Increasing interaction between lnternational students (IS) and Local students (LS) Ongoing Research in the English Language classroom. Candy Gray Department.

Increasing interaction between lnternational students (IS) and

Local students (LS)Ongoing Research in the English Language classroom.

Candy GrayDepartment of Education and Children’s Services South Australia

Pedagogies of Connection Alice Springs July 2008

Outline

• Connection: Who am I? Who are you? Who are we? • Background: Experiential and Academic influences• The hypotheses• The method• The results• Discussion• Conclusion • Evaluation of the process• Recommendations• References• Final quote

Connection: Who am I? (Who are you?) Who are we?

• an opal miner, a tobacco picker, a tour guide, .. • single by choice (a serial monogamist)• a student of a second language• a B.A., Dip.Ed., M.A. in Applied Linguistics• a high school teacher• an EFL, ESL/EAL teacher, lecturer• motivated to find the best way to teach the

English language without being a cultural imperialist and to these ends constantly reflect on own practice to evaluate and improve

• operating in the role of colleague? with expertise?

Background: Experiential

• limited interaction in university tutorial between LS and IS• limited interaction in university and high school grounds

between IS and LS• limited interaction in mainstream high school classrooms

between IS and LS• lack of activities in mainstream classrooms encouraging

interaction• undervaluing of cultures not dominant in Australia• Takeda (2005) paper: “not enough acceptance that

interaction across cultures is a two-way process” .. “the university has a role to play” .. “projects that require interaction in class”

Background: Academic influences• Illustration of Need [Cambridge RSA course in

TEFL]• Learning Theory that “language is a social semiotic” [Halliday, SFG, ESL Scope and Scales, GBT] – a text is a piece of language in use• Learning Theory of language learning as Social

Practices• Constructivism• Learning theory of ZPD (Vygotsky) • Scaffolding• Learning Theory that learning occurs in

Communities of Practice• Inclusive practices• Learning Theory that the best pedagogy is one

based on Connection

Generic version of method to enable real interaction between IS and LS.

familiarisation with key concepts and terms

connection withother participants

clarificationof purpose

performance in roles

Generic version of method to enable real interaction

familiarisation with key concepts and terms

(Inclusive activities)

connection withother participants

(Community of Practice; Pedagogy of

Connection)

clarificationof purpose

(Illustration of need; building on prior

knowledge)

performance in roles(Language as a social semiotic;

knowledge creation; social

practices; ZPD; scaffolding)

The hypotheses

1) enabling students to connect as a learning community in the classroom produces real talk between IS and LS [related to the role they are in (researcher, expert)]

2) real talk between IS and LS organised in the classroom promotes real talk outside the classroom [in other roles (teenager, classmate, global citizen..)]

Context

• Male and female students

• Average age 15 years

• 10 International students from ESL class from 7 different countries

• 10 Local students from mainstream English class (selected because classes on same line on school timetable)

• Quiz, Survey + 2 x 50minute sessions

Topic for research by students = Interaction between international students (IS) and local

students (LS).Familiarisation with key terms and concepts

Research: [small group brainstorm and discuss definition –recorder,

facilitator, checker; Research skills handout students highlight known vocabulary (all terms to be dealt with as they arise); paragraphing activity on text of a research method]

Interaction: [concept map on where students speak English and with

whom]LS and IS:

[defined and ‘issues’ dealt with; quiz on numbers of language groups in school population; lists given post-quiz for analysis of numbers in different language groups; results of same quiz done by LS provided post-quiz for analysis]

Connection with other participants (1)

• class work in pairs and groups over one or two terms (this particular group)

• pair/re-pair shouting activity to find voice (names, subjects, teachers, + spelling of)

• find points in common (pairs competitive groups)

• selection of partner for research activity

IS IS

Clarification of purpose (1)

• to identify an issue from the topic

• to formulate a research question

• ultimately, to discuss possible answers to the question with local students (in small groups) with all students acting as ‘experts’

Performance in Role (1): ResearcherSecondary source data:

