Using Multicultural Literature as a Tool for Multicultural Education in Teacher Education Juli-Anna Aerila
Literary history closer to contemporary reality
Download 1.19 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- The Roles of Parents in Korean Children’s Literacy Practices and Attitudes Hyeon-Seon Jeong
- Literary socialization and literature reception - a comparative study of Swedish and French upper secondary school students’ readings of a literary text Maritha Johansson
- Handwriting and typing: A comparison between written product and writing processes Victoria Johansson
- The essay and authorial voice: Analysing interaction in Finnish matriculation essays Riitta Juvonen
- Liberating literacies: L1-students’ resources for stance-taking and their strategies for negotiation in lower secondary school Kristine Kabel
- Reflexive literacies: L1-students resources for stance-taking in the literature classroom Kristine Kabel
Literary history closer to contemporary reality Anna Janus-Sitarz Abstract: The curriculum of literary history in secondary education in Poland has been the subject of ardent disputes since 1880 when for the first time P. Chmielowski came out against teaching literary history and against neglecting the close reading of chosen books. Since then both the changes in school canon and the traditionally historical perspective of analysing literature have often provoked deep controversy, not only among people responsible for teaching, but also politicians, journalists, artist and writers (resulting even in changes in Polish government). In 2015 for the first time secondary students will take the final exams after introducing the new National Curriculum (NC) that had distinctly limited the number of books of the Polish historical canon and suggested that students should interpret the old literature from the contemporary point of view. The paper will focus on showing the results of an empirical research conducted by the author (as the coordinator of educational projects 2012-2014 and reviewers of others) among a large number of students (analysis of students’ essays on reading literature and questionnaires of over 5 000 students of the age 13-15 and about 600 of the age 16-18) and their L1 teachers. I will attempt to answer the questions: What determines the pupils’ attitude to the books of school canon? Is the choice of obligatory books in NC the real impediment discouraging students from reading? What are approvable ways of modifying the historical perspectives in teaching literature? What are effective methods of refreshing reading old books? Results show that the choice of books is less determinant with regard to motivation for reading than ways of talking about them so the author attempts to draw attention to those aspects of educational implications which demand a change in the approach to both the literary work and to the university pre-service teacher training. I present some opportunities to reconcile the necessity of transmitting the cultural heritage with the needs to motivate pupils to read. I will show the examples of new approach to cultural heritage offered in new Polish literature workbooks for secondary education. I will also present that to some extent the new virtual creativity of youngsters based on canon literature can be valuable in the pedagogy of teaching literary history.
Attridge D. (2004) The Singularity of Literature, Polish edition: Jednostkowość literatury, translated by P. Mościcki, Kraków 2007. Booth W.C. (1988) The Company We Keep. An Ethics of Fiction, Berkeley. Bortnowski S. (2007) Kanon literacki: między potrzebą a buntem, in: Szkolne spotkania z literaturą, ed. A. Janus-Sitarz, Kraków. Czapliński P. (2013), Piracka akademia pisania. Wywiad G. Giedrysa z P. Czaplińskim.„Polityka”19 – 20 stycznia. R. Chymkowski, (2013) Społeczny zasięg książki w Polsce w 2012 r, http://www.bn.org.pl/aktualnosci/501-czytelnictwo-polakow-w-2012-r.-%E2%80%93-wyniki-badan.html Doświadczenie lektury. Krytyka literacka i dydaktyka literatury wobec wyzwań interpretacji (2012), ed. K. Biedrzycki i A. Janus-Sitarz, Kraków. Janus-Sitarz A.,( 2009) Dialogue and the teaching of literature in search of the lost reader, “Critical and Reflective Practice in Education” nr 1. Janus-Sitarz A. (2009), Przyjemność i odpowiedzialność w lekturze. O praktykach czytania literatury w szkole, Kraków. Nowe odsłony klasyki w szkole. Literatura XIX wieku (2013), Ed. E. Jaskółowa, K. Jędrych, Katowice. Polonistyka dziś – kształcenie dla jutra (2014), ed. K. Biedrzycki, W. Bobiński, A. Janus-Sitarz i R. Przybylska, Kraków. Report (2014) Teaching Polish Language and Literature in secondary school in the light of the new Core Curriculum commissioned by the Educational Research Institute and carried out by the John Paul II Catholic Univerity of Lublin and Jagiellonian University in Kraków (unpublished). Zasacka Z. (2008), Nastoletni czytelnicy, Warszawa. Zasacka Z. (2014) Streszczenie raportu z