99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
SHARE: Teachers’ Perception about Changes in Teaching and Learning
Gulzat Kussepova1, Saule Askarova2, Raikhan Anapyanova3, Timur Shaimakhanov4
1School Lyceum #53, Astana, Kazakhstan; 2School-Lyceum #50, Astana, Kazakhstan; 3School-gymnasium #58, Astana, Kazakhstan; 4School-Lyceum #35, Astana, Kazakhstan
Presenting Author: Kussepova, Gulzat
The aim of this small-scale research is to explore whether there is an improvement teaching and learning practices resulting from the collaborative action research focused on Student Engagement in Classroom Learning, implemented in 22 SHARE schools (School Hub for Action Research in Education) in Astana city, Kazakhstan.
The SHARE project is an educational initiative, implemented since 2019 by the Astana city Department of Education in collaboration with esteemed scholars, including the Emeritus Professor of the University of Cambridge, Professor Colleen McLaughlin, a former Principal of Bottisham Village College Mrs. Kate Evans and Dr Nazipa Ayubayeva, the University of Cambridge graduate and prominent advocate for action research in Kazakhstan, who also serves as a national coordinator for the SHARE. The coordination and implementation of the SHARE are carried out by the Center for Education Modernisation along with 22 school coordinators, four of whom are the authors of this paper.
The primary goal of the SHARE is to bring about the changes into teachers’ practice, ensuring that every child benefits from the initiative. In contemporary educational settings, there exists a need to explore innovative methodologies that actively engage students in the learning process. Scholarly enquiries by Elliott (1991), Townsend (2013), Pollard (2014), and other education practitioners highlight the transformative impact of action research on the educational paradigm, fostering to enhance learning outcomes. In response to this context, Calhoun (1993) has emphasized three distinct approaches aimed at supporting teachers to improve teaching and learning practices by engaging inaction research: 1. Individual teacher research, 2. Collaborative action research, and 3. School-wide action research. Manfra's (2019) research findings suggest that collaborative action research approaches are particularly effective in empowering teachers to modify their teaching practices. Moreover, Oranga and Gisore(2023) in their research focus their attention on improving problem-solving effectiveness through comprehensive school-wide initiatives.
Hence, the SHARE, that started as a collaborative action research within and across different schools of Astana city has a significant potential to help teachers to improve teaching, enhance their own learning and share ideas and practices for other to learn from.The implementation of any small-scale action research project within the SHARE centers around four domains of change: 1) acquiring knowledge about action research methodology; 2) improving teaching and learning; 3) fostering teacher leadership; 4) establishing conditions for sustained engagement in the initiative and beyond.
As such, during the 2022-2023 academic year all 22 SHARE schools implemented a small-scale action research project about student engagement in classroom learning. During academic year teachers were guided by the core team of scholar show to implement the project, including reading about student engagement, conducting classes, filling in the protocols of class observation and video-recording lessons for the analysis and etc., in order to learn about student engagement in classroom settings. Whereas SHARE school-coordinators were guided by a national coordinator to research teachers’ perception about the four domains of SHARE. Specifically, our team consisting of a national coordinator and four school-coordinators came together to research teachers’ perception about one of the SHARE domains. That is, to learn about changes in teaching and learning practices steaming from the implementation of student engagement in classroom settings, implemented across 22 SHARE schools.
Thus, the research is intended to assist conducting a literature review about teachers’ perception of changes and contribute to better understanding of how teachers perceive the changes and improvements in their practices within SHARE initiatives.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn this study, three main sources of information were used: a literature review to learn about the changes in teaching and learning among teachers, SHARE teachers’ reflective accounts and survey data conducted in SHARE schools.
The systematic literature review was conducted in English, Kazakh, and Russian languages and guided by the main research question. Google Scholar was the primary source for literature search due to the restricted access to subscription -based databases in the schools.
