Using pluralistic approaches to enhance language proficiency. Rebecca DAHM. BAAL, London, July 2013.
•Als PPT, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•571 views
Language teaching should not only give learners opportunities to develop their proficiency in a second language but should also enable them to develop their cognitive skills. I hypothesize that the implementation of teaching methods based on teaching unknown languages (pluralistic approaches) helps students develop their metalinguistic competence, a transferable competence we assume independent from the languages used. Furthermore, being confronted to unknown languages without a purpose of learning allows students to apprehend languages differently. I have explored the educational benefits of such pluralistic approaches on different components of the metalinguistic competence. During the school year 2011-2012, teachers of five year-7 classes led nine sessions of pluralistic approaches: three sessions in Dutch, three in Italian and three in Finnish. 88 students performed, in turn, a metasemantic, a metasyntactic and a metaphonological reflection in groups of four. Group sheets were completed and the verbalization of their discussion was recorded and analyzed, both qualitatively and quantitatively. I want to understand, following Anderson’s research (1995), how students manage to identify relevant solutions in L1 and L2, enabling them to solve the problem they face in the L3 they are discovering. Presumably, the process of proceduralisation helps students develop their metalinguistic competence which, in turn, should enable them to improve their proficiency in the L2 (English) they are learning. In this presentation, I will first present the theoretical framework before approaching the mixed methodology used. Proof will be discusses as to the enhanced implementation of learning strategies and the development of their metalinguistic competence.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie Using pluralistic approaches to enhance language proficiency. Rebecca DAHM. BAAL, London, July 2013.
Ähnlich wie Using pluralistic approaches to enhance language proficiency. Rebecca DAHM. BAAL, London, July 2013. (20)
Mehr von Rebecca Dahm @ Université de Limoges
Mehr von Rebecca Dahm @ Université de Limoges (6)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Using pluralistic approaches to enhance language proficiency. Rebecca DAHM. BAAL, London, July 2013.
- 1. Using pluralistic approaches to enhance language proficiency Rebecca DAHM IUFM – University of Limoges LACES – EA 4140, Bordeaux Segalen - Bordeaux IV BAAL Language Learning and Teaching Special Interest Group 9th Annual Conference « Linking teaching to learning in language education » London, July 4th – 5th 2013 1
- 2. Outline • • • • • • Research question and hypothesis Theoretical framework Research design Analysis Results Discussion « Linking teaching to learning in language education » London, July 4-5, 2013 2
- 4. Common European Framework of Reference Development of multilingual competence: • links between languages • taking into account the multilingual repertoire « Linking teaching to learning in language education » London, July 4-5, 2013 4
- 5. Research question Present students with unknown languages = pluralistic approach (Candelier, 2003) Focusing away from learning goal will help: • raise cross-linguistic awareness • develop metalinguistic competence • implement transferable strategies « Linking teaching to learning in language education » London, July 4-5, 2013 5
- 6. Hypothesis • Pluralistic approaches help students develop their metalinguistic competence: transferable independent from languages used • Development of metalinguistic competence should have impact on L2 proficiency Today: results about metasemantic competence « Linking teaching to learning in language education » London, July 4-5, 2013 6
- 8. State of Research • Language Awareness (Hawkins, 1974) • Development of metalinguistic skills (Dabène, 1992) • Classification of strategies (O'Malley and Chamot, 1990) • Minimum threshold of competence (Bialystok, 1978) • Interdependence hypothesis (Cummins, 1991) « Linking teaching to learning in language education » London, July 4-5, 2013 8
- 9. Definitions • Metasemantic competence (Gombert, 1990) = ability to recognize a linguistic system + to manipulate words • Developing metasemantic competence = ability to activate: – knowledge from the multilingual repertoire – transferable skills (strategies) – positive attitudes • Language proficiency (R. Ellis, 2008) = ability to use this internalized competence in different tasks « Linking teaching to learning in language education » London, July 4-5, 2013 9
- 11. Mixed methodology Both quantitative and qualitative data •Quasi-experimental design – Pre- and post-tests (semantic and syntactic) – Experimental groups and control groups •For each session: individual sheets group sheets transcripts of interactions « Linking teaching to learning in language education » London, July 4-5, 2013 11
