English Language Teaching in its Social Context

292 ASSIA SLIMANIMethod effectI am aware of the fact that the methodological procedure used to collect the data can stronglyraise the subjects’ consciousness of the learning process and might, by the same token,pollute the data.This would have been the case if the class observation had lasted over a longperiod of time. I was however, only thinking of observing two hours a week during six weeksof the informants’ timetable, which amounted to twenty-four (24) hours of intensive Englishlessons per week. It seemed rather unlikely that the methodological procedure would haveany major effect on the subjects’ behaviour.However, to confirm this supposition, the results of the Michigan Test were used. Thistest was already being used, at the beginning of the programme, as a placement test todetermine the learners’ ability levels. This procedure produced four groups, one of whichwas the group under study.The other three were, for the purpose of the project, consideredas control groups. All four groups were following the same programme, though at theirown pace. Without telling the learners in advance, the same test was again administered tothe experimental group, as well as to the three control groups, after the six observationalperiods. The pre and post-test results were inspected to see whether the study groups’progress had been significantly influenced by the effects of the design.Table 18.1 summarises the results of the pre- and post-MichiganTests results (T1 andT2 on the table).The table shows the average score obtained by the participants in the studyto be slightly higher (74.76) than the one achieved by group 2 (72.66). In comparison, theaverage score of group 2 does not overtake that of group 1, and neither does group 4 overgroup 3. It seems rather unreasonable however to attribute this slight improvement whollyto the procedure itself as it was applied on only two hours of instruction out of 24 hours aweek.The merit I can see the procedure objectively deriving from this slight increase is thatit did not hinder the group in its activities. My presence and the tape-recorder in the backof the room did not seem to have negatively affected the group.The total percentage increase for each group is a representation, within the wholeprogramme, of the students’ language training development in the first six weeks. It appearsto happen in an expected way: the lower groups show more progress than group 1 (20.65%)and 2 (37.5 3%). This increase in language development is quite comprehensible sinceknowing much less at the outset of the programme, groups 3 (67.88%) and 4 (103.1 2%)have more room for improvement. The total percentage increase therefore does not displayany convincing sign in favour of an interfering methodological design.The learners in group3, in spite of my demands on them at the end of each of the observed sessions, do not achievein any markedly different manner than what would be expected from them if one thoughtthat the procedure could have influenced the quantity of their learning.In summary, two types of data were gathered for the investigation of the issue: learners’specific claims collected through uptake charts and detailed accounts of the learningopportunities obtained through systematic Observation of audio-recorded, naturallyoccurring classroom data. These were supplemented with field notes taken by the author.The interview which was intended to provide corroborative data did not produce responsesthat were sufficiently precise to be interpreted in relation to what might account for theirclaims. In the end, the bulk of what might help us find out about the learners’ selectiveattention mechanism would have to arise from a consideration of classroom transcripts inrelation to uptake charts as the learners themselves did not seem to be aware of whatdirected their attention while attending instruction.Both the teacher and the learners under study were informed in general terms of thegoals of the research. Both parties were told that the project was seeking a relationship