Survey data was collected via Google Forms. This choice was guided by several factors, including time constraints and the necessity to reach a substantial number of respondents. A questionnaire comprising of thirteen questions was designed along with other three teams researching SHARE domains. General information about the respondents, including their role in the student engagement project and in the SHARE project, was collected to be used during the analysis by all four teams exploring the four domains. Among the thirteen questions, two were specifically focused to teachers’ perception about the changes in their practices. The survey was carried out anonymously. Anonymity was considered essential in creating an open and honest environment for participants, encouraging a greater willingness to share their perceptions without fear of judgment or misunderstanding. This approach aimed to produce more accurate and truthful insights into the participants' perspectives on changes in learning.
The SHARE teacher’s’ reflective accounts provided by SHARE teachers served as a valuable complement to the survey data, enhancing our understanding of subjective views. The segmentation and descriptive analyses were employed to identify trends in responses, allowing for a differentiated examination of feedback from both new and long-standing project participants. This approach aimed to offer nuanced insights into the evolving perspectives and experiences of teachers involved in the Student Engagement in Classroom Learning project.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe survey data was validated with 171 responses. Preliminary findings highlighted the positive effect of the Student Engagement in Classroom Learning project on teacher practice. The findings indicated that teachers engaged in the project for over three years either fully or partially agreed that the project prompted changes in their practices. However, a quarter of the teachers with less than two years of project experience responded that they found it challenging to respond, citing a lack of time, a common sentiment among SHARE teacher early in the project. Nonetheless, a growing number of teachers now recognise and affirm that the creating conditions for changes lies in the hands. Reflective accounts reveal instances of teachers exercising autonomy, in such areas as selecting a critical friend and making time to meet to discuss teaching strategies and student related issues in the school, even when there is no dedicated space and time is set in their daily schedule. In general, the findings underscore the success of the “Student Engagement in Learning” project and its impact on teachers’ perception about the changes in teaching and learning in long run. Future research endeavors could explore in more depth the specific aspects of SHARE initiative contributing to improving teaching and learning in schools.
ReferencesCalhoun, E. F. (1993). Action Research: Three Approaches. Educational leadership, 51(2), 62-65.
Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Farrell, T. S. (2011). ‘Keeping SCORE’: Reflective practice through classroom observations. RELC Journal, 42(3), 265-272.
Manfra, M. M. (2019). Action research and systematic, intentional change in teaching practice. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 163-196.
Oranga, J., &Gisore, B. (2023). Action Research in Education. Open Access Library Journal, 10(7), 1-10.
Pollard, A., Black-Hawkins, K., Cliff-Hodges, G., Dudley, P., & James, M. (2014). Reflective teaching in schools: Evidence-informed professional practice. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Townsend, A. (2013). Action research: The challenges of changing and researching practice: The challenges of understanding and changing practice. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
Heritage Education: Mapping Urban Places through Children’s Voices
Ludovica Sebastiano
Free University of Bozen, Italy
Presenting Author: Sebastiano, Ludovica
The present paper is part of the PNRR PhD project “Teaching and learning heritage”, which responds to the need expressed in the PNRR plan to develop strategies for safeguarding cultural heritage (M1C3.1: cultural heritage for the next generation). The research project identifies heritage education with children as a possible safeguarding action, as also suggested by the 2003 UNESCO Convention.
Considering the reflections brought by Manal & Srour (2021) and Smith (2013), which underline how children are under-represented in heritage discourses and how necessary it is to rethink their relationship with heritage, the aim of the research is to get a deeper understanding of children’s perspectives of cultural heritage (in all its forms, natural, tangible and intangible), and its associated meanings, related to their everyday urban environment.
In this context, mapping urban spaces with children as a method to foster an identification and co-construction of knowledge (De Nicola et al., 2022) of cultural heritage is proposed. For considering children as social and cultural actors (Melton et al, 2014), implies involving them in safeguarding processes and bringing their voices into the – this way intergenerationally structured – heritage discourse.
