Using pluralistic approaches
to enhance language proficiency

Rebecca DAHM 
IUFM – University of Limoges
LACES – EA 4140, ...
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•

Research question and hypothesis
Theoretical framework
Research design
Analysis
Results
Discussion

 ...
Research question
and hypothesis

3
Common European Framework of Reference

Development of multilingual competence:
• links between languages
• taking into ac...
Research question

Present

students

with

unknown

languages

=

pluralistic approach (Candelier, 2003)
Focusing away fr...
Hypothesis

• Pluralistic approaches help students develop their
metalinguistic competence:
 transferable
 independent f...
Theoretical
framework

7
State of Research
• Language Awareness (Hawkins, 1974)
• Development of metalinguistic skills (Dabène, 1992)
• Classificat...
Definitions
• Metasemantic competence (Gombert, 1990) = ability to
recognize a linguistic system + to manipulate words
• D...
Research Design

10
Mixed methodology
Both quantitative and qualitative data
•Quasi-experimental design
– Pre- and post-tests (semantic and sy...
Participants
• Lower secondary school pupils, two target groups:
•

students from year 7 (12-13 year-old)

• students from...
Procedure
• Three unknown languages: Dutch, Italian, Finnish
• Three media:
 metasemantic activities
 metasyntactic acti...
Session 1 : metasemantic activities

• mobilize metasemantic knowledge/skills
• validate and enhance understanding
• refle...
Analysis

16
Variables and indicators

Variables

Elaboration

Inferencing

Deduction
D-

Indicators

relating to prior
knowledge of L1...
Quantitative analysis
• Group sheets: type and frequency of implemented
strategies
• Comparison with ideal projection

= U...
Results

19
Results of metasemantic sessions

« Linking teaching to learning in language education »
London, July 4-5, 2013

20
Discussion

21
Differential expected-realized S1

« Language Awareness for our Multicultural World »
Montreal, July 8-11, 2012

22
Positive differential
• Elaboration strategies:
• Typological proximity for Dutch or Italian
• Relying on French for Finni...
Negative differential (1/2)

• Inferencing strategy:
• Minimal threshold of L2 competence (Bialystok, 1980)
• Relying on s...
Negative differential (2/2)

• Deduction strategy:
• Bottom-up processes
• Top-down processes: « threshold theory » (Cummi...
Conclusion

26
Implemented strategies (1/2)

• Elaboration: strategy of choice
o Typological proximity with L1 has an inhibitory effect o...
Implemented strategies (2/2)

• Inferencing: Requires training
o Language typologically close to L2
o Possible transfer be...
Effects of pluralistic approaches
• Limitations : results only reflect conscious strategies
• Pluralistic approaches enabl...
From Language Awareness
to Language Proficiency?
Pluralistic approaches:
o raise awareness
o develop metalinguistic compet...
References
•Bialystok, E. (1978). « A theoretical model of second language learning ».
Language Learning, 28. pp. 69-83.
•...
Thank you for your attention !
BAAL Language Learning and Teaching Special Interest Group
9th Annual Conference

« Linking...
Video of first session on Dutch
Text in Dutch
Text in Italian

« Sono un topo molto famoso. Io sono piccolo, con grandi orecchie nere.
Indosso pantaloni rossi con grand...
Text in Finnish
Päivi: " Rakastatko musiikkia?”
Timo: "Kyllä, minä rakastan. Lataan paljon musiikkia
Internetistä.”
Päivi:...
Example of a group sheet in Dutch
Example of a group sheet in Italian
Example of a group sheet in Finnish
Documents supports
• Réponses-groupes NLS2
• Réponses groupes ITS2
• Synthèse des réponses
Documentation
• Lien vers la page Moodle de l’ERR
• Lien vers la page à destination des parents
Example of non-conscious strategy use
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Using pluralistic approaches to enhance language proficiency. Rebecca DAHM. BAAL, London, July 2013.

277 views
146 views

Published on

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.

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
277
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 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
  • Using pluralistic approaches to enhance language proficiency. Rebecca DAHM. BAAL, London, July 2013.

    1. 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. 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
    3. 3. Research question and hypothesis 3
    4. 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. 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. 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
    7. 7. Theoretical framework 7
    8. 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. 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
    10. 10. Research Design 10
    11. 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. 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. 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. 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. 15. Analysis 16
    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. 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. 18. Results 19
    19. 19. Results of metasemantic sessions « Linking teaching to learning in language education » London, July 4-5, 2013 20
    20. 20. Discussion 21
    21. 21. Differential expected-realized S1 « Language Awareness for our Multicultural World » Montreal, July 8-11, 2012 22
    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. 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. 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. 25. Conclusion 26
    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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 32. Video of first session on Dutch
    33. 33. Text in Dutch
    34. 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. 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. 36. Example of a group sheet in Dutch
    37. 37. Example of a group sheet in Italian
    38. 38. Example of a group sheet in Finnish
    39. 39. Documents supports • Réponses-groupes NLS2 • Réponses groupes ITS2 • Synthèse des réponses
    40. 40. Documentation • Lien vers la page Moodle de l’ERR • Lien vers la page à destination des parents
    41. 41. Example of non-conscious strategy use

    ×