99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
Teachers’ Interactions with Linguistically Diverse Learners in Primary School Mathematics
Alexandra Louisa Dannenberg, Friederike Heinzel, Elisabeth Rathgeb-Schnierer
University of Kassel, Germany
Presenting Author: Dannenberg, Alexandra Louisa
Studies show that students with the language of instruction as their first language often perform better in mathematics than students with a different first language (Kasper et al., 2020; OECD, 2016). Compared to other countries, Germany shows the highest difference between these two groups’ mathematics achievement (Meyer, Prediger, César, & Norén, 2021). However, everyday language skills in the language of instruction do not suffice for academic success (Cummins, 2001).
Language has different functions in mathematics classrooms. On the one hand, classroom interaction as well as learning assessment take place through language (Durkin & Shire, 1991). On the other hand, language is a vehicle for developing mathematical knowledge (Prediger, 2017). Therefore, language can become an obstacle for students regarding understanding and solving tasks, as well as developing procedural and conceptual knowledge. The mentioned obstacles are relevant for students’ mathematics achievement, which makes it necessary to investigate linguistic difficulties during mathematical learning processes (Prediger, Wilhelm, Büchter, Gürsoy, & Benholz, 2015).
Pöhler and Prediger (2015) distinguish lexical means, which are important for establishing a conceptual understanding: Technical terms and phrases can be located on the word level, while “meaning-related vocabulary” (Pöhler & Prediger, 2015, p. 1701) contains all lexical means necessary to explain the meaning of technical terms and therefore also includes grammatical elements. Thus, the meaning-related vocabulary goes beyond the word level and can be considered on the sentence level.
On the discourse level, students must be able to follow and participate in discursive practices. Explaining and arguing are the most common and the most important discursive genres for the construction of conceptual understanding of mathematics (Erath, 2021). Despite these high requirements on different language levels, language support in mathematics classrooms predominantly addresses the word level. This indicates that linguistic competences on the sentence and discourse level in the language of instruction are implicitly expected. At the same time, linguistic skills on all levels are distributed unequally among students, so these expectations often disadvantage students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and those with other first languages (Prediger, 2017). However, it is important to mention that the cited studies refer to secondary mathematics education and so far, the question of whether these findings also apply to elementary mathematics education remains unanswered.
In addition, learners' first languages play an important role in promoting their conceptual understanding (Ellerton & Clarkson, 1996). Even though it is particularly difficult in classrooms comprised of speakers of several different languages, as it is the case in Germany, Meyer et al. (2021) suggest various measures to foster first languages in mathematics teaching. Other studies criticize the lack of acceptance of multilingualism in the classroom (Baur & Küchler-Hendricks, 2021). Overall, an insufficient support in the language of instruction and a lacking integration of other languages could create a difference between speakers of the language of instruction and speakers of other languages. This difference would reproduce the social power relationship between speakers of the majority language and speakers of minority languages (Cummins, 2001).
The presented project therefore investigates the main research question:
How do teachers interact with linguistically diverse learners in elementary school mathematics and how is difference produced in the process?
This research question can be broken down into smaller research questions as follows:
- How do teachers in elementary school mathematics use technical terms and how do students adapt it?
- At which levels do language obstacles occur in elementary school mathematics classrooms and what practices of dealing with these barriers are evident?
- How are learners’ first languages included in elementary school mathematics instruction?
- How are language hierarchies visible in elementary school mathematics classrooms?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study employs participant observation as a method of ethnography, which is often used to analyze social power relations. Ethnography allows for repeated observations of similar situations, making implicit things more apparent, which often plays an important role in creating differences and commonality (Fritzsche & Tervooren, 2012).
Data is collected in three different schools and in one classroom at each school. First, a private school was selected, where students mostly come from socioeconomically privileged families and where two different languages of instruction, namely German and English, are used. Since it is an international school, students come from a variety of countries and show varying language abilities in both English, and German. In contrast, the second school is located in a socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhood, where the percentage of population with immigrant background is high and there are many different first languages. The student profile of the third school is socioeconomically average in comparison to the other two schools and it is attended by fewer students with a first language other than the language of instruction.
