Using Multicultural Literature as a Tool for Multicultural Education in Teacher Education Juli-Anna Aerila



Download 1.19 Mb.
Page8/27
Date conversion19.10.2016
Size1.19 Mb.
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   ...   27

Expanding Dimensions of L1 Metalinguistic Activity

Isabelle Gauvin
Abstract: SIG EduLing Symposium: 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)


Introduction: Expanding Dimensions of L1 Metalinguistic Activity

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


The three plurals of this conference theme - languages, literatures and literacies - reflect current developments in L1 education moving from homogeneity to heterogeneity. L1 has been based on the grammar of a national standard written language and on texts of one national literature. But digital communication, local multilingualism and global economy currently challenge this paradigm. Hence, L1 education tends to embrace all literature(s), texts of other school subjects and language awareness and language use of oral and written registers of all languages.
Our symposium on Educational Linguistics discusses some expanding dimensions of metalinguistic activity in L1 classrooms: expansion to secondary education, expansion from practice to theory, expansion from linguistic knowledge to language skills, expansion of methodologies to inductive and functional approaches and expansion across single-language boundaries. The perspectives about classroom metalinguistic tasks are centered on three different language teaching contexts: Estonian L1 in Estonia, Catalan L1 in Spain, English L2 in Canada and French L1 in Canada.
The four papers of the symposium seem to reveal a shared tension in the process of expansion of L1 metalinguistic activity between the role of language knowledge and language skills. The first study considers the tension between linguistic theory and language teaching. The second study, about grammar and writing, suggests that knowledge is a consequence of reflexive language skills. On the contrary, the last study about plurilingual education, breaking down barriers between languages, shows the positive use of previous L2 knowledge in L1 metalinguistic awareness tasks. In this study the tension between knowledge and skills is analyzed both from the L1 and L2 point of view in two different papers.
Keywords: linguistic knowledge, language skills, L1 education, plurilingualism.
Presentations (see attached abstracts):

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



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,

29 (2), 417–447.

Multimodal analysis of texts - the pros and cons

Anna-Lena Godhe
Abstract: In this paper, the multimodal analysis of multimodal texts created by students at upper-secondary school level will be presented. In the last couple of years, many schools in Sweden have equipped their students with individual laptops in 1to1-projects. These digital tools facilitate the creation of multimodal objects such as multimodal texts. It is therefore of great relevance to attend to how multimodal products, created by the students, are evaluated in the educational setting.
Earlier research has shown that the assessment of multimodal texts mainly related to the written and spoken word, whereas other ways of expressing meaning, such as images and sound, were hardly addressed in the assessment (Godhe, 2014). Since the need for methods of assessing multimodal texts has been pointed out in previous research (e.g. Cope et al., 2011, Hung et al., 2013), this study is an attempt at addressing these issues.
Moreover, a comparison will be made to the assessment previously made of these multimodal texts by the teacher. This comparison will be taken as a standpoint for discussing what is gained by a multimodal analysis, as well as what might be lost when assessments of multimodal texts tend to leave out some ways of expressing meaning while focusing on what is commonly addressed in language education, the written and spoken word.
3 multimodal texts in the shape of short films which consists of images, voice, text and music will be analysed. The multimodal texts in question were argumentative texts that were created in the subject of Swedish at upper-secondary school level. O´Halloran and Smith (2013) outline two approaches of to multimodal text analysis. They consider the type of analysis undertaken by Kress and van Leeuwen (1996) as a way to explore theory. In the other approach undertaken by O´Toole (1995, 2010) the texts are explored and from the analysis of actual texts attempts at deriving descriptive generalizations are made. The analysis made in this paper will take both approaches into consideration, but the analysis of the texts will be done paying close attention to detail and thereby be closer to the approach taken by O´Toole (ibid.).
Keywords; Multimodal texts, assessment, ICT
References

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


Godhe, A-L (2014). Creating and assessing multimodal texts. Göteborg studies in Applied Information Technology, 13: Göteborgs universitet.
Hung, H-T., Chiu, Y-C. J., Yeh, H-C. (2013). Multimodal assessment of and for learning: A theory driven design rubric. British Jouranl of Educational Technology, 44(3).
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London, England: Routledge.
O´Halloran, K., & Smith, B. (2013). Multimodal text analysis. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
O´Toole, M. (1995). The systemic-functional semiotics of art. In P.H. Fries & M. Gregory (Eds.), Discourse in society: Systemic functional perspectives: Meaning and choice in language: Studies for Michael Halliday (Vol. 2, pp. 159-79). Norwood. NJ: Ablex.
O´Toole, M. (2010). The language of displayed art (2nd ed.) London, Englang: Routledge.

