers who had limited experience in the target
culture were more likely to agree with favoring L1 use in the classroom. Crawford concluded
that teachers’ attitudes towards the target language and L1 use reflect the teachers’
professional experiences with learning through the medium of target language and
demonstrate a willingness to replicate their own personal learning experiences in the
classroom.

Neil’s study (1997) into the use of the target language by ten Northern Irish secondary
teachers of German with pupils in their fourth and fifth year of studying the language, found
that when teachers used self-report sheets to measure the amount of target language they
used in the classroom, their estimates varied from 27.5 to 67.5%. ‘high target language
values’ that is between 75 -100% target language(p.15) were perceived to be used for content
areas such as giving praise, greeting and settling the pupils and interaction. The content areas
for which least target language was used , were grammar teaching, instructions for tests and
instruction on examination techniques. A perceived need to ensure learners do not use the
teachers’ target language use as an excuse for not understanding may mean that teachers do
not want to risk any ambiguities and therefore use the students’ first language.

Polio and Duff (1991) conducted a study on the ratio of the target language to L1 used by
teachers in the foreign language classroom. He found that there was a great variability of the
amount of the target language used in the classroom depending on the instructor, and the
language ranged from 10 to 100%. They came to the conclusion that teacher use of code
switching between L1 and the target language did not depend on lesson objectives, years of
teaching experience, or teacher target language proficiency. They attributed the ratio of
45
target language to L1 use to factors including language type, departmental policy or
guidelines regarding target language use, lesson content, materials, and formal teacher
training in teaching foreign language methodology. Overall, the teacher’s attitude toward
target language use impacted the decision of whether to use the target language or L1 during
instruction as each teacher could justify his or her language choice. The implications of the
study suggest that many foreign language teachers do not know how to effectively use the
L1 in the classroom for pedagogical reasons and are not aware of exactly how much L1 they
are using in the classroom.

Wilkerson (2008) studied five university-level Spanish instructors to analyze the amount
of time spent in the target language (Spanish) and in the L1 (English) during instruction as
well as the instructors’ reasons for deciding which language to use. As a result of her
research, Wilkerson similarly concluded that the use and distribution of English among
instructors varied widely. In fact, while one instructor lectured in English with minimal use
of Spanish, another conducted class in Spanish but translated and retaught lessons during
office hours. Two other participants engaged in frequent code switching during instruction
and one spent one to ten minutes introducing and summarizing lessons in English but
provided all lesson instruction in English. The instructors that primarily used the L1 or
engaged in frequent code switching during classroom instruction stated that the L1 was used
to save time, demonstrate authority and reduce ambiguity. They were fearful that students
were unable to understand their message and therefore immediately switched to the L1 for
clarification. Although the rationale for switching to the L1 included saving time, it was
found that confusion among the students regarding the language in which they should
respond was an unintended effect of code switching and consequently resulted in slowing
the pace of interaction. One instructor used the L1 prior to and at the conclusion of
interaction to direct the students regarding the goals and activities for the lesson. The
remainder of the class was conducted in the L2. The effect of this blend of the L1 and L2
resulted in her students’ ability to engage in ‘spontaneous discourse’ and communicate for
authentic purposes (p.314). Wilkerson concluded that the decision to use the students’L1 or
L2 reflects the instructor’s beliefs about language learning and pedagogy. Instructors who
believe that learners could not tolerate ambiguity engaged in classroom code switching and
frequently used the students'L1 during instruction. In contrast, Instructors who believe that
learners could resolve ambiguity through interaction in the L2 reserved the L1 for the
beginning and end of instruction or outside of the classroom.

46
 In her study of target language use by teachers in Scottish secondary French classrooms,
Franklin (1990) asked 201 teachers of Modern Languages to judge whether 10 classroom
activities could be performed in French, in French with difficulties, or should be carried out
in English. Her results showed that although teachers may be aware of the desirability of
using extensive foreign language in the classroom, what is actually happening may be
different. 68% thought that classroom organization could be carried out wholly in French
although only 53% thought that French could be used to give instructions or ‘chat
informally’ with the pupils. Only 15% of the teachers surveyed thought that discipline could
be handled through the target language. Their responses indicate that the function for which
the language is used, may decide whether teachers use the pupils’L1 or the target language.
Explaining grammar, discussing language objectives and teaching background were the
three (3) functions which the teachers in Franklin’s study identified as finding difficult to
realize using the target language. Reasons for not using the target language included pupil
behaviour (95%) and teacher lack of confidence in using the target language (83%).
Teachers cited the class size (81%) as another reason for not using the target language
although Franklin pointed out that this reason was given by teachers whose class sizes were
relatively small as well as teachers who had high numbers of pupils in their class.

Meiring and Norman (2002) in a similar exercise with 46 foreign language teachers from
22 different local authorities in England had similar results. The teachers they surveyed
increased their use of target language depending on the level of ability of the pupils; pupils
judged to be of lower level had only ‘modest’ target language input.

Ceo-Francisco (2013) in a recent investigation on the instructor’ use of the target language
in today world language classrooms, revealed that about 80% of the 237 surveyed teachers
reported a desire of using the L2 up to 70% of the time or more, but only about 38% of them
reached this goal. The study also revealed obstacles and challenges among the respondents
who explained their reasons for failing to use the target language during instruction. 11% of
these factors were beyond the teacher’s control and included (from least to most important),
large class sizes, frequency of class sessions, a lack of technology, schedule interruptions, a
lack of administrative support and job security. 32% of the factors that cause difficulties in
the L2 use involve students’ negative attitude, lack of motivation, frustration, high anxiety
and low attention span. Teachers described students who “shut down” or “turned out”
whenever teachers used the target language and consequently they felt obliged to speak the
L1. The most dominant (57%) factor teachers reported as an obstacle towards using the target

47
language is the teacher preparation and training. These problems included delivering
grammar explanations, time allotted to complete the curriculum, dealing with a range of
students’ abilities, a lack of teaching methodology training, excessive concern with student
comprehension, a lack of student preparation, classroom management issues, a tendency to
give instructions in the L1, the teacher’s own language proficiency, establishing rapport with
students, fatigue or other physical issues and delivering cultural lessons.

It appears from the evidence above that there is not an agreement in the balance of the
students’ first language and the target language for classroom instruction. However, the
consensus among researchers is that the overreliance on students’L1 ultimately limits the
students’ amount of target language exposure students receive which in turn affects the
students’ overall development of language proficiency (Whitaker (2010).

II.4.5. Students’ reactions to the teachers’ use of the target

language.
Students’ reactions to the teachers’ use of the target language show a mixture of
preferences. By and large, many students prefer the teacher to make an extensive use of the
target language. As Brandl and Bauer (2002) reveal, in those beginning language classrooms
where teachers tend to use the students L1 more than the target language, students ask for an
increase in the teacher’s use of the target language. In contrast, in those classes where
teachers exclusively used the target language, many students expressed preference for some
occasional use of L1, in particular when providing directions or confirming the students’
understanding

48
Chapter III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The present chapter is devoted to the Research Methodology that I used to carry out this
research work. In the following lines, I deal with the rationale behind the choice of the
research method, the research field, the target population and the instruments for data
collection.

III.1 Research approach and rationale

To conduct this research work, mixed research methods approach was used. That is, I
resorted to both qualitative and quantitative research methods. According to Johnson and
Onwuegbuzie (2004:17), mixed research method is a research method “where the researcher
mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods and
approaches, concepts or language into a single study”. Creswell and Plano (2011:18) added
that in mixed methods research, “the limitations of one method can be offset by the strength
of the other method and the combination of the quantitative and the qualitative can provide
a more complete understanding of the research problem than either approach by itself”.

Leedy (1993) defined Quantitative research methods as research methods dealing with
numbers and anything that is measurable in a systematic way of investigation of phenomena
and their relationships. It is used to answer questions on relationships within measurable
variables with an intention to explain, predict and control phenomena. The quantitative
approach uses methods such as surveys and questionnaires. Creswell et al... (2010) stated
that quantitative data have the potential to yield efficient data collection procedures, to create
the possibility of replication and generalization to a population, to facilitate the comparison
of groups and to provide an insight into a breath of experiences. So, I resorted to this
approach to gather quantitative data on teachers’ practices in relation to the use of English
in 5ème classes. However, the exploratory nature of my study requires insight from the
respondents in order to collect and analyze data about their assumptions, opinions, attitudes,
strategies and beliefs towards the use of the target language in view of helping them better
their practices. That is why I used the qualitative method because for Dörney (2007) it allows
for identification of previously unknown processes, explanation of why and how phenomena

49
occur and the range of their effects. It works for an in depth understanding of the situation
and individual experiences. Dr Gerede Negede (2012:90), quoting Leedy and Ormods
(2001) added that “Qualitative research involves data collection procedures that result
primarily in open-ended, non-numerical data which is then analyzed by non-statistical
method. This implies that the data drawn using qualitative methods provide real information
and reflections of the meanings of the documents, people and situation. This is impossible
with the quantitative method because, with this method indeed, it is difficult, as Maria
Nilssen (2013:13) puts it, “to draw conclusions because the researchers’ own predictions and
views would influence the phrasing of the questions. A questionnaire may also offer options
that the teachers themselves would not have considered. Furthermore, there is a risk of
misinterpreting the results in the surveys.”

The use of the mixed-method approach permits a deep understanding of the teachers’ use
of the target language. It can also help increase the validity of the research results as “the
qualitative methods will be used to support or challenge initial findings reached from
analysis of quantitatively collected data “. (Crichton (2013)

III.2. The research field

I targeted The “Direction Regionale du centre-est” for this study. The choice of this Region
is justified by the fact that my second year of training as an inspector-trainee took place
there. I have also worked in this region for seven (7) years as a teacher before undergoing
training as an advisor-trainee during one school-year. I can therefore take profit of the
knowledge of the Region and the relationships I established with the personnel in charge of
the education for my research work.

III.3. Target population and sampling

I targeted two categories of participants for the present study: EFL teachers and pupils of
5è classes. I am concerned with the teachers because the beginner students’ immersion into
the target language depends largely on them. They can therefore tell us all about their use of
the target language. I also targeted the pupils because they are actors and beneficiaries of
the teaching they receive in class, and as such, they can provide information about the
proportion of the target Language the teachers use in classroom interaction and the teaching
strategies and techniques they put in practice.

50
 III.3.1. Teacher sample
I targeted two groups of teachers: the first group is made of teachers I interviewed following
the observations of their lessons and the second one received the survey questionnaire. I
based the choice of these teacher participants on a purposeful sampling to take into account
characteristics of those teachers and the objectives of the study. Indeed, according to
Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003), purposeful sampling techniques involve selecting certain
units or cases based “on a specific purpose rather than randomly”. Maxwell (1997) further
defined purposeful sampling as a type of sampling in which “particular settings, persons or
events are deliberately selected for the important information they can provide that cannot
gotten as well from other choices”. Thus, within the framework of my study, I selected
thirty-six (36) teachers from public and private schools in rural as well as in urban areas. I
took into account their academic and professional backgrounds. All these teachers also
intervene in 5ème classes during the 2017-2018 school-year. This choice is based on the
assumption that these teachers were able to provide more precise and accurate information
about the use of the target language.

51
 Table 2: Teacher respondents’ distribution
Schools Locality Status Teacher (number)

Lycée Rialé de Tenkodogo Tenkodogo Public 4

Lycée privé le Savoir Tenkodogo Private 2

Lycée Kourita de Koupéla Koupéla Public 5

Lycée Municipal de Koupéla Koupéla Public 1

Lycée privé Philadelphie Koupéla Private 1

Lycée Pinal Faso Koupéla Private 1

Lycée privé Wend yam Koupéla Private 1

52
Lycée départemental de Yargo Yargo Public 2

CEG de Kokosse Tandaga Kokosse Tandaga Public 1

Lycée départemental de Pouytenga Pouytenga Public 4

CEG de Check Anta Diop Pouytenga Private 1

CEG Ligdi-Malguem Ligdi-Malguem Public 1

Lycée départemental Dialgaye Dialgaye Public 2

Lycée Municipal de Pouytenga Pouytenga Public 1

CEG de l’Avenir Pousga Private 1

CEG El Shaddai Donsin Private 1

CEG Kanugu Kanugu Public 1

CEG Nebnooma Koupéla Private 1

CEG de Nakalbo Nakalbo Public 1

Lycée Saint Philippe Koupéla Private 2

CEG du secteur 3 Koupéla Public 1

CEG Naaba Zanré Koupéla Public 1

The teachers who actually filled the questionnaire have various profiles and gender and
include ten (10) female teachers and twenty-six (26) male teachers. Among the teachers,
thirteen (13) served in private schools while twenty-three (23) are from public schools. The
table below a view of the teacher sample according to school status and gender.

Table 3: Characteristics of teacher sample

Status Male teachers Female teachers Total

Public 15 08 23

Private 10 03 13

Total 25 11 36

53
 All the thirty-six teachers were from different academic backgrounds. The majority of
them (69% of the sample) were graduate in English. In fact, Sixteen (16) teachers (45% of
the sample) got a licence, eight (8) teachers (22% of the sample) a DEUG II, and one teacher
(3%), a master degree. The other teachers held degrees in ‘Lettres modernes’ (19% of the
sample), in ‘Droit’ (6% of the sample), in Linguistiques (3%), and in ‘informatique’ (3%).
The graph below gives a graphical representation of the teacher participants according to
their academic backgrounds.

