Transcript University of Bristol 14th of March, 2008 Presentation

British Association for Applied Linguistics
3rd-5th September, 2009
University of Newcastle, England
Investigating opportunities for English
language development and support in
Zanzibar secondary classrooms
Oksana Afitska, Guoxing Yu,
Zuleikha Khamis, Pauline Rea-Dickins
2
Introduction
• Learning through L2 in African countries: overview
• The research context
• Scope of this study
• Analysis of classroom data and findings
• Performance in Form II examinations: English and other
subjects
• Conclusion
3
Learning through L2 in African countries:
overview
•
Main medium of instruction: It was suggested by many researchers that
students may struggle to engage with the curriculum if they have a limited
command of the medium of instruction, i.e. English language (Wei and Martin,
2009; Mohamed, Hashim Issa and Banda, Felix, 2008; Brock-Utne, 2007; Moloia, Morobeb,
Urwickc, 2008; Probyn, 2006; McGlynn and Martin , 2009).
•
Achievement: “Prior achievement is highly correlated with later student
achievement, with students with high prior achievement scores achieving
higher scores in subsequent achievement tests (Hungi and Thuku, 2009) …. prior
achievement is the highest contributing factor in the prediction of student
achievement (Ethington, 1992; Reynolds and Walberg, 1992; Gill and Reynolds, 1999; Fuchs
et al., 2000).
4
Learning through L2 in African countries:
overview
•
Code-switching: Many researchers reported observing learners codeswitching from English language to their primary languages in the
classrooms in order to better understand the concepts, sustain conversations
or simply interact between themselves. Teachers were also often observed
code-switching between the languages in order to support understanding or
hide their own gaps in English language knowledge (Paxton, 2009; Moodley, 2007;
Hardmana, Abd-Kadira, Smith, 2008; Probyn, 2006).
•
Chorusing: The research shows that in many classrooms pupils got the
opportunity to speak only through chorus responses (otherwise they could
easily go through the whole lesson without getting the opportunity to
demonstrate their understanding or lack of it at all) (Altinyelken, 2009). The
research also suggests that chorusing through the completion of phrases,
the repetition of words and choral affirmation of ‘understanding’, may prevent
pupils from engaging in more creative and higher levels of thinking (Abd-Kadir
and Hardman, 2007).
5
Learning through L2 in African countries:
overview
•
Teacher talk: Teacher talk was often characterised by explanation and
recitation with paying little attention to securing pupils’ understanding, use of
IRF sequence (of which only first two parts were often present), and closedquestions (Hardmana, Abd-Kadira and Smith, 2008; O’Sullivan, 2006; Abd-Kadir and
Hardman, 2007).
•
Group work: Teachers admitted that they often either avoided of failed to do
meaningful group work because of high number of students (Altinyelken, 2009;
Moloia, Morobeb, Urwickc, 2008). When group work did take place teachers often
remain seated at their desks or walked around the classrooms waiting for the
students to present their work (Moloia, Morobeb, Urwickc, 2008). “Exploratory talk”
during group work activities was conducted in learners’ first language (Probyn,
2006).
6
Learning through L2 in African countries:
overview
•
Reading: The research suggests that little reading happens in many African
classrooms, often with only some learners participating in this activity due to the lack of
resources (Probyn, 2006; Opoku-Amankwa, 2009; Vinjevold, 1999). It was also found that
pupils who were taught by teachers who were good readers achieved better in reading
than pupils who were taught by teachers who were poor readers (Hungi and Thuku, 2009).
•
Writing - The research also suggests that pupils are often ill-prepared for written work
as little speaking (oral work) and writing happens in many African classrooms (Probyn,
2006; Moloia, Morobeb, Urwickc, 2008).
•
Speaking: It was observed that students were often “passive” and quiet in the
classrooms; when invited to speak in L2, they produced largely minimal responses,
often consisting of few words only (Mohamed, Hashim Issa and Banda, Felix, 2008; BrockUtne, 2007; Moloia, Morobeb, Urwickc, 2008; Hardmana, Abd-Kadira, Smith 2008). However,
when learners were allowed to speak a language that they felt comfortable with, they
could suddenly became vibrant and articulate (Hulya Kosar Altinyelken, 2009). Overall,
speaking was not common activity in many classrooms.
