31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper
Multimodal Interaction with Images: Aspects of Visual, Subject-specific Epistemic, and Associated Linguistic Learning
Tanja Fohr
Leuphana University, DE, Germany
Presenting Author: Fohr, Tanja
In imparting subject-specific competencies, visual stimuli often serve as the basis for classroom discourse. Images are used in every subject as they serve both as stimuli for expressions and to support learning and introduce subject-specific thematic aspects (Hallet 2008). In second and foreign language teaching, there are numerous assumptions about the potential of using images for linguistic learning (Kress & van Leeuwen 2021).
In the context of scaffolding support (Gibbons 2015), multimodal practices play a significant role: According to Gibbons (2015: 45), references to various carriers of meaning provide multiple connection points to everyday experiences and already known or learned content. Gibbons describes this strategy or didactic function of relying on visualizations or other modes of support, such as gestures, with the term 'message abundancy' (Gibbons 2015: 42–45): "Message abundancy is a significant aspect of comprehensible teacher talk and is central to effective learning. When teacher talk is integrated with other systems of meaning, it is much more likely to be understood." (Gibbons: 44–45) By combining different semiotic resources, L2 learners can activate their prior knowledge, stimulating comprehension processes and thereby eliciting output. Especially when it comes to leading learners from a concrete level of observation to a more abstract, context-reduced level, this strategy can be helpful (Kniffka, & Neuer 2008: 129). Many didactic-methodological concepts and programmes for language-sensitive subject teaching are based on the assumption that visualization and contextual embedding support a dual subject-matter-specific and associated linguistic progression.
However, in dyadic classroom communication with L2-learners, it is unclear which interactional and multimodal practices come into play in relation to image perception. How knowledge is constructed depends on the way it is presented, and the methods and media used. The form of representation influences both what is learned and how it is learned (Jewitt 2008: 241). Switching between modes of representation and thus the perception of meanings from different modalities, in particular the visual material in the school subject context, their integration and implementation in a communicative act requires multiliterate discourse competence (Jewitt 2008: 255).
Therefore, the aim of this interdisciplinary exploratory study on subject-specific image discussions with L2 learners (n = 18) in secondary schools (Germany, Hesse, May–July 2023) is to capture students' image communication in relation to specific teaching objectives, to analyse and compare discourses about images. This serves to draw conclusions about the characteristics and conditions of acquisition-supportive, learning-productive, and academically challenging practices for the use of images. By describing and analysing the subject-specific and linguistic practices of students in dyadic image conversations, the study investigates which subject-specific, visual, and associated linguistic and discursive practices and competencies play a role in image reception and the associated gain in knowledge.
Conclusions about multimodal interaction via images are drawn with reference to the foundations of multimodality (Kress 2021; Rowsell & Collier 2017) and the understanding of interactional competence according to Sert (2015: 44-50), Seedhouse (2009), Hall and Pekarek Doehler (2011: 1-3), and the conceptualisation of 'classroom discourse' as a form of media-related classroom interaction (Thomson 2022: 17-21).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe current study (April 2023–July 2023) was conducted with L2 learners (n = 18) in an intensive class shortly before their transition into regular classes.
Selected students, whose language proficiency was determined using C-Tests, were presented with images from introductory pages of a textbook for the subject of social studies. According to the curriculum (HKM n.d.) and teaching materials, the illustrations are intended to prepare the students for work on topics such as "Children of the World" or "Living spaces". During various dyadic interactions, which were videotaped (approximately 350 minutes), the conversation partner, a subject, and German as a Second Language teacher, supported the participants as needed, including through interactional scaffolding and strategies like "cued elicitation" (Hammond & Gibbons 2005: 23) to achieve the subject-specific learning objectives.
Working with images in a school context means understanding the different resources of meaning in their interplay and in relation to the professional teaching objective. To this end, the objectives associated with the visual material, on the one hand, and the teacher's impulses for initiating mode shifts and negotiating meaning, on the other, are analysed. The focus of the analysis is therefore on the multimodal reference system of image and speech.
Conversation analysis (CA) is used to reconstruct the organisation of the multimodal interaction on the pictures in relation to the associated learning objective. The focus of the data selection for the lecture is on sequences in which the L2 learners take the topics represented by the material as a starting point for their personal questions.
