Literacies

VOLUME 19 ISSUE 4

The International Journal of

Literacies

thelearner.com

The International Journal of Literacies ………………………………… The Learner Collection VOLUME 19 ISSUE 4 2012

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LITERACIES www.thelearner.com First published in 2013 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLC www.commongroundpublishing.com ISSN: 2327-0136 © 2012-2013 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2012-2013 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact [email protected]. The International Journal of Literacies is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterionreferenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published.

EDITOR(S) ………………………………… Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, USA

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD ………………………………… Michael Apple, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA David Barton, Lancaster University, Milton Keynes, UK Mario Bello, University of Science, Cuba Manuela du Bois-Reymond, Universiteit Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA Robert Devillar, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, USA Daniel Madrid Fernandez, University of Granada, Spain Ruth Finnegan, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK James Paul Gee, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA Juana M. Sancho Gil, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain Kris Gutierrez, University of California, Los Angeles, USA Anne Hickling-Hudson, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Australia Roz Ivanic, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK Paul James, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Carey Jewitt, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA Andeas Kazamias, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA Peter Kell, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia Michele Knobel, Montclair State University, Montclair, USA Gunther Kress, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK Colin Lankshear, James Cook University, Cairns, Australia Kimberly Lawless, University of Illinois, Chicago, USA Sarah Michaels, Clark University, Worcester, USA Jeffrey Mok, Miyazaki International College, Miyazaki, Japan Denise Newfield, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Ernest O’Neil, Ministry of Education, Sana’a, Yemen José-Luis Ortega, University of Granada, Granada, Spain Francisco Fernandez Palomares, University of Granada, Granada, Spain Ambigapathy Pandian, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia Miguel A. Pereyra, University of Granada, Granada, Spain Scott Poynting, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK Angela Samuels, Montego Bay Community College, Montego Bay, Jamaica Michel Singh, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia Helen Smith, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Richard Sohmer, Clark University, Worcester, USA Brian Street, University of London, London, UK Giorgos Tsiakalos, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece Salim Vally, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Gella Varnava-Skoura, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

Cecile Walden, Sam Sharpe Teachers College, Montego Bay, Jamaica Nicola Yelland, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia Wang Yingjie, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China Zhou Zuoyu, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

ASSOCIATE EDITORS ………………………………… Isela Almaguer Patrick Baughan Christine Clayton Ruth Fielding-Barnsley Macarena Donoso González Christopher W. Johnson Marianna Kondyli Kunlaphak Kongsuwannakul Chung Yee Lai Tatzia Langlo Lauren McCann Megumi Okugiri Michelle Picard Afnan Qutub Michael Whitacre Mun Wong

Scope and Concerns LEARNING AND EDUCATION: THEIR BREADTH AND DEPTH ………………………………… ‘Learning’ is bigger than education. Humans are born with an innate capacity to learn, and over the span of a lifetime learning never stops. Learning simply happens as people engage with each other, interact with the natural world and move about in the world they have constructed. Indeed, one of the things that makes us distinctively human is our enormous capacity to learn. Other species learn, too, from the tiniest of insects to the smartest of chimpanzees. But none has practices of pedagogy or institutions of education. As a consequence, the main way in which other species develop over time is through the incremental, biological adaptations of evolution. Change is natural. It is slow. Education makes human learning unlike the learning of any other creature. Learning allows humans to escape the strict determinations of nature. It gives humans the resources with which to understand themselves and their world, and to transform their conditions of living, for better or for worse. Education is a peculiarly human capacity to nurture learning in a conscious way, and to create social contexts that have been specially designed for that purpose: the institutions of education. Everyday learning happens naturally, everywhere and all the time. Education – encompassing institutions, its curricula and its pedagogies – is learning by design.

THE ART AND SCIENCE OF TEACHING ………………………………… Teaching happens everywhere. Many people are naturally quite good at teaching. They explain things clearly. They are patient. And they have the knack of explaining just enough, but not too much, so the learner gains a sense that they are gradually mastering something, albeit with a more knowledgeable person’s support. You can find the practice of teaching in action everywhere in everyday life. In fact, it is impossible to imagine everyday life without it. Teaching and learning are integral to our nature as humans. Teaching is also a vocation, a profession. People in the business of teaching are good at their job when they have developed and apply the dispositions and sensibilities of the person who is a good teacher in everyday life. But there is much more to the teaching profession than having a natural knack, however well practised. There is also a science to education, which adds method and reflexivity to the art of teaching, and is backed up by a body of specialist knowledge. This science asks and attempts to answer fundamental and searching questions. How does learning happen? How do we organize teaching so it is most effective? What works for learners? And when it works, how do we know it has worked? The science of education attempts to answer these questions in a well thoughtthrough and soundly analyzed way.

LEARNING PRACTICES ………………………………… Learning is how a person or a group comes to know, and knowing consists of a variety of types of action. In learning, a knower positions themselves in relation to the knowable, and engages. Knowing entails doing—experiencing, conceptualizing, analysing or applying, for instance.

A learner brings their own person to the act of knowing, their subjectivity. When engagement occurs, they become a more or less transformed person. Their horizons of knowing and acting have been expanded. Learning can be analyzed at three levels: ‘pedagogy’, or the microdynamics of moments of teaching and learning; ‘curriculum ’, or the learning designs for particular areas of knowledge; and ‘education’ or the overall institutional setting in which pedagogy and curriculum are located. Pedagogy is a planned and deliberate process whereby one person helps another to learn. This is what First Peoples did through various formalized rites of passage, from child to adult to elder – learning law, spirituality and nature. It is also how teachers in the era of modern, mass, institutionalized education have organized the learners in their classrooms and their learning. Pedagogy is the science and practice of the dynamics of knowing. Assessment is the measure of pedagogy: interpreting the shape and extent of the knower’s transformation. Curriculum is the substantive content of learning and its organization into subjects and topics – mathematics, history, physical education and the like. In places of formal and systematic teaching and learning, pedagogy occurs within these larger frameworks in which the processes of engagement are given structure and order. These often defined by specific contents and methodologies, hence the distinctive ‘disciplines’. Well might we ask, what is the nature and future of ‘literacy’, ‘numeracy’, ‘science’, ‘history’, ‘social studies’, ‘economics’, ‘physical education’ and the like? How are they connected, with each other, and a world in a state of dynamic transformation? And how do we evaluate their effectiveness as curriculum? Education has traditionally been used with reference formal learning communities, the institutions of school, college and university that first appeared along with the emergence of writing as a tool for public administration (to train, for instance, ‘mandarins’ or public officials in imperial China, or the writers of cuneiform in ancient Mesopotamia/Iraq); to support religions founded on sacred texts (the Islamic madrasa , or the Christian monastery); and to transmit formally developed knowledge and wisdom (the Academy of ancient Athens, or Confucian teaching in China). Learning happens everywhere and all the time. It is an intrinsic part of our human natures. Education, however is learning by design, in community settings specially designed as such—the institutions of early childhood, school, technical/vocational, university and adult education. Education also sometimes takes informal or semiformal forms within settings whose primary rationale is commercial or communal, including workplaces, community groups, households or public places.

TOWARDS A SCIENCE OF EDUCATION ………………………………… What is this overarching institution, ‘education’? In its most visible manifestation it consists of its institutional forms: schools, colleges and universities. But, more broadly conceived, education is a social process, a relationship of teaching and learning. As a professional practice, it is a discipline. The science of education analyzes pedagogy, curriculum and educational institutions. It is a discipline or body of knowledge about learning and teaching – about how these practices are conceived and realized ‘Science’ or ‘discipline’ refers to a privileged kind of knowledge, created by people with special skills who mostly work in research, academic or teaching jobs. It involves careful experimentation and focused observation. Scientists systematically explore phenomena, discover facts and patterns and gradually build these into theories that describe the world. Over time, we come to trust these and ascribe to them the authority of science. In this spirit, we might create a science of education that focuses on the brain as a biological entity and the mind as a source of behaviors (cognitive science). Or we might set up experiments

in which we carefully explore the facts of learning in order to prove what works or doesn’t work. Like the medical scientist, we might give some learners a dosage of a certain kind of educational medicine and others a placebo, to see whether a particular intervention produces better test results—such are the formal experimental methods of randomized, controlled trials. Often, however, we need to know more. It is indeed helpful to know something of how the mind works, but what of the cultural conditions that also form the thinking person? We need good proofs of which kinds of educational interventions work, but what if the research questions we are asking or the tests we are using to evaluate results can only measure a narrow range of capacities and knowledge? What if the tests can prove that the intervention works – scores are going up – but some learners are not engaged by a curriculum that has been retrofitted to the tests? What if the tests only succeed in measuring recall of the facts that the tests expect the learners to have acquired – simple, multiple-choice or yes/no answers? A critic of such ‘standardized testing’ may ask, what’s the use of this in a world in which facts can always be looked up, but problem solving and creativity are now more sought-after capacities, and there can be more than one valid and useful answer to most of the more important questions? For these reasons, we also need to work with a broader understanding of the discipline of education, based on a broader definition of science than experimental methods.

