The Action-oriented Approach

A Dynamic Vision of Language Education

Enrica Piccardo, Brian North

• Publisher: Multilingual Matters
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781788924368
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education Teaching Methods

This book presents the background to the current shift in language education towards action-oriented/action-based teaching, and provides a theorization of the Action-oriented Approach (AoA). It discusses the concepts and theories that paved the way for the AoA and explores their relevance for the way language education is conceived and implemented in the classroom. In the process, it revisits the concept of competence and discusses the dynamic notions of mediation and plurilingualism. The authors explain the way in which the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and its recent update, the CEFR Companion Volume, broaden the scope of language education, in particular in relation to the actional turn. The book provides scholars and practitioners with a research-informed description of the AoA, explains its implications for curriculum planning, teaching and assessment, and elaborates on its pedagogical implications.

1 The Emergence of a New Vision

Les sciences humaines ne savent pas qu’elles sont inhumaines, non seulement à désintégrer ce qui est naturellement intégré, mais à ne retenir que le quantitatif et le déterministe.

– Edgar Morin

1.1 From Practice to Theory to Practice

The term Action-oriented Approach (AoA) has increasingly circulated in the world of language education since the publication of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001) and particularly in the last decade. At first it was somehow mentioned between the lines, almost whispered in teacher education workshops and language teaching conferences, but little by little it started to be mentioned more often and a discussion on its main tenets began. A debate soon appeared as to whether the AoA could be considered a new approach or simply old wine in a new bottle – namely the communicative approach – with strong advocates on both sides (Beacco, 2007; Bento, 2012; Puren, 2009a; Richer, 2009). As is often the case when practice is involved as well as theory, this issue was not central for practitioners, who were once again looking for support in their difficult everyday mission to teach languages more effectively and improve the proficiency of their students. Thus, the AoA started to be the object of increased attention from language educators and curriculum developers and consequently a body of knowledge started to be created. Materials that claimed to be action-oriented, some more correctly than others, started to be produced in different languages and contexts. More recently, interesting projects have been carried out, often resulting in targeted web resources that acted as trailblazers (e.g. the FIDE project in Switzerland: www.fide-info.ch, Schleiss & Hagenow-Caprez, 2017; the Durham project in Canada, Durham Immigration Portal, 2016; Piccardo & Hunter, 2017; Hunter et al., 2017) sometimes providing a first hint at theorisation (Piccardo, 2014a). Other ongoing projects focus exclusively on classroom practice (e.g. Hunter et al., forthcoming).

This effervescence has already produced some positive effects: the action-oriented perspective has been widely accepted, particularly in relation to teaching languages other than English. It is recognised as a new vision in language education, which is rooted in the notion of action (Denyer, 2009; Puren, 2004, 2009a, 2009b; Richer, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2017). This vision aligns with a socio-constructivist perspective on the one hand and, on the other hand, encompasses and goes beyond the achievements of the earlier innovations in language education, particularly but not exclusively the communicative approach based on Hymes’ (1972a) ground-breaking work, and the task-based approaches (Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 1989, 2004; van den Branden et al., 2009; Willis, 1996; Willis & Willis, 2007). The AoA has triggered powerful innovation at a practical level in the teaching of different languages, with materials and examples of AoA-based scenarios, which show noticeable similarities beyond differences in pedagogical cultures. We are now at a moment in which we can capitalise on this rich reflection and practice to highlight the tenets of the AoA and investigate its conceptual depth and its implications for the classroom. This is precisely what this book intends to offer.

1.1.1 The issue at stake: The action-oriented approach, a practice in search of a theory

Languages are a key aspect of human life, they are crucial in human development both cognitive and social, they are the vehicle of our cultural, political and economic existence in society. In our globalised world, where exchanges and contacts are exponentially increasing, the role of languages stands out as a fundamental element. Languages are able to determine effective communication, are a major element for fostering cultural awareness and sensitivity, and eventually for enhancing peaceful coexistence. It is no surprise, therefore, that the stakes around language education are very high and they are perceived as such by the different stakeholders. Language policies and language-related educational policies are a very sensitive domain in every country and the socio-political demands are therefore high. Language teachers usually feel under particular pressure to deliver the best possible ‘product’, as they are called upon to bring their students to the highest possible level of proficiency, which will be mercilessly tested by every speaker of the target language these students will come into contact with.