Participant observation will be conducted in two phases in each of the three schools. In total approximately eight weeks of observation of mathematics instruction will take place at each school: The first phase lasts approximately five weeks, and the second phase approximately three weeks. Between the two phases, an initial evaluation will be conducted in order to take the results into account in the second phase of observation. The observational protocols will be analyzed with open coding and further analysis steps of Grounded Theory. The objective of this analysis is to develop a category system that can be used to answer the research questions. Furthermore, it is planned to use data from the INTERFACH video study, for which 60-minute mathematics lessons from 25 different teachers are videotaped. The video study also includes a class from at least one of the schools, where I conducted preliminary classroom observations. This final step is to examine whether the results can be replicated in other classes and schools, using the developed category system.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsSince the study is still in the phase of data collection, the following descriptions are preliminary results of a first analysis.
In the lessons observed so far, situations repeatedly arose in which linguistic obstacles caused mathematical difficulties for certain students. How the teachers dealt with these barriers varied: Teachers often made explanations in the language of instruction, which were supported by gestures, illustrations, and representations. In some cases, other students were asked, or devices were used to translate tasks into other languages. It remains to be determined, which of these responses can be described as practices of dealing with linguistic obstacles.
Furthermore, teachers repeatedly discussed technical language usage on the word level. However, no statement can be made, yet, about language support on the sentence or on the discourse level.
First language usage and its integration into mathematics lessons differed between the classrooms. In the private school, the students themselves used other languages in extracurricular conversations. However, in the school attended by learners with intermediate socioeconomic status, a first language was actively included by the teacher in mathematical conversations. This language is shared by several students who started learning the language of instruction only very recently. In both schools, however, it can be assumed that many other first languages are not used at all.
In the third school, only very few observations have taken place so far. Therefore, no conclusions can be made about the practices yet. The first phase of observation will be completed in all schools by the end of March and the first evaluation of the collected data is planned for April. Depending on the clarity of its results, I plan to focus on one or two of the research questions presented above, in the presentation at the Emerging Researchers’ Conference.
ReferencesBaur, C., & Küchler-Hendricks, A. (2021). "Außer Deutsch darf keine Sprache in diesem Unterricht gesprochen werden" - Sprache und Heterogenität im deutschen Schulsystem. Kölner Online Journal Für Lehrer*innenbildung, 3(1), 70–82.
Cummins, J. (2001). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire (Reprinted.). Bilingual Education & Bilingualism: Vol. 23. Clevedon, Buffalo: Multilingual Matters LTD. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596773
Durkin, K., & Shire, B. (1991). Language in mathematical education: Research and practice. Open University Press.
Ellerton, N. F., & Clarkson, P. C. (1996). Language Factors in Mathematics Teaching and Learning. In International Handbook of Mathematics Education (pp. 987–1033). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1465-0_27
Erath, K. (2021). Enhancing students' language in collective processes of knowldege construction in group work: the case of enlarging figures. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 53, 317–335.
Fritzsche, B., & Tervooren, A. (2012). Doing difference while doing ethnography? Zur Methodologie ethnographischer Untersuchungen von Differenzkategorien. In B. Friebertshäuser, H. Kelle, H. Boller, S. Bollig, C. Huf, A. Langer, . . . S. Richter (Eds.), Feld und Theorie: Herausforderungen erziehungswissenschaftlicher Ethnographie (pp. 25–40). Berlin/Toronto: Budrich Verlag.
Kasper, D., Köller, O., Selter, C., Wendt, H., Schwippert, K., McElvany, N., & Steffensky, M. (2020). TIMSS 2019. Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen von Grundschulkindern in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. Waxmann Verlag. Retrieved from https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/60948 https://doi.org/60948
Meyer, M., Prediger, S., César, M., & Norén, E. (2021). Making use of multiple (non-shared) first languages: state of and need for research and development in the European language context. In R. Barwell, P. Clarkson, A. Halai, M. Kazima, J. Moschkovich, N. Planas, . . . M. V. Ubillús (Eds.), Mathematics Education and Language Diversity: The 21st ICMI Study (pp. 47–66). Springer.
