Mohamed Seddik Ben Yahia University

TEFL Master 1(Second semester) 2021/2022

Teacher: Dr. Boukhentache Slimane

Lecture 1: Didactics and Pedagogy

Objective: Making the student able use the key concepts of didactics correctly and
distinguish between didactics and pedagogy
Introduction
People tend to use the words didactics and pedagogy interchangeably to refer to the
methods of teaching/learning; yet, although these concepts are interrelated, they have distinct
meanings. Basically, both didactics and pedagogy refer to the methods of teaching and
learning, but didactics is more related to the epistemological aspect of the subject matter. It
presumes that teaching/learning methods should be embedded in the nature of the discipline,
say English language didactics. Pedagogy or psycho-pedagogy, on the other hand, refers to
the relationship between the teacher and the learner regardless of the subject matter to be
taught (Simard, Dufays, Dolz, Garcia-Debanc, 2019, p. 12).
1. Didactics
Didactics refers primarily to “the science of the art of teaching” (Chevallard, 1988)
which comes from Greek, Didaskein, i.e., to teach (Simard et al., 2019). However, this
concept encompasses not only how to teach (processes), but also what the teach (content). All
didactic methods include the specific content of the subject matter (Halté, 1992, p. 17, in
Weisser, 2015, p. 12). Accordingly, didactics includes the following components: the
knowledge dimension, the learner, and the teacher (Ibid.).
The first constituent of didactics (i.e., content) involves both theoretical and practical
knowledge (Simard et al., 2019), more specifically, knowledge, skills, and attitudes; it covers
didactic transposition (transforming scientific knowledge to teachable knowledge and
processing and simplifying of the referential). As discussed in the introduction to this work,
the referential of language teaching includes linguistics, sociology, and psychology. Basically,
these theoretical bodies define what to teach and how to teach. The second component of
didactics is the learner. The latter executes learning theories in relation to content, and it is
this action-based process that feeds the theories of learning. Therefore, learning theories are
modified and accommodated in accordance to their impact on the learner. The third element
of didactics is the teacher. This aspect involves didactic transposition and didactic contract.
First, the teacher transposes the syllabus in accordance to the level and aptitude of his
learners; second, he applies his/her knowledge of the didactic theories of learning.
Simard et al., (2019, p. 12) add that the above discussed components of didactic
triangle are realized in the context that could be divided into the following elements:
educational setting (e.g., classroom or school), scientific setting (i.e., theories of learning, as
well as the referential of the discipline), and social milieu (i.e., beliefs and expectations of the
educational stake-holders). Accordingly, these further components of the didactic situation
equally impact the teaching enterprise in general, and thereby impose taking into account who
to teach, where to teach, when to teach, and why to teach (Ibid.).
In addition, didactics stipulates the methods of teaching and assessment procedures; it
specifies whether to teach through interaction or through repetition and drillings. For instance,
the DM recommends natural language teaching or direct use of language, ALM relies on
structure practice, and CLT recommends interaction and functional language use. With
regards to assessment, the didactics of languages entails certain testing procedures. For
example, ALM and GTM use paper-and-pencil tests, while communicative language teaching
employs alternative testing methods such as diaries, learning logs, conferencing, and selfpeer-
assessment methods.
Finally, it should be noted here that the use of the concept of didactics is not
worldwide. It has developed in the French literature as a young discipline since the 1970s
(Simard et al., 2019). Since then, it has become the heuristic device for thinking and
communicating about educational improvements to the extent that the word pedagogy,
according to Weisser (2015), has almost been banned from the French educational
institutions. In this context (as well as in Dutch and German literatures), it covers
instructional design, teaching models, assessment practices, and curriculum development.
Concerning the English-speaking educational language literature, it usually does not use this
term. Rather, it uses phrases like the pedagogy of English, teaching EFL, or teaching English
as a first language (Banegas, 2014).
2. Pedagogy
Pedagogy is a way of teaching and learning. Weisser (2015) defines pedagogy as “the
dialectic and mutual packaging of theory and practice of education administered by the same
person on the same person” (p. 11). This means pedagogy bridges the gap between theory and
practice and encompasses the teacher, theory, and action. Weisser further explains that this
term has three main facets: the teacher’s knowledge and teaching beliefs, the knowledge of
theory, and the methods and techniques used to impart knowledge. It specifies, for instance,
the best learning conditions that warrant comfortable acquisition of learning targets. For
example, a symmetric relationship between the learner and the teacher makes the learner less
anxious and more willing to take risks and practice language.
Amongst the strategies that pedagogies advise are the use of group/pair work,
drillings, repetitions, meaning negotiation, integration, practice, learner-centeredness,
interaction, and anxiety-free environment. Many educational theories (e.g., constructivism)
have evidenced and formalized these pedagogical techniques for all types of learning and for
various disciplines (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). In the domain of language teaching, many of
these classroom procedures are derived from the way children learn in a natural environment
or how people learn their L1.
3. Difference between Didactics and Pedagogy
On the basis of the above discussion, a set of differences between didactics and pedagogy
could be highlighted. Weiss (2015, pp. 12-13) states the following differences.
First, pedagogy has an axiological dimension, but not didactics. Pedagogy refers to
the processes of teaching and classroom behaviors (Blanchet et al., 2009). In a way, it
completes didactics in that it looks for optimal ways to speed up and render efficient the
acquisition of contents. More specifically, it underscores the procedures, strategies and
conditions of learning. For example, Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s educational theories are
possible pedagogies that could complement didactic methods and approaches to promote
active learning. Their respective doctrines of constructivism and socio-constructivism are
used in different fields of learning, not just for language acquisition. These educational
psychologists advise the use of active and social pedagogies to ensure optimal retention of
learning items. Moreover, pedagogy is also interested in the relation between the learner and
the teacher, that is, how to make this contact conductive to acquisition.
Second, unlike pedagogies, didactics is specific to a particular subject. Didactics
determines the primary content that should be taught in each discipline. We could talk of the
didactics of the Arabic language, the didactics of Mathematics, and the didactic of the French
language. For example, the content selected for teaching English is different from the content
chosen for teaching Arabic. These languages have different systems, require teaching
different contents, and call for dissimilar sequencing of content (Blanchet, Rahal & Moore,
2009). In each language teaching framework certain contents are taught before others to
ensure a correct path towards the acquisition of the target language.
Third, pedagogies are value-laden, while didactics is value-free. Pedagogies are based
on the moral, philosophical, and cultural values of their times. For example, the pedagogies of
group work, learning through projects, and studying through tasks could be considered
entrenched in the Western way of life; therefore, they could be difficult to apply in other
educational communities. However, didacticians are entrenched in the nature of the subject
(objective examination of the subject matter).
Fourth, pedagogies involve theorization of the teachers. They take into account the
representations of the teacher and the learner. Didacticians, on the other hand, do not
formulate teaching methods in accordance to their beliefs and the teacher/learner
representations of learning and teaching. Only content is objectified.
Conclusion
In short, didactics is subject specific and concerns itself with the format of the content,
sequencing, evaluation procedures, and curriculum development; while pedagogy crosses
disciplines and concerns itself only with classroom processes (techniques, methods of
teaching, classroom environment, and the relationship between the teacher and the learner).
Lecture 2: Didactic Transposition