• Internet search for statistics on numbers of IS in South Australia

• Internet search for existence of interaction between IS and LS

Primary source data:• brainstorm survey questions • conduct survey, collate responses, draw graphs of

results, discuss graphs; identify a Research Question• brainstorm evidence of interaction from own

experience• categorise the evidence• transfer categories of evidence to different sheets for

small groups of LS and IS to work together on implementation of ideas from one chosen category

Connection with other participants (2)

• IS + LS quiz results shared (all as ignorant as each other of school statistics)

• IS survey LS• find points in common (pairs group game)• selection of category of interest by individuals• student group according to chosen category (one

IS + two LS) and exchange of names

IS LS

Clarification of purpose (2)

• aim to answer the Research Question - collaboration between LS and IS

• operate as a group with a facilitator, a recorder, a spell and grammar checker

Performance in Role (2): collaborative experts (IS + LS)

• read the evidence for the chosen category and add more ideas

• brainstorm how to implement the ideas

• discuss implementation ideas

• list the best ideas according to your group decision

• evaluate the interaction activity

Result 1: High quality content• language:

“in an assembly have a power point presentation, one per student, where they live (map) and information about them.” and “.. teach how to say some words like ‘Hi.’

• history:“learn about what caused IS to come to Australia”

• food:“have different kinds of food in the canteen ” ..

“international students could teach a lesson in Home Economics to tell people how to make a delicious meal “ .. “share shopping lists” .. “have lessons where we talk about food in different places”

• customs:‘classes together where we teach each other

different customs e.g. the difference between school systems”

Result 2: High level of participationI observed:• a buzz in the room (a hive of activity)• no obvious unequal participation• all groups returned worksheets with increased

evidence points and ideas for implementation• each group had a facilitator, a recorder and a

spell and grammar checker• sustained concentration on task for varying

amounts of time, one group approximately 40 minutes on task

Result 3: Effect on teacher (me)

I experienced

• difficulty letting go

• fear of handing over responsibility for the learning

I learned

• I was not indispensable

• students are more flexible and capable than I think

Discussion of results: Hypothesis 1:

The production of quality content and the high level of participation suggests real talk occurred.

It is considered likely that this is due to thoroughly preparing the IS enabling them to be participants, the perception by both LS and IS that it was a “two-way process", the constructivist nature of the task, no dominant cultural view and the fact that students were playing a legitimate (authentic) role; and that

small group discussion blending LS and IS allowed for scaffolding from “more capable peers” in how to contribute but not what to contribute, made possible by students feeling connected

enabling students to connect as a learning community in the classroom produces real talk between IS and LS related to the role they are in (researcher, expert).

Results from interviews 4 months after the interactive sessions.

IS + LS

100%

0% remembered did not remember the sessions the sessions

IS + LS

100%

0%

have communicated have not communicated verbally with students verbally with students from the other class from the other class in in the interaction the interaction

Have you communicated with other IS / LS who were not involved in the interaction lessons in

2007?

LS (with IS) IS (with LS)

100%

60%

40%

Yes No Yes

Do you think communication with ESL international students / local students is made

easier if you experience organised classroom interaction such as the activities in 2007?

LS IS100%

40% 20% definitely definitely possibly maybe yes yes

Do you think you have a more positive attitude towards students from a different cultural

background than yourself in general because of this kind of classroom interaction?

LS IS100%

40% 20% definitely definitely possibly maybe yes yes

Results are not conclusive for Hypothesis 2:• all students recalled the activities 4 months later• all students had communicated with ‘other’ participants• IS had communicated with ‘others’ who had not been

involved despite saying that communication was not easier and that their attitude was not necessarily more positive

• LS had not communicated with ‘others’ who had not been involved despite saying that communication was easier and their attitude more positive

Discussion of results: Hypothesis 2:real talk between IS and LS organised in the classroom promotes real talk outside the classroom [in other roles (teenager, classmate, global citizen ..)]