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY SCIENCE ………………………………… The discipline of education is grounded in the science of learning, or how people come to know. It is a science that explores what knowing is. It focuses on how babies, then young people, then adults, learn. Education-as-science is a specially focused form of knowing: knowing how knowing happens and how capacities to know develop. It is, in a sense, the science of all sciences. It is also concerned with the organization of teaching that supports systematic, formal learning and the institutions in which that learning occurs. Too often, education is regarded as a poor cousin of other disciplines in the university – the natural sciences, the humanities and the other professions, for instance. It is regarded as something that enables other disciplines, rather than being a discipline in its own right. This is often reflected in reduced levels of research funding, lower student entry requirements and the destination salaries of graduates. Education seems to be less rigorous and derivative. Its disciplinary base borrowed from other, apparently more foundational disciplines – sociology, history, psychology, cognitive science, linguistics, philosophy – and the substantive knowledge of various subject areas, such as literature, science and mathematics. For sure, education is broader-ranging and more eclectic than other disciplines. Education draws on a number of disciplinary strands – the philosophy of knowledge (epistemology), the cognitive science of perception and learning, developmental psychology, the history of modern institutions, the sociology of diverse communities, the linguistics and semiotics of meaning – to name just a few of education’s disciplinary perspectives. These and other strands come together to make the discipline of education. In this sense, education is more than a discipline – it is an extraordinarily interdisciplinary endeavor.

EDUCATION AS THE SCIENCE OF SCIENCES ………………………………… Education is also the soil in which all the other disciplines grow. You can’t do any of the other disciplines in a university or college except through the medium of education. No other discipline exists except through its learning. A novice can only enter a discipline – physics, or law, or history, or literature – through education, learning the accumulated knowledge that has become that discipline. In this sense, education is more than just interdisciplinary. It does more than just

stitch together other disciplines. It is a metadiscipline, essential as the practical grounding of all disciplines. Education is the discipline of disciplines. Education is the systematic investigation of how humans come to know. It focuses on formal, institutionalized learning at all its levels from preschool to school, college and university. Education is also concerned with the processes of informal learning – how babies learn to speak at home, or how children and adults learn to use an interface or play a game. It is concerned with how organizations and groups learn, collecting and acquiring knowledge that is applied in their communities, professions and workplaces. In fact, as knowledge is needed and used everywhere, learning happens everywhere. There is no part of our lives to where the discipline of education cannot provide a useful perspective. Maybe, then, education is more than just an interdisciplinary place that ties together shreds and patches from other disciplines – a bit of psychology here, a bit of sociology there, a bit of management there. Education should be regarded as the metadisciplinary foundation of all disciplines. Its focus is the science of knowing, no less. The metadiscipline of education inquires into learning, or how we come to know and be. Education-as-metadiscipline explores knowing and being. It analyzes how people and groups learn and come to be what they are. As such, it is a specially expansive exploration of knowing. It is interested to know how knowing happens and how capacities to know develop.

EDUCATION IS THE NEW PHILOSOPHY ………………………………… What if we were to think of education in these more expansive and more ambitious ways? If we are to think in these terms, then the intellectual and practical agenda of education is no less than to explore the bases and pragmatics of human knowledge, becoming and identity. Education asks this ur -disciplinary question: How is it that we come to know and be, as individuals and collectively? If this is education’s central question, surely, then, we can argue that it is the source of all other disciplines? It is the means by which all other disciplines come into being. Philosophy used to claim a metadisciplinary position like this. It was the discipline where students not only thought, but thought about thinking. However, for decades, philosophy has been making itself less relevant. It has become too word-bound, too obscure, too formal and too disconnected from practical, lived experience. But philosophy’s metaquestions still need to be asked. Education should perhaps take the former position of philosophy as the discipline of disciplines, and do it more engagingly and relevantly than philosophy ever did. Education is the new philosophy.

INVESTING IN EDUCATION FOR A ‘KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY’ ………………………………… Add to these expanded intellectual ambitions, widened ambitions for education in public discourse and everyday social reality—and these should be good times to be an educator. Politicians and captains of industry alike tell us that knowledge is now a key factor of production, a fundamental basis of competitiveness – at the personal, enterprise and national levels. And as knowledge is a product of learning, education is more important than ever. This is why education has become such a prominent topic in the public discourse of social promise. The expectations of education have been ratcheted up. More than ever before, people are saying that education is pivotal to social and economic progress. This does not necessarily translate immediately into greater public investment in education (a businesslike approach, one would think). But today’s rhetoric about the importance of education does give educators greater leverage in the public discourse than we had until recently.

Stated simply, in a knowledge economy in which more and more jobs require greater depths of knowledge, schools must do what they can to bridge the knowledge gaps. If they can achieve this, they are at least doing something to ameliorate the worst systemic material inequalities. Schools, in other words, have a new opportunity, a new responsibility and a new challenge to build societies that are more inclusive of social classes whose access to material resources was historically limited. Despite this, educators struggle to find the resources to meet increasing expectations, despite all talk of a ‘knowledge society’ and ‘new economy’. We may have listened to this rhetoric with a great deal of skepticism given the struggles we educators face. Nevertheless, we need to grasp what is rhetorically or genuinely new in our times. We must seize the drift of contemporary public discourse, and position ourselves centrally. Here is our chance: the stuff of knowledge is no more and no less than the stuff of learning. Surely too, this new kind of society requires a new kind of learning and that a new social status is ascribed to education. It is our role as educators to advocate for education, to make a claim for the allocation of the social resources required in order to meet expanding expectations.

DESIGNS FOR SOCIAL FUTURES: TOWARDS ‘NEW LEARNING’ ………………………………… How might we imagine a better society which locates education at the heart of things? This heart may well be economic in the sense that it is bound to material self-improvement or personal ambition. Equally, however, education is a space to re-imagine and try out a new and better world which delivers improved material, environmental and cultural outcomes for all. Education must surely be a place of open possibilities, for personal growth, for social transformation and for the deepening of democracy. Such is the agenda of ‘New Learning’, explicitly or implicitly. This agenda holds whether our work and thinking is expansive and philosophical or local and finely grained. If we were to choose a single word to characterize the agenda of the New Learning, it is to be ‘transformative’. New Learning is thus not simply based on a reading of change. It is also grounded in an optimistic agenda in which we educators can constructively contribute to change. If knowledge is indeed as pivotal in contemporary society as the ‘new economy’ commentators and politicians claim, then educators should seize the agenda and position themselves as forces of change. We have a professional responsibility to be change agents who design the education for the future and who, in so doing, also help design the future. You might see this as a sensible conservatism, sensible for being realistic about the contemporary forces of technology, globalization and cultural change. Or you could see it to be an emancipatory agenda that aspires to make a future that is different from the present by addressing its many crises – of poverty, environment, cultural difference and existential meaning, for instance. In other words, the transformation may be pragmatic (enabling learners to do their best in the given social conditions) or it may be emancipatory (making the world a better place) or it may be both. At its best, transformative New Learning embodies a realistic view of contemporary society, or the kinds of knowledge and capacities for knowing that children need to develop in order to be good workers in a ‘knowledge economy’; participating citizens in a globalized, cosmopolitan society; and balanced personalities in a society that affords a range of life choices that at times feels overwhelming. It nurtures the social sensibilities of a kind of person who understands that they determine the world by their actions as much as they are determined by that world. It creates a person who understands how their individual needs are inextricably linked with their responsibility to work for the common good as we become more and more closely connected into ever-expanding and overlapping social networks. The issue is not merely one of quantity. It is not simply a matter of providing more education for more people. While many nations persevere with educational structures founded in the 19th century or earlier, the knowledge economy demands different and creative approaches to

learning. Schools, at least in their traditional form, may not dominate the educational landscape of the 21st century. Neat segregations of the past may crumble. Givens may give.

LEARNER DIVERSITY ………………………………… No learning exists without learners, in all their diversity. It is a distinctive feature of the New Learning to recognize the enormous variability of lifeworld circumstances that learners bring to learning. The demographics are insistent: material (class, locale, family circumstances), corporeal (age, race, sex and sexuality, and physical and mental characteristics) and symbolic (culture, language, gender, affinity and persona). This conceptual starting point helps explain the telling patterns of educational and social outcomes. Behind these demographics are real people, who have always already learned and whose range of learning possibilities are both boundless and circumscribed by what they have learned already and what they have become through that learning. Here we encounter the raw material diversity – of human experiences, dispositions, sensibilities, epistemologies and world views. These are always far more varied and complex than the raw demographics would at first glance suggest. Learning succeeds or fails to the extent that it engages the varied identities and subjectivities of learners. Engagement produces opportunity, equity and participation. Failure to engage produces failure, disadvantage and inequality. The questions we face as educators today are big, the challenges sometimes daunting. How do we, for instance, ensure that education fulfills its democratic mission, through quality teaching, a transformative curriculum and dedicated programs that address inequality? Targeting groups who are disadvantaged and ‘at risk’ is an essential responsibility of educators, not on the basis of moral arguments alone but also because of the economic and social dangers of allowing individuals and groups to be excluded.

EDUCATION’S AGENDAS ………………………………… In this time of extraordinary social transformation and uncertainty, educators need to consider themselves to be designers of social futures, to search out new ways to address the learning needs of our society, and in so doing to position education at an inarguably central place in society. Professional educators of tomorrow will not be people who simply enact received systems, standards, organizational structures and professional ethics. Indeed, powerful educational ideas – about how people act and build knowledge in context and in collaboration with others, for instance – could well become leading social ideas in currently more privileged areas of endeavor, such as business and technology. Perhaps, if we can succeed at putting education at the heart of the designs for society’s future, we might even be able to succeed in our various campaigns to ensure that education is innovative, empowering, just and adequately resourced. Education in all its aspects is in a moment of transition today. The idea of ‘New Learning’ contrasts what education has been like in the past, with the changes we are experiencing today, with an imaginative view of the possible features of learning environments in the near future. What will learning be like, and what will teachers’ jobs be like? Are we educators well enough equipped to answer the questions we encounter and address the challenges we face? Does our discipline provide us with the intellectual wherewithal to face changes of these proportions? It could, but only if we conceive education to be a science as rigorous in its methods and as ambitious in its scope as any other.