To reflect on heritage education, the perspective of intangible cultural heritage is proposed. The “intangible cultural heritage” paradigm shift introduced by 2003 UNESCO Convention highlights a change from the hegemony of the cultural objects to the centrality of the subjects (Lapiccirella Zingari, 2017, p. 19). The 2005 Faro Convention also emphasises the relevance of the participation of communities, groups, and individuals in the processes of heritage making, safeguarding and education. Thus, heritage, considered as a cultural (Smith, 2006) and active process (Copeland, 2012, p. 22), is constituted by the meanings and the values that individuals attribute to it. Accordingly, heritage education “is about people” (Copeland, 2012, p.22), which means that it lies less in the acquisition of factual knowledge, but rather in the individuals’ involvement in the process of heritage making and meaning making. Furthermore, Del Gobbo et al. (2018) emphasise the importance of designing educational activities that foster the production of a plurality of narratives and interpretations by persons and communities, highlighting the dynamic and active component of cultural experiences (p.26).
Inspired by Children’s geography, the tool of mapping urban spaces, assuming the "more than representational" approach (Malatesta, 2015), allows to compose the experienced dimension (practices, meanings, values) of places with its translation into graphic form (Malatesta, 2015, p.62). In this sense, mapping no longer represents an objective physical space, but becomes the narrative of an experienced and lived place. As Barnes (2018) and Powell (2010) suggest, mapping, as a research method, allows the exploring of new narratives, not fixing meanings.
In heritage education, asking children to map their urban spaces means identifying all those elements (places, cultural practices, people) considered important. The children’s narratives of their maps will compose a collective narrative of the places, as well as of the community living in the neighborhood.
Observing cultural heritage from everyday places responds on one hand to the necessity to make this concept more accessible (Schofield, 2015), anchoring it in everyday experiences that are considered significant; on the other hand, it also allows to recognise all those 'unofficial' cultural expressions as heritage (Harrison, 2013, p. 15).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe research project can be defined as a qualitative and exploratory research (Mortari & Ghirotto, 2019) based on a reconstructive approach (Bohnsack, 2010).
The empirical study will be conducted in northern Italian urban area and will involve 30/40 children aged between 6 and 11 years old. The data collection will start in May 2024.
To answer the research question, I will conduct creative mapping workshops in collaboration with cultural and social associations based in the selected area (90 minutes & 15 participants each). They will be structured in three main phases: 1. First group activation to introduce the topic of cultural heritage through different stimuli; 2. Workshop activity, in which children will be asked to represent through drawings, or maps, the places of the area/district that are most important for them, or the element that they consider cultural heritage; 3. Group discussion, where children will be asked to talk about their drawing and to share ideas on cultural heritage.
In terms of methods of data collection, participant observations and field notes will be used to monitor/observe the process. Field notes, also often described as “memos”, will focus both on observative and methodological aspects; furthermore, reflexive field notes will work as a starting point for the elaboration of the research process (Bove, 2019) and for the interpretation of the data.
The graphic representations of places are seen as the products of the children's lived experience, transforming the materiality of spaces into a “sense of place” (Malatesta, 2015, p. 64). As Barnes (2018) and Powell (2010) suggest mapping becomes a form of narrative of the places experienced and lived. Children's drawings will be accompanied by a description. Narratives will suggest a clearer, but also closer, understanding of children’s thought and ideas on their living places. Documentary method will be used for the analyses, combined with the ethnographically aligned approach. Both approaches refer to an abductive research process, through which theory is generated ex novo. In accordance with the documentary method, it is intended to triangulate the different data collection procedures (participant observation, children’s drawings, and group discussion) to develop a more accurate and deeper interpretation of them.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe principal aim of the research is to understand more in detail how children perceive, understand and, most importantly, live cultural heritage in their ordinary urban environments.
Through the experience of mapping, the expected outcome is to involve actively and practically children in the process of identify heritage elements and co-construct knowledge and awareness of heritage. The insights gained can be made fruitful for further discourse on heritage education in an innovative way.
Moreover, the conduction of workshops in collaboration with cultural associations based in the selected area emphasise an approach to heritage education actions in the context of non-formal education, enriching the experiences proposed in the school and in the museum context. By this, it is encouraged a heritage education closer to children´s experiences.
Lastly, through this paper, it is intended to open a deeper reflection on how to involve children, in heritage safeguarding and valorisation processes, taking seriously their way of acting and meaning-giving in their daily lives.