Graph 1: Graphical representation of teacher respondents according to

studies

54
 TEACHERS' STUDIES
3% 3%
6%

English
Lettres modernes
19%
Droit
Lingustiques
69%
Informattique

Twenty–three (23) teachers were professionally qualified. Eleven teachers (31% of the
teacher participants) got the CAPES and twelve teachers corresponding to 33% of the sample
had the CAP-CEG. Thirteen (13) teacher participants (36% of the sample) did not get any
professional qualification. Among them, only two benefited from class visits. This means
that they may have problems with English language teaching techniques and principles.

Graph 2: Teachers’ professional qualifications.

55
 TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

31%
36%

CAPES
CAP CEG
None

33%

Concerning the teaching experience, thirteen (13) teachers have been teaching for less than
five (5) years, eighteen (18) of them between five (5) and ten (10) years. Two teachers have
a teaching experience between ten (11) and fifteen (15) years and three (3), an experience of
more than fifteen years (15).

Graph 3: Teachers’ professional experience.

56
 Teachers' professional experience
<5 Years >5<10 Years >10<15 Years >15 Years

6%
8%
36%

50%

III.3.2. Pupil sample

I targeted 150 students to fill the questionnaire. They were selected randomly from twenty-
two (22) public and private schools of the region where the study took place. All the pupil
respondents also came from the same schools and classes in which the teacher participants
were teaching.

Table 4: Student respondents’ distribution

57
Schools Locality Status students (number)

Lycée Rialé de Tenkodogo Tenkodogo Public 10

Lycée privé le Savoir Tenkodogo Private 10

Lycée Kourita de Koupéla Koupéla Public 10

Lycée Municipal de Koupéla Koupéla Public 5

Lycée privé Philadelphie Koupéla Private 5

Lycée Pinal Faso Koupéla Private 5

Lycée privé Wend yam Koupéla Private 5

Lycée départemental de Yargo Yargo Public 10

CEG de Kokosse Tandaga Kokosse Tandaga Public 5

Lycée départemental de Pouytenga Pouytenga Public 10

CEG de Check Anta Diop Pouytenga Private 5

CEG Ligdi-Malguem Ligdi-Malguem Public 5

Lycée départemental Dialgaye Dialgaye Public 10

Lycée Municipal de Pouytenga Pouytenga Public 5

CEG de l’Avenir Pousga Private 5

CEG El Shaddai Donsin Private 5

CEG Kanugu Kanugu Public 5

CEG Nebnooma Koupéla Private 5

CEG de Nakalbo Nakalbo Public 10

Lycée Saint Philippe Koupéla Private 10

CEG du secteur 3 Koupéla Public 5

CEG Naaba Zanré Koupéla Public 5

58
 The sampling included male as well as female learners. Table 5 below gives a distribution
of pupil respondents according to gender.

Table 5: Characteristic of learner sample

Gender Male learners Female learners Total

Number 67 83 150

III.4. Data collection instruments

To collect data for the current study, I used four (04) different instruments: questionnaires,
class observations, interviews and documentary analysis.

III.4.1. The questionnaire

The questionnaire was used to collect quantitative data. As already mentioned, the use of
the questionnaire is advantageous as it permits to reach many more teachers, even those of
the remote areas. In addition, “it is found to be less threatening for participants to give their
responses as it is anonymous when compared to the interview”. (Cohen et al.2005). I
administered the questionnaire to thirty- (36) teachers and one hundred and fifty (150)
students from twenty-two (22) post- primary and secondary schools of the “Centre-Est». The
purpose of the teachers’ questionnaire was to collect background information on them and
to find out their perception of the proportion of English they used in comparison to French
during classroom interaction. It also dealt with obstacles teachers faced in using the target
language and the strategies used to make the input meaningful and comprehensible.

As for the pupils’ questionnaire, it aimed at gathering general information on the pupils. It
also assessed their views on the proportion of the target language their teachers used and the
strategies they adopted to facilitate their access to this language. I translated the
questionnaire into French to take into account their low level of proficiency.

III.4.2. Classroom observations

I used classroom observation as an instrument to gather qualitative data because
observational data is very useful in overcoming discrepancies between what people say and
what they actually do (Bell, 2005). Moreover, classroom observation is, as Wanryb (1992)
judiciously underlines, “a powerful tool to draw data on classroom reality which may not be
possible to obtain by administrating questionnaire or interview as teachers tend to be usually
59
unaware of the processes. They are absorbed in the purpose, procedure and logistics” (p.17).
I made use of an observation checklist to gather direct information on the use of the target
language. It is made of items organized on two axes: the language mostly used by the
teachers and the teaching strategies to provide learners with meaningful and comprehensible
target language input. .

(For the observation checklist, see appendix 3)

III.4.3. The interview

The interview followed the classroom observations and it enabled me to collect
supplementary data which were not observable in class and to investigate queries arising
during class observations. I used the interview because of its adaptability and the clarity it
offers. A skilful interviewer can follow up ideas, probe responses and investigate concrete
motives and feelings, which the questionnaire cannot do. The way in which a response is
made (the tone of voice, facial expression, hesitation, etc.,) can provide information that a
written response might conceal. Questionnaire responses have to be taken at face value, but
a response in an interview can be developed and clarified (Bell, 2005, quoted from Zongo,
2015). I used semi-structured interview technique, with already prepared open-ended
questions but also some other unpredicted questions which arose from the teachers
responses. The questions were related to teachers’ background information and their own
concerns when using the target language in class.

III.4.4. The documentary analysis

I used the document analysis as it is believed to provide authentic and rich information
when compared to other techniques such as questionnaire and interview techniques (Leedy
3and Ormrod, 2001, Dörney 2007). For the sake of my study, I analyzed students’ copy-
books and record books and confronted their content with the teachers and students’ answers.
As a matter of fact, I examined the language used in the lessons as well as the strategies to
make the input comprehensible.

III.5. The research procedure

The purpose of this section is to explain how the different research instruments were
implemented.

60
 III.5.1. The piloting stage
Before administrating the questionnaires, I tried them out on ten (10) pupils from a 5ème
class in a private post-primary school. I also solicited Five (05) teachers for the pre-test.
The Pre-test was helpful as it permitted to proceed to some readjustments in the
questionnaire.

III.5.2. Lesson observations

Lesson observations were carried out within two (02) months, from January 10th up to
March 9th. It consisted in observing five (05) teachers in 5ème classes in the Region. The
teachers were among those I contacted and they agreed to participate to this activity. I told
the teachers the purpose of the class observations; but to avoid influencing their actions in
the classroom, I did not inform them about the specific topic until after I have conducted all
the class observations. I also explained the observation long lasting procedure and we agreed
on a calendar for the different observations sessions with the assistance of their school
administrations. The teachers are from different profiles. For the sake of confidentiality, I
used pseudonyms to design them.

Teacher D is a public school teacher and has been teaching for ten years. He holds a CAP-
CEG professional degree and a licence in “Lettres modernes”.

MR. B is also a state school teacher and has got eight years teaching experience. He
benefited from pre-service training when he was recruited as a post-primary school teacher.
He also holds the CAPES degree.

Mrs. G has been teaching for two years and holds a licence degree in “droits”. She is a
short term post-primary teacher recruited by the state within the framework of job creation
program in favour of young unemployed. She benefited from three (3) months training in
ENS/U.NZ.

Mr. Z is a state school teacher but the lesson observations took place in a private school in
which he was teaching as a part-time teacher. He holds a licence in English and has been
teaching for four years. Mr. Z did not receive any pre-service teaching but he has benefited
from two class visits.

61
 Mrs. M is a female post-primary school teacher. She has been teaching for five years and
benefited from pre-service training at ENS/U.NZ crowned with a cap-ceg professional
degree. She also holds a licence in English.

During the observation sessions, I adopted the same attitude. I sat somewhere, either in the
staff room or in front of the headmaster’s office waiting for the teacher. When time was up,
the teacher and I moved together into the class. I took profit of this short but precious moment
to reassure the teacher of the purpose of the activity. At the beginning, I greeted the pupils
in each class and informed them of the purpose of my presence and the observation
procedures. But for the remaining sessions, as they became familiar with my presence I just
recalled the purpose of the lesson observation before the teacher began his/her session. I
always took place near a student who was sitting alone or at the back of the class but I never
participated to the lesson any way.

With the observation grid, I only took notes on the unfolding of the lesson, documenting
the type of language the teacher used, the strategies for the target language use and the
classroom atmosphere. At the end of the last observation session, before leaving, I took the
floor in each class to thank the students and provided them with some advice in relation to
English language learning.

III.5.3. Administration of the questionnaire and the documentary

analysis
After the classroom observations and with the authorization delivered by the “Direction
Regionale du Centre-est”, I started meeting the selected teachers and pupils of my sampling.
I went round secondary schools in the Region and with the collaboration of the
administration, I got in touch with the teachers and the pupils for the administration of the
questionnaire. I administered directly the questionnaires to the pupils during their free hours.
As for the teachers, I gave time to fill in the questionnaire before returning it.

III.5.4. The administration of the interviews and the documentary

analysis
I performed the interview with each of the five teachers after the last lesson observation,
by considering their convenient time and space. I also recorded it with the consent of the
interviewees while I was taking notes. To begin the interview, I disclosed the purpose of the
research to the teachers to allow them to better understand the factors which influence their

62
choice of the language in classroom as well as the strategies to make the input
comprehensible. I also asked open-ended questions that I planned before meeting the
teachers. But as some other questions arose from the answers provided by the teacher, I made
the interview more flexible to permit a deeper insight into the topic. Every interview lasted
about half an hour and it took place in a relax atmosphere; teachers were given the floor to
explain and justify their choices but also to ask questions related to the topic.

Concerning the documentary analysis, I collected the pupils’ copy-books and the record
books to check what is done during language classes.

III.6. Difficulties
The main difficulty I met in the field work was related to the lesson observation. Initially,
I planned this activity for the whole month of January. However, I was not able to respect
the schedule because the period coincided with teachers or pupils’ strikes which disturbed
classes. Unfortunately, when the trouble ended, the situation did not improve. I was obliged
to delay several times the lesson observation because, either the teachers were absent or they
planned a test. As a consequence, I spent my time calling and travelling to the neighboring
villages for this activity.

The other difficulty was related to the planning and the administration of the questionnaires.
Some teachers kept the questionnaires over a long period of the time; so I was obliged to call
them many times before they returned them. I also had to keep in contact with many
headmasters over the phone to plan the administration of the pupils’ questionnaires. When
this obstacle was alleviated, I made the tour of many secondary schools in rural areas as well
as in towns to administer the questionnaires myself.

63
CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
In this chapter, I present and discuss the results of the study in relation to the literature
review, the research objectives and questions. I build the analysis around the following
thematic units: the language use during English lessons, the obstacles in the use of the target
language and finally the strategies for making the input meaningful and comprehensible.
Data gathered from direct observations, interviews, and documentary analysis are firstly
examined before deciphering them from questionnaires. The chapter ends with the
assessment of the research hypothesis in the light of the data analysis.

IV.1. EFL Teachers’ use of English in 5è classes

According to Littlewood (1984, quoted by Sawadogo, 2014), the language is primarily used
for communication. To serve this purpose, EFL teachers should use English as the language
of communication within the classroom context.

Findings from class observations showed that teachers develop different attitudes toward
the use of English as the target language in 5è classes. During the fifteen lessons I observed,
two teachers out of five (teachers B and M) used English as the predominant language of
instruction. Among the two, the amount of English varied as teacher B used French to
explain some words and to deal with management issues. Two other teachers (teachers D
and G) resorted to French essentially for teaching English. Their use of English intervened
only when they put the summary of the lesson or instructions on the board.

As for teacher Z, he systematically flicked between English and French during his lessons.
In other words, he used simultaneously both languages to explain grammar, ask questions
and give instructions. Furthermore, he used French exclusively to deal with discipline and
attendance checking. The consequence of all these practices is that pupils did not take risks
with the target language. They always used French to ask questions or to give information.
In reaction, Teacher Z also turned his English interaction into a French one. Therefore, I
considered that teacher Z did not surround his students with maximum target language even
if the proportion of English he provided to his pupils was beyond that of teachers D and G.

During the interviews I had with the four (4) teachers, only one teacher among them,
namely Teacher Z put into question my observations as he found that he used English as the
main language of instruction. In addition, the documentary analysis showed that the content
of the lesson in some pupils’ copy-books was exclusively in French.

64
 The results of the questionnaires also revealed that teachers’ practice varies. The statistical
data as displayed in the graphs below give a representation of the teachers and learners’
perception of the use of English as the target language in classes.

Graph 5: Pupils’ views about the

Graph 4: About the language (s) the
language (s) the teachers used during
teachers used during instruction
instruction
Teachers' perception of Pupils'perception of their
their use of the English teachers' use of the
language English language

0%
3%
Only english Only English
36% Mostly English
Mostly english 49% 51%
only french Only French
61% Mostly french
0% Mostly french
0%

As the graphs show, the majority of teachers (64% of the respondents) reported using
English mostly during instruction while 36% indicated to conduct their lessons in French
mostly. 51% pupil respondents also stated that their English teachers mostly spoke English
during lessons against 49% who found that French was the main medium of instruction.

The conflicting results provided by the questionnaires may mean that some EFL teachers
were unaware of the extent to which they were utilizing French during instruction. Therefore,
as teacher Z’s reaction during the interview revealed, they might over-estimate the
proportion of their use of the English language. Furthermore, in a previous study of the use
of the target language, Polio and Duff (1994:320) underlined an actual lack of awareness on
the part of the teachers as to how, when, and the extent to which they actually use the
learners’ L1 in the classroom. In two previous studies utilizing self-reporting, Wing(1980)
and Wilkerson(1994) also found that the respondents underestimated their use of the

65
learners’L1 during class sessions, due to instances of code switching, comprehension checks
through translation, and other types of intervention in L1(Ceo-Difrancesco, 2013).