- 12. Participants • Lower secondary school pupils, two target groups: • students from year 7 (12-13 year-old) • students from year 9 (14-15 year-old) • Observed participants: N = 88 students from year 7 (22 groups) « Linking teaching to learning in language education » London, July 4-5, 2013 12
- 13. Procedure • Three unknown languages: Dutch, Italian, Finnish • Three media: metasemantic activities metasyntactic activities metaphonological activities • Same model: give systematicity to a regular exercise « Linking teaching to learning in language education » London, July 4-5, 2013 13
- 14. Session 1 : metasemantic activities • mobilize metasemantic knowledge/skills • validate and enhance understanding • reflect upon strategies used « Linking teaching to learning in language education » London, July 4-5, 2013 14
- 15. Analysis 16
- 16. Variables and indicators Variables Elaboration Inferencing Deduction D- Indicators relating to prior knowledge of L1 and/or L2 Using available information to guess meanings of new items D+ Relying on Relying on general input (morphological knowledge observations, numbers, etc) Adapted from the cognitive strategies defined by O’Malley and Chamot (1990: 120) « Linking teaching to learning in language education » London, July 4-5, 2013 17
- 17. Quantitative analysis • Group sheets: type and frequency of implemented strategies • Comparison with ideal projection = Understanding strategies used by students? « Linking teaching to learning in language education » London, July 4-5, 2013 18
- 18. Results 19
- 19. Results of metasemantic sessions « Linking teaching to learning in language education » London, July 4-5, 2013 20
- 20. Discussion 21
- 21. Differential expected-realized S1 « Language Awareness for our Multicultural World » Montreal, July 8-11, 2012 22
- 22. Positive differential • Elaboration strategies: • Typological proximity for Dutch or Italian • Relying on French for Finnish • Non-conscious use of other strategies • Translation strategies: = Non verbalized elaboration (65%) « Linking teaching to learning in language education » London, July 4-5, 2013 23
- 23. Negative differential (1/2) • Inferencing strategy: • Minimal threshold of L2 competence (Bialystok, 1980) • Relying on skills developed in L2 = Higher competence threshold in L2 ? « Linking teaching to learning in language education » London, July 4-5, 2013 24
- 24. Negative differential (2/2) • Deduction strategy: • Bottom-up processes • Top-down processes: « threshold theory » (Cummins, 1980) • interactive-compensatory mechanism (Stanovich, 1980) « Linking teaching to learning in language education » London, July 4-5, 2013 25
- 25. Conclusion 26
- 26. Implemented strategies (1/2) • Elaboration: strategy of choice o Typological proximity with L1 has an inhibitory effect on other strategies o Subjective evaluation of typological proximity modifies behavior of learners (Deyrich, 2007) « Linking teaching to learning in language education » London, July 4-5, 2013 27
- 27. Implemented strategies (2/2) • Inferencing: Requires training o Language typologically close to L2 o Possible transfer between different language systems = Beneficial effect of pluralistic approaches « Linking teaching to learning in language education » London, July 4-5, 2013 28
- 28. Effects of pluralistic approaches • Limitations : results only reflect conscious strategies • Pluralistic approaches enable the development of metasemantic competence by: o relying on multilingual repertoire o implementing complex strategies • More effective with distant languages from L1 and/or close to L2 « Linking teaching to learning in language education » London, July 4-5, 2013 29
- 29. From Language Awareness to Language Proficiency? Pluralistic approaches: o raise awareness o develop metalinguistic competence o improve L2 proficiency by 36% if teacher has a ‘facilitator’ attitude and by 6% if ‘autocratic’ attitude Analysis of pre- and post-test differential Comparison between experimental- and control-groups « Linking teaching to learning in language education » London, July 4-5, 2013 30
- 30. References •Bialystok, E. (1978). « A theoretical model of second language learning ». Language Learning, 28. pp. 69-83. •Cummins, J. (1979) « Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters ». Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19. pp. 197–205. •Dabène, L. (1992). « Le développement de la conscience métalinguistique : un objectif commun pour l'enseignement de la langue maternelle et des langues étrangères ». Repères, 6. pp. 13-22. •Deyrich, M.-C. (2007). Enseigner les langues à l’école. Paris : Ellipses. •Field, J. (2004). « An insight into listeners’ problems : too much bottom-up or too much top-down? ». System 32 (2004). pp. 363-377. •Gombert, J.E. (1990). Le développement métalinguistique. Paris : PUF. •O’Malley, J.M. et Uhl Chamot, A. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. •Stanovich, K.E.(1980) « Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency ». Reading Research Quarterly, 16. pp. 32–71. 31