ReferencesBarnes, A. (2018). Creative Representations of Place (1st ed.). Milton: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315162089
Bohnsack, R., Pfaff, N., & Weller, W. (Eds.). (2010). Qualitative Analysis and Documentary Method: In International Educational Research (1st ed.). Opladen & Farmington Hills, MI: Verlag Barbara Budrich.
Bove, C. (2019). Il metodo etnografico. In L. Mortari & L. Ghirotto, Metodi per la ricerca educativa. Roma: Carocci editore.
Copeland, T. (2012). Heritage Education in Europe. Mirando a Europa: Estado de La Cuestión y Perspectivas de Futuro. Ponencias, 21–29. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alfredo-Palacios Garrido/publication/280601520_El_Open_Museum_de_Glasgow_llevar_el_museo_a_las_personas/links/55bd708408ae092e96638786/El-Open-Museum-de-Glasgow-llevar-el-museo-a-las-personas.pdf#page=21
Del Gobbo, G., Galeotti, G., & Torlone, F. (2018). Le valenze educative del patrimonio culturale: Riflessioni teorico-metodologiche tra ricerca evidence based e azione educativa nei musei. Canterano: Aracne.
De Nicola, A., Pepe, A., Zuccoli, F. (2022). Living Territories to the Full, Dialoguing with Citizens. In: Casonato, C., Bonfantini, B. (eds) Cultural Heritage Education in the Everyday Landscape. Digital Innovations in Architecture, Engineering and Construction (113–127). Cham: Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10395-7_8
Harrison, R. (2013). Heritage: Critical Approaches. Routledge.
Lapiccirella Zingari, V. (2017). Patrimoni vitali nel paesaggio. Note sull’immaterialità del patrimonio culturale alla luce delle convenzioni internazionali. In D. Parbuono & F. Sbardella (Eds.), Costruzione di Patrimoni. Le parole degli oggetti e delle convenzioni (17–51). Bologna: Pàtron Editore.
Malatesta, S. (2015). Geografia dei bambini: Luoghi, pratiche e rappresentazioni (1a ed). Milano: Guerini e Associati.
Manal Ginzarly & F. JORDAN Srour (2021) Unveiling children’s perceptions of World Heritage Sites: a visual and qualitative approach, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 27:12, 1324-1342, DOI: 10.1080/13527258.2021.1977374
Melton, G. B., Ben-Aryeh, A., Cashmore, J., Goodman, G. S., & Worley, N. K. (Eds.). (2014). The SAGE handbook of child research. Los Angeles: SAGE
Mortari, L., & Ghirotto, L. (2019). Metodi per la ricerca educativa. Roma: Carocci.
Powell, K. (2010). Making Sense of Place: Mapping as a Multisensory Research Method. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(7), 539-555. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410372600
Schofield, J. (2015). Forget About ‘Heritage’: Place, Ethics and the Faro Convention. In T. Ireland & J. Schofield (Eds.), The Ethics of Cultural Heritage (pp. 197–209). New York NY: Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1649-8_12
Smith, L. (2006). Uses of Heritage (Repr). London: Routledge.
Smith, L. (2013). Taking the children: children, childhood and heritage making. In K. Darian-Smith & C. Pascoe, Children, Childhood and Cultural Heritage (107–125). London and New York: Routledge.
UNESCO. (2003). The basic text of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. https://ich.unesco.org/en/basic-texts-00503
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
Jazz’n School. Exploring a Teaching and Learning Posture through Practices, Policies, and Cultures
Sofia Boz
Università di Padova, Italy
Presenting Author: Boz, Sofia
In a present marked by uncertainty, instability, and unpredictability, school system struggles to keep pace, despite calls for schools and teachers to be dynamic, open to change and to prepare pupils to face the challenges and problems of an ever-fast-changing world (European Union, 2008). The environments where we spend most of our time in the period of (trans)formation appear entrenched in an overly predetermined structure that fail to align with the dynamism of the present. This research aims to delve into jazz, conceived as a metaphor encompassing values and attitudes essential for daily life and long-term development (Santi, Zorzi, 2016). Jazz embodies a formative potential for the next generations and a trans-formative one for the teaching/learning approach and, more in general, for the idea of an inclusive, inventive, polyphonic, and explorative education. Schools frequently hinder aspects inherent to human existence that are also prevalent in jazz: improvisation in ambiguous situations, adaptation to new contexts, curiosity about the unknown, and learning from mistakes. Instead of presenting themselves as protected havens resistant to the unpredictability of the world, educational environments should be viewed as safe spaces that foster experimentation, mirroring what happens between jazz musicians during a jam session with no audience. In both contexts, focus is placed on the process unfolding in the present, requiring continuous attention (Masschelein, 2010), rather than prioritizing the product as a predetermined outcome subject to rigid evaluation criteria.
