An Electronic Magazine by Omar Villarreal and Marina Kirac
Year
6
Number 141
6700
SHARERS
are reading this issue of SHARE this week
__________________________________________________________
Thousands of
candles can be lighted from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not
be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being
SHARED
__________________________________________________________
Dear
SHARERS,
This might
probably have been for some of us our first week at work after our summer recess
and the coming week will certainly be the first week at school for most of our
SHARERS who will be busy with planning, exams and staff meetings. We hope (as we
do every year) that this will be the best year of our teaching careers and this
renewed enthusiasm after our well deserved holidays keeps us going year after
year. I am fully convinced that this desire of constant improvement is at the
heart of every true teacher. We, Argentinian teachers, know how hard teaching is
in the present circumstances but we have also learnt how to struggle hard and
survive!
Both Omar and I
hope to be by your side all this year (and if possible more frequently) as in
these past five happy years of SHARE.
Lets stick
together and make this a bright 2005 with great and modest achievements but with
the intimate conviction that we never really stop trying
hard.
Love
Omar and Marina
______________________________________________________________________
In SHARE
141
1.-
The Question of Language Use in Task Based Learning (Part
2)
2.- Constructivist Learning.
3.- Weird!
4.- II Forum
on Educating for Peace.
5.- Dcimas Jornadas de Enseanza de Lenguas
Extranjeras en Nivel Superior.
6.- Start the
2005 School Year on the right foot.
7.- CAECE
Open Day for Teachers of English.
8.-
Forthcoming Events in
9.- Positions
Vacant.
10.- Online
Courses for Teachers and Translators.
11.-
12.- Use it or Lose it.
13.- On The
Road: Previews 2005.
14.- High School Magazine Online.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.- THE QUESTION OF
LANGUAGE USE IN TASK BASED LEARNING (PART 2)
The following is the second part of the article by Lynne Cameron that we started publishing in SHARE 139.
The Complex Dynamics of Language Use on
Tasks
Lynne
Cameron
2000
Part
2
Analysis of the
complex dynamics of the task and language use
Analysing
complex dynamic systems
The analysis of
the talk on task as interacting complex systems follows the operationalisation
of complex systems principles established in empirical work on children learning
to reach and grasp, and learning to walk (Thelen & Smith, 1994). Thelen and Smith (T & S) discuss
extension of their methods and tools to cognition, memory and some aspects of
first language acquisition, but the analysis developed below is my own
application of their work.
Clearly, learning to use a foreign language (FL) is different from
learning to reach and grasp, but the two processes are similar in some key
respects. Firstly, neither relies on some innate component or a single cause.
They both require the interaction of many different components and processes in
specific contexts: in learning to reach, a child must co-ordinate vision, muscle
control and arm stiffness; in learning an FL, a student must co-ordinate memory,
pronunciation skills, knowledge of form and discourse skills. Secondly, they both require individual,
on-line, adaptive responses because of different intrinsic dynamics: in
reaching, different children face different problems, depending on their
agility, muscle:weight ratio etc; in FL learning, different students come with
different levels of skill, different personalities etc. On the basis of the similarities, I
apply the ideas developed by T & S to the sample of classroom
data.
An
exploratory analysis
A full analysis
in a complex systems description framework will require data collected at
frequent intervals over a period sufficient to capture the changes under
investigation. The empirical work
in this section is not such an analysis but is a preliminary, exploratory
application of ideas to classroom language learning data, carried out to assess
the viability and usefulness of the framework.
Interacting timescales
Dynamical
principles (in line with Vygotskyan methodology) require the collection of data
over several interacting timescales, particularly the microgenetic and
ontogenetic. The same complex dynamic principles are expected to apply on each
timescale, with changes at one level giving rise to changes at
another.
In T
& S's motor development studies, the timescales were in terms of (a)
minutes, during which children attempted to reach objects, and (b) months, over
which muscles and control developed. In studying classroom language learning,
three interacting timescales will typically be relevant: (a) microgenetic:
language use on a task (minutes), (b) repeated use of a task (tens of minutes),
and (c) ontogenetic: language learning as change in resources over weeks, months
(and years). The data used here
only captures the first two timescales, of use on a task and repetitions of the
task.
Variables and parameters
In order to
describe the trajectory of a complex system at a particular timescale, it is
necessary to identify its collective variable(s). A collective variable
in a complex system condenses the degrees of freedom of the system and acts as a
dependent measure of change in the system (Thelen & Smith 1994, p.251). For reaching, control of hand speed
served to index overall reaching, and so hand speed served as a collective
variable (T & S 1994, p. 272).
The trajectory and phase shifts of the system through its state space are
graphically represented by the successive values of the collective
variable. Empirical work is needed
to establish what can act as the collective variable, which is then
quantified. At the microgenetic
level of language use on task, tools from discourse analysis and conversation
analysis were used to reveal collaborative patterns of interaction (Edwards,
1997). At the next level up,
attention was paid to outcomes and output.
Time
scales are interrelated by the relation between collective variables and
control parameter. Within a particular time scale, the control parameter
is a fixed constant that affects the system, but is not affected by it. However,
if control parameters change, this can lead to a transition in the complex
system at a longer time scale. Variation in a system's behaviour around
transition points can indicate potential control parameters through
co-occurrence, and they can then be tested by manipulating them and monitoring
the impact on the system. In motor development, children's regulation of arm stiffness
proved to be a control parameter in the development of reaching (T & S 1994,
p.267). The search for control
parameters that link language use with language learning would be central to an
applied linguistics application of CST.
Application
to the classroom data
Distinguishing task-as-plan from
task-as-action
What is
immediately clear from inspection of the four stretches of talk is that the task
as originally set by the teacher changes as the interaction proceeds. Although
initially asked to "tell us a little about" the animal, the talk became a series
of teacher elicitations, usually in the form of questions, that students
answered, often with minimal responses, i.e. very short or single word
responses. The choice of animals made by later students may have been affected
by listening to the struggles of earlier students. Likewise, the teacher did not
interact in exactly similar ways with each student. The task evolved or changed
dynamically from its plan to its implementation.
A
first step in a dynamic analysis is therefore to separate the task as planned
from what actually happens when individuals work on the task. Coughlan and Duff
(1994) made a similar distinction between task and activity. I prefer to use the terms
task-as-plan (similar to Breen's task as workplan, 1989), and
task-as-action. The task-as-plan is what the teacher designs or plans, at
or before the start of the activity; task-as-action is what actually happens in
the classroom when individual participants interact. Whereas the task-as-plan is
fixed at the point the activity begins, the task-in-action is dynamic. The
distinction allows us to see each instantiation of a task-as-plan as a discrete
task-as-action, and, in the data used here, there are four tasks-as-action. The task-as-plan in this data is assumed
to be the production of an oral description; further data, such as teacher's
lesson plan or interview data, would be needed to confirm this, but for my
purposes here, this is not necessary.
The collection of task-as-plan and instantiated tasks-as-action can be
seen as the "task".
Describing the dynamics of language resources in use
In each
task-as-action, a student and the teacher used their language resources in
collaborative discourse to talk about a particular animal. A microgenetic analysis of this language
use suggested an appropriate collective variable.
Appendix A shows the four tasks-as-action set out in columns, with the
teacher talk next to the students.
The collaborative discourse mostly takes the form of teacher elicitations
followed by student responses. For students A, B and C, very open teacher
questions that received no verbal response were narrowed down to more closed
questions, which elicited minimal responses of words or phrases. The trajectory
of language use can be characterised as a collaborative reduction of task
demands, from the planned extended talk to simple question-answer sequences.[i] The exchange with student E showed a
different trajectory, with an opening up of the interaction between student and
teacher.