Education’s agenda is intellectually expansive and practically ambitious. It is learnertransformative, enabling productive workers, participating citizens and fulfilled persons. And it is world-transformative as we interrogate the human nature of learning and its role in imagining and enacting new ways of being human and living socially: shaping our identities, framing our ways of belonging, using technologies, representing meanings in new ways and through new media, building participatory spaces and collaborating to build and rebuild the world. These are enormous intellectual and practical challenges. Transformative education is an act of imagination for the future of learning and an attempt to find practical ways to develop aspects of this future in the educational practices of the present. It is an open-ended struggle rather than a clear destination, a process rather than a formula for action. It is a work-in-progress. The science of education is a domain of social imagination, experimentation, invention and action. It’s big. It’s ambitious. And it’s determinedly practical. The Learning Conference, journals, book imprint and online community provide a forum for dialogue about the nature and future of learning. They are places for presenting research and reflections on education both in general terms and through the minutiae of practice. They attempt to build an agenda for a new learning, and more ambitiously an agenda for a knowledge society which is as good as the promise of its name.

Table of Contents On the Relationship between Reading Self-efficacy, Perceptual Learning Style and the Use of Reading Strategies among Iranian EFL Learners......................................1 Maryam Ghezlou and Reza Biria Forming a Community of Practice: Exploratory Teacher Research of an English as a Foreign Language Community at a University in Taiwan .....................................17 Paul S. Berg Process Drama for 21st Century Learning: Building Multiliteracies and CreativeAdaptive Capacity .........................................................................................................27 Shamini Dias Learning English as Foreign Language in Indonesia through English Children’s Literature .......................................................................................................................41 Leni Marlina Narrative Skills and Genre Based Literacy Pedagogy Teaching Material: The Case of Greek Upper Elementary School Pupils One Year after the Implementation of the Current Teaching Material ....................................................................................53 Anna Fterniati Associations of the Home Literacy Environment with Thai University Students’ Leisure Reading Habits.................................................................................................69 Nicholas Ferriman Text-to-Speech Use to Improve Reading of High School Struggling Readers .........89 Kelly Roberts, Kiriko Takahashi, Hye-Jin Park, and Robert Stodden Where Is that Reference From? Identifying the Source of Student Citations as First Step in Assessing Reference Appropriateness ...................................................99 Christine Armatas and Andrew Vincent

The International Journal of Literacies Volume 19, 2013, www.thelearner.com, ISSN: 2327-0136 © Common Ground, Author(s) Name(s), All Rights Reserved, Permissions: [email protected]

On the Relationship between Reading Selfefficacy, Perceptual Learning Style and the Use of Reading Strategies among Iranian EFL Learners Maryam Ghezlou, Khurasgan (Isfahan) Azad University, Iran Reza Biria, Khurasgan (Isfahan) Azad University, Iran Abstract: The present study aimed at exploring the possible relationship between Iranian EFL learners’ major perceptual learning styles, reading self-efficacy, and the use of metacognitive and compensation reading strategies. 86 Iranian sophomore students were presented 3 questionnaires on perceptual learning style, reading self-efficacy, and reading strategies use. The results revealed that the Iranian EFL learners’ major perceptual learning style preferences highly correlated with metacognitive reading strategy, not the compensation. The findings also confirmed the positive interface between the participants’ reading self-efficacy and the metacognitive reading strategy. The findings introduce compensation reading strategy as a lost ring in the context of the Iranian educational system, and further implies incorporation of such prominent reading strategy into the curriculum of every EFL context. Keywords: Perceptual Learning Style, Metacognitive Reading Strategy, Compensation Reading Strategy, Reading Selfefficacy

Introduction

R

eading as a key element in language learning has been at the mercy of vigorous investigation from various perspectives (Pang, 2008; Saricoban and Saricaoglu, 2008; Shannon and College, 2008). One of the most recent lines of study attracting the attention of researchers in ESL and EFL contexts has been purported to be the actual processes involved in taking this highly complex skill, and the ways through which readers can achieve autonomy in the process of language learning. As a result learners’ strategies, or more specifically readers’ strategies seem to play a crucial role in bringing up independent but more prosperous learners, or readers. Reading strategies indeed provide interaction with the written text (Singhal, 2001), and can assist learners with the acquisition, storage, and retrieval of information. They can also enhance the comprehension of the reading text (Sheory and Mokhtari, 2001). Different researchers have provided different classifications for learning strategies among which Rubin’1987, O’Mally and Chamot’s 1990, and Oxford’s 1990 typologies have confirmed to be the forerunners. Moreover, recent lines of study highlight envisaging individual features that might affect the strategy use. The differences could include the proficiency level (Shang, 2011), gender (Naseri and Zaferanieh, 2012), age (Chen, 2002; Ok, 2003; Szoke and Sheorey, 2002), attitudes, motivation, self-efficacy (Li and Wang, 2010; Rahimi, Riazi, and Saif, 2009), and learning style (Ehrman and Oxford, 1990; Ghonsooly and Eghtesadi, 2006). Of the various individual features that might influence the type and rate of strategy use could be learner’s beliefs or self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is defined as people’s beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives. Self-efficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave (Bandura, 1994). Learning style is another attribute exerting influence upon learners’ use of strategies. Oxford (2003, p.273) describes it as an “overall pattern that provides broad direction to learning and makes the same instructional method beloved by some students and hated by others.” Of the various classifications introduced for learning style (see Tabanlioglu, 2003 for a comprehensive introduction), the one which has been deprived of rigorous research is the sensory or perceptual learning style, particularly in the context of the present study. Such learning style based on the taxonomy of Reid (1998, p.x) includes auditory, visual, tactile,

The International Journal of Literacies Volume 19, 2013, thelearner.com, ISSN 2327-0136 © Common Ground, Maryam Ghezlou, Reza Biria, All Rights Reserved Permissions: [email protected]

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LITERACIES

kinesthetic, group, and individual learning styles. The present study’s primary aim was to figure out the major types of Iranian EFL learners’ learning styles. It further tried to explore the interface between the participants’ major perceptual learning styles with metacognitive and compensation reading strategies as the most prevalent reading strategy types in EFL contexts diagnosed by previously conducted studies (Rahimi et.al., 2009; Saricoban and Saricaoglu, 2008; Shang, 2010). The current study also attempted to reveal the possible relationship between reading self-efficacy and the metacognitive and compensation strategy use of Iranian EFL learners.

Review of Literature Metacognitive Reading Strategies Metacognition, in Harries’ (2003) opinion, acts as a guide for learning process so it comprises planning and monitoring strategies on the one hand and evaluates both language use and language learning on the other. Reading metacognitive strategies based on Pintrich (1999, cf. Shang, 2012), could be related to planning activities such as skimming a text before reading or generating questions before reading a text, monitoring activities such as paying attention to the text or overviewing and linking with already known material, and finally regulatory activities such as slowing the pace of reading or postponing the questions. Studies in EFL contexts (Oxford, Judd, and Giesen, 1998) uncovered evidence that metacognitive strategies are often strong predictors of L2 proficiency.

Compensation Reading Strategies A compensation strategy generally helps the learners make up for missing knowledge. Oxford and Ehrman (1995) asserted that compensation strategies are significantly related to L2 proficiency. It is particularly helpful in the comprehension of lexicon and reading texts. Readers encountering unfamiliar vocabularies in the text have been highly recommended to resort to compensation strategies which include both semantic and syntactic cues (Sinatra, Dowd, 1992, cf. Shang, 2011). Semantic clues encompass intra and inter sentence meaning relationship while syntactic clues deal with the grammatical structures. Examples of such strategy use are guessing from context, neglecting new vocabularies, repeating new vocabularies for several times while reading the text, underlying key words, segmenting the key words into their constituent parts (root, prefix, suffix), and inferencing.

The Interface between Perceptual Learning Style and the Learning/Reading Strategy Use Regarding the significant role of learning style and its broad contribution to learning, Oxford (2003) notifies other researchers on the paucity of researches on the interface between learning strategy use and learning style. The literature has also revealed a strong relationship between the strategy use and the success of learners, or more particularly readers, in comprehending the reading texts (Pang, 2008; Tercanlioglu, 2004). Of the various dimensions introduced for learning styles including personality learning styles, cognitive learning styles, sensory or perceptual learning styles; last dimension and its relationship with learning strategies have been least studied. Rossi-Li (1995) conducted a research with respect to perceptual learning styles and found a strong relationship between visual, auditory, tactile, kinesthetic, and the overall strategy use of the students. In another study, Riazi and Riasati (2006) made an attempt to investigate the language learning style of Iranian EFL learners and the degree of teachers’ awareness of them. The findings demonstrated that both the learning preferences of students in different areas, and the teachers’ awareness of their students’ learning preferences accommodated in some situations, but not in others. In the same line of study, Riazi and Mansoorian (2008) explored the preferred 2

GHEZLOU AND BIRIA: READING SELF-EFFICACY, PERCEPTUAL LEARNING STYLE AND READING STRATEGIES

learning styles of Iranian EFL students in different cities of Iran. To do so, they presented Reid’s Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ, 1987) to a group of 300 students. They found out that the students preferred the auditory, visual, tactile, and kinesthetic learning styles as their major styles. Unfortunately, no relevant studies were found concerning the perceptual learning styles and their probable relationship with the reading strategies use. It was one of the major incentives for conducting the present research.

