07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper
Metalinguistic Awareness as a Driver for Multilingual Competences and Mulitliterate Indentities
Anja Wildemann
RPTU, Germany
Presenting Author: Wildemann, Anja
Metalinguistic awareness is generally considered a driver for other language skills, such as reading and writing (see Sun & Curdt-Christiansen, 2018; Tunmer & Bowey, 1984). The construct metalinguistic awareness focuses on cognitive and formal-functional aspects of language such as phonology, morphology, syntax, and pragmatics (Gombert, 1992; Karmiloff-Smith et al., 1996). In this context, metalinguistic awareness is definitely understood as a specific feature of language awareness, in which linguistic features are processed in the course of metacognitive processes through language reflection and analysis (Jessner & Allgäuer-Hackl, 2019). According to this view, at least two forms of knowledge about language underlie metalinguistic awareness: 1. the ability to focus attention on formal aspects of language, and 2. the ability to analyze, reflect on, and explain functions of language using metalanguage (Bien-Miller & Wildemann, 2023).
In Germany, metalinguistic awareness has long been studied exclusively in relation to the German language. However, against the background of linguistically heterogeneous classrooms, it is necessary to systematically embed metalinguistic awareness in a multilingual teaching and learning context. In a language-integrative German classroom, teachers draw on students' contact with languages systematically and purposefully for the formation of language competencies. To date, no studies have focused on the effectiveness of such language-integrative (German) instruction on the reflective and analytical skills of monolingual and multilingual students. A connection between linguistic integration, comparative work, and the development of metalinguistic awareness and students’ multilingualism has repeatedly been suggested, but it has not been empirically proven. The studies presented here focus on the question of whether language-integrative German instruction, in which other languages are systematically examined in comparison to the target language German, has a positive effect on language-related reflection and analysis skills, i.e., on the metalinguistic awareness of monolingual and multilingual students.
Both explorative studies, besides metalinguistic awareness, it could be observed how multilingual speakers position themselves as multilingual. This happens in two ways: 1. by positioning themselves as language proficient or language nonproficient within the language community (I only know Russian and German) and 2. by concealing the languages they speak (I only speak German). The findings on students' self-reflexive and self-referential utterances will be presented and discussed for the first time in the presentation. The question will be asked what function language-integrative (German) instruction and metalinguistic awareness can have for the formation of a multiliterate identity. This follows Creese & Blackledge's (2015) notion of identity, whereby identity is modeled as equally complex and hybrid in a world where languages are mobile and complex.
An integration of languages in the classroom should guide children to develop both operational and descriptive knowledge of the linguistic practices of their world and critical awareness of how these practices shape their multiliterate indentity. In this way, children are empowered to critically question social and power structures, as well as their consequences (Fairclough 1992). Language reflection and language comparison can be the first step in becoming aware of linguistic structures and functions. This cognitively shaped examination of languages alone enables monolinguals and multilinguals to gain critical insight into the relationship between language and power (I always thought German was the main thing).
The lecture will involve showcasing elicited meta-linguistic utterances of children, which indicate metalinguistic awareness and, moreover, demonstrate how multilingual learners position themselves in a monolingual power structure.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe studies examined relationships between metalinguistic awareness and language skills (Study 1) and the effects of language-integrative German instruction (Study 2). In an exploratory design, meta-linguistic utterances of elementary school students (Study 1: n = 400, Study 2 N= 400) were elicited (Wildemann et al., 2016, Wildemann & Bien-Miller 2022). To this end, students in tandems watched, read, and listened to a story in five languages on a computer and were prompted to reflect on languages through targeted stimuli. The stimuli reflected different linguistic dimensions of metalinguistic awareness and asked students to verbalize their multilingual knowledge.
In a subsequent intervention study, we tested whether language-integrative German instruction, for which teachers were trained over the course of six months (Andronie et al., 2019; Wildemann et al., 2020), has an effect on the development of metalinguistic awareness. Again, elementary school students from language heterogeneous classes (n = 409) were encouraged to make metalinguistic utterances by means of elicitation in an experimental control group design.
