/
Grammar Week 6 NJ Kang Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling: Teaching “powerful Grammar Week 6 NJ Kang Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling: Teaching “powerful

Grammar Week 6 NJ Kang Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling: Teaching “powerful - PowerPoint Presentation

pamella-moone
pamella-moone . @pamella-moone
Follow
438 views
Uploaded On 2018-02-15

Grammar Week 6 NJ Kang Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling: Teaching “powerful - PPT Presentation

Strategy Adam Lefstein Institute of Education University of London 20 Bedford Way London WC1H 0AL United Kingdom RQ traces the trajectory of educational ideas through policy curricular materials and enactment in the Examine current English policy regarding the teaching of grammar in prim ID: 631838

teaching grammar language approach grammar teaching approach language instruction theory beliefs behavior learning based rhetorical english rule teachers study

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Grammar Week 6 NJ Kang Rhetorical gramma..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Grammar

Week 6 NJ KangSlide2

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling: Teaching “powerful verbs” in the English National Literacy

Strategy

Adam

Lefstein

Institute of Education, University of London, 20 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AL, United KingdomSlide3

RQ: traces the trajectory of educational ideas through policy, curricular materials and enactment in the Examine current English policy regarding the teaching of grammar in primary schools, and its enactment in a Year 3 (8-year

olds) literacy lesson

Subjects:

“Low Tide Primary School”,

(

almost 400 pupils) community primary school

in a

suburb of a Southern English city

.

The

majority

of the pupils come from working class backgrounds, and the ethnic background of over three quarters of them is White

British.

Miss Millpond.

Only in her fourth year of full-time teaching, highly regarded by her colleagues and Head teacher

.

She was trained as a teacher after the inception of the NLS, and her lessons were typically textbook exemplifications of

NLS lesson structure and pedagogical principles. Her classroom was also an interesting and genuinely pleasant place to be. In official recognition of her ability, Miss Millpond was granted “Advanced Skills Teacher” status, and at Low Tide Primary School was given responsibility for coordinating gifted and talented

programmes

and made a member of the standards and assessment management team. Slide4

Methods

Data collection included participant observation in the school, formal and informal interviews,

audio-recording of lessons, and individual and group feedback conversations. The theoretical frame, methodology and

outcomes of the broader

study

First

,

comparison between

two approaches to grammar teaching – rule-based vs. rhetorical – that help to frame current English policy and practice.

Second

,

reviewing of recent

developments in English educational

policy with regard to the teaching of grammar, and in particular the background to the National Literacy Strategy (NLS

) adoption of a rhetorical approach to grammar teaching.

Third

,

analysis of

an NLS lesson on “powerful verbs”, showing

how the largely rhetorical grammar teaching materials were enacted in a way that promoted many

rule-based grammar ideas and practices.

Finally

,

exploration of

possible explanations for the lesson outcome, discussing, among other factors, teacher knowledge and skill, NLS structure, the accountability regime, and pedagogic culture.Slide5

Results

While the policy advances a broadly rhetorical approach to grammar and its instruction, the enacted lesson retains a number of features characteristic of the formal, rule-based grammar instruction this policy seeks to replace.

Possible explanations for this outcome, and implications for language education policy have been discussed. Rhetorical grammar teaching has been thwarted by the “grammars” of schooling and educational accountability.

Literature:Slide6

Literature Review

Grammar is the

study of language patterns and structure: not only morphology and syntax, but also elements of semantics and pragmatics

.

Rule-based

grammar

teaching

Rhetorical grammar teachingSlide7

Rule-based vs Rhetorical

grammar teaching

Rhetorical grammar treats grammatical conventions as

resources to be exploited

, rather than

rules

to be followed

.

Slide8

rule-based grammar:– correct and incorrect –

rhetorical grammar: a choice from among possibilities –Effectiveness of using such grammar is depending upon factors such as audience, purpose and context.

Inductive

explorations

of texts, discussion of rhetorical and grammatical choices, and pupil application of grammatical knowledge in written communication tasks.

pupils

“investigate the function of a word class, sentence structure or punctuation mark” by examining and discussing repeated occurrences of that linguistic phenomenon in a text (p. 156

) (

Grammar for Writing handbook (

DfEE

, 2000

),

consider the effectiveness of a particular word within a sentence and to

practise

using effective language to suit the audience and purpose of the text” (p. 157);

pupils

focus on a particular grammatical issue in

collectively editing a piece of writing

, “considering the

choices open to them

and discussing the merits of alternative words and structures” (p. 161).

rule-based

grammar teaching

-

distrust

pupils’ tacit linguistic knowledge

(as a source of errors

),

rhetorical grammar teaching is

respectful of pupil intuitions

, and seeks to build upon them in developing explicit grammatical knowledge and pupil critical language awareness.