końcowego badania „Czytelnictwo dzieci i młodzieży”, Warszawa [online] http://eduentuzjasci.pl/images/stories/publikacje/ibe-raport-badanie-czytelnictwo-streszczenie.pdf The Roles of Parents in Korean Children’s Literacy Practices and Attitudes Hyeon-Seon Jeong Abstract: Background and Theoretical Framework Research in the areas of emergent and family literacy has identified important roles of parents and family members in children’s literacy development (Morrow, 1995). These studies have shown that parents’ supports help students develop as independent and motivated readers (and writers) in schools (Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998). However, due to the rapid increase of dual-income families, the traditional roles of Korean parents, particularly mothers, have been seemingly decreased to take care of their children in out-of-school time (Song et al., 2010). Additionally, the prevalence of smartphone use raises a new concern because Korean children are exposed to excessive media use, including Internet and/or game addiction (MSIP & NIA, 2014). Considering these issues in the Korean context, this study explores the roles parents play in children’s literacy practices and attitudes. Research Questions and Methods As a second-year study in the Korean out-of-school literacy project, we used the Korean Out-of-School Literacy Questionnaires (KOLQ; Chung et al., 2013) developed in 2013. The KOLQ investigated overall literacy practices and attitudes of the Korean elementary students (8 to 11 years old) and their parents on a 5-point Likert scales. A total of 3,660 students and 3,460 parents completed the questionnaires in May 2014. We analyzed the KOLQ according to two research questions. The first asked about whether parents’ absence or presence in children’s out-of-school time related to the children’s literacy practices and attitudes. We examined differential impacts on the children’s literacy practices and attitudes by comparing three groups based on who they spent time with outside school: (a) parent group (i.e., mother, father), (b) tutor group (e.g., private tutor, cram school teacher), and (c) peer group (e.g., child alone, friend). The second question focused on parents’ control of children’s media use in association with the children’s literacy practices and attitudes. In order to answer the research questions, participants’ responses in the KOLQ were reanalyzed by using MANOVAs and ANOVAs. Results There are two findings in this study. First, the parent presence group showed higher literacy practices and attitudes than the other two groups (i.e., tutor and peer groups). However, this pattern was reversed in terms of the children’s media practices and attitudes: The parent group showed lower media practices and attitudes than the other groups. Second, about three-fourths of parents controlled their children’s media use at a moderate high to very high level. Nevertheless, parental control did not appear to have a strong impact on the children’s overall literacy practices and attitudes. The detailed results, their significance, and limitations of the study are also discussed. Keywords Roles of parents, out-of-school literacies, literacy practices, literacy attitudes References Chung, H-S., Min, B-G., Sohn, W-S., Jeong, H-S., & Kim, J-J. (2013). Frequency of South Korean elementary school students’ out-of-school literacy practices, reasons for them, and their self-evaluation [Published in Korean]. The Education of Korean Language, 32, 225-272. Lonigan, C. J., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1998). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher involvement in a shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(2), 263-290. Morrow, L. M. (1995). Family literacy: Connections in schools and communities. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning [MSIP] & National Information Society Agency [NIA] (2014). Internet addiction in Korea: A 2013 survey. Retrieved from http://www.nipa.kr/know/policyView.it?identifier=02-008-140512-000002&menuNo=27&page=10 Song, H-L., Cho, Y-H., Jung, Y-K., Ko, S-K., & Kim, Y-K. (2010). A study on the demand and development of child care policy for work-family balance. Korean Ministry of Gender Equity and Family Research Report 2010-16. Seoul, Korea. Literary socialization and literature reception - a comparative study of Swedish and French upper secondary school students’ readings of a literary text Maritha Johansson Abstract: Keywords: literary socialization, literature reception, interpretation, literary concepts, upper secondary school My paper is a summary of the most important results of my thesis (scheduled autumn 2015). The aim of the dissertation is to study how upper secondary school students in two different countries with different school systems react to a literary text and to discuss this in terms of the influence of literary socialization on their reception of the text. The empirical material consists of 