Objective: By the end of the lecture, the learner will be able to understand the process of
didactic transposition and will be able to transpose in the classroom a teaching content to the
students using various didactic tools and explanation strategies.

Introduction

In any classroom, there are three basic components of teacher, learner, and knowledge
(content). The teacher trains or teaches the learner to practice or acquire a certain type of
knowledge, and the learner supposedly does his/her best to appropriate that new knowledge.
According to Chevallard (1988), the relation teacher-learner is stressed in a way that one has
the intention to teach and the other to learn. To a lesser extent, the relation learner-knowledge
is equally highlighted. However, the biggest problem is the disregard of the relation teacher-
knowledge as being sacred and unquestionable. In simpler and straightforward words, the
body of knowledge (teaching input) is ignored and the processing of this knowledge is taken
for granted as being teachable enough. Consequently, didactic transposition has come to look
at the presentation and processing of the knowledge presented to the learner.

1. Background of Didactic Transposition

Yves Chevallard is the foremost champion of the notion of didactic transposition coined
by Michel Verret in the 1970s. The works Guy Brousseau and Michel Verreton didactic in
general in the 1970s influenced him significantly; hence, he formalized the notion of didactic
transposition in 1985.

Chevallard gave his first courses in didactic transposition of mathematics in the 1980s
(Bosch & Gascon, 2006). Since then, the theory of didactic transposition has started to spread
mainly in French-speaking scholastic communities. Actually, this concept is mostly related
to the Franco-phone academic community than the English-speaking, and its spread to Anglo-
Saxon writing has been slow and too limited. Despite the fact that Jeremy Patrick has
translated the theory of didactic skillfully and practically into the English-speaking
community, his peers have not widely embraced it (Bosch & Gascon, 2006).
2. Definition of Didactic Transposition

Didactic transposition, basically, means the adaptation and transformation of scientific

or scholarly knowledge into the classroom teachable items. Chevallard (1985) defines it “as
the work done to manufacture a teaching object out of an object of knowledge” (p. 39). This
definition implies that it is the making of scientific knowledge easier and accessible to the
public. Pezzimenti (2017) adds that it, equally, involves the study of practical methods and
techniques that would aid the processing of knowledge.

Chevallard (1988) holds that the body of knowledge is mostly meant to be used, not to
be taught. He gives the example of a doctor applying his/her knowledge to a patient
consulting him/her or a mechanic repairing a car. In both cases, the clients are not interested
in learning knowledge and the practitioners are not interested in teaching anything. However,
in education, knowledge is intended to be taught and learned. Consequently, any
transformation of knowledge (scientific/scholarly) for teaching purposes is referred to it as
didactic transposition (Kang & Kilpatrick, 1992).

3. Difference between Scientific Knowledge and Didactic Knowledge

There are many differences between scientific and taught knowledge. First, scientists
use special knowledge to communicate among themselves; this language is mainly used to
promote their understanding of the new invention and produce more. Didactic knowledge is
not concerned with this specialized language. Second, scholarly knowledge is a kind of
special knowledge used to produce and organize the new knowledge. The taught knowledge,
however, should be organized in a coherent way without showing the special knowledge used
for producing more (Kang & Kilpatrick, 1992). To use Chevallard’s (1988) words, the
assembly line is hidden for the learner. For example, in language teaching the linguistic
repertoire used by linguists is not reproduced in the classroom. Third, scientific knowledge is
contextualized, while taught knowledge is re-contextualized. Scholarly knowledge is executed
in its natural context in which the phenomena exist. As Chevallard (1988) points, the scientist
is not accountable to other people (i.e. beneficiaries) to legitimize his/her use of knowledge in
a particular way. By contrast, taught knowledge is either de-contextualized or at best re-
contextualized. That is, the teachable knowledge is simplified and taught in new forms or
contexts.
 Fourth, in natural settings, scientists are not responsible for making knowledge
understandable by laymen. That is, they do not consider the recipients of that knowledge.
Anyone wanting to get access to that technical knowledge has to work at it. Conversely,
taught knowledge takes into account its recipients. For instance, syllabus designers take into
account the background knowledge of the learner, his/her level, as well as his/her capacities.
Last, but not the least, scientific knowledge is unique and only shared among scholars, while
taught knowledge varies from one institution to another. Teachable knowledge is altered
depending on many factors such as economic, social, and political. For example, each country
has its teaching referential that takes into account its values, its economic and material
conditions, as well as its social conditions.

