Building a Community of Practic e through Curriculum Integration

Building a Community of Practice through Curriculum

Integration

PAC / FEELTA 2012 in VladivostokKazuyoshi Sato & Paul Crane

Nagoya University of Foreign Studies

Introduction Hinkel (2006) claims that “[in] an age of globalization, pragmatic objectives of language learning place an increased value on integrated and dynamic multiskill instructional models with a focus on meaningful communication and the development of learners’ communicative competence” (p. 113). Although integrating all language skills has been a recent trend in language classrooms rather than focusing on language skills in separate courses, there has been little research as to how skill integration influences student learning.

Introduction

This study reports the results of an integrated English curriculum over one year from a sociocultural perspective. In particular, we focus on how Japanese university students learned from each other and built a learning community.

Outline1. Theoretical background (Yoshi)2. Methods and research questions (Yoshi)3. CBEC (Paul)4. Results (1) Speaking data (Paul) (2) Report and interview data (Yoshi) (3) TOEFL data (Yoshi)5. Findings (Yoshi)6. Conclusion (Yoshi)

Skills IntegrationBrown (2007, p.286)

1. Production and reception are quite simply two sides of the same coin; one cannot split the coin in two.

2. Interaction means sending and receiving messages.

3. Written and spoken language often…bear a relationship to each other; to ignore that relationship is to ignore the richness of language.

4. For literate learners, the interrelationship of written and spoken language is an intrinsically motivating reflection of language and culture and society.

Skills Integration5. By attending primarily to what learners can do with language,

and only secondarily to the forms of language, we invite any or all of the four skills that are relevant into the classroom arena.

6. Often one skill will reinforce another; we learn to speak, for example, in part by modeling what we hear, and we learn to write by examining what we can read.

7. Proponents of the whole language approach… have shown us that in the real world of language use, most of our natural performance involves not only the integration of one or more skills, but connections between language and the way we think and feel and act.

Models of Skills Integration

Brown (2007)

・ Content-based instruction

・ Task-based language teaching

・ Theme-based/topic-based instruction

・ Experiential learning (e.g., projects, field trips, simulations)

Definitions of Task

“[T]asks are always activities where the target language is used by the learner for a communication purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome” (Willis, 1996, p. 23).

“A task is a language-teaching activity where meaning is primary, there is some kind of gap, students are required to use their own linguistic resources, and there is an outcome other than the display of language for its own sake” (Ellis, 2008, p. 981).

TBLT FrameworkPre-task:Introduction of a topic (Impact Issues, Longman, 1998)ListeningConversation strategiesDiscussion questionsTask cycle: Skills integration in four classesRecording in pairsLanguage focus:TranscriptionSelf-evaluationTeacher feedback (Willis, 1996)

Pre-task

Task cycle

Language focus

Theoretical Background

1. Cognitive view on SLA

SLA is a cognitive and individual phenomenon (see Firth & Wagner, 1997; Swain & Deters, 2007).“According to Long (1985, 1996) comprehensible input gained through interactional adjustments such as negotiating meaning and modifying output is central to second language acquisition” (Foster & Ohta, 2005, p. 402).

Theoretical Background2. Sociocultural view on SLA

Learning a language is a social phenomenon (Lantolf, 2000; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Ohta,2000, 2001; Swain, 2000, Swain & Deters, 2007; Vygotsky, 1978; Wells, 1999; Wenger, 1998).

“[L]anguage acquisition is realized through a collaborative process whereby learners appropriate the language of the interaction as their own, for their own purposes, building grammatical, expressive, and cultural competence through this process” (Ohta, 2000, p. 51).

Theoretical Background2-1. Collaborative dialogue

“Collaborative dialogue is dialogue in which speakers are engaged in problem solving and knowledge building” (Swain, 2000, p. 102).

Swain & Lapkin (1998) described how two Grade 8 French immersion students performed a jigsaw task through collaborative dialogue. They solved linguistic problems collaboratively and improved their learning as measured in post-tests.


2-1. Collaborative dialogue

Storch (2002) analyzed the patterns of dyadic interactions as ESL students engaged in various tasks. Storch found that the collaborative dyad indicated more instances of language development than both the dominant/passive and the dominant/dominant dyads.


2-2. Community of Practice

“Community of Practice presents a theory of learning that starts with this assumption: engagement in social practice is the fundamental process by which we learn and so become who we are” (Wenger, 1998, preface).

Research Issues on Task

1. “Virtually no research has demonstrated that the greater comprehensibility achieved through negotiation leads to second language learning” (Swain, 2000, p. 98).

Foster & Ohta (2005) compared the frequency of negotiation for meaning (quantitative data, cognitive view) and peer assistance evidence (qualitative data, sociocultural view). “Interactional processes including negotiation for meaning and various kinds of peer assistance and repair are among the many ways learners gain access to the language being learned” (p. 426)


2. Most studies are experimental and relied on quantitative data or CA. Few studies were conduced in the classrooms by employing classroom observations or interviews (qualitative data).

3. Little longitudinal research was conducted except for Ohta (2001) and Sato & Takahashi (2008).


Sato & Takahashi (2008) conducted a three-year long study in a high school using repeated task-based instruction. Students were engaged in tasks collaboratively and improved both fluency and accuracy.

Moreover, no longitudinal studies were reported at a college level in Japan.

Research Questions

1. How did the students perceive the integrated curriculum and engage in various tasks?

2. How did they develop collaborative dialogue?

3. How did they build a community of practice?

Participants and Teaching Context・ 43 first-year university students (two classes-A&B)

in Department of English Language Teaching, NUFS.

・ For this study, we focused on B class with 21 students.

・ DELT was established in 2008 with an integrated English curriculum called CBEC.

・ There are 7 English classes. Among them, four classes (D&D, IR, AW, PUT) are integrated according to the same topic.

・ Each topic is covered in two weeks.

・ The participants’ average score of TOEFL was 420 in April, 2009.

Data Collection1. Videotaped conversations (12 topics):

No.1, 6, and 12 were evaluated by 3 NETs based on the rubric.

2. Essays (12 topics):No.1, 6, and 12 were evaluated by 3 NETs based on the rubric.

3. Self-evaluation reports (twice, at the end of each semester)

4. Interviews with 6 selected students from B class (January by Sato in Japanese)

5. TOEFL tests (April, January)

Content Based English Curriculum(CBEC)

1st Year Discussion & Debate (Friday)

Intensive Reading (Monday)

Academic Writing (Tuesday)

Power-up Tutorial (Thursday)


1st Year Sample Class Flow (CBEC) p. 4Week 1

Class 1 (Fri.): DD: Ss are introduced to the main topic & vocabulary, practice listening, and discussing the topic.Class 2: (Mon.) IR: Ss read deeply about the main topic utilizing an authentic news article.Class 3: (Tue.) AW: Ss write a paragraph stating their opinion about the main topic “Get Ready 1 - 1st draft”Class 4: (Thur.) PUT: Ss discuss an informal topic and then the main topic in groups of 3 Ss with 1 NS.


Week 2

Class 5: (Fri.): DD: Ss work on basic skills for discussion and debate for the main topic.Class 6: (Mon.) IR: Ss read deeply about the main topic utilizing another authentic news article.Class 7: (Tue.) AW: Ss practice their rhetorical writing skills adding support from outside sources to their “Get Ready 2- 2nd draft”Class 8:(Thur.) PUT: Ss discuss another informal topic and then practice discussing the main topic and then record on video for later review and transcription

6 selected students (B class)

student

Aki Koji Midori Keiko Hiroki Toru

Sex F M F F M M

Level Low-IM IM High-IM High-IM IM Low-IM

3 selected students (B class)Student Aki Koji Midori

Sex F M F

Level Low -IM IM High-IM

Collaboration in student talk Negotiation for meaning (Long 1996)

SLA studies have looked at NfM to see if interactional adjustments occur during communication breakdown.

Comprehension

Clarification

Confirmation

Collaboration in student talk Negotiation for meaning

Comprehension – “Do you understand?”

Confirmation – repetition followed by Y/N, rising intonation

Clarification - diff. b/n confirmation is that there is no presupposition of understanding

Collaboration in student talk Drawbacks of NfM analysis (Foster and

Ohta, 2005)

1. “tedious and face threatening”

2. “typically lexical in nature; not morphosyntactic”

3. “surface structures are ambiguous”

4. Task value evaluation may not be accurate for assessing language learning.

Collaboration in student talkScaffolding/Assistance (Foster and Ohta 2005)

“… feature of learner talk that is claimed to promote L2 development.”

“… learners collaborate to create discourse in the target language...”


1. Co-construction

2. Other/self correction

3. Continuers

Collaboration in student talk

Scaffolding/Assistance (Foster and Ohta 2005)

1. Co-construction – joint creation of an utterance; allows individuals to participate in dialog by building language skills.