To
capture the collaborative reduction of extended talk to question-answer, I
propose to use the Elicitation-Response Gradient as a collective variable
for this language learning event.
Elicitation-Response Gradient quantifies differences between the scope of
the teacher's question (Elicitation) and that of the student's reply (Response),
and, to do this, needs to cover lexical, grammatical, and ideational content (in
other circumstances, the affective might be more highly relevant).
Table 1 about
here
The range of
teacher elicitations in the data were extracted and ordered in terms of the
demands they placed on the students to understand and to respond with an
appropriate responses (Table 1). Demand was evaluated in terms of the
specificity of the question and the support for the answer provided in the
question. So, for example, a question that included the answer e.g. "is it big
or small?" was deemed less demanding than a question that required the student
to find a lexical item e.g. "it's white and ...?" because the question contained
the lexis needed for the answer. A score was allocated to each elicitation to
indicate its level of demand.
Table 2 about
here
Student
responses were scored in terms of their linguistic complexity, adjusted for
accuracy (using the terms in the sense of Skehan, 1996). Table 2 shows how scores were
calculated: the complexity of a response was first calculated in terms of its
length: single word (or simple formulaic phrase), phrase or clause. Additional
points were given for the introduction of each new lexical item into the
discourse, to reward student initiative in the talk. Accuracy adjustments were
made by removing a point for an inappropriate response, either grammatical
inaccuracy or inappropriate lexical choice. So when Student A responded to the
teacher's question "is it a big or a small animal?" with the response "little one", the
response was give an overall score of 2: 2 points for producing a phrase, 1
point for the new lexical item 1, and 1 point removed because "one" is not
appropriate in talking about the fox as a generic category. Since the Elicitation was scored 3, the
Elicitation-Response gradient for this exchange was 3-2 = 1. For each task-as-action, the pairs of
Elicitations and Responses were scored (see Appendix B)[ii].
Figure 1 about
here
Figure 1 shows
the Elicitations and Response scor JFIF C
$.' ",# (7),01444 '9=82<.342 C 2! !22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 W `"
} !1AQa"q2#BR$3br
%&'()*456789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz
w !1AQaq"2B #3Rbr
$4%&'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz ? (
uw ns I4˱-֤k2sc hO>z7).{K/D$>5b;Y b?w?||Mm | p ZWo#Db-4fQR#JZ'{ ;OmLB] 9 85hVYo.hXu*ϛqN)liETs *9 Կ5%bjmtG 2c ul]`յk %[t9 S5[ԅ`yH'=R}Ao@ Hݙ@f Go
'r\ kB^TdFnOpk v+ܹ+ ΅ I
@:k11OIؚg+>
ǽoA ʹʁJ`{SIHS#AKܴNaf=Yx(ߊϾk_hjQ R CL#iAxKP(=Y^h .UaQ3}l~XTJ|F;N'ZFcsҼQBi $hb*8Ak
Phase shifts in collaborative language use
Aside from the
Elicitation - response pattern, the discourse on each task also includes a
stretch of talk by the teacher, which gives students information about their
animal, linked to their own lives (marked X in the left-hand column of the
extracts in Appendix A). Over the four tasks, this stretch evolves from bare
information (X1) and X2) to stretches (X3 and X4) that are both more story-like
and more personal. Referring to
Figure 1, we can see that, in the first three tasks-as-action, this stretch of
non-interactional talk follows the closing down of the interaction. The
trajectory of language use on each task-as-action shows a shift or transition to
a new phase of information-giving or story-telling monologue from the teacher. The talk on task of student E appeared to
be qualitatively different from that of the other students, and the trajectory
of the teacher-student interaction shows a different pattern. There is still a
move to a stable attractor of matched interaction, but this time it is not
minimal, featuring more complex talk from the student. The monologue from the
teacher (X4) is even more story-like, and occurs in the middle of the
interaction, rather than as a closing move. The trajectory move below zero,
illustrated in the fourth right-hand graph of Figure 1, signifies that the
student is using higher level language than the teacher's elicitation would be
expected to generate. We can explore in more detail how this task-as-action
differed from the first three in terms of the CS construct of phase shifts and
transitions.
The
difference in the language use of student E seems to come from his somewhat
surprising choice of budgie. In choosing to talk about a tropical bird
rather than a polar animal, and, it turns out, his own pet rather than the
generic, student E appears to initiate a shift in the task-as-action. The
interpretation of tasks by learners that take them away from the original plan
has been noted by other researchers into classroom language learning (Breen,
1987; Kumaravadivelu, 1991; Wright, 1987; van Lier, 1988). Student E "subverts" the task in two
ways and at two levels. Subversion
is used here in both its everyday and technical senses. Technically, subversion was
originally used in connection with doing things with talk by Sacks (1992) and is
taken up by Edwards (1997) as an important interactional device whereby the use
of some aspect of discourse carries along with it background assumptions about
actions. For example, children
learn from experience that crying, after falling over say, brings concern and
attention from parents; a subversion of the "crying action" would be a child,
who has not been hurt, crying in order to receive the concern and
attention. Subversion does
not have to be conscious, deliberate or deceptive.
The
first level of subversion in the classroom talk occurs when student E takes
control of the topic, or "topicalizes" (van Lier, 1988), by substituting his pet
budgie for the polar animal required. The teacher collaborates in this shift by
contributing his own budgie story (X4), involving a change in tense to Simple
Past to recount the narrative, and an affective shift from the impersonal of
"arctic animals" to the personal of the dying budgie. The teacher's use of
language in interaction shows this in various ways: shared laughter, use of
evaluating adjectives "terrible",
"strange", and the explicit noticing of possible ambiguity of "where do
budgies come from?" (E4-7). The task has been subverted from the impersonal oral
description to (in a conversation analysis formulation) "doing talking about a
pet".
When
student E chooses not to reply to this question, but instead produces an alternative
piece of information, "it's a little parrot", a second, more local, subversion occurs
and the direction of the interaction changes hands. The teacher responds to the
student: "perhaps it's a little parrot". After the student admits not knowing
the answer to the question: "I don't know where they come from", the teacher
answers it himself, but displaying uncertainty "I think they are from the tropic
zone". There has been a shift in
interactional control with the student's language taking over the
organisation of the conversation in terms of lexis and ideational content. Both
subversions cause shifts in the trajectory of the language use.
The inter-relation of language use and
learning
What does a
complex systems description framework offer around the link between language use
and learning? With this data, not
very much can be said. It is,
however, clear that the inter-relation of language use and language learning
would have to be considered for each student individually, and patterns of
variability and stability in use would be suggestive of learning. Student E's extensive pausing and
attempts to use complicated syntax shows a degree of instability in language
use, suggesting that he was working on the edge of his skills at this
point. Although no stronger claims can be made from this data, this is the type
of evidence, collected over the ontogenetic timescale, that might be used to
claim transitions in language use, i.e. language learning.
The inter-relation of language use and task
The student's
subversion perturbs the dynamics of the task-as-action, changing its nature on
the middle timescale, and its productivity on the microgenetic timescale. It makes task-as-action (4) different
from the three previous instantiations.
The combined system that is the task-as-complex system {=
task-as-plan + tasks-as-action}can
be conceptualised as a three-dimensional task space that brings together
all possible trajectories of tasks-as-action. In this task space, the pattern of the
first three instantiations would be a fixed point attractor for the
task-as-complex system: collaborative reduction of demands to minimal
interaction and teacher monologue.
Student E's topicalization pushes the evolving task-as-complex system in
a new direction, that includes collaborative discourse much more like
non-classroom conversation, with one turn building lexically and grammatically
on previous turns (Carter & McCarthy, 1995; McCarthy, 1988).