Self-efficacy and its Relationship with Strategy Use Self-efficacy as a subset of motivation has proved to strongly affect the successful performance of learners in different skills (Ghonsooly and Elahi, 2011; Magogwe and Oliver, 2007; Mills, Pajares and Herron, 2006; Tilfarlioglu and Cinkara, 2009). Nelson and Conner (2008) emphasized on students’ motivation, locus of control, selfregulation, and metacognition for ensuring their self-directedness. Magogwe and Oliver (2007) conducted a study on the relationship between self-efficacy and language learning strategy use. They found meaningful relationship between the two variables. Li and Wang (2010) examined the relationship between reading self-efficacy from a motivational perspective and reading strategies from a cognitive perspective. They concluded that reading self efficacy positively correlated with the use of reading strategies in general and the use of three subcategories of reading strategies, i.e., metacognitive, cognitive, and social/affective strategies, in particular. The findings also confirmed that highly self-efficacious readers used reading strategies more frequently than those with low self-efficacy. In the same vein, Shang (2010) examined the use of three reading strategies of cognitive, metacognitive, and compensation strategies by Taiwanese high intermediate EFL learners. She further tried to inspect the interaction between reading strategy use and perceived self-efficacy on the learners’ English reading comprehension. The results demonstrated that metacognitive strategy was the most frequent strategy used by EFL learners, while compensation and cognitive proved to hold the second and third rank. Besides, significant relationship was found in all three strategy uses and perceived self-efficacy of the learners. Accordingly, Ghonsooly and Elahi (2011) investigated the relationship between Iranian EFL learners’ reading self-efficacy and reading anxiety on the one hand, and their reading selfefficacy and reading achievement on the other. Their findings demonstrated the existence of high correlation between high self-efficacy and reading comprehension achievement. In the same vein, Naseri and Zaferanieh (2012) explored the interface between reading self-efficacy beliefs, reading strategies use, and reading comprehension level among Iranian EFL learners. Their findings indicated a significantly positive correlation not only between reading self-efficacy and reading comprehension, but also between reading self-efficacy and reading strategy use. The above review of literature requires more vigorous lines of research as the outcomes might well clarify the requirements of learner success in EFL context. In the same endeavor, the following research questions were posed by the present study: 1. What are the major perceptual learning styles of the Iranian High-Intermediate EFL learners? 2. Is there any relationship between Iranian High-Intermediate EFL learners’ major perceptual learning style and the use of reading strategies? 3. Is there any relationship between Iranian High-Intermediate EFL learners’ reading selfefficacy and their use of reading strategy?

3


Method Participants Participants of the present study were randomly selected from sophomore students majoring in English Translation and TEFL from two state universities in Tehran and Miandoab. They made an overall of 86 from both genders including 46 females and 40 males. Results of demographic questionnaire revealed that the subjects ranging in age from 18 to 24 with a mean of 21 enjoyed an average of 7-8 years of formal education in English at high school and university. All the participants were of high-intermediate in terms of their proficiency level.

Instrumentation The present research attempted to reveal the major perceptual learning styles of Iranian EFL learners. It further examined the interface between perceptual learning style and the use of reading strategies on the one hand, and the link between reading self-efficacy and the use of reading strategies on the other hand. To meet this end, three questionnaires were utilized. The first one was Reid’s (1987) Perceptual Learning Style Questionnaire (PLSQ) which consisted of thirty statements on six learning style preferences, i.e., visual, auditory, kinesthetic, tactile, group, and individual learning. The participants were asked to respond on the basis of a five point-Likert Scale from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree”. The second questionnaire which evaluated the participants’ reading self-efficacy (RSEQ) was constructed based on 1) Horwitz’s (1988) Beliefs about Language Learning (BALL), 2) Li and Wong’s (2010) the Use of Reading Strategies Questionnaire, and 3) Ghonsooly and Elahi’s (2011) EFL Learners’ Selfefficacy Scale in Reading Comprehension questionnaire. It included 16 five point-Likert type items. The participants were asked to read the statements and decide if they 1. Strongly disagree, 2. Moderately disagree, 3. Slightly disagree, 4. Moderately agree, and 5. Strongly agree. The third instrument was devised based on 1) Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning Questionnaire (SILLQ) and 2) Shang’s (2012) Reading Strategy Questionnaire. This newly devised questionnaire, i.e. Reading Strategy Questionnaire (RSQ) comprised 23 statements on compensation and metacognitive strategies (8 and 15 respectively). To insure the clarity of the items, all questionnaires (PLSQ, RSEQ, RSQ) were translated into participants’ native language, Persian. They were further checked and analyzed by four experts in the field and their comments were incorporated into the questionnaires by modifying the problematic items. Finally they were piloted with a group of 30 sophomore students majoring at English Translation from Allameh Tabatabai University in Tehran. Results indicated relatively high reliabilities for PLSQ (r=.81), RSEQ (r=.78), and RSQ (r=.72) based on Cronbach’s alpha formula.

Procedure The three questionnaires of Perceptual Learning Style (PLSQ), Reading Self-efficacy (RSEQ), and the Reading Strategy Use (RSUQ) were administered to the participants during three intermittent weeks in their regular class time. Before the distribution of the questionnaires, participants were assured on the confidentiality of their identity throughout the study. They were also familiarized with the general format of the questionnaires, the real purpose behind them, and the way through which they could make their choice. As it was mentioned earlier, the questionnaires were translated into the students’ native language, Persian, for setting any kind of ambiguity aside. The time allocated for each questionnaire was 30, 10, and 20 respectively. The time allocations were specified during the piloting session. Finally, the obtained results were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version 19.

4


Data Analysis Data with respect to participants’ perceptual learning styles were collected through the PLSQ. Two further questionnaires namely RSEQ and RSUQ were also administered aiming at assessing the learners’ reading self-efficacy and reading strategy use respectively. The statistical analyses were conducted by using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 19). Descriptive statistics was applied to diagnose not only the major, minor, and negligible learning styles of the learners, but also their overall self-efficacy and reading strategy use. In order to reveal whether there was a relationship between EFL students’ major learning style preferences and their reading strategy use, Pearson Correlation Coefficient was used. The same inferential statistics was applied to answer the third research question, i.e. the relationship between Iranian EFL learners’ reading self-efficacy and reading strategy use.

Results Results of Descriptive Statistics concerning Participants’ Reading Strategy Use, and Reading Self-efficacy Table 1 demonstrates the participants’ mean scores on metacognitive reading strategy, compensation reading strategy and reading self-efficacy. Based on the results, participants got a moderate overall mean on metacognitive and compensation reading strategies. An average of 3 (M=3) in the Reading Strategy Use Questionnaire indicates “somewhat true of me” which is an indication of subjects’ moderate use of strategy. Metacognitive reading strategy, however obtained a higher mean compared to its competitor (M=3.54, SD=.48 vs. M=3.43, SD=.38). With regard to the reading self-efficacy, students reported slightly confident (M=3.24) since mean of 3(M=3) in the Reading Self-efficacy Questionnaire indicated subjects’ neutral idea with respect to their self-efficacy. Table 1. Mean and Standard Deviations of Metacognitive and Compensation Reading Strategies, and Reading Self-efficacy (n=86) Metacognitive RS Compensation RS Reading Selfefficacy Mean

3.54

3.43

3.24

Standard Deviation

.48

.38

.62

Major Learning Preferences of the Participants The participants’ responses to PLSQ were first tallied. Results were categorized based on Reid’s introduced method for analysis. Table 2 demonstrates the total means of all six perceptual learning styles. Of the six learning styles, the visual, tactile, and kinesthetic, as the major styles, revealed to stand in the gamut of 38-50 by holding the values of 38.25, 39.22, and 39.85 respectively. Minor learning styles were disclosed to be auditory, group, and individual with a total value of 35.21, 32.47, and 32.56 (between 25-37). No negligible learning style (ranging from 0-24) however was found among the students. As the table indicates tactile learning style with the mean of 39.85 holds the highest rank in major styles, followed by kinesthetic (M=39.22) and visual (M=38.25).