The conversations were transcribed according to GAT 2 conventions (Selting et al. 2009) and analysed using conversational analysis (Birkner et al. 2020). This analysis particularly focused on identifying interaction sequences where visual, linguistic, or predominantly subject-specific epistemic pathways of understanding were prominent. The discourse practices were analysed in relation to the subject of observation. The reconstruction of multimodal interaction allowed for conclusions about different ways of steering in supportive, learning-productive, and academically challenging teaching scenarios.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsConceptual foundations and curriculum guidelines for the goals linked to using images suggest that the intended learning steps are directly achievable.
However, meaning arises in discourse, and learning pathways depend on the experiences and subject-specific, linguistic, and visual competencies of the learners and teachers. In specific situations, various interactional practices, and support in the form of micro-scaffolding come into play (Gibbons 2015).
Through the exemplary analysis of selected discourses, it becomes clear that micro-scaffolding has different starting points depending on the individual participant: Sometimes impulses for conscious perception are required, and at other times, it involves assistance in naming the subjects of the images and their interrelations. The different cultural interpretation patterns of the participants in relation to the depicted contexts, situations, and people also indicate that differentiated support is necessary to achieve subject-specific epistemic goals. For instance, it cannot be assumed that students understand images as representations of a subject-thematic context. Depending on prior knowledge, interests, and experiences, there are often very individual starting points that determine not only the direction of observation but also the discourse.
The data offer insight into the interplay of the modes of representation, image, and language, in conjunction with the perspectives and competencies of the participants. The study shows that the strategy of switching representation levels from concrete to abstract is not inherently supportive of acquisition for learners of German as a Second Language, as previously assumed. Instead, they need further support in grasping the pictorial level, establishing connections, incorporating their own prior knowledge, and transforming what is observed and described into understanding.
ReferencesBirkner, K., Auer, P., Bauer, A., & Kotthoff, H. (2020). Einführung in die Konversationsanalyse. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.
Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Hall, J. K., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 1–19). Bristol, Buffalo, and Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Hallet, W. (2008). Die Visualisierung des Fremdsprachenlernens – Funktionen von Bildern und visual literacy im Fremdsprachenunterricht. In G. Lieber (Ed.), Lehren und Lernen mit Bildern. Ein Handbuch zur Bilddidaktik (pp. 212–223). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.
Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20(1), 6–30. Retrieved from http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/229760/20_1_1_Hammond.pdf
HKM – Hessisches Kultusministerium. (n.d.). Handreichung Gesellschaftslehre zur Arbeit mit den Lehrplänen der Bildungsgänge Hauptschule, Realschule und Gymnasium an den schulformübergreifenden (integrierten) Gesamtschulen und Förderstufen. Retrieved from https://kultusministerium.hessen.de/Unterricht/Kerncurricula-und-Lehrplaene/Lehrplaene/Integrierte-Gesamtschule-IGS
Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and Literacy in School Classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 241–267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07310586
Kniffka, G., & Neuer, B. (2017). Sprachliche Anforderungen in der Schule. In H. Günther, G. Kniffka, G. Knoop, & T. Riecke-Baulecke (Eds.), Basiswissen Lehrerbildung: DaZ unterrichten (pp. 37–49). Seelze: Klett-Kallmeyer.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2021). Reading Images (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Rowsell, J., & Collier, D. R. (2017). Researching multimodality in language and education. In K. King, YJ. Lai, & S. May (Eds.), Research methods in language and education. Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 311–325). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02249-9_23
Seedhouse, P. (2009). The interactional architecture of the language classroom. Bellaterra: Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 1(1), 1–13.
Sert, O. (2015). Social interaction and L2 classroom discourse. Edinburgh University Press.