223 texts – a commentary on a short story – written by students from eight upper secondary schools in five different cities in Sweden and in France. Two main factors are taken into consideration in the discussion: the potential effect of literary socialization through education and the importance of the structures of the literary text as a condition for the reception. The thesis will present three different angles, with a different theoretical framework. Literary socialization is related to sociocultural theories of learning (Vygotsky 1978, Säljö 2010). Literature reception is related to theories about interaction between the reader and the text and interpretation (Iser 1978; Eco 1984; Culler 1975; Ricœur 1981; Gervais 2001; Tauveron 2001; Agrell 2009). The set of literary conceptual tools is discussed in relation to both sociocultural and cognitive aspects but also inspired by studies about concepts in natural sciences (Lemke 1990; Wyndham 2002; Halldén 2002). The analysis of the students' texts shows that there are differences between the two nations, which can be explained by literary socialization. Different school systems socialize the students into different ways of handling the meeting with the literary text. Swedish students have a more personal and open way of interacting with the literary text, while French students are more technical and use literary concepts to a higher extent. Both ways can however lead to misunderstanding and it seems that a combination of a personal and an analytic reading is the most efficient way of dealing with the literary text. These results will be more profoundly discussed in the presentation. Handwriting and typing: A comparison between written product and writing processes Victoria Johansson Abstract: Today, when many of us are alternating between writing texts on a computer and by hand there is a need to know more about how the written product (i.e. the final text) and writing processes differ between typing and handwriting. Few previous studies have compared this (but cf. van Waes & Schellens, 2003). In this experimental study we have systematically compared adult university students writing by hand and typing on a computer. We recruited 20 adults with at least two years of university studies, all with Swedish as their first language. They were experienced typists, who mainly looked at the screen during typing, and used their right-hand during handwriting. Every participant wrote two expository texts, on similar, but different topics, one in handwriting and one in typing. The experiment was balanced for topic and writing mode. The writing processes were captured with keystroke logging (ScriptLog; Strömqvist & Karlsson 2002) in typing, and Eye & Pen on a writing tablet in handwriting (Alamargot et al. 2006). In addition, eye-tracking was used to investigate the gaze behaviour during writing in both conditions. In the final texts we analysed text length, syntactic complexity and lexical variation. The writing processes were analysed concerning pauses, revision and reading (cf. Spelman Miller 2006). Overall results showed that the typed texts were longer and that more time was spent on these texts, furthermore the typed texts were read and edited more than the handwritten texts. However, compared on an individual level, the writers seemed to keep their personal characteristics independent of which text they wrote, e.g. a writer who wrote a long text in typing with a varied lexicon kept the same style in handwriting. One conclusion is that experienced writers have a plan for their final text, and they aim for that outcome independent of writing mode. They adapt their writing processes to the medium, e.g. with more extensive editing during typing. During handwriting they instead have longer pauses between clauses, indicating that the decreased possibilities in editing during handwriting is compensated by longer planning time. In this study we looked at adults, experienced in both typing and handwriting. A future step is find out how learning writers do when they type and write by hand. Keywords: Handwriting, typing, writing processes References: Alamargot, D., Chestnet, D., Dansac, C., and Ros, C. (2006). Eye and pen: A new device for studying reading during writing. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 38:287–299. Spelman Miller, K. (2006). ”The pausological study of written language production”. In Sullivan, K. P. H. and Lindgren, E., editors, Computer Keystroke Logging and Writing, Studies in writing, pages 11–30. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Strömqvist, S. and Karlsson, H. (2002). Scriptlog for windows – user’s manual. Technical report, Department of Linguistics, Lund University and Centre for Reading Research, University College of Stavanger. Van Waes, L. and Schellens, P. (2003). Writing profiles: the effect of the writing mode on pausing and revision patterns of experiences writers. Journal of Prag- matics, 35:829–853.