5


Table 2. The Major and Minor Learning Styles Preferred by Learners (n=86) Visual Auditory Kinesthetic Tactile Group Individual Mean

38.25

35.21

39.22

39.85

32.47

32.56

Type

Major

Minor

Major

Major

Minor

Minor

Relationship between Major Perceptual Learning Styles and Reading Strategy Use In order to diagnose the relationship between participants’ major learning styles, i.e., visual, tactile and kinesthetic, with their metacognitive and compensation reading strategies, Pearson correlation coefficient formula was applied. Table 3 demonstrates that each of the major perceptual learning styles of visual, tactile, and kinesthetic proved to have moderately correlated with the metacognitive reading strategy ;i.e., r=.51, r=.50, r=.42 at the level of 0.01 respectively. Quite contrary, none of the major learning style preferences of the participants revealed any kind of significant correlation with the compensation reading strategy. The results of Pearson correlation coefficient indicated the absence of such interrelationship (r=-.21, r= -.01, r= -.03 respectively). Table 3. Correlations between the Major Perceptual Learning Styles and the Reading Strategy Use Metacognitive strategy Compensation strategy Visual learning style

.511**

-.218

Tactile learning style

.505**

-.011

Kinesthetic learning style

.428**

.033

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

The Relationship between the Reading Self-efficacy and the Use of Reading Strategies The results of correlation coefficient demonstrated that reading self-efficacy had a significant and positive correlation with the metacognitive reading strategy (r=.48). This finding is in line with the previously conducted studies (Zhang, 2004; Li and Wong, 2010; Naseri and Zaferanieh, 2012) which indicated a positive relationship between reading self-efficacy and reading strategy use. With regard to compensation reading strategy however, as Table 4 demonstrates, no significant correlation was found between reading self-efficacy and compensation reading strategy (r=.02). Table 4. Correlation between the Reading Self-efficacy and the Use of Reading Strategies Metacognitive strategy Compensation strategy Reading self-efficacy

.481**

.028

**.correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Discussion and Conclusion The current study made an attempt to figure out the relationship between Iranian high intermediate EFL learners’ major perceptual learning styles and metacognitive and compensation reading strategies on the one hand, and the interface between reading self-efficacy and the metacognitive and compensation reading strategies on the other. Results of the PLSQ revealed that participants’ major learning styles were visual, tactile, and kinesthetic. It was to some extent consistent with Riazi and Riasati’s (2006), and Riazi and Mansoorian’s (2008) studies conducted in Iran. More specifically, the obtained results demonstrated tactile as the most 6


preferred perceptual learning style among the EFL learners. That is, they are inclined to learn more effectively through touch (Riazi and Riasati, 2006) such as writing and drawing. The second stance belongs to kinesthetic learning style, i.e., learning via body experience like interviewing, dramatizing, and pantomiming (Kinsella, 1995, p.72). Finally they are apt to make use of visual learning style. As Oxford (1995, p.36) asserts “[such learners] like to read a lot, which requires concentration and time spent alone…. they must have written directions if they are to function well in the classroom”. The other styles; that is, auditory, group and individual proved to be the learners’ minor learning styles with the means of 35.21, 32.47, and 32.56 respectively. It is worth noting that none of the styles were chosen as a negligible or negative learning style by participants. Compared to studies conducted in other EFL contexts (Reid, 1987; Rossi-Li, 1995), findings indicated the learners’ outperformance in the application of perceptual learning styles in the learning process. Riazi and Mansoorian (2008) also arrived at the same conclusion with respect to the Iranian EFL learners’ learning styles. Regarding the second research question, results of Pearson correlation coefficient signified a positive relationship between participants’ major perceptual learning styles and their metacognitive reading strategy use. This is in line with previously conducted studies in other contexts (Rossi-Li, 1989; Jie and Xionoqing, 2006; Pang, 2008) despite being scanty in number. Visual, tactile and kinesthetic learners in the context of the current research proved to be familiar with the metacognitive reading strategy which based on Chamot and Kupper (1989, cf. Shang, 2011) comprises thinking about reading process, planning for reading, monitoring the reading task, and evaluating how well one has read. Such learners are to a great extent capable of planning, arranging and evaluating the reading task by themselves. Learners with visual, tactile and kinesthetic learning styles, however, did not demonstrate any inclination towards compensation strategy use. Concerning such reluctance, it is worth to mention that Iranian EFL teachers are required to diagnose their learners’ style needs first and then provide the most appropriate modes of instruction and strategy training in the classrooms. The needs of visual learners are definitely in sharp contrast with the needs of auditory or tactile students. Lack of such knowledge, in Oxford’s (2003) opinion, could be quite disadvantageous to teachers since they will not be able to create the “instructional variety” normally. Concerning reading self-efficacy, subjects did not reveal significantly high levels of selfbelief in their reading ability. Low levels of such prominent attitude could definitely lead to learners’ failure in completing the reading tasks. In Bandura’s opinion (1994, p.1), people with high self-efficacy see “the difficult tasks as challenges to be mastered rather than threats to be avoided”. In order to foster such positive attitude among the EFL learners, literature has provided plenty of instances of strategy training as a solution. It is replete with studies which unanimously consent on the positive correlation not only between self-efficacy and strategy use in general, but also between reading self-efficacy and reading strategy use in particular (Alfassi, 2004; Chan, 1994; Li and Wang, 2010; Pintrich, 1999; Naseri and Zaferanieh, 2012). Naseri and Zaferanieh (2012) contend that there is a correspondence between students’ appropriate strategy use and their successful self-control in strategy use. Results of the present study despite revealing very significant correlation between such self-belief and metacognitive reading strategy, did not signify any interrelationship between reading self-efficacy and compensation reading strategy. As was mentioned earlier, contrary to metacognitive strategy which entails learner’s own efforts in planning the learning process, compensation strategy is usually shouldered by those other than learners including curriculum developers, materials providers, and teachers as the mediators between the learners and the former authorities. In the same vein, results of the current research imply the notification of the pedagogical authorities in the context of Iran on fostering selfefficacy among Iranian EFL learners. Accompanying such high self-belief with various reading strategies, particularly compensation reading strategy which is to some extent unfamiliar to the learners, could contribute to the students’ success in reading skill. Hence, measures need to be taken in order to reconstruct the current reading curriculum in Iran based on enhancement of selfefficacy and reading strategy use. 7


In conclusion, the present study substantiated the vital role that self-efficacy and learning style could exert on the performance of the EFL learners on the one hand, and their use of reading strategies on the other. Needless to mention that developing appropriate reading strategies among high-intermediate EFL learners is contingent on their belief concerning the reading task, and the kind of the perceptual learning style that they enjoy. In other words, the students’ effective use of reading strategies can be guaranteed first by introducing different skills essential for improving their confidence in the reading task, and second through distinguishing their preferred learning styles. This study further implied incorporation of various reading strategies particularly the compensation reading strategy in the pedagogical curriculum of EFL contexts such as Iran.

Limitations One of the limitations of the present study could be the small sample size which might have threatened the generalizability of the results to EFL learners inside or outside the context of the present study. The other demerit could be the reliability of the self-made questionnaires i.e. reading self-efficacy and the reading strategy use, and as Li and Wong (2010, p.155) reiterate, the reliability of the results could be enhanced by incorporating some qualitative methods such as interviews and observations. Still another limitation can be traced back to lack of comprehensive conclusion of all the reading strategies present in the literature. Future studies could make more comprehensive generalizations by considering social, affective, and memory strategies. Last but not the least, the current research has been primarily concerned with reading skill per se. Considering other skills of listening, speaking and writing and the effect of individual differences such as self-efficacy and learning styles on them could be helpful in arriving at a better understanding of strategies and their role in the process of EFL learning.

8


REFERENCES Alfassi, M. (2004). Reading to learn: Effects of combined strategy instruction on high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 97(4), 171-184. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol.4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1988. Chan, L. (1994). Relationship of motivation, strategic learning and reading achievement in grades 5, 7, and 9. Journal of Experiential Education, 62 (4). (Academic Search Premier). Chen, I.J. (2002). Language learning strategies used by high and low English proficiency students in a technology college. Master’s thesis, Changhuan Normal University, Changhuan, Taiwan. Ehrman, M. and Oxford, R. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal, 73, 1-13. Ghonsooly, B. and Eghtesadi, A.R. (2006). Role of cognitive style of fielddependence/independence in using metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies by a group of skilled and novice Iranian students of English literature. Asian EFL Journal: English Language Teaching and Research Articles, 8 (4). Ghonsooly, B. and Elahi, M. (2011). Learners’ self-efficacy in reading and its relation to foreign language anxiety and reading achievement. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning Year 53 (217). Harris, V. (2003). Adapting classroom-based strategy instruction to a distance learning context. TESL Internet Journal, 7(20). Jie, L., and Xiaoqing, Q. (2006). Language learning styles and learning strategies of tertiary level English learners in China. Regional Language Center, 37 (1), 67-90. Kinsella, K. (1995). Understanding and empowering diverse learners in ESL classrooms. In J. M. Reid (Ed.) Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 170-194). New York: Heinle and Heinle Publishers. Li, Y. and Wang, C. (2010). An empirical study of reading self-efficacy and the use of reading strategies in the Chinese EFL context. Asian EFL Journal, 12(2), 144-162. Magogwe, J.M. and Oliver, R. (2007). The relationship between language learning strategies, proficiency, age and self-efficacy beliefs: a study of language learners in Botswana. System, 35 (3), 338-352. Mills, N., Pajares, F., Herron, C. (2006). A reevaluation of the role of anxiety: self-efficacy, anxiety, their relation to reading and listening proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 39 (2), Naseri, M., and Zaferanieh, E. (2012). The relationship between reading self-efficacy beliefs, reading strategy use and reading comprehension level of Iranian EFL learners. World Journal of Education, 2(2), 64-75. Nelson, L., and Conner, C. (2008). Developing self-directed learners. Retreived January 15, 2008. Ok, L. (2003). The relationship of school year, sex and proficiency on thr use of learning strategies in learning English of Korean junior highschool students. Asian EFL Journal, 5(3), 1-36. O’Malley, M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Oxford, R.L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: concepts and relationships. IRAL. 41, 271-278. Oxford, R.L., and Crookall, D. (1989). Research on language learning strategies: methods, findings and instructional issues. The Modern Language Journal, 73 (4), 404-419. 9


