Part 3. Sancho Guinda CLIL Murcia 2014

  • 32 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
32
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. DIAPOSITIVA 1
  • 2. DIAPOSITIVA 2
  • 3. DIAPOSITIVA 3
  • 4. Sharp mismatch between teachers’ perceptions, opinions, and beliefs and their performances.   Tension between their interest in improving language and communication skills and their refusal to become linguistic role models. DIAPOSITIVA 4
  • 5. ◘ Population B1-C1, of which 13 individuals have earned diplomas (TOEFL, British Council, EOI, Cambridge examinations, etc.). ◘ Self-reported linguistic abilities on a Likert scale (1-5, being 5 the highest level of command). ◘ Higher competence in receptive skills and lower in productive ones. LINGUISTIC SKILL MEAN SCORE Reading comprehension 4.2 Oral comprehension 3.8 Written expression 3.7 Oral expression 3.1 DIAPOSITIVA 5
  • 6. Disparity of skills to the detriment of oral communication. Insecurity under ‘NATIVE SPEAKER FALLACY’ ● (Klaasen & Räsänen 2006) Bias of students’ judgment of teacher’s pedagogical competence (Maum 2002) Enough class participation = 72.2% Unnecessary increase of participation = 44.4% ● Reasons: _ Senior undergraduates’ disinterest _ Junior undergraduates’ lack of background DIAPOSITIVA 6
  • 7. Figure 1. Usual class dynamics of UPM content teachers (self-reported) DIAPOSITIVA 7
  • 8. Paradox:  Habitual dynamics in 16 cases = Teacher-centred lecture  Little groupwork Vague ‘autonomous learning’ in between DIAPOSITIVA 8
  • 9. Figure 2. Breakdown of ‘autonomous learning’ as usual class dynamics at UPM (self-reported) DIAPOSITIVA 9
  • 10. Gap:  Guided visits, lab sessions and demos require leading roles from instructors.  Not all multimedia programs provide users with the same interactivity and leeway to choose paths and solve problems. DIAPOSITIVA 10
  • 11. 11% 6% 22% 61% Figure 3. Habitual teacher control in content lectures at UPM (self-reported) DIAPOSITIVA 11
  • 12. Fact:  6% of teachers rule their classes completely  60-80% of classes teacher-ruled in varying degrees over the egalitarian ratio 50-50%  Egalitarian ratios slightly over 20% Teacher rule increases DIAPOSITIVA 12
  • 13. Figure 4. Habitual teaching practices of UPM content instructors (self-reported) DIAPOSITIVA 13
  • 14. Deficits:  Mid-low incidence of summaries and emphasis or repetition of major points  Low hands-on class starts  Minimal class supervision by colleagues DIAPOSITIVA 14
  • 15. Figure 5. EMI difficulties as predicted by UPM teachers DIAPOSITIVA 15
  • 16. Deficits:  Primary concerns: BICS Metadiscourse Pronunciation CALP  Secondary concerns: Aural comprehension (teachers’) Writing repertoires for virtual interactions  Disciplinary lexis negligible (1novice teacher) DIAPOSITIVA 16
  • 17. Deficits:  Lack of awareness of (unmentioned): Collaboration with colleagues Class dynamics / methodology Materials Evaluation (in a FL!)  No explicit connections between methodology and Class pace slowdown Students’ low proficiency in the LF and mixed DIAPOSITIVA 17
  • 18. Deficit of multicultural adjustments: Slower speech rate Marking of coherence & cohesion Mitigation of intercultural distance Lack of awareness of (unmentioned): Questions Elicitations Direct appeals Figurative language DIAPOSITIVA 18
  • 19. Figure 6. Use of learning boosters DIAPOSITIVA 19
  • 20. Deficits & Gaps:  No web-based teaching despite the predominance of visual styles (9/10 informants)  No storytellers nor real verbalizers  Small impact of operational input (demos) DIAPOSITIVA 20
  • 21. INERTIA Low-risk genre choice = Safe genre Teacher-centred lecture + PowerPoint presentation IMPLICATIONS Mere update of chalk-and-talk with slideshows > Expositive than interactive No negotiation of expert roles Little BICS DIAPOSITIVA 21
  • 22. Figure 7. Lectures with embedded genres DIAPOSITIVA 22
  • 23. Deficits & Gaps:  No discussions, case studies, stories  Conversations only in introductions + final round of questions + spontaneous interruptions to ask or comment  Teacher’s solo problem-solving disguised as ‘joint venture’ with inclusive ‘we ’ DIAPOSITIVA 23
  • 24. Figure 8. Recourse to key metadiscourse and CALP DIAPOSITIVA 24
  • 25. Deficits:  Limited, poor repertoire  Very poor stage-labelling + classification & composition + problem solving (tandem problem/solution)  Wider endophoric (even through laser pointer) + exemplification + enumeration + relevance repertoires (even through parallelism & emphasis)  Barrier: Metadiscursive idiolects! (e.g. ‘then’ as sequencer + inferential + ‘for exam ple’ as discourse filler! DIAPOSITIVA 25
  • 26. Deficits:  Limited, poor repertoire  Very poor stage-labelling + classification & composition + problem solving (tandem problem/solution)  Wider endophoric (even through laser pointer) + exemplification + enumeration + relevance repertoires (even through parallelism & emphasis)  Barrier: Metadiscursive idiolects! (e.g. ‘then’ as sequencer + inferential + ‘for exam ple’ as discourse filler! DIAPOSITIVA 26
  • 27. Analysis of UPM teachers’ performances Structurally complete + ‘move-aware’ Introductions  Session outline with points to be touched In specific outline slide (8) Reading or paraphrasing them while showing (6) Jotting down points on black/whiteboard (1) Just mentioning points (1)  No brainstorming, elicitation, citations, quotes  80% deductive (2 inductive with comic strips)  Most 1st-person (I am going to talk about…/ We present…) (8)  Blend impersonal + ‘you’ (2) (‘The main objective of this class is that you understand…’) DIAPOSITIVA 27
  • 28. Content deliveries  Blended: Chronological + cause-effect + descriptive + occasional problem-solving Recapitulations  Both progressive + as closure (6 cases) ‘We have’ as existential structure Summaries with ‘We have seen…’ Closures  Some formulaic closures abrupt ‘And that’s all !’ ‘There is no time for more’ DIAPOSITIVA 28
  • 29. Analysis of UPM teachers’ performances Scarce engagement metadiscourse Questions Audience pronouns  All types:  ‘You’ = endophorics, hypotheses, _ Rhetorical (4) procedures _ Referential (6)  ‘We’ = summaries, hypotheses, common _ Comprehension checks (4) perceptions and conditions, true joint tasks Asides  Only 2 lectures to pursue complicity / rapport through humour rather than clarification Directives  Covert in endophorics leading to visuals  Only 4 overt (3 cognitive + 1 physical for realia) Shared knowledge markers  Both subtle (e.g. projected on comic strips) or explicit (e.g. ‘Probably you have heard’) DIAPOSITIVA 29
  • 30. DIAPOSITIVA 30