Arguing from sources: the impact of two intervention programs to improve the quality of argumentative synthesis

Jara González-Lamas
Abstract: Hybrid tasks can be used to promote learning and critical thinking. When students write from sources, they have to adopt alternately the roles of reader and writer and in this process reading and writing increase their epistemic potential (Tynjälä, 2001).Concretely, writing an argumentative synthesis involves elaborating and integrating arguments and counterarguments from multiple sources presenting conflicting positions about a topic (Nusbaum, 2008), and making decisions about structure and content (Segev-Miller, 2004).
The main objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two intervention programs in Secondary Education designed to improve writing argumentative synthesis from reading texts that present conflicting views on a topic. One of the programs (EEP in Spanish) had explicit instruction, two sessions with exercises and collaborative practice, while the other (EMPPG in Spanish) added modeling processes, guided practice and a reading and writing guide.
A secondary objective of the study was to explore whether there were any differences between the impact of each type of program related to certain student characteristics, specifically their beliefs about academic writing.
Altogether 78 students of Secondary Education (16-18 years old) participated in this study: 36 in each group.
In order to establish the students’ progress after the program, the quality of their written syntheses was assessed on the basis of six criteria: global quality, selection and elaboration of the arguments from the source texts, intratextual integration intertextual integration and global structure.
We found that the students on the EMPPG program improved the global quality of their written syntheses as well as in the other criteria. However, the students on the other program (EEG) did not improve their texts. Furthermore, in the EMPPG program, we found that not all students benefited equally. Specifically, students with a view of writing as a tool to transform knowledge obtain better scores in the EMPPG program than in the EEP program. Additionally, within the EMPPG program, students with a view of writing as tool to reproduce knowledge obtain better results in intratextual integration and global structure than lower epistemic students.
Finally, we discuss the educational implications of these findings.
Keywords: argumentative synthesis, writing from sources, writing beliefs, secondary education
References:

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.



Theoretical models of the subject of L1 Englishin England 1988-2014

Andrew Goodwyn
Abstract: The National Curriculum [NC] for English is in its 25th year and has been through many versions since 1989. When the seminal Cox Report appeared [DES, 1988] it was the first ‘official’ definition. Although highly contested in principle by English teachers, research suggested [Goodwyn, 1992] that much of the content of the curriculum was essentially welcomed. Research showed that later versions [Goodwyn1998] were increasingly unpopular with the profession and the Framework for English1997-2010, was profoundly alienating.[Goodwyn 2002a and 2002b]. In the original Cox Report, 5 models of English were proposed, these were, Personal Growth, Cross-curricular, Cultural Heritage, Cultural Analysis and Adult Needs. It was speculated that all English teachers drew consensually on all five. Research [Goodwyn1992 and 1992] suggested that these were viable models, excepting Cross-curricular which was vehemently argued to be a whole school model. Personal Growth was the key model with the other three a ‘joint second’ in importance. The respondents also felt that the first National Curriculum broadly reflected those models. Subsequent research up until 2005 showed that Personal Growth remained ‘Number 1’ and that Cultural Analysis had become the second most important model. However, teachers saw the revised NC increasingly privileging Cultural Heritage and neglecting Personal Growth.

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.


Our aim is to assess how teachers facilitate the development of spoken language in the classroom and to detect aspects that might be improved in order to create friendly communication environments (Dockrell et al. 2012, 2014).
We collected data using two studies. In the first study, during the validation of EVALOE, 39 professionals (speech and language therapists, educational psychologists and teachers) and 2 university students participated as observers. They carried out 80 observations, 35 in preschool and 45 in elementary schools. In a second study, aimed to increase the validation data, 4 teachers, 1 researcher and 2 university students participated as observers. They carried out 50 observations, 25 in preschool and 25 in elementary school.

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.


Keywords: Assessment tool, classroom observation, friendly communication environments, spoken language learning, teaching
References:

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.

1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   ...   27


The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2016
send message

    Main page