Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

0

Share

Download to read offline

Towards a more dialogic approach with a class of young adult refugee learners in an adult migrant English program.

Download to read offline

Presentation from ALAA Conference University of Wollongong November 2018

  • Be the first to like this

Towards a more dialogic approach with a class of young adult refugee learners in an adult migrant English program.

  1. 1. “REFLECTION IN THE WILD” (Mann & Walsh, 2017, p. 100) What does this mean to you? “Reflection is not something which is restricted to pre- or in-service teacher education programmes. Indeed, we believe that the ultimate goal for teachers and teacher educators is to integrate and embed reflection in their daily professional lives. Essentially, we are saying that reflection is a practice which teachers might like to develop in the same way they develop expertise in other classroom practices, such as giving instructions, providing feedback or explaining a language point” (Mann & Walsh, 2017, p. 100).
  2. 2. Why this project? “Towards a more dialogic approach with a class of young adult refugee-background learners in an adult migrant English program” • Commonwealth funded intensive English program, 510 hours English for humanitarian entrants • Refugee background learners (15-24) unable to attend mainstream high school • Critical and creative thinking for successful participation in future Australian study and work contexts • Examine potential of a dialogic pedagogy with these beginners as a means of engaging students in steps towards critical thinking
  3. 3. • Robin Alexander • Two “pedagogical habits: … recitation and pseudo- enquiry” (Alexander, 2008, p. 93) • “Talk is the foundational act of language” (Resnick, Michaels & O’Connor, 2010, p. 163) • Spoken interactions facilitate or hinder language learning process From “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” (1986) Why Dialogic Teaching?
  4. 4. Which interactions engage students and extend thinking? • Teacher is “an enabler of talk for thinking” (Myhill, 2006, p. 21) • “Nurture … the student’s engagement, confidence, independence and responsibility” (Alexander, 2006, p. 35) • Alexander – 5 Principles of Classroom talk 1. Collective 2. Reciprocal 3. Supportive 4. Cumulative 5. Purposeful
  5. 5. Why dialogic teaching with young adult refugee background English learners? Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority’s seven general capabilities (ACARA, 2018) 1. Literacy 2. Numeracy 3. Information and Communication Technology Capability 4. Critical and Creative Thinking 5. Personal and Social Capability 6. Ethical Understanding 7. Intercultural Understanding
  6. 6. Questions I started to ask • If argumentation can be taught at beginning levels of schooling, is there a way to introduce same principles to beginning adult ESL learners? • If I change my teaching approach, will this encourage changes towards more critical and creative thinking for these students? • What would these changes look like?
  7. 7. Method: Reflective Practice (“in the wild”!) • “Now I have a different framework that underpins how I approach lesson panning and what happens in the classroom” (Self-reflective journal entry, August 2018) • Changes in my thinking and approach • Students becoming more confident risk takers and questioners • moving towards creative and critical thinking
  8. 8. Preliminary Findings: Challenges and Changes • Classroom interactive settings (Alexander, 2018; Alexander, 2008) • Routines and instructions • Partner and group work increases individual confidence and willingness to speak in English
  9. 9. How has classroom talk changed? • Introduce and model evaluative and interrogatory talk, through purposeful teacher talk (Alexander, 2008) • Student responses: increased questioning • Questioning: feedback, wait time, participation cues • “push…[them] beyond their current abilities and levels of understanding” (Hammond, 2005, p. 9)
  10. 10. How can we build confidence? • “As learners talk through a problem, or as they ‘talk their way to understanding’, they are developing the ‘thinking’ tools for later problem-solving – tools which will eventually become internalised and construct the resources for independent thinking” (Hammond & Gibbons, 2005, p. 15)
  11. 11. Discussion: Considerations for dialogic approach in similar contexts • Establishment of collective, supportive classroom talk and purposeful teacher talk. • Changes in student confidence, engagement, willingness to ask questions and “to take risks with English and…give expression to [their] voice” (Adoniou & Macken- Horarik 2007, p. 13) • Remember that we are working together on the first steps towards critical thinking.
  12. 12. Thankyou for listeningJ skye.playsted@icloud.com • Alexander, R. J. (2018). Developing Dialogic Teaching: genesis, process, trial. Research Papers in Education, 33(5), 1-38. doi: doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1481140 • Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2018). “F-10 curriculum: General capabilities”. Sydney, Australia: Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. Retrieved 21 October, 2018 from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/critical-and-creative-thinking/ • Adoniou, M., & Macken-Horarik, M. (2007). Scaffolding literacy meets ESL: Some insights from ACT classrooms. TESOL in Context, 17(1), 5. • Alexander, R. (2008) Towards dialogic teaching (4th ed). New York: Dialogos. • Alexander, R. (2008b) Essays on pedagogy. New York: Routledge. • Alexander, R. (2018) Dialogic teaching in brief. Retrieved 31 October, 2018 from https://www.robinalexander.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Dialogc-teaching-in-brief- 170622.pdf • Chen, H. (2018) Investigating the teaching of argumentative writing in culturally diverse contexts. Paper presented at the 13th University of Sydney TESOL Research Network Colloquium, September 2018. Sydney, Australia. • DeCapua, A. (2018). Culture myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. • Gibbons, P. (2006). Bridging discourses in the ESL classroom. London, England: Continuum. • Hammond, J. & Gibbons, P. (2005) “What is scaffolding?” Teachers’ Voices. NCLTR • Mann, S., & Walsh, S. (2017). Reflective practice in English language teaching : Research-based principles and practices. New York: Routledge. • Mohammed-Marzouk, M. R. (2012) Teaching and Learning in Iraq: A Brief History. The Educational Forum, 76(2), 259-264. doi: 10.1080/00131725.2011.653869 • Myhill, D. (2006). “Talk, talk, talk: Teaching and learning in whole class discourse.” Research Papers in Education 21(1), 19–41.
 • Naidoo, L., Wilkinson, J., Adoniou, M., & Langat, K. (2018). Refugee Background Students Transitioning Into Higher Education: Navigating Complex Spaces. Singapore: Springer. • Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. Language and literacy series. Williston, VT: Teachers College Press. • Playsted, S. (2018). Self-reflective teaching journal. Toowoomba, Australia. • Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2010). “How (Well-structured) Talk Builds the Mind.” In From Genres to Context: New Discoveries about Learning from Education Research and Their Applications, edited by R. Sternberg and D. Preiss, 163–194. New York: Springer.

Presentation from ALAA Conference University of Wollongong November 2018

Views

Total views

83

On Slideshare

0

From embeds

0

Number of embeds

0

Actions

Downloads

0

Shares

0

Comments

0

Likes

0

×