- 31. Thank you for your attention ! BAAL Language Learning and Teaching Special Interest Group 9th Annual Conference « Linking teaching to learning in language education » London, July 4th – 5th 2013
- 32. Video of first session on Dutch
- 33. Text in Dutch
- 34. Text in Italian « Sono un topo molto famoso. Io sono piccolo, con grandi orecchie nere. Indosso pantaloni rossi con grandi bottoni bianchi. I miei migliori amici sono Paperino e Pippo e la mia bella ragazza di nome Minnie. Mio padre è molto famoso: il suo nome è Walt Disney! Chi sono io? »
- 35. Text in Finnish Päivi: " Rakastatko musiikkia?” Timo: "Kyllä, minä rakastan. Lataan paljon musiikkia Internetistä.” Päivi: ”Soitatko musiikkia?” Timo: "Kyllä, minä soitan. Soitan pianoa. Sisareni Eija ei soita pianoa, mutta hän soittaa kitaraa. Entä sisaresi Nina?” Päivi: ”Sisareni Nina rakastaa rap-musiikkia. Rakastaako sisaresi Eija myös rap-musiikkia?” Timo: ”Ei, hän ei rakasta.”
- 36. Example of a group sheet in Dutch
- 37. Example of a group sheet in Italian
- 38. Example of a group sheet in Finnish
- 39. Documents supports • Réponses-groupes NLS2 • Réponses groupes ITS2 • Synthèse des réponses
- 40. Documentation • Lien vers la page Moodle de l’ERR • Lien vers la page à destination des parents
- 41. Example of non-conscious strategy use
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Title : covers entire scope of doct. res work. As teacher trainer, interested in linking teaching to learning and finding ways to help monolingual students develop strategic cognitive advantages that multilinguals have.
- Today, going to present one of the hypotheses underlying my doctoral work, then Il’’ be following a traditional presentation
- teaching in E : based on CEFR. Underlines imptce of developing M C = teachers need to help students set up links AND getting them to consider their entire multilingual repertoire. But languages remain sealed off. CLIC
- Idea was to present students with unknown languages, not to be learnt but only observed (=pluralistic approach). I thought that this might enable them to focus away from learning goal which would then help them raise CLA (establishing links between languages) And develop by implementing = Reason for experiment
- So I would like to see if confronting pupils to unknown languages (pluralistic approaches as defined by Candelier) helps them develop their metalinguistic competence, which I suppose both transferable and independent from the languages used. The general idea is to be able to check whether the devpmt of ML comp can have impact on L2 proficiency Today, only present results of a component of ML compet ie metasemantic competence. CLIC
- I rely Pioneering work of Hawkins and research led by Dabene on.. which I combine with... Bialystok’s research on... and Cummins’ I H are also essential for interpretation of results today.
- Define notion of MS comp, component of ML C So..... developing ML comp comes down to being able to activate knowledge + Skills Should also add ability to activate positive attitudes Then check whether this internalized competence can develop learner’s language proficiency, i.e. his ability to use this knowledge in different tasks
- Research based on mixed methodology. Today, present with results from quantitative analysis
- The Experiment was led by 8 lower sec sch teachers among two target groups
- St successively confronted to Exp based on successive sessions of Allow comparison of results
- Stud activate MS knowledge and skills to understand unknown text. Share understanding + validate AND enhance Reflect on strategies by discussing
- Pupils brought into contact... through written material. Familair with format or content. Comparable elements: same number of cognates + Textual clues => students implement similar strategies, with the same frequency. No specific guidance. results =strategies naturally implemented by students, analyze the evolution of practices over the three sessions and check if mere contact with foreign languages triggers awareness of implemented strategies. The transferability of strategies can also be studied. CLICK
- Studied strategies: ... cognitive strategies defined by O'Malley and Chamot (1990) Although strategy analysis is not “fashionable”, helps to support quantitative analysis. Implemented processes have been analyzed more precisely through a qualitative analysis. different indicators: - strategy of deduction = pupils apply or refer to a principle or rule: bottom-up processes Top down processes
- = identify the type of strategies implemented + frequency. ideal projection = achieved by multilingual experts who reached a precise and complete understanding of the proposed texts. The comparison of quantitative data enables us to better understand what strategies are either most attractive or least easily implemented by students.