rule-based

grammar teaching

– use

decontextualised

exercises

,

rhetorical

grammar teaching

-

embedded in

meaningful communicative contexts

..Slide9

Rule-based grammar teaching

Rhetorical

grammar teaching

Correctedness

Effectiveness

Deductive approach

Inductive approach

Explicit teacher directed

teaching

Implicit learner-directed exploitation

Distrust learners’ linguistic knowledge

Trustful

to learners’ ability

Decontextualised

exercise based tasks

Contextualised

communicative contexts based tasksSlide10

Background

The Progressivist educational movement viewed grammar

study as

largely

irrelevant

, boring and a constraint on pupil expression.

the

emphasis on proper English was

criticised

as alienating for working class children, who (like fictional Wilfred above) spoke in ways that deviated

from Standard grammar conventions (e.g.Anderson&Butler,1982).

refute the

assumption that formal grammar teaching improves pupils’ writing (e.g. Braddock, 1963;

Elley

,

Barham

, Lamb, & Wyllie,1976).5

1960s

.

“backtothebasics”of“traditional”schooling,includingtheteachingofgrammar

1980 ~ 1990: Plea for teaching grammar that can be used effectively in a context.Slide11

Principles of “New

Grammar Teaching” (Carter, 1991),

Language study should be integrated into real communicative contexts (and not constitute a separate curriculum subject).

Language study should build on pupils’ experience, facilitating reflection on their tacit knowledge.

• Knowledge about language is important as a means of developing linguistic tolerance and understanding how power

and values are communicated through language.

Teachers

’ professional knowledge about language enables them to facilitate pupils’ learning flexibly and effectively

.

Language is intrinsically interesting, and that alone is reason enough to warrant its study in school.Slide12

Deductive versus inductive grammar instruction: Investigating possible relationships between gains, preferences and learning styles.

Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2013).

System

,

41

(4), 1023-1042.Slide13

Research Questions

1. After experiencing both a deductive and an inductive treatment of a grammatical feature, which treatment did the learners prefer in terms of effectiveness and interest?

2. In there a difference in gains between learners who received preferred instruction type, and between learners who rated the different aspects of the treatment highly and those who did not?

3. Is there a difference in gains depending on students’ learning styles as assessed through a self-report learning style survey?

4. Did learners with certain learning styles rated the unit differently or expressed different learning preferences?Slide14

What is it?

The

_________ approach

is based on the assumption

that knowledge

of grammatical rules should be acquired through exposure to samples of speech that present a particular construction

.

Students are to elicit the rule from the given input and subconsciously learn it by recognizing the reoccurring patterns.

Proponents

of

____________

approach to grammar instruction, on the other hand, claim that an introduction of a new structure should be commenced with an explicit presentation of the rule that governs the structure. The presentation is followed by examples which show to students how the rule is used in context.Slide15

In a

________

classroom, the teacher conducts lessons by introducing and explaining concepts to students, and then expecting students to complete tasks to practice the concepts; this approach is very teacher-

centred

. Conversely,

_______________

instruction is a much more student-

centred

approach and makes use of a strategy known as ‘noticing’. Slide16

Participants

138 secondary school students, from the ages of 12 and 14, from two different English schools in the greater region of Montreal in Canada participated in this study.

They were enrolled in regular French as a second language courses as it was compulsory to resident in the location.Slide17

Method

pre-and post-treatment tests,

treatment

appraisal and preference questionnaires, and

learning

style survey.Slide18

Findings

Research question

1: the

majority of students prefer the grammar activities from the deductive unit, however, they experience some advantages in the inductive unit.

Research

question

2: the

result of the pre- and post- treatment test, a preference for one treatment or the other did not generally influence their gains in that unit, neither positively or negatively.

R

esearch

question 3, learning styles

do not necessarily affect their performance neither positively or negatively

Research question

4: there

was no relationship to influence the selection of preference between learning style and unit appraisal and preference.Slide19

Conclusion

1. grammatical

learning gains can be made with one approach or the other.

2. learners

prefer to learn grammar deductively; however, they can recognize the effectiveness of two approaches.

3,

learning gains are not significantly influenced by preferences in terms

of

approaches and learning styles.

4,

positive reactions to different approach of one unit or the other derive interesting results such as, inductive approach leads extroverted, open, global, and synthetic learning styles but deductive approach leads introverted, closure-oriented, particular, and analytic learning styles.Slide20

Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the instruction of English grammar under national curriculum reforms: A Theory of Planned

Behaviour

perspective.

Underwood, P. R. (2012).

Teaching

and Teacher education

,

28

(6), 911-925.Slide21

Research Questions

This

study examined two questions for teaching English grammar as below;

1. What factors do Japanese teachers believe could influence their teaching of English grammar under new national curriculum reforms?

2. Which of these beliefs might be influential in determining implementation of these reforms?Slide22

Literature Review

Language

Teacher Cognition (LTC) by

Brog

(2006)

it

didn’t satisfy the efficacy of the framework in explaining teacher’s behavior.

psychological

process and motivation were considered as factors to influence on teacher’s

behaviour

.

the

researcher chose the Theory of Planned

Behaviour

(TPB;

Ajzen

1985, 1991, 2005) as the theoretical background in this study. Slide23

TPB (Theory of Planned

Behaviour

)

was

the extended version of Theory of Respond Action by

Ajzen

and

Fishbein

(1980).

a

person’s intention, or motivation to adopt

behaviour

is influenced by three main determinants and their respective attributes:

behavioural

beliefs and attributes towards

the

behaviour

n

ormative

beliefs and subjective norms;

control

beliefs and perceptions of control.