In this climate, it is certainly not surprising that teachers are constantly in search of the most effective approaches and techniques for their daily work. Teachers are called on to be at the forefront of social change and they do not hesitate to use all they judge effective in their mission, without necessarily worrying about the underlying theory or the conceptual development of the notions, approaches and techniques that they select for their practice. However, the theorisation of professional know-how and action is essential if we want to avoid fragmentation, lack of coherence, and ultimately a proliferation of different things that all claim to belong to the same founding concept, but that often do not do so, or do so only partially. The relation between practice and theory is a reciprocal one, where developments help give flesh and blood to abstract conceptualisation and where in turn the theoretical discussion helps steer the practical development by providing reference points that cast light on the reasons behind the professional action. As a matter of fact, in the history of language teaching, practice has often been ahead of theory. On the other hand, as Kurt Lewin reminds us, there is nothing as practical as a good theory (1952: 169). This can apply to what has increasingly become known by practitioners as the action-oriented approach (AoA), which we are tempted to define as a practice in search of a theory. In reality, as we will explain in this book, things are a bit more complex than that, but it is certainly not incorrect to say that teachers operating at different levels and in different contexts have seen the potential of the AoA for their practice and have proceeded to some form of conceptualisation, if not of real theorisation, over the past few years. Certainly they have been inspired by this term to produce examples of practices that all present similar characteristics, beyond the obvious differences due to educational contexts and cultures/traditions. This phenomenon of having similar methodological developments occurring almost at the same time in different contexts is a clear sign that in the case of the AoA we are faced with a major (methodological) paradigm shift that calls for deeper theorisation and conceptualisation of the approach itself, of its roots and of its implications in language education as a field.

Let us see what the AoA is and where it comes from. The term ‘action-oriented approach’ is introduced in the Common European Framework for Reference (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001), a key resource for all those involved in language education (teachers, researchers, curriculum developers, and policy makers).

The AoA is mentioned upfront in the CEFR when the key concepts of this document are laid down and its philosophy and vision of language education are presented. There is no pose of methodological neutrality. The term ‘action-oriented approach’ appears in the CEFR to flesh out the ‘very general view of language use and learning’ (Council of Europe, 2001: 9) that is deemed necessary in order for a frame of reference to be comprehensive, transparent and coherent as the CEFR intends to be. As is the case with several definitions contained in the CEFR, the definition of the AoA embeds various concepts that need to be unpacked in order to capture all their theoretical depth and density. In fact, the AoA ‘views users and learners of a language primarily as “social agents”, i.e. members of society who have tasks (not exclusively language-related) to accomplish in a given set of circumstances, in a specific environment and within a particular field of action’ (Council of Europe, 2001: 9). This first statement is further elaborated by three more sentences that specify the way individuals act with languages. They refer to the relationship between language activities and the social context, the vision of tasks adopted, and the role of resources of diverse nature (cognitive, emotional, volitional) and of different individual abilities.

The term ‘action-oriented approach’ refers to the choice made by the CEFR itself to reach its mission, i.e. to contribute transparency and coherency to the vast and complex field of language use and language education; it does not intend to push a particular methodological agenda. However, it is very symptomatic that the initial preamble we have mentioned lays the foundations for the following box that tries to describe ‘any form of language use and learning’ (Council of Europe, 2001: xi). This box contains, in fact, a syntactically dense and challenging paragraph that basically presents all the core elements of the new vision proposed by the CEFR.

