An example for teacher training – method of “ changing sides ”

An example for teacher training – method of “changing sides”

Language teaching in subject-matter

An example: mathematical word problem (grade 9):On an insect collecting project Lizzy caught mudwasps, Izzy caught waterbugs and Dizzy caught flies. It was observed that three times the number of mudwasps that Lizzy caught less 14 was equal to the difference between the number of flies Dizzy caught and the number of waterbugs Izzy caught. In addition, it was observed that the sum of the mudwasps caught by Izzy and the waterbugs caught by Lizzy was 10 less than three times the flies caught by Dizzy. On further examination of the collection it was seen that three times the number of waterbugs caught by Izzy plus the difference between the number of mudwasps caught by Lizzy and the number of flies caught by Dizzy was 16. How many mudwasps did Lizzy collect?

Translate this task into yourbest foreign language (5 minutes)

Upper secondary

Language supportacross thecurriculumLink between language &subject-matter

Primary school

Additionallanguagesupport / outsideschool

L1

Additive & inclusivelanguage support

Lower secondary

Involvement of parents & families

Inclusion of informallanguage learningsituations & contexts

Academic language

Everyday language

L2

Kindergarten

Method for continuous and systematic language support (Gogolin et al. 2011)

Didactical methods to include multilingualism Forms of cooperation

SCAFFOLDING language for learning

Multilingualism and language instruction in subject-matter

Two theoretical bases

Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal development” as a theory for learning

Vygotsky, 1934/2002 Language and content learning through systematic support in

the „zone of proximal development“ (Gibbons 2009)

Systematic construction and deconstruction of support by

teachers with the aim of overcoming the „zone“

Macro- and micro-scaffolding (Hammond 2001)

Scaffolding represents the “temporary assistance that teachers provide for their

students in order to assist them to complete a task so that they will later be able to complete similar

tasks alone” (Hammond, 2001: 15)

Halliday’s systemic functional grammaras a theory of language

Language:• Meaning making, context dependent• Mediating construction of knowledge• Variation in relation to: the area of inquiry or topic (field), the roles and

relationships between participants (tenor), and the channel of communication (mode).

Education:• Central role of interaction in the

construction of knowledge• Effective teaching is about and through

language• View of language away from deficit

perspectives

Joining theories for scaffolding - a theory for learning content and language

Scaffolding – the curriculum cycle (Gibbons, 2002)

Knowledge of contents

Everyday language (mostly oral)


this...no, it doesn’t go... it doesn’t move... try that... yes, it does... a bit... that won’t...won’t work, it’s not metal... these are the best... going really fast.

Scaffolding – an example (Gibbons 2002)


Introduction to the register


First elements of academic

language (oral)


Teacher:

we’re trying to talk like scientists;

your language has got to be really precise;

the language you choose is very important

...





language (oral)

Connection between linguistic aspects and contents

Academic language (oral)








language (oral)

Connection between linguistic aspects and contents

Indepedent writing on the theme

Academic language (oral)

Written academic language




2 types of scaffolding

Designed-in scaffolding:macro-scaffolding that is consciously planned at a systemic level

Point-of-need scaffolding:spontaneous use of scaffolding techniques (also called micro-scaffolding or interactional scaffolding) Hammond 2001, Hammond & Gibbons 2005

Designed-in scaffolding -

principles

Hammond & Gibbons 2005: 13

Hammond & Gibbons 2005: 21

Point-of-need or

interactional scaffolding

Practical activity – engaging with the role of language in scaffolding for learning

4.

1. Form groups of 3 to 4 persons

2. Discuss the examples in the handouts (10 minutes)

3. Remember to make notes and choose a raporteur

Scaffolding – snapshots from the classroom

Away from IRF (“the nurse, what about her?”) - prolonging talk, by involving pupils in the construction of knowledge

Responsibility for continuing the conversation is handed to the pupils (increasing the prospectiveness)

14.11.2012Pestalozzi Workshop Slovenia Seite 20

Handout 1Handout 2Handout 3Handout 4 Develop technical vocabulary Paraphrasing students’ talk resulting in a

recontextualised version of their own ideas Evidence of designed-in and point-of-need

scaffolding:in planning the lesson, teacher thought of key concepts;in interaction teacher carefully supports development of

appropriate technical vocabulary

Creating a conceptual hook on which students can “hang” their understanding of the study of history

Extend or reformulate responses from students Develop a line of reasoning Section summary or meta-statement

Focus on language issues – “migrate” Use everyday language to convey knowledge Redefining and elaborating on an activity to support

understanding Final exchange – recapping or making a final

summative statement that points to out the focus of the task

Thank you!

