Transcript Subject Literacies and Knowledge Building Helmut Vollmer Seminar „Subject Literacies and Access to Quality Education“ Council of Europe, Language Policy Division 27-28 September 2012

Subject Literacies and
Knowledge Building
Helmut Vollmer
Seminar „Subject Literacies and Access to
Quality Education“
Council of Europe, Language Policy Division
27-28 September 2012
Structure of presentation
1. Relating Content/Knowledge to Language
2. Academic Language Demands in Subject
Teaching and Learning (with examples)
3. Concepts of Scientific/Subject Literacy
4. Components of Language Base for Literacy
5. Curriculum development and planning:
Subject-based Models, Frames across subjects
1. Language constitutes knowledge: it gives content a form
„Language is a system which relates what is being
talked about (content) and the means used to talk
about it (expression).
Linguistic content is inseparable from linguistic
expression. In subject matter learning we overlook the
role of language as a medium of learning and in
language learning we overlook the fact that content
is being communicated.“
Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content.
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Knowledge expresses itself through (written) language. Building knowledge
means forming concepts through mental-linguistic activities.
What is academic language?
What are the requirement of school language?
There are many accounts and descriptions of what the specific features
and requirements of academic language are:
(CALP by Cummins 1979/1981; Vollmer in CoE 2009, 2010; Förmig
2010, 2011, Center for Excellence and Equity in Education 2012)
One possible definition…
“Language that stands in contrast to the everyday informal speech that
students use outside the classroom environment.
Academic language is distinguished from English in other settings on at
least three key levels:
􀁺
the lexical or academic vocabulary level,
the grammatical or syntactic level, and
􀁺
the discourse or organizational level“ (Bailey 2007).
Some Features of the Formal Academic
Language Register in Speaking + Writing
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Exact – genau (use of the appropriate terms, collocations...)
Unambiguous – eindeutig (explaining, defining as much as possible)
Explicit – explizit (stating meanings + relationships clearly)
Complete – vollständig (as to content and arguments)
Depersonalised – entpersonalisiert (no narrative style)
Context-reduced - situations- bzw. kontextreduziert
Distanced, Objective – distanziert, objektiv, generisch
Complex – komplex (no simplifications, degree of certainty)
Structured, cohesive – strukturiert, verknüpft
Coherent – zusammenhängend, zielführend, ganzheitlich
Dispassionate – leidenschaftslos / emotionsfrei
2. Academic Language Demands in
Subject Teaching and Learning
The academic language demands
of secondary-level content standards are not
adequately addressed in content-area instruction
For example…
Science teachers do not typically explain why
and how passive voice is used to express
scientific findings.
Mathematics teachers do not typically teach the
language students will need to explain how
they solved an algebraic equation or use
mathematical models.
Sample analysis passage: LANGUAGE DEMANDS
One of the prevailing scientific
opinions is that there is simply
not
enough evidence to warrant a
conclusion on the issue of global
warming; however, the scientific
community is somewhat divided
since one prominent scientist is
convinced that the world is in a
human-induced warming phase
Academic language features found in the passage
Content-Specific Vocabulary
Example: “global warming” in science
General Academic Vocabulary
Example: „prevailing or “warrant” in language arts, science, social
studies, other content areas
+
Grammatical Structures
Example: long and complex noun/prepositional phrases such as
“a conclusion on the issue of global warming”
+
Academic Language Functions/Discourse Functions
Example: compare/contrast („however“), persuade
Content teachers are often reluctant to deal with the
language of their subject (as part of the subject)
In the classrooms it was found that teachers were
increasingly reluctant to take responsibility for
nurturing the [English] language as an integral part of
their work.
They were frequently poorly trained, demoralized, and
reluctant to do anything more than the basics. “Got a
problem with your language [English]? Not my job, go
and see the language [English] teacher.”