Similarly, the use of code switching during instruction may make it difficult for some
learners to determine on-the-spot the main language used by their teachers. As the reported
data revealed, in ten (10) classes, pupils gave opposite answers on the language their teachers
used in the lessons. In addition, to justify their response on the comprehensibility of their
teachers’ language, some pupil respondents stated that their teachers explained a lot in
French. Other respondents also mentioned that their teachers’ language is comprehensible
because they flicked between French and English.

IV.2. Obstacles in the use of the English language

In this section, I analyzed the data from the class observations or interview about the
obstacles teachers are confronted in the use of English in 5è classes. Then, the results from
the questionnaires come to reinforce this analysis. I also adopted and adapted Ceo-
Francesco’s (2013) model of analyzing obstacles related to the use of the target language.
So, the findings were organized into three thematic groupings: obstacles involving teachers’
training issues, students’ factors, and lastly the obstacles beyond the teachers’ control.

IV.2.1. Obstacles involving teachers’ training issues

The first obstacle contributing to the difficulty of the teachers’ use of the English language
involved areas of teachers’ training. In fact, the ignorance of the teaching methodology or
the lack of confidence in the English language abilities accounts for the fact that some
teachers use French as the medium of instruction. Indeed, among the three (03) teachers who
spoke in French during lessons, only one held a CAP-CEG degree, but he never benefited
from any in-service training activity since his practical examination. Two of them also
conducted other studies than English. Consequently, as the lesson observations revealed,
they had real problems with the teaching methodologies. In fact, none of them respected the
3 Ps methodology used in teaching the new language. For example, in a vocabulary session,
teacher D made pupils repeat in chorus sixteen words, then translated them into French
before providing written exercises. During grammar lessons, teachers G and Z also
explained the new structure essentially in French, provided controlled drills before writing
the summary of the lesson in English or in French.

66
 The lesson observations also showed that classroom management issues caused teachers’
lack of English use. Teacher B’s case illustrated it; although he used English predominantly
in class, he flicked between English and French to deal with discipline problems during his
class sessions. This attitude is due to the fact that teachers feel that they must use students’
L1 to deal with discipline problems and to maintain control of the class (Helena Curtain,
2013).

In the interview I had with the teachers, they not only confirmed findings in the class
observations, but also revealed other difficulties. Indeed, Teacher D implicitly admitted his
difficulty with the teaching methodology when he expressed a need for teaching techniques
to deal with Vocabulary lessons. Teacher G clearly stated that she taught in French because
she did not know that she should necessarily use English in low level classes. She added
that she couldn’t implement the 3 P’s methodology because she did not master time
management. She also noted a lack of linguistic abilities to speak the language. She
declared: “when speaking English, I am often lost because of the words or expressions that
I am looking for in vain”. Teacher Z thought that flicking between English and French
permits to take into account pupils’ varying abilities and their lack of previous preparation.

In the same vein, Teacher M sought advice as some grammar lessons, instructions and
classroom management issues challenge her target language use. She explained: “when
delivering some grammar rules or instructions, I often flick into French because strategies I
most often use, do not make my language input meaningful enough for the pupils. When
pupils also refuse to work together in group work, I address these difficulties mostly in
French because conversation in this situation takes more time and I found inappropriate to
speak in English only”. Lastly, Teacher B stated that he used French to deal with classroom
management issues because he wanted to maintain rapport with his students and to avoid
wasting time

Similarly, the results from the teachers’ questionnaires also pointed out that factors
involving teachers’ training issues impact teachers’ English use. In fact, some teacher
respondents cited these factors and stated that they always or often impeded them from using
English. The table below presents these obstacles and the corresponding percentage of
respondents who mentioned the extent to which they prevented them from using English.

67
Table 6: Obstacles involving factors related to training issues
FACTORS RESPONDENTS

Always Often

Time constraints 11%

Language proficiency 3% 23%

Dealing with a wide range of pupils’ ability. 20% 34%

Lack of training in teaching methodology 25% 20%

Delivering explanations of grammar. 34% 28%

Tendency to deliver instructions in French 28% 25%

Classroom management issues. 31% 25%

Excessive concern with the students’ comprehension 36% 20%

Establishing rapports with pupils. 9% 14%

Lack of students’ previous preparation. 17% 42%

IV.2.2. Obstacles involving students’ factors

Some obstacles that teachers cited to explain the lack of use of the English language are
related to students’ factors. In fact, in their comments during the interview, teachers first
pointed to the pupils’ low level to justify their language choice in class. According to Teacher
D, he spoke in French essentially because he assumed that his students would not understand
his English language. Teacher Z argued that he flicked between English and French because
his pupils did not understand his language input solely in English. He added that they did
not show any interest in his lessons when he spoke English only. Teacher B stated that the
perceived lack of comprehension among the students often led him to use French to explain
some words and to deal with classroom problems. In the same vein, Teacher G explained
that she felt obliged to use French as the medium of instruction as the pupils remained
passive and showed signs of frustration when she was speaking English. Teacher M in her

68
comment referred to some students’ resistance even if their attitude did not prevent her from
using English.

The results of the questionnaire also showed that students’ factors influenced negatively
the use of English in classes. According to the surveyed teachers, students’ negative
attitudes, frustrations, low attention span and high anxiety often or always led them to use
French in class. Table 7 below describes students’ factors and the percentage of teachers
who considered them as obstacles to their English use in EFL classes.

Table 7: Obstacles involving students’ factors

FACTORS RESPONDENTS

Always Often

Students’ negative attitudes 6% 34%

Students’ low attention span 3% 34%

Students’ high anxiety 1% 25%

Students’ frustrations 48%

IV.2.3. Obstacles beyond teachers’ control

The findings showed that some of the factors that cause difficulties in the use of the English
language are beyond teachers’ control. These problems include large class size and lack of
didactic resources. In fact, during the interview, Teacher D observed that the lack of
textbooks in 5è made the use of English a challenge. She declared: “for the new syllabus,
the ‘English for second year’ textbook is not adapted; so, I must write the texts myself.
However, in class, I realize that the texts I use are often difficult for the pupils”. She added
that she often used French during vocabulary lessons because some pictures or real objects
she needed for the session are not available on the spot and she was not able to draw them.

Moreover, according to the data collected with the questionnaires (see table 8 below),
respectively 34% and 54% of the teacher respondents reported that class size and lack of
didactic material always or often impeded them from using English. Many Teachers also
wrote comments in which they suggested to provide them with textbooks adapted to the new

69
syllabus, and textbooks with colored pictures. Many others proposed to equip schools with
audio and video recorders to improve pupils’ listening skills and to limit class size.

Table 8: Obstacles involving factors beyond teachers’ control

FACTORS RESPONDENTS

Always Often

Class size 17% 17%

Lack of didactic materials 20% 34%

IV.3. Strategies used by teachers to make the language comprehensible

In this section, I present and analyze the data from class observations, interview,
documentary analysis and questionnaires under the following sub-themes: management and
organization of classroom interactions, modification strategies and the appropriate use of
French. I also took into account the data provided by the participants who claimed that
English is the language of instruction.

IV.3.1. Management and organization of classroom interactions

In this section, I present and analyze the data under the following sub-themes: Teaching
language strategies for learning, stating lesson objectives to the learners, creating a
cooperative and interactive atmosphere conducive to learning, using the English language in
context. .

IV.3.1.1. Teaching specific language learning

strategies
According to Ceo-Difrancesco (2013), learners can benefit from learning specific strategies
for making sense of the target language they are hearing in class. Yet, the findings in the
interview showed that teachers did not use this strategy. For instance, Teacher B and Teacher
D stated that they used strategies for making their language comprehensible; however, they
did not know that they should explicitly teach their pupils how to utilize these strategies to
their own advantage in order to comprehend their target language.

The results of the questionnaires do not differ much from what has been noted during the
interview. The majority of the teacher respondents (83% of the sample) stated that they did

70
not use this strategy. Similarly, 89% of the pupil respondents reported that their teachers did
not teach them strategies for facilitating their comprehension of the English language. (See
graph 6).

Graph 6: About teaching specific learning strategies

100%

90%
Teaching specific learning strategies
89%
80% 83%
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10% 17%
11%
0%
teacher respondents pupil respondents
Yes No

IV.3.1.2. Ensuring that pupils know the objectives of the

lesson
The class observations showed that teachers did not outline the lesson objectives for the
learners to keep them focus on the lesson and the language input. As for the questionnaires,
they almost pointed the same data as those provided by the direct observations (see graph
7). In fact, the majority of the respondents (78% of the teachers) answered that they did not
state the lesson objectives for their pupils. In the same vein, 85% of the pupils mentioned
that their teachers did not state the lesson objectives for them.

71
Graph 7: About the statement of the lesson objectives

Statement of the lesson objectives

90% 85%
78%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30% 22%
20% 15%
10%
0%
Teachers Yes No Pupils

IV.3.1.3. Creating a cooperative and interactive

atmosphere conducive to learning
During classroom interaction, teachers should adopt strategies which encourage learners to
guess the meaning of the communicated message. These strategies may include encouraging,
praising and rewarding children’s attempts to understand what is being said. The lesson
observations showed that teachers did not integrate these strategies in their daily practices.
In fact, during all the class sessions I attended, I never witnessed any moment a teacher who
rewarded good answers. In addition, they rarely praised students for their good answers or
encouraged the volunteer ones who tried unsuccessfully to answer their questions. On the
contrary, their error management was source of frustration. For instance, Teacher M did not
call to order the pupils who made fun of their classmate who gave incorrect answers. Teacher
B, most of the time, rejected systematically pupils’ incorrect answers, leaving the
respondents at the mercy of their classmates.

Quantitative data partially confirmed the conclusion of the class observations. In fact, only
a minority of teachers (21% of the sample) stated that they rewarded their pupils. In addition,
a very low proportion of pupils (5% of the sample) acknowledged that their teachers
rewarded them. As for encouragement and praise, teachers’ responses questioned the
findings in the lesson observations. The majority of the teachers (82% of the sample) claimed
to encourage and praise their pupils in their teaching. However, pupil respondents did not
confirm their teachers’ statements. Only 35% of them stated that their teachers used
encouragement and praise as a strategy to motivate them to guess answers to their questions
(see graph 8)

72
Graph 8: About the cooperative and interactive classroom
Teachers and pupils'opinion on the cooperative and interactive
classroom
90%

80%
82%
70%

60%

50%

40%

30% 35%

20%
21%
10%
5%
0%
Praise and encougement Rewards

Teachers' responses Students' responses

IV.3.1.4. Using the target language in context

The importance of contextualization stems from the fact that it provides learners with
comprehensible input. Indeed, learners simultaneously employ various strategies to
understand the meaning of the communicated message including interpreting the context in
which the language is used. To provide context for the target language use, teachers need to
organize all activities around an integrated thematic unit. They should also use dialogues,
games, songs, stories, role plays, pictures descriptions and riddles to present, practice or
reinforce language.

Yet, data from class observations showed that teachers essentially taught lessons in
isolation. It is true that Teacher B and Teacher M used the 2010 syllabus. However, its
implementation was inappropriate as not all the lessons referred to the topics. In fact, during
the four (04) grammar lessons I observed in their classes, teachers did not take into account
the function for which the language is used. They limited their teaching to the structures.
Teacher Z also taught three isolated grammar items, and a Reading –comprehension lesson
with a text drawn from “English for second year”.

The documents (record books and the pupils’ copy-books) I analyzed, confirmed that
teachers did not teach the language skills or sub skills in integrated lessons. In fact, the
documents showed that 8 teachers out of 36 used the 2010 syllabus; but, like their peers

73
observed, their lessons are not topic- based. 28 other teachers simultaneously exploited the
2010 syllabus, the structural syllabus, and the “English for second year” textbook. In fact,
they essentially taught isolated grammatical structures but also dialogue, vocabulary and
reading-comprehension drawn indistinctively from the two syllabuses and the coursebook.

The data collected from the teachers’ questionnaires were not in contradiction with the
conclusions of the direct observations and the documentary analysis. 11% of the teacher
respondents clearly stated that they taught their lessons in isolation. 8¨% did not give any
answer. 81% of other respondents claimed that they implemented the new syllabus; 59% of
them added that they used the “English for second year.” The fact of using this textbook
proved that lessons lack cohesion because this didactic material is not adapted to the new
syllabus.

Concerning the class activity-types, the data of the lesson observations revealed that
teachers did not base their classroom interactions on authentic and meaningful activities such
as games, songs, role-plays, dialogue, stories, pictures description or riddles. In all the
sessions I observed, they showed preference for traditional activities such as asking display
questions and isolated sentence manipulation. However, these activity-types did not provide
teachers with a context to convey the form of the new language as well as the full force of
its meaning and relevance. For instance, in a grammar lesson dealing with “Why not
+infinitive, what about+-ING form, what about + noun”, Teacher M explained the different
notions through the following model sentences: Why not play football? What about doing
homework? What about your mother? She also gave the following exercise: “fill in the
blanks with what about or why not”1) ….tell the truth? 2) …your appointment? 3) …the
truth? 4) …our aunt? If these examples and the activity made the rule clear for pupils, they
would not allow them to grasp its meaning. However, Penny Ur (2009) states that it is no
good knowing how to perceive or construct a new tense of a verb if you do not know exactly
what difference it makes to meaning when it is used.