2. Other/self correction – Peer or self correction; OIOR, SISR


Scaffolding/Assistance (Foster and Ohta 2005)

3. Continuers – function to express interest, to prompt the speaker to continue and to elaborate


Koji Sample Video 1 – Topic 6 1. (1:09~1:54)2. (4:27~5:15)


Aki Sample Video 2 – Topic 6 1. (3:52~5:17)

Results (Aki)T1 T6 T12 Total

Assistance/Scaffolding4 19 24 47

Co-construction 2 11 13Continuers/Prompting 4 17 13 34

Self correction 0

Results (Aki)Total number of

negotiation moves

Comprehension Confirmation Clarification

T1

T6 3 2 (2)

T12 3 (1) 3 (1)

Results (Koji)

T1 T6 T12 Total

Assistance/Scaffolding10 33 24 67

Co-construction 3 3 6Continuers/Prompting 10 29 20 59

Self correction 1 1

Results (Koji)Total number of

negotiation moves Comprehension

Confirmation Clarification

T1 1

T6 5 (2) 1 (1)

T12 1 8 (3)

Results (Midori)T1 T6 T12 Total

Assistance/Scaffolding 9 16 34 59

Co-construction 1 2 2 5

Continuers/Prompting 7 14 32 53

Self correction 0

Results (Midori)

Total number of negotiation moves

Comprehension Confirmation Clarification

T1 1

T6 1 1

T12 8 (1) 2

Results (Reports)At the end of the 1st semester (July)

・ I was scared of PUT class first because I was poor at speaking. So, I really hated watching the video of my conversation for self-evaluation. However, I learned a lot from my partners because they used good expressions. I underlined those expressions on my transcription and tried to use them actually. Then, gradually, I started to use shadowing and other conversation strategies. I had a feeling of achievement when I could express myself. Then, I thought I would try hard next time (Keiko)

・ I couldn’t keep talking in English and had difficulty telling what I wanted to say at the beginning of the semester. However, once I got used to pair work, I started to use more English by using follow-up questions. (Student A)

・ My conversation was not natural at first. But as I got used to pair work, I started to move into a main topic naturally and talked a lot even after the set time. (Student B)

Results (Reports)

At the end of the 2nd semester (January)

・ I increased the amount of my English use, about 90% in the 2nd semester. I think everyone became used to using English and I felt comfortable. (Student C)

・ Compared to April, I became able to use more conversation strategies such as rejoinders, follow-up questions, clarification questions, and so on. (Hiroki)

・ I thought 4 minutes was too long at the beginning, but 7 minutes was too short toward the end of the school year. (Student D)

Results (Interview)

1. The integrated curriculum was fun (all six students).

・ It was fun. I could listen to different ideas from my classmates. I could change and deepen my ideas through four integrated classes. (Keiko)

・ I could share and compare my ideas with my classmates’. Then, I could come up with my new ideas. That’s why I enjoyed the program and I think it was useful. (Midori)

Results (Interview)

2. The curriculum was different from HS English classes (all six students).

・ There was no pair work in my HS. The teacher mainly talked and checked the answers of the books for university entrance exams. However, it was boring and many students did not listen to the teacher and just did what they wanted to do. (Koji)

・ We have to express our opinions in CBEC; however, we just memorized in HS. (Keiko)

Results (Interview)3. Advantages of CBEC (All six students)

(1) Developing ideas by sharing ideas with classmates (six students)

・ I could develop my ideas through the program. For example, I could learn different ideas from IR and changed my ideas. I sometimes changed my ideas in PUT through listening to others’ ideas. I could choose better ideas by myself. As for “working women,” I had an initial idea that women should continue to work to save money by putting their children to day-care centers. However, someone told me that putting a child to a day-care center costs money. Then, I changed to the idea that women should stay home for one year to raise their babies. (Aki)

Results (Interview)

・ We started with D&D on Friday. Then, I thought the topic was difficult and I didn’t like it. Next we came to understand the topic better in IR on Monday. After that, I could rewrite my opinion better by finding more information in AW on Tuesday. Then, I came to like the topic. Finally, in PUT on Thursday I had chances to listen to others’ ideas and were often impressed by others’. I thought they were clear and found the topic more interesting. (Koji)

・ I could listen to many ideas from different classmates and expressed my ideas in all four classes. Because there were four classes, I could deepen my understanding about each topic. (Keiko)

Results (Interview)

(2) Receiving teachers’ feedback (four students)

・ I could see if my ideas in writing were good or not by actually communicating them in class. Then, I could receive feedback on my errors from the teacher. It was good that I could receive feedback about the same topic. After that, I rewrote my ideas and received feedback again. I really like the system. I also enjoyed listening to others’ opinions. (Hiroki)

Results (Interview)

(3) Using more conversation strategies (three students)

・ I was not good at asking follow-up questions so there were many silences at the beginning. It was a torture. Then, I learned what kinds of questions I should ask through the program and got used to asking follow-up questions. (Koji)

・ I could keep talking by using conversation strategies such as shadowing and follow-up questions compared to April. (Hiroki)

Results (Interview)

