Part 3. Sancho Guinda CLIL Murcia 2014

120 views
70 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
120
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
12
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Part 3. Sancho Guinda CLIL Murcia 2014

  1. 1. DIAPOSITIVA 1
  2. 2. DIAPOSITIVA 2
  3. 3. DIAPOSITIVA 3
  4. 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. 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. 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. 7. Figure 1. Usual class dynamics of UPM content teachers (self-reported) DIAPOSITIVA 7
  8. 8. Paradox:  Habitual dynamics in 16 cases = Teacher-centred lecture  Little groupwork Vague ‘autonomous learning’ in between DIAPOSITIVA 8
  9. 9. Figure 2. Breakdown of ‘autonomous learning’ as usual class dynamics at UPM (self-reported) DIAPOSITIVA 9
  10. 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. 11% 6% 22% 61% Figure 3. Habitual teacher control in content lectures at UPM (self-reported) DIAPOSITIVA 11
  12. 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. 13. Figure 4. Habitual teaching practices of UPM content instructors (self-reported) DIAPOSITIVA 13
  14. 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. 15. Figure 5. EMI difficulties as predicted by UPM teachers DIAPOSITIVA 15
  16. 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. 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. 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. 19. Figure 6. Use of learning boosters DIAPOSITIVA 19
  20. 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. 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. 22. Figure 7. Lectures with embedded genres DIAPOSITIVA 22
  23. 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. 24. Figure 8. Recourse to key metadiscourse and CALP DIAPOSITIVA 24
  25. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 30. DIAPOSITIVA 30

×