The documentary analysis almost confirmed the data from the class observations. Except
for the dialogue which was often taught, the record books and the pupils’ copy-books pointed
out that teachers did not use communicative tasks. More generally, exercises they provided
to their students focused on isolated sentence manipulation and translation. .

Concerning the results from the questionnaires, they depicted a situation which was not
also much more different from the findings in the lesson observations and the documentary

74
analysis. The majority of the teachers acknowledged that they never or rarely used games
(75% of the sample), role-plays (60%), songs (70%), picture description (78%), riddles
(96%), and stories (70%). Dialogue is the only type of activity that teachers used as a context
clue to communicate meaning. Indeed, 82% of the teacher respondents stated that they
always or often used it. The graph below presents teachers’ responses as far as the
frequency of the use of purposeful activities is concerned.

Graph 9: Teachers’ views about the frequency of purposeful activities

they use in the lessons

Frequency of activity-types
80%
70%
60%
Pourcentage

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Games Songs Dialogues Role-Plays Rddles Stories Pictures
descriptio
ns
Always 0% 0% 30% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Often 25% 30% 52% 40% 4% 30% 22%
Rarely 35% 40% 4% 26% 22% 30% 43%
Never 40% 30% 14% 34% 74% 40% 35%

In addition, the data from pupils’ responses (see graph 10 below) showed the same tendency
as far as the use of purposeful activities is concerned. In fact, the surveyed pupils reported
that teachers never or rarely used games (92% of the pupil respondents), role-plays (92%),
songs (81%), picture description (100%), riddles (98%), and stories (96%). Like the teachers,
a relative important portion of the pupil respondents (50% of the sample) also stated that
dialogue is used as an activity during lessons. However, as the data revealed, the rate of
pupils who gave this response is less high than that of the teachers.

75
Graph 10: Pupils’ views about the frequency of purposeful activities used
during lessons

Frequency of activity-types
100%
90%
80%
Pourcentage

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Games Songs Dialogues Role-Plays Rddles Stories Pictures
descriptio
ns
Always 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Often 8% 19% 45% 8% 2% 4% 0%
Rarely 37% 30% 16% 7% 12% 14% 7%
Never 55% 51% 34% 85% 86% 82% 93%

IV.3.2. Use of various modification strategies

Linguistic as well as non-linguistic modifications make the input comprehensible for the
learners. Linguistic modifications involve modeling the target language for the learners,
using tone of voice to emphasize key parts of the message, and slowing down the delivery
of the speech. It also includes using familiar structures and simplified structures, rephrasing
and paraphrasing to assist with meaning.

The class observations showed that teachers provided their pupils with example sentences
when introducing a new language item. However, they did not always model the exercise to
help the pupils. They did not also adjust their language enough to adapt it to their pupils’
level. During Teacher B’ class sessions, I observed that he always conducted his lessons in
a hurry. As a matter of fact, when explaining a new language structure or dealing with
classroom management issues, the teacher did not slow down his speech flow. In addition,
he neither insisted on key words nor did he repeat his utterances either partially or in their
totality. He did not also reformulate his questions even if many pupils seemed not to
understand them. Consequently, Teacher B was very often obliged to answer the questions
himself. Lastly, the language he used in his model sentences and the activities was very

76
often not accessible to his pupils. Similarly, the instructions were sometimes not clearer
enough. For instance, when teaching “children’s duties at home and at school”, he first gave
the following activity: “complete the duty”: respect of each other, take care of the toilet,
uniform wearing, flag rising, plants watering, eating with right, washing hands before, to be
clean. Then he asked his students to give one more example of children’s duty at school.
The activities proved to be difficult for students to answer and the teacher was obliged to
translate some words and to model the activities. Despite these different scaffolds, the
participation was very low during the correction. The assessment of students’ performances
also showed that a majority of them did not succeed in answering the questions.

Teacher M used simplified syntax and vocabulary to give sample sentences in her grammar
lessons. However, when working with her students on the sentences to draw the rule, she
asked complex questions. She did not also show any sign of pausing, over-pronunciation,
repetition and reformulation in her talk to give her students more chance to understand it. As
for Teacher Z, he never tried to adjust his language as he constantly flicked between English
and French.

The findings were quite different with teachers who answered the questionnaires (see graph
11). According to the data, they used enough paraverbals to modify their input. In fact, the
majority of the respondents (87%) stated to model their language for the pupils. In addition,
they claimed to adjust it by using over-pronunciation (85%), basic vocabulary or simple
grammar (70%), slowed speech flow (65%) and purposeful pause (55%) to give pupils more
time to absorb the content. They also mentioned that they used repetition (42 %) and
paraphrasing (45%) even if the proportion of the respondents is relatively small. However,
the pupil participants found that their teachers only modelled the language (100% of the
pupil respondents). As for the other paraverbals, only a minority of the pupils stated that
their teachers used slowed speech flow (35%), simple language (40%), repetition (23 %),
reformulation (20%), wait-time (15%), and over-pronunciation (30%).

77
Graph 11: Situation of the use of paraverbals

use of paraverbals
120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Teachers' responses Pupils'responses

Concerning the nonverbal means, the data collected from lesson observations showed that
color chalk is the only visual aid that teachers always used in their lessons. For the other
non-linguistic means (body language, realia, pictures, drawings), they did not use them
routinely to make their English meaningful and comprehensible. During the nine lesson
sessions I observed, only Teacher M used two pupils and drawing as means to explain the
comparative of inferiority. But, with regards to the lesson types I got the opportunity to
observe, it was possible for the teachers to use visuals to present and practice the language.

The analysis of the quantitative data revealed conflicting results. The teachers in their
majority claimed to use visuals. In fact, 78 % of the teacher respondents reported that they
always used color chalk. A large proportion of the teachers also stated that they always or
often used drawings (86%), pictures (58%), gestures (95%), mimes (74%), and realia (92%).
The graph below gives a clear idea of the frequency in the use of the visuals provided by the
teachers.

78
Graph 12: Teachers’ views about the frequency they use visuals

Frequency in the use of visuals

80%
70%
60%
Pourcentage

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
color chalk Drawings Pictures Realia Gestures mimes
Always 78% 14% 5% 22% 65% 17%
Often 18% 72% 53% 70% 30% 57%
Rarely 4% 14% 36% 5% 5% 22%
Never 0% 0% 6% 3% 0% 4%

However, the surveyed pupils’ answers showed that it was not the case. According to the
data, pupils in their majority stated that teachers never or rarely used drawings (76% of the
respondents), pictures (98%), gestures (87%), mimes (97%), and realia (63%). Nevertheless,
an important size of the pupil respondents (87%) recognized that teachers always used color
chalk during lessons (see graph13).

Graph13: Pupils’ views about the frequency in the use of visuals

Frequency in the use of visuals

90%
80%
70%
Pourcentage

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
color chalk Drawings Pictures Realia Gestures mimes
Always 87% 1% 1% 4% 3% 0%
Often 8% 23% 1% 33% 10% 3%
Rarely 1% 40% 30% 25% 37% 38%
Never 4% 36% 68% 38% 50% 59%

79
IV.3.3. Appropriate use of French

IV.3.3.1. Separate French from English

According to Curtain (2016), the students’ l1 should be separate from the target language.
For her, signaling transition to the other language can help avoid constant switching of
languages or translation. Therefore, teachers should plan their classroom talk in advance and
deliberately determine when to use French. Yet, the observed lessons proved that teachers
did not separate English from French. Teacher Z constantly flicked between English and
French. Teacher B also instantly slid into French to deal with a discipline problem or to
explain some words. During the interview, teachers confirmed the findings in the lesson
observations. Teacher B explained that he often systematically switched to French to explain
some words or to deal with behavioral problems. As for Teacher M, she told to resort to
French to explain some grammar lessons or instructions when her efforts in English were
not fruitful.

The results of the questionnaires also demonstrated that teachers indistinctively balanced
between English and French. In fact, 96% of the teachers and 100% of the pupils stated that
French is used instantly in the lessons. The following graph is the statistical representation
of the teachers and the pupils’ views on the teachers’ mode of using French language.

Graph 14: About the separation of French and English

The separation of French and English

120%

100%
100%
96%
80%

60%

40%

20%

4% 0%
0%
separation of french and english absence of separation between french and
english
Teachers' responses Students' responses

80
 IV.3.3.2. Avoid translation
Teachers should not overuse translation. Otherwise, learners simply wait to hear words
given in French. Yet, the lesson observations revealed that some teachers resorted to French
as an easier option. In fact, during a speaking session (which was in reality a vocabulary
lesson), Teacher B translated the words “duty, school rules, clean, flag rising” into French.
This option was not appropriate as it was possible for the teacher to use other means such as
pictures, drawing, antonyms, or meaningful sample sentences to explain them. Similarly,
the pupils’ copy-books revealed that some teachers used translation as an ongoing strategy
rather than a last resort. For instance, in a vocabulary lesson, a teacher translated the names
of twelve (12) wild animals in French. In the following grammar lesson, he also used
translation to explain nine (9) possessive pronouns. Similarly, another teacher translated
twenty-one (21) words drawn from a dialogue text “late for supper”. Two other teachers
respectively translated a dialogue (games) and an ordinary text (traffic accident).

The quantitative data (see graph15) clearly confirmed that teachers relied too much on
using translation as a strategy in English classes. In fact, 68% of the teacher respondents
always or often resorted to translation in English lessons. Only 32 % of them claimed that
they rarely used it. As for the pupils, 76% of them acknowledged that their teachers always
or often used translation. A low proportion (24% of the sample) stated their teachers rarely
used it.

Graph 15: About teachers’ use of translation

T EACHE RS'USE O F T RA NSLAT I O N

teachers' responses students' responses
44%
34%

32%

28%

24%
21%

0%

0%

ALWAYS OFTEN RARELY NEVER

81
IV.4. Assessment of the research hypotheses
As a reminder, I based the research on the following hypotheses.

1- The teachers do not use English as the medium of instruction in 5è classes.

2. The teachers are confronted with many obstacles in the use of English.

3. The teachers do not use a variety strategies for making the input comprehensible.

IV.4.1. Assessment of hypothesis 1: The teachers do not use

English as the medium of instruction in 5è classes
To confirm or reject hypothesis 1, I relied on the findings from class observations and the
interviews with the teachers. I also exploited the data generated from the documentary
analysis and the questionnaires related to the type of language EFL teachers used for teaching
English in 5è.

The findings from the classroom observations revealed that three teachers out of five did
not use English as the language of instruction. In addition, the documentary analysis also
showed that in some copy-books, the content of the lessons was in French. As for the data
from the questionnaires, they showed that English is used as the predominant language of
communication in the classroom by the majority of the teachers (64% of teacher respondents
and 51% of pupils’ responses). As a conclusion, I can say that hypothesis 1 is partially
verified.

IV.4.2. Assessment of hypothesis 2: The teachers are confronted

with many obstacles in the use of English
To test the hypothesis, I relied on the findings from the class observations and data from
the interviews with the teachers. I also included the data the questionnaires generated, with
a reference to the obstacles involving teachers training issues, students’ factors and factors
beyond teachers’ control.

The findings in relation to the obstacles teachers are confronted with in the use of English
involved teachers training issues. In fact, the classroom observations demonstrated that the
lack of training in teaching methodology, language proficiency and classroom management
issues impeded the English language use. Moreover, in the questionnaires, some teachers
added other factors like dealing with a wide range of pupils’ ability, delivering explanations

82
of grammar, excessive concern with the students’ comprehension, tendency to deliver
instructions in French, establishing rapports with pupils and lack of students’ previous
preparation.

The second category of obstacles involved students’ factors. The interviews with the
teachers showed that students’ low level and frustrations, always or often hindered teachers’
use of English during lessons. In the questionnaires, teacher respondents added students’
negative reaction, anxiety and low attention span as other obstacles to their language use.

The last difficulties teachers mentioned in the interviews and in the questionnaires included
the lack of didactic materials and the large class size. So, as whole, the findings confirm the
hypothesis that teachers are confronted with many obstacles in the use of English during
instruction.

IV.4.3. Assessment of hypothesis 3: The teachers do not use a variety of

strategies for making the input comprehensible
I checked this hypothesis in relation with the results on management and organization of
classroom interactions, modification strategies and the appropriate use of French.

Dealing with management of English language interaction, the class observations showed
that teachers did not state the objectives of the lessons to the students. In addition, they did
not praise and reward their students for trying to understand the language they used. In the
interviews, they also admitted that they did not teach the strategies for making their language
comprehensible.

The quantitative data confirmed these findings. In fact, 78% of the teachers acknowledged
that they did not state the objectives of the lessons (confirmed by 85% of the surveyed
learners). 83% of the teachers and 89% of the pupils also stated that strategies for making
the language input comprehensible are not taught. Lastly, the majority of the teacher
respondents (82% of the teacher sample) claimed to use praise and encouragements but no
rewards (only 21% of teacher respondents). However, the majority of the students stated
that teachers used neither praise and encouragement (65% of the students) nor rewards (95%
of the student sample) during instruction.

In addition, teachers did not use their target language in context. The class observations
revealed that all the teachers did not organize their lessons around topics. The activities they
used, do not provide them with a context to communicate meaningful messages. The

83
questionnaires also corroborate these realities. Among the teachers surveyed, 11% of them
stated clearly that they taught lessons in isolation. 59% of them used the new syllabus, the
structural syllabus and the “English for second year” textbook. As far as the activities are
concerned, only dialogue is used by the majority of the teachers (82% of the teacher sample
and 50% of the student sample).