The research’s main theoretical framework is pedagojazz (Santi, 2010, 2015; Santi, Zorzi, 2016). Santi's theoretical proposal introduces values that could serve as inspiration for a novel pedagogical approach, exploring possibilities often overlooked in traditional education. Specifically, it emphasizes the significance of authentic presence, the establishment of a safe creativity environment (Weinstein, 2016) that encourages experimentation without fear of making mistakes, and the importance of maintaining an open stance toward others in the pursuit of a shared educational journey. Above all, pedagojazz places a priority on the potential of improvisation, a fundamental element of jazz music, that has undergone extensive study in various fields, including education (Cappa, Negro, 2006; Tomlinson, Germundson, 2007; Sawyer, 2011; Zorzi, 2020). It teaches that mistakes are inherent in the journey, and the real challenge lies in effectively dealing with them. Embracing mistakes is the pathway to stepping out of our comfort zones and genuinely putting ourselves on the line.
The research subject is of great topicality, which is confirmed by the support from NRRP funds for this research grant. Moreover, the project stems from a collaboration between the University of Padua and Federazione Nazionale Il Jazz Italiano. The objective is to expose jazz hallmarks by drawing insights directly from the experiences of jazz professionals to outline a teaching and learning jazzing posture that responds to the need to embrace the uncertainty of the present. Due to the collaborative nature of the project, it pursues two interconnected goals, addressing both theoretical and practical needs. Firstly, it endeavors to explore the potentially revolutionary impact of a jazzing approach in the pedagogical field: what does it mean to bring jazz to school? What does a teaching and learning jazzing posture entail? Which positive implications might it have? Secondly, the project aims to highlight the cultural heritage of jazz, recognized by UNESCO for promoting peace, dialogue, respect, eradicating discrimination, fostering gender equality, and promoting freedom of expression. The collaborative effort involves co-constructing a yet-to-be-identified tool with representatives from jazz organizations to answer the following questions: how is it possible to enhance networking among musicians engaged in the educational field? How could this step benefit the school system as a whole?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedFrom a methodological point of view, the exploratory nature of the research suggested the choice of a qualitative approach (Denzin, Lincoln, 2005; Bogdan, Biklen, 2007), framing the work in social constructivism (Lincoln, Guba, 1985) within a phenomenological perspective (Mortari, 2007). The most appropriate method appeared to be Grounded Theory (Strauss, Corbin, 1998): the tool of semi-structured interview (Zammuner, 1998) has been used for data collection, as for data analysis the choice was the software ATLAS.ti.
Three different groups of participants to the research have been selected based on three interdependent dimensions emerging from the Index of Inclusion (Booth, Ainscow, 2000, 2002, 2011), a resource that promote a development of inclusion in schools. The three dimensions – cultures, policies, and practices – are thought as a never-ending process towards inclusion. Every little change of a dimension influences the others, sustaining the dynamism of both challenges and potential solutions. Hence, it is vital to recognize each dimension and develop them all together to shape a common flexible direction. The choice of this tool as a guiding principle arises from its alignment with a concept of inclusion that mirrors an approach akin to jazz music. This embraces an upstream view of diversity, considering alternatives as generative opportunities for the system itself.
The practices dimension is represented by musicians (17) with a jazz background, who had experiences in educational environments. Referents of jazz organizations (3) played an active part in the research representing the policies dimension, too, being more aware of the political framework and the constraints they face every day. The third and last dimension is the one of cultures, embodied in the group of theoreticians (15), namely experts from different fields who, within their own area of expertise, had already brought reflections on the research topic.