7
The research context
Educational Policy in Zanzibar Island:
Primary schools’ medium of instruction – Kiswahili, with English taught
as a subject; Secondary schools’ medium of instruction and
examinations – English.
This study was carried out as part of SPINE (Student Performance in
National Examinations: dynamics of underachievement) project (ESRC
major research grant RES-167-25-0263), which aims to investigate
Factors influencing students’ under/achievement in national
examinations in Zanzibar secondary schools.
One of the 9 studies specifically aimed to investigate classroom
Language practices in Zanzibar secondary classrooms in order to
reveal the extent to which learners were provided with language support
and opportunities for English language development during the lessons.
8
Scope of this study
This study draws on to a database of 9 lessons selected from a larger
corpus of 72 hours of video-recorded intact lessons in four core
curricular areas: biology, chemistry, mathematics and English. The data
were collected over a two months period in Form II Zanzibar public and
private secondary schools.
The lessons were selected according to:
•
The subject area (Biology  3 lessons, Chemistry  3 lessons,
Mathematics  3 lessons)
•
The extent of L1 and L2 classroom use (Kiswahili-English, mainly
English)
•
The levels of teachers’ L2 proficiency (English - high proficiency,
English - low proficiency)
9
Analysis of classroom data
• From two perspectives:
 Teacher’s focus on language (Grammar, Pronunciation, Paraphrasing,
Translation and Vocabulary)
 Development of learners’ language skills (Listening, Speaking, Reading
and Writing)
• Definitions:
 Grammar – any instances when the teacher draws learners’ attention
to the grammatical structure of the language (as part of teaching,
feedback, assessment. For example, use of tenses, capital letters…)
 Pronunciation – any instances when the teacher corrects learner’s
pronunciation, makes an emphasis on variations of pronunciation, drills
pronunciation by means of chorusing. For example, teacher says: “T:
chloroplast, all together, chloroplast; CLASS: chloroplast”
10
Definitions
 Paraphrasing – any instances when the teacher uses the exact or
contextual synonyms, or alternative ways of saying something. For
example: T: “it has no numbers, here is nothing” or “what organism
can not make their own food what type of organism can not can not
manufacture their own food”.
 Translation/explanation in L1 – any instances when the teacher
translates or explains in L1 information which has just been
presented in L2.
 Vocabulary/concept – any instances when the teacher introduces
new vocabulary/concept; explains the meaning, invites learners to
chorus definition or new vocabulary item.
 Listening – all instances when learners hear teacher speaking
either in L1 or L2.
11
Definitions
 Speaking – all instances when learners speak in L1 or L2
(individually, in groups or as chorus)
 Reading – all instances when learners read aloud (or in head) after
they have been instructed by the teacher to do so (from the board or
from their text books).
 Writing – all instances when learners are instructed by the teacher
to do a writing activity (either at the board or in books).
 Chorus – all instances when learners speak altogether, these are
interactions with the teacher.
 Group – all instances when learners speak within their group to their
peers but not to the teacher.
 Individual – all instances when learners speak individually to the
teacher in response, or asking a question
12
Findings
13
Findings
14
Findings
15
Findings
16
Findings
17
Findings
18
Summary
• Few potential opportunities for language development and
support were provided across all contexts;
• English-Kiswahili lessons seemed to provide more potential
opportunities for learners’ language development than English
(mostly) lessons, regardless of whether these lessons were
taught by teachers with high or low English language
proficiency;
• Most attention seemed to be paid to vocabulary issues (leaving
focus on grammar, pronunciation, comprehension through
paraphrasing or translation behind);
19
Summary
• Of the four major language skills, students spent considerably
more time listening to the teacher than on other skills
(speaking, reading and writing);
• Learners never used English language to talk to their peers
and the teacher during group work activities;
• Reading in L2 was practiced very rarely and only through
chorus reading from books.