Oxford, R.L. and Ehrman, M.E. (1995). Adults’ language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program in the United States. System, 23, 359-386. Oxford, R.L., Judd, C., and Giesen, J. (1998). Relationships among learning strategies, learning styles, EFL proficiency, and academic performance among secondary school students in Turkey. Unpublished manuscript, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578. Pang, J. (2008). Research on good and poor reader characteristics: implications for L2 reading research in China. Reading in a Foreign Language. 20(1), 1-18. Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 459-470. Rahimi, M., Riazi, A.M., and Saif, S. (2008). An investigation into the factors affecting the use of language learning strategies by Persian EFL learners. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics (DJAL), 11(2), 31-59. Reid, J. (1987). The learning style performance of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 87111. Reid, J. (1998). Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. Riazi, A.M., and Riasati, M.J. (2006). Language learning style preferences: a student’s case study of Shiraz EFL institution. Asian EFL Journal, 9(1), 97-125. Riazi, A.M., and Mansoorian, M.A. (2008). Learning style preferences among Iranian male and female EFL students. The Iranian EFL Journal, 2, 88-100. Rossie-Li, L. (1995). Learning styles and strategies in adult immigrant ESL students. In J. M. Reid (ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (p. 119-125). Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (eds.), Learner strategies and language learning. (pp. 15-29). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Saricoban, A. and Saricaoglu, A. (2008). The effect of the relationship between learning and teaching strategies on academic achievement. Novitas-ROYAL, 2(2), 162-175. Shang, H. (2010). Reading strategy use, self-efficacy and EFL reading comprehension. Asian EFL Journal, 12(2), 18-42. Shang, H. (2011). Exploring the Relationship between EFL Proficiency Level and Reading Strategy Use. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(3), 18-27. Shannon, S.V., and College, W.S. (2008). Using metacognitive strategies and learning styles to create self-directed learners. Institute for Learning Styles Journal, 1, 14-28. Sheory, R. and Mokhtari, K. (2001). Reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29, 431-449. Singhal, M. (2001). Reading proficiency, reading strategies, metacognitive awareness and L2 readers. The Reading Matrix, 1 (1). http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/singhal/ Szoke, E., Sheory, R. (2002). A comparative study of the learning strategies of Hungarian and Russian college students, novELTY, 9(3), 23-36. Tabanlioglu, S. (2003). The relationship between learning styles and language learning strategies of Pre-intermediate EAP students. An Unpublished thesis, Middle East Technical University, Turkey. Tercanlioglu, L. (2004). Postgraduate students’ use of reading strategies in L1 and ESL contexts: links to success. International Educational Journal, 5(4), 562-569. Tilfarlioglu, F.T., and Cinkara, E. (2009).self-efficacy in EFL: differences among proficiency groups and relationship with success. Novitas-ROYAL, 3 (2), 129-142. Zhang, Q.Z. (2004). An investigation on the relationship between English self-efficacy and language learning strategies use. English Education in China,2. http://www.sinoss.com/portal/webgate/CmdArticleShow?articleID=2795 10


Appendices Reading Strategy Questionnaire Strongly agree 1

Agree

No idea

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I use different strategies for comprehending the text

2

I use my previous mistakes for understanding the new texts

3

When I confront unfamiliar words in the text, I try to guess their meaning

4

I try to guess the content of the following paragraph

5

I am always looking for new strategies for improving my reading skill

6

I set myself a time limit before starting reading

7

I don’t pay attention to new vocabularies

8

I look for opportunities to read more

9

I have set special goals for improving my reading skill

10

In reading the texts, I try to guess its overall meaning

11

I reread the previous sentences or paragraphs in order to understand the whole text

12

I read the text without looking up every new word

13

I usually think about my progress in reading the English texts 11


14

I try to guess the meaning of new vocabularies by repeating them several times

15

I attempt to guess the meaning of new vocabularies by segmenting them into their constituent parts

16

I am usually after making connections between what I’m reading with my background information

17

Underlying the key vocabularies aids me in comprehending the text

18

Reading the introduction, summary, and conclusion helps me in understanding the new vocabularies

19

Understanding the title, helps me in improving the whole text

20

I pay attention to the punctuation while reading an English text

21

While reading the text, I usually ask myself if I have understood well or not

22

Before reading the text, I usually skim over it

23

I ask myself questions concerning the reading text while reading it

12


Reading Self-efficacy Questionnaire Strongly agree 1

Agree

Partially agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I am the best student in my reading class

2

I don’t need the help of any one in my reading tasks

3

No matter how much challenging the reading task is. I do try to handle it enthusiastically

4

My reading teacher considers me an intelligent reader

5

I have the courage to answer the most difficult reading questions

6

I enjoy reading authentic texts such as novels or poems

7

Browsing the net and understanding it is one of my favorites

8

I can handle comprehending English newspapers and magazines

9

I don’t feel stressful while answering reading questions

10

I need the help of my reading teacher or a proficient reader while doing a reading task

11

When I can’t understand the text, I use different 13


strategies to take care of that 12

I can handle the most difficult texts full of unknown words or structures

13

Reading is not a boring task to me anymore

14

I can concentrate on the reading tasks quite well

15

I can read and understand the text within the proposed time limit

16

In my idea, reading can improve my writing and speaking skills

14


ABOUT THE AUTHORS Maryam Ghezlou: Maryam Ghezlou is a Ph.D. student at Khurasgan (Isfahan) Azad University's English Department, currently teaching ELT courses at Garmsar Azad University with major interests in strategy training in reading comprehension and writing, syntax, and critical pedagogy. Dr. Reza Biria, Khurasgan (Isfahan) Azad University

15

Forming a Community of Practice: Exploratory Teacher Research of an English as a Foreign Language Community at a University in Taiwan Paul S. Berg, Ling Tung University, Taiwan Abstract: This exploratory teacher research study explores a community of practice (Wenger 1998) at a university in Taiwan. The community comprised two groups, one of foreign graduate students new to Taiwan, the other of students in the Tourism Management Department. The practice of the community was formed around the need of the foreign students to learn their way around the city and that of the Taiwanese students to learn to use English for tourism-related contexts. This paper describes the practice of the community and analyzes the data in terms of the effect of the practice of the community on the English of the Taiwanese students. Results show that close bonds were formed within the community, the students were very positive about the experience, and English improvement, while limited, was noticeable. Keywords: English as a Foreign Language (EFL), Community of Practice, Social Language Learning, Communicative Language Teaching, Situated Learning

Introduction

A

ll teaching is a creative process. This idea may not always be readily apparent in the classroom itself, especially in a teacher-centered classroom where students sit and “receive” the transmitted information that they must, in turn, produce in the correct form and context (usually an exam) when called upon. However, in order to offer such a class, the teacher and perhaps others would certainly have engaged in a creative process of developing, planning, and prognosticating. One drawback of such a creative process is that it would take place before a class was ever held. Such a creative process, then, would be the result of the utilization of imagination (Wenger 1998, 175-8) on the part of the teacher and/or course designers rather than because of the interaction between the teacher and students. Additionally, when students are perceived as “receivers” of information, rather than as “agentive” (Ahearns 2001 and van Lier 2008, both cited in Miller 2010, 466) people, the level of classroom interaction expected of them is to pay attention to what the teacher says. Thus, their creative capacity is left to the imagination as well. In some subject areas and for some purposes, it may be perfectly acceptable to relegate creative engagement to the realm of individual imagination. English as a foreign language (EFL), when the purpose is to assist learners to use the language communicatively, is not such a subject. Since Chomsky’s writing in the 1960s, it has been an accepted fact that the use of language is a creative process. In Taiwan, education has long followed a teacher-centered approach, largely focused on test-taking, which has limited the exercise of creativity in the classroom (see, e.g., Chang and Su 2010; Chen and Squires 2007; and Savignon and Wang 2003). When the goal for language education centers on communication, it is incumbent upon teachers to rethink the learning experience for students to provide language use situations through which learners can interact creatively. One source that provides conceptual support for teachers seeking to better understand how to provide more creative learning situations for students is social language learning (SLL) theory (Duff 2007). While understanding the concepts in SLL is a helpful first step, to gain a greater insight into how to teach using these concepts, it seems necessary to put them to the test. This would mean trying to use the ideas in a practical setting with students, and in the process, to collect and analyze data. The current study is based Wenger’s (1998) theory on communities of practice (CoP) and Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder’s (2002) ideas on implementing a

The International Journal of Literacies Volume 19, 2013, thelearner.com, ISSN 2327-0136 © Common Ground, Paul S. Berg, All Rights Reserved Permissions: [email protected]


community of practice. The literature contains some criticism of Wenger’s CoP (e.g., Haneda 2006; Duff 2007). Haneda takes issue with the usefulness of Wenger’s theory in a foreign language classroom setting and with the focus of Wenger’s research on business situations. Duff reports that others have suggested that Wenger’s theory is too idealized. Although such views have been expressed, I am not aware of any practical studies which have sought to test these claims. The focus of the current study is not on the merits of Wenger’s CoP theory as a theory. Rather, it is meant to explore the implementation of the theory and what can be learned from the attempt to form a community of practice. This study is designed as exploratory teacher research (Borg 2010). Such research is qualitative (Richards 2009) because it is “’… a situated activity that locates the observer in the world’” (Denzin and Lincoln 2000, cited in Richards 2009, 149). Crucially, for this study, Richards (2000, 149) states that qualitative research is “participant oriented in that it is sensitive to and seeks to understand, participants’ perspectives on their world.” Exploratory teacher research is conducted by teachers “for the purposes of understanding their own professional contexts” (Borg 2010, 392). “Exploratory practice, is action for understanding” (Ibid., 397).