4. Didactic Transposition in English Language Teaching

English language teaching as a scientific body is composed of different components

such as phonetics, phonology, syntax, discourse, and pragmatics. These components of
knowledge are introduced to teaching after being processed by noosphere, politicians,
curriculum designer, educational specialist, syllabus designers, school administrators, and
teachers (Banegas, 2014). These actors decide what is and what is not to be taught. In case of
the teaching English as a foreign/second language, it is TESOL (teaching English to speakers
of other languages) that decides what language content to be taught and what methodology to
be used.
According to Gómez Mendoza (2005), the process of language transposition involves
four steps, which are as follows: desyncritisation, depersonalization, programmability, and
publicity. Desyncritisation process removes complexity and scientific context and presents
knowledge in a form of decontextualised segments. Depersonalization stage deletes science-
generators and their context. For example, if students are given to do activities that show the
creativity nature of language, the name of Chomsky and his criticism of behaviorism theory
will not appear in the taught knowledge. Programmability process sequences and grades
contents; for instance, EFL programs present language items in accordance with grammatical
complexity. Publicity step presents knowledge to the teacher in form of curriculum, syllabus,
textbooks, and materials. These four steps in knowledge vulgarization could be called
external didactic transposition (Banegas, 2014). Internal transposition is carried out in the
classroom by the teacher.
 The teacher is given the synthesized and simplified instructional content, which
definitely needs further simplifications depending on classroom variables. The process of
classroom simplification of input could involve adapting textbooks, using different
explanation strategies, making use of teaching aids. For example, the teacher could use
drawings, charts, and tables to display data easily and more clearly to the learner.

5. Different Contexts of Knowledge in the Process of Transposition

The process of didactic transposition represents two major steps: External and internal
stages (seeFigure 1 below).

The external process refers to any process of knowledge simplification and design outside the
school while the internal process denotes the procedures employed by the teacher inside the
classroom to make knowledge easy to acquire by the learner. The first circle from the left
refers to scholarly knowledge, for example, schools of thought and their publications; the
second one refers to school syllabuses and textbooks; the third circle refers to the content that
the teacher manages to teach; and the last circle refers to the content that the students manage
to master or acquire. During this whole process of transposition, educational actors simplify
and, in a way, distort the scientific knowledge. .
6. Disadvantage of the Didactic Transposition

Didactic transposition has its shortcomings. Chevallard (1988) argues that transposition
alters the form of knowledge, and this could create difficulties to the learner once he/she
genuinely faces up scientific knowledge. Similarly, Oh and Oh (2011) points out that
oversimplification of language could lead to incomplete understanding of the nature of
language system. For example, made up dialogues do not reflect authentic language use in
real life situations.

6. Constraints of Didactic Transposition

Sarrmejane (2002) identifies the following constraints for accurately rendering scholarly
knowledge in the classroom.

 Objectives: the objectives of teaching are rarely equal to the target scientific
knowledge
 Temporal: Scientific knowledge is not presented in its real-time (occurrence)
 Spatial: Scientific knowledge is removed from its genuine spatial context
 Group constraint: Difficulty of teaching knowledge to various and large groups
 Assessment: Difficulty of assessing authentically knowledge; made-up
situations and elements of phenomena are usually used for testing.

Conclusion

Scholarly knowledge is transformed, simplified, and adapted to make it accessible for students;
but this change does not alter the properties of knowledge. The latter is first coded in scientific fields,
and then it is decoded and recoded in academic spheres. Chevallard (1988) says we should be aware of
this process and the fact that taught knowledge has been altered. It is also a challenge to the teacher to
make scholarly knowledge accessible to students without deforming it. Chevallard holds that
transposition is compulsory, necessary, and regrettable and we should free ourselves from the didactic
knowledge.
Lecture 3: Didactic Triangle

Objective: By the end of the lecture, the student will be able to distinguish between the three
possible relations (teacher-knowledge, teacher-learner, and learner-knowledge) that mark a
teaching situation in a language classroom.

Introduction

Traditionally, the context of teaching is reduced to the dual relation between the teacher
and the learner. Then, the word used to describe this relation is referred to as pedagogy.
However, the work of some French-speaking writers (e.g., Houssaye, 1988; Chevallard,
1988)on the didactic situations has come to stress another component of the classroom,
namely, content. Guigue (1998) notes that content is valuable to both the learner and the
teacher and it forms the basis for structuring and regulating teaching. Therefore, the move to
the focus on content as an object, rather than the psychological factor, places more importance
on didactic transposition (transformation and grading of knowledge). This change equally
implies the shift from the concept pedagogy (focus on psychological factors that regulate the
teacher-learner relation) to didactics (focus on content presentation, Ibid.).

1. Didactic Triangle

Houssaye (1988) depicts the didactic relations of the classroom in the didactic triangle.
The latter involves the three major elements of the classroom (i.e., content, teacher, and
learner). Content refers transmitted knowledge, be it information, skills, or attitudes; it
presupposes neutrality and requires scientific representation procedures (Guigue, 1998). The
teacher is the knower who presents knowledge directly or indirectly, that is, through the
transmission model or through making the process of transmission possible (Ibid.). Besides,
the teacher ought to show the intention to teach (Chevallard, 1988). The learner is the
recipient or the beneficiary of knowledge; he/she should equally show the intention to learn
(Chevallard, 1988; Guigue, 1998)

Additionally, the triangle highlights the three possible didactic relations of teacher-
content, teacher-learner, and learner-content. The relation of teacher-content refers to the
process of teaching; the relation teacher-learner designates training; and finally, the relation
learner-content denotes the process of learning.
 The figure below illustrates the didactic triangle as presented by Houssaye (1988). The
three piques of the polygon represent the components of the classroom and the sides of the
polygon illustrate the didactic relations.