Student-initiated shifts in the dynamics of tasks, e.g. through
subversions, and their impact on language use, may be an important starting
point for empirical investigation. Teachers and task designers might focus on
task subversion as offering indications as to how they might improve language
learning tasks, or build in variation and differentiation. Researchers can seek
out shifts, as perturbations to the complex dynamic systems, that generate
interesting data about how the system adapts and evolves as a result.
Control parameter
Analysis of
shifts in a system's trajectory should suggest possible control parameters that
influence the system at a lower level and initiate change at a higher
level. Since the topicalization by
student E seems to lead to transition in the systems here, we might speculate
that some aspects of the topic, participants' alignment to it, and their
language resources around it, combine to act as a control parameter, changes in
which lead to major transitions in the interrelated systems of language use and
task, and perhaps also language learning.
Conclusions
This paper has
aimed to contribute to the drive within classroom second language learning
research to develop principles and methods that take account
of:
the contingencies
of classrooms as contexts for language use and learning
the links between
language learning and language use
the individual
nature of learning through classroom tasks
the dynamic
nature of action and interaction on tasks.
It has done this
through a complex dynamic systems analysis of interaction on a task from an EFL
classroom, and has shown how the messiness and "noise" of the data, when things
go wrong or unexpectedly, can reveal language use, task adaptation, and,
possibly, learning in action. The proto-analysis of the data, albeit descriptive
and relatively simple, and restricted to the microgenetic and task-repetition
timescales, has shown how, in adopting a complex systems description, language
use by individuals on a specific task is centralised in the investigation of how
tasks work and how language learning happens. New tools and concepts from CST have
been combined with those from I-P and socio-cultural frameworks to contribute to
a multi-dimensional analysis. The
construction of analytic categories and variables from the data used familiar
methods from discourse analysis, but the perspective taken was that of complex
dynamic systems.
To
pursue complex systems research into classroom language learning will require
data of the language use of specific individuals in similar types of discourse
collected frequently over a period of months, or longer. As with analysis of changes in the
nature of the task, empirical investigation will centrally look for patterns of
stability and variability in language use that might suggest transition points,
as the trajectory of the individual's language resources move out of a stable
attractor and towards new attractors that represent the emergence of changed
language resources. It is hoped
that this initial exploration of complex systems theory applied to classroom
language use suggests something of the exciting possibilities and future
directions.
Notes
The paper is a
revised version of one given at the Leeds Symposium on Task-Based Learning,
University of Leeds, January 14-15, 1999, and, in a revised form, at the British
Association for Applied Linguistics Annual Meeting, University of Edinburgh,
September 16-18, 1999.
I would like to thank Rob Batstone, David Block, Simon Borg and three anonymous LL reviewers for helpful comments on earlier drafts.
References
Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in
practice.
Batstone, R. 1993. Grammar.
Battram, A. (1998). Navigating complexity.
Block, D. (1999). Who framed
Boyd,
R. (1993). Metaphor and theory change: What is "metaphor" a metaphor for?. In A.
Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 481-532).
Breen, M. (1987). Learner contributions to task design. In C. Candlin
& D. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 23-46) Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall International.
Breen, M. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R.
K. Johnson (Ed.), The
second language curriculum (pp.
187-206).
Btz,
M. (1995). Chaos and complexity: Implications for psychological theory and
practice.
Bygate, M. (1999). Task as context for the framing, reframing and
unframing of language. System,
27, 33-48.
Cameron, L. (1997). The task as unit for teacher development. ELT
Journal, 51, 345-351.
Capra, F. (1997). The web of life.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (1995). Grammar and the spoken language.
Applied Linguistics, 16, 141-158.
Casti, J. (1994). Complexification.
Clark, A. (1997). Being there.
Cohen, J., & Stewart,
Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. (1994). Same task, different activities:
Analysis of a
Coupland, N., & Giles, H. (1988). Communicative accommodation: Recent
developments. Language and Communication, 8,
175-182.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In
J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.),
Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33 - 56).
Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition.
Elman, J. (1995). Language as a dynamical system. In R. Port & T. van
Gelder (Eds.), Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition
(pp. 195-223).
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997).
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning.
Applied Linguistics, 19, 1- 23.
Frawley, W. (1997). Vygotsky and cognitive science.
Goodwin, B. (1997). How the leopard changed its spots: The evolution
of complexity.
Harley, B., & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion
students and its implications for second language teaching. In A. Davies, C.
Criper & A. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291-311).
Johnson, M. (1987). The
body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason.
Kauffman, S. (1993). The Origins of Order.
Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe.
Kirby, S. (1998). Fitness and the selective adaptation of language. In J.
Hurford, M. Studdert-Kennedy & C. Knight (Eds.), Approaches to the
evolution of language (pp. 359-383).
Kowal, M. & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production
tasks to promote students' language awareness. Language Awareness, 3,
73-91.
Kozulin, A. (1990). Vygotsky's psychology.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991). Language learning tasks: Teacher intention and
learner interpretation. ELT Journal, 45, 98-107.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things.
Lantolf, J., & Appel, G.
(Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos / complexity science and second language
acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18, 141-165.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1998). On the scope of
Locke, J. (1993). The child's path to spoken language.
Long,
M. H. (1983). Native speaker / non-native speaker conversation and the
negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4,
126-141.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner
uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
MacWhinney, B. (1998). Models of the emergence of language. Annual
Review of Psychology, 49, 199-227.
McCarthy, M. (1988). Some vocabulary patterns in conversation. In R.
Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds.),
Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 181-200).
McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11,
113-128.
Meara, P. (1997). Towards a new approach to modelling vocabulary
acquisition. In N.Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description,
acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 109-121).
Meara, P. (1999). Simulating recovery from bilingual aphasia.
International Journal of Bilingualism, 3, 45-54.
Mercer, N. (1994). Neo-Vygotskian theory and classroom education. In B.
Stierer & J. Maybin (Eds.), Language, literacy and learning in
educational practice (pp. 92-110). Clevedon,
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge. Clevedon,
Petitot, J. (1995). Morphodynamics and attractor syntax: Constituency in
visual perception and cognitive grammar. In R. Port & T. van Gelder (Eds.),
Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition (pp. 227-282).
Pica,
T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language
acquisition? Conditions, processes and outcomes. Language Learning, 44,
493-527.
Pica,
T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communicative tasks
for second language instruction. In S. Gass & G. Crookes (Eds.), Tasks
and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. ) . Clevedon,
Pinker, S. (1998). How
the mind works.
Port,
R., & van Gelder, T. (Eds.), Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics
of cognition.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking.
Rose,
S. (1993). The Making of Memory.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. 2 volumes (Ed.
G.Jefferson).
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language
learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 17-46.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10,
209-231.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based
instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38-62.
Skehan, P. (1998). Processing perspectives to second language
development, instruction, performance, and assessment. CALR Working Papers in
Applied Linguistics, Vol 5, 70 - 88. Centre for Applied Linguistic Research,
Stewart,
Stewart,
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible
input and comprehensible output in its development. In
Swain, M. (1996). Three functions of output in second language learning.
In G.Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied
linguistics (pp. 245-256).
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language
learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern
Language Journal, 82, 320-337.
Thelen, E., & Smith, L. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the
development of cognition and action.
van
Geert, P. (1995). Growth dynamics in development. In R. Port & T. van Gelder
(Eds.), Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition (pp.