David Marsh “Every Teacher is a Language Teacher” Prácticas en
Educación Bilingüe/Plurilingüe, Prácticas en Educación, 2009
The (limited) READING COMPREHENSION approach
is NOT enough
Students who do not learn to read well will find it almost
impossible to be successful in school. Enhancing reading
comprehension skills is one of the most effective interventions that teachers can undertake since reading affects
every other school activity.
3. Concepts of Subject Literacy
Being competent to read and write in a language
(even that is NOT enough)
Extended definition in PISA 2006 and e.g. Canada
"Scientific literacy is an evolving combination of the
science-related attitudes, skills, and knowledge
students need to develop inquiry, problemsolving, and decision-making abilities, to become
lifelong learners, and to maintain a sense of
wonder about the world around them."
(= focus is on use, application, decision-making,
lifelong learning, readiness, reflection, evaluation
social participation, improvement of life.)
Six aspects of scientific literacy
1. Comprehending/Understanding fully (the
meaning of an utterance, a passage, a text)
2. Communicating + negotiating knowledge
3. Reflecting on the acquisitional process, the
(learning) outcomes and their use
4. Applying knowledge in/to other contexts
5. Participating in the socio-scientific world
6. Transfering generalisable knowl/skills/attitud.
Generalised Subject Literacy
• = the verbally supported and transported
ability to act on all the six levels, in all
aspects of knowledge construction, knowl.
application, transfer and reflection
• = the ability to make full use of a specific
curriculum offered in school
• = the ability to connect content with academic
language use, to develop subject-based
„discourse competence“ (= Bildung)
Many mental-linguistic processes
(involved in subject comprehension+production)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Activating prior knowledge (inside-outside)
Adressing interest/focus+formulating questions
Identifying and naming what is (already) understood
Searching and inferencing the unknown
Integrating the new into existing knowledge
Re-Structuring subject knowledge
Linking new knowledge to other contexts
Reading“ and „Writing“ includes all semiotic meaningmaking processes and
all types of texts/genres
4. Components of a language base for subject-specific
literacy
What do we have to consider when talking about
language in the content classroom?
Language use in classrooms is a blend of different
varieties:
Science
Science
• Basic colloquial language (BCL)
• School Navigational Language
(SNL)
• Essential Academic Language
(EAL)
• Curriculum Content Language
(CCL)
Cp. Bailey & Heritage (2008) - (Scarcella (2008)
Language dimensions involved in
subject literacy
1.Subject-specific content / subject-matter / +subject-specific methods
2. Text types / Genres /Learning materials
3. Academic cognitive-linguistic functions
4. Strategies of textuality/text competence
(forms of coherence and cohesion)
5. Language repertoire/linguistic means
(vocabulary, grammar, spelling, pronunciation)
6. Areas of pedagogical classroom actions / activities
7. Socio-cultural context + 8. Personal factors
Language dimensions involved in describing subject literacy
1. subject-specific content
2. Texts/
semiotic
systems /
Genres
competences
3.
cognitivelinguistic
functions
4. Strategies of textuality / text competence
cohesion – coherence – references – linearity – development of ideas - structure
…
5. Language repertoire / linguistic elements/means
pronunciation
spelling
lexis
correctness
grammar
SUBJECT LITERACY: BASIC LANGUAGE DIMENSIONS
2. Text types / Genres / Semiotics systems of meaning
e.g. Description,Report,Analysis,Summary,Graph,Statistics,Experiment
3. Academic cognitive-linguistic functions / strategies
Naming, defining
Describing, portraying
Reporting, narrating
Explaining, clarifying
Assessing, judging
Arguing, taking (up) a stance
Modelling, simulating
4./5. Strategies + Repertoires: Textual, Sentential, Lexical
e.g. Linking Sentences=Cohesion, Compounding, Conjuctions etc.