OECD (2016). Pisa 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education. PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en
Pöhler, B., & Prediger, S. (2015). Intertwining Lexical and Conceptual Learning Trajectories - A Design Research Study on Dual Macro-Scaffolding towards Percentages. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(6), 1697–1722. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1497a
Prediger, S. (2017). "Kapital multipliziert durch Faktor halt, kann ich nicht besser erklären" - Sprachschatzarbeit für einen verstehensorientierten Mathematikunterricht. In B. Lütke, I. Petersen, & T. Tajmel (Eds.), DaZ-Forschung. Deutsch als Zweitsprache, Mehrsprachigkeit und Migration: Vol. 8. Fachintegrierte Sprachbildung: Forschung, Theoriebildung und Konzepte für die Unterrichtspraxis (pp. 229–252). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
Prediger, S., Wilhelm, N., Büchter, A., Gürsoy, E., & Benholz, C. (2015). Sprachkompetenz und Mathematikleistung - Empirische Untersuchung sprachlich bedingter Hürden in den Zentralen Prüfungen 10. Journal Für Mathematik-Didaktik, 36(1), 77–104.
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
Plurilingual Literary Writings as Tools to Develop Students´ Creativity and Critical Thinking Skills
Klaudia Kruszynska
Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain
Presenting Author: Kruszynska, Klaudia
In a constantly changing world we are frequently reminded that as educators we need to provide students with opportunities that will encourage them to think creatively and critically in order to find solutions outside the box. There seems to be a consensus among students, parents, teachers, researchers, school administrators and politicians that these skills are essential to do well in the 21st century, however the question how to develop them causes many disagreements among interested parties.
This paper discusses the use of students´ plurilingual repertoires in art-based activities in L2 classroom as a tool to further develop their creative and critical thinking skills. Students´ collaboratively prepared plurilingual literary writings (using students´ linguistic biographies to define the languages) are analysed. The objective of this analysis is to determine if Choi´s (2016) argument that ¨allowing students to use their entire range of linguistic resources, and to mix codes and modes, is a way to encourage creativity¨ can be further supported. By encouraging students to use their plurilingual repertoires in one text, they are asked to find ways to make different languages work together in order to create a coherent message. This promotes creativity which Jones (2010, p. 477) defines as: ¨a matter of finding our way around constrains or limitations placed on us by the discourses within which we operate.¨ For the purpose of this study, I draw on Beyer’s (1985) definition of critical thinking (CT): “critical thinking is the assessing of the authenticity, accuracy and/or worth of knowledge claims and arguments" (p. 271).
Using students´ artistic products created in L2 classroom as data source may allow a deeper understanding of students´ L2 and other languages´ use. According to Barone, Eisner and Barone, arts-based research ¨broadens our conception of the ways in which we come to know¨ (2011, p. 4).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study is formulated as a practitioner´s research: it is conducted by an individual with dual roles of both practitioner and researcher in order to enhance and improve the practice under question (Campbell and Groundwater-Smith 2009; Ergas and Ritter 2020). The data analysis is based on Silbey’s (2021b) adaptation of Grounded Theory, “where the theory is built ostensibly from ground up (relying entirely on the data)”. This approach stems from the compilation of empirical data (observations, the respondents’ words, or documentary evidence) together with the “use of some concepts from the existing literature and theoretical resources as possible codes” (Silbey 2021a, n.p.). According to Tavory and Timmermans (2014), some categories may emerge directly from the data while other categories or concepts may be imported from elsewhere, if they are relevant to what is observed in the data.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThis paper has two goals: to support the use of students´ plurilingualism as a tool to promote their creative and critical thinking skills, and to upkeep the notion that art-based research ¨addresses complex and often subtle interactions and that it provides an image of those interactions in ways that make them noticeable¨ (Barone, Eisner & Baron, 2011, p. 3).
ReferencesBarone, TJ., Eisner, EW., and Barone, TJ. (2011). What Is and What Is Not Arts
Based Rearch?. SAGE Publications, Incorporated, Thousand Oaks.
Beyer, B. K. (1985). Critical thinking: What is it? Social Education, 49(4), 270-76.
Campbell, A. & Groundwater-Smith, S. (2009). Connecting inquiry and professional learning in education: International perspectives and practical solutions. Routledge.
Choi, J. (2016). Creative Criticality in Multilingual Texts. In R.H. Jones & J.C. Richards (eds.). Creativity in Language Teaching. New York & London: Routledge.
