Doing classroom-oriented teacher research

Transcription

1 Doing classroom-oriented teacher research B. Kumaravadivelu Professor of Applied Linguistics San Jose State University, California

2 Teacher as researcher Need to demystify teacher as researcher. No more than understanding what happens in the classroom in a sustained and systematic way. Keeping eyes and ears open to see what works and what doesn t, and why. M & M observation framework. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 2

3 Macrostrategies Macrostrategies are guiding principles derived from historical, theoretical, empirical and experiential insights. A macrostrategy is a general plan, a broad guideline for teachers. They generate situation-specific, needbased microstrategies. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 3

4 Maximizing learning opportunities This macrostrategy envisages teaching as a process of creating and utilizing learning opportunities. Teachers and learners are partners in the process. A process in which teachers strike a balance between their role as managers of teaching acts and their role as mediators of learning acts. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 4

5 Minimizing perceptual mismatches This macrostategy emphasizes the recognition of potential perceptual mismatches between intentions and interpretations of the learner, the teacher and the teacher educator. Ten sources have been identified (details later). 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 5

6 Facilitate negotiated interaction This macrostategy refers to meaningful learner-learner, learner-teacher classroom interaction in which learners are entitled and encouraged to initiate topic and talk, not just react and respond. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 6

7 Promote learner autonomy This macrostrategy involves helping learners learn how to learn, and learn how to liberate. Need to equip them with the means necessary to self-direct and self-monitor their own learning. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 7

8 Activate intuitive heuristics This macrostategy highlights the importance of providing rich textual data so that learners can infer and internalize underlying rules governing grammatical usage and communicative use. We can t teach anything; we can only create conditions for learning to take place. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 8

9 Foster language awareness This macrostategy refers to any attempt to draw learners' attention to the formal and functional properties of their L2 to increase the degree of explicitness required to promote L2 learning. Language as system, as discourse and as ideology. General and critical awareness. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 9

10 Contexualize linguistic input This macrostategy highlights how language usage and use are shaped by linguistic, extralinguistic, situational and extrasituational contexts. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 10

11 Integrate language skills This macrostategy refers to the need to holistically integrate language skills traditionally separated and sequenced as listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Left over from behavioristic audiolingual method. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 11

12 Ensure social relevance This macrostategy demands that teachers be sensitive to the societal, political, economic, and educational environment in which L2 learning and teaching take place. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 12

13 Raise cultural consciousness This macrostategy emphasizes the need to treat learners as cultural informants so that they are encouraged to engage in a process of classroom participation that puts a premium on their power/knowledge. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 13

14 Perceptual mismatches Mismatches and gaps between teaching objectives and learning outcomes, between the instruction that makes sense to teachers and instruction that makes sense to learners, between teacher intention and learner interpretation. There are at least ten potential sources of mismatches. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 14

15 Cognitive mismatch This source refers to the general, cognitive knowledge of the world that adult language learners bring with them to the classroom. It pertains to mental processes such as remembering, perceiving, recognizing, and inferencing. Learners use these processes to obtain a conceptual understanding of the physical and natural phenomena, and of language and language learning. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 15

16 Communicative mismatch This source refers to the communicative skills necessary for the learners to exchange messages, express personal views. Because the learners have only a limited command of their L2, they struggle to get across their message by using various communication strategies. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 16

17 Linguistic mismatch This source refers to the linguistic repertoire syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic knowledge of L2 that is minimally required to do a task, and to talk about it. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 17

18 Pedagogic mismatch This source refers to the teacher and learner perceptions of stated or unstated short- or long-term instructional objective(s) of language learning tasks. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 18

19 Strategic mismatch This source refers to learning strategies, i.e. operations, plans and routines used by the learner to facilitate the obtaining, storage, retrieval, and use of information, that is, what learners do to learn and to regulate their learning. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 19

20 Cultural mismatch This source refers to the prior knowledge of the cultural norms of the target language community minimally required for the learners to understand and carry out language learning activities. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 20

21 Evaluative mismatch This source refers to articulated or unarticulated types of self-evaluation measures used by learners to monitor their on-going progress in their language-learning activities. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 21

22 Procedural mismatch This source refers to stated or unstated paths chosen by the learners to do a task. This pertains to locally-specified, currently-identified, bottom-up tactics which seek an immediate resolution to a specific problem whereas the strategic source pertains to any broad-based, higher-level, top-down strategy which seeks an overall solution to a general language-learning situation 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 22

23 Instructional mismatch This source refers to instructional guidance given by the teacher or indicated by the textbook writer to help learners carry out language learning activities. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 23

24 Attitudinal mismatch This source refers to participants' attitudes towards the nature of learning and teaching, classroom culture, and teacher-learner role relationships. Adult learners, by virtue of their prior experience, have well-established attitudes towards what constitutes learning/teaching. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 24