313-338).
van
Geert, P. (1998). Vygotsky, Piaget and beyond.
van Gelder, T., &
Port, R. (1995). It's about time: An overview of the
dynamical approach to cognition. In R. Port & T. van Gelder (Eds.), Mind
as motion (pp. 1-44).
van
Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner.
van
Lier, L. (1997). Observation from an ecological perspective. TESOL
Quarterly, 31, 783 - 786.
Van
Patten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second
language acquisition.
Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied
mind.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language.
Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind.
Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as motion.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning.
Wright, T. (1987). Instructional task and discoursal outcome in the L2
classroom. In C. Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds.) Language learning tasks
(pp. 47-68).
Appendix
A
Transcribed data
Transcription
symbols used in the extracts:
( . )
micro pause
????? indecipherable talk on
tape
(1.0) pause of approx. 1 second,
etc.
an::d extended syllable or
phoneme
?
rising intonation suggesting question
<? 'ski-jump'
question
no talk
======
indicates boundaries of informational / narrative talk from teacher
Task-as-action 1
|
|
Teacher |
Student
A |
|
E1-1 E1-2 E1-3 E1-4 E1-5 E1-6 E1-7 E1-8 E1-9 X1 |
could please tell us a little about ( .
) arctic fox ( . )
what kind of animal is
it? it's a fox ? ( . ) yes it is ( . )
um ( 3.0 ) could you tell us ( . ) describe it ( . )
is it big? or is it small? (1.0)
how does it ( . ) look like?
is it a big ( . ) or a small
animal? a small one ( . ) yes ( . )
rather small ( . ) compared with (1.0) for
instance ( . ) polar bears have you seen an arctic
fox? not ( . ) the real one? ( . ) no (2.0)
do we have ( . ) the arctic ( . ) foxes ( . ) in ( . )
no I don't think so too ( . )
================================== I think you have to go to ( . ) further (
. ) further north to get them (2.0) ================================== |
it's a ( . )
fox little ( . ) and white
little one
no ( . )
on TV
yes I don't think so
|
Task-as-action
2
|
|
Teacher |
Student
B |
|
E2-1 E2-2 E2-3 E2-4 E2-5 E2-6 E2-7 E2-8 X2 |
could you tell us a little about
reindeers? have you seen
reindeers? yes ( . ) how ( . ) do they look
like?
yes ( . ) the colour is white ( . ) and
<? yes yes (1.0) rather big
have you seen
one? where? Salten?
yes ( . )
====================================== but ( . ) I think we have reindeer in
Hameroy yes in fact (1.0) I saw some last ( . ) week ( . )
when I was ( . ) in ( . ) ?????
(2.0) so (1.0) we needn't go to ( . ) Salten to (1.0) see
====================================== |
yes it's ( . ) er ( . ) white ( . ) and (4.0) ????? an:d grey
and they are (3.0) er (1.0)
bigger rather
big yes in (2.0)
Salten yes yes |
Task-as-action
3
|
|
Teacher |
Student
C |
| ||
|
E3-1 E3-2 E3-3 E3-4 E3-5 E3-6 E3-7 E3-8 E3-9 E3-10 E3-11 E3-12 |
P3 (1.0) you have written ( . ) could you
read me please yes bear( . )
could you tell us a little about ( . ) the
bear
have you seen a
bear? you haven't ? (1.0) on TV? ( . )
films? yes ( . ) I think
so how is it? ( . ) is it a small ( . ) or is
it a big animal? yes ( . )
those bears which are living ( . ) in the
north
could you tell us a little about
them?
what do you call those bears?
polar
<? yes ( . ) they're polar bears
how ( . ) how do they look like?
are they very ( . ) big?
and what
colour? yes ( . ) we ( . ) we call it white ( .
)
but they really are ( . ) a a kind of ( .
) yellow (2.0)
but ( . ) they're very
big are they kind animals? (4.0)
or are they
dangerous? |
bear no yes big polar bears
white? yes
ctd |
| ||
|
ctd E3-13 X3 |
yes
what? yes ( . ) dangerous
====================================== they are very dangerous
in fact ( . ) some ( . ) months ago (2.0)
a person were killed ( . ) on Svalbard ( . ) by a polar bear ( . ) two
ladies were out walking ( . ) tourists ( . ) were out walking ( . ) and ( . ) were ( . ) attacked by
( . ) a polar bear ( . ) and one of them
was killed (1.0) so they're ( . ) very dangerous
====================================== |
dangerous | |||
Task-as-action
4
|
|
Teacher |
Student
E |
| ||
|
E4-1 E4-2 E4-3 E4-4 E4-5 E4-6 |
could you describe a
budgie? yes ( . ) she can
what kind of animal ( . ) is
it? yes ( . ) it's a bird ( . )
yes? yes (2.0) do you have a
budgie? and she can talk?
what's her name?
what's her ? ( . )
yes? sorry ( . ) Gia? ( . ) yes
================================== |
er ( . ) she can ( . ) have many
colours it's a
bird and (2.0)
and she ( . ) and she talks a
lot yes yes Gia
Gia
ctd |
| ||
|
ctd X4 E4-7 E4-8 |
we had a budgie ( 1.0 ) er ( . ) some months ago
(1.0) it died laugh suddenly it was dead
made (1.0) a terrible noise
many strange ( . ) sounds ================================= um (1.0) where do budgies come from?
well ( . ) they come from eggs ( . ) that's
ok ( . ) but (1.0) from which
part of (1.0) the (1.0) world do you
think? it's a little parrot
yes ( . ) it's ( . ) perhaps it's like a parrot
(1.0) I'm not very
familiar I think they are ( . ) from ( . ) the
tropic zone |
students laugh
um ( . ) I read (2.0) in a book ( . )
and er ( . ) and it's (2.0)
it say it's ( . ) a little
parrot but I don't know where they come
from | |||
Appendix
B
Elicitation and
Response Scores
Task-as-action
1
|
Elicitation |
Elicitation
score |
Response
Score |
Elicitation-Response Difference
|
|
E1-1 |
8 |
0 |
8 |
|
E1-2 |
7 |
3 |
4 |
|
E1-3 |
8 |
0 |
8 |
|
E1-4 |
3 |
0 |
4 |
|
E1-5 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
|
E1-6 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
E1-7 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
E1-8 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
|
E1-9 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
Task-as-action
2
|
Elicitation |
Elicitation
Score |
Response
Score |
Elicitation-Response Difference
|
|
E2-1 |
8 |
0 |
8 |
|
E2-2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
E2-3 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
|
E2-4 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
|
E2-5 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
|
E2-6 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
E2-7 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
|
E2-8 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
Task-as-action
3
|
Elicitation |
Elicitation
Score |
Response
Score |
Elicitation-Response Difference
|
|
E3-1 |
8 |
0 |
8 |
|
E3-2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
E3-3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
E3-4 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
|
E3-5 |
8 |
0 |
8 |
|
E3-6 |
5 |
0 |
5 |
|
E3-7 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
|
E3-8 |
6 |
0 |
6 |
|
E3-9 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
E3-10 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
|
E3-11 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
E3-12 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
E3-13 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
Task-as-action
4
|
Elicitation |
Elicitation
Score |
Response
Score |
Elicitation-Response Difference
|
|
E4-1 |
8 |
5 |
3 |
|
E4-2 |
7 |
4 |
3 |
|
E4-3 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
|
E4-4 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
E4-5 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
E4-6 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
|
E4-7 |
5 |
13 |
-8 |
|
E4-8 |
5 |
7 |
-2 |
Table 1
Scoring Teacher
Elicitations
|
Type of
elicitation |
Score |
|
open request for a description:
e.g. describe, tell us
about |
8 |
|
more specific description request:
e.g. what kind of animal is
it? |
7 |
|
question about specific aspect:
e.g. how do they look like? how is
it? |
6 |
|
question about specific aspect, with
restricted possibilities for answer: e.g. where do budgies come
from? |
5 |
|
questions about specific aspect, with
restricted possibilities and one word answer:
e.g. what colour is
it? |
4 |
|
requiring completion - 'ski-jump'
question: e.g. white
and...? |
4 |
|
choice of answer given in question:
e.g. is it big or small? are they quiet or
dangerous? |
3 |
|
yes/ no question:
e.g.
