Transcript PowerPointova predstavitev

Language teaching in subject-matter
An example for teacher training – method of “changing sides”
An example: mathematical word problem (grade 9):
On an insect collecting project Lizzy caught mudwasps, Izzy caught waterbugs
and Dizzy caught flies. It was observed that three times the number of
mudwasps that Lizzy caught less 14 was equal to the difference between the
number of flies Dizzy caught and the number of waterbugs Izzy caught. In
addition, it was observed that the sum of the mudwasps caught by Izzy and the
waterbugs caught by Lizzy was 10 less than three times the flies caught by Dizzy.
On further examination of the collection it was seen that three times the
number of waterbugs caught by Izzy plus the difference between the number of
mudwasps caught by Lizzy and the number of flies caught by Dizzy was 16. How
many mudwasps did Lizzy collect?
Translate this task into your
best foreign language (5 minutes)
Method for continuous and systematic
language support (Gogolin et al. 2011)
Academic language
Upper secondary
L2
Lower secondary
Additional
Didactical methods
language
Additive to
& inclusive
support
/ outside
language support
include
multilingualism
school
Language support
across the
curriculum
Link between language &
subject-matter
Inclusion of informal
Involvement of
language learning
Forms
of
cooperation
parents & families
situations &
contexts
Primary school
L1
Kindergarten
Everyday language
Multilingualism and language instruction in
subject-matter
SCAFFOLDING
language for learning
Two theoretical bases
Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal
development” as a theory for learning
Language and content learning
through systematic support in
the „zone of proximal
Scaffolding represents
the
development“
(Gibbons 2009)
Vygotsky, 1934/2002
“temporary assistance that
teachers provide forSystematic
their
construction and
students in order to assist
them to of support by
deconstruction
teachers
complete a task so that they
will with the aim of
later be able to complete overcoming
similar the „zone“
tasks alone” (Hammond, 2001: 15)
Macro- and micro-scaffolding
(Hammond 2001)
Halliday’s systemic functional grammar
as a theory of language
Language:
• Meaning making, context dependent
• Mediating construction of knowledge
• Variation in relation to: the area of inquiry or topic (field), the roles and
relationships between participants (tenor), and the channel of communication
(mode).
Education:
• Central role of interaction in the
construction of knowledge
• Effective teaching is about and through
language
• View of language away from deficit
perspectives
Joining theories for scaffolding - a theory
for learning content and language
Scaffolding – the curriculum cycle
(Gibbons, 2002)
Scaffolding – the curriculum cycle
(Gibbons, 2002)
Knowledge of
contents
Everyday language
(mostly oral)
Scaffolding – an example (Gibbons 2002)
this...no, it doesn’t go... it doesn’t move... try that... yes, it does... a bit... that won’t...won’t work, it’s not metal... these are the best... going really fast.
Scaffolding – the curriculum cycle
(Gibbons, 2002)
Introduction to
the register
Knowledge of
contents
Everyday language
(mostly oral)
First elements of
academic
language (oral)
Teacher:
we’re trying to talk like scientists;
your language has got to be really precise;
the language you choose is very important
...
Scaffolding – the curriculum cycle
(Gibbons, 2002)
Introduction to
the register
First elements of
academic
language (oral)
Knowledge of
contents
Connection between linguistic
aspects and contents
Everyday language
(mostly oral)
Academic language (oral)
Scaffolding – an example (Gibbons 2002)
this...no, it doesn’t go... it doesn’t move... try that... yes, it does... a bit... that won’t...won’t work, it’s not metal... these are the best... going really fast.
Scaffolding – the curriculum cycle
(Gibbons, 2002)
Introduction to
the register
First elements of
academic
language (oral)
Knowledge of
contents
Indepedent writing
on the theme
Connection between linguistic
aspects and contents
Everyday language
(mostly oral)
Academic language (oral)
Written academic
language
Scaffolding – an example (Gibbons 2002)
this...no, it doesn’t go... it doesn’t move... try that... yes, it does... a bit... that won’t...won’t work, it’s not metal... these are the best... going really fast.
2 types of scaffolding
 Designed-in scaffolding:
macro-scaffolding that is consciously planned at a
systemic level
 Point-of-need scaffolding:
spontaneous use of scaffolding techniques (also called
micro-scaffolding or interactional scaffolding) Hammond 2001,
Hammond & Gibbons 2005
Designed-in
scaffolding principles
Hammond & Gibbons 2005: 13
Point-of-need
or
interactional
scaffolding
Hammond & Gibbons 2005: 21
4.
Practical activity – engaging with
the role of language in
scaffolding for learning
1. Form groups of 3 to 4 persons
2. Discuss the examples in the handouts (10 minutes)
3. Remember to make notes and choose a raporteur
Scaffolding – snapshots from the
classroom
Handout
Handout 14
23

Develop
Focus
ontechnical
vocabulary
issues
– “migrate”
from
IRF (“the
nurse,
what
about
her?”) can
 Away
Creating
alanguage
conceptual
hook
on
which
students
talk,
by involving
pupils
inin
the
“hang”
their
understanding
of
theknowledge
study
 prolonging
Paraphrasing
Use
everyday
students’
language
talk
to convey
resulting
a of history
of elaborating
knowledge
recontextualised
version
of on
their
ideas
Extend or reformulate
responses
from
students
 construction
Redefining
and
anown
activity
to support

for
continuing
the conversation is
Evidence
understanding
designed-in
and point-of-need
 Responsibility
Develop aofline
of reasoning
handed
to the pupils
(increasing
the a final

