Ed Prof St612 2010 Short


Published on

Presentation of Prof. Stephen May on August 3 2010 at the Faculty of Education University of Auckland.

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ed Prof St612 2010 Short

  1. 1. Language and Diversity: Challenges and possibilities<br />Prof. Stephen May<br />School of Critical Studies in Education (CRSTIE)<br />Faculty of Education<br />University of Auckland<br />August 5, 10<br />1<br />
  2. 2. August 5, 10<br />2<br />It has been known for some time that secondary teachers do not consider reading and learning to be issues that are of much importance to them.<br />(Gunderson 2000: 692)<br />
  3. 3. August 5, 10<br />3<br />The problem of monolingualism<br />Particularly evident in English-dominant countries like New Zealand<br />A result of English as the current world language<br />Ignores the history (and politics) of English<br />
  4. 4. August 5, 10<br />4<br />Key Challenges in teaching bilingual students<br />Developing and fostering an additive rather than subtractive view of bilingualism<br />
  5. 5. August 5, 10<br />5<br />Subtractive bilingualism<br />views bilingualism as problematic<br />judges students by native (L1) English norms<br />Constructs bilingual students as incompetent (in English)<br />e.g. NESB; this child has ‘no language’<br />Excludes the L1 in the teaching and learning process (‘time on task’ principle)<br />
  6. 6. August 5, 10<br />6<br />
  7. 7. August 5, 10<br />7<br />
  8. 8. August 5, 10<br />8<br />
  9. 9. The first response <br />Building specifically from/on the students’ language backgrounds<br />Developing an ‘additive’ view of students’ bilingualism<br />Drawing on all the language registers/domains of students in the teaching and learning process<br />August 5, 10<br />9<br />
  10. 10. Additive bilingualism<br />Recognises bilingual students as multicompetent<br />Accords with research on the cognitive, social and educational advantages of bilingualism<br />Cognitive flexibility<br />Metalinguistic awareness<br />Communicative sensitivity<br />Accords with the linguistic interdependence principle<br />The more developed the L1, the easier the development of the L2; the less developed the L1, the harder the development of the L2<br />August 5, 10<br />10<br />
  11. 11. August 5, 10<br />11<br />1. Implications for teaching<br />How can we challenge/change deficit constructions of bilingual students?<br />How can we recognise and value our students’ extensive language competencies?<br />How can we foster use of L1 in our classes in order to enhance metalinguistic awareness and language interdependence?<br />How can we address our own knowledge gaps (and monolingualism)?<br />
  12. 12. August 5, 10<br />12<br />Key challenges in teaching bilingual students<br />2. Recognising that academic English is a specific language register, and that we need to teach it explicitly<br />
  13. 13. August 5, 10<br />13<br />Academic English<br />Is significantly more demanding than conversational English<br />Cf.<br />Conversational competence (BICS)<br />Develops within 1-2 years<br />Academic language proficiency (CALP)<br />Takes 5-8 years to develop fully<br />= 2nd language learning delay<br />
  14. 14. August 5, 10<br />14<br />Academic English<br />Is more abstract<br />Has more passive constructions (e.g. It has been argued by May that … vs. …. Stephen says that)<br />Is more decontextualised<br />Has specific patterns of classroom language<br />IRE (initiation - response - evaluation)<br />IRF (initiation - response - feedback)<br />Which are also culturally located (with students having varying degrees of familiarity with them)<br />Has more difficult vocabulary<br />
  15. 15. Vocabulary A-S nouns G-L nouns<br />August 5, 10<br />15<br />
  16. 16. August 5, 10<br />16<br />2. Implications for teaching<br />How can we apprentice students into academic English?<br />How can we scaffold learning more effectively?<br />How can we avoid ‘dumbing down’ (amplifying, not simplifying)<br />How can we vary existing classroom discourse patterns<br />IRE (initiation; response; evaluation)<br />IRF (initiation; response; feedback)<br />Group work<br />
  17. 17. August 5, 10<br />17<br />Group Work<br />Learners hear more language<br />Learners use more language (fosters exploratory talk; increased output)<br />Learning is contextualised (language is used appropriately and meaningfully)<br />Learning and comprehension are supported (message redundancy)<br />In addition, group work<br />Can include both L1 and L2<br />Is culturally congruent for many groups<br />Facilitates language use in contextualised / integrated ways (linking language and content)<br />However, still requires explicit framing/instruction<br />
  18. 18. August 5, 10<br />18<br />Cognitively Undemanding<br /> A B<br /> (conversation) (email/texting)<br /> Context Embedded Context Reduced<br /> C D<br /> (group work/journaling/<br /> role play) (classroom discourse)<br />Cognitively Demanding<br />
  19. 19. August 5, 10<br />19<br />Key References<br />Language Enhancing the Achievement of Pasifika (LEAP). http://leap.tki.org.nz<br />May, S., Hill, R. & Tiakiwai, S. (2004) Bilingual/Immersion Education: indicators of good practice (available at http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/schooling/5075<br />See also:<br />Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning: teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Heinemann.<br />