The analysis of data from semi-structured interviews will involve three primary steps. At first, data obtained from each group will be processed independently, as closed systems, to extract distinct categories. Afterwards, the analysis will transition to an open systems perspective, where the categories derived from the closed analysis will be compared. The objective is to identify any common categories that may emerge across various dimensions. Finally, the identified categories will be juxtaposed with existing literature on the topic, with the aim of determining whether they align with those outlined in prior studies (Santi, 2015, 2016) or if they introduce unexplored nuances.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAll interviews have been conducted and transcribed, data analysis is in progress, but initial ones offer a glimpse into potential outcomes. Firstly, we foresee the identification of core categories that transcend all three interviewees’ groups, serving as pivotal elements in shaping the jazzing posture. We also expect these categories to correspond to some of the characteristic traits already tracked by pedagojazz (Santi, 2015, 2016). One of these will almost certainly be improvisation that, in its collaborative declination, is a persistent feature in all the interviews so far. In the same way, new elements also stand out, stemming precisely from the personal teaching experiences of the musicians interviewed, capable of broadening the traits of pedagojazz enriching it with new, different, and generative perspectives. Likewise, some categories may occur exclusively within certain groups, shedding light on aspects that are less explored or lack awareness, such as the naturally inclusive nature of jazz, also related to its history, which conflicts with the exclusivity manifested in jam sessions among skilled musicians that do not admit those who stay one step behind. A deeper exploration of distinct elements contributes to the development of a tool that fosters collaboration among musicians, enhancing their unique teaching approaches, but also promising mutual enrichment within the musical education landscape. Simultaneously, this exploration extends beyond jazz as a teaching discipline. The process that will lead to the co-construction of the as-yet unidentified tool provides for the identification of fallouts in the pedagogical field. Therefore, it presents itself as an opportunity for critical reflections on the broader educational dimensions of cultures, practices, and policies. This multifaceted approach, nurtured by a constant and dynamic interplay between experiences and contrasting points of view, enables a more comprehensive understanding of the potential impact and applications of the jazzing posture in diverse educational settings.
ReferencesBogdan R. & Biklen S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education. An introduction to theories and methods. New York: Pearson Education Inc., Allyn & Bacon.
Booth, T. & Ainscow, M. (2000, 2002, 2011). Index for Inclusion, developing learning and participation in school. UK: CSIE.
Cappa, F. & Negro, C. (2006). Il senso nell’istante: improvvisazione e formazione. Milano: Guerini Scientifica.
Denzin N. K. & Lincoln Y. S. (2005). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks (California): Sage.
European Union, C319 (2008). An Agenda for European Cooperation on Schools. Official Journal of the European Union.
Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Masschelein, J. (2010). E-ducating the gaze: the idea of a poor pedagogy. Ethics and Education, 5(1), 43-53.
Mortari, L. (2007). Cultura della ricerca e pedagogia. Roma: Carocci Editore.
Santi, M. (Ed.). (2010). Improvisation between technique and spontaneity. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Santi M. (2015). Improvvisare creatività: nove principi di didattica sull’eco di un discorso. Studium Educationis, 2, 103-114.
Santi M. (2016). Educare in jazz: otto tratti di una nuova pedagogia. In W. Kohan, S. Lopes, F. Martins (Eds.), O ato de educar em uma lingua ainda por ser escrita (pp. 379-390). Rio de Janeiro: NEFI.
Santi, M. & Zorzi, E. (Eds.). (2016). Education as Jazz: Interdisciplinary Sketches on a New Metaphor. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Sawyer, R. K. (2011). Structure and Improvisation in Creative Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tomlinson, C. A. & Germundson, A. (2007). Teaching as Jazz. Educational Leadership, 8(64), 27-31.
Weinstein, J. (2016). A Safe Creativity Environment. In Santi M. & Zorzi E. (Eds.), Education as Jazz: Interdisciplinary Sketches on A New Metaphor (pp. 49-61). Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars.
Zammuner V. L. (1998). Tecniche dell’intervista e del questionario. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Zorzi, E. (2020). L’insegnante improvvisatore. Napoli: Liguori.