Ergas, O, & Ritter, J.K. (2020). Introduction: Why explore self in teaching, teacher education, and practitioner research. In O. Ergas & J. K. Ritter (Eds.), Exploring self. Toward expanding teaching, teacher education and practitioner research (pp. 1-16). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Jones, R. (2010). Creativity and discourse. World Englishes, 29(4): 467-480.
Jones, R.H. & J.C. Richards. (2016). Creativity and Language Teaching. In R.H. Jones & J.C. Richards (eds.). Creativity in Language Teaching. New York & London: Routledge.
Silbey, S. (2021a). Qualitative research methods: conversational interviewing. edX MITx 21A.819.1x online course: www.edx.org
Silbey, S. (2021b). Qualitative research methods: data coding and analysis. edX MITx 21A.819.2x online course: www.edx.org
Tavory I., & S. Timmermans (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. University of Chicago Press.
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
A Historical Panorama of Literature Teaching - Results from a Systematic Literature Review
Andressa Jove Godoy1,2, Amélia Lopes1,2
1University of Porto (FPCEUP); 2Centre for Research and Intervention in Education (CIIE)
Presenting Author: Jove Godoy, Andressa
Studies on Literature teaching (Candido, 1995; Cosson, 2018; Freire, 1921; Leahy-Dios, 2004; Paulino, 2010; Paulino & Cosson, 2009; Segabinazi, 2011; Zilberman, 2009) argue that the development of literary literacy enables to constituting critical readers, capable of reflecting on the dichotomies between the real world and those that are fabled to them, building, in this process, their identity. Despite this, other studies (Cosson, 2020; Duarte, 2013; Witte & Sâmihaian, 2013) demonstrate that the school approach to Literature has its statutes, autonomy, and appreciation frequently revised, motivated by didactic-methodological tensions related to the place of Literature in the school and socio-political interests, which cause changes in the conceptions and practices of teaching Literature.
The different approaches, tensions, and interests that have motivated the development of Literature teaching over time have also modified the value and the definition of Literature; the purpose of its teaching; the contents taught; the adopted methodologies; the roles played by teachers and students; the criteria for selecting texts; the teaching materials, the activities, and the assessment (Cosson, 2020). By identifying and studying these aspects, Cosson (2020) defined the paradigms that have influenced Literature teaching in the Brazilian context. Considering similar topics, Witte and Sâmihaian (2013) identified points of agreement and disagreement between the Literature curricula of six European countries, and Duarte (2013) investigated the similarities and contradictions between the paradigmatic conceptions of teachers, regulatory discourses, and academics on the Literature teaching in Portugal.
Considering the mentioned studies, the relevance of literary literacy development in the citizens' formation, and the role of the school as the central agent of its promotion and democratization (Lajolo, 1983, 1988), we believe that it is crucial to understand how the Literature teaching has evolved over the years. Because of it, in this study, we intend to characterize an overview of Literature teaching as a curricular subject based on identified teaching trends developed and implemented in the context of first-language teaching in Basic Education. To achieve the objective of this study, we intend to answer the following questions:
- What place has the teaching of Literature occupied in curricula and school practices for Basic Education?
- What objectives have guided the school's teaching of Literature in Basic Education?
- What Literature teaching strategies and practices have been developed and implemented in Basic Education?
- What kind of Literature learning assessment has been developed and implemented in Basic Education?
- What roles have teachers, students, and learning objects played in Literature teaching and learning processes in Basic Education?
- What tensions and interests have likely motivated identified changes in the statutes, autonomy, and appreciation of Literature teaching?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedConsidering the objective of this study, we have been developing a systematic literature review (Boland et al., 2017) that would allow addressing the research questions and, in the end, understanding how Literature teaching has evolved over the years, characterizing its panorama.