is it big? have you seen a fox? do
we have foxes in |
2 |
|
confirmation requests:
e.g. in Salten? on TV?
|
1 |
Table
2
Scoring the
complexity of the students' language
|
Response
|
Score |
|
Single word / two word chunk
e.g. yes, on
TV |
1 |
|
Phrase (more than 1 word, syntactically
linked) / clausal chunk e.g. little and white; I don't think
so |
2 |
|
Clause
|
3 |
|
Lexical item (content word) not previously
used in the interaction |
1 per
word |
|
Inappropriate
response |
-1 |
Example
scorings
E1-6: little one
Score = 2 (2 for phrase + 1 for first
use of lexical item little - 1 for
inappropriate one)
E4-1 : she can have many colours
Score = 5 (3 for clause + 1 for many + 1 for colours - 1 for have)
Lynne Cameron, 2000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.- CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING
Our dear SHARER
Dimitros Thansoulas wants to SHARE this article with all of us:
Constructivist
Learning
by Dimitrios Thansoulas
- 1
Only by wrestling with the conditions of the
problem at hand, seeking and finding his own solution (not in isolation but in
correspondence with the teacher and other pupils) does one
learn.
John
Dewey, How We Think, 1910
As a philosophy of learning, constructivism can
be traced to the eighteenth century and the work of the philosopher Giambattista
Vico, who maintained that humans can understand only what they have themselves
constructed. A great many philosophers and educationalists have worked with
these ideas, but the first major contemporaries to develop a clear idea of what
constructivism consists in were Jean Piaget and John Dewey, to name but a few.
Part of the discussion that ensues grapples with the major tenets of their
philosophies, with a view to shedding light on constructivism and its vital
contribution to learning. As a revealing gloss on this issue, it could be said
that constructivism takes an interdisciplinary perspective, inasmuch as it draws
upon a diversity of psychological, sociological, philosophical, and critical
educational theories. In view of this, constructivism is an overarching theory
that does not intend to demolish but to reconstruct past and present teaching
and learning theories, its concern lying in shedding light on the learner as an
important agent in the learning process, rather than in wresting the power from
the teacher.
Within the constructivist paradigm, the accent
is on the learner rather than the teacher. It is the learner who interacts with
his or her environment and thus gains an understanding of its features and
characteristics. The learner constructs his own conceptualisations and finds his
own solutions to problems, mastering autonomy and independence. According to
constructivism, learning is the result of individual mental construction,
whereby the learner learns by dint of matching new against given information and
establishing meaningful connections, rather than by internalising mere factoids
to be regurgitated later on. In constructivist thinking, learning is inescapably
affected by the context and the beliefs and attitudes of the learner. Here,
learners are given more latitude in becoming effective problem solvers,
identifying and evaluating problems, as well as deciphering ways in which to
transfer their learning to these problems.
If a student is able to perform in a problem
solving situation, a meaningful learning should then occur because he has
constructed an interpretation of how things work using preexisting structures.
This is the theory behind Constructivism. By creating a personal interpretation
of external ideas and experiences, constructivism allows students the ability to
understand how ideas can relate to each other and preexisting knowledge (Janet
Drapikowski, personal communication).
The constructivist classroom presents the
learner with opportunities for "autopoietic" learning (here, I deploy the
meaning of Francisco Varela's term in a context different to the original one)
with a view to helping learners to build on prior knowledge and understand how
to construct new knowledge from authentic experience-certainly a view in keeping
with Rogers' experiential learning (Rogers, 1969, 1994). C. Rogers, one of the
exponents of experiential learning-the tenets of which are inextricably related
to, and congruent with, those of constructivism-made the distinction between
cognitive learning, which he deemed meretricious, and experiential learning,
which he considered significant. For him, the qualities of experiential learning
include:
personal involvement;
learner-initiation;
evaluation
by learner; and
pervasive effects on learner (see the web document:
http://www.educationau.edu.au/archives/cp/04f.htm)
Rogers' humanistic approach to learning is also
conducive to personal change and growth, and can facilitate learning, provided
that
the student participates completely in the learning process and has
control over its nature and direction;
it is primarily based upon direct
confrontation with practical, social, personal or research problems; and,
self-evaluation is the principal method of assessing progress or success.
(ibid.)
Interestingly, contrasting this approach with
the typical behaviourist classroom, where students are merely passive
"receptacles" of information from the teacher and the textbook, is rather
revealing. We will come to that later on in the study. At this juncture, it is
important to briefly discuss the theories of John Dewey, Jean Piaget, and Jerome
Bruner that have certainly influenced our stance toward the nature of learning
and, concomitantly, teaching. For Dewey, knowledge emerges only from situations
in which learners have to draw them out of meaningful experiences (see Democracy
and Education, 1916 and Experience and Education, 1938). Further, these
situations have to be embedded in a social context, such as a classroom, where
students can take part in manipulating materials and, thus, forming a community
of learners who construct their knowledge together. Students cannot learn by
means of rote memorisation; they can only learn by "directed living," whereby
concrete activities are combined with theory. The obvious implication of Dewey's
theory is that students must be engaged in meaningful activities that induce
them to apply the concepts they are trying to learn.
2.-
Piaget's constructivism is premised on his view
of the psychological development of children. Within his theory, the basis of
learning is discovery: 'To understand is to discover, or reconstruct by
rediscovery, and such conditions must be complied with if in the future
individuals are to be formed who are capable of production and creativity and
not simply repetition' (Piaget, 1973). According to Piaget, children go through
stages in which they accept ideas they may later discard as wrong.
Understanding, therefore, is built up step by step through active participation
and involvement. However, applying Piaget's theory is not so straightforward a
task as it may sound.
(see
http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/faculty/psparks/theorists/
501const.htm)
According to Bruner, learning is a social
process, whereby students construct new concepts based on current knowledge. The
student selects information, constructs hypotheses, and makes decisions, with
the aim of integrating new experiences into his existing mental constructs. It
is cognitive structures that provide meaning and organization to experiences and
allow learners to transcend the boundaries of the information given. For him,
learner independence, fostered through encouraging students to discover new
principles of their own accord, lies at the heart of effective education.
Moreover, curriculum should be organized in a spiral manner so that students can
build upon what they have already learned. In short, the principles that
permeate Bruner's theory are the following (see Bruner, 1973):
Instruction
must be commensurate with the experiences that make the student willing and able
to learn (readiness).
Instruction must be structured so that it can be
easily understood by the student (spiral organization).
Instruction
should be designed to facilitate extrapolation (going beyond the information
given).