Final
exchange
– recapping
or making
 scaffolding:
Section
summary
or meta-statement
prospectiveness)
in
planning the
lesson, teacher
summative
statement
thatthought
points of
tokey
outconcepts;
the focus of
in
teacher carefully supports development of
theinteraction
task
appropriate technical vocabulary
Pestalozzi Workshop Slovenia
Seite 20
14.11.2012
Method for continuous and systematic
language support (Gogolin et al. 2011)
Academic language
Upper secondary
L2
Lower secondary
Additional
Didactical methods
language
Additive to
& inclusive
support
/ outside
language support
include
multilingualism
school
Language support
across the
curriculum
Link between language &
subject-matter
Inclusion of informal
Involvement of
language learning
Forms
of
cooperation
parents & families
situations &
contexts
Primary school
L1
Kindergarten
Everyday language
Systematic language assessment
 Systematic language assessment ⇨ basis for professional
language support
 Types of instruments:
Observation
Profile analysis
Tests(Screenings)
 Needs coordination between members of a team – principle of
rotation
 Multilingualism ⇨ L1 + L2
Systematic language assessment
Systematic language assessment
Phases of language
aquisition (U-Curve)
Knowledge
Features of multilingual
speech (code-switching,
transfer)
L1 proficiency of pupils
(in particular literacy
related)
Method for continuous and systematic
language support (Gogolin et al. 2011)
Academic language
Upper secondary
L2
Lower secondary
Additional
Didactical methods
language
Additive to
& inclusive
support
/ outside
language support
include
multilingualism
school
Language support
across the
curriculum
Link between language &
subject-matter
Inclusion of informal
Involvement of
language learning
Forms
of
cooperation
parents & families
situations &
contexts
Primary school
L1
Kindergarten
Everyday language
Forms of cooperation
 Condition – each teacher is a language teacher and must assume responsability
in actively promoting academic language proficiency to all pupils
 Vertical e horizontal cooperation:
 Between several educational institutions
 Between the several teachers of a grade (ex: English and biology)
 Between the deffierent teachers of a subject.
 Methods:
1. Analysing curricula in groups (planning for designed-in scaffolding)
2. Develop a plan based on cooperation (ex: train the genre of report in chemistry and
english).
Summary
Social cohesion and reducing
theparticipation
achievement gap are
 Equal
 Higher
cohesiona
possible through school change
(atsocial
a systemic,
classroom and individual level)
Method at a school level – continuous and systematic
language support of all learners (4 pillars)
Method at a classroom level – scaffolding for language
learning in all subjects
Pre-requisites for change:
Political priority
Teacher empowerement (pre- and in-service training)
Whole-school involvement (need for systematic change)
[email protected]
References






Baker, Colin (2006): Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Duarte, J. (2011): Bilingual langauge proficiency. A comparative study. Münster: Waxmann.
Gibbons, Pauline (2002): Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding. Learning. Teaching Second Language Learners in the. Mainstream
Classroom. Portsmouth NH: Heinemann.
Gogolin, I. (2006): Bilingualität und die Bildungssprache der Schule. In: Mecheril, Paul/ Quehl, Thomas Hrsg.): Die Macht der Sprachen.
Englische Perspektiven auf die mehrsprachige Schule. Münster: Waxmann, S. 79 - 85.
Gogolin, I. und Lange, I. (2010): Bildungssprache und Durchgängige Sprachbildung. In: Fürstenau, S. und Gomolla, M. (Hrsg.): Migration
und schulischer Wandel: Mehrsprachigkeit. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag, S. 69 - 87.
 Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual's language modes. In Nicol, J. (Ed.). One Mind, Two Languages: Bilingual
Language Processing (pp. 1-22). Oxford: Blackwell. Also in Li Wei (Ed.). The Bilingual Reader (2nd edition). London:
Routledge, 2007.






Klieme et al. (2010): PISA 2009. Eine Bilanz. Waxmann: Münster.
Knapp, W. (2007): Wie Kinder Begriffe erwerben und welche Annahmen Erwachsene darüber haben. In: Roland Jost, Werner Knapp &
Kerstin Metz (Hg): Arbeit an Begriffen. Fachwissenschaftliche und fachdidaktische Aspekte. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider 2007, S. 173188.
Reusser, K. (1997): Erwerb mathematischer Kompetenzen: Literaturüberblick, in: Weinert, Franz / Helmke, Andreas (Hrsg.):
Entwicklung im Grundschulalter Beltz / Psychologie Verlags Union, Weinheim, 141–155.
Siebert-Ott, Gesa. 2006c. Deutsch (lernen) auf dem Schulhof? Konzeptionelle Mündlichkeit als Basis der Entwicklung
schriftsprachlicher Kompetenz in der Zweitsprache. In: Ehlers, Swantje (Hrsg.). Sprachförderung und Literalität. (Flensburger Papiere
zur Mehrsprachigkeit und Kulturenvielfalt im Unterricht, Sonderheft 3.) Flensburg: Universität Flensburg, S. 15-35.
Tajmel, T. (2010): DaZ-Förderung im naturwissenschaftlichen Fachunterricht. In: Ahrenholz, B. (Hg.): Fachunterricht und Deutsch als
Zweitsprache. Narr Verlag: Tübingen, S. 167-184.
Tajmel, T. (2011): Sprache als Quelle aller (Miss-)Verständnisse?. Vortrag in der Fachtagung für Schulen mit ganztägigen Angebot, 30.
März, Humboldt Universität Berlin.
Last but not least… Why
multilingualism?