The triangle above represents the different facets of a pedagogical act. This act is the
interaction between the three peaks of the triangle: knowledge, teacher, and learner. The sides
of the triangle represent the processes of teaching, training, or learning. In this theory, when
two peaks are emphasized, the third one plays the role of the dead or the fool, depending on
the circumstances. If, for example, we favor the relation teacher-knowledge (process of
didactic teaching), the learner plays the role of the dead. However, if the learner intervenes
and disrupts the process, then he/she is the fool. This representation of a teaching act shows
that there are only three possible relations in the classroom and only one could be used at a
time. However, there are possibilities of changing processes or shifting from one process to
another in the same lesson.

2. The relation teacher-knowledge

In the case of teacher-knowledge relation, the teacher has the role of structuring
knowledge, organizing, and presenting it according to the types of knowledge he/she thinks
are important or relevant. Besides, lecturing is usually the medium used to impart knowledge
to learners who are thought of as all the same, having the same learning styles, and possessing
the same cognitive capacities. Traditional teaching methods used to focus more on this
classroom process and to emphasize entirely content transmission.

3. The relationship teacher-learner

In this instance, the teacher establishes a warm relationship with his learners and uses
mainly indirect or inductive methods of teaching. The teacher directs them and instructs them
to do things to improve their learning. However, as Houssaye (1988) points out, knowledge is
not well-structured and comprehensible enough, and the learner may not be able to link
content to the general drive of the syllabus.

4. The relationship student-knowledge

This relationship represents students assuming the responsibility of their learning.

They nominate topics, negotiate learning targets, do tasks, and assess themselves. The
pedagogy applied in this case is constructivism or socio-constructivism. That is, learners
interact with tasks or among themselves to learn new knowledge or change their mental
representations. Houssaye (1988) defines learning as the acquisition of the new content and its
link to earlier knowledge. The teacher paves the way and prepares the facilitating mechanisms
that allow each learner to work and learn at his/her own pace (Weisser, 2015). He defines the
characteristics of learning as follows (1988, p. 207, Weisser, 2015, pp. 20-21).

 Structuring information
 Introducing new knowledge in relation to the previous knowledge
 Retrieval of the teacher (intervening only one explicitly solicited)
 Varying information and teaching styles

In sum, the first relation of the didactic triangle (i.e., teacher-content) exhibits didactic
analysis or transposition, that is, the teacher seeks how to make knowledge teachable to
his/her students. The second and the third relations (teacher-learner/learner-knowledge)
exhibit different pedagogy, rather than didactics. But, these three types of classroom
processes are complementary and reinforce each other. Their interplay is crucial for making
knowledge accessible and easily taught or permanently acquired by the learners. Neglect of
any of the relations explicated above would thwart the act of teaching.
Conclusion

Didactic triangle is questioned today because of the changes taking place in society. The
digital word alters the triangle which is situated within the frame of an institution (i.e. school).
Knowledge is now available everywhere; and, consequently, it is not the possession of the
knower. The internet is offering plenty of free accessible knowledge to the wide public; what
is needed, then, is the validation of that knowledge. Students learn outside the classroom
through different mediums and they are no longer entering school empty-handed. In short, the
circle of institution is shrinking and learning/teaching is taking place outside formal teaching
institutions.

Additionally, according to Guigue (1998), the didactic triangle overshadows the

temporal, spatial, and organizational factors as it focuses on the relations between the three
major poles of the classroom and their resulting teaching/learning models. Likewise, this
representation of the classroom neglects the social and psychological factors as it is based
merely on ways of presenting contents.
Lecture 4: Didactic Contract

Objective: By the end of the lecture, the student will be sensitized to the explicit and implicit
classroom rules that make up the pedagogical contract.

Introduction

In 1985, Stella Baruk suggested a problem to pupils of primary school as follows: in a

ship there are 26 sheep and 10 goats, what’s the age of the captain? Among the 97 students,
76 gave an answer on the basis of the given numbers: 26+10= 36; thus, the captain is 36.
Actually, this absurd mathematical problem has no possible answer, yet the pupils worked out
an answer! Why, so?

Interpretation: The reasons why the learners attempted to give an answer are due to the
following rules of the didactic contract (Baruk, 1985).

a) Any problem posed by the teacher has an answer and a single answer
b) In order to arrive to an answer, all the given data should be used
c) No extra data is needed
d) The solution requires the items being taught
e) If there were a problem in the task, the teacher would point out to it

1. Epistemological Origins of Didactic Contract

The concept of didactic contract is formalized by Guy Brousseau (1997) who notices
that certain learners fail to pass their math exams because they pay more attention to the
teacher’s expectations than to logic or target content (Sarrazay, 1995).Many students believe
that learning means repeating things or doing things as being done by their teacher. To quote
an example given by Hausberger and Patras (2019), when asking a learner why adding
meaningless numbers in a math problem, they say this is what the teacher asks us to do.

This notion of didactic contract coincided with the shift of paradigm from structural to
student-centered teaching and resurgence of interactional approach in the 1970s (Sarrazay,
1995). Goffman (1974) identifies the shared rules that bind people in social interaction and
calls them frames (Ibid.). These frames are situations that are replicated in different contexts
(Hausberger and Patras, 2019), and they resemble a contract (mutual understanding and
agreement) about how to run conversations. The language classroom is no different; it has its
protocols, and the teacher and the learner understand and use them harmoniously. The frame
of ‘school questioning’, for example, is very different from the frame of ‘asking a question’ in
a non-didactic situation: in the latter, the person who asks normally does not know the
answer! A child who comes to school the first time may be quite astonished that the teacher is
asking questions for which he/she has answers! When the child accepts this strange situation
as normal, he/she has already understood the frame and has become aware of the existence of
a given didactic contract that binds him/her with the teacher.