Language use, embracing language learning, comprises the actions performed by persons who as individuals and as social agents develop a range of competences, both general and in particular communicative language competences. They draw on the competences at their disposal in various contexts under various conditions and under various constraints to engage in language activities involving language pro-cesses to produce and/or receive texts in relation to themes in specific domains, activating those strategies which seem most appropriate for carrying out the tasks to be accomplished. The monitoring of these actions by the participants leads to the reinforcement or modification of their competences. (Council of Europe, 2001: 9)

What we would like to stress here is that by presenting its view of language use and learning as action-oriented, the CEFR provides a powerful foundation that relates individuals to the social context, and that suggests real-life situations with their implications and outputs. It is not surprising, therefore, that practitioners felt in tune with this vision and that they could relatively easily see its potential for the classroom. In a sense, these few lines summarised a lot of what they had been trying to do in their everyday class: reproduce real-life situations, assign tasks, take into account the different resources and capabilities of their learners, and develop their competences and ability to learn.

Thus, even though the CEFR claims that it does not ‘embody any one particular approach to language teaching to the exclusion of all others’ (Council of Europe, 2001: 18) and later stresses that ‘it is not the function of the Framework to promote one particular language teaching methodology, but instead to present options’ (Council of Europe, 2001: 142), the AoA started to be increasingly associated with the CEFR, not only to indicate its view of language use and learning, but also to refer to a methodological approach in the true sense of the term that as such has started to develop in a bottom-up, rhizomatic way in the different contexts where the CEFR has been implemented.

The intuition of practitioners has been key in helping to overcome the alleged methodological neutrality of the CEFR and enhance its innovation potential in language education. What is particularly interesting to note is that, in spite of context-related differences, a certain generic understanding is visible throughout the practical developments of the AoA, which demonstrates that a transparent basis for development had been provided by the formulation of the concept in the CEFR. However, being as we said a bottom-up, rhizomatic process, not only did the development and definition of the AoA take time but the little differences also risk being magnified in the absence of a proper theorisation of the approach itself and an analysis of its roots and implications. This is precisely what this book sets out to do.

1.1.2 Who is this book for and how is it organised

This text aims to theorise the AoA in terms of origins, development and conceptual underpinnings. For this reason, the main target audience is researchers and graduate students in language education. At the same time, it also aims to provide a clear insight into the practical implications of the AoA in language education. As such, it is also addressing practitioners and prospective teachers who are trying to understand how the AoA fits in the development of second/foreign language methodologies and what it contributes to the field.

In addition, this book targets a crucial and unfortunately often neglected audience, i.e. curriculum developers and directors of studies, in other words all those that are responsible for curricula and curriculum planning. As the AoA is not an off-the-shelf methodology that can be applied as an add-on to any type of curricula, but is rather a comprehensive philosophy that relates curriculum planning, teaching and assessment in a coherent – and therefore more effective – ensemble, it is crucial that people involved in curriculum development have a clear understandings of the tenets of the AoA as they have a pivotal role to play in educational innovation. Thus, this book addresses their needs too.

As we said, the AoA has developed in a rather ‘naturalistic’ way so far, in the sense that the ideas that it presented and the vision it proposed, simply on the basis of the few paragraphs and occurrences in the CEFR, have acted as grains that have germinated in different contexts. However, precisely as in nature – grains do not produce standardised clones but rather recognisable plants belonging to the same species, which may differ according to the nature of the soil, the climate they grow in, and the care they receive – the AoA-inspired practices are influenced by context-related factors. This aspect calls on the one hand for systematisation and clarification; on the other hand it is a proof that the AoA is both lively and robust.

The methodological developments in language education bear major consequences not only in terms of practices and education policies but also in terms of social implications, since proficiency in languages is increasingly becoming crucial to individual and societal development. A book that tries to link theory and practice not only has the ambition to provide food for thought to all those involved in language education, but also contributes to overcoming the hiatus that presently still exists between researchers and practitioners. As the aim of applied linguistics should be that of conducting research that inspires and helps conceptualisation of practice, and data from research should feed back into practice too, a book that spans a broader audience by presenting the necessary theoretical and conceptual underpinnings of a dynamically emerging approach in plain and accessible language offers a vehicle for this synergy between theory and practice, thus potentially making a real contribution to the advance of the field.

