DIAPOSITIVA 1

DIAPOSITIVA 2

DIAPOSITIVA 3

DIAPOSITIVA 4

Sharp mismatch between teachers’ perceptions, opinions, and beliefs and their performances.

Tension between their interest in improving language and communication skills and their refusal to become linguistic role models.

DIAPOSITIVA 5

◘ Population B1-C1, of which 13 individuals have earned diplomas (TOEFL, British Council, EOI, Cambridge examinations, etc.).

◘ Self-reported linguistic abilities on a Likert scale (1-5, being 5 the highest level of command).

◘ Higher competence in receptive skills and lower in productive ones.

LINGUISTIC SKILLLINGUISTIC SKILL MEAN SCOREMEAN SCORE

Reading comprehension 4.2

Oral comprehension 3.8

Written expression 3.7

Oral expression 3.1

DIAPOSITIVA 6

●Disparity of skills to the detriment of oral communication. Insecurity under ‘NATIVE SPEAKER FALLACY’ (Klaasen & Räsänen 2006)

Bias of students’ judgment of teacher’s pedagogical competence (Maum 2002)

●Enough class participation = 72.2% Unnecessary increase of participation = 44.4%

Reasons: Reasons: _ Senior undergraduates’ disinterest_ Junior undergraduates’ lack of background

DIAPOSITIVA 7

Figure 1. Usual class dynamics of UPM content teachers (self-reported)

DIAPOSITIVA 8

Paradox:

Habitual dynamics in 16 cases = Teacher-centred lecture

Little groupwork

Vague ‘autonomous learning’ in between

DIAPOSITIVA 9

Figure 2. Breakdown of ‘autonomous learning’ as usual class dynamics at UPM (self-reported)

DIAPOSITIVA 10

Gap: Guided visits, lab sessions and demos require leading roles from instructors.

Not all multimedia programs provide users with the same interactivity and leeway to choose paths and solve problems.

What is then the real participation?

DIAPOSITIVA 11

Figure 3. Habitual teacher control in content lectures at UPM

(self-reported)

61%61%

22%22%11%11%6%

DIAPOSITIVA 12

Fact: 6% of teachers rule their classes completely

60-80% of classes teacher-ruled in varying degrees over the egalitarian ratio 50-50%

Egalitarian ratios slightly over 20%

Teacher rule increases in theoretical or descriptive

subjects

DIAPOSITIVA 13

Figure 4. Habitual teaching practices of UPM content instructors

(self-reported)

DIAPOSITIVA 14

Deficits:

Mid-low incidence of summaries and emphasis or repetition of major points

Low hands-on class starts

Minimal class supervision by colleagues

DIAPOSITIVA 15

Figure 5. EMI difficulties as predicted by UPM teachers

DIAPOSITIVA 16

Deficits: Primary concerns:

BICSMetadiscoursePronunciationCALP

Secondary concerns:Aural comprehension (teachers’)Writing repertoires for virtual interactions

Disciplinary lexis negligible (1novice teacher)

DIAPOSITIVA 17

Deficits: Lack of awareness of (unmentioned):

Collaboration with colleaguesClass dynamics / methodologyMaterials Evaluation (in a FL!)

No explicit connections between methodology and

Class pace slowdownStudents’ low proficiency in the LF and

mixed abilities

DIAPOSITIVA 18

Deficit of multicultural adjustments: Slower speech rate

Marking of coherence & cohesionMitigation of intercultural

distanceLack of awareness of

(unmentioned): QuestionsElicitations

Direct appeals Figurative language

(Chaudron 1988, Crawford-Camiciottoli 2005 and 2007, Giménez Moreno 2008, Miller 2002, Tauroza & Allison 1990)

DIAPOSITIVA 19

Figure 6. Use of learning boosters

DIAPOSITIVA 20

Deficits & Gaps:

No web-based teaching despite the predominance of visual styles (9/10 informants)

No storytellers nor real verbalizers

Small impact of operational input (demos)

DIAPOSITIVA 21

INERTIAINERTIA Low-risk genre choice = Safe genre

Teacher-centred lecture + PowerPoint presentation IMPLICATIONSIMPLICATIONS

Mere update of chalk-and-talk with slideshows > Expositive than interactive

No negotiation of expert roles

Little BICSLittle BICS

DIAPOSITIVA 22

Figure 7. Lectures with embedded genres

DIAPOSITIVA 23

Deficits & Gaps:

No discussions, case studies, stories

Conversations only in introductions + final round of questions + spontaneous interruptions to ask or comment

Teacher’s solo problem-solving disguised as ‘joint venture’ with inclusive ‘we’

DIAPOSITIVA 24

Figure 8. Recourse to key metadiscourse and CALP

DIAPOSITIVA 25

Deficits: Limited, poor repertoire

Very poor stage-labelling + classification & composition + problem solving (tandem problem/solution)

Wider endophoric (even through laser pointer)+ exemplification + enumeration + relevance repertoires (even through parallelism & emphasis)

Barrier: Metadiscursive idiolects! (e.g. ‘then’ as sequencer + inferential + ‘for example’ as discourse filler!+ ‘so’ inferential, topic-shifter and discourse filler + ‘this’ with far-away antecedent)

DIAPOSITIVA 26

Deficits: Limited, poor repertoire

Very poor stage-labelling + classification & composition + problem solving (tandem problem/solution)

Wider endophoric (even through laser pointer)+ exemplification + enumeration + relevance repertoires (even through parallelism & emphasis)

Barrier: Metadiscursive idiolects! (e.g. ‘then’ as sequencer + inferential + ‘for example’ as discourse filler!+ ‘so’ inferential, topic-shifter and discourse filler + ‘this’ with far-away antecedent)

DIAPOSITIVA 27

Analysis of UPM teachers’ Analysis of UPM teachers’ performancesperformances

Structurally complete + ‘move-aware’ Structurally complete + ‘move-aware’

Introductions Session outline with points to be touched

In specific outline slide (8)Reading or paraphrasing them while showing (6)Jotting down points on black/whiteboard (1)Just mentioning points (1)

No brainstorming, elicitation, citations, quotes 80% deductive (2 inductive with comic strips)

Most 1st-person (I am going to talk about…/ We present…) (8) Blend impersonal + ‘you’ (2)

(‘The main objective of this class is that you understand…’)

DIAPOSITIVA 28

Recapitulations Both progressive + as closure (6 cases)

‘We have’ as existential structureSummaries with ‘We have seen…’

Closures Some formulaic closures abrupt

‘And that’s all !’‘There is no time for more’

Content deliveries

Blended: Blended: Chronological + cause-effect + descriptive + occasional problem-solving

DIAPOSITIVA 29

Analysis of UPM teachers’ performancesAnalysis of UPM teachers’ performancesScarce engagement metadiscourse Scarce engagement metadiscourse

Questions All types:

_ Rhetorical (4)_ Referential (6)_ Comprehension checks (4)

Asides Only 2 lectures to pursue complicity / rapport through humour rather than clarification

Directives Covert in endophorics leading to visuals Only 4 overt (3 cognitive + 1 physical for realia)

Shared knowledge markers Both subtle (e.g. projected on comic strips) or explicit (e.g. ‘Probably you have heard’)

Audience pronouns ‘You’ = endophorics, hypotheses, procedures ‘We’ = summaries, hypotheses, common perceptions and conditions, true joint tasks

DIAPOSITIVA 30