Upper secondary


Primary school


L1


Lower secondary



Academic language

Everyday language

L2

Kindergarten



Systematic language assessment basis for professional ⇨language support

Types of instruments:

Observation Profile analysis Tests(Screenings)

Needs coordination between members of a team – principle of rotation

Multilingualism L1 + L2⇨

Systematic language assessment


Knowledge

Phases of language aquisition (U-Curve)

Features of multilingual speech (code-switching,

transfer)

L1 proficiency of pupils (in particular literacy

related)


Upper secondary


Primary school


L1


Lower secondary



Academic language

Everyday language

L2

Kindergarten



Condition – each teacher is a language teacher and must assume responsability in actively promoting academic language proficiency to all pupils

Vertical e horizontal cooperation: Between several educational institutions

Between the several teachers of a grade (ex: English and biology)

Between the deffierent teachers of a subject.

Methods:

1. Analysing curricula in groups (planning for designed-in scaffolding)

2. Develop a plan based on cooperation (ex: train the genre of report in chemistry and english).

Forms of cooperation

Summary

Social cohesion and reducing the achievement gap are possible through school change (at a systemic, a classroom and individual level) Method at a school level – continuous and systematic language support of all learners (4 pillars) Method at a classroom level – scaffolding for language learning in all subjects Pre-requisites for change:

Political priority Teacher empowerement (pre- and in-service training) Whole-school involvement (need for systematic change)

Equal participation Higher social cohesion

[email protected]

References

Baker, Colin (2006): Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Duarte, J. (2011): Bilingual langauge proficiency. A comparative study. Münster: Waxmann. Gibbons, Pauline (2002): Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding. Learning. Teaching Second Language Learners in the. Mainstream

Classroom. Portsmouth NH: Heinemann. Gogolin, I. (2006): Bilingualität und die Bildungssprache der Schule. In: Mecheril, Paul/ Quehl, Thomas Hrsg.): Die Macht der Sprachen.

Englische Perspektiven auf die mehrsprachige Schule. Münster: Waxmann, S. 79 - 85. Gogolin, I. und Lange, I. (2010): Bildungssprache und Durchgängige Sprachbildung. In: Fürstenau, S. und Gomolla, M. (Hrsg.): Migration

und schulischer Wandel: Mehrsprachigkeit. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag, S. 69 - 87. Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual's language modes. In Nicol, J. (Ed.). One Mind, Two Languages: Bilingual Language

Processing (pp. 1-22). Oxford: Blackwell. Also in Li Wei (Ed.). The Bilingual Reader (2nd edition). London: Routledge, 2007.

Klieme et al. (2010): PISA 2009. Eine Bilanz. Waxmann: Münster. Knapp, W. (2007): Wie Kinder Begriffe erwerben und welche Annahmen Erwachsene darüber haben. In: Roland Jost, Werner Knapp &

Kerstin Metz (Hg): Arbeit an Begriffen. Fachwissenschaftliche und fachdidaktische Aspekte. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider 2007, S. 173-188.

Reusser, K. (1997): Erwerb mathematischer Kompetenzen: Literaturüberblick, in: Weinert, Franz / Helmke, Andreas (Hrsg.): Entwicklung im Grundschulalter Beltz / Psychologie Verlags Union, Weinheim, 141–155.

Siebert-Ott, Gesa. 2006c. Deutsch (lernen) auf dem Schulhof? Konzeptionelle Mündlichkeit als Basis der Entwicklung schriftsprachlicher Kompetenz in der Zweitsprache. In: Ehlers, Swantje (Hrsg.). Sprachförderung und Literalität. (Flensburger Papiere zur Mehrsprachigkeit und Kulturenvielfalt im Unterricht, Sonderheft 3.) Flensburg: Universität Flensburg, S. 15-35.

Tajmel, T. (2010): DaZ-Förderung im naturwissenschaftlichen Fachunterricht. In: Ahrenholz, B. (Hg.): Fachunterricht und Deutsch als Zweitsprache. Narr Verlag: Tübingen, S. 167-184.

Tajmel, T. (2011): Sprache als Quelle aller (Miss-)Verständnisse?. Vortrag in der Fachtagung für Schulen mit ganztägigen Angebot, 30. März, Humboldt Universität Berlin.

Last but not least… Why multilingualism?

Documents

An example for teacher training – method of “ changing sides ”