2. Didactic Contract: Definition

Brousseau (2006) defines the didactic contract as follows:

A didactic contract is the relationship which determines—explicitly to some extent, but

mainly implicitly—what each partner, the teacher and the student, will have the
responsibility for managing and, in some way or other, be responsible to the other
person. This system of reciprocal obligation resembles a contract.(Brousseau, 2006, p.
31-32)

As entailed in the above definition, the teacher and the learner have to respect certain covert
and overt classroom rules with regard to each other. In other words, the learner has certain
expectations from the teacher in connection with content and the learner has equally certain
prospects from the learner concerning content. For example, the teacher expects the learner to
listen and display learning intentions while explaining the content and the learner expects the
teacher to explain clearly new knowledge and make it accessible to them.

3. Rules of Didactic Contract

As stated in the definition of the didactic contract, the rules can be explicit or implicit.
Explicit rules are set up by the teacher; it is, for instance, when the teacher gives instructions
on how to answer a question. Implicit rules, however, are a form of expectations. For
instance, learners expect to solve in exam time questions they are used to during the teaching
process. Below are some examples of the rules of the didactic contract given by Brousseau
(2006).

• The teacher is supposed to create sufficient conditions for the appropriation of knowledge
and must “recognize” this appropriation when it occurs.

• The student is supposed to be able to satisfy these conditions.

• The didactic relationship must “continue” at all costs.

• The teacher therefore assumes that earlier learning and new conditions give the student the
possibility of new learning. (Brousseau, 2006, p. 31-32)

If the above rules are not respected, learning cannot take place; consequently, both the teacher
and the learner assume the responsibility for not having fulfilled their respective duties.
Brousseau(1988) adds that it is impossible to define these rules explicitly, but we come to
know them when they are violated.

It goes without saying that didactic contract is linked to content or the kind of content
that determines the nature of relationships or agreements. If the rules are not related to
content, then they could be considered simply as pedagogical contract (classroom
management). Didactic contract, consequently, refers to the rules observed by the learner and
the teacher in learning/teaching content.

4. The Role of the Teacher in Didactic Contract

The teacher has to set up an approach of teaching and instructing in a way to make the
ways of doing tasks and answering questions clear for the learner. Brousseau (2006)
recommends for teachers, for example, to consider the following caveats to help learners
answer questions: “how to answer with the help of previous knowledge, how to understand
and build knowledge, how to “apply” previous lessons, how to recognize questions, how to
learn, guess, solve, etc” (p.35). Indeed, the learner must be able to answer the question if he
has already acquired the target knowledge. For example, if the instruction in the question is
new to the learner, the teacher has, then, to give an example that the learner can follow to
complete the rest.

5. Value of Didactic Contract

Didactic contact saves time for the teacher in explaining what he/she wants the students
to do. The teacher leads the students to learn without telling them all.

6. Violation of Didactic Contract

Introducing new learning items is the major violation of the didactic contract. Novel
contents sometimes conflict with the old knowledge. For example, in language classes,
teachers instruct their learners to use adverbs of frequency with the present simple; but, later,
they ask them to use them with the past simple. However, the violation of the contract is
necessary as it leads to its adjustments and reminding the two parties (teacher and learner) of
the contract that bonds them (Brousseau, 2010).

7. Disadvantages of Didactic Contract

Brousseau (2010) cited the following limitations of the didactic contract (pp. 7-8).

a) Jourdain effect: An ordinary behavior of the learner is interpreted as a sign of acquisition

of knowledge.

b) Topaze effect: When the learner encounters difficulties in solving a problem, the teacher
gives assistance that strips the activity from its intended purpose.

d) Risk of focus on the cognitive domain: Teachers sometimes give more importance to the
cognitive process of problem-solving at the expense of genuine learning.

e) Abusive use of analogy: Explanations are usually carried out through analogies, but excess
in use of analogy restricts the understanding of the target concept.

8. The Paradox of Didactic Contract

Learners usually expect their teacher to show them how to solve the problem at hand;
and if the teacher does, the students are not learning what is meant for them to learn
(Brousseau, 2010). That is, the teacher is doing for them the task, and the students do not
choose the right strategies to solve the problem. How could this problem be possibly solved?
The teacher must make adaptations to the task in a way that could lead to learn the target
content without much help from the teacher.

Conclusion

Didactic contract allows conducting smoothly teaching/learning in the classroom

without spelling out most of its rules. Teachers usually set up explicit rules in the classroom
about how to do some activities and to approach content or to apply it, but they and their
students equally comply to certain implicit rules while dealing with contents of
teaching/learning. However, teachers should be sensitized to these explicit and mainly
implicit rules of didactic contract. If a teacher violates unconsciously the rules of this contract,
this will impair the process of learning. Moreover, teachers should help those students who
are not quite familiar with the tacit rules of the contract to avoid misunderstandings and the
student eventual failure in the process of learning another language.
Lecture 5: Learning Theories and Psycholinguistic Factors

Objective: Familiarizing the learner with the learning theories and their evolution through
time.

Introduction

Learning has known many forms depending on the needs of the learner and the
evolution in pedagogical movements. Knowledge transmission from the expert to the novice
has taken various forms under distinct pedagogical movements and schools. Below, we trace
its evolution from the traditional behavioral model to the most recent pedagogical trends.

1. Behaviorism

Behavioral psychology is only concerned with the observable phenomena- that is, only
those actions that “can be objectively perceived, recorded, and measured” (Brown, 2006, p.
21). Mental concepts such as intuition and consciousness are rejected and considered
unscientific and illegitimate (Ibid).