- Here is the chart of the results of the three sessions on metasemantic activities During the session on Dutch, : elaborations on the English language. opposite results when working on Italian. 56% of students perform the same type of elaboration (on French) when faced with Finnish. Rate of inferencing processes increases. There’s a decrease in bottom-up processes but a slight increase in top-down processes Also note the special situation of Italian, regarding the strategy of translation
- I will now address the Discussion CLIC
- Slide 25: ... by analysing the graph representing the differential between the expected results and the ones really produced CLIC positive values (related to strategies of elaboration and translation): means that implementation = higher than the initial projection. Negative values (inferencing and deduction) = below the expectation. CLIC
- positive differential: strategies of elaboration and translation elaboration S= most readily implemented. Consistent with the theory of typological proximity In a specific situation (= Finnish), ...st rely on French. Not only cognates but also words less immediately accessible (eg soita = play, Mutta = but). Expressed strategies of elaboration with Fin, but also non-conscious use of other strategies. Sometimes direct translation CLIC. In most cases = non verbalized elaboration ex "Musiikkia: like in French music" explicit strategy elaboration.
- differential Measurement between potentially useful strategies and strategies actually implemented highlights diff to resort to inferencing... For Bialystok (1980), the strategy of inferencing can only be implemented if st= min level of competence in L2 here: .... However, some = implement, consciously, this strategy. The qualitative analysis tends to show that the students with the highest proficiency level in English are the ibes keading the groups towards the inferencing strategy. It thus seems that the skills developed during the learning of the L2 is transferable to unknown language, provided a minimum threshold of competence is reached in L2. CLICK
- students easily rely bottom-up proc (locating capital letters, numbers, morphological observations) + seem to develop their ability to implement top-down processes. It seems that students who cannot readily infer meaning rely upon contextual and co-textual elements because their decoding abilities are underdeveloped. might seek to compensate for problems of immediate accessibility of the text by setting up top-down processes CLIC. results somewhat contrary to the ‘threshold’ theory advanced by Cummins stating minimum language competence necessary before effective use of higher-level processes is possible But Stanovich argues that the relationship between top-down and bottom-up information is regulated by an interactive-compensatory mechanism. Our results seem to confirm this hypothesis.
- Results only reflect strategies articulated by students, reflecting awareness. Analysis of recordings has enabled me to understand processes underlying these strategies
- most readily used strategy =elaboration which adapts to T P languages ( L1/L2). However, when students face language typologically close to the L1 (French) = mainly rely upon elaboration, which is immediately accessible strategy. Appears that proximity may have inhibitory effect on other strategies such as inferencing and deduction, when not guided by the teacher. typological proximity with the L1 could thus affect the transferability of these strategies. This is agreement with the observation made by Deyrich (2007) who considers that the subjective assessment of the typological proximity between languages can change learners’ behaviour in lexical transfers
- least immediately accessible strategy (thus strategy that would most benefit from training) is inferencing. Students use them in presence of language typologically close to studied L2: assume that this strategy was implemented during learning English + transferred to the new situation Furthermore, a certain number of students seem to rely on this strategy spontaneously when placed in contact with Finnish. We can therefore suppose that the sessions of pluralistic approaches have had a beneficial effect on this kind of strategy
- element to be considered: results only reflect strategies articulated students, reflecting awareness. Able distinguish articulated strategies from strategies actually implemented only by analyzing recordings of G I. => understand processes underlying these strategies. So seem to be able to say, (subject to a further qualitative analysis), that the pluralistic approaches enable... However, development of ML C seems more effective when new language is typologically distant from L1 and / o r close to the L2. CLIC
- Can state that go from....? Indeed, P A .... - awareness : 36 % pupils have personally reflected on other languages, outside sch) - ML C : 67 % have feeling progressed in ability to use MS strategies - BUT: only 23% have used it during English Started analysis : don’t seem to find relevant diff between test group and witness group SO next year, new INTERVENTIONIST experiment