Concerning the modification strategies, the data from the class observations pointed out
that teachers did not modify their input enough by using different linguistic and non-
linguistic means when they spoke in English. They only modelled their language and used
color chalk to highlight the important aspects of the lesson.

The teacher respondents in their majority claimed to use sufficient linguistic means to
modify their input: Modelling ((87% of the sample), over-pronunciation (85%), simple
language (70%), slowed speech flow (65%), wait-time (55%), repetition (42 %) and
paraphrasing (45%). They also reported that they always or often used a variety of
nonlinguistic means: color chalk (78 %), drawings (86%), pictures (58%), gestures (95%),
mimes (74%), and realia (92%).

However, only a minority of the pupils confirmed that teachers used enough paraverbals:
slowed speech flow (35% of the sample), simple language (40%), repetition (23 %),
reformulation (20%), wait-time (15%), and over-pronunciation (30%). Similarly, a small
size of pupil respondents reported that teachers always or often used drawings (24% of the
respondents), pictures (2%), gestures (13%), mimes (3%), and realia (27%). Pupils only
acknowledged that their teachers modelled the language (100% of the pupil respondents)
and used color chalk (95% of pupils’ responses), confirming the findings of the class
observations.

The last strategy concerns teachers’ ways of using French language. The class
observations and the interview showed that teachers did not use any transition to switch to
French. In addition, the lesson observations and the documentary analysis indicated that
some teachers relied too much on translation as a strategy to make their language
comprehensible. Similarly, the data of the questionnaires showed that teachers did not
separate French from English and they used translation as an ongoing strategy. In fact,
teachers often switched instantly to French to support students’ comprehension (96% of the
teacher respondents and 100% of pupils’ responses). As for the translation, it is always or
often used by teachers (62% of the teacher respondents and 76% of the pupils’ responses).

84
 Considering all the teaching practices mentioned above, I can say that teachers do not use
a variety of strategies for making their language comprehensible. Therefore, the third
hypothesis is verified.

85
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
This chapter explores implications of the theories and results of the study on the teachers’
use of the English language in 5è classes. I also make suggestions to address issues the study
raised.

V.1. Implications
The analysis of the data collected during the investigation showed that EFL teachers are
confronted with difficulties in the use of the target language. As a result, although all the
teachers surveyed recognize the importance of providing target language input, practice
varies greatly. The study also revealed that EFL teachers did not vary the strategies to make
the language comprehensible for the students. Such findings have some pedagogical
implications.

V.1. 1. Training teachers

The investigation showed that the major factor hindering teachers’ decision to use the
English, involves areas that show lack of teachers’ preparation and training. In fact, the lack
of training in teaching methodology or confidence in mastering the target language were the
root cause of the teachers’ lack of using the English with their students. Teachers’ identified
obstacles also involve how to handle students’ varying abilities and lack of students’
previous preparation. Lastly, the teachers surveyed are not aware of some teaching strategies
for providing comprehensible input. These findings show that there is a dire necessity to
provide EFL teachers with opportunities for the professional development they seek, to
enable them to improve their use of the target language in classes.

V.1. 2. Collaboration among teachers

EFL teachers under this investigation developed different attitudes toward the use of French
and English. These attitudes depend mainly on the teachers’ linguistic and pedagogic
competence. Thus, during lesson observations, two (2) teachers out three (3) who studied
English and are professionally qualified, used extensively English during their lessons. 94%
of the surveyed teachers with the same profiles also declared using English exclusively or
nearly-exclusively for teaching. However, 60% of the teachers who conducted other studies
or studied English but did not benefit from any professional training used French as a
medium for teaching. The data collected suggest that collaboration among EFL teachers

86
could provide opportunities for them to practise changes in the use of English during lessons.
Indeed, as teachers from these different profiles are found in the same localities or schools,
they can work together to discuss techniques and strategies for teaching through the target
language and providing comprehensible input.

V.1. 3. Shifting toward communicative language teaching

The teachers’ extensive use of the target language has become a strong principle advocated
by the Communicative Language Teaching. As Ellis (2005) argues, language instruction
requires extensive target language input and that language instruction should focus
predominantly on meaning; which will give students practice in hearing the spoken
language, and taking part in communication for real purposes. That is why he lists ‘extensive
L2 input’ as number 6 of his principles of instructed language learning.

However, the findings of the study indicated that teaching practices do not promote
communication. EFL teachers under this investigation, whether they used more English or
not, taught grammar essentially, and that instruction focused on accuracy. As lesson
observations revealed, teachers spent more time to provide students with abstract
grammatical knowledge. The consequence of this attitude is that teachers still dominated
talking in class. They covered maximum grammatical points, but they left little opportunities
for the learners to process meaningful information through the target language. In the same
vein, Teachers tended to ask more display questions, which serve to facilitate the recall of
the information and check the understanding of knowledge. Chaudron (1988:193) points out
that “display questions tend to elicit short answers, learners supply the information for
didactic purposes only, they would have less communicative involvement in producing a
display response, and then less motivational drive for using the target language”.

In order to meet the goal of extensive target language use, there is a need for teachers to
change their teaching practices, shifting from the traditional methods and moving into the
communicative approach to English language teaching. Drawing from Hymes’s (1971)
theory of communicative competence, teaching in 5è language classes should be
proficiency- focused. So, instead of considering grammar as an end in itself, it is necessary
for instructors to teach language within the development of their pupils’ reading, writing,
speaking, and listening skills. The ideal is to promote teaching integrated skills to help
students perform the language which reflects conversation in real-life situation.

87
 In addition, when teaching grammar, it is necessary to present the language material in
context. This presentation gives pupils the opportunity to realize the usefulness and
relevance of the new language material and their need to learn it (Mary Spratt, 1985:6).
According to Harmer (1991:57), context types include the students’ world (physical
surroundings, students’ lives), the outside world (real or simulated stories or situations, and
formulated information (charts, maps, graphs, tables…). Hedge (2000:159, quoted by
Gaméné, 2009), further adds that contexts can be created through visuals, mimes,
demonstration in the classroom, a dialogue, a text, a video or a situation set up by the teacher.

Furthermore, the lesson should focus on communicative tasks that challenge the learners to
employ the grammar concepts. Students need more opportunities to use grammatical
structures over and over again. This can be done with activities such as games, songs, stories,
role play, and pair or group small discussion. When teachers provide such purposeful tasks,
students are more likely to produce complex target language structures and their output is
less like that produced in naturalistic contexts (Ma Xiaou, 2006:56). They also promote
negotiation of meaning. And, as mentioned in chapter II, negotiation of meaning contributes
to language acquisition and makes the classroom interaction more communicative. Through
this kind of communication, learners can get more opportunities to communicate and interact
with each other or with their teachers. This implies that EFL teachers should create a positive
affective environment that facilitates negotiation of meaning

V.1. 4. Scaffolding
The data collected with the teachers’ questionnaire, the documentary analysis, the lesson
observations and interviews showed that teachers did not provide multiple scaffolds to assist
learners in the language comprehension. The majority of the learners shared this concern as
they suggested that teachers should explain more to make the language comprehensible. In
fact, as I underlined in the data analysis, teachers did not diversify their strategies to offer
more possibilities to the learners to understand the language they used. The most important
strategy I noted was the modeling of the new language through example-sentences during
the explanation phase. But, this assistance was not helpful enough as teachers used to cover
many aspects of the new language at the same time and did not control the length and
complexity of their sentences. For example, for two hours sessions, Teacher B took one hour
to teach the usage of can, must, and may. He also provided the negative form, the preterit

88
and the future of these defectives. This presentation mode is not appropriate as it does not
take into account young learners’ low attention span.

Considering Vygotsky’s view, a child learns best when given small pieces of information
which aid him or her through the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). This assistance can
be achieved through scaffolding the students’ learning process. Scaffolding is to provide
learners with activities that are just beyond what they currently do on their own (Mitchell
and Myles, 2004). The teacher, or adult, or peer, anyone who is more capable than the learner
provides the scaffolds to help the learner achieve the task that he would not be able to achieve
by his own. In this respect, scaffolding in the EFL classroom should involve breaking
learning into small steps. Teachers should also use a variety of strategies to make their
language comprehensible

V.1. 5. Optimizing the Exploitation of the New Syllabus

The syllabus adopted in 2010 organizes the English teaching and learning around integrated
thematic units. Lessons are topic or theme based with the target grammar and vocabulary
provided for the context. Lessons are built around functions which are practical and authentic
in respect of the real world needs. Communicative competence is the desirable goal. With
these characteristics, the syllabus provides a context for the teachers’ use of the language in
order to facilitate the learners’ comprehension.

An effective use of this syllabus implies that vocabulary and grammar are taught within the
context of language skills. The grammar structures should also be practiced within the
context of an appropriate function. This means that teachers should integrate the language
items into activities that use them meaningfully for some communicative purpose.
Nevertheless, my findings revealed that teachers involved in this study are confronted with
many difficulties in the use of the new syllabus. Consequently, they taught lessons chosen
from the new syllabus, the structural syllabus, and the “English for second year”. For those
who used it, the analysis of the record books and pupils’ copy-books revealed that the
implementation was not appropriate. Grammar and vocabulary were not used as resources
for the language as teachers did not combine them with reading or speaking lessons. They
just picked up some language items that they taught by focusing on accuracy rather than on
meaning.

89
 The new syllabus presents some undeniable advantages for the use of the target language
during EFL lessons. Associating grammar and vocabulary with topics or functions focuses
the students’ minds on the language in context. It also helps them to use it more intensively
during meaningful activities the teachers provide. So, it is a necessity for teachers to
implement the new syllabus and in an appropriate way.

V.2. SUGGESTIONS
The investigation raised some pedagogical issues which need to be addressed in order to
help teachers increase the amount and the quality of English they used in 5è classes.
Therefore, I make suggestions to the authorities in charge of education and to the teachers.

V.2.1. To the authorities in charge of education

EFL teachers face challenges in the use of English as the main language of instruction.
First, the study revealed that some teachers experience linguistic difficulties. EFL teachers’
educational backgrounds may account for these difficulties. For example, among the nine
(9) teachers surveyed who considered language proficiency as an obstacle to the use of
English in classes, eight (8) conducted other studies than English. However, the State and
some private continue to recruit EFL teachers from different educational backgrounds.
These years, to reduce the shortage in teaching personnel, the State has even enrolled some
EFL teachers among those who studied social sciences or literature, without submitting them
to any test and regardless of their English level. As teaching in English requires some oral
skills, I suggest to the authorities in charge of education to review EFL teachers’ recruitment
procedures in introducing oral proficiency tests. The State should also support EFL teachers
who wish to enhance their language proficiency. This support could include taking English
courses in universities, scholar exchanges and travel grants for immersion in English-
speaking countries.

The second obstacle to the teachers’ use of English is pedagogic. The current study
highlighted that teaching methodologies are key challenges for teachers. The implication
involves pedagogical support assisting teachers with methods and techniques to teach
English through English. This assistance is particularly necessary for those who do not
benefit from any professional training. Teachers also need effective teaching strategies to
encourage their students’ participation. Organizing seminars, workshops and class visits
provide teachers with such help. Teaching councils also provide teachers with opportunities

90
to share experience. Therefore, it is necessary for the policy-makers to increase support for
such in-service training platforms.

Finally, inadequate resources clearly affect the success of the teacher’ extensive use of
English for real communication in classes. In 5è English classes, the study showed that
teachers rarely use visual aids. The lack of appropriate textbooks also led teachers not to
implement the 2010 syllabus which promotes the communicative language teaching.
Teachers go by their own way in the organization of teaching and learning English. The
lesson types, topics, and teaching materials vary from one teacher to another. Some teachers
exploit “English for Second Year”. However, this textbook is essentially based on reading
and grammar. According to R.B. Tiénin (2006:62) grammatical items constitute 65.09% of
the content of the textbook and the exercises are highly controlled. The proportion of
vocabulary, speaking and writing activities is not as important as it represents respectively
1.72, 9.48% and 6.90% of the activities in the book. The book does not encompass any
listening activities; pronunciation is not taught either.

In this regard, I recommend that the authorities invest materials in English teaching in order
to bring about positive change in teaching practices. Such initiatives would reduce teachers’
workload in searching for up-to- date didactic materials and enable learners to access
language resources independently. Connecting secondary schools with the network can
allow teachers to access to rich teaching resources. But the urging need in beginners’ classes
is the provision of textbooks (teachers and pupils’ books) to facilitate the implementation of
the new syllabus and to give a kind of harmony in teaching and learning English. The
teachers’ books will guide teachers in the use of the textbooks. To facilitate students’
comprehension and use of the language, I suggest that the presentation of the grammatical
items in the new textbook, include graphics, pictures and boxes to make the meaning clearer.
This presentation stage may be implemented through a short prose text, a dialogue or
pictures. Practice section should provide some activities to be used in meaningful contexts.
In the reading section, the choice of the texts should take into account the pupils’ age, level
and environment. Illustrations can also accompany those texts. It is also necessary to increase
speaking and writing activities. Speaking should lay emphasis on games, simulations and
story theatre, picture description, songs and poems, and discussions adapted to the students’
levels. As for the writing, it can deal with picture description too and jigsaw exercises. .