Thomson, K. (2022). Classroom discourse competence (CDC) in foreign language teaching and language teacher education. In K. Thomson (Ed.), Classroom discourse competence. Current issues in language teaching and teacher education (pp. 13–31). Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto. https://doi.org/10.24053/9783823393740
31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper
Embodied and Arts-integrated Teaching of Languages and Literacies in Class Teacher Education: Student Teachers’ Diffractions of Opportunities-and-challenges
Sofia Jusslin1,3, Kaisa Korpinen2,3, Riina Hannuksela3, Charlotte Svendler Nielsen4
1Åbo Akademi University, Finland; 2University of Turku, Finland; 3University of the Arts, Finland; 4University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Presenting Author: Jusslin, Sofia
Embodied learning and arts integration – in which languages and/or literacies are integrated with the use of an art form, such as dance – have lately gained more attention in research on languages and literacies education (e.g., Johnson & Kontovourki, 2016; Jusslin et al., 2022). Previous research on these topics stresses the important role of teacher education in acting as a catalyst in renewing educational practices (Guerretaz et al., 2022; Jusslin et al., 2022; Møller-Skau & Lindstøl, 2022). Teacher education has an important role in preparing student teachers to teach languages and literacies and can influence their understandings thereof (e.g., Bomer et al., 2019; Kanakri, 2017).
Aiming to integrate teaching and research in teacher education, we introduced embodied and arts-integrated languages and literacies education in class teacher education for primary education (grades 1–6) at Åbo Akademi University (ÅAU), Finland. We implemented a workshop series across language and arts education courses for student teachers at ÅAU. The student teachers discussed opportunities and challenges in relation to the teaching approaches, which caught our attention. In this study, we explore the opportunities and challenges more in-depth to gain insight into aspects that teacher education needs to address regarding embodied and arts-integrated languages and literacies education.
This study engages with posthumanist theories (Barad, 2007; Haraway, 1992), which align with a relational ontology, and stresses how students, educational realities, and knowledges are constantly produced in relations. Posthumanist theories contribute with an understanding of languages and literacies as distributed across humans, spaces, and materials (Toohey et al., 2020) and as embodied processes (MacLure, 2013; Toohey et al., 2020). Further, diffraction is a key concept in the current study (Barad, 2007; Haraway, 1992) and has lately been increasingly used as an alternative to reflection in teacher education (e.g., Lambert, 2021; Moxnes & Osgood, 2018). Diffraction focuses on differences and the effects they might have (Barad, 2007, p. 28). In teacher education, diffraction offers ways to read teaching practices through, for example, different theories, policies, memories, and sensory responses, acknowledging their emergence from messy, embodied, and material encounters in teaching (Lambert, 2021).
In the workshops, the student teachers’ insights from their embodied participation in the practical workshops, discussions of theoretical perspectives, previous personal experiences, and future teaching profession became diffracted, read through one another. Engaging with this theoretical approach, this study aims to explore the student teachers’ diffractions of opportunities and challenges in using embodied and arts-integrated teaching approaches in languages and literacies education. Our analytic questions are: What did engagement in embodied and arts-integrated languages and literacies education in teacher education set in motion for the student teachers? What opportunities and challenges did such teaching approaches enable student teachers to think?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study is conducted within the research project Embodied Language Learning through the Arts (ELLA; 2021–2024). The workshop series – held by a multiprofessional team of artists, teacher educators, and researchers – encompassed three practical workshops and were held within mandatory courses in class teacher education. Altogether 59 student teachers gave informed consent to participate in the study. The participating student teachers attended different study programs in the teacher education: class teacher education, language immersion class teacher education, and special education teacher education. Most of the students (52) studied their first year of the five-year teacher education, while the rest (7) studied their second or third year or participated in the courses as part of their master’s studies in education.
