1 / 35

Context of the Study

The Role of Sociocultural Factors weighed against Strategy Based Instruction Michael Grenfell (Southampton University) and Vee Harris (London University). Context of the Study.

vkim
Download Presentation

Context of the Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Role of Sociocultural Factors weighed against Strategy Based InstructionMichael Grenfell (Southampton University) and Vee Harris (London University)

  2. Context of the Study Theoretical: Shift in focus from the idealised, individual ‘Good Language Learner’ to recognising impact of sociocultural context on learning Practical: • Concern over poor performance and lack of interest in Modern Languages in the UK, specially boys • Social class inequalities a constant feature of GB education research (Whitty 2012) Study: SBI over a year with near-beginners adolescent learners of French in two London schools with different socio-economic backgrounds

  3. Issues in Strategy Based Instruction Little known about: • Effectiveness of SBI with 12-13 year old near-beginners of French; 2. How much ‘weight’ compared to other factors eg. • gender • socio-economic background • bilingual or monolingual status; 3. Extent to which same factors impact on learners’ response to SBI? Do some sub groups benefit more from SBI?

  4. Responsiveness to SBI? Gender; Girls more motivated in ML, so motivated or complacent to SBI (know it already)? SBI reverses downward trend for boys as generic study indicates they benefit from self-regulation skills? (Watkins 2007) Social class: Students can opt out at 14: elitist subject (CILT 2006) Middle class holidays abroad> more motivated and receptive to SBI? • Attitude/Motivation

  5. Responsiveness to SBI: Bilingual Bilingual: facilitates Third Language Acquisition eg: • Heightened metalinguistic awareness, flexibility of thought (Hamers and Blanc 2000) • Use of social and affective strategies (Wharton 2000) Receptive to SBI? Waste of time as know it already? Gap between natural home environment and school?

  6. Research Questions • Impact of SBI relative to other factors? 2) Within group exposed to SBI, what role do other factors play, if any?

  7. Research Methods: Participants • West School (inner-city, multi ethnic) and Moreton school (suburban); different socio-economic intake • Two parallel classes in each school of 30 students aged 12-13 years learning French (control and experimental) • 120 students: 18% ‘bilingual’ • Explicit SBI in reading and listening for experimental classes from Autumn to Summer term (Harris 2007)

  8. Research Measures • Pre- and post- intervention listening and reading tests • Pre- and post- intervention attitude questionnaire • Pre- and post- intervention think alouds with 24 case study monolingual students of different attainment levels and 3 bilinguals • Semi-structured interviews with 3 bilingual students

  9. Multiple Regression Analysis (MRA): ‘Weight’ of SBI • Multiple Regression Analysis- compare intervention’s impact with that of other factors determining students’ progress Across control and experimental groups, SBI weighed against: • students’ prior attainment (autumn test score); • school attended (socio-economic background); • gender; • bilingual/ monolingual status; • students’ prior motivation (autumn attitude score)

  10. Multiple Regression Analysis: Response to SBI • Interaction of same factors (ie gender, etc.) with the SBI to explore whether especially valuable for particular groups of students; • Outcome measures: - Students’ gain scores (from autumn to summer) in the reading and listening test; - Students’ gain scores in the attitude questionnaire i.e. progress made not final attainment level

  11. Results: • Quantitative • Qualitative

  12. Quantitative: main findings ACROSS Control and Experimental Groups (1) • SBI is a significant factor in both listening and reading progress • Gender does not play significant role in progress at this stage • Bilingualstudents achieve greater listening gain scores than monolingual peers • Start below monolinguals but by summer little difference between them

  13. Listening Score by Bilingual/Monolingual Status

  14. Main findings ACROSS Control and Experimental Groups (2) • Motivation: Decline in level for all students between the autumn and summer terms; • Less marked for the SBI group. Histogram suggests not due to ceiling effect.

  15. Attitude Score by Group

  16. Quantitative: Main findings WITHIN Experimental Classes • Reading and listening SBI benefits all experimental studentsregardless of gender or bilingual status • Role of socio-economic background not as expected • Experimental students in West School make more progress in listening than Moreton School and those in the control classes, in spite of challenging behaviour, fewer holidays • Suburban school values reading more?

  17. Summary: Quantitative • Promising, if limited,findings for impact of SBI on reading and listening comprehension with near beginners;(10% for listening, 5% for reading) • Assumptions about the role of gender and background challenged: potential for all students at this stage to progress; • Benefits of bilingualism for development of listening skills.