Hoey, M. (2001). Textual interaction: An introduction to written discourse analysis. London: Routledge. Juvonen, R. (2014). Kirjoitelma ja tekijän ääni. Kehystämisen yhdyslauseet suomenkielisen ylioppilasaineen dialogisuuden hallinnassa. [The essay and authorial voice: Framing clause complexes in dialogic positioning in Finnish-language matriculation essays]. Doctoral thesis. Finnish language, Faculty of Arts. University of Helsinki. Martin, J.R. & White, P.R.R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Liberating literacies: L1-students’ resources for stance-taking and their strategies for negotiation in lower secondary school Kristine Kabel Abstract: Making aspects of privileged ways of participating visible is central to supporting students’ literacy development within different disciplines. However, educational linguistics and literacy studies on students’ meaning-making resources in lower secondary school indicate that some significant resources within L1 at this stage of schooling are often part of an invisible curriculum (Christie, 2012; Folkeryd, 2007; Macken-Horarik,1996, 2006; Penne, 2006). Suggesting that L1 emphasizes a knower code, and thus students’ attitudes and dispositions, more than a knowledge code (Maton, 2010), this paper is based on two different and ongoing Danish studies which investigate students’ resources for stance-taking in their literary response texts (Year 8) and their resources for negotiation and collaboration (Year 5). The purpose of both studies is to develop a metalanguage adequate to characterize interpersonal aspects of students’ actual meaning-making resources, a metalanguage that can support discussions of privileged ways of participating and of co-constructing L1, and thereby support the lower secondary teacher in a visible pedagogic. The central questions are: How can students’ critical, reflexive literacy in lower secondary school be characterized? Which pedagogical approaches support students’ critical, reflexive literacy?
The sampled data involve participant observation throughout one school year (three Year 8 and five Year 5 classes) and consist of students’ written texts, student interviews, video recorded classroom observations and field notes. Preliminary results show a variety in students’ resources for stance-taking, specifically in regard to what extent other voices are integrated in texts, and they show a pattern in students’ linguistic choices in the literature classroom and their metadiscourses. Moreover, privileged ways of participating in group work about text production involve strategies that enhance students’ development of an independent voice and of resources for stance-taking. Such strategies can be supported by the L1 teacher.
Aadahl, E.E., T. Hicks, National Writing Project and D.N. Devoss (2010): Because digital writing matters. John Wiley and Sons Inc. Christie, F. (2012). Language education throughout the school years: A functional perspective. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Folkeryd, J. W. (2007). Writing with an attitude: Appraisal and student texts in the school subject of Swedish. Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. Flower, L. (1994): The Construction of Negotiated Meaning. A Social Cognitive Theory of Writing. Southern Illinois University Press. Gee, J. P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies. Ideology in discourses (4 ed.). New York: Routledge. Gibbons, P. (2006). Bridging discourses in the ESL Classroom. Students, teachers and researchers. New York: Continuum. Hasan, R. (1996). Literacy, everyday talk and society. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in Society. Harlow, UK: Addison Wesley Publishing Company. Hasan, R. (2011). Literacy pedagogy and social change: directions from Bernsteins sociology [2007]. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), Language and Education. Learning and Teaching in Society. The collected works of Ruqaiya Hasan (Vol. 3). London: equinox. Macken-Horarik, M. (1996). Literacy and learning across the curriculum: towards a model of register for secondary school teachers. In H. Ruqaiya & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in Society. Harlow, UK: Addison Wesley Publishing Company. Macken-Horarik, M. (2006). Hierarchies in Diversities: What students’ examined responses tell us about literacy practices in contemporary school English. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 29(1), 52-78. Maton, K. (2010). Canons and Progress in the Arts and Humanities: Knowers and Gazes. In K. Maton & R. Moore (Eds.), Social Realism, Knowledge and the Sociology of Education. New York: Continuum. Penne, S. (2006). Profesjonsfaget norsk i en endringstid : norsk på ungdomstrinnet : å konstruere mening, selvforståelse og identitet gjennom språk og tekster : fagets rolle i et identitetsperspektiv, i et likhet- og ulighetsperspektiv. Oslo: Det utdanningsvitenskapelige fakultet, Universitetet i Oslo.
