Expanding Dimensions of L1 Metalinguistic Activity

Caroline Doktar (Finland), chair

Paulo Feytor Pinto (Portugal), discussant

Krista Kerge (Estonia), speaker (i)

Xavier Fontich (United Kingdom), speaker (ii)

Isabelle Gauvin (Canada), speaker (iii and iv)

Paulo Feytor Pinto, Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal, paulo.feytor@ese.ips.pt

Krista Kerge, University of Tallin, Estonia

Xavier Fontich, University of Exeter, United Kingdom

Isabelle Gauvin, Véronique Fortier, Marie-Hélène Forget, Philippa Bell, Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada

• 
  Xavier Fontich
  
• 
  Some studies highlight the relevance of grammatical knowledge to solve problems of writing normative. Some of them show the benefits, when teaching grammar, of adopting a pedagogic inductive approach and a functional perspective on the content (integrating morphosyntax and semantics). In this paper we present some dialogues developed by secondary students in Barcelona (Spain) within a project that responded to this approach.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  In previous studies analyzing these dialogues and similar ones from other projects (Fontich, 2006, 2010, 2014a and b) we suggest that it is a beneficial approach to help students solve a common task in teaching grammar: to identify the sentence elements. However, we show the difficulties of students in detecting erroneous pronominal uses.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  The present study aims to observe the metalinguistic reasoning of those students in relation to these uses. Students are unable to solve the error. The analysis results show some phenomena that could explain this failure and that fall into three areas: grammar learning (e.g. linear vision of the sentence or problems when integrating different grammar notions), grammar content (e.g. the high complexity of some of the tasks given to students), and the design of the intervention (e.g. problems in student interaction). However, results also highlight the ability of students to engage in a metalinguistic activity, suggesting that grammar knowledge is not a condition for such activity but its consequence. This suggests the need to foster dialogic contexts in teaching and learning grammar. These results point to the need to put research into grammar school in relation to the three poles of the didactic system: school grammar content, teaching procedures, and learning processes.
  
• 
  Auli & Isabelle Gauvin
  
• 
  Presenting author: Philippa Bell
  
• 
  Authors: Philippa Bell, Isabelle Gauvin, Véronique Fortier, Marie-Hélène Forget, Université du Québec à Montréal
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  In the French school boards in Montreal, 63% of school children do not have French as their mother tongue (CGTSIM, 2013), but they are educated in a school system where French is the language of instruction (L1) and English is taught as the mandatory second language (L2). Thus, these are the two languages shared amongst pupils with English remaining a school subject rather than a language of communication for the majority. Previous research has investigated the utility of helping learners make links between French L1 grammar and English L2 grammar in the English L2 classroom (Horst, White, & Bell, 2010), but the role that English L2 could play in the French L1 classroom remains unexplored. In order to address this objective, we first wish to understand what knowledge pupils have about grammar within and across languages, and whether they perceive this knowledge to be useful for learning language (in our context French L1 and English L2). Therefore, in this presentation, we address the following research questions:
  
• 
  
  
• 
  1. What do pupils perceive to be similar between French (L1) and English (L2) grammar?
  
• 
  2. What do pupils perceive to be different between French (L1) and English (L2) grammar?
  
• 
  3. What knowledge about French (L1) grammar do the pupils believe to be useful for the learning of English (L2) grammar?
  
• 
  4. What knowledge about English (L2) grammar do the pupils believe to be useful for the learning of French (L1) grammar?
  
• 
  
  
• 
  210 pupils in primary grades V and VI (aged 10-12) and secondary grade IV (aged 15-16) responded to a questionnaire designed to elicit their perceptions of the similarities and differences between French L1 and English L2 grammar.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  The results show that pupils can discuss similarities and differences between their L1 and L2 grammars. However, they do not necessarily believe that knowledge of grammar in one language is useful for learning the grammar of the other language, particularly in terms of the utility of L2 grammar knowledge for L1 grammar learning.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  The interpretation of the findings will focus on the importance of ensuring that teachers first understand pupils’ grammatical awareness across languages before making instructional decisions relating to the use of knowledge of and knowledge about other languages in the L1 classroom.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  Keywords: To be added.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  References:
  
• 
  Horst, M., White, J., & Bell, P. (2010). First and second language knowledge in the language
  
• 
  classroom. International Journal of Bilingualism, 14(3), 331-349.
  