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
The Development of a Pedagogical Tool for CLIL: Research and Practice
Breandán Mac Gearailt
University of Galway, Ireland
Presenting Author: Mac Gearailt, Breandán
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)* and language immersion programmes have been implemented in the majority of educational systems of Europe since the 1990s (Goris et al., 2019; Renau & Mas Marti, 2018). There is a consensus in the literature that the target language (TL) development of students in CLIL and immersion settings outstrips their peers who study the language in stand-alone classes (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Dalton-Puffer, 2008; Genesee & Lindholm-Leary, 2013; Tedick & Lyster, 2020). However, many scholars internationally conclude that students do not reach an advanced level of competence but, rather, a “functional proficiency” (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012, p. 253). For CLIL to reach its full potential by the end of upper secondary education, a more explicit and systematic focus on language is needed in content-area classrooms (Tedick & Lyster, 2020).
There is acknowledgement that this is not an easy undertaking as this fusing of content teaching and language teaching has variously been referred to as a “stab in the dark” (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012, p. 261) and a “conundrum” (Ó Ceallaigh et al., 2018, p. 5). In many jurisdictions this situation is exacerbated by teacher readiness issues, where no specific qualification is required to teach in CLIL settings (Ó Ceallaigh et al., 2018; Tedick & Fortune, 2013).
Irish is a minority language on the island of Ireland with the English language being the first language (L1) of the vast majority of the population (Central Statistics Office, 2017). This research project focused on the lived experiences of secondary CLIL teachers as they attempt to integrate the teaching of content and the teaching of language in Irish-medium schools. The first iteration of a pedagogical tool was developed to explore CLIL teachers’ experiences, attitudes and practices (Mac Gearailt et al., 2023). This pedagogical tool, SIOF, has now been refined and it is hoped that it will be a significant development in a move to a more “systematic” pedagogy” (Genesee & Lindholm-Leary, 2013, p. 22). SIOF focuses on “language sensitive” (Marsh et al., 2001, p. 4) classroom practices that relate to Scaffolding, Input, Output and Feedback.
It adopts a socio-cognitive view of the learning process and accepts that cognition and social interaction have complementary roles in language learning (Lyster, 2007). Considering the varied and naturalistic input of CLIL settings, the work of Krashen (1982), his theory on Comprehensible Input in particular, underpins much of the scholarship on CLIL. Social interactions are fundamental to the sociocultural perspective on second language learning (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). Speaking (and writing) enables learners to control their mental processes, which facilitates the internalisation of language used in social interactions. In devising SIOF the authors drew heavily on the Counterbalanced Approach of Lyster (2007) and the CAPA model of Tedick and Lyster (2020), which focuses on contextualisation, awareness, practice and autonomy when integrating the teaching of language and content. Form-focused instruction (FFI) is the bedrock of these approaches, and of SIOF. FFI is defined as “any pedagogical effort which is used to draw the learners’ attention to language form either implicitly or explicitly” (Spada, 1997, p. 73).
* The authors view CLIL as an umbrella term for any context where an additional language is used to teach content. As such, when the authors use the term CLIL this includes immersion. For further discussion on the interrelatedness of CLIL and immersion see (Mac Gearailt et al., 2021).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis research was conducted within an interpretive ontological paradigm. A phenomenological approach, a form of naturalistic research that resides within the interpretive paradigm, was adopted (Cohen et al., 2018). This approach allowed the researcher to explore the lived experiences or “lifeworld” (Newby, 2010, p. 36) of CLIL teachers.
Invitations to participate and information notes were sent to all of the Irish-medium secondary schools in Ireland (n=35) outside of official Gaeltacht areas (areas designated as being Irish speaking). Teachers who teach non-language subjects (geography, history, science etc.) were invited to participate. Within this school/teacher population a purposive sampling technique was utilised. Purposive sampling is a form of non-probability sampling which allows the researcher to recruit participants in a “strategic” way (Clark et al., 2016, p. 378). The researcher used his judgement to assemble participants to best meet the “specific needs” of the study (Cohen et al., 2018).