Conclusion:

Using the prescribed method enabled students to connect as a learning community in the classroom and produced real talk between IS and LS [related to the role they were in (researcher, expert)] (Hypothesis 1)

Real talk between IS and LS organised in the classroom may promote real talk outside the classroom [in other roles (teenager, classmate, global citizen..)] (Hypothesis 2)

Evaluation:-

• definitions of IS and LS can be problematic• the timing needs consideration (over two school terms)

+• a valuable experience for LS due to their participation in

interaction with IS and their expressed improvement of attitude

• a valuable experience for IS due to their participation in interaction with LS and their exposure in this instance to research skills in a real context

• in activities of the types described both IS and LS are presented with a view of a future in which they can play a part in knowledge creation; IS are presented with a view of a future in which they can be equal participants in classroom talk.

• other teachers aware of student identity issues encouraged to take risks in alternative methods

Comments on interaction by LS (Year 8 audience to 11ESL presentations):

“.. a lot of fun .. enjoyed it a lot” .. “.. felt extremely comfortable ..” .. “I enjoyed the facts and felt like I extended my information of [ ] ..” .. “nice to know a bit about there (sic) culture ..” .. “.. we didn’t have to do any work ..” .. “.. I would like to learn more about there (sic) culture ..” .. “.. I’d like to learn more ..” .. “.. get to know more people ..” ..

Comments on interaction by IS (Year 10ESL on collaborative task with Year

10English) re “Did you enjoy it?”:

“.. it was fun time for everybody I think” .. “..we can practise our English .. can know a lot of culture ..” .. “ I like spoke (sic) to the local

students. They are fun.” .. “I like this activity. It can make more and more friends.” .. “I want to talk with them again.” .. “I was pleased to

have such an opportunity to communicate with a local student. It’s good for the growth of your English.” .. “we can practise our English and

improve it.”

Recommendations

• authentic interactive practices of high-school subjects need to be identified by subject and EAL teachers in collaboration and used as mainstream class activities

• thorough (inclusive) preparation pre-activity is essential • if a priority of education is to enable life-long learning by

independent learners then the learning theory behind our curricular warrants revision

• a combination of learning theories to guide pedagogy may be optimal

• true internationalisation of curricula would support the described method

Reference ListCadman, K. (2008) From Correcting to Connecting: A personal

story of changing priorities in teaching English as an Additional Language in TESOL in Context Vol. 17 No.2 February

Derewianka, B. (1990) Rocks in the Head: Children and the language of Geology in Carter, R. Knowledge about Language and the Curriculum Hodder and Stoughton UK

Doria, C. (2005) The Truth about being an International Student Globally United Melbourne

Douglas, A. (2000) Learning as Participation in Social Practices: interpreting student perspectives on learning in Changing English, Vol. 7, No. 2: 153-165

Hammond, J. (ed.) (2001) Scaffolding – teaching and learning in language and literacy education PETA NSW

Jones, B. (2006) A Thinking Reed Allen & Unwin NSW page 272Kalantzis, M. and Cope, B. (eds.) (1993) The Powers of Literacy:

A Genre Approach to Teaching Writing The Falmer Press UK

Reference List continued

Lave, J.(1991) Situating Learning in Communities of Practice in Resnick et al (eds) Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition

Mickan, P., Petrescu, I & Timoney, J. (eds) (2006) Social Practices, pedagogy and language use: studies in socialisation Lythrum Press Adelaide

Rogoff, B. (1994) Developing Understanding of the Idea of Communities of Learners in Mind, Culture, and Activity Vol.1, No. 4 Fall pp 209-229

Sit, M., Mickan, P., Gray, C. (2005) Building Academic Discourse Skills in Chat Rooms in Poedjosoedarmo, G. (Ed) Innovative Approaches to Reading and Writing Instruction Anthology Series 46 SEAMEO Regional Language Centre RELC Singapore

Takeda, K (2005) Report on Interaction between Local and International Students Adelaide University Overseas Students’ Association

Teramoto, H. (forthcoming) Exploring new arrival-ness: How new arrivals are turned into “New Arrivals”. A Doctoral Thesis manuscript.

The Advertiser (2008) The 2020 Summit. Monday April 21st page 4Wenger, E. (n.d.)

www.ewenger.com/theory/communities_of_practice_intro.htm accessed on 28th April 2006

A final word:

To quote Barry Jones:

“An innate sense of inadequacy holds people back from new experiences.”

Jones, Barry A Thinking Reed 2006:272