Classical conditioning and operant conditioning are based on this scientific premise.
Classical conditioning considers learning as the formation of an association between stimulus
and response. Later, the neo-behaviorist, Skinner (1957), extended classical conditioning and
called it operant conditioning. Skinner considers classical conditioning as more appropriate
for animal learning while operant conditioning can be used to explain most of human learning
(Brown, 2006). Operant conditioning deemphasizes stimulus and gives more importance to
the effect of the response. In other words, what is important is not what causes the behavior as
much as the effect of that behavior or response.

Skinner (1957) holds that what is important to us as humans are the consequences of our
behaviors, not the causes. If the behavior triggers a positive reinforcement, then it is repeated;
but if it leads to a negative reinforcement, it is naturally suppressed. On this basis, Skinner
focuses on the process of stimulus, response, and reinforcement for teaching humans complex
behaviors.

The behavioral theory to foreign language learning/teaching believes that language

acquisition is the behavioral change through stimulus, response, and reinforcement; and yet,
human learning in general is a more complex endeavor. Chomsky (1957) challenges this
mechanistic and context-dependent view of Skinner (1957) and considers language
acquisition as a complex task that could be accounted for with the existence of an innate
mental capacity. Indeed, apart from the acquisition of some language structures from the
environment through the process of stimulus/response and practice, speakers tend to produce
and create new language forms never heard of. Likewise,

2. Universal Grammar

In response to behaviorists who rejected the role of the mental processes in language
learning, Chomsky (1957) introduces “mental grammar”. According to him, the child learns
more than the social milieu allows him/her (poverty of stimulus). Nothing could explain the
short time in which the child acquires a complex system like language unless we assume the
existence of innate properties. Chomsky (1980) and his followers postulate the existence of a
module in the brain that is responsible for language learning in the same way that humans
have modules responsible for hearing or seeing. Thus, the perception of the language in the
environment is not sufficient for correctly picking it up; rather, humans are naturally endowed
with a machinery to perceive and decode correct patterns of language from its use in their
linguistic environments (Pinker, 2013). As an example, children easily recognize the pattern
of language construction as Noun Phrase + Verb Phrase.

According to Chomsky (1957), Universal Grammar (UG) is built-in to the structure of

human mind. It is a kind of mechanism that allows people to reproduce language through
generations. The child is predisposed to listen to the stream of human speech, rather than, for
example, other sounds produced by physical objects like furniture. Pinker (2013) endorses
this theory and holds that the child’s mind is pre-programmed and constrained to pick up only
correct generalizations from the streams of human speech round him. He goes on to argue that
the child is biased to analyze language patterns, rather than recording ready-made rules in the
way behaviorists argue. Accordingly, it is theorized that a child has a kind of algorithm or
computational system that tries to look for key rules of language. This supposition is
supported by the fact that there are commonalities across languages and the children could
reproduce language throughout generations.

Consequently, learning a foreign language requires language input to consolidate the

universal rules. If the foreign language learner meets evidence in the data of the existence of a
particular rule, it is then fixed or established (Chomsky, 1981a). Similarly, if the child does
not meet a particular rule in the coming data or he/she is corrected for the use of a certain rule,
this shows the inexistence or the incorrectness of the rule (Idem.).
 In response to language variations across languages, Chomsky (1980) reviews his
theory and formulates the concepts of principles and parameters. Principles are computational
systems that are common to all human languages while parameters are specific variations in
language use that could be noticed in different languages. However, UG constrains and limits
the variations of human languages (Cook, 1985). One of the parameters (variations) is the
pro-drop. For instance Spanish is a pro-drop language that allows sentences without subjects
and permits inversion of subject and verb in declarative sentences (Idem.). Nevertheless, this
variation in the system of natural languages stands as the most challenging criticism of UG
that is unsatisfactorily answered so far.

3. Interactional Theory

Interactional theory advances that language is a medium for social interaction.

According to Richards and Rodgers (2001), within the interactional view, language is
considered as “a vehicle for the realization of interpersonal relations and for performance
of social transactions between individuals” (p.21). In other words, language is used to
promote social relations and get things done. Consequently, the skills of interaction
should be taught and practiced to acquire the language capacity, and it draws on
conversation analysis, interaction analysis and ethnomethodology (Ibid.). Interactional
patterns that people use in real life are figured out and presented for practice in the
classroom.

The stronger view of this theory of learning argues that interaction allows not only
the use of language, but also facilitates its acquisition. Elis (1999) argues that one of the
key precepts of interaction theory is that “learners can learn a second language (L2)
through the process of interacting rather than just manifesting what they have already
learned in interaction” (p.3). This quote means that the process of interaction not only
provides chances for practicing language, but equally processing and acquiring it. When
input is refined through the process of give and take, it is made easier for acquisition.

Long (1980) points out that the negotiation of meaning allows the so-called interactional
modifications (i.e., the change of the dialogue structure), while the input modification allows
the revision of the content and structure of the sentence (in Ellis, 1999). Interactional
modifications include, for example, the use of comprehension checks (i.e., the action taken by
the speaker to see whether his/her interlocutor has understood what has been said, e.g., ‘is it
clear?’).Accordingly, when communication problems arise in interaction, such interactional
strategies are used, and their application triggers language development when the focus is on
meaning negotiation.
In summary, interaction is one way to develop language capacity, but there is no
empirical evidence that modified interaction leads to acquisition. Besides, it could be very
challenging to build a syllabus on problems in speech in order to teach language. There are
various other channels to promote language acquisition such as Krashen’s (1981) modified
input, context, and problem-empty interaction.

4. Krashen’s Monitor Model

Krashen (1981) formulates five hypotheses about second language learning, which
are as follows: Input hypothesis, acquisition, monitor model, affective filter, and natural
order.

Comprehensible Input Hypothesis or Comprehension Hypothesis states that people

acquire language subconsciously when incoming messages are comprehensible, that is
when the input (e.g., texts, conversations, monologues) is refined and made easily
accessible to the reader/hearer. According to Krashen (2003), if input is demanding on the
level of the learner or if it is easy, it is less profitable. Consequently, input has to be
tailored to the learner level, slightly above the learner level (i+1).