The methodological approach of the study is arts-based research (ABR; Leavy, 2018). We actively used different art forms in both the processes and products of our teaching and research, such as dance and visual arts during the teaching and poetry in our analysis and reporting of the study. The data encompass a written survey, questions that student teachers posed during the workshops, and the researchers’ memory notes and embodied participation and experiences from the workshops. The survey included open-ended questions about various aspects of the teaching approaches; for example, if you put yourself in the role of a student participating in embodied language learning through the arts, what do you think teachers need to consider? At the end of each workshop, students’ questions about teaching languages and literacies through embodied and arts-integrated approaches were documented. The researchers made memory notes based on their participation in the workshops (Gunnarsson & Bodén, 2021). The data are analyzed through creating poetry with data, as an ABR strategy. Creating poetry offers an approach to discovery, analysis, and presenting the analysis in which multiple diffractions are at play. As such, poetry constitutes our analytical process and product of the ABR (Faulkner, 2018). The analysis resulted in four poems with related analytical discussions.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe opportunities and challenges, expressed and experienced by the student teachers, created friction in-between each other and became intertwined as opportunities-and-challenges. As such, the student teachers simultaneously recognized the value of and adopted a critical perspective on the embodied and arts-integrated teaching approaches. Showcased with four poems, the analysis indicates that the student teachers’ engagement with these approaches set in motion thoughts about opportunities-and-challenges concerning (un)learning conceptions of teaching and learning languages and literacies; balancing pedagogical acts and realities; the friction of differentiating the teaching; and a mixture of (un)certainties regarding future teaching practices. As such, the current study particularly contributes knowledge of how participation in embodied and arts-integrated teaching set in motion new conceptions of languages and literacies as embodied processes. It involved processes of (un)learning how languages and literacies can be understood, problematizing a dualistic and hierarchical perspective on mind and body in languages and literacies education (e.g., Toohey et al., 2020). Participation in the workshops also set in motion new conceptions on how languages and literacies can be taught and differentiated. The student teachers wanted to use the new practical tools that were introduced to them but remained particularly uncertain how to assess and evaluate children’s learning because of the open-endedness of the teaching approaches. Also, the student teachers’ consideration of differentiation highlights the opportunities-and-challenges of inclusion in the teaching, both in terms of varying skills and levels in languages and literacies and children using assistive devices. In conclusion, the study discusses implications for languages and literacies education as well as teacher education.
ReferencesBarad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press.
Bomer, R., Land, C. L., Rubin, J. C., & Van Dike, L. M. (2019). Constructs of teaching writing in research about literacy teacher education. Journal of Literacy Research, 51(2), 196–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X19833783
Faulkner, S. L. (2018). Poetic inquiry. Poetry as/in/for social research. In P. Leavy (Ed.), Handbook of arts-based research (pp. 208–230). Guilford Press.
Guerrettaz, A. M., Zahler, T., Sotirovska, V., & Boyd, A. S. (2022). ”We acted like ELLs”: A pedagogy of embodiment in preservice teacher education. Language Teaching Research, 26(6), 1274–1298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820909980
Gunnarsson, K., & Bodén, L. (2021). Introduktion till postkvalitativ metodologi [Introduction to post-qualitative methodology]. Stockholm University Press.
Haraway, D. (1992). The promises of monsters: A regenerative politics for inapproporiate/d others’. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, & P A. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural Studies (pp. 295–337). Routledge.
Johnson, E., & Kontovourki, S. (2015). Introduction: Assembling research on literacies and the body. In G. Enriquez, E. Johnson, S. Kontovourki, & C. A. Mallozzi (Eds.), Literacies, learning, and the body. Putting theory and research into pedagogical practice (pp. 3–19). Routledge.
Jusslin, S., Korpinen, K., Lilja, N., Martin, R., Lehtinen-Schnabel, J., & Anttila, E. (2022). Embodied learning and teaching approaches in language education: A mixed studies review. Educational Research Review, 37(100480), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100480
Kanakri, A. (2017). Second language teacher education: Preparing teachers for the needs of second language learners. International Journal of Language Studies, 11(1), 63–94.
Lambert, L. (2021). Diffraction as an otherwise practice of exploring new teachers’ entanglements in time and space. Professional Development in Education, 47(2–3), 421–435.
Leavy, P. (Ed.). (2018). Handbook of arts-based research. Guilford Press.
MacLure, M. (2013). Researching without representation? Language and materiality in post-qualitative methodology. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 658–667. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2013.788755
Moxnes, A. R., & Osgood, J. (2018). Sticky stories from the classroom: From reflection to diffraction in early childhood teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 19(3), 297–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949118766662
Møller-Skau, M., & Lindstøl, F. (2022). Arts-based teaching and learning in teacher education: “Crystallising” student teachers’ learning outcomes through a systematic literature review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 109, 103545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103545
Toohey, K., Smythe, S., Dagenais, D., & Forte, M. (Eds.). (2020). Transforming language and literacy education: New materialism, posthumanism, and ontoethics. London: Routledge.