(4)Learning vocabulary (two students)

・ I also learned new vocabulary from news articles in IR. Those new words were useful in writing and speaking. (Keiko)

・ I came to use new words by encountering them many times. (Koji)

Results (Interview)4. Topics (four students)

・ International marriage and same-sex marriage were difficult because I had never thought about them. I could not find any good reasons and ended up with unclear ideas. (Keiko)

・ I enjoyed talking about women’s place and capital punishment. As for capital punishment, I thought it was the most difficult one. However, I heard many different ideas from my classmates and became interested in it. On the other hand, I had difficulty talking about same-sex marriage because most of the classmates had the same ideas. (Koji)

Results (Interview)5. Recording/Self-evaluation was effective (five students)

・ I could evaluate my ability objectively by watching the video. So it was useful. Also I was glad to see my progress. Through self-evaluation, I could notice my errors and my bad habits. (Hiroki)

・ I hated recording and felt like crying at first because I got stuck and there were many silences. I could not express my ideas and just nodded to my partners. So I didn’t like watching myself in the video. However, I think it was useful because I could set up my next goals. So I think it was useful. (Keiko)

Results (Interview)

6. Progress (Six students)

・ I could improve my English ability. There were many chances to use English in this program. I noticed my progress when I was spoken to by some foreign exchange students. I could communicate with them. (Toru)

・ I could improve my TOEFL score by 80 points. I could communicate with my host family when I visited Boston in summer. (Koji)

Results (Interview)

7. Improvements

・ I wish I could receive feedback earlier. (Aki, Koji, Toru)

・ Unfortunately, many students did not realize the importance of this program. They were still passive. So was I. However, I noticed it when I had a change to explain the program to high school students. Then I became motivated and started to work harder. (Hiroki)

Results (TOEFL)

DELT (43) A (162) B (103)

April (2009) 420 425 398

January (2010) 471 449 423

Findings


(1) Students enjoyed sharing their ideas with classmates and developed their ideas through the integrated curriculum.

(2) Students developed and deepened their understanding about each topic through the integrated curriculum.

(3) Students enjoyed topics which were divided into pros and cons.

Findings


(4) Students appreciated teacher feedback for rewriting.

(5) Students learned new vocabulary words by recycling them through the integrated curriculum.

Findings

2. How did they develop collaborative dialogue?

(1) Students improved their speaking skills through collaborative dialogue.

(2) In particular, teaching communication strategies helped students to demonstrate increased independence (self-regulation) in performing tasks. In other words, students developed “the quality and quantity” of collaborative dialogue (see Swain, Kinnear, & Steinman, 2011) from peer assistance to both peer assistance and negotiation for meaning as they moved from peripheral participants to full participants in tasks.

Findings3. How did they build a community of practice?

(1) At the beginning of the 1st semester, students had difficulty keeping talking in English. Some students were scare of PUT class. As they became used to performing the tasks by utilizing conversation strategies, they started to enjoy sharing their ideas with classmates.

(2) In the second semester, students developed their ideas about challenging topics by learning from each other. In this way, they deepened their understanding about each topic. Swain, Kinnear, & Steinman (2011) claim that “learning involves a gradual and deepening process of participation in a community of practice” (p. 27).

Conclusion

Repeated task engagement through collaborative dialogue helps students to build a community of practice. As a result, they developed a high-level of communication ability.

References

Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed language learning and task-based teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 713-728). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Firth, A. & J. Wagner. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 91-94.

Foster, P., & Ohta, A. S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26, 402-430.

ReferencesLantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.),

Sociocultural Theory & Second Language Learning (pp. 1-26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Long, M. H. (1980). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. UCLA. Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL.

Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam& M. Piernemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77-100). Clevedon. Multilingual matters.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role in the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie, and T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on Language Acquisition: Second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

ReferencesOhta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate

assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51-78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sato, K. & Takahashi, K. (2008). Curriculum revitalization in a Japanese high school: Teacher-teacher and teacher-university collaboration. D. Hayes & J. Sharkey (Eds.), Revitalizing a Curriculum for School-Age Learners (pp. 205-237). Alexandria, VA: TESOL, Inc.

Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of Interaction in ESL Pair Work. Language Learning. 52-1, 119-158.

Swain, M. (2000). The output and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

ReferencesSwain, M., & Deters, P. (2007). New mainstream SLA theory: Expanded and

enriched. Modern Language Journal, 91, 820-836.

Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2011). Sociocultural theory in second language education. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. MA: Harvard University Press.

Wells, G. (1999). Dialogical Enquiry: Toward a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.

Building a Community of Practic e through Curriculum Integration

Documents

Transcript of Building a Community of Practic e through Curriculum Integration