The central questions were:
1.Is there a connection between language skills and language awareness?
2.What meta-linguistic performance do monolingual and multilingual learners achieve?
3.What is the impact of language-integrative German instruction on language awareness of monolingual and multilingual students at the end of primary school?
The children's general language competencies (Bien-Miller et al., 2017), cognitive performance using CFT 20-R (Weiß, 2005), and demographic data were collected. The M-SPRA procedure (Wildemann et al., 2016) used to elicit metalinguistic interactions was developed as part of the first study based on the method of concurrent probing (Woolley, Bowen & Bowen, 2004). In this framework, elicitation of verbal data is performed by asking subjects to verbalize their thought processes while solving a task.
In both studies, children were asked to make metalinguistic statements. They also made self-referential statements (I only speak... I do not speak...). These self-referential utterances were evaluated by content analysis. The focus was on the question:
4.Which linguistic positionings are revealed in the students' self-referential utterances?
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThere are three main findings (see Research Questions 1-3) regarding metalinguistic awareness: 1. multilingual students achieve a significantly higher total number of metalinguistic utterances than monolingual students when controlling for German language proficiency, basic intelligence, and age. 2. multilingual students are more likely than monolingual students to realize higher-level language reflections, i.e., language analyses, and 3. both multilingual and monolingual students benefit from language-integrative German instruction. These results are highly relevant when it comes to questions of school-based language education. They show that both multilingual and monolingual students benefit from language-integrative German instruction.
In addition to being positioned as language proficient or language nonproficient, there are also children who are reticent about their languages (see Research Question 4). The positioning of multilingual students as language proficient and language nonproficient and the concealment of multilingualism also provides information about their multiliterate identity. What do these results tell us with regard to an education that is oriented towards the potentials of the students?
ReferencesAndronie, M., Krzyzek, S., Bien-Miller, L. and Wildemann, A. (2019). Theory and practice: from Delphi-study to pedagogical training. Qualitative Research Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-03-2019-0031.
Bien-Miller, L., Akbulut, M., Wildemann, A. & Reich, H. H. (2017). Zusammenhänge zwischen mehrsprachigen Sprachkompetenzen und Sprachbewusstheit bei Grundschulkindern. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, DOI.10.007/s11618-017-0740-8.
Bien-Miller, L. & Wildemann, A. (2023). Sprachbewusstheit – Begriffe, Positionen und (In-)Kongruenzen. In A. Wildemann & L. Bien-Miller (Hrsg.), Sprachbewusstheit: Perspektiven aus Forschung und Didaktik. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Creese, A. & Blackledge, A. (2015). Translanguaging and Identity in Educational Settings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35 (2015), pp. 20–35. doi: 10.1017/S0267190514000233.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Critical Language Awareness. Longman: London, New York.
Gombert, J. E. (1992). Metalinguistic Development. Harvester Wheatsheaf: London.
Jessner, U. & Allgäuer-Hackl, E. (2019). Mehrsprachigkeit und metalinguistische Kompetenzen. ide, 2019 (02), 90–102.
Karmiloff-Smith, A., Grant, J., Sims, K., Jones, M. & Cuckle, P. (1996). Rethinking metalinguistic awareness: Representing and accessing knowledge about what counts as a word. Cognition, 58, 197–219.
Sun, B., Hu, G. & Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2018). Metalinguistic contribution to writing competence: a study of monolingual children in China and bilingual children in Singapore. Reading and Writing, 31, 1499–1523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9846-5.
Tunmer, W. E. & Bowey. J. (1984). Metalinguistic awareness and reading acquisition. In W. E. Tunmer, C. Pratt & M. L. Herriman (Hrsg.), Metalinguistic awareness in children: Theory, research, implications. (S. 144–168). Wiesbaden: Springer.
Weiß, R. (2005). CFT 20-R: Grundintelligenztest Skala 2 – Revision. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Wildemann, A., Akbulut, M., Bien-Miller, L. (2016). Mehrsprachige Sprachbewusstheit zum Ende der Grundschulzeit: Vorstellung und Diskussion eines Elizitationsverfahrens. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 21 (2), 42–56.