The investigation is inspired by social semiotic notions of reflection literacy (Hasan, 1996, 2011) and critical literacy (Gee, 2012; Gibbons, 2006; Macken-Horarik, 1996), which emphasize students’ meta knowledge and agency as central elements in a liberating learning process. The dynamic interrelationship between students’ meaning-making resources and the pedagogical context is an integral part of this theoretical framework. The study involves participant observation throughout one school year (three Year 8 classes) and the sampled data consist of students’ written texts, student interviews, video recorded classroom observations and field notes. Preliminary results show a variety in students’ resources for stance-taking, specifically in regard to what extent other voices are integrated in texts, and they show a pattern in students’ linguistic choices in the literature classroom and their metadiscourses. These results indicate a potential for making visible certain meaning-making resources in literature education in lower secondary school. Literature Christie, F. (2012). Language education throughout the school years: A functional perspective. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2010). School discourse : learning to write across the years of schooling (Paperback ed. ed.). London: Continuum. Folkeryd, J. W. (2007). Writing with an attitude: Appraisal and student texts in the school subject of Swedish. Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. Gee, J. P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies. Ideology in discourses (4 ed.). New York: Routledge. Gibbons, P. (2006). Bridging discourses in the ESL Classroom. Students, teachers and researchers. New York: Continuum. Hasan, R. (1996). Literacy, everyday talk and society. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in Society. Harlow, UK: Addison Wesley Publishing Company. Hasan, R. (2011). Literacy pedagogy and social change: directions from Bernsteins sociology [2007]. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), Language and Education. Learning and Teaching in Society. The collected works of Ruqaiya Hasan (Vol. 3). London: equinox. Hood, S. (2010). Appraising research: Evaluation in Academic Writing. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hood, S. (2011). Writing Discipline: Comparing Inscriptions of Knowledge and Knowers in Academic Writing Disciplinarity. Functional Linguistic and Sociological Perspectives. New York: Continuum. Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2001). Evaluation in text : Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jaffe, A. M. (2009). Stance : Sociolinguistic perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality : A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge. Macken-Horarik, M. (1996). Literacy and learning across the curriculum: towards a model of register for secondary school teachers. In H. Ruqaiya & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in Society. Harlow, UK: Addison Wesley Publishing Company. Macken-Horarik, M. (2006). Hierarchies in Diversities: What students’ examined responses tell us about literacy practices in contemporary school English. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 29(1), 52-78. Macken-Horarik, M., & Morgan, W. (2011). Towards a metalanguage adequate to linguistic achievement in post-structuralism and English: Reflections on voicing in the writing of secondary students. Linguistics and Education, 22(2), 95-194. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation : Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Maton, K. (2010). Canons and Progress in the Arts and Humanities: Knowers and Gazes. In K. Maton & R. Moore (Eds.), Social Realism, Knowledge and the Sociology of Education. New York: Continuum. Penne, S. (2006). Profesjonsfaget norsk i en endringstid : norsk på ungdomstrinnet : å konstruere mening, selvforståelse og identitet gjennom språk og tekster : fagets rolle i et identitetsperspektiv, i et likhet- og ulighetsperspektiv. Oslo: Det utdanningsvitenskapelige fakultet, Universitetet i Oslo. Directory: files -> aidinkielenopetustieteenseurary.kotisivukone.com files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations aidinkielenopetustieteenseurary.kotisivukone.com -> American Visitors Download 1.19 Mb. Share with your friends:
|