• 
  Auli & Isabelle Gauvin
  
• 
  Presenting author: Isabelle Gauvin
  
• 
  Authors: Isabelle Gauvin, Philippa Bell, Véronique Fortier, Marie-Hélène Forget, Université du Québec à Montréal, gauvin.isabelle@uqam.ca
  
• 
  
  
• 
  This presentation will respond to the question raised in the call for contributions: How can L1 grammar education benefit from what learners know about/in other languages? Our study attempts to determine if another language (in our case, English, L2 in Quebec) is used and could be used in the learning of French as a first language (FL1), which refers to the language of instruction and not necessarily the mother tongue of all pupils. Our hypothesis is that the development of metalinguistic reflection between the two languages will improve grammar learning in both languages (James, 1996).
  
• 
  
  
• 
  Two measurement instruments were used: (1) a questionnaire, which documented students’ and teachers’ declared crosslinguistic reflections between FL1 and EL2, and (2) two contextualized error correction tasks (one in FL1 and one in EL2), which documented actual crosslinguistic reflections. Due to time limitations, only results from the FL1 correction task will be presented.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  The FL1 task asked the students to rewrite a short text accurately, i.e., correcting grammatical errors (syntax, morphosyntax, etc.), which we had purposefully included in the source text to encourage crosslinguistic reflections. 110 elementary (aged 10-12) and 110 secondary (aged 15-16) school pupils completed the task in groups of 10 – firstly in dyads and then as a whole group in order to discuss their texts with the researchers. All dyads and group discussions were recorded in order to capture the pupils’ metalinguistic reflections. These data were analysed for instances of the use of L2 grammatical knowledge for L1 task completion.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  As very little knowledge of English was used, we took a second look at the data to identify instances where metalinguistic reflections about English could have been employed and thus, could be useful for the learning of French grammar. This research will lead to the identification of points of reference between the two school subjects (FL1 and EL2) in terms of grammatical knowledge that could be taught. Additionally, it will contribute to breaking down barriers between L1 and L2 teaching.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  Keywords: To be added.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  References:
  
• 
  James, C. (1996). A Cross-linguistic approach to language awareness. Language Awareness, 5, 138-148.
  
• 
  Krista Kerge
  
• 
  Krista Kerge, University of Tallin, Estonia, krista.kerge@gmail.com
  
• 
  
  
• 
  The upper secondary education has two important objectives: to prepare students (1) for furthering their studies in higher school / university in general and, besides that, (2) for continuing studies in a special field of their own interest.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  In this paper, the research problem is how well Estonian as a school subject, i.e. mother tongue education (MTE) – separated from Literature since grade 5 (11 year-olds) – prepares students for furthering their studies in general and in linguistics. The aim of this research is to define the strengths and weaknesses of the current MTE programme within the Estonian state curriculum. The methodology used is critical source and document analysis.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  As learning is a cognitive process and its objectives come from the social (see, e.g. Bandura 1985, Gee 2008), the question is which linguistic theories, cognitive linguistic and sociolinguistic included, could be seen behind the MTE programme. Discussions and positions on MTE (Ravid & Tolchinsky 2002, Pereira & Brenton 2012, Krogh 2012) will be considered.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  Keywords: mother tongue curriculum; secondary school; linguistic theory.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  Bandura, A. (1985). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
  
• 
  Hall.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  Gee, J.P. (2008). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. London, New York:
  
• 
  Routledge.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  Krogh, E. (2012). Writing in the literacy era: Scandinavian teachers’ notions of writing in mother
  
• 
  tongue education. L1–Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 12. 1–28.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  Pereira, Iris S.P. & Doecke, B. (2012). The inescapability of language: Theory and practice for L1
  
• 
  educators. L1–Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 12. 1–8.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  Ravid, D. & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy. Journal of Child Language,
  

Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., McCarthey, S., Vojak, C., & Kline, S. (2011). Technology-Mediated Writing Assessments: Principles and Processes. Computers and Composition 28(2).

Nussbaum, E.M. (2008). Using Argumentation Diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument- counterargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of educational Psychology, 100. 549- 565

Segev-Miller, R. (2004). Writing from sources: The effect of explicit instruction on college students´ processes and products. Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 4, 5-33.

Tynjälä, P. (2001). Writing, learning and the development of expertise in higher education. In P. Tynjälä, L. Mason & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool. integrating theory and practice (pp. 37-56). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

As yet another version of English is put forward in the latest NC proposals, operating from 2014-16, what do English teachers believe is the true identity of the subject and what are their current beliefs about what matters in the subject?