This

study attempts to analysis data based on these three determinants.Slide24

Theory of Planned Behavior proposed by

Ajzen

(1985, 1991, 2005)

Is designed

to explain and predict human behavior and to provide a framework for devising behavioral change interventions.

The

theory was developed to account for behavior that is not entirely under volitional control from the 

theory of reasoned action

, which was based in part on Expectancy-Value Theory.

According

to the TPB, a person’s intention, or

motivation

to adopt a behavior is influenced by three main determinants:

(

1) behavior beliefs and attitudes towards the behavior-it is personal in nature and is formed through associating performance of a behavior with certain outcomes, or attitudes;

(

2) normative beliefs and subjective norms-it reflects a social influence and arises from a person’s perception that influential others would approve or disapprove of their adopting the behavior;

(

3) control beliefs and perceptions of control-it deals with the presence or absence of factors that would facilitate or inhibit adoption of the behavior.Slide25

Expectancy-Value Theory

History

and Orientation

Expectancy value theory is directly linked to uses and gratifications theory. The theory was founded by Martin

Fishbein

in the 1970s.

 

Core Assumptions and Statements

Core:

 According to expectancy-value theory, behavior is a function of the expectancies one has and the value of

the goal

toward which one is working. Such an approach predicts that, when more than one behavior is possible,

the behavior chosen will be the one with the largest combination of expected success and value

.

Expectancy-value

theories hold that people are

goal-oriented beings

. The behaviors they perform in response to their beliefs and values are undertaken to achieve some end. However, although expectancy-value theory can be used to explain central concepts in uses and gratifications research, there are other factors that influence the process. For example the social and psychological origins of needs, which give rise to motives for behavior, which may be guided by beliefs, values, and social circumstances into seeking various gratifications through media consumption and other

nonmedia

behaviors

.Slide26

Expectancy-Value Theory

Statements

:

 Expectancy value theory suggests that “people orient themselves to the world according to their expectations (beliefs) and evaluations”. Utilizing this approach, behavior, behavioral intentions, or attitudes are seen as a function of “(1) expectancy (or belief) – the perceived probability that an object possesses a particular attribute or that a behavior will have a particular consequence; and (2) evaluation – the degree of affect, positive or negative, toward an attribute or behavioral outcome” (

Palmgreen

, 1984

).Slide27

Participants

6

Japanese English teachers

at

a private senior high school in central Tokyo participated in two focus groups, and

10

teachers

from

two private schools in an urban location and one public senior high school in a rural location participated for surveys. Slide28

Method

interviews

of two focus groups

belief

questionnaire

surveys in

both Japanese and

E

nglish

.

The

semi-structured interview

conducted

in English for approximately 1

hourSlide29

Findings

Behavioural

beliefs: teachers

feel difficulty in conceiving how the integration of grammar with communication-oriented activities could be realized in their classes.

Normative beliefs: students

were the most key influencer for approval and disapproval of their adoption of a reform-oriented approach to grammar instruction. As senior high school students’ study mostly focused on University Entrance Exams, only novice teachers and parents consider of development of the students’ communication skills.

Control beliefs:

teachers

thought difficulty caused by the lack of time to implement a reform-oriented approach to teaching grammar.

most

of teachers thought that the necessary teaching skills for reform-oriented approach belonged to a few specific teachers.

Japanese

teachers felt difficult to teach grammar in English.

teachers

’ understanding of the COS 2009 was insufficient for adoption of the reform-oriented approach.

teachers

concerned about the urgency of appropriate materials to utilize.Slide30

Foreign language learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction.

Incecay

, V., & Dollar, Y. K. (2011).

Procedia-Social

and Behavioral Sciences

,

15

, 3394-3398.Slide31

Research Questions

1. What primary construct are existing in foreign language learners’ responses to a questionnaire regarding their beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction?

2. What statements do foreign language learners provide about grammar instruction and error correction?Slide32

Participants

26

university students who were studying English as a foreign language

at

Yeditepe

University in Turkey Slide33

Method

Questionnaire about

grammar instruction and error correction,

developed

by

Leowen

et al. (2009).

It

involved two different parts: a Likert-scale section and an open-ended prompt section.

Participants

completed this questionnaire during the class hour in the fall semester of the 2010 to 2011 academic year.Slide34

Findings

L

earners

gave importance to grammar instruction and they thought grammar was important. They were also in favor of immediate correction and they thought grammatical awareness as useful and helpful for them in the language learning process.

Learners

had a negative

attitude

toward grammar instruction. It means that learners think grammatical awareness is important and useful and grammar instruction is important, however, they prefer communicative activities, authentic materials, and real word activities with interaction during instruction.