Transcript Relationship between descriptors in curricula for language as subject and for language(s) in other subjects Irene Pieper, University of Hildesheim, Germany Helmut Johannes Vollmer, University.

Relationship between descriptors
in curricula for language as subject
and for language(s) in other
subjects
Irene Pieper, University of Hildesheim, Germany
Helmut Johannes Vollmer, University of Osnabrueck,
Germany
Strasbourg: CoE June 9, 2009, 9:20 - 9:45
Describing desired competences or
„standards of achievement“
Variety of approaches towards the formulation of „descriptors“ in both LS and LIS:
comprehensive vs. more specific ones (see examples below)
What degree of precison in describing the desired competences or outcomes is
necessary and adequate for which purpose or purposes?
Both areas (LS and LIS) build on the same communicative activity modes: reading,
speaking, listening, writing (though with different weights and focussing on
different sub-components)
Reflection on language (in LS) and/or on methods and relevance of content (in
LIS) is often considered as a domain of its own
The communicative activity areas relate to different discourse genres to be
understood, produced and participated in. They are the major strategic level of
reference for planning teaching and learning in school, in LS as much as in LIS.
Underlying the discourse genres is a set of cognitive and linguistic operations,
embedded in social contexts (thus also in school), which could be called
discourse functions; they mix differently in different genres; they could be one
entry point for analysis of basic cogn.-ling. competences across the curriculum.
2
Examples for comprehensive
descriptions of outcomes/competences
LS:
• Show understanding of both surface and deep meanings
in response to a range of texts (including fiction, nonfiction, linear and non-linear texts, media texts) and make
appropriate inferences
• Can use appropriate reading strategies
LIS:
• Can express himself/herself in speaking and writing
• Is able to read for information, can restructure a text
• Understands how science works
• Perceive one‘s own beliefs and life faith, express it and
defend it against others as legitimate and reasonable
• Develop intercultural understanding of people from
different linguistic and cultural backgrounds/contexts
3
Examples for more specific
linguistic/communicative competences
LS:
• Check spelling and use a dictionary
• Mark key terms in a text to prepare for a summary
• Identify symbols and metaphors in a text
LIS
• Extract key points from a history text to produce
notes (for later use)
• Know and develop subject-specific vocabulary
• Formulate, test and prove hypotheses about ...
4
Format of curricular descriptors /standards
/competence strings
Pupils select data and information from different sources
(e.g. print-, electronic media), assessing plausibility and
relevance and process the information in a way adequate for a
specific purpose, target group and situation. (Biology, Grade 9)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Verbal elements (operators) – marked yellow –define a capability to do sth.
Nominal elements –marked green– specify a subject-specific content
Nominal extensions – marked violet – further specify the content (optional)
Modal elements of the competence format – marked red – specify conditions,
circumstances and degrees of mastery.
5
Typical operators in LS descriptors
read for…(a range of purposes) - select (key points) - identify
(key themes/ different passages or genres), comment on (key
passages) - use (previous knowledge) - write (different types of
text) - plan and structure - communicate (clearly and suitably for
the context) - choose (the appropriate vocabulary, grammar,
spelling, punctuation)
- express (ideas and opinions) (in response to …) – take part in –
reflect on – recognise that – show understanding – use (different
strategies) – assess (critically)…
Typical operators in LIS descriptors (across subjects)
describe (125) - explain (67) – compare (44) – present (43) assess(33) - distinguish (32) – explicate/illustrate (31) – give
reasons for (29) – derive (29) – determine (19) – name/label (18) appraise (17) – record/document (16) – construe(15) – interpret
(15) – discuss (12) – evaluate (10)
6
THE TYPES OF VERBAL OPERATORS IN MODERN CURRICULA DIFFER IN QUALITY
Passe-partout or
(umbrella) terms
e.g. master,
apply, use
do not reveal anything concerning expected cognitive and/or
language performance
terms referring to
knowledge /
awareness only
e.g. know
focus on declarative knowledge, do not specify in which way
this knowledge is gained, applied or communicated
terms referring to
general cognitive
processes
e.g. discover,
examine,
analyse
focus on procedural knowledge, but do not specify methods
to gain knowledge, nor do they reveal the nature of required
verbal performance (e.g. understand factual prose)
terms referring to
non-verbal
activities
e.g. draw,
construct,
calculate
expected performance is not primarily determined by verbal
components, it does not imply linguistic, but rather (isolated)
semiotic competence
terms (broadly)
specifying verbal
activity
e.g. say, speak,
read, interact
over...