31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper
Stimulating Academic Language in Primary School Mathematical Education
Nanke Dokter
Fontys HKE, Netherlands, The
Presenting Author: Dokter, Nanke
School subjects are taught through academic language. Different studies have shown that students who are proficient AL users achieve better in school (Snow et al., 1989; Smit, 2013; Kleemans, 2013). AL is used at school to communicate efficiently about abstract, not directly visible content and it has specific features at the lexical, morpho-syntactic and textual level (Aarts et al., 2011, Henrichs, 2010). Not only are subjects taught by using AL, the students’ understanding and knowledge of the subject is also assessed in AL. In addition, knowledge about AL itself is part of the content of schooling (Schleppegrell, 2004). The language students use and need in the school setting however differs substantially from the language learned at home (Henrichs, 2010; Aarts et al., 2011). Teachers can stimulate AL learning of students by using AL themselves and by helping students understand and use AL (Zwiers, 2008).
AL is used in all school subjects. In mathematics AL is necessary because complex problems are placed in a contextual framework and to solve it students need to decontextualize it (Eerde et al., 2002; Mercer & Sams, 2006). Besides this teachers and students may use interactive mathematical conversation to learn and understand mathematical concepts. Students need to learn specific language features of mathematics before they can really participate in such discourse. This language is part of the AL register (Prenger, 2005; Sfard, 2001).
Instructional methods used during mathematics instruction offer different possibilities for AL stimulating behavior. The methods explanation and discussion offer possibilities for behavior aimed at understanding and at triggering AL by the students (Dokter et al, 2017). To stimulate students’ AL development teachers should use AL themselves and show AL stimulating strategies. There are six strategies aimed at students’ AL understanding (‘modeling with think-alouds’, ‘giving meaning’, ‘recasting own language’, ‘repeating own correct language’, ‘reformulating own language’, ‘visualizing’) and six strategies aimed at students’ AL production (‘asking to be more precise’, ‘giving directions’, ‘provocative statement’, ‘recasting language of the student’, ‘repeating language of the student’, ‘reformulating language of the student’). What is equally important, is that teachers connect the home language with the academic language. Strategies that change home language into language with more AL features are called power up, strategies where AL is unpacked back into home language are called power down (Harper & Parkin, 2017).
The goal of this research was to gain an insight in the AL stimulating behavior of teachers in grade 1 and 2 during mathematics instruction. The teacher plays an important role in stimulating students’ development of AL, but the extent in which they do this differs (Schleppegrell 2004; Elbers 2012; Tomasello 2000). The AL stimulating behavior that appears during explanation or discussion in mathematics instruction may differ, because the interaction during explanation is teacher lead while interaction during discussion also may be student lead (Nijland, 2011). This leads to the following questions:
- What differences can be seen in the AL input of primary school teachers of grade 1/2 in mathematics instruction during the instructional methods explanation and discussion?
- What AL stimulating behavior do primary school teachers of grade 1/2 show in mathematics instruction during the instructional methods explanation and discussion?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe instruction of 52 mathematic lessons of 27 teachers in grade 1/2 (age 6-7) was videotaped. To find an answer to RQ 1 the lessons were analyzed for the use of the instructional methods explanation and discussion. For each teacher 4 minutes of both instructional methods were transcribed. The transcriptions were coded for features of AL on different language levels, using a coding protocol based on DASH (Aarts et al., 2011). Paired T-tests were conducted to find significant results about the AL input at different language levels in the two instructional methods. The eleven features of AL, based on theoretical considerations and analyses using using a Pearsons'correlation matrix, could be reduced to five main features: ‘lexical diversity’, ‘lexical complexity’, ‘lexical specificity’, ‘grammatical complexity’ and ‘textual complexity’. These main features were used in the rest of this research.
To answer RQ2 for each teacher the different kinds of AL stimulating behavior within the instructional methods was scored by looking at shown behavior in the relevant video fragments. The data of the observation study were analyzed by coding the teachers’ behavior as 0 (AL stimulating behavior did not occur) or 1 (AL stimulating behavior did occur) for each aspect of AL stimulating behavior during explanation and discussion. The total means and standard deviations were calculated for all types of AL stimulating behavior in the two instructional methods, aimed at students’ understanding of AL and production of AL.
Students got significant more opportunity to talk during discussion than during explanation, which confirms a difference in interaction between explanation and discussion. It became clear that teachers of grade 2 used more features of AL than teachers of grade 1.