Wildemann, A., Andronie, M., Bien-Miller, L. & Krzyzek, S. (2020). Sprachliche Übergänge im Deutschunterricht (schaffen): Eine Interventionsstudie mit Grundschullehrerinnen und -lehrern. In M. Budde & F. Prüsmann, (Hrsg.), Vom Sprachkurs Deutsch als Zweitsprache zum Regelunterricht: Übergänge bewältigen, ermöglichen, gestalten (S. 159–183). Münster: Waxmann.
Wildemann, A. & Bien-Miller, L. (2022). Warum lebensweltlich deutschsprachige Schülerinnen und Schüler von einem sprachenintegrativen Deutschunterricht profitieren: Empirische Erkenntnisse. Zeitschrift für Grundschulforschung, 2022 (15), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42278-021-00133-8.
Woolley, M. E., Bowen, G. L. & Bowen, N. K. (2004). Cognitive pretesting and the developmental validity of child self-report instruments: Theory and applications. In: Research on Social Work Practice, 14, 191-200.
07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper
Introducing Translanguaging Space to Teach Writing in Year-9 EFL Classrooms: Findings from Observations, Student Interactions and Focus Group Interviews
Tina Gunnarsson
Lund University, Sweden
Presenting Author: Gunnarsson, Tina
Given how prominent writing in English is in our globalized world, it is no wonder that EFL students’ writing skills have been the focus of many educational researchers in the past decades (see Javadi-Safa, 2018 for an overview). Writing in English is an essential skill and mastering it can determine students’ future academic career (Ortega, 2009). Building on recent translanguaging research, mainly emanating from the UK and the US, there are multiple benefits to using a translanguaging pedagogy for teaching writing (see Leung & Valdés, 2019 for overview). Although the Swedish National Board of Education is now fully endorsing such a pedagogy, by supplying articles with guidance to English language teachers, only one study so far has investigated classroom practices of EFL students from a translanguaging perspective in our schools (Källkvist et al., 2022) and none have centered on the use of translanguaging space in the teaching of writing to year-9 EFL students. In Sweden, the skill of writing is crucial in year 9, as the students have national exams in English, a gate-keeping test which may impact on their entry into upper secondary school. Following a sociocultural approach to teaching and learning, the current study addresses the research gap in EFL writing in Sweden through a design intervention covering six lessons. Using the curriculum cycle (Derewianka, 1991) as a starting point, lessons were planned taking into account recent findings of classroom translanguaging research and were executed by researcher and lead teacher conjointly. For five of the lessons, students were presented with writing tools, the main tool being their previously learnt languages, to assist them in the process of generating ideas and solving problems in their writing, while the sixth lesson was reserved for essay writing entitled A Good Life (a national exam used in the past).
While one of the objectives of the study was to design the six lessons included in the intervention as a module for teachers to employ, the second objective was to discover how the main tool of language is used by multilingual students to interact and to solve writing tasks in the classroom. Last, but not least, the third objective was to allow students to write an essay without restrictions on tools. When students are presented with the written part of the national exam in Sweden, they receive the topic minutes before writing, are allowed no software tools, such as spell- or grammar check, and internet access is disabled. In this artificial scenario, a lot of pressure is placed on 15-year-old students to produce text in a language that is not their first. Therefore, the present study was designed to see how students would fair, when not only all tools were allowed, but when students had also received an inventory of tools based on previous research and received training in how to use them.
With these three objectives in mind, the study was guided by two research questions: 1) How do students use their language repertoires to interact when provided with translanguaging space to solve writing tasks? and 2) Which tools do students prefer to use when all resources are allowed and how does allowing all possible resources impact students’ experience and final product?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedMethodology
The present study employs a design intervention to test a teaching innovation based on theory and empirical data in two year-9-classes. A design study is cyclical in that it seeks to improve or change a situation based on the feedback of the participants involved (Brown, 1992). What this study seeks to change are the conditions of the writing exam in year 9, to concur with the students’ academic future wherein exam topics are known well in advance and common computer features such as dictionaries, spell- and grammar check are allowed. Furthermore, the study is exploratory as it seeks to understand how students’ use their linguistic repertoires in interaction when solving classroom writing tasks. Previous studies involving a translanguaging framework and current educational policy documents were used as foundation in our planning, along with our mutual experience-based knowledge and sociocultural theory of learning. Using Derewianka’s (1991) teaching model, the curriculum cycle, allowed us to distinguish four phases in the instruction of writing. Briefly, the four phases consist of: 1) building knowledge on the topic; 2) exploring texts within the genre; 3) joint construction of a text; and 4) individual writing. The curriculum cycle aligns well with sociocultural theory of learning as the students are expected to learn through interaction and are given support by a teacher or more capable peer in the initial stages of teaching. All six lessons were audio- and video recorded using three camera angels (back of the classroom facing the front, left flank facing middle and front, right flank facing middle and front) and six Dictaphones, two of which were equipped with lapel microphones used by lead teacher and researcher.
The design intervention was preceded by an observation of the lead teacher's instruction to prepare students for the writing part of the national test. The pre-intervention writing instruction was based on a past national test, entitled A Letter to Connect. To map students linguistic profiles a background questionnaire was employed. On the sixth intervention lesson the students proceeded to write a second exposition essay entitled A Good Life after which a second questionnaire was distributed with questions concerning the lessons and the end product. Additionally, two focus group interviews were held with a group of students from each class to shed light on their experience of the lessons and of their writing process.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsConclusions
Due to the pandemic, only 47 students completed both writing tasks, A Letter to Connect before the intervention lessons, and A Good Life on the sixth intervention lesson. Although results cannot be extrapolated to contexts outside of the current study, and multiple factors involved in teaching makes it difficult to say anything about the causal relationships between students' learning and outcome, it is still interesting to note that 36 students (76.5%) received a higher grade on the second writing task.
Video- and audio-recorded interaction in the English classroom show students using named languages, such as Albanian, Arabic, Bosnian, English, French, German and Spanish to carry out tasks when translanguaging space was offered. These languages were used flexibly to discuss word choice, the concept of A Good Life and to build a word wall to be used as a resource while writing the final essay. Findings from observations and interviews suggests increased motivation and interest in fellow students as a result of low status languages being accredited with value in the classroom.
In evaluation of the lessons, students acknowledge the benefits of learning about the topic, A Good Life, through interaction. The tasks set in the classroom led to students feeling inspired with regards to the content of their future essays, gaining ideas from fellow classmates. While writing their essays during the final lesson, students say they gave more thought to structure, word choice and enriching their text with details.
In the interviews, several of the students mention feeling safe, relaxed and more able to produce an essay in English. Interestingly, students report feeling less of a need to employ tools, such as dictionaries, online resources and computer features, simply because they were allowed to.
Pedagogical implications of these findings will be discussed.
ReferencesReferences
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The journal of the learning sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
Derewianka, B. (1991). Exploring how texts work. Primary English Teaching Association.
Javadi-Safa, A. (2018). A brief overview of key issues in second language writing teaching and research. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 6(2), 12-25.
Källkvist, M., Gyllstad, H., Sandlund, E., & Sundqvist, P. (2022). Towards an in-depth understanding of English-Swedish translanguaging pedagogy in multilingual EFL classrooms [Elektronisk resurs]. In (Vol. 48, pp. 138-167). HumaNetten. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15626/hn.20224807
Leung, C., & Valdés, G. (2019). Translanguaging and the transdisciplinary framework for language teaching and learning in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 103(2), 348-370.
Ortega, L. (2009). Studying writing across EFL contexts: Looking back and moving forward. InManchón, R. (ed) Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching and research (pp. 232255). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper
Rendering of Words - Students´ Meaning making
Clas Olander1, Sofie Johansson2
1Malmö University, Sweden; 2Gothenburg University, Sweden
Presenting Author: Olander, Clas
Several scholars (e.g., Martin & Veel, 1998; Seah et al., 2014) have emphasized that language usage in school science contexts may be characterized by high lexical density, abstraction, and technicality. In addition, the language in science classrooms has, according to Lemke (1990) specific characteristics related to the use of words, grammar, and semantic patterns that may be a particularly challenging issue. At the word-level, following Nation (2013) language use in science can be grouped into three categories: (a) science-exclusive words; concepts (e.g. allopatric, exothermic reaction, and force, (b) words found both in science and elsewhere, but with different meanings; homonyms (e.g. adapt, cycle, and energy), and (c) general academic words (e.g. converted, proceeds, and originates). All types of words are important in meaning making of science in order to appropriate the semantic pattern of how science is communicated in classrooms. In other words, teachers must understand how language influences learning and develop strategies to enhance students’ successful appropriation of scientific language in the continuum between daily and scientific registers and increase the students’ discursive awareness and mobility in relation to content and language (Authors, 2019; Schleppegrell, 2016).
Starting with the triadic idea from, among others, Nation (2013) have Authors (2019) developed a more fine-grained categorization with two main parts with three subcategories each. These are a) content neutral words divided in 1) common words (e.g. talk); 2) unusual words (e.g. disappointment) and 3) general academic words (e.g. consider) and b) content related words divided in 4) homonyms (e.g. pressure); 5) content-typical words (e.g. pollution) and 6) content-specific words (e.g. photosynthesis).
Aim and question
The aim of this project is to investigate language related issues in relation to meaning making of school science in multilanguage settings. This is done through a multidisciplinary and quantitative approach in Swedish secondary schools.
The specific research question focused is: what kind of words are challenging for students with Swedish language background and students with other language backgrounds.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedMethodology
Meaning making of words was estimated through four different web-based vocabulary tests given to 232 students grade 7-9. Each test had 15 words selected from the textbook that the actual class would study two weeks later. One sentence was chosen, in which one word was made bold and the students were given four alternative suggestions as synonyms. The words belonged to five of the six categories mentioned above (common words was excluded) and academic/official dictionaries was used to categorize the words. Example of words in the textbooks that we chose were: 2) unusual words (e.g. contemplate); 3) general academic words (e.g. process); 4) homonyms (e.g. solution); 5) content-typical words (e.g. indicator) and 6) content-specific words (e.g. symbiosis). In addition, the students were asked about their first language and how long time they studied in Swedish school. This data made it possible to calculate potential significant differences between groups and categories of words.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsFindings
On a general level, significant differences were found between the performance of students with Swedish as mother tongue and those with other mother tongues and within the group that arrived in Sweden later than school start.
When focusing types of words, we first found a need to differentiate our previous model for interpretation of homonyms (group 4) into to two subcategories: 4a) colloquial but content related words and 4b) academic and content specific words.
We found significant differences between Swedish as mother tongue and not were seen towards two categories: 3) general academic words (e.g. cause and consist of) and 4a) colloquial but content related words (e.g. pass and branch).
Difficult word categories for all students were: academic and content-related words (e.g. trait and process) and academic and content-typical words (e.g. occur and indicator).
It is not surprising that students with another mother tongue that Swedish score less on a general vocabulary test. It has been shown before but it indicates that the test is reliable.
Conclusion/discussion
The main contribution of this study is that it points towards types of words that are extra hard for the students to make meaning of. We argue that with respect to students with another mother tongue than the language of instruction it is especially important to give attention to the words that belong to the category general academic words. These general academic words are important in the science classroom since they are the “glue”, or connectors (Gibbons, 2003), between the concepts, and a scientific explanation is incomprehensible without the connectors that bind concepts (Silseth, 2018). It is hard to make sense of the important concepts without words like consist of or because. Therefore, science teaching should emphasize these words along with the concepts.
ReferencesGibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. Tesol Quarterly, 37, 247–273.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex London: Routledge.
Martin, J. R., & Veel, R. (1998). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge.
Nation, I. S. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language Google eBook. Cambridge University Press.
Seah, L. H., Clarke, D. J., & Hart, C. E. (2014). Understanding the language demands on science students from an integrated science and language perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 952–973.
Silseth, K. (2018). Students’ everyday knowledge and experiences as resources in educational dialogues. Instructional Science, 46(2), 291-313
|