We consider that we need to go back thirty years to a very established and productive tradition that saw key publications which pursued precisely this aim and presented both theory and practice in a positive and thought-provoking feedback loop. To be effective though, a feedback loop of this kind, between theory and practice, needs to be direct and not mediated later through interpretations and syntheses. We hope that this book will be considered in a similar light to texts like Widdowson’s Teaching Language as Communication (1978) or Moirand’s Enseigner á communiquer en langue étrangére [Teaching to Communicate in a Foreign Language] (1982), or Piepho’s Kommunikative Didaktik des Englischunterrichts Sekundarstufe I: Theoretische Begründung und Wege zur Praktischen Einlösung eines Fachdidaktischen Konzepts [Communicative Methodology for English Language Teaching: Lower Secondary Level: Theoretical Rationale and Paths towards Practical Implementation of a Teaching Approach] (1979). These books are just a few examples of the intense and rich conceptualisation and discussion of language teaching and learning that took place from the late 1970s throughout the 1980s and that produced the communicative paradigm shift. The phenomenon we are experiencing now with the AoA is potentially equally rich and stimulating as it builds on that deep innovation and brings it to another level by incorporating not only the advances in research in fields such as language acquisition, discourse analysis, and brain-related language processing, but also insights from broader theories such as complexity theory and the sociocultural theory.

The awareness that language education situates itself in the field of complexity, since it involves several actors interacting within different contexts and focuses on change over time, brings a new vision of the respective roles of researchers and practitioners. The contribution of theories to practical action is not trivial and there is an increasing consensus on the need for the practitioner to act in a strategic way (Piccardo, 2010a; Tudor, 2001) in order to be effective in the ever-changing reality we are confronted with. Since the paradigm shift represented by the communicative approach, it is no longer viable to apply a ready-made all-encompassing method. Complexity and diversity have increased at the different levels: from societies, to classes to individuals. There is no longer a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution, and luckily so.

Strategic action is a principled way of acting (Borg, 2006; Freeman, 2002) and, as such, it is inevitably informed by theory. This theory in turn needs to be accessible and clear in order to be useful, and not to remain in the ivory tower of academia. Besides clarity, coherence is also an important factor that helps convey the message more effectively. In order to reach such coherence, the structure of this book has been conceived in a way that brings the different dimensions together and aims to create a multiple perspective that casts light onto the specific features of the AoA, the reasons for their emergence and evolution, and their innovation potential.

The present chapter aims to help the reader to get acquainted with the AoA, to position it within the socio-educational context, to provide a first link to the founding document of the AoA, the CEFR, and to get a first general overview of the core elements that need to be considered in the theorisation of the AoA. The chapter consists of three sections. In the first, we present the reasons for a theorisation and conceptualisation of the AoA and the perspective adopted by the book. In the second section, the move towards the AoA since the paradigm shift of the communicative approach is situated in a broader perspective, which encompasses the role of languages in today’s societies, alongside the rapid change itself that societies – and with them the individuals that constitute those societies – are presently undergoing. That section anticipates some of the core pillars of the AoA as it focuses on the synergies between the contributions of cognition and socialisation in the understanding of language education on the one side, while also embedding these synergies within the complexity of the sociological landscape characterised by increased mobility, métissage and change on the other. As is the case for all educational evolutions, the AoA is a creature of its time; thus it is crucial to help readers understand the position and role of languages within the socio-economic transformations of our time and their implications for language teaching and learning. As we will be following the pattern that has characterised the emergence of the AoA, the third section is dedicated to a brief overview of the CEFR, which is at the origin of the AoA. This offers a very first introduction to the core of the AoA to enable readers to situate the AoA in the conceptualisation of language education and to grasp its foundational notion, that of the social agent.

The second chapter of the book then tackles the notion of competence, which is key in understanding the AoA. This notion has been used in different disciplines and contexts, thus acquiring different meanings and connota...