Concerning RQ1 the input of the teachers during explanation consisted more AL features than their language input during discussion. The significant differences were found at the lexical level (lexical density and morfologically complex words) and at the morfo-syntactical level (clause combining). No significant difference was found at the textual level (level of abstraction).
Concerning RQ2 more AL stimulating behavior was shown during the instructional method explanation than during discussion. About half of the teachers showed behavior aimed at stimulating understanding of AL by students. Less than a third of the teachers showed behavior aimed at triggering AL use. Some types of behavior, like modeling or making provocative statements, were hardly used by teachers.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsTeachers use more AL features during explanation, the instructional method that is more teacher lead than during discussion, where students also lead the interaction. The results of the AL input analyses showed that teachers varied less in lexical features than in features at the grammatical and textual level. All AL features were used by the teachers and a large variety was found. Overall, teachers more often used AL aimed at content (lexical diversity and lexical specificity) than at complexity (lexical complexity and grammatical complexity). In the textual complexity the variation between the teachers was large.
All strategies were used during the eight minutes that were analyzed, although individual teachers used a limited set of strategies. The AL stimulating behavior corresponds with the AL input teachers use themselves; the most teachers show stimulating behavior during explanation, the method in where also the most AL features were shown. Teachers show during explanation more behavior aimed at understanding. The AL behavior that is aimed at triggering AL use of students is shown less, even during discussion.
Power down strategies were used the most and this is in accordance with the AL use of the teachers: they simplify their language to make sure students understand them. Although teachers in general use less power up than power down strategies, all teachers also used strategies aiming at their students’ AL production. Especially during the instructional method discussion they used significantly more power up strategies and students were stimulated to produce more language. In order to stimulate students’ AL development, teachers could use the instructional method discussion more often during their mathematics instruction.
ReferencesAarts, R., S. Demir & T. Vallen (2011). Characteristics of academic language register occurring in caretaker-child interaction: Development and validation of a coding scheme. Language Learning, 61(4), 1173-1221.
Dokter, N., R. Aarts, J. Kurvers, A. Ros & S. Kroon (2017). Stimulating students’ academic language: Opportunities in instructional methods in elementary school mathematics. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 17 1-21.
Eerde, D. van, M. Hajer, T. Koole & J. Prenger (2002). Betekenisconstructie in de wiskundeles. De samenhang tussen interactief wiskunde- en taalonderwijs. Pedagogiek, 22(2), 134-147.
Elbers, E. (2012). Iedere les een taalles? Taalvaardigheid en vakonderwijs in het (v)mbo. De stand van zaken in theorie en onderzoek. Utrecht/Den Haag: Universiteit Utrecht en PROO
Harper, H. & B. Parkin (2017). Scaffolding academic language with educationally marginalised students. Report of research project funded by the Primary English Teachers’ Association of Australia (PETAA), Research Grant 2016-2017.
Henrichs, L. (2010). Academic language in early childhood interactions: A longitudinal study of 3- to 6-year-old Dutch monolingual children (diss. Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication (ACLC)).
Kleemans, T. (2013). Individual variation in early numerical development: Impact of linguistic diversity and home environment (diss. Radboud University, Behavioural Science Institute).
Mercer, N. & C. Sams (2006). Teaching children how to use language to solve maths problems. Language and Education, 20(6), 507-528.
Nijland, F.J. (2011). Mirroring interaction: An exploratory study into student interaction in independent working (diss. Tilburg University).
Prenger, J. (2005). Taal telt! Een onderzoek naar de rol van taalvaardigheid en tekstbegrip in het realistisch wiskundeonderwijs (diss. Groningen University).
Schleppegrell, M. (2013). The role of metalanguage in supporting academic language development. Language Learning, 63(1), 153-170.
Sfard, A. (2001). There is more to discourse than meets the ears: Looking at thinking as communicating to learn more about mathematical learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 13-57.
Smit, J. (2013). Scaffolding language in multilingual mathematics classrooms (diss. Utrecht University).
Snow, C., H. Cancini, P. Gonzalez & E. Shriberg (1989). Giving formal definitions: An oral language correlate of school literacy. In D. Bloome (ed.), Classrooms and literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 233-249.
Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition, 74(3), 209-253.
Zwiers, J. (2008). Building academic language: Essential practices for content classrooms, grades 5-12. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Teacher.
|