It could be argued that constructivism
emphasizes the importance of the world knowledge, beliefs, and skills an
individual brings to bear on learning. Viewing the construction of new knowledge
as a combination of prior learning matched against new information, and
readiness to learn, this theory opens up new perspectives, leading individuals
to informed choices about what to accept and how to fit it into their existing
schemata, as well as what to reject. Recapitulating the main principles of
constructivism, we could say that it emphasises learning and not teaching,
encourages learner autonomy and personal involvement in learning, looks to
learners as incumbents of significant roles and as agents exercising will and
purpose, fosters learners' natural curiosity, and also takes account of
learners' affect, in terms of their beliefs, attitudes, and motivation. In
addition, within constructivist theory, context is accorded significance, as it
renders situations and events meaningful and relevant, and provides learners
with the opportunity to construct new knowledge from authentic experience. After
all,
Learning is contextual: we do not learn
isolated facts and theories in some abstract ethereal land of the mind separate
from the rest of our lives: we learn in relationship to what else we know, what
we believe, our prejudices and our fears. On reflection, it becomes clear that
this point is actually a corollary of the idea that learning is active and
social. We cannot divorce our learning from our lives (Hein, 1991, see
www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/constructivistlearning.html.)
What is more, by providing opportunities for
independent thinking, constructivism allows students to take responsibility for
their own learning, by framing questions and then analyzing them. Reaching
beyond simple factual information, learners are induced to establish connections
between ideas and thus to predict, justify, and defend their ideas (adapted from
In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms by Jacqueline
G. Brooks and Martin G. Brooks, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, 1993).
Having expatiated upon the main tenets of
constructivism, let us now content ourselves with juxtaposing constructivism
with other theories, objectivist theories that is, and, more specifically,
contiguity theory. Byrnes (1996) and Arseneau and Rodenburg (1998) contrast
objectivist and constructivist approaches to teaching and learning.
|
Objectivist View |
Constructivist View
|
|
Knowledge exists outside of individuals
and can be transferred from teachers to
students. |
Knowledge has personal meaning. It is
created by individual
students. |
|
Students learn what they hear and what
they read. If a teacher explains abstract concepts well, students will
learn those concepts. |
Learners construct their own knowledge by
looking for meaning and order; they interpret what they hear, read, and
see based on their previous learning and habits. Students who do not have
appropriate backgrounds will be unable to accurately "hear" or "see" what
is before them. |
|
Learning is successful when students can
repeat what was taught. |
Learning is successful when students can
demonstrate conceptual understanding.
|
- 3
Amongst the din of shifting paradigms, a theory
that used to dominate the field but is not well-known is contiguity theory, an
exponent of which is E. Guthrie. The classic experimental paradigm for
contiguity theory is cats learning to escape from a puzzle box (Guthrie &
Horton, 1946). Guthrie used a glass box which allowed him to photograph the
movements of cats. These photographs showed that cats learned to repeat the same
movements associated with the preceding escape from the box. In this vein,
improvement comes about when irrelevant movements are unlearned or not included
in successive associations. Drawing upon behaviouristic principles, contiguity
theory sets out to show that, in order for conditioning to occur, the organism
must actively respond; inasmuch as learning involves the conditioning of
specific behaviours, instruction boils down to presenting very specific tasks;
exposure to variations in stimulus patterns is necessary in order to produce a
generalized response; and the last response in a stimulus-response situation
should be correct since it is this one that will be associated (see http://www.educationau.edu.au/archives/cp/04b.htm).
Within a positivistic tradition, so to speak,
under which come the theories of behaviourism, contiguity theory, and many
others, the learner was, and still is, seen as relatively passive, 'simply
absorbing information transmitted by a didactic teacher' (Long, 2000: 6). In the
universe created by these paradigms, the powerless learner is "worlds apart"
from the omniscient and powerful teacher, whose main concern is to 'deliver a
standard curriculum and to evaluate stable underlying differences between
children' (ibid.). Against this background, the cognitive paradigm of
constructivism has been instrumental in shifting the locus of responsibility for
learning from the teacher to the learner, who is no longer seen as passive or
powerless. The student is viewed as an individual who is active in constructing
new knowledge and understanding, while the teacher is seen as a facilitator
rather than a "dictator" of learning. Yet, despite its "democratic" nature, many
contemporary philosophers and educationalists have tried to demolish or vitiate
some of its principles. Such a discussion is outside the remit of this study, of
course. We will only briefly mention George Hein (1991, see http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/
constructivistlearning.html), who voices some reservations
about constructivist learning.
For Hein, constructivism, although it appears
radical on an everyday level, 'is a position which has been frequently adopted
ever since people began to ponder epistemology' (ibid.). According to him, if we
align ourselves with constructivist theory, which means we are willing to follow
in the footsteps of Dewey, Piaget and Vygotsky, among others, then we have to
run counter to Platonic views of epistemology. We have to recognize that
knowledge is not "out there," independent of the knower, but knowledge is what
we construct for ourselves as we learn. Besides, we have to concede that
learning is not tantamount to understanding the "true" nature of things, nor is
it (as Plato suggested) akin to remembering perfect ideas, 'but rather a
personal and social construction of meaning out of the bewildering array of
sensations which have no order or structure besides the explanationswhich we
fabricate for them' (ibid.).
It goes without saying that learners represent
a rich array of different backgrounds and ways of thinking and feeling. If the
classroom can become a neutral zone where students can exchange their personal
views and critically evaluate those of others, each student can build
understanding based on empirical evidence. We have no intention of positing
methods and techniques for creating a "constructivist classroom." After all,
classrooms are, and should be, amenable and sensitive to a whole lot of
approaches to teaching and learning, and a slavish adherence to the letter
rather than the spirit of education is bound to prove detrimental. It should be
borne in mind that the theory of constructivism, with which we have been
concerned, is not yet another "educational decree." Like philosophy,
constructivism can lead to its own de-construction, in the sense that it forges
the very structures and associations that could possibly demolish it. It is a
meta-theory, in that it fosters a meta-critical awareness. A constructivist
orientation to learning is unique because at its heart lies the individual
learner in toto, rather than dimly perceived "apparitions" of her essence.
Constructivism is a modern version of human anatomy, in the sense that it is
based on, and provides insights into, brain mechanisms, mental structures, and
willingness to learn.
References
Arseneau, R., & Rodenburg, D. (1998). The
Developmental Perspective:
Cultivating Ways of Thinking. In D. D. Pratt
(Ed.). Five Perspectives on Teaching in Adult and Higher Education.
Brooks, G. J. and
Brooks, G. M. (1993). In Search of Understanding: The Case
for
Constructivist Classrooms.
Bruner, J. (1973). Going Beyond the Information
Given.
Byrnes, J. P. (1996).
Cognitive Development and Learning in Instructional
Contexts.
Dewey, John.
(1938). Experience and Education.
Dewey, John. (1966).
Democracy and Education.
Drapikowski, J.
personal communication
Francisco Varela, co-author with Humberto D. Maturana
of Autopoiesis and
Cognition: The Realization of the Living
(1980)
Guthrie, E.R. & Horton, G.P. (1946). Cats in a Puzzle Box.
Hein, G.
(1991).
(http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/constructivist
learning.html).
Long, M. (2000). The
Psychology of Education.
Piaget, Jean.
(1973). To Understand is to Invent.
501const.htm)
Rogers, C.R. (1969). Freedom to
Learn.
Rogers, C.R. &
Freiberg, H.J. (1994). Freedom to Learn (3rd Ed).
Copyright 2000-2002 by Developing
Teachers.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.- WEIRD!
Our dear SHARER Ana Vieyra Urquiza has sent
us this brief but thought-provoking message:
Don't delete
this because it looks weird. Believe it or not you can read it.
Personally I
struggled with a couple of words but it is possible to read this.
I
cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg.
The
phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid.
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde
Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht
oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the
olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit
pclae.
The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a
porbelm.
Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef,
but the
wrod as a wlohe.
Amzanig huh? Yaeh, and I awlyas thought
slpeling was ipmorantt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.- II FORUM ON EDUCATING
FOR PEACE
Our dear SHARER Susan Hilyard has sent us this announcement:
Thinking Peace
II Forum on
Educating for Peace
June 3rd and 4th, 2005.