The Study The opportunity for this study arose when Daniel (pseudonyms will be used throughout this paper), an EFL teacher at a university in Taiwan, met four foreign graduate students who were new to Taiwan. Hearing their expressed needs—that they didn’t know the area (Taichung, a city in central Taiwan), where to go to buy necessities, or how to get around—Daniel began to think of how he could help them. Concurrent to this, Daniel was teaching several English conversation courses for the Tourism Management Department. In these courses, he sought to provide students with as much practical use of English focused on tourism themes as possible. He saw that there was a convergence of needs. The new graduate students, who had grown up using English as a second language, needed to learn about living in Taiwan, while the tourism students needed to learn to use English to help visitors to learn about Taiwan. Daniel and I agreed that the opportunity that presented itself was too good to pass up. The question was how to take advantage of it. Fortunately, we had been working together on research, during which time I had read Wenger’s theory on CoP. We agreed that I would serve as the consultant to the project and that Daniel would facilitate the community. Volunteers from a sophomore Tourism Department conversation course were sought. At the outset, five students agreed to participate. Both the Taiwanese and the foreign graduate students were informed that we intended to collect data for the purpose of publishing the findings. Everyone involved gave their consent to this. The basic guiding principle for the formation and practice of the community was the needs of the students involved. Daniel devised the idea of holding “events” that would serve to provide the opportunity for the community’s practice to develop. Because the graduate students spoke English, the need of the tourism students to have contexts to communicate in English could be addressed. Because the Taiwanese students knew the area, they could provide this knowledge to help meet the needs of the foreign graduate students to become familiar with, and hopefully more comfortable with, living in Taiwan over their two years of study. Data was collected in a variety of ways from all of the participants involved in the CoP. The focus of data collection was based on the goals of the study: The main goal was to learn from the attempt to form and maintain a community of practice (Wenger 1998; Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder 2002). More specifically, the questions that guided this study were: Can a CoP be formed? Can the Taiwanese students improve in their ability to use English through the practice of the CoP? What did I learn from this study? Because the goals were more oriented to what was learned by the Taiwanese students, they were asked to keep journals, in the form of narrative commentaries, of their perspectives of the events. They also participated in interviews after the events. The questions for these interviews 18

BERG: FORMING A COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE

were developed by Daniel and me: one, to obtain feedback from the students about their perceptions about the forming of the community; and two, to provide them with an opportunity to reflect on their viewpoints pertaining to communicating in English. The students also presented a summary of the events and their learning to the department at the end of the spring semester. The interviews and the presentation were recorded and transcribed. Daniel, the facilitator, also kept a written journal to maintain a record of his thoughts and feelings about the events, about the process of learning to form a CoP, and about undertaking such a task in broader terms. The numerous hours of consultation between Daniel and I constituted another data source. This consisted of regular and unscheduled face-to-face meetings, telephone conversations, and emails. These communications ranged from broad-based discussion about Wenger’s theory, to questions of how to interact with the university about the CoP, to discussions Daniel had with the foreign graduate students, to dealing with emotions of individual students, to deciding whether or not to let someone bring a boyfriend to one of the events. To ensure the validity of this data, Daniel read over the drafts of this paper and provided corrective feedback based on his understanding of the communications. The data reported from this source is thus based on our collective memory rather than on mine alone. A countless number of decisions had to be made in forming and maintaining the community. The process that we adhered to when questions arose was to follow my understanding of Wenger’s theory. A question would be posed, I would “translate” the idea into Wenger’s CoP terminology, I would relate this understanding back to Daniel, and finally we would agree on a course of action that we felt would work best toward supporting the development of the practice of the community. For example, the question of a student bringing a guest arose. I reposed the question, according to Wenger’s theory, by asking if we wanted the relationship of the community to the “outside world” to act as boundary or as a periphery (Wenger 1998). We chose periphery as long as we felt the impact of the guest(s) would not serve to alter the practice of the community. In other words, the basics needs of the two groups of students should always remain the focus of the practice of the community. The “events” that served as the main opportunities for the practice took place over the course of a school year. The events were spread out largely due to the fact of the time commitments of all participants. The events were held outside of any university-scheduled activities and all were conducted off campus. This was essential as one primary goal was for the practice of the community to develop based on the need of the foreign students to acclimate to their surroundings and to have the tourism students learn to use English to help the foreign students with this acclimatization. Daniel and I agreed that we could not allow the focus of the practice of the community to deviate from the needs that had served as the impetus to create it. Because I functioned as the consultant to the project and was not involved in the events themselves, my role was to ensure that the needs of the students remained the focus of the practice. The CoP was organized into events on four different days over the course of the school year. In order for the events to run smoothly, there was a great effort put into preparing for them. Daniel would preplan the event, meet with students, come to a consensus on what would occur, and agree on places and times. Then the students also had to make plans specific to the various events, for example, planning the route to a store and being able to explain this to the foreign student in English. The events were as follows: 1) Meeting New People: the two groups of students met, paired off, got onto scooters and went to several different stores in Taichung. 2) Going to Buy Things: student with same partners, on scooters to different stores in Taichung. 3) Cultural Event: The foreign students prepared a meal like they would eat at home, taught some songs and dances, and introduced their culture to the tourism students. 4) Cultural Event: The tourism students prepared a meal like they would eat at home, taught some songs, and introduced the main festivals of Taiwan to the foreign students. The first two events were focused on the practical needs of the foreign students to learn how to get around in Taichung and where to go to buy daily necessities within their budgets. The second two events were less concrete because the focus was on more abstract cultural ideas like the meaning of certain festivals, while at the same time providing the opportunity for 19


communication in concrete situations such as cooking. Daniel made no attempt to control the flow of the conversations in any of the events. He remained present, but quiet for the most part, choosing to observe how things were going and spoke only when questions were directed to him. This was also the case when language misunderstandings occurred. Daniel chose to let the students interact with each other to seek understanding. He clarified language points only when he was directly addressed for this purpose.

Findings Did a Community Form? To answer this question, Wenger’s descriptors of a CoP were used as an analytical tool. One element of a CoP is that it should have a clearly identifiable practice (Wenger 1998, 45-9). In this study, the two groups of students agreed to enter into relationships with each other. The nature of the relationship was intended to be one that provided skills and knowledge from one group of students to the other, acclimatization to a new environment for the foreign students and experience at introducing a new environment in English for the tourism students. In interviews, the students stated that they gave directions, mentioned good places to eat, showed the foreign students where to go to buy different kinds of things, discussed food and how to prepare it, and asked about clothing. That the students were engaged in a clear practice at the various events suggests that they were identifying themselves as part of a unique community. Wenger states that communities of practice form unique centers in which members engage in practice. Thus, there is an insider/outsider dynamic to a community which forms a border that functions as a boundary or a periphery (Wenger 1998, 119-121). With a few exceptions, the edge of the community functioned primarily as a boundary—that is there was not much opportunity for outsiders to become part of the community. This was a conscious decision by Daniel and me due mainly to considerations of availability constraints, such as time and space. Since the group was small, with very clearly defined needs and thus a focused practice, we were careful about disturbing this dynamic. At the third event, a friend and her boyfriend of one of the foreign students were allowed to attend. This was a consensus decision. One tourism student mentioned this situation in a journal entry: There is a one more thing is Ella take her friend Irene. But something is wrong. Because Irene didn’t ask Ella and not process that agree. Irene go with her boyfriend. That is impolite. But we still agree her boyfriend to join us this event. What this seems to indicate is that the Taiwanese members of the CoP see that there is boundary to the community and that they actively took an attitudinal position toward that boundary. From Daniel’s report on this, the boyfriend did not engage much with those in the community, nor did the two of them engage much in the community’s practice of discussing food, eating style, music, or dance. In the spring semester, Daniel mentioned that he was receiving requests from other tourism department students to join in the situated events. On a couple of occasions this was allowed when original members couldn’t participate because of illness or part-time work obligations. When a new student became part of the group, they agreed to participate fully, which included the planning and other outside-the-events activities. That other students began requesting the opportunity to join in the CoP seems to indicate that even though they hadn’t engaged in the enterprise of the community, they recognized what was transpiring within the events as unique to that group of people. That they wanted to take part can be taken to mean that they saw the practice of that group of people as desirable. This also provides evidence that a CoP actually existed. Part of what occurs during the practice of a community is that the members learn the “rules” of that particular community. When members engage in practice, some of these practices become accepted as the “things we know and do,” or as Wenger (1998, 57-71) calls this aspect of meaning, reification. Perhaps the most telling data concerning reification occurred well after these events had finished. In the following fall, one of the Taiwanese students participated in an 19