no information given concerning nature of discourse, but at
least the communicative mode is specified
terms (broadly)
specifying verbal
AND cognitive
activity at the
same time
e.g. describe,
explain, name/
label
these operators indicate a specific cognitive operation as well
as a verbal performance to relate to it with characteristic
linguistic features, hence called “discourse function”
7
Possible list of discourse functions
Discourse functions describe and specify fundamental cognitive actions/
activities and their linguistic realisation/expression/counterparts
• NAMING
• DESCRIBING
• NARRATING
• EXPLAINING
• ARGUING
• EVALUATING
• NEGOTIATING
Plus(?): EXPLORING/DISCOVERING, COMPREHENDING, REFLECTING
(Problem: these are partly or largely not observable in verbal behaviour)
Discourse genres use these macro functions and the many micro functions
below them (like contrast, define, hypothesise, infer, interpret ect.) for
comprehension, production and interaction processes selectively
Some discourse genres rely dominantly on 1 or 2 DF, but never exclusively
WE SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING LINK: Linguistic activities in LS could be
related to language demands in LIS largely via discourse genres and
discourse functions: this would catch the cognitive challenges in both!
8
Macro- and Micro-Functions related to one another
NAME
EXPL
ARGU
NARR
DESC
EVAL
NEGO NON-
COGN
2
Abstract
2
Analyze
19
1
12
Assess
4
Balance
1
changing
perspectives
2
8
Check
Classify
14
1
15
1
Communicate
Compare
2
2
9
READING
LS: Show understanding of both surface and deep meanings in response to a
range of texts (including fiction, non-fiction, linear and non-linear texts,
media texts) and make appropriate inferences
LIS: 1. Recall, analyse, interpret, apply and question scientific information or
ideas
2. restructure information for a particular purpose, e.g. extract key points
from a science text to produce notes; convert information found on the web
into an information leaflet (for use in a doctor’s surgery or in his/her office
for patients)
Possible operations:
to recall, identify, extract DISCOURSE FUNCTION: Naming, Narrating
to present
DISCOURSE FUNCTION: Describing, Evaluating
to summarise
DISCOURSE FUNCTION: Describing
to relate, to interpret
DISCOURSE FUNCTION: Explaining
to review, question
DISCOURSE FUNCTION: Evaluating?
…
(either orally or in writing)
Themes? Domain specific knowledge?
TASKS: Interpret a diagram on the demographical development of.. OR Identify
topic-related and relevant pieces of information (from one or two different
sources ↔ Read one of the children‘s book and present it to the class
10
SPEAKING (and Listening)
LS: Speak and listen in a wide range of contexts, including formal situations,
where students can adapt their approach to engage an audience
LIS: Describe, illustrate and explain chemical facts (like types of substances +
reactions)
Possible operations:
to describe, illustrate
DISCOURSE FUNCTION: Describing, Explaining
to explain
DISCOURSE FUNCTION: Explaining
to argue
DISCOURSE FUNCTION: Arguing
to comment
DISCOURSE FUNCTION: Evaluating
to discuss
DISCOURSE FUNCTION: Negotiating
…
Themes? Domain specific knowledge?
TASKS: „Mobile phones should be allowed in class. Try to persuade your
headmaster.“ ↔ „Explain the importance of the tropical rain forest“ OR
„Describe forms and functions of storage and transmission of genetic
information“
11
WRITING
LS: write different types of texts (including stories, letters and factual prose) to
convey meaning appropriately for the context and purpose
LIS: Being able to express oneself in writing OR Write reports (under
guidance/autonomously/as a longer piece of work in appropriate terms)
Possible operations:
to narrate
DISCOURSE FUNCTION: describing, narrating
to report
DISCOURSE FUNCTION: describing, explaining…
to describe
DISCOURSE FUNCTION: describing
to comment
DISCOURSE FUNCTION: evaluating
…
Themes? Domain specific knowledge?
TASKS: Describe the way from school to the local museum ↔ Describe an
experiment in physics OR Describe and evaluate the effects of human
interference into an ecological system
12
Writing as Learning
LS: Use writing as a means of thinking and learning, new discoveries + precision
LIS: Analyse interactions with the help of graphs, tables and models
OR Apply idealised representations, schemata, diagrams and symbolic language to
complex biological/chemical/physical issues
Possible operations:
take notes
Relate
Editing
Hypothesise
doing a mindmap
…
key function: learning / re-structuring of knowledge
DISCOURSE FUNCTION: Naming,
DISCOURSE FUNCTION: Describing, Explaining
DISCOURSE FUNCTION: Discover, Reflect
DISCOURSE FUNCTION: Explaining
DISCOURSE FUNCTION:
MEDIATE (between diff. represent. of meaning)
…
Themes? Domain specific knowledge?