25 Nature of mismatches At least three broad pedagogic insights: Mismatches are unavoidable. Integral part of teaching. Mismatches are identifiable. The ten are not exhaustive, nor mutually exclusive. No distinct boundaries. Mismatches are manageable. Unavoidable, but not unmanageable. If identified, can be converted into a learning opportunity. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 25

26 Observing/analyzing teaching M & M scheme offers a frame of reference and a point of departure; offers explanatory and interpretive strategies for teachers. Goal: Self-observe, self-analyze, and self-evaluate teaching. Raise questions such as: "Did I utilize the learning opportunity created by the learner?" "Did I promote negotiated interaction in class?" "I sense a misunderstanding here. Could it be due to an instructional mismatch, or a conceptual mismatch?" Etc., 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 26

27 Step-by-step procedures Three-stages: (a) pre-observation, (b) observation, and (c) post-observation. Step 1: (T)eacher invites a colleague to observe and analyze her class. Step 2: T gives (O)bserver information about (a) specific objectives, (b) how she proposes to achieve them. Step 3: After going over the information and other material(s), O may seek necessary clarification from the teacher. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 27

28 Steps (contd.) Step 4: O observes and videotapes the class. Takes notes. Step 5: T watches the video; takes notes seeking answers to: Did I initiate all the topics or did my students do some? Did I ask only display questions or referential questions as well? Are there learner-learner interactions? What part of my teaching has been (un)successful? Why? What macrostrategy could have been used in this or that episode? What mismatch could have been anticipated, addressed? 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 28

29 Steps (contd.). Step 6: O and T teacher exchange initial views and jointly select a few episodes for further exploration. Step 7: O and T meet with group(s) of learners figured in the episodes to talk about learner/teacher input and interaction. Step 8: O and T meet again for a postobservation analysis, and exchange perspectives on what did or did not happen. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 29

30 Steps (contd.). Step 9: T & O pull together the three perspectives (T, O & L), and using M & M framework, interpret the classroom events. Step 10. Finally, T interprets data and discussion to self-evaluate teaching. Desired outcome: Refines her teaching beliefs and practices, eventually constructs her own personal theory of practice. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 30

31 An illustration Background information: Two female teachers - one as (T) and other as (O). Both have a Masters degree in TESOL. Observer has taught for 8 years, Teacher Two & a half. Low intermediate Reading Comprehension class. Thirty students: mainly Spanish; Korean, Chinese. Lesson titled "Looking for an apartment." Refer to the handout please. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 31

32 Analysis and interpretation Both T and O: "A good class." Friendly and positive atmosphere conducive to learning. Total turns: 64; 30 teacher turns and 34 student turns. T questions mostly referential, not display questions (e.g., turn # 27). T gave opportunities for the learners to participate. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 32

33 Teacher created confusion T differentiates apartment/house (turns # 1, #3). S2 suggests another housing possibility, a condo (# 6). S3 wants to know what a condo is. T: "It's like a house" (# 9). S6 is still not clear about the meaning of condo (# 16). T replies, "Apartment complex. Like an apartment house." Notice T now uses all three interchangeably. Later, talked to S3 and S6; still not clear to them. T not conscious of mistake: "I just didn't notice." 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 33

34 Learner created opportunities missed S4 suggests "mobile home" (#10). T merely acknowledges it. Later, O suggests other students may not know. S5 says: under the bridge (#12). T accepts that as a matter of fact. O suggests: discussion on homelessness missed. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 34

35 Learner created opportunities utilized See Turns 28 and 29. In the previous class, T explained paragraph. Now, S8 asked "what is paragraph?" T explains how to recognize a paragraph. O wonders why she picked up this one and ignored other learning opportunities created by the learners. T replied this one was in line with her own agenda. Pattern: T recognized those learner-initiated opportunities that were of her lesson plan, and ignored others. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 35

36 Disruptive mismatches T interrupts her explanation of what a paragraph is; admonishes Ss for taking notes. Did so because this was "reading comprehension time." Later T learned they were writing down definition of 'paragraph.' Both T and O agreed on several mismatches: instructional, because T's directions were not clear; procedural, because T was unaware of learner strategy; attitudinal, because of T's belief in the separation of skills, and in predetermined lesson plan. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 36

37 Usefulness of the M & M scheme Helps T understand the complexity of input/interaction; sensitizes her to multiple perspectives to aims and events; leads to self-reflection and self-renewal; Enables her construct her own theory of practice, eventually. 2008/4/15 B. Kumaravadivelu 37

38 Doing classroom-oriented teacher research B. Kumaravadivelu Professor of Applied Linguistics San Jose State University, California

39 Doing classroom-oriented teacher research B. Kumaravadivelu Professor of Applied Linguistics San Jose State University, California