We conducted, at first, exploratory searches whose results provided us with bases to define the search terms and limitations. Thus, we identified four expressions that we chose to be the study's search terms: 'literature teaching'; 'teaching of literature'; 'literary education'; 'literature education'. We also set search-limiting parameters to perform more precise searches, considering adding to the corpus articles published in English, Portuguese, and Spanish in indexed journals in Education, Social Sciences, and Language and Literature fields. Considering the aim of identifying Literature teaching trends over the years, we did not circumscribe the searches by time. In addition to the research limitations, we defined the corpus selection by inclusion and exclusion criteria elaborated based on the objective of this study and aided by the results of the exploratory searches. In this way, we included articles that address a time overview analysis of Literature teaching as a curriculum subject taught in first-language classes at Basic Education levels of regular schools.
Then, in January 2023, we searched for records published until December 2022 that mentioned the defined search terms in the Scopus and Web of Science databases' title, abstract, and keywords fields. After excluding duplicates, the search yielded 958 records, from which we had to discard 28 because they did not have a digital version available. After that, with 930 records, we fully read the titles, abstracts, and keywords. We removed 139 texts flagged in searches for textually mentioning the search terms because they did not address them as the research object of the studies they portrayed. In a second moment, we scanned 971 articles, applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria and obtaining a corpus of 43 records. At the time of submission of this proposal, we are reading and categorizing them using the thematic content analysis method (Cohen et al., 2018).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThrough the study conducted so far, we could characterize the corpus metadata. Its analysis demonstrated the growing relevance of research topics related to Literature teaching overviews since the corpus, formed from texts published since the late 1970s, consists of approximately 70% of articles from the last ten years (2012-2022), in which the year 2019 stands out, in which six were published. Through these preliminary analyses, it was also possible to verify that researchers from seventeen countries of different continents worldwide have been addressing the topics of interest to this study, from which we can highlight Brazil and Spain, with 8 and 10 productions, respectively. We believe the diversity of the article's origin that constitutes the corpus will enable a more plural understanding of Literature teaching.
Lastly, we expect that the outcomes of the reading and analysis of the corpus (phase currently in progress) will make it possible to identify Literature teaching trends over the years and, hence, characterize its panorama. In addition to a greater understanding of the Literature teaching history, we hope that this study will also aid the construction of the theoretical framework for the data collection and analysis processes of the doctoral project of which it is part, whose main objective is to identify and to characterize the paradigms that have guided the teaching of Literature in Basic Education by analyzing the life histories of teachers who have worked in this area.
ReferencesBoland, A.; Cherry, G. & Dickson, R. (2017). Doing a Systematic Review - A Student′s Guide. SAGE.
Candido, A. (1995) Vários escritos. Duas Cidades.
Cohen, L.; Manion, L.; Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods education, 7ª ed. Routledge Falmer.
Cosson, R. (2018). Letramento literário: teoria e prática. 2a ed. Contexto.
Cosson, R. (2020). Paradigmas do ensino da literatura. Contexto.
Duarte, R. dos S. (2013). Ensino da Literatura: Nós e Laços [Tese de doutoramento] Universidade do Minho.
Freire, P. (1921). A Importância do Ato de Ler: em três artigos que se completam. Autores Associados.
Lajolo, M. (1983). O que é literatura. (3a ed.) Brasiliense.
Lajolo, M. (1988). A leitura e o ensino da literatura. Contexto.
Leahy-Dios, C. (2004). Educação literária como metáfora social: desvios e rumos. 2a ed. Martim Fontes.
Paulino, G. & Cosson, R. (2009). Letramento literário: para viver a literatura dentro e fora da escola. In: Zilberman, R. & Rösing T. M. K. (org.). Escola e leitura: velha crise, novas alternativas (pp. 61-79) Global.
Paulino, G. (2010). Das leituras ao letramento literário: 1979-1999. BFaE/UFMG e EDUFPEL.
Segabinazi, D. M. (2011). Educação literária e a formação docente: encontros e desencontros do ensino de literatura na escola e na Universidade do Século XXI. [Tese de Doutorado]. Universidade Federal da Paraíba.
Witte, T. & Sâmihaian, F. (2013). Is Europe open to a student-oriented framework for Literature? A comparative analysis of the formal literature curriculum in six European countries. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, vol.13, pp. 1-22. doi:10.17239/L1ESLL-2013.01.02
Zilberman, R. A. (2009) escola e a leitura de literatura. In: Zilberman, R. & Rösing T. M. K. (org.). Escola e leitura: velha crise, novas alternativas (pp. 17-39) Global.
|