Krashen (1981) also suggests the distinction between acquisition and learning
(Acquisition and Learning Hypothesis). Acquisition refers to subconscious internalization
of language while the focus is on language use. Learning, on the other hand, refers to the
study of the formal system of language (e.g., grammar rules). The two processes result in
two separate language systems, one about the input gained through learning, and the other
about the system of language assimilated through acquisition. However, whereas the
acquisition repository is used by the learner to communicate and use language, the
learning stock is only used to monitor and check over the output produced by the acquired
system (Monitor Model Hypothesis-Richards & Rodgers, 2001).

Moreover, in Krashen’s (1981) view, in order for input to become acquisition the
affective filter has to be zero percent (Affective Filter). That is, if the student is at the
defensive or anxious, the coming input does not reach the Language Acquisition Device
(LAD) as it is blocked by the affective device. This affective filter then gets in the way of
acquisition of the processed input.

Finally, Krashen (1981) sets up the natural order hypothesis, which suggests that the
learner follows an inbuilt syllabus in language acquisition. More specifically, children are
programmed to pick up certain language forms at certain age in language assimilation
process. Consequently, a pre-arranged structural syllabus graded according to simplicity
and difficulty criteria might be inconvenient for the learner interlanguage needs, and then
only simplified and rich input could truly make provision for the needs of the second
language learner (Krashen, 2003).

In sum, Krashen’s (1981) monitor model hypothesis is very popular and insightful,
but it is also controversial. There is no empirical evidence for the hypotheses proposed by
this applied linguist. Even more than that, as Beardsmore and Swain (1985) argue,
comprehensible input is not sufficient to promote foreign language proficiency; rather the
foreign language learner needs comprehensible output (i.e. expressing orally the outcome
of learning).

5. Acculturation Model

According to Schumann (1978), if the learner is socially and psychologically integrated

in the target community, he/she has better chances for coming into grips with the target
language. The more distant the learner is from the target community, the more it is difficult
for him/her to become like a native speaker. The cluster of social and psychological factors is
referred to by Schumann as acculturation, but this acculturation is far different from adopting
the lifestyles and values of the target community. Schumann formulates a taxonomy of factors
that affect second language learning; these elements include: social, affective, and ego
permeability (pp. 379-384).

Social variable: If the target language learner group is interacting closely with the target
group, this diminishes the social distance and results in richer learning of L2.

Affective variables: Success in learning L2 depends on the learner capacity to overcome

linguistic and cultural shocks, as well as existence of high levels of motivation

Ego permeability: People develop a sense of ego with regard to their native language;
therefore, learning another language needs challenging this feeling.
 The acculturation model for L2learning can only account for some aspects of L2 in
natural environments. As for L2 instruction, Schumann (1978) himself admits that it does
nothing to aid L2 teaching. As Chizzo (2002) points out, Schumann’s model is only a rough
representation of L2 learning as many other psychological and social factors have a bearing
on this process. In addition, although it is believed that immersion in L2 learning can speed up
its natural acquisition and achieve an accent similar to that of a native language, many
students nowadays have achieved English proficiency through exposure to English language
media and formal instruction.

6. Psycholinguistic Factors of Language Learning

Apart from teaching and learning methods, there are psycholinguistic factors that
determine the success or failure of any learning endeavor.

6.1. Brain

It is commonly known that children pick up languages quicker than adults. Spolsky
(1985) postulates that when foreign language learners usually sit to acquire a foreign/second
language they have already passed the Critical Period (i.e., the period in which their linguistic
programming is sensitive to language assimilation). According to Spolsky’s (1985) work that
reviewed the research studies on age learning differences, all these studies (such as Fathman ,
1975; Felix, 1981; Swain, 1981; and Dulay, Burt, &Krashen, 1982) show that age affects
language learning (pp. 5-6). Accordingly, a child should be under 9 to make sure of reaching a
native-like accent and under 15 to have better chances of success (Ibid). Therefore, there is an
element of truth in Lenneberg’s (1967) brain lateralization hypothesis that holds that the
language functions are handed over gradually to the left hemisphere of the brain and Scovel’s
(1969) notion of brain plasticity before puberty (Brown, 2006, p. 60). Briefly, as Spolsky
(1985) states, “the younger ones starts to learn a second language, the better chance one has to
develop a native-like pronunciation” (p. 6).

6.2. Aptitude

Aptitude is another factor that could account for individual differences in learning a
foreign language at school (Stern, 1983; Spolsky, 1985, &Brown, 2006). This factor is
sometimes simplified to intelligence, yet it encompasses many other related factors such as
“auditory ability, grammatical sensitivity, and memory” (Spolsky, 1985, p. 8). Aptitude is the
capacity to control a second/foreign language faster and in an efficient manner. Brown (2006)
groups under this individual factor the following characteristics: “Risk-taking behavior,
memory efficiency, intelligent guessing, and ambiguity tolerance” (p. 100). For instance, risk-
taking allows the learner to experience with the language and receive more input (feedback)
about his/her language needs. Likewise, according to Spolsky (1985), the better one’s
memory is, the faster one learns vocabulary items and the richer is one’s vocabulary
repertoire.

6.3. Attitude

One of the determinant attitudinal factors in successful language learning is motivation.