91
 V.2. 2. To the teachers
EFL teachers are confronted with obstacles in the use of English for teaching.
Consequently, the proportion of the English used for instruction, and its quality as well, are
not globally satisfactory. However, in language classes, where teaching and learning
English aims at developing learners’ communicative competence, EFL teachers are expected
to surround their students with maximum comprehensible input. Additionally, Researchers
have written about the importance and benefits of using mainly the target language in classes.
My findings also suggested that using English as the predominant language of instruction
participates to the students’ language development. In the EFL classes that I have observed,
if the teacher taught in English, his students were much more likely to speak in English, to
ask and answer questions in English, and to interact with their peers in English. The majority
of the pupil participants believed that their teachers’ use of English during instruction would
benefit their English language proficiency. Based on the reported obstacles and the class
observations, the following recommendations support teachers as they increase the amount
of English provided to students and make it comprehensible.

V.2. 2. 1. Increase the English use through self-improvement

According to Penny Ur (2009:7), teachers generally agree that they learned most from their
own experience and reflection while in professional practice. Findings of my study indicated
that some teachers’ lack of English use in classes is due to the ignorance of teaching
methodologies. So, to better their teaching, novice teachers should teach or observe lessons,
then reflect alone or in discussion with the veteran peers. In addition, I recommend EFL
teachers to evaluate the language that they employ during the lessons. This self-professional
reflection and self-evaluation are means of self-monitoring their use of English. Teachers
should also work with their peers to share good practice. This collaboration can consist in
teaching or observing peers’ lessons. Then discussions will follow to identify instances of
code-switching and to suggest alternatives to maintain instruction in English. In this context,
the use of recording devices (tape recorders, mobile phones, cameras) to view and analyze
class sessions can help teachers to develop more self-awareness of their English use. Lastly,
they need to read and consult supervisors to benefit from any help related to the use of the
target language.

V.2. 2. 2. Avoid excessive concern for students’

comprehension

92
 Teachers need to be confident in the students and in their own capacities. As Ceo-
Difrancesco (2013) argues, it is important for teachers to realize that students can function
with some ambiguity and that word for word translation is not necessary. The interview
revealed that excessive concern for students’ comprehension led Teacher Z to flick between
English and French to ensure that students understand. Many teacher respondents (56% of
the sample) also stated that this concern always or often obliged them to use French in their
lessons. Both of these practices can be obstacles to the development of students’ language
proficiency because they rob them of the opportunity to construct meanings and take
advantage of the target language gestures, visuals and experience that make the new
language meaningful(Curtain (2016).

V.2.2.3. Practice differentiated instruction

Teachers pointed at the learners’ varying abilities (54% of the respondents) and lack of
students’ previous preparation (59% of the sample) as obstacles to their English language
use. Varying and matching teaching styles to these multiple intelligences can alleviate these
obstacles for the teachers (Gardner, H. 1993).

V.2.2.4. Improve the language proficiency

The teachers’ competence to present a fluent and accurate model of spoken language is an
important condition for learning. However, in Burkina Faso, the context in which the English
teaching and learning is taking place, an EFL teachers’ language proficiency is always a
main concern. As the country does not offer opportunities for the teacher to continue to
immerse himself in the language, his proficiency can decline. The teachers’ profile is also a
key issue. The field work revealed that some EFL teachers conducted other studies than
English. This category of teachers under this study seemed not to be confident in their
linguistic abilities.

EFL teachers have to find ways to improve or maintain their language proficiency. They
can connect with native language speakers and the English language culture to improve their
linguistic abilities and confidence in using English in classroom. For Ceo-Difrancesco
(2013), further suggestions for teachers’ target language maintenance involves language
conversation partners, reading for pleasure, book discussion groups and university studies
focusing on target language production. Additionally, teachers can travel in neighboring
English speaking countries for immersion. Lastly, they should explore funding possibilities,

93
such as regional and national language organizations study scholarships to enhance their
linguistic and professional abilities.

V.2.2.5.Focus teaching on proficiency and communication

The results of the study suggested that teachers (11% of the sample) at times reverted to
French due to time factors. The pressure to complete a grammar syllabus and the underlying
push to cover maximum grammatical points within a given period of time might in fact
hinder teachers for providing more English input. But, if the teacher was taking time for his
students to process meaningful information through English, he would minimize his use of
French. This attitude implies that instruction in EFL classes is communication –based and
focuses on what students are able to do with the language rather than what they know about
the language.

V.2.2.6. Use a variety of strategies during lessons

to make input comprehensible
Many surveyed teachers considered students’ factors as obstacles to their English language
use in class. Therefore, to stay in the target language, EFL teachers should make their English
concrete and comprehensible. However, the investigation showed that teachers did not use
a package of strategies to provide learners with the level of support necessary to participate
actively in real language activities. To address this issue, there are several key strategies
that EFL teachers can implement to make the new language comprehensible.

Based on the results of the study, I suggest that teachers create a context for their language
use. Therefore, instead of presenting lessons in isolation as the investigation revealed, they
should promote teaching integrated skills to focus the students’ attention on the language
and facilitate its comprehension. That’s why I encourage the implementation of the 2010
syllabus which organizes the language teaching around topics and within the four main
skills. The use of meaningful and authentic situations, body language, gestures, or visual
support also assist students in the language comprehension.

In addition, the English language teachers use with the learners should be like the language
directed at children as they acquire their native language or language used with non-native
speakers as they establish mutual comprehension of what is being said ( Curtain, 2016: 4).
In other words, teachers should modify their input by repeating, slowing down the speech
flow, paraphrasing, simplifying syntax and vocabulary. Continuous modeling and
segmenting learning into more manageable steps can also facilitate learning.

94
 Teachers should also encourage students to try to understand the meaning of the language
used for teaching. So, they need to teach them simple language phrases, questions or other
language chunks to help them interact in English during class sessions. In addition, they can
encourage or praise students to motivate them to ask or answer questions. Teachers can
also use reward points or any other reward system for this (Moeller, and Robert, 2013).

Lastly, I suggest teachers to let pupils know their goal in using English for teaching. Then,
they should teach students learning strategies so that pupils can notice and focus on them to
understand the language input instead of relying on translation. For instance, Ceo-
Difrancesco (2013) suggests that at the beginning stages, teachers should stress that every
word that is said during lessons does not need to be understood. They should rather make
sure that students develop their listening comprehension strategies and help them focus on
important information and get the gist of the message. They should also begin class by
outlining the objectives of the lesson for their students.

V.2.2.7. Model and practise class norms in English

During the lesson observations, I noted that all the teachers dealt with classroom
management issues in French mostly. 47% of the respondents in the questionnaire also
considered classroom management issues as an obstacle to the English use in class. Yet, Al
Hosni (2014) argues that when teachers themselves emphasize on the use of L1 to manage
their classroom, it is likely to encourage learners to use L1 in the classroom when
participating. So, it is necessary for teachers to know that it is possible to use English for
class management without losing control of the class. To begin, Curtain (2016) suggests to
establish clear classroom rules and consequences. Once established, teachers should model
and practise these classroom norms in the target language through signaling and Total
Physical Response. In this respect, it is important to maintain a positive classroom
atmosphere. Safely admonishing students in English is possible. Although, they may not
understand all the words, teachers can make the meaning clear by utilizing the context,
gestures and synonyms.

V.2.2.8. Create a safe classroom environment

Krashen (1982) states that when students have negative emotions, for example, if they are
feeling anxious, doubtful or bored, the learning experience will be decreased and it interferes
with language acquisition. The lesson observations showed that the class environment did
not facilitate the English language use. Students feel uncomfortable for having to speak

95
English as their classmates make fun of them when they make mistakes. EFL Teachers’
attitudes did not also provide a motivational mood which made the students want to take part
in the interaction in the English language. Teachers systematically corrected their language
errors, preventing them from taking risks with the language. In most classes, teachers did
not create group dynamic which is conducive to language production and learning such as
showing enthusiasm, listening to the students, having high but realistic expectations,
constructing positive relationships with the learners (Dörney and Murphy, 2003).

In this regard, it is necessary for teachers to create a respectful classroom community to

provide opportunities for learners to interact in a secure and supportive environment. This
involves setting rules which help students to be comfortable in using English. Teachers
should also focus on communicative effectiveness and tolerate errors that do not obstruct
meaning. In other words, they should reward risk taking and consider errors as part of
learning process. As Brown (2000) argues, risk taking is important for a student to become
a successful language acquirer because students learn from their failures. The classroom
environment must be friendly, relaxed and enjoyable, with the teacher using humour from
time to time (Crammer, 1985).

V.2.2.9. Address the lack of didactic materials

The lack of teaching resources is a big challenge for EFL teachers in 5è classes. Until now,
the teachers do not have at their disposal any textbook which could provide them with
guidance and support in the implementation of the syllabus adopted in 2010. This situation
makes it difficult for them to use it. The investigation also indicated that the teachers did not
use visual aids most often. Their comments during the interview suggest that these resources
were not available on-the spot. However, as I early stated, the new syllabus and the visual
aids provide a real context for practicing English. More particularly, the use of real-life
materials is motivating for beginner students as they are adapted to their learning styles.

The exploitation of these materials presents real opportunities for EFL teachers to increase
the proportion of their English language use in classes. Therefore, they need to develop
strategies to access these learning resources independently. Dang et al. (2013) suggest that
internet provides rich teaching resources for English. Teachers can also cut pictures from
magazines and involve their students in drawing and cutting pictures from magazines.
Collaboration with Biology, History and Geography teachers can provide them with some
concrete objects and materials such as maps.

96
 V.3. Limitations of the study
The first limitation of the current study is the number of participants. The restricted sample
size makes it impossible to draw conclusions about EFL teachers’ use of English as a target
language in Burkina Faso 5è classes in general. However, the findings offer an idea and a
background to deeper understanding of EFL teachers’ practices in the use of the target
language.

A factor which could also limit the study is the risk that with the questionnaires, some
teachers did not provide true information about their practices and difficulties in the use of
English. For instance, they might have biased the estimates of their use of the English
language, taking into account the official requirements and recommendations from research.

The pupils’ answers could permit to check and balance teachers’ responses. However,
despite my insistence on the confidential nature of the questionnaire, it is possible that pupils
did not express their genuine opinions on some of their teachers’ practices, assuming that I
will report them to their teachers. It is also difficult for pupils to estimate on –the spot, the
amount of English used by their teachers due to the fact some teachers constantly translated
or switched from one language to another.

97
Conclusion
EFL teachers’ use of the target language is relevant to the learners’ language development
and proficiency. Therefore, to help their pupils acquire the new language, teachers should
keep the classroom language in English, and make sure that those target language
interactions are comprehensible.

The research conducted was meant to assess the teachers’ use of English in 5è classes. The
goal was to suggest strategies which can contribute to help them use this target language
successfully. To explore this issue, I organized the study around the following questions?
Do the EFL teachers use English as a means of instruction in 5è classes? What obstacles do
the EFL teachers face in the use of English? What strategies do the EFL teachers use to
facilitate and support students’ comprehension in this target language?

In order to find answers to the questions above, I chose mixed methods research to conduct
the study. Thus, I resorted to direct observations, interviews with teachers, documentary
analysis, and questionnaires to collect data. The use of these instruments made it possible to
compare the reports and statements teachers made on their use of English as the target
language in 5è classes.

Findings revealed that while some teachers almost exclusively used English in their classes,
others resorted essentially to French for teaching. Additionally, the results of the study
underlined that all the teachers were confronted with obstacles which affected the use of the
English language in 5è classes. These obstacles involved factors related to students, teachers
training issues, and factors beyond teachers’ control. Lastly, the findings pointed out that
the majority of participants did not use a variety of strategies which could help them keep
on using English through the provision of comprehensible input.

Relying on these research findings, I recommended that EFL teachers increase their use of
the English language by implementing different strategies. In this perspective, they need
training, further opportunities for professional development and material equipment to
address the obstacles they were confronted with.

98
 REFERENCES
Al Hosni. S. (2014). Speaking difficulties encountered by young EFL learners.
International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 2(6), 22-30

Al- Zahrani, M., Y. (2014). Teachers’ use of Interactional Features in EFL classes.
International Journal of Science, Commerce, and Humanities, 2(2), 43-54.

Alexander, R.J. (2000). Aspects of verbal humour. Tubingen: Narr.

Allwright, D. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning.

Applied linguistics 5, 2: 156-171.

Arna, B. S. (2014). Language use in the classroom. The role of students’ first language in
grades 9 and 10 in English classrooms in Iceland. Faculty of Teacher Education. School of
Education, University of Iceland.

Auerbach, E. (1993). Re-examining English only in ESL classroom, TESOL Quarterly 27,
(1), 9-32

Ausübel, D.P. (1968). Learning theory and classroom practice. Toronto: Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education.

Bateman, B (2008). Student teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about using the target language
in the classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 41(2), 11-28

Bell, J. (2005). Doing your Research Project. A guide for first time researchers in education,
health, and social science. 4th Edition. London: Open University Press.

Bankovic, I. (2012). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition

Billash, O. (2009). Improving second language education: Krashen’s 6 hypotheses.

http//www.educ.ualberta.ca/staff/Olenka.billash/best%20 of %20
billash/targetlanguage.htlm

Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.

Brandl, K.K, § Bauer.- (2002). Students’ perceptions of novice teaching assistants’ use of
the target language in beginning foreign language classes: a preliminary investigation. In W.

99
Davis, Smith, & R. Smith (eds.), Ready to Teach: graduate Teaching Assistants Prepare for
Today and for Tomorrow (pp.128-138). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

Brookhart, ACTFL (2012). Position Statement on the Use of the Target language
http//www.actl.org./news/position- statement/ use – the- Target- language the- classroom

Brown, H.D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. White Plains. NY:
Longman

Butzkamm, W. (2003). We only learn language once: the role of the mother tongue in FL
classrooms.-death of a dogma. Language Learning Journal 26, Winter: 29-39.

Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches of second

language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics.1, 1:1-47

Ceo-Difrancesco, D. (2013). Instructor target language use in today’s world language

classrooms. In S. Dhonau (Ed.), Multi Tasks, Multi Skills, Multi Connections (1-20).
Richmond, VA: Robert M.Terry.

Chambers, F. (1991). Promoting use of the target language in the classroom. Language
Learning Journal, 4, 27-31.

Chaudron, C. (1988). Teacher talk in second language classrooms. In C. Chaudron (Ed.),

second language classrooms (50-89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morison, K. (2005). Research Methods in Education (fifth Edition).
London: Routledge Falmer.

Coleman, H. (2011c) Ed. Dreams and Realities. Developing countries and the English
language. London: British Council.

Condron, F.L. (1998). The year. In D.K. Hartman. (Ed.), Stories teachers tell (pp.127-132).
Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.

Cook, V. (2001).Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language
Review, 57, 403-423.

100
Crawford, J. (2004). Language choices in the foreign language classroom: target language
or the learners’ first language? RELC Journal. A Journal of language teaching and research
in Southeast Asia, 35(1), 5-20

Creswell, J., Klassen, A., Clark, V., & Smith, K. (2010). Best Practices for Mixed Methods
Research in the Health Sciences. The Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research
(OBSS).

Creswell, J.W., § Plano, V.L. (2011). Designing and conducting Mixed Methods Research.
Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publication, Inc.

Crichton, H. (2006). As others see us…an investigation into the views of pupils on the use
of target language in classroom instruction. Scottish Languages Review, 13.

Crichton, H. (2010). It’s good to talk. An investigation into target language use in the modern
languages classroom.

Curtain, H. (2016). Using the target language and providing comprehensible input: an
overview by Helena Curtain. www. TELL.org/ STARTALK.

Dashood, A. (2005). Alternatives to questioning: Teacher Role in Classroom discourse.

Asian EFL Journal 7, 4.

Davies, A. (2007). An introduction to Applied Linguistics: from practice to theory (2nd Ed.)
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

DFES (Department for Education and Science). (2003). Framework for teaching MFL year
7, 8 and 9.

Donato, R., (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In: Lantolf, J.P., ed.
Vygotskyan approaches to second language research. London: Ablex Publishing, 33-56.

Dörney, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Quantitative, Qualitative and

Mixed Methodologies. Oxford: OUP

Doughty, C &Williams, J. 1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language

Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

101
Doughty, S. (2013, Sept.27). English is the lingua franca of Europeans as two thirds speak
the language which has squeezed out its rivals. http://www.dailymail.co.uk./news/article-
2436051/

Derege, N. (2012). Primary EFL Teaching in Ethiopia: Policy and Practice. A thesis
submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Doctor of Philosophy Degree in
Teaching English as a Foreign Language. Addis Ababa: A.A.U

Duff. , P.A. and Polio C.G. (1990). How much target language is there in the foreign
language classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 74(2), 154-166.

Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning system.33 (2), 209-224.

Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai foreign

language education press.

Ellis, R. (1999).Learning a Second Language through Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

John Benjamins.

Franklin, C.E.M. (1990). Teaching in the target language: problems and prospects. Language
Learning Journal, 2, 20-24.

Gamené, J.M.J. (2009). An Analysis of English Teachers’ Assumptions and Practices of

Grammar Teaching in Burkina Faso General Secondary Schools with a Specific Reference
to “3e” Class. A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
Advanced Certificate in Teacher Evaluation and Supervision in TEFL,

Gardner, H. (1999). A multiplicity of intelligences. In C.M. Reigeluth. Multiple

approaches to understanding (pp.69-89). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gass, S. M., & Torrens, M. J. (2005). Attention when? An investigation of the

Ordering Effect of Input and Interaction. SSLAA, 27, 1-31.

102
Gass, S.M & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, Interaction and Output in Second Language
Acquisition. In VanPatten, and J. Williams, (Ed.). Theories in second language acquisition:
an introduction (pp.170-199). London: Routledge

Gatbonton, R & Segalowitz, N. (2005). Rethinking the Communicative Approach: a focus

on accuracy and fluency. Canadian modern language review/la revue canadienne des langues
vivantes 61, 3: 325-353.

Guoxing, Y. (2004). Perception, practice, and progress. Significance of scaffolding and zone
of proximal development for second or foreign language teachers. Asian EFL journal, 6(4),
2-24.

Hall, J.K. (2001). Methods for teaching foreign languages: Creating a community of learners
in the classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice hall.

Halliwell, S., § Jones, B. (1991). On target: teaching in the target language. London,
England: Centre for Information on Language teaching and Research.

Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In Hatch, E. (Ed).
Second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury house.1978.

Hatfield, J (1996). Advanced communicative games: a collection of games and activities for
intermediary and advanced students of English. Harlow, Essex, Longman.

HLMIe (1990). Effective learning and teaching in Scottish secondary schools: Modern
languages

Horwitz, E., K., Horwitz, M.B. § Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety.
Modern Language Journal.70, 2: 125-132.

Howatt, A.P.R (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Hymes, D.H. (1971).On communicative competence. In J.Pride § Holmes (Eds.).

Sociolinguistics. Selective readings (269-293). Harmondsworth: penguin.

Richter, J. (2003). What is Comprehensible Input? study.com/academy/lesson

103
Johnson, R. & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm
whose Time has Come. Educational researcher 33/7, 14-26.

Jones, J. F. (2004).A cultural context for language anxiety. EA journal, 21, 2: 30-39.

Kaboré, A. (2016). Questioning Techniques in Burkina Faso Post-primary and Secondary

English Classes: An investigation of Teaching Practices. A dissertation submitted in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the Advanced Certificate in Teacher Evaluation and
Supervision in TEFL.

Kaboré, E. (2015). Classroom Interaction in a Context of English as Foreign Language: An

Analysis of Teachers’ Practices in Secondary Schools in the District of Koudougou, Burkina
Faso. A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Advanced
Certificate in Teacher Evaluation and Supervision in TEFL.

Kambou, S.T. (2016). Developing Communicative Language Teaching in 4è. Classes;

Analysis of Classroom Practices and Suggestions for Improvement. A dissertation submitted
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Advanced Certificate in Teacher Evaluation
and Supervision in TEFL.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practices in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:

Pergamon

Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman

Krashen, S. (2013). Second Language Acquisition: theory, applications and some

conjectures.

Krashen, S.D., & Terrel, T.D. (1998). The natural approach: language acquisition in the
classroom. New York: Prentice hall Europe

Kumaravadivelu, B., (1994). Intake factors and intake processes in adult language learning.
Applied language learning 5, 1:33-71.

Lantolf, J.P., & Thorne, S.L. (2006a). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In
VanPatten§J.Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp.201-224).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

104
Lee J. F.,& Van patten, B. (2003). Making Communicative language teaching happen.
Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Leedy, P.D (1993). Practical research: Planning and design. New Jersey: prentice-hall.

Leedy, P.D., & Ormrod, J. (2001). Practical research: Planning and design (7th ed.).Upper
Saddle River, N J:

Levine, G.S. (2003). Student and instructor’ beliefs and attitudes about target language, first
language use and anxiety: report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language Journal,
87(3), 343-364.

Lightbown & Spada (2006). How Languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Littlewood, W. (1984). Foreign and second language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

Littlewood, W. (2013). Developing a Context-Sensitive Pedagogy for Communication –

Oriented Language Teaching. Hong Kong Baptist University.

Long, M. & Sato, C. (1983). Classroom Foreigner Talk Discourse: forms and functions of
Teachers’ Questions. In H.W. Seliger, § M. Long (Eds.). Classroom Oriented Research in
Second Language Acquisition (268-286). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Long, M.H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. In Winitz (Ed.)
Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences (pp.258-278). New York Academy of Sciences.

Long, M.H. (1983). Native speaker/ non- native speaker conversation and the negotiation of
comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 2(4), 126- 141.

Long, M.A. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In
Macaro, E. (2001). Analyzing student teachers’codeswitching in foreign language
classrooms. Theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal, 85(4), 531-548.

MacDonald (1993). Using the Target Language. Cheltenham: UK. Mary Glasgow
Publications.

105
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Association, publishers.
London, New Jersey.

Marry, S. (1985). The Presentation stage. In A. Mathews, S. Spratt, & L. Dangerfield, At the
chalkface: practical techniques in language teaching (pp.2-8). London: Edward Arnold Ltd.

Maxwell, J. (1997). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman § D.J Rog (eds.).handbook

of applied social methods (pp.69-100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mayo, M., & Pica, T. (2000). Is the EFL environment a language learning environment?
Working papers in Educational Linguistics, 16(1), 1-24. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service nº ED446429).

Mc Laughlin (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.

McKenzie, J. (1999). Scaffolding for success, 9(4).

Meiring, L. &Norman, N. (2002). Back on target, repositioning the status of the target
language in MFL teaching and learning. Language Learning Journal 26,Winter: 27-35

Mercer, N. (1992). Talk for teaching and learning. In K. Norman (Ed.), Thinking Voices:
the work of the National Oracy Project. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories. London: Edward
Arnold.

Nassaji, H., & Well, N. (2000). What is the use of dryadic dialogue? : An investigation on
teacher-student interaction. Applied linguistics 21, 3: 376-406.

New Oxford Dictionary of English on CD-ROM (1998). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nha. T.T. Vu & Anne, B. (2014). English as a Medium of Instruction: Challenge for
Vietnamese Tertiary Lecturers. The Journal of Asia TEFL Vol.11 nº.3, pp.1-31 fall 2014.

Nilsson, M. (2013).Target Language in the Primary Classroom: teachers’ beliefs and

practices.

106
Norris, J., Brown, Hudson, T., & Yoshiaka, J. (1998). Designing second language
performance assessments (Technical Report 18). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii:
Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Ohta, A.S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom. Learning
Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Omaggio, H. A. (2000). Teaching language in context (3rd Ed.).Canada: Thomson

heinle.

Park, E.S (2005). A case study of young Korean children’s English learning experiences in
the United States: a sociocultural perspective. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg. Retrieved from.

Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J.P (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)
construction of selves. In J.P Lantolf(Ed.). Sociocultural theory and second language
learning (pp.155-177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pica, T: & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and Interaction in the communicative language
classroom: a comparison of teachers-fronted and group activities. In, S. Gass and C. Madden
(Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury house. 115-132.

Pinsonneault, B. C. (2008). Authentic Input in Early Second Language Learning.

Richards, J.C. (1992). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied linguistics.
Beijing: Foreign language teaching and research press.

Richards, J.C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.

Richards, J.C: & Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Ritchie, C., Bhatia, T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego:
Academic Press (pp.413-468).

Richter, J. (2003).What is Comprehensible Input? study.com/academy/lesson

107
Savignon, S.J. (1991). Communicative language teaching: state of the art. TESOL Quarterly
25, (2), 261-277.

Sawadogo, D. (2016). Learner Generated Output and the Development of the Students’
Productive Skills: Case of the ‘seconde’class. A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the Advanced Certificate in Teacher Evaluation and Supervision in
TEFL.

Sawadogo, I. (2014). Games and Motivation for EFL Learning in Burkina Faso General
Secondary Schools. A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
Advanced Certificate in Teacher Evaluation and Supervision in TEFL,

Schutz, R. (1998). Stephen Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition.

Seedhouse, P. (1996). Classroom interaction. Possibilities and impossibilities. ELT journal

50, 1: 16-24

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one.
Educational Researcher 27, 2:4-13

Shayer, M. (2002, Ed.). Learning intelligence, cognitive acceleration across the curriculum
from 5 to 15 years. UK: open University Press

Smidt, S. (2009). Introducing Vygotsky: a guide for practitioners and students in early years
education. New York: NY: Routledge.

Somé, P. (1990). A suggestion for supplementary materials to support the implementation

of the new secondary syllabus, with reference to the First Year English coursebook in
Burkina Faso. London: Ealing College of Higher Education.

Speidel, G.E; & Nelson, K.E. (1989). A fresh look at imitation in language learning. In G.E
Speidel & K.E Nelson (Eds.), the many faces of imitation language learning (pp.1-21). New
York: Springer- Verlag.

Swain, S. (1985). Communicative competence: some Roles of comprehensible Input and

comprehensible Output in its Development. In S. Gass § C Madden (eds.), Input in Second
Language Acquisition (pp.235-253).Cambridge, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

108
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003a). Handbook of mixed methods in social and
behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tottie, G., & Hoffman, S. (2006). Tag questions in British and American English. Journal
of English linguistics 34, 4: 1-29

Tuan, L.T; & Nhu, N.T.K. (2010). Theoretical Review on oral interaction in EFL
classrooms. Studies in Literature and Language. Vol.1. No 4, 2010, pp. 29-45.
www.cscanada.net

Turnbull, M. (2000). Second language education in Canada. A focus on core French in

elementary schools. In M. Nikolav & H. Curtain (eds.), an early start: young learners and
modern language in Europe and beyond (173-188).Graz, Austria: European center for
Modern Languages.

Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second or foreign language, but… The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(4), 531-540.

Turuk, M. C. (vol.5, 244-262, 2008). The relevance and implications of Vygotsky’s

sociocultural theory in the second language classroom.

Ur, P. (2009) .A course in language teaching: practice and theory: Cambridge University
press.

Vera, L. M. (2011). Interaction and second language acquisition: an ecological

perspective. UFMG: CNPQ.

Vygotsky, L.S (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge. MA: MIT.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge, Mass. Mitt Press

Wajnryb, R. (1992).Classroom Observations Tasks: A resource book for teachers and

trainers. Cambridge: CUP.