This paper will report on an opportunistic on-line survey of English teachers undertaken in early 2014 and related to a conference focused on the future of the subject, enquiring into their views of the 25 year old models, the extent to which they remain at the heart of the English and remain current, or need adaptation or have become irrelevant. The survey of 90 teachers will be followed up with telephone interviews from a representative sample of the respondents. The data will offer an insight into the current beliefs of English teachers, the extent to which those views have changed or remained constant over the last 25 years and if there is an emergence of a new conceptualisation of the subject. It will also reveal whether tensions continue to exist between the ‘official’ definition of the subject and the unofficial but, it can be argued, authentic view of the subject held by its actual practitioners.
Keywords: English teaching, National Curriculum, Teacher beliefs, Teacher concepts, Theoretical models
References:

DES [1988] English 5-16, London, HMSO

Goodwyn, A., 1992, Theoretical Models of English Teaching, English in Education, Vol. 26, 3, Autumn 1992, pp 4-10

Goodwyn, A., 1998, Broadening the Literacy Horizon, in Literary and Media Texts in Secondary English, ed: Goodwyn, A., London: Cassells, pp. 1-23

Goodwyn, A., and Findlay, K., 1999, The Cox Models Revisited: English Teacher’s Views of their Subject and the National Curriculum, English in Education, Vol. 33, 2, Summer 1999, pp 19-31

Goodwyn, A. and Findlay, K., 2002a,Literacy in transition, in Improving Literacy at KS2 and KS3, ed: Goodwyn, A., London:Paul Chapman Publishing, pp 21-44

Goodwyn, A. and Findlay, K., 2002b, Secondary Schools and the national Literacy Strategy, in Improving Literacy at KS2 and KS3, ed: Goodwyn, A., London:Paul Chapman Publishing, pp 45-64

Assessing oral language teaching in classroom

Marta Gracia
Abstract: School practices would have to facilitate children to become competent speakers understand and construct oral texts that are appropriate in different contexts and for different audiences (Girolametto & Weitzman, 2002; Mercer, 2010; Snow, 2010). Previous studies have pointed out that oral texts do not arise naturally and that it is needed explicit teaching to support children’s language learning (Marinac at al., 2008).

EVALOE (Gràcia, 2015), is a tool for assessing oral language teaching at school that includes an observation scale (with three subscales scored 1-3 with 8, 7 and 15 items respectively) and a semi-structured interview addressed to the teachers. Both parts are constructed on the base of three dimensions (del Rio & Gràcia, 1996): (i) context and communication management, (ii) instructional design, and (iii) functions and communicative strategies.

Analysis of data was performed using EVALOE’s correction guideline and, afterwards, using SPSS statistics program. The analyses show differences between the scores in the three subscales in both studies, such as low scores in the second subscale (instructional design). Interviews analysis, using a discourse analysis method, shows differences between the professionals in respect to their teaching practices. These results show that EVALOE is a useful tool for knowing teachers’ practices and conceptions about oral language teaching and learning and that it is needed therefore, to change practices in daily classroom activities to increase the opportunities for oral language learning.

del Rio, M.J & Gràcia, M. (1996). Una aproximación al análisis: de los intercambios comunicativos y lingüísticos entre niños pequeños y adultos. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 75, 3-20.

Dockrell, J.E., Bakopoulou, I., Law, J., Spencer, S. & Lindsay, G. (2012). Developing a communication supporting classroom observation tool. London: DfE.

Dockrell, J., Lindsay, G., Roulstone, S. & Law, J. (2014). Supporting children with speech, language and communication needs: an overview of the results of the Better Communication Research Programme. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 49(5), 43-57.

Girolametto, L. & Weitzman, E. (2002). Responsiveness of childcare providers in interactions with toddlers and preschoolers. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 33(4), 268-81.

Gràcia, M (coord.) (2015). EVALOE. Escala de valoración de la enseñanza de la lengua oral en contexto escolar. Análisis de las interacciones comunicativas entre docentes y alumnos en el aula. Barcelona: Graó.

Marinac, J.V., Woodyatt, G.C. & Ozanne, A.E. (2008). Investigating adult language input and young children’s responses in naturalistic environments: An observational framework. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 24, 265-284.

Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of the classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1, 1-14.

Snow, C.E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328, 450-452.