20
English language ability and performance in
maths, biology and chemistry – data structure of
multilevel modelling
Note: 161 schools (156 in 2007, 158 in 2008, some new schools joined in 2008,
a couple of schools that had data in 2007 but did not have data in 2008)
21
English and maths (a)
Total: 64.717, school=29.18%,
pupil=70.82%
Total=90.4, School=30.75%,
Pupil=69.25%
22
English and maths (b)
• Adding ENGLISH explains (90.464.717)/90.4=28.41% of the maths total
variance; and (27.8-18.882)/27.8=32.08% of the
school level total variance and (62.645.835)/62.6=26.78% of the pupil level total
variance. In other words, ENGLISH can explain
nearly 1/3 of the total variance of maths, and 1/3 of
school-level and 1/3 of pupil-level variances in
maths too.
23
English and biology (a)
Total=65.646, school=18.17%,
pupil=81.83%
Total=114.968, school=18.79%,
pupil=81.21%
24
English and biology (b)
• Adding ENGLISH alone explains (114.96865.646)/114.968=42.90% of the total variance in
BIOLOGY (see the cons model), and (21.60111.928)/21.601=44.78% of school-level variance in
BIOLOGY, and (93.367-53.718)/93.367=42.47% of
the pupil-level variance in BIOLOGY.
25
English and chemistry (a)
Total=158.281, school=23.06%,
pupil=76.94%
Total=275.993, school=22.05%,
pupil=77.95%
26
English and chemistry (b)
• Adding ENGLISH alone explains (275.993158.281)/275.993=42.65% of the total
CHEMISTRY variance, and (60.85236.497)/60.852=24.36% of school level chemistry
variance, and (215.141-121.784)/215.141=43.39%
of pupil level chemistry variance.
27
Other languages?
•
Although other two languages (Kiswahili and
Arabic) are also significant predictors of the
students’ performance in maths, biology and
chemistry, it is noted that they are less capable of
explaining the variances than ENGLISH.
•
KISW explains (275.993-88.954)/275.993=31.54%
of the total chemistry variance, (114.968-76.585)/
114.968=33.39% of the BIO total variance, (90.475.678)/90.4=16.29% of the maths total variance.
28
Other languages?
• KIARAB explains (275.993203.452)/275.993=26.28% of the CHEM total
variance, (114.968-88.569)/114.968=22.96% of the
BIO total variance, (90.4-71.885)/90.4=20.48% of
the maths total variance.
29
Summary of the multilevel models (a)
•
It is very clear that ENGLISH is a significant
and substantial predictor of the students’
performance in maths, biology and chemistry.
•
The school-level variances explained in the
cons models as well as in the models
including ENGLISH as the single explanatory
variable demonstrated a substantial proportion
of the variance is attributable to school level
factors
30
Summary of the multilevel models (b)
• As ENGLISH itself is affected as other core subjects by various
school and pupil factors, this probably explains why there is not
much improvement in terms of fitness of the models (measured by
the change of % of school-level variance in the total variance).
• It is therefore essential to collect further school- and pupil-level data
to examine what factors (in particular, in relation to English
language learning opportunities at home and at school) and how
much these factors can account for the variances (in the tradition of
school effectiveness studies) and the role of ENGLISH language
ability compared to the other factors – our plan for nationwide data
collection using pupil and headteacher questionnaires
31
Conclusion (a)
• Findings of this study lie in line with findings from
other research studies in teaching and learning
practices in many multilingual African classrooms.
• Firstly, the examination results demonstrate the
crucial role of English language ability in students’
performance in examinations of other core
subjects.
32
Conclusion (b)
• Secondly, the classroom data suggest that learners could
potentially benefit from schooling more if they are provided
with more opportunities for English language development
and support during the lessons.
• Thirdly, language support and opportunities for English
language development may be best provided when teaching
and learning in the classrooms are conducted through nonrestricted and collaborative use of learners’ first
language and English language, where both languages
are seen as crucial and equally important for effective
facilitation of successful learning and higher
achievement.