Walsh, S. (2006): Investigating Classroom Discourse. London: Routledge

Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of mind: a sociocultural approach to mediated action.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

109
Wesche & Skehan, M. Ed. (2002).Teaching English as a second or foreign language. 2nd
ed. Pp. 46-47.

Whitaker, A. S. (2010).Teaching through the target language. A dissertation submitted in

partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Education. Moravian
College, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Wilkerson, C. (1994). Guidelines for speaking and learning Spanish in one language
Community (Doctoral Dissertation, the Ohio State University, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts
International 41, 4388.

Wilkerson, C. (2008). Instructors’ use of English in the modern language classroom.

Foreign Language Annals, 41(2), 310-320.

Wing, B. (1980). The languages of the foreign language classroom. The Ohio State
University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41.

Wong-Fillmore, L. (1985). When does teacher talk work as input? In S.M.Gass, § C.G.
Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp.17-50). Rowley, MA: Newbury.

Wood et al. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89-100.

Young, D.J., (1999). Affect in foreign language and second language learning. Boston MA:
Mc Graw Hill.

Zhang, D., Fanyu & Duy, W. (2013). Sociocultural theory applied to Second language
learning: Collaborative learning with reference to the Chinese context. International
Education Studies. 6(9), 165-174.

Zilmer, C. (2013). 90% Target Language, Authentic texts, No isolated Grammar? How?
The Language Educator, April 2013

Zongo, L. (2016). Investigating Practices in Teaching English to Young Learners in

Burkina Faso Private Primary Schools. A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the Advanced Certificate in Teacher Evaluation and Supervision in TEFL.

110
111
Appendixes

Appendix1: Questionnaire to the teachers

UNIVERSITE N.Z BURKINA FASO

DE KOUDOUGOU Unité- Progrès- Justice

ECOLE NORMALE SUPERIEURE

ACADEMIC YEAR: 2017-2018

Inspector trainee: OUBDA Mahamoudou

TEL : 70924287 /78152489

Email: oubda.maha @yahoo.fr

Dear colleague,

In the framework of my training at « Ecole Normale Supérieure/Université Norbert Zongo

de Koudougou”, I am conducting a study on the teachers’ use of the target language in 5è
classes, with the aim of making proposals for better practices. I would therefore be grateful
if you could devote some of your precious time to fill in the attached questionnaire.

I would like to stress that all your answers are welcome; therefore there are no correct or
incorrect, good or bad answers. Besides, your identity and your answers will be treated with
strict confidentiality.

Thank you a lot for your prompt collaboration!!!

X
Questionnaire for teachers
Instruction: please tick the box which relates to you. You may need to tick more than one
box with some questions or write some complete sentences.

I- Teachers’ background information

1- School: (precise the name)…………………………….

a) Public b) private

2- Sex a) Male b) Female

3- Studies

a) English b) Lettres modernes c) Linguistiques

d) Sociologie e) Droit

Others (precise) ……………………

4- Highest academic degree

a) D.E.U.G b) Licence c) Master d) Doctorat

Other, please specify…………………………………..

5- Professional qualification

a) CAP-CEG b) CAPES c) None

6)-Teaching experience

a) CAP-CEG b) Between 5 and 10 years

c) Between 11 and 15 years d) More than 15 years

II- teachers’ perception of their use of the target language in 5è classes for
communication.

1) When teaching English in 5è classes,

a) I use English only b) I use French only

c) I mostly use English d) I mostly use French

Please, justify your answer: ………………………………………………………………...

XI
III- challenges in the target language use

1. Are you confronted with any obstacles when using English as the language of
instruction in 5è classes?

a) Yes b) No

2. Do the following factors impact your use of the English language?

Factors Yes No

Time constraints

Class size

Your language proficiency

Excessive concern with the students’ comprehension

Students’ negative attitudes

Dealing with a wide range of pupils’ ability

Students’ low attention span

Lack of didactic materials

Lack of training in the teaching methodology

Delivering explanations of grammar

Tendency to deliver instructions in French

Classroom management issues

Students’ high anxiety

Establishing rapports with pupils

Students frustrations

Lack of students previous preparation

XII
3. How often do the following factors impede your use of the English language?

Factors Always Often Rarely Never

Time constraints

Class size

Your language proficiency

Excessive concern with the students’ comprehension

Students’ negative attitudes

Dealing with a wide range of pupils’ ability

Students’ low attention span

Lack of didactic materials

Lack of training in the teaching methodology

Delivering explanations of grammar

Tendency to deliver instructions in French

Classroom management issues

Students’ high anxiety

Establishing rapports with pupils

Students frustrations

Lack of students previous preparation

4. Are you confronted with any other obstacles?

a) Yes No

Please, list them……………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………

XIII
III- teachers’ perception of their teaching strategies for making the input
comprehensible.

1. When using English in 5è classes, how often is your language accessible to your
students? (If you do not use English for teaching, skip to question 16)

a) Always b) Often c) Rarely d) Never

2. When speaking English to your pupils of 5è, do you use any strategies to make your
language comprehensible?

a) Yes b) No

3. Do you teach the strategies for facilitating the pupils’ comprehension of your
language?

a) Yes b) No

4. How do you organize your English language teaching and learning in 5è classes?

a) I implement the 2010 revised syllabus.

b) I organize my lessons around a thematic unit.

c) I present my lessons in isolation.

d) Other, please specify

………………………………………………………………………………………………

5. Do you state the objectives of the lesson to the students?

a) Yes b) No

XIV
6. How often do you use these activity types during the lesson?

Activities types Always Often Rarely Never

Games

Songs/Poems

Dialogues

Role-play

Pictures description

Riddles

Stories

7. How often do you use the following sensorial supports in your teaching?

Sensorial supports Always Often Rarely Never

Color chalk

Drawings

Pictures

Real objects

8. How often do you use the following non-verbals when teaching in the target
language?

Types of non-verbals Always Often Rarely Never

Gestures

Mimes

9. When speaking to the pupils in 5è, do you modify your language?

a) Yes b) No

XV
10) How do you modify your language?

(You may tick more than one box)

a) Modeling the language for the pupils

b) Using an over-pronunciation

c) Slowing down speech flow

d) Repeating utterances

e) Reformulating utterances

f) Using simple language

g) Using purposeful pauses

11. Do you use French in your teaching?

a) Yes b) No

12. How do you use French and English in your teaching?

a) I occasionally used English and French simultaneously

b) I constantly flicked between English and French

c) I use English and French separately

13. Do you motivate pupils to try to guess what is being said?

a) Yes b) no

14. If yes, what do you do to motivate your pupils?

(You may tick more than one box)

a) I encourage and praise pupils

b) I reward pupils

15. Do you use any other strategies?

a) Yes b) No

Please, list them………………………………………………………………

XVI
16. What suggestions do you make to better your target language use?

…………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COLLABORATION

XVII
Appendix 2 : Questionnaire aux élèves
UNIVERSITE N.Z BURKINA FASO

DE KOUDOUGOU Unité- Progrès- Justice

ECOLE NORMALE SUPERIEURE

ACADEMIC YEAR: 2017-2018

Inspector trainee: OUBDA Mahamoudou

TEL : 70924287 /78152489

Email: oubda.maha @yahoo.fr

Cher élève,

Dans le cadre de ma formation d’élève-inspecteur à l’école Normale Supérieure de

l’Université Norbert Zongo de Koudougou, j’ai entrepris un travail de recherche sur
l’utilisation de l’Anglais par les enseignants dans les classes de 5ème en vue de faire des
propositions d’amélioration. Je vous saurai gré de bien vouloir remplir le questionnaire qui
vous est adressé afin de me permettre de bien mener mon étude.

Soyez rassurés qu’il n’y a ni bonne ni mauvaise réponse en soi et par conséquent toutes
vos réponses seront bien accueillies. Par ailleurs, vos réponses et votre identité seront tenues
secrètes.

Merci d’avance pour votre franche collaboration.

XVIII
Consigne : cochez la case qui correspond à ta réponse et/ou formuler une réponse en
construisant des phrases.

I. Informations générales sur les élèves

1. Sexe : a)Féminin b) Masculin

2. Etablissement…………………………………..

Statut : a)Publique b) Privé

3. Classe : ………………………………

4. Ville : ……………………………….

II. perception des élèves de l’utilisation de l’anglais par les enseignants aux cours
d’Anglais.

1. pendant le cours, notre professeur s’exprime

a) totalement en anglais b) totalement en français

c) beaucoup plus en anglais d) beaucoup plus en français

III) Perception des élèves des stratégies utilisées par les professeurs pour rendre
l’expression orale compréhensible

1. comprenez-vous ce que votre professeur dit quand il s’exprime en anglais au cours

de la leçon? (si votre professeur donne le cours en français essentiellement, allez à la
question 15).

Toujours Souvent Rarement Jamais

S’il vous plait, justifiez votre réponse.

……………………………………………………………………………...

………………………………………………………………………………………………
…..

2. Votre professeur, utilise-t-il des stratégies pour rendre son anglais compréhensible ?

a) oui b) Non

XIX
3. Votre professeur vous enseigne-t-il des stratégies pour faciliter la compréhension de
son anglais ?

a) Oui b) Non

4. Votre professeur vous donne t’il les objectifs de la leçon au début de chaque cours?

a) Oui b) Non

5. Au cours de la leçon, votre professeur utilise t’il les activités suivantes ?

Activités Toujours souvent Rarement Jamais

les jeux :

les chants/poèmes

les contes :

les dialogues :

les devinettes :

la description d’images

le jeu de rôle

6. Au cours de la leçon, votre professeur utilise les matériels suivants :

Types de matériels Toujours Souvent Rarement Jamais

des craies de couleur

Des objets réels

Des dessins

Des images

XX
7. Quand votre professeur s’exprime en Anglais, ses propos sont accompagnés.……

Stratégies utilisées. Toujours Souvent Rarement Jamais

De gestes

De mimes

8. Quand le professeur s’adresse à vous en anglais en classe, ………….

a) Il donne des exemples.

b) Il s’exprime lentement

c) Il répète ses phrases

d) Il reformule ses phrases

e) Il insiste sur les mots

f) Il marque des pauses avant de poursuive.

g) il donne des exemples.

9. Votre professeur utilise t’il le français au cours de la leçon ?

a) oui b) non

10. comment votre professeur utilise t’il le français au cours de la leçon ?

a) Notre professeur utilise séparément l’anglais et le français.

b) Notre professeur traduit systématiquement ses propos en français

c) Notre professeur utilise souvent le fronçais et l’anglais simultanément

11. votre professeur vous motive t, il dans vos efforts pour comprendre ce qu’il dit en
anglais ?

a) oui b) non

XXI
13. si oui, dites ce qu’il fait pour vous motiver ?

a) il encourage ou félicite les élèves.

b) il récompense les élèves.

c)autres,

(précisez) les……………………………………………………………………………...

……………………………………………………

14. votre professeur utilise-t-il d’autres stratégies pour rendre son langage
compréhensible ?

a) oui b) Non

Si oui, préciser les :………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………

15. L’utilisation de l’anglais par les professeurs comme langue d’enseignement est
indispensable pour l’apprentissage de l’anglais

a) Je suis tout à fait d’accord

b) Je suis d’accord

c) Je ne suis pas du tout d’accord

d) Je ne suis pas d’accord

S’il vous plait, justifiez votre réponse

……………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………

16. Quelles propositions avez-vous à faire à votre professeur pour améliorer son
utilisation de l’anglais comme langue d’enseignement ?

………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………

Merci beaucoup pour votre aimable collaboration !

XXII
 Appendix 3: Classroom observation grid.
DATE:

CLASS level:

LOCALITY/Venue:

SCHOOL:

LESSON:

TITLE:

PERIOD:

Observation grid
N° Items to be observed observations

I. the language(s) the teachers use for teaching English

Language functions English only English mostly French only French

mostly

1 Asking questions

2 Explaining grammar and vocabulary

3 Giving classroom instructions

4 Giving oral feedback

5 Encouraging

6 disciplining pupils

7 organizing activities

8 Discussing about class non related

things

II. Strategies for teaching and making the language comprehensible

II.1 The teacher use the 3Ps methodology yes No observations

XXIII
 The teacher states the lesson objectives to his students.

The teacher teaches the strategies for facilitating pupils’

comprehension in English

The lesson content is suitable for the class level

The teacher does not flick between English and French

The teacher provides his students with model sentences

The teacher assesses his students’ performances

II.2 The teacher uses meaningful activities to provide a

context for his language use

The teacher uses dialogue

The teachers uses Song/Poem

The teacher uses games

The teacher uses Stories

The teacher uses Role-play

The teacher uses riddles

II.3 The use of non-linguistic means

The teacher uses color chalk.

The teacher uses realia

The teacher uses drawings.

The teacher uses pictures

The teacher uses Gestures

The teacher uses mimes

II.4 The teacher’s use of modified input

The teacher uses over-pronunciation

XXIV
 The teacher insists on key words

The teacher’ elocution is clear

The teacher uses synonyms

The teacher articulates his speech flow

The teacher repeats his utterances

The teacher rephrases his utterances

The teacher uses purposeful pauses

II.5 Classroom atmosphere

Classroom is stress-free

The teacher encourages and praises his students

The teacher rewards his students

The teacher uses means of relaxation

II.6 Other strategies

XXV
Appendix 4: Letter granting authorization for reasearch

XXVI
Appendix 5: Circular Letter of the Ministry of Education stating the goal
of teaching foreign languages in the secondary schools in Burkina Faso

XXVII
XXVIII