Gardner and Lambert (1959) identify two types of motivation, namely, integrative and
instrumental. The former and the most important in their opinion is integrative motivation,
that is, when the learner has the aspiration of being integrated into the community of the target
language, and thereby identifying himself/herself with the culture and identity of the target
language. This positive attitude is contrasted with the learner hatred towards the speakers or
community of the target language, which, accordingly, leads to demotivation. The latter,
(instrumental) refers to being motivated to learn a foreign language for using it as an
instrument for achieving personal or professional goals such as job prospects, travelling,
business, and scholarship. However, with the view of English as the Globish (i.e. world’s
language) and the rise of new Englishes such as in India, people are more motivated to learn
English for instrumental purposes (Brown, 2006). In any case, motivation for learning an
added language is a crucial factor for making the learning of the new language faster and
more effective.

Conclusion

The learning theories have evolved over time, but it could be said that no theory has
replaced other theories. Each one of them has built on the shortcomings of its previous
counterpart. Consequently, a rich typology of learning methods (i.e., transmission mode,
modeling (behaviorism) paradigm, UG theory,socio-cultural theory, Krashen’s monitor
model, and acculturation mode) are used sometimes eclectically in different educational
settings. This rich repertoire of teaching theories informs the teacher’s daily practice in the
confines of the classroom. In addition to these learning theories that suggest the best way to
foreign language proficiency, there are many psycholinguistic factors that determine the
efficiency and effectiveness of foreign language appropriation.
Lecture 6: Learning strategies

Objective: By the end of the lecture, the student will be acquainted with optimal learning
strategies used in foreign language classrooms.

Introduction

Consider the following activities and decide why these people are doing so and how these
activities could be called.

- Trang watches soap operas from the United States

- Freng memorizes pages of words from the English dictionary
- Haruko arranges to live in an English-American family (Oxford, 2002,p. 124)

1. Learning Strategies

Learning strategies are tools employed by students to upgrade their capacity to learn and
progress towards proficiency in a foreign language; they assist them to internalize, store,
retrieve, and use language. They are defined by Cohen and Dörnyei (2002) as follows: “the
conscious and semi-conscious thoughts and behaviors used by learners with the explicit goal
of improving their knowledge and understanding of the target language” (p.178). This quote
implies that the use of learning strategies could be deliberately applied or intuitively used to
improve one’s learning of the different aspects of an added language, and this process
involves thinking and taking actions. Similarly, Paige, Cohen, Kappler, Chi, and Lassegard
(2006) point out that language learning strategies involve thinking and taking actions to
become a successful language learner.

2. Types of Language Learning Strategies

Language learning strategies are usually categorized into three types.

2.1. Metacogtive

It is to plan, monitor, and evaluate language learning. For example, the learner tries a
strategy to improve the quality of learning and assesses its outcomes. Thus, it is a deliberate
attempt to apply a given stratagem to learn better and take heed of its application and,
ultimately, appraise its effectiveness. This type of strategy involves mainly higher order skills
such as planning, organizing, and synthesizing. O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares,
Russo, and Küpper (1985) specify the following strategies: the advanced organizer, directed
attention, self-monitoring, delayed production, and self-evaluation (pp. 582-584).

2.2. Socio-Affective Strategies

Socio-affective learning strategies involve monitoring one’s emotions and attitudes and
practicing language in social interaction. O’Malley et al. (1985) identify the following
strategies: cooperation and questions for comprehension (pp. 582-584).

2.3. Cognitive Strategies

They are the strategies that one uses to accomplish a specific task and they rely on direct
action, without considering much its outcomes. O’Malley et al. (1985) highlight the following
strategies: repetition, resourcing, translation, grouping, imagery, note-taking,
contextualization, elaboration, and transfer (pp. 582-584).

3. Identifying Learning Strategies

We can learn about the learning strategies used by students through interviews, group
discussions (focus groups), diaries, open-ended surveys, structured surveys, and think aloud
protocols. Classroom observation is impractical because most of the classroom strategies are
internal, thus, invisible to the observer.

4. Orchestration of Learning Strategies by Effective and Less Effective Learners

Knowing learning strategies is not enough. Successful learners know how to use and
adjust learning strategies in accordance to the type of the language task. Besides, they use
them consistently and in an orderly and organized way. Contrarily, less skilled L2 learners are
not aware of the non-communicativeness of some the learning strategies they use (such as
memorization, translation, and repetition). Research (e.g., Oxford, 2002) has also shown that
even if these students are aware of effective learning strategies, they may mishandle
exploiting them effectively and usefully. In fact, these less capable learners apply them
randomly without careful orchestration or choosing the appropriate strategy for each task.

5. Learning Strategies and Learning Styles

There is always a strong link between learning strategies and learning styles (Brown,
2006), but learners can work beyond their learning styles. For instance, students with an
analytic learning style prefer strategies such as contrastive analysis, rule learning, and
dissecting words and phrases; whereas students with the global style use strategies that could
help them find a big picture (e.g., guessing, scanning, predicting). Nevertheless, investigators
have shown that the learning strategies of any individual could be extended beyond his/her
learning styles (Oxford, 2002).

6. Typologies of Learning Strategies

There are various typologies for learning strategies. Below, we present Oxford’s (2002)
typology, which considers the wholeness of the learner.

a) Affective: anxiety reduction through laughter and meditation, self-encouragements

through affirmations and rewards, and self-reward through praise and tangible
reinforcement
b) Social: such as asking questions, cooperating with a native speaker, and becoming
culturally aware
c) Metacognitive: Such as paying attention, consciously searching for practice
opportunities, planning for tasks, self-evaluating progress, and monitoring errors
d) Memory related: Such as grouping, imagery, rhyming, moving physically, and
structured reviewing
e) General cognitive: such as reasoning, analyzing, summarizing, and practicing
f) Compensatory: such as guessing meanings from context and using synonyms and
gestures to convey meanings

Conclusion

Students can use cognitive, affective, and motor strategies to improve their learning;
thus, it is the task of the teacher to make his/her learners able to find out their learning
strategies and to challenge them. Additionally, it is not enough to be familiar with the list of
successful learning strategies; rather the student should be trained to practice them effectively
in order to benefit from their use.