A copy of the SIOF document was forwarded to all participants before attending an online information session. At these session the fundamentals of SIOF were explained to the participants and they were afforded the opportunity to ask questions. 32 participants were recruited (five subsequently withdrew) and sixteen information sessions were conducted. At the conclusion of these sessions the participating teachers were requested to reflect on the strategies/approaches outlined in SIOF for a period of two to four weeks and to explore some of the strategies/approaches in their classrooms. Subsequently three focus groups (with five to seven participants) and nine semi-structured interviews were conducted. The SIOF pedagogical tool was used as an interview schedule but a semi-structured approach was maintained. These interviews were audio recorded and subsequently transcribed for analysis. The researcher took notes during the interviews/focus groups and during the transcription process. The data was analysed using thematic analysis. The researcher followed the “contour” of data analysis conceptualised by Creswell and Poth (2018, p. 186).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsFindings:
1) Many of the participants endeavour to scaffold language use and to engage in language sensitive teaching. However, this happens in an unsystematic fashion. This is in contrast to the Language Tryptic of Coyle et al. (2010) which presents a more structured analysis of language requirements.
2) The data is suggesting that SIOF could foster reflection amongst teachers and an “awakening” (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012, p. 260) to the nuances of CLIL teaching.
3) As Irish is a minority language the breadth and dept of teaching recourses is not as great as there is in English. The data suggests that immersion teachers display innovation and creativity in ameliorating this situation. However, many participants admit to using English language resources. Some participants use English language textbooks even though Irish language ones are available.
4) The data also suggests that some participants (especially those without an undergraduate degree in Irish) do not feel sufficiently confident in their own level of Irish.
5) Many teachers give corrective feedback on language use in content classes. Some are apprehensive about feedback as it might disrupt the flow of the lesson. Others expressed a desire to give feedback but lack the confidence in their own language ability.
6) A common, but subtle theme, throughout the data is the conflict many teachers feel between the teaching of content and the teaching of language. This is the “subject-focused mindset” (Mehisto, 2008, p. 103). There is an underlying fear that an overemphasis on language will distract from content teaching.
7) All of the participants emphasised the importance of a whole school approach in relation to CLIL methodologies. In addition, there is also scope for greater collaboration within subject departments.
8) All the participants expressed a great desire for more CPD in the area of CLIL best-practice.
ReferencesCammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251-269.
Clark, T., Foster, L., Sloan, L., & Bryman, A. (2016). Bryman’s social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in Education (8th ed.). Routledge.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
Genesee, F., & Lindholm-Leary, K. (2013). Two case studies of content-based language education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 3-33.
Goris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2019). The contribution of CLIL to learners’ international orientation and EFL confidence. The Language Learning Journal, 47(2), 246-256.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquistion. Prentice-Hall.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. John Benjamins.
Mac Gearailt, B., Mac Ruairc, G., & Murray, C. (2021). Actualising Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Irish-medium education; why, how and why now? Irish Educational Studies, 1-19.
Mac Gearailt, B., Mac Ruairc, G., & Murray, C. (2023). Towards a research-based pedagogical tool for language sensitive teaching in secondary CLIL and immersion settings. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1-26.
Marsh, D., Maljers, A., & Hartiala, A.-K. (2001). Profiling European CLIL classrooms. University of Jyväskylä.
Mehisto, P. (2008). CLIL counterweights: Recognising and decreasing disjuncture in CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1).
Newby, P. (2010). Research methods for education. Pearson.
Ó Ceallaigh, T. J., Hourigan, M., & Leavy, A. (2018). Developing potentiality: Pre-service elementary teachers as learners of language immersion teaching. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
Renau, M. L., & Mas Marti, S. (2018). A CLIL approach: Evolution and current situation in Europe and in Spain. International Journal of Science and Research, 8(2), 1100-1119.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language teaching, 30, 73-87.
Tedick, D. J., & Fortune, T. W. (2013). Bilingual/immersion teacher education. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 438-443). Blackwell.
Tedick, D. J., & Lyster, R. (2020). Scaffolding language development in immersion and dual language classrooms. Routledge.
|