TASKS: Write down OR make a drawing how you see things related ↔ Reflect about
the correctness, completeness and usefulness of textual and graphical information
13
Interaction/Negotiation
LS: Exchange, work in pairs, convince, argue for+against, adapt to...
present information appropriately/in your own words in a range of formats
(poster, powerpoint, formal presentation, discussion),
LIS: Develop an argument and draw conclusions (using scientific,
technical and mathematical language/symbols)
Understand and consider counter-arguments and react to them
appropriately, reflect objections self-critically, support/defend
position(s)/viewpoint(s)
BOTH: Taking a particular role in a discussion/simulation
Communicate and argue in different social forms
Argue correctly and logically in subject-specific trms
Possible Competences/DISCOURSE FUNCTIONS?
ALL DISCOURSE FUNCTIONS PLUS TEAM COMPETENCE/Flexibility
PLEASE COMPLETE YOURSELF AND …/DISCUSS
14
SUMMARY: Relationship between linguistic goals/ requirements in
Language as Subject (LS) and for Language(s) in other Subjects (LIS)
1. The areas of linguistic and communicative activities are the same in LS
and in LIS, namely Reading (comprehension), Listening
(comprehension), Speaking (connected speech), Speaking/Listening
(interactive participation + negotiation), Writing, and possibly
Mediating (“Translating” from everyday life/language to the level of
school subjects/language +vice versa). All realise in discourse genres.
2. LS introduces to and reflects upon a large variety of genres. In
comparison, in LIS the discourse genres are more specific and limited
than in LS. LIS normally takes those discourse types needed “for
granted” and does not want to experiment with them (except maybe
from the point of view of topic-based clarity and communicative effect,
e.g. in argumentations).
3. LS is less structured in terms of a system of mental and/or related
linguistic operations (discourse functions), but in LIS the choice of
verbal operators is also somewhat unsystematic and not clearly related
15
to any system of cognition and/or language functions.
4. In LIS the content is central, realised through mental and
linguistic action, in LS it is the language form or language itself.
However, LS has its own area of domain-specific discourse when
it comes to dealing with language and literature, reflection on
literature and literary analysis.
5. LIS is less interested in varieties of discourse/linguistic form,
as long as the genres used (and offered by LS) are valid,
practical and based on accepted conventions. A reflection on
these varieties is even more unlikely within LIS. BUT: LIS should
contribute to the development of language sensitivity by
reflecting the language used in relation to the content/meaning
expressed + improve it (e.g. through processes of editing).
6. LIS is dependent on the definition, modelling and basic
practices of specific genres within LS. But LIS has to check them
as modules, develop them further and/or specify them for its own
purposes and establish horizontal links by interacting with other
subjects (including LS) over these genres+underlying discourse.
16
7. Both LS and LIS know a broad repertoire of descriptors of language
competencies needed, more general and also more specific ones;
sometimes they are too narrowly broken down (danger of technicality).
We have to discuss which is useful for what and why. All of these
approaches for describing competencies (from global via subcomponents to concrete performance indicators) have their own right.
8. There seems to be a definite lack in using writing/written discourse
within LIS, especially in its epistemological function (“Writing for
thinking and learning”). The written mode cannot be overestimated: it
helps clarify thoughts and ways of expressing them appropriately.
9. LS introduces to and reflects upon the use of strategies for text
comprehension/ reception and text production. Critical reflection within
LIS normally limits itself to issues of content, methods or social
relevance: This is not enough, language-sensitive subject learning and
teaching has to include looking at what the language contributes to
MEANING production, how it supports or veils clarity or fuzziness.
10. Subject teachers are no language teachers nor do they have to strive
17
for it, but they have to become language-sensitive in their teaching.
Perspectives
• Focus so far: How are LS and LIS actually linked? One
possibility offered: by common genres + discourse functions!
• We partly reflected on: How could or should they be linked?
based on values like the right of every student to make use of
and profit sustainably from the curriculum? This will require cooperation among teachers across subjects and a holistic,
whole-school language learning and teaching policy!
• What we did NOT address here is the issue: How can these
links indeed be established and materialised in practical
terms, in the curricula and the institutional realities of school?
What are the obstacles and how can we remove them in the
interest of the learners, and not only the disadvantaged ones?
18