After the
positive comments received regarding the 2004 Forum, we are organizing a new
gathering for 2005. The 2005 forum is open to all who would like to share,
ask questions, contribute ideas and generally open up the debate on how we can
work together to educate for peace and change.
Proposals are welcomed for
seminars, forums, panels of up to 4 speakers, and workshops on subjects related
to educating for peace in the widest sense.
The Forum may cover topics as:
To submit a proposal, please use the attached
Call for Papers Proposal Form
www.wellspring.com.ar
The deadline for abstracts is February
28th 20054 16 hs.
Criteria
All
abstracts will be reviewed.
Proposals should:
1. Relate clearly to the overall theme
2. Be questioning/
creative/critical in nature
3. Show depth and
breadth of study and research or experience
4. Be clearly
organized and interesting
5. Based on sound
theory ( written papers, read aloud are not accepted)
6. Include a
bibliography
7. Not be
commercial.
Presentations
Presentations will be 90 minutes long (60 minutes presentation plus 30 minutes for
discussion).
As this is a forum it is essential that the topics are
kept open and the discussion period is
respected.
Our aim is to keep this forum quite small and select. We want to set up a forum of
people interested in change from within not superficial marketing programmes
which have no long term, lasting results. The maximum
number of participants will be restricted to 150. There will be a number of
keynote speeches in the auditorium and workshops, both in English and Spanish,
made up of small groups to facilitate dialogue.
Selection Committee
The selection committee is made up of: Mara Susana Obiglio,
M.A., rof.
Elena Cane,
Prof. Ricardo Delgado, Susan Hillyard B.Ed and Prof. Nieves Garcia Querol.
-----------------------------------------------------------
5.- DCIMAS JORNADAS DE
ENSEANZA DE LENGUAS EXTRANJERAS
EN
NIVEL SUPERIOR.
Our dear
SHARER
Marcela Burgos Pawlak,
President of Asociacin Jujea de Profesores de Ingls, has sent us this
information
Circular N 1
El
I.F.D.C. N 4
de Jujuy invita a
participar en las Xas
Jornadas de Enseanza de Lenguas Extranjeras en el Nivel Superior
que se llevarn
a cabo los das 21, 22 y 23 septiembre de 2005, en San Salvador de
Jujuy.
Objetivos
Favorecer el dilogo entre docentes e
investigadores de las diferentes lenguas extranjeras y segundas.
Instrumentar mecanismos y espacios de
intercambio regulares entre dichos agentes.
Crear un espacio de reflexin y debate sobre
polticas lingsticas y sobre formacin de profesionales de las Lenguas
Extranjeras a nivel nacional y regional.
Promover la investigacin en las reas
propuestas.
Propiciar la reflexin sobre un nuevo perfil
de docente-investigador y docente-capacitador inserto en una realidad regional y
nacional cambiante.
Implementar acciones conducentes a mejorar el
posicionamiento de las lenguas extranjeras en el mbito superior y en otros
mbitos.
Promover la articulacin entre los niveles
superiores universitario y no universitario.
Destinatarios: estudiantes, docentes, e
investigadores de lenguas extranjeras y segundas del nivel superior
universitario y no universitario.
Areas
temticas:
Los trabajos tericos y de investigacin se
relacionarn con los siguientes temas:
1. La Formacin
de Formadores:
La didctica de
las lenguas extranjeras y segundas
La
adquisicin-aprendizaje de lenguas extranjeras y segundas
La dimensin
intercultural
Nuevos roles
para los docentes de Lengua Extranjera
2. La Formacin en
otros mbitos:
La enseanza de
Lenguas Extranjeras en la Universidad.
La enseanza de
Lenguas Extranjeras en mbitos no tradicionales.
La problemtica de la
traduccin
La lectocomprensin y
la comprensin aural
3. Foros:
se prevn tres foros
de encuentro y discusin de temticas que hacen a los espacios curriculares, los
contenidos, la acreditacin de los aprendizajes.
Profesorado, Traductorado, Licenciatura,
Tecnicaturas, Posttulos, etc.
Delimitacin de los mbitos, competencias
requeridas, estrategias ms apropiadas, acreditacin de los
aprendizajes.
Polticas
lingsticas, proyectos y acciones conjuntas
Modalidad
Conferencias
plenarias.
Estarn a cargo de especialistas nacionales e
internacionales
Paneles. Estarn conformados por cuatro o cinco
ponencias relacionadas con una de las reas temticas. El tiempo previsto para
cada ponencia ser de 15 minutos con el fin de dar lugar a debates de 30
minutos. Las ponencias no sern ledas y debern ser presentadas en espaol por
su(s) autore(s) nicamente.
Posters. Estarn reservados para la presentacin de
propuestas didcticas y experiencias ulicas
Normas para la
presentacin de trabajos
Ponencias
Tendrn una extensin de 1500 palabras incluidos
los grficos, notas y bibliografa. Se presentarn en lengua espaola en tamao A4, con letra Times New Roman,
cuerpo 12, interlineado sencillo. El ttulo debe ir centrado y con mayscula.
Abajo del ttulo debe consignarse el nombre del/de los autor/es (alineacin
izquierda y en minscula), la dependencia acadmica donde desarrolla/n sus
actividades y la direccin de correo electrnico. Los trabajos de investigacin
debern contener: objetivos, metodologa, corpus y conclusiones. Se especificar la necesidad de
soportes tcnicos y las caractersticas de los mismos.
Las ponencias se presentarn en una copia
impresa acompaada del disquette rotulado con el nombre del autor/es y el ttulo
de la misma. Se solicita asimismo el envo del trabajo por correo electrnico,
en formato RTF que presenta menos riesgos de virus.
Posters
Se presentar una sntesis que ser evaluada por
la Comisin de Lectura.
La sesin de posters ser de 2 horas (dos horas)
en los das y horarios que se fijarn oportunamente. El/los autores deben estar
presentes para responder a preguntas, explicar el contenido,
etc.
Se presentar en un panel de 1.00 x 0.70 metros
que incluya el ttulo, el nombre completo, la institucin de origen de los
participantes y un texto breve con grficos, fotos, dibujos,
etc.
Para facilitar la confeccin del poster se sugiere
el modo de presentacin:
a) Ttulo del Trabajo (Arial negrita
72)
b) Nombres y apellido de los autores. (Arial 48).
c) Departamento
El resto del trabajo puede realizarse en cualquier
tipo de letra siempre que sea legible a un metro de distancia. Incluir: a)
Introduccin b) Objetivos c) Materiales d) Resultados e) Conclusiones f)
Bibliografa (Optativa)
Plazos
Tanto las ponencias completas (1500 palabras) como
la sntesis de los posters se recibirn hasta el 30 de marzo de 2005. El Jurado
se expedir en junio. El objetivo del Comit organizador es entregar las actas
del congreso al inicio del mismo. Les solicitamos por lo
tanto el respeto de los plazos fijados.
Inscripcin
En una segunda circular enviaremos la ficha de
inscripcin, el monto de la misma, y la cuenta a la que deber enviarse el
dinero; los responsables de la recepcin de los trabajos y la conformacin de la
Comisin Acadmica.
Comisin Organizadora I.F.D.C. N 4
(Jujuy)
------------------------------------------------------------
6.- START THE 2005 SCHOOL
YEAR ON THE RIGHT FOOT
Our dear SHARER
Alicia Lopez writes to all of us:
E-teachingonline
announces its third year
on line with
Issue25.