  18. Qualitative: Main Findings Think Alouds • MRA only explains 47% for listening, 52% for reading of the variance between pupils; • Other possible variables not included in the MRA? • Anticipated difference in strategy deployment between control and experimental case study pupils. But in some cases little evidence to distinguish them • Affective differences in way pupils tackle text may underlie some of the remaining variance

  19. Affective Strategies • Affective Strategies List: ‘Affect, which consists of emotions, beliefs, attitudes and motivations, is integral to all learning’ (Oxford 2011: p61) • Québec Ministry of Education project developed Progression of Learning (2010) • Includes progression of the teaching of strategies prescribed in the curriculum, from grade 1 to the end of secondary school: • Elementary: ‘perseveres despite not understanding everything listened to or read, without getting overly anxious’ • Secondary: ‘pushes oneself to experiment with language and ideas’

  20. Two Sets of Case Study pupils 1. Monolingual: comparison of Alison (experimental ) and Hannah (control): differences in approach; • Identical autumn term listening scores but by summer, Alison’s gain score improved by 12% Hannah’s dropped by same amount. Why? SBI? 2. Bilingual: Martelle (Jamaican): impact of home environment on strategy development.

  21. Think Aloud: Summary of Differences in Approach of Monolinguals

  22. Assurance->Relates ‘clues’ to each other Teacher: What makes you say that they had to repeat things? Alison: ‘Erm well first of all becausethe music was on. And then becausethey kept on asking each other to repeat what they were saying. They said it more high pitched, as if they were actually asking a question.

  23. Self-doubt Hannah: Um.. are they dancing to rock or something?But I don’t know whether it was a question or he was telling her. I think it was probably a question By summer, Alison’s gain score improved by 12% . Hannah’s dropped by same amount.

  24. SBI and Individual Differences • Given same starting point, would these pupils have made same amount of progress regardless of the SBI because of existing personality traits? • OR did the SBI capitalise on Alison’s strengths eg: • Knowing a range of strategies for tackling a text encourages persistence? • Having a name for what already doing (comprehension monitoring) validates and reinforces it?

  25. Alison: Follow up • SBI played a role in Alison’s progress? • Questionnaire three years later- asked how to explain to beginner what learner strategies are: • ‘Ways to tackle reading and listening tasks sothey are maybe not easier in themselves, but easier to cope with and get through’ • Links to affective strategies and MRA motivation finding: SBI makes text less daunting?

  26. Summary of Monolingual Pupils Complex interaction between emotions ( risk-taking, persistence), linguistic repertoire and flexibility in strategy deployment.

  27. Bilingual Students • Interviews highlight impact of the home environment. (Harris and Grenfell 2015)

  28. Listening progress: How Martelle infers meaning ‘I use the words that I do know, and the words that I don’t, I put “something” there instead of it. Like if they were saying “I work in..”, I would think of what sort of person they are, I close my eyes, and sort of bring my spirit out, and get myself into that word, what it can mean’. ‘Well I just picked it up, cos my mum always said to me when I can’t understand Patois, if you just think of all the different possibilities it could be, jumble them up, and that’s what I done’.

  29. Home Environment: Listening Strategies • One reason underlying significant difference between monolinguals and bilinguals in MRA results • Bilingual students’ exposure to spoken form of two languages fosters development of key strategies like inferring and substitution • Bilingual students forced to work out meanings more than monolinguals

  30. Issues from Qualitative Findings • Why are some learners more able than others to persist, to tolerate ‘not knowing’ and to take risks with the language? • Does home environment play a part in developing these affective strategies, just as it appears to influence bilingual learners?

  31. Pedagogical Implications • SBI to include more affective strategies • Integrate SBI throughout educational life span… …but since effective for all students, especially important at age 12-13 years in order to halt decline in performance and motivation; • Potential to reduce achievement gap between boys and girls.

  32. The End

  33. References Bartram, A. (2006) An examination of perceptions of parental influence on attitudes to language learning. Educational Research 48 (2): 211-21. CILT (2006) Language Trends 2006. London : CILT, the National Centre for Languages. Grenfell, M and Harris, V (2013) Making a Difference in Language Learning: The Role of Socio-cultural Factors In Learner Strategy Instruction, Curriculum Journal, 24 (1), 121-152. Harris, V. 2007. Exploring progression: Reading and listening strategy instruction with near-beginner learners of French. Language Learning Journal 35, no. 2: 189–204. Harris, V. and Grenfell, M. (2015) Learning a third language: what learner strategies do bilingual students bring? Journal of Curriculum Studies 1-24. Hamers, J., & Blanc, M. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, R. ( 2011) Teaching and Researching: Language Learning Strategies. Harlow: Pearson. Watkins, C. (2007) ‘Learning and teaching’ in Myers, K. and Taylor, H. (eds.) Genderwatch: still watching. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books. Wharton, G. (2000) Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. Language Learning 50 (2), 203-243. Whitty, G. (2012) A life with the Sociology of Education. British Journal of Educational Studies 60 (1) : 65-75.

More Related