Close Relationship between
Thinking + Language
Classify, Define,
Compare, Predict,
Paraphrase, Explain
Evaluate, Argue…
Express in words…
Thinking skills (Logotron 2010)
See sample thinking skills and language (related to Mohan´s 1986 Knowledge
Framework) in: Beckett/Gonzalez/Schwartz 2004: 167f. (NEXT SLIDE)
Ex. Basic cognitive operations+their linguistic expression
analyse
argue
calculate
quote
classify
compare
describe/represent
deduce
define
discriminate
enumerate
explain
illustrate/exemplify
infer
interpret
judge/evaluate/assess
correlate/contrast/match
name
specify
prove
recount
report a discourse
summarise
[...]
These „verbs“ are „operators“, because they tell us what to do mentally+language-wise.
Additional components for lesson
planning
1.Specific subject-matter/content+methods
2. Academic cognitive-linguistic functions
3. Text types / Genres /Learning materials
4. Strategies of textuality (coherence+cohesion)
5. Language repertoire/linguistic means
(vocabulary, grammar, spelling, pronunciation)
6. Areas of pedagogical classroom actions
(requiring specific mental-linguistic activities each)
7. Socio-cultural context+8. Personal factors
GOAL: Bridging the gap between content standards and implicit academic
language requirements
What else do we have to consider when talking
about language in the content classroom?
Dimension 6. Classroom
actions+language use
• Teacher-learner
interaction (monologic –
dialogic instruction –
IRF-cycle)
• learner-learner
interaction (various
types of „talk“)
Science
1.Make
social
„noise“/
Interact
Participate
2.Organise
procedures
- negotiate
meaning
3. Retrieve
information
and acquire
knowledge
4. (Re-)
Structure
mental
concepts
5. Present
questions or
results/
learning
outcomes
6.Evaluate
learning
process/
knowledge
building
On the level of planning a topical unit or lesson:
7. Socio-cultural context + 8. Personal factors
1. subject-specific content
2. Texts/
semiotic
systems /
Genres
3.
cognitivelinguistic
functions
TASKS
TASKS
4. Strategies of textuality / text competence
cohesion – coherence – references – linearity – development of ideas - structure
…
5. Language repertoire / linguistic elements/means
pronunciation
spelling
lexis
grammar
6. Areas of pedagogical classroom actions
5. Curriculum Development:
Ways of using this model
• For the description / development of a general
language frame for subject literacy/literacies
(Norway, NRW: Dimensions 2, 3, 4, 5 needed)
• For validating the frame through individ. subjects
(Dimension 2-5 plus 1 are needed)
• Starting from subject-/domain-specific language
demands (Dim. 1 in connection with 2-5 are needed)
• For planning units of teaching or individual lessons
(Dim. 1, 2-5 plus dimension 6 plus7+8 are needed)
Specification of Exit Competences
SUBJECT LITERACY: GENERAL LIST OF EXIT CRITERIA
Curriculum specifies Subject competences in connection
with Language competences:
- knowledge and mastery of different genres
- mastery of cognitive/language functions,
- availability of textual strategies+linguistic means
•through sets of descriptors (> 90)
•with reference to subject- and language specific indicators
Distinction between different areas of pedagogical action
e.g. classroom interaction, information retrieval and
processing, presenting learning results…,
FRAME / MODEL is offered to curriculum development
groups (e.g. for primary/lower/upper secondary schools) as
a structural grid as well as a pool of resources
SUBJECT LITERACIES AND ACCESS TO QUALITY EDUCATION, STRASBOURG, 27 – 28 SEPTEMBER 2012
Two options for a framework structure
Basic/common
educational
language
objectives
e.g.
LaS, history,
maths, science
e.g.
Norway - NRW
language
requirements of
the indiv. content
classroom
The approach to subject
literacies and common
educational language
objectives across the
curriculum can only be
managed with the help of a
common frame. A two-way
approach seems to be
viable for conceptualising
the architecture of such
frame.
Common/core
educational
language
objectives
language
requirements of
individual content
classrooms
Subject Literacies, Knowledge Building and Participation:
TO QUALITY EDUCATION
FOR ALL
MERCI – THANKS
DANKE!