*START THE 2005
SCHOOL YEAR ON THE RIGHT FOOT*
Before the school
year starts off, teachers should take advantage of this magazine on
line awsome warming up material to get ready for the year
ahead.
In Arts&Crafts they give ideas to
decorate classes & bulletin boards.There are plenty of
Back-to-school
songs and Photocopiable Material to welcome students. Teachers will
find fun games to
get to know each other and a good number of first week
activities.
The issue presents
Two Special Sections : Start on the right
foot and
How
to..?
Special Section
1 : START THE 2005 SCHOOL YEAR ON THE RIGHT
FOOT containing:
1. Beginning-of-the-year Teacher
Strategies.
2. Classroom
Management.
3. Getting
Reconnected
4. Behaviour: Establish
Trust.
5. Parent-Teacher
Relations.
6. Room
Management.
7. Tips from Veteran
Teachers.
8. The Ice
Breaker.
9. Top 10 Tips for Student
Teachers.
10.TeacherSelection
Special Section
2
HOW TO.?
1. How to help children read
more.
2. How to choose a course
book.
3. How to get a course off
4. How to plan a course
5. How to create an ESL class
curriculum
6. How to increase specific vocabulary
7. How to prepare a lesson
plan
8. How to substitute
teach
Plus.........Nicholas Nickleby in FILMS,
cool Tips & Hints, James Asher as Guest Writer, Why nobody
reads in Book World and much more!
Check
www.e-teachingonline.com.ar
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7- CAECE OPEN DAY FOR TEACHERS OF
ENGLISH
Our dear SHARER and friend Ana Maria Rozzi de
Bergel wants to invite all SHARERS to a special event at her
University:
Universidad
CAECE
Departamento de
Humanidades
Director: Henri
Bosch
Licenciatura en
Enseanza del Idioma Ingls
Coordinadora: Ana
Mara Rozzi de Bergel
Open Day for Teachers of
English
Saturday, March 12,
At Tte.Gral. J.D. Pern 2933
5217-7878/7888
Some of our 2004-2005 graduates will present
their final projects.
Students, graduates, friends and colleagues
are invited to attend.
Presenters
Group A 9.00 to 11.00
Tutor: Ana Traversa
Graciela Estvez Tearing Down The Wall:
Learner Autonomy in the Language Classroom"
Natalia Beltramino - "A Call for Critical Thinking in the EFL
Class: Means and Ends"
Mara Gabriela Azaa - "Academic Writing in
TEFL Colleges: The Missing Link to Professional Development"
Vernica Pintos - "Are TEFL Colleges in
Presenters
Group B
Tutor: Efran Davis
Mara Rosa Salinardi -"Exploring the teaching
of English in the 2nd Cycle of the E.G.B. in Saladillo"
Laura Peluso - Teaching English in the 3rd
Cycle EGB in Chivilcoy: A Case Study
Silvina Vega -Teaching English to Adults:
the Role of Motivation
Patricia Lo Mastro - "Motivation: EFL at
the early stages of secondary school education"
To confirm your attendance or for further
information, contact arozzi@caece.edu.ar
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8- FORTHCOMING EVENTS IN
MAR DEL PLATA
Our dear SHARER
Jorgelina Carlassare from ELT Team Consultancy has sent us this
invitation:
ELT Team Consultancy opens the school year with
the Back to School 2005
event!
Come attend two interesting
seminars:
Face to face teaching, a
daunting but rewarding task
Face to face teaching, a daunting but
rewarding task will offer insights, practical tips and advice for teachers
involved in face to face teaching. We also welcome teachers who wish to begin
private tutoring.
and
Planning class work though
Project Work
Planning class work though Project Work is a
workshop that aims at giving ideas and some guidance about topic-based syllabus
design. Integrating cross-curricular issues and content-area topics by means of
project works adds variation to the classroom, arises intrinsic motivation and
addresses different learning styles. Lets organize the 2005 school year through
project work! Look into some examples of project work based on the forthcoming
event:
Speakers: Katherine Palubinskas and Jorgelina
Carlassare
Date: February, 25th. (
Venue: Saln Floreal Gorini, Inst. Movilizador de Fondos Cooperativos,
H. Yrigoyen 1549
Free of charge.
Please contribute to the campaign Entregando un til se es til
by bringing new or used school objects which will be donated to a municipal
school.
Registration is essential at: 0223-4712775 or
elteam@copetel.com.ar
Certificates of attendance will be
issued
------------------------------------------------------------
9.- POSITIONS
VACANT
A number of SHARERS want to advertise these openings in their institutions:
CasoC, a leading ESL/ESP teaching consultancy,
is looking for English teachers to teach companies. Joaqun/Lenguas/UTN degree or equivalent
required. Please, e-mail your CV at
recruitment@casocweb.com.ar
Posted by: Jos Maria
----------------------------------------
El ISFD No 1806 CELI, Profesorado de Ingles de
Comodoro Rivadavia www.celisa.com
llama a Convocatoria Docente Ciclo 2005 para los
Espacios presenciales en el Nivel Superior
Expresion Escrita 1 y 2
Problematicas del Lenguaje 1 y
2
(opcion modalidad a distancia: detallar propuestas
y recursos, ejemplo: via email y webcam)
Departamento de Extensin
CAE
First Certificate
Talleres de Writing (opcion presentar propuestas
para modalidad a distancia via email y webcam)
Clases de gramatica (niveles intermedio hasta
avanzado)
Business y Talleres para docentes (detallar
propuestas y antescedentes)
Dedicacion simple, semi o exclusiva
Relacion laboral por 9 meses aproximadamente con
obra social de primer nivel nacional
Preferencia a radicacion en la ciudad
Sueldo a convenir con opcion alojamiento y comidas
para personas solas
Para modalidad a distancia: trabajador autnomo,
honorarios a convenir
Modalidad profesor viajero para residentes dentro
de la zona de influencia
Enviar CV con foto actualizada detallando
propuestas laborales y expectativas economicas celi@speedy.com.ar , celi@academica.com.ar , celi@extension.com.ar , celi@satlink.com
Posted by: Adriana Eugui
__________________________
Brighton English College,
with very
good class management for Polymodal courses
Timetable : Mondays through Fridays from
Please send your CV a.s.a.p.
becollege2@yahoo.com or becollege2@hotmail.com
Posted by: Mabel Raimundo
__________________________________
Posted by: Ana
Kuckiewicz
------------------------------------------------------------
10.- ONLINE
COURSES FOR TEACHERS AND TRANSLATORS
Our dear SHARER
Susana Trabaldo announces Net-Learning forthcoming courses and Diploma course:
NET-LEARNING
Online Courses for Teachers and Translators
All our courses are delivered via the
Internet through the Net-Learning system at www.net-learning.com.ar . Visit our
campus! They are aimed at teachers and translators who want to
improve their professional practice. Face-to-face attendance is not
required. These courses are "attended" from any computer, any where, any
time. They are delivered on-line. See the courses content and
methodology fully described in our web site. Our coming courses
are:
- Literature in the
English class
Tutor:
Prof. Claudia Ferradas Moi
starting February 10 Duration: 6
weeks
- Prepositions and Phrasal Verbs. How to learn
them and how to teach them.
Tutor: Prof.
Aldo Blanco.
starting
February 24 Duration: 6 weeks
Also some
courses in Spanish:
-
Diplomatura
Universitaria en Diseo y Gestin de Proyectos de e-learning y Educacin a
Distancia
con la certificacin de la Universidad Nacional de
San Martn
Inicio: 18 de abril
Please consult our website for more
information:
www.net-learning.com.ar , info@net-learning.com.ar
Phones: (011) 4654 8945 / (011) 4791
6009
------------------------------------------------------------------------