Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T15:22:59.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Students Learn Language via a Civilization Course—A Comparison of Second Language Classroom Environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Robert C. Lafayette
Louisiana State University
Michael Buscaglia
Chandler (Arizona) High School


The primary goal of this research was to compare the improvement in the second language skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing among fourth semester French students enrolled in a content course taught in French and similar level students enrolled in a traditional fourth semester French course where the focus was primarily on the teaching of the language itself. The research used a non-equivalent pretest-posttest design and the results were analyzed using an analysis of covariance to determine mean gain scores of intact experimental and control sections of fourth semester students on the MLA Cooperative French Test. Results showed significant improvement for the experimental group in three of the four skills (listening, speaking, writing) and in two (listening and writing) for the control group. When compared to each other, the experimental group significantly outperformed the control group in the speaking skill while the latter significantly outperformed the experimental group in the writing skill. Attitudinal results showed a significantly more positive attitude toward the study of French among the experimental group. The study is important because it challenges the conventional assumptions regarding the way L2 skills are acquired and improved, and offers the student a valuable time and money saving option since he or she might be able to study a specific content while simultaneously improving L2 skills.

Research Notes
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



Buscaglia, M. & Holman, W.. 1980. The teleprompter: A simulating device for developing communicative competence. Modem Language Journal 64; 451–54.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. 1967. Foreign language proficiency levels attained by language majors near graduation from college. Foreign Language Annals 1; 131–51.Google Scholar
Fanelli, M. 1976. Aujoud'hui. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
Girod, R. & Grand-Clement, F.. 1976. Comment vivant les francais. Paris: Hatchette.Google Scholar
Handbook: MLA-Cooperative foreign language tests 1965. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. 1973. Conditions for language learning. In Oller, J. W. Jr., & Richards, J. C. (eds.), Focus on the learner: Pragmatic perspectives for the language teacher, pp. 6680. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. 1976. Formal and informal linguistic environments in language learning. TESOL Quarterly 10; 157–69.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. & Seliger, H.. 1975. The essential contributions of formal instruction in adult second language learning. TESOL Quarterly 9; 157–69.10.2307/3585484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lafayette, R. C. 1978. Research in the realm of second language instruction. In Shane, H. and Walden, J. (eds.), Classroom-relevant research m the language arts. pp. 2538. Washington: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Mason, C. 1971. The relevance of intensive training in English as a second language for university students. Language Learning 21: 197204.Google Scholar
Smith, P. D. 1970. A comparison of the cognitive and audiolingual approaches to foreign language instruction: The Pennsylvania foreign language project. Philadelphia: The Center for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Suozzo, A. G. 1981. Once more with content: Shifting emphasis in intermediate French. French Review 54: 405–11.Google Scholar
Terrell, T. D. 1977. A natural approach to second language acquisition and learning. Modern Language Journal 61; 325–37.Google Scholar
Upshur, J. A. 1968. Four experiments on the relationship between foreign language teaching and learning. Language Learning 18; 111–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdman, A. & Moody, M.. 1979. Testing communicative ability. French Review 52; 552–61.Google Scholar
Jarvis, G. A., Bonin, T. M., Corbin, D. E., & Birckbichler, D. W.. 1976. Connaitre et se connaitre. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Jarvis, G. A., Bonin, T. M., Corbin, D. E., & Birckbichler, D. W.. 1977. Passeport pour la France. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Jarvis, G. A., Bonin, T. M., Corbin, D. E., & Birckbichler, D. W.. 1977. Vivent les differences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Katz, E. 1976. La France en métamorphose. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Kirkland, C. J. & Knox, E. C.. 1977. A mon avis. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Maley, C. 1980. Dans le vent. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Ortali, R. 1976. Aujourd'hui. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Pimsleur, P. 1976. C'est la vie. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Rey, Jean-Noel & Santoni, G. V.. 1975. Quand les Français parlent. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Valette, Jean-Paul & Valette, R. M.. 1978. C'est comme ça. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar