31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper
Fostering University Students’ Metalinguistic Awareness in Language Learning through Explicit Self-Regulation Skills
Merilyn Meristo
Tallinn University, Estonia
Presenting Author: Meristo, Merilyn
Metalinguistic knowledge is considered a prerequisite for metalinguistic activity, integral to metacognition—a person's reflective awareness of cognitive processes. Metalinguistic ability, encompassing cognition about language, involves analyzing, comparing, and extracting lexical and grammatical meaning (cf., J. N. Anderson 2008; Roehr-Brackin 2008). Bialystok’s (2001) framework elucidates the development of metalinguistic ability, perceived as conscious knowledge and sensitivity in language learning, teaching, and use (Verschik 2019), involving the analysis and extraction of information about language use (Jessner 2014). It is the awareness of how language functions in communication and making linguistic choices (Aruvee 2023). In second and foreign language learning, it aligns with plurilingual awareness, reflecting and comparing language knowledge during the learning process (Cook and Wei 2016).
Metalinguistic awareness serves as a cognitive foundation underlying the effective deployment of language learning strategies, providing learners with the capacity to analyze, compare, and extract meaningful information about language use. Oxford (1990, 2017) defines language learning strategies as specific actions or techniques that individuals employ to enhance their language learning experience, categorizing them into six major groups: cognitive, metacognitive, memory-related, affective, social, and compensation strategies. This comprehensive framework underscores the multifaceted nature of language learning, emphasizing the importance of both cognitive and affective dimensions in effective language acquisition.
Language learning strategies are intricately associated with self-regulation skills, as learners employ various cognitive and metacognitive processes to effectively manage their language learning experiences. The utilisation of strategies, such as goal-setting, planning, monitoring, and reflecting, aligns closely with the principles of self-regulation in learning (Zimmerman, 2000). The intentional selection and application of language learning strategies demonstrate learners' ability to regulate their cognitive processes and optimize their language acquisition efforts (Oxford, 1990). Actively engaging in strategic planning, learners exercise self-regulation, fostering a dynamic and adaptive approach to language learning (Cohen & Oxford, 2002).
This four-year-long study focuses on an innovative approach to supporting first-year university students' metalinguistic awareness through explicit and emphasized teaching of self-regulation skills in language learning. Previous contextual studies indicate that first-year students often exhibit deficiencies in language learning strategies, necessitating a targeted intervention (Meristo 2022). This research aims to address deficiencies in language learning strategies among first year students and evaluates the impact of this intervention on academic achievement, ethical conduct, and linguistic awareness.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis Action Research framed study centers on explicit explanations and the use of language learning strategies encompassing both direct and indirect, and cognitive and affective strategies. Data were collected through triangulation: researcher field notes, individual and focus group interviews with students, and test scores.
Over a span of four years, 60 students were actively engaged in the iterative cycles of this action research. These participants were enrolled in the introductory French course tailored for students majoring in French. Their language background includes French as either their fourth (L4) or fifth (L5) language, with Estonian as their L1, English as the predominant L2 commonly taught in school, and Russian, Finnish, or German as their L3. Notably, half of the participants have attained only a foundational competence in L3 at the basic level (A1/A2 CEFR). The average age of the participants stood at 26 (ranging from 19 to 48 years).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings indicate an improvement in academic achievement among participants, coupled with a reduction in academic cheating. The results underscore the importance of explicit self-regulation skills in language learning, emphasizing the transformative impact on freshmen's linguistic awareness, academic performance, and ethical conduct. Additionally, the key to success lies in cultivating a culture of trust and respect in the classroom, towards and between students, fostering a friendly and supportive atmosphere.
ReferencesAnderson, N. J. (2008). Metacognition and good language learners. In. C. Griffiths (Ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners, 99-109.
Aruvee, M. (2023). Tekstikeskne aine- ja keeleõpetus: teoreetiline raamistik ja praktilised soovitused. [Genre pedagogy to promote disciplinary literacy: Pilot intervention]. Dissertations on Humanities. Tallinn University.
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, D., Oxford, R. L., & Chi, J. (2002). Language Strategy Use Survey. Centre for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota.
Cook, V., & Wei, L. (eds.). (2016). The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence. Cambridge University Press.
Jessner, U. (2014). On multilingual awareness or why the multilingual learner is a specific language learner. – Essential Topics in Applied Linguistics and Multilingualism. Studies in Honour of David Singleton. Eds Mirosław Pawlak, Larissa Aronin. Heidelberg: Springer, 175–184.
Meristo, M. (2022). University Students' Motivation to Study the French Language: A Time Trend Study. Journal for the Psychology of Language Learning, 4(1), e419222.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in context. Taylor & Francis.
Roehr-Brackin, K. (2018). Metalinguistic awareness and second language acquisition. Routledge.
Verschik, A. (2019). Mitmekeelsus, keelekontaktid ja keeleline teadlikkus. [Multilingualism, Language Contacts and (Meta)linguistic Awareness]. Keel ja Kirjandus 62(1-2), 6–23.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(2), 64-70.
31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper
Assessing Efficacy of Pronunciation Instructions: a Meta-analysis of Pronunciation Assessment to Develop an Evaluation Framework
Linghong Li
Ghent University, Belgium
Presenting Author: Li, Linghong
In the second language (L2) field, research on pronunciation instruction has gradually captured the attention of L2 researchers. Influenced by the dominance of communicative language teaching theory, the focus of pronunciation instruction has shifted towards the development of overall communication skills. Three assessment principles proposed by numerous L2 scholars for measuring L2 learners’ pronunciation are intelligibility, comprehensibility, and accentedness (Derwing & Munro, 2005; Levis, 2005, 2020). Review studies on L2 pronunciation instruction primarily employ measurements involving human listeners and acoustic measures. Due to their close relationship with all three directions, human listeners’ judgments have constituted the majority of assessment methods for measuring outcomes in L2 pronunciation instruction. The use of acoustic measures is limited, as L2 pronunciation scholars believe acoustic analyses may not predict intelligibility accurately (Kermad & Kang, 2018). In recent years, combining advanced acoustic measures with native speakers’ judgments of specific pronunciation features has proven productive in elucidating the relationship between pronunciation features and the three principles mentioned above (Kang, Rubin & Pickering, 2010; Trofimovich & Isaacs, 2012). There has been very limited research conducted on exploring the overall effectiveness of pronunciation instructions in the L2 field and very few studies have followed an evaluation framework to guide the assessment of pronunciation instructions. Chapelle, Enright, and Jamieson (2010) proposed an argument-based validation model, suggesting a network of inferences needed to be verified to support test score interpretation and use. Six inferences were included in this model to develop a validity argument for a language test, that are domain definition, evaluation, generalization, explanation, extrapolation, and utilization (Fan & Yan, 2020). Saito and Plonsky (2019) suggested a framework for measuring the effectiveness of L2 pronunciation teaching, including the constructs, the scoring method, and the type of knowledge elicited method. Based on these two frameworks, we will propose a new evaluation framework as a theoretical base to provide a standard for designing assessments. Three domains are presented in the new proposed evaluation framework, that are the pronunciation constructs of assessments, scoring methods and reliability, and gender difference.
Three questions are discussed:
1) Do the effects of assessments vary when focusing on different pronunciation constructs?
2) Do the effects of assessments vary with scoring methods performed by human raters and acoustic scoring?
3) Do the effects of assessments vary in terms of reliability between human raters and acoustic scoring?
4) Do pronunciation instructions employ gender differences in assessments?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedA carefully screened selection of studies pertaining to pronunciation instruction within the L2 research field is conducted. This ensures that the included studies align with the research questions. By following the proposed evaluation framework, we analyzed a total of 35 published studies between 1980 and 2023 on pronunciation assessments in three domains: a) the pronunciation constructs of assessments (pronunciation aspects); b) scoring methods and reliability (human raters versus acoustic scoring); and c) gender differences (female versus male). Pronunciation instructions that are conducted in the CFL context are included. Studies are selected that have examined the effectiveness of pronunciation instructions with a pretest-posttest design and experimental-control group design. Key words are used to screen the databases (e.g., Chinese as a foreign language, CFL, pronunciation, instruction, second language, foreign language, tone, initial, final, intonation, stress). Kappa and Cronbach’s alpha results will be used to check the reliability among the human examiners’ scoring methods.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsL2 pronunciation instructions focusing on explicit pronunciation aspects (segmental/suprasegmental accuracy) are more dominant compared to global pronunciation instructions (intelligibility, perceived fluency, etc.), and expert ratings significantly dominate as compared to acoustic machines. Effect sizes between human examiners vs. acoustic machines show that both assessments are capable of comparing the within-group differences and between-groups differences. Gender differences are ignored in the selected pronunciation instructions, and no assessments has examined the differences.
ReferencesChapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. (2010). Does an argument‐based approach to validity make a difference?. Educational measurement: Issues and practice, 29(1), 3-13.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research‐based approach. TESOL quarterly, 39(3), 379-397.
Fan, J., & Yan, X. (2020). Assessing speaking proficiency: a narrative review of speaking assessment research within the argument-based validation framework. Frontiers in psychology, 11, 330.
Isaacs, T., & Trofimovich, P. (2012). Deconstructing comprehensibility: Identifying the linguistic influences on listeners’ L2 comprehensibility ratings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 475-505.
Kang, O., Rubin, D. O. N., & Pickering, L. (2010). Suprasegmental measures of accentedness and judgments of language learner proficiency in oral English. The Modern Language Journal, 94(4), 554-566.
Kermad, A., & Kang, O. (2019). Effect of classroom assessment stakes on English language learners’ oral performance. Tesol Journal, 10(2), e00392.
Levis, J. M. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL quarterly, 39(3), 369-377.
Levis, J. (2020). Revisiting the intelligibility and nativeness principles. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 6(3), 310-328.
Saito, K., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Effects of second language pronunciation teaching revisited: A proposed measurement framework and meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 69(3), 652-708.
31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper
"Words and Letters Are Different, but There Are Not Many Differences Between the Languages": Writing Awareness of Multilinguals
Corinna Peschel1, Maria Sulimova1,2
1University of Wuppertal; 2University of Leipzig
Presenting Author: Sulimova, Maria
For some time now, multilingual children have been recognised as having an advantage over monolingual children in language awareness (cf. Bialystok 2001). For German-speaking countries, Oomen-Welke (2008) found that multilingual pupils produce more metalinguistic utterances and language-analytical actions than monolingual pupils. Wildemann, Bien-Miller and Akbulut (2016, 2018, 2020) also showed that multilingual primary school pupils produce more metalinguistic utterances, which suggests advantages in language awareness. The researchers were able to show that multilingual children produce expressions of language awareness at higher levels (see Wildemann et al. 2016 or 2020) and thus demonstrate more developed linguistic analytical skills. These correlate with overall language competence (see Akbuluth et al. 2018). Similar evidence comes from research on heritage speakers. Riehl et al 2018 postulate connections between language awareness and multilingual writing and text skills. Our project “SchreiBe Mehr” has two general goals: 1. We want to find out, which sorts of language awareness multilingual adolescents display throughout their writing processes and when being asked about their writing. 2. We try to integrate our findings and derive a model of writing awareness, which can be very useful in teaching writing.
To get a more specific notion of how language awareness is displayed and can be developed in writing, we focus on writing processes and texts by multilingual adolescents in Russian and German.
To specify a general concept of language awareness, in an initial project phase a heuristic concept of writing awareness was developed and differentiated into various sub-competences based on the data analysed in our pilot project, we identified criteria for studying writing awareness. From the literature, we adopted the division of signs of awareness into those directly related to writing and elicited aspects (cf. Wildemann et al. 2016). Observable aspects of writing awareness include visible aspects of the writing process, observable writing strategies, comments during writing, and others. Elicited aspects include comments on individual phases of the writing process, strategies and individual levels of the text, genre features, similarities and differences in the text when comparing languages. In addition, the presence of metalinguistic vocabulary is also a sign of writing awareness.
A special emphasis is laid on multilingual competences and resources in writing, e.g. the knowledge of writing schemata and genres in both languages. The genre selected for the study – a process description - is used not only in language subjects, but also in art, social and natural science subjects, which allows interdisciplinary didactic implications. We focus on the pupils´ reflection of their own writing processes and the visible or reported use of writing strategies by multilinguals in early secondary school. The texts and the interviews reveal the pupils´ knowledge of culture-specific text-schemata and how much writing such texts may be part of their (academic) lives - and in which languages. This offers many valuable insights on the interrelatedness of language, culture, and identity for linguistically responsive teachers. (Hufeisen 2008).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo reach the abovementioned goals, we use a qualitative approach to writing awareness in addition to a more quantitative perspective as can be seen in other studies. We do not focus on the question of possible advantages of certain groups of pupils, but to take a closer look at the specifics of the occurrence of language awareness in each individual case.
Our study has the following design. First, we conducted a semi structured interview with our informants (N=9, ages 11 to 14) about their language biography and writing experience. Then they wrote two instructions for installing a game on a smartphone for an older person in their L1 and L2 (Russian or Ukrainian and German). The writing process was recorded on camera. After this, the interviewer conducted a stimulated retrospective interview: together with the informants, she watched a recording of the writing process, the informants were asked to comment on how they completed tasks and explained individual decisions.
Our design combines the observation of visible aspects of the writing process (made visible by screen-capturing) and comments made by the informants while writing with stimulated retrospective interviews, whereby the recorded writing process is played as a stimulus during the interview (cf. Breuer 2017, Karsten 2017). The data are analysed using qualitative content analysis to create categories (Mayring 2010; Schreier 2014), so that the concept of writing awareness developed in the first project phase (cf. Peschel/Sulimova 2020) can be further specified. On this basis, the diversity of possible forms of writing awareness is to be recorded and described qualitatively.
The informants were recruited through teachers teaching them Russian, Ukrainian and German. When recruiting informants, it was important to us that they could write in L1 and L2. Thus, the sample is not representative, but corresponds to the goals of our exploratory study. We investigate students’ subjective views toward their own multilingualism and writing skills. We also find students’ comments on the role their languages play at school. To examine the writing processes with the documented observation and to gain insights into reflective aspects of writing competence, a triangulation was carried out. The questionnaire also explores the informants’ awareness of the role that writing plays in school success, and whether they feel comfortable using different languages.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe paper provides insights into writing processes and reflections of individual informants and the components of writing awareness in both languages that can be derived from them. On this basis, the potential of multilingualism in writing is shown and didactic consequences for the promotion of writing are derived. The model can be used in teacher training programmes to illustrate the complexity of writing process. The findings can furthermore help to make future teachers aware of regarding their students’ first languages as learning resources and enable them to invoke students’ first languages intentionally (Burner & Carlsen, 2019). In addition, we intend to show future teachers the value of students’ languages, and strategies their use to deal with own linguistic diversity.The data obtained during the survey (recordings of the writing process, reflections of the test subjects) illustrate concrete strategies. As the chose text type is used across all subjects at school, starting points can be found for the promotion of school writing in all subjects in the sense of continuous language education. The model gives the knowledge needed to support linguistically diverse students when teaching writing in different subjects.
ReferencesBialystok, Ellen (2001): Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy, and Cognition. Cambridge: University Press.
Breuer, Esther (2017): „Qualitative Analyse von Schreibprozessen mithilfe von Screencapturing“. In: Brinkschulte, Melanie; Kreitz, David (Hrsg.): Qualitative Methoden in der angewandten Schreibforschung. Bielefeld: WBV Media, 41–61.Karsten 2017
Karsten, Andrea (2017): „Videokonfrontation als Methode für die angewandte Schreibforschung: Zwischen Investigation und Intervention“. In: Brinkschulte, Melanie; Kreitz, David (Hrsg.): Qualitative Methoden in der angewandten Schreibforschung. Bielefeld: WBV Media, 63–84.
Mayring, Philip (2010): Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. [11. Auflage.] Weinheim und Basel: Beltz.Oomen-Welke, Ingelore (2008): „Präkonzepte: Sprachvorstellungen ein- und mehrsprachiger SchülerInnen“. In: Ahrenholz, Bernt; Oomen-Welke, Ingelore (Hrsg.): Deutsch als Zweitsprache, 373–384.
Peschel, Corinna; Sulimova, Maria (2021). Schreibprozesse und Schreibstrategien mehrsprachiger Schüler*innen der Sekundarstufe I. Informationen Deutsch als Fremdsprache. 48. 632-647.
Wildemann, Anja; Akbulut, Muhammed; Bien-Miller, Lena (2016): „Mehrsprachige Sprachbewusstheit zum Ende der Grundschulzeit – Vorstellung und Diskussion eines Elizitationsverfahrens: Mehrsprachigkeit – Language Awareness – Sprachbewusstheit“. In: Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 21 (2), 42–56.
Wildemann, Anja; Bien-Miller, Lena; Akbulut, Muhammed (2020): „Mehrsprachigkeit und Sprachbewusstheit – empirische Befunde und Unterrichtskonzepte“. In: Gogolin, Ingrid; Hansen, Antje; McMonagle, Sarah; Rauch, Dominique (Hrsg.): Handbuch Mehrsprachigkeit und Bildung. Berlin: Springer
31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper
School Radio as a Critical Literacy Laboratory to Promote Communicative Social Justice
Yaimara Batista Fernández, Mónica Salcedo, Raquel Brioa García, Yasna Patricia Pradena García, Eduardo Fernández Rodríguez, Rocío Anguita Martínez
Universidad de Valladolid, Spain
Presenting Author: Batista Fernández, Yaimara;
Salcedo, Mónica
This outgoing study analyses the possibilities offered by school radio as an innovative ecosystem and literacy laboratory to promote communicative social justice and enhance the development of critical communicative competence in culturally diverse and low-academic performance pupils. In this sense, a case study was carried out in Secondary Education, specifically in the field of compensatory education and school language projects. During the development of the project, it was perceived that the use of school radio implies a space for knowledge exchange and citizen transformation, and a bridge between academic and social knowledge transmission, enabling students to acquire the necessary tools for the development of creative, experimental and critical thinking.
Critical literacy (CL) is considered a social practice through which a text is interpreted, considering its socio-cultural and socio-political context, it allows people to identify ideologies and intentions; and represents a way of life through which it is possible to know and understand the world, and uses texts and discourses by giving them new meanings within different contexts. Hence, CL is also understood as an agent for societal change (Canett Castro et al, 2021).
Within the school context, CL enables students to focus on understanding the purposes of the text and its function in different cultural and social settings, as well as, allows them to recognize different positions and ideologies (Cassany, 2013), analyse ideas, make judgements and assess the veracity of writings (Cassany, 2015). This link between CL and social justice offers pupils the opportunity to understand and actively participate in their social and political environment, as well as to understand and challenge social inequalities. It also implies reflecting critically on the reader's role in either reinforcing injustice through silence and doing nothing, or defying injustice through criticism and social action (Watkins, 2021).
In this way, it is essential to develop pupils' critical judgement during the educational process to acquire a socio-cognitive and socio-critical curricular conception during their education (Brito, 2017). Hence, social justice in the curricular sphere implies that people have access to the same opportunities and rights, to learn in conditions of equality, equity and mutual respect, especially those marginalised and excluded sectors.
The development of this exploratory study and the critical analysis of this emerging pedagogical experience and disruptive practice transforms this school scenario into an open space or laboratory for educational experimentation through the production of shared designs, prototypes of experiences and cultural products.
This pedagogical proposal opens up a disruptive space that redefines the classroom as a learning ecology. In this context, several elements determine the existence or not of a learning ecology (Barab & Roth, 2006), such as a plurality of learning contexts; an inter-contextual leap or between contexts; the existence of learning resources offered by all environments; and the generation of personal learning environments that determine individuality in the shaping of learning due to the diversity of possibilities that each person has at their disposal.
This addition of the ecological metaphor to the educational field contemplates research on the processes of knowledge construction and learning acquisition in a knowmadic society considering four dimensions: a) personal ecologies of lifelong learning in collective spaces of autonomous experimentation; b) learning ecologies and social mediations of formal and non-formal cultures and contexts; c) community ecologies: instituting participatory spaces and social transformation; and d) knowledge ecologies: projects generating spaces for creative work and experimentation with participatory methodologies. (Martínez & Fernández).
The study's research questions are as follows:
What are the potentialities of school radio as an innovative ecosystem to develop pupils’ communicative competence?
Can school radio function as a laboratory of critical literacy promote pupils’ communicative social justice?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study follows a qualitative methodology to explore the possibilities offered by school radio as an innovative ecosystem and literacy laboratory to promote pupils’ communicative social justice and enhance the development of pupils’ critical communicative competence. Two case studies (Stake, 2005) are used as a research approach to provide a more detailed description of the object of study.
To carry out the case study, triangulation by methods was used, comparing the information obtained through participant observation in the first semester of 2021/2022 academic year, interviews and documentary review. In more detail, the techniques used were as follows:
- Classroom observation: non-participant observation was carried out in 30 class sessions, 10 took place in the school classroom, 16 in the radio, 3 in the garden and 1 in the language laboratory. A journal was kept to systematise the experiences and then analyse the data.
- Interviews: an in-depth interview was conducted with the teacher who carried out the educational experience in order to find out about relevant aspects of her educational practice. In these interviews, attention was paid to the dimensions of her teaching practice, but also to her biographical and personal experience.
- Document analysis: Information was collected and analysed in different formats: Didactic programming of the subject (PDA), Educational project of the centre (PEC), General annual programming of the centre (PGAC), Project of Access to chairs formulated by the teacher (PAC).
- Podcast Analysis of 40 episodes of 5 radio programs broadcasted on IVOOX)
- Student and teacher anecdotal records, in which the perceptions and opinions about the innovation project in which they are involved are recorded.
- Audio and video recordings of the educational practice analysed.
The cases are framed within an innovative ecosystem taking as a reference the work carried out by the Telefónica Foundation (2014), in which we have identified eight main types of experiences: a) Authentic learning experience; b) Lifelong learning experience; c) Learning experience beyond the classroom; d) Challenge-based learning experience; e) Digital learning experience; f) Collaborative learning experience; g) C21 learning; and h) Active learning methodologies
Similarly, the disruptive educational process was analysed taking as a starting point the modes of learning proposed by Thieu Besselink in his article "Choreography of Learning (2013)" to analyse the different learning and its processes: Transfer, Experimentation, Reflection, and Searching.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe projects analysed highlight the need for language education and CL to train competent interpreters and creators in different media and cultural devices, broadening the frameworks of social justice and sensitivity to diversity. This is important in global contexts mediated by communication technologies, where there are inequalities in pupils' communicative competence and ability to integrate into society and the workplace. An educational and curricular approach to CL involves thinking about communicative competence beyond the literary canon and the thematic orthodoxy of official curricula to address cultural diversity and socio-economic inequalities in terms of linguistic justice.
School radio, as an innovative ecosystem, serves as a tool for the development of CL and communicative social justice. It also functions as an educational resource that brings pupils closer to their reality and context and becomes an instrument of social justice by allowing them to see the world from multiple perspectives.
In this sense, the use of school radio serves as a transversal vehicle for the development of CL as a promoter of communicative social justice in pupils through the cultural and diverse recognition of the environment to promote equality and equity; the re(distribution) of essential and democratic knowledge for the development of a fairer society; and social and active participation in decision-making to intervene critically in the solutions to social problems. In this way, it seeks to ensure that pupils can critically interpret their social environment and at the same time participate in the teaching-learning process.
ReferencesBrito, F. J. (2017). Educación y cambio social: Aportes desde la pedagogía crítica. Revista Electrónica Diálogos Educativos, 16(31), 137-150.
Barab, S. & Roth, W. (2006) Curriculum-based ecosystems: supporting knowing from an ecological perspective. Educational Researcher, 35(5), 3-13.
Calvo, A. H. (2015). Los proyectos que revolucionan las escuelas. Así trabajan los colegios más innovadores del mundo. Fundación Telefónica. www.fundaciontelefonica.com
Canett Castro, K. M., Fierro López, L. E., & Martínez Lobatos, L. (2021). Hacia una literacidad crítica con enfoque de género en la enseñanza de literatura. Diálogos Sobre Educación, 23. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.32870/DSE.V0I23.965
Cassany, D. (2013). ¿Cómo se lee y escribe en línea? Revista Electrónica Leer, Escribir y Descubrir, 1(1), 1-24.
Cassany, D. (2015). Literacidad crítica: leer y escribir la ideología. ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251839730_Literacidad_critica_leer_y_escribir_la_ideologia
Castellví Mata, J. (2021). Literacidad crítica para formar una ciudadanía democrática y comprometida. ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348931062
Martínez, JB. & Fernández, E. (2018). Ecologías del Aprendizaje. Educación Expandida en Contextos Múltiples. Madrid. Ediciones Morata, S.L.
Montané, A. (2015). Justicia Social y Educación. RES, Revista de Educación Social(20), 92-113. https://eduso.net/res/revista/20/el-tema-colaboraciones/justicia-social-y-educacion
Murillo, J., & Hernández, R. (2011). Hacia un concepto de justicia social. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 9(4), 8-23.
Núñez Fernández, V., Aceituno-Aceituno, P., Lanza Escobedo, D., & Sánchez Fernández, A. (2022). La radio escolar como recurso para el desarrollo de la competencia mediática. Estudios Sobre El Mensaje Periodístico, 28(1), 621-632. https://doi.org/dx.doi.org/10.5209/esmp.77511
Simons, H. (2009). El estudio de caso: teoría y práctica. Morata.
Stake, R. (2005). Multiple Case Study Analysis. The Guilford Press.
Watkins, N. (2021). Critical literacy: Challenging dominant discourses. In Kavanagh, A. M., F. Waldron, & B. Mallon (Eds.), Teaching for social justice and sustainable development across the primary curriculum. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003003021-11
|