event coordinated by Daniel with a different group of students. This event had a somewhat different purpose, though the goal of improving English use was the same. When some of the students began to talk in Chinese, the student from the current study reminded everyone that, “At Daniel’s home, we speak in English.” This interjection seems to show that the practice of speaking in English came to be reified by the tourism students. In the interviews and journals, the students acknowledged reverting to using Chinese at times. However, the data also shows that these students struggled to try to speak in English even when their vocabulary knowledge failed them. The students seem to have internalized this process to the point where speaking English was accepted as the “way we do this.” This provides more evidence that a community had been formed. Identity (Wenger 1998, 181) is broadened when people engage with one another toward a shared goal. In the early stages, Daniel took much of the responsibility of organizing the events upon himself. By the last event, he was removed from this. In their report to their department, the tourism students commented on what they did as well as what they learned. They each explicated their roles and the preparation they engaged in for the Taiwanese cultural event. They realized that the event would not have been as successful without such planning. For example: (Student 1) I’ll tell you about my responsibility, such as, first one, I have to know about everything of the event, just about the time, the … the thing what to do, and up the entertainment, and the Powerpoint. We just practice, practice for that. And, … second, we prepare the vegetable dumpling, because they’re, re … religious, religions of the ah (foreign) students. (Student 2) And many dishes we need to consider. And because how food need to have, and how much to prepare, and to … attention what kind of food they can eat, because we didn’t have any experience before. And our … conclusion is … planning an event takes a long time to prepare. (Student 3) And to be a host we have to know about a lot of things, and the time, where, and before… after the event, we have to call the (foreign) student to tell them tomorrow we have an event, and you should come. And… it is, it is very tired, but it's just a, have a lot of experience for ourself. The students use “we” quite often to express their ideas. This seems to be clear evidence that they have learned through and identified with their engagement in the practices they mention, and that they see themselves as part of a community.

Did English Use Improve? When one considers the events and planning for the events in terms of the amount of time expended, this would be roughly equivalent to a normal, 2-hours-per-week, semester course at the university. The students in this study would, however, experience much more intense English use than what would occur in a classroom because each of the events was approximately six hours in length. The data available for answering this question is limited to the data collected as well as my judgment about what I found in the data. No pre- post-test regime was followed. Part of the reason for this is that this study is teacher research and therefore limited in scope, and another part of the reason is that there is no test known to me that would accurately measure the language in the language use situations that occurred in the study. 21


The tourism students were asked to reflect on their English in the post-event interviews and journals. After the first two events, all the students reported that they were nervous about using English with the foreign students. They felt there were difficulties in communicating because of pronunciation and vocabulary. One student’s journal entry provides a good summary: Sometime I don’t know what they are talking, because sometime they are talk too fast and sometime they are talk not really standard so sometime I am very confuse. Also, the students found communicating in English for six hours to be a taxing experience: Daniel: how did you feel that you had to use English so much? Student: So much. … It’s harder. D: It’s hard? S: Yeah, I think it’s harder. D: I just laugh. Ariel just said… I asked her about using so much English,… and I said tonight you will dream about it, and she said, “nightmare, nightmare!” S: And just in your brain, a lot of English, and run, run, run, run and you don’t know what is right. Data collected after later events shows changes in the tourism students’ experiences about using English. There is expression that their confidence in using English grew significantly, they stated that they developed ways to deal with the misunderstandings that arose (strategic competence), they showed ability to use humor in English, and they felt their listening ability had improved. By the third event, the Taiwanese students were using English (mostly) rather than Chinese among themselves. The more abstract nature of the English use contexts in the third and fourth events was clear to the students: Daniel: Was using English easier, the same, or more difficult than previous events? Student: Easy. D: Easy? S: Easy. … But, the food, the food thing more difficult. An important point here is that even while the students expressed difficulty with some specific communication topics, at the same time they reported that their overall ability to communicate in English was improving: Student: Oh, what’s difference. I think my Eng, uh… ah, uh, my… talking… ah, uh, speaking and listening is more better than before. The narrative concerning the word “peanut butter” provides an interesting description of the communicative, contextualized language learning that was available to the tourism students. The first encounter was in the second event at a store. The foreign students wanted to buy peanut butter. However, the Taiwanese students did not understand the word: (Student 1) Daniel: What…difficulties did you have understanding in English? Student: When the… ah… what’s the… peanut butter/D: Peanut butter?/S: I really don’t… I know butter… is the means butter, but the peanut, I don’t… forget that, that word. (D: Yeah.) So now I know the peanut butter. (Student 2) Daniel: What difficulties did you have in communicating in English with your partner? Student: Mm… I think it’s… using words. Yes. Uh… like vocabulary or… nn… S: (laughing)/when they said “peanut butter?” What that was? … I don’t know… what the things is. Yes. Um hm… And maybe our culture is different, so I don’t know what about it. The tourism students learned about the meaning of the word—the product was found in the store and subsequently purchased by the foreign students. The tourism students could see the jar 21


of peanut butter and gain an understanding that such a product with that name existed, even in Taiwan. Beyond this, in event three, the students gained further experience with peanut butter: (Student 3) Daniel: What did you use English mostly for? Student: Mostly for? … Mm… For ask them the… um… D: Asking questions? S: Yes, question. Asking how to cook … And what is the food…And the sauce with, uh… something. Yes. D: OK. Cause they made a peanut butter sauce. S: Yes. D: So, you were asking questions about/S: Yeees/D: that?/S: It’ very, it’s very good (laughs). (Student 1, journal) They fry and barbeque the chicken. There is a special sauce. Make with peanut butter and tomato sauce. It’s a special feeling. But it’s really delicious. By this point, the Taiwanese students had the experience of tasting peanut butter used in a sauce in addition to having seen a jar of it in a store. What I’m suggesting here is that the richness and depth of how they experienced “peanut butter” has helped them create a very distinctive understanding of what peanut butter is. The “peanut butter” experience was not singular. Other vocabulary and phrasing was learned similarly. In summation, the Taiwanese students have reported that their confidence grew, their listening improved, and their communication became smoother. The data also shows that the students took part in situations that provided a natural environment for language acquisition and necessitated engagement in strategic competence. On the whole, the data certainly lead me to the conclusion that the students have improved in their ability to communicate using English.

What Did I Learn? One lesson I have taken from this study is that the amount of time necessary to undertake such a learning opportunity was onerous. With little support available from the formal educational system for such projects, the vast majority of what occurred in the study was outside of the purview of the university. This also includes the learning that occurred. It seems to me that what took place—that the whole endeavor was constructed upon a goal that was not and could not have been preplanned—does not easily mesh with the formalistic, preplanned nature of the existing educational structure. As Daniel wrote to me in an email: … the students told me that the hosting/Chinese cultural event was the most difficult in using English - more specifically trying to use English to explain the cultural stories, such as Chinese New Year - they spent hours preparing that. … the students became very involved in supporting and helping each other in using English to explain the different cultural festivals etc. This became more apparent when all their learning events were put into a powerpoint and presented at the school. Their advisor could only say WoW - your English has become very good. The video of that really demonstrated the students’ identity and the growth and support of an established CoP. In reading between the lines one can realize the overall skills being learned as well. The learning that occurred in this CoP enjoys no reified status such as that determined from psychometric measurement or a scheduled university course. What this implies to me is that more negotiation is necessary within the educational system in order to create status for the learning that can occur within a social structure such as the one in this study. To leave such learning outside the formal system only serves to limit the learning opportunities available within the system. 23


Another realization I have had is that the learning that occurred in this study was not limited to the students. There has been a noticeable difference in the conversations I commonly engage in with Daniel about our teaching. In the past, the focus of the conversations about Daniel’s classes was more on what he was doing as the teacher. Since having gone through the process of facilitating a community of practice, the focus has shifted toward the learning that is going on, by both the students and him. This seems to parallel what occurred through the cycle of the CoP. At the beginning, Daniel served as the chief planner of the events. Gradually this changed, and the students took on the majority of the responsibility for planning. In allowing this to occur, Daniel was able to take a step back and become more of an observer which allowed him to act according to the needs that arose based on the students engagement with their own plans, rather than based on the needs coming from the students seeking to implement Daniel’s plan. I wonder if this information could be profitable for teacher educators and teachers seeking further professional development. Finally, I have noticed a difference in my own teaching. Reading Wenger’s theory has helped provide me with a new vocabulary that has been useful when I ponder what is going on in my classrooms. First, I feel I am better at giving clearer feedback to my students for their group projects. Second, when dealing with students that seem to have poor attitudes, I now try to think of this in terms of alienated identity. I find myself better at looking for opportunities to engage these students in English, no matter how negative the interaction might seem, rather than attending to the barrier that arises in my mind when I affix the student with a poor attitude. Third, I have changed my approach to what I am looking for in terms of group performances. I have become much more concerned that students not write and memorize what they will say for such performances. I still allow them to do this, however, I understand more clearly than before that such a performance is bereft of the creativity that I would like to be available in my classroom.

23


REFERENCES Borg, Simon. 2010. “Language Teacher Research Engagement.” Language Teaching 43(4):391429. Chang, Chialin, and Yelin Su. 2010. “Educational Reform in Taiwan: Beliefs about EFL Teaching and Learning.” The International Journal of Learning 17(2):265-277. Chen, Mei-Ling, and David Squires. 2007. “Influence of Cooperative Learning Beliefs on Classroom Practices in Chinese English as a Foreign Language Teachers.” The International Journal of Learning 14(4):101-110. Duff, Patricia. 2007. “Second Language Socialization as Sociocultural Theory: Insights and Issues.” Language Teaching 40:309-319. Haneda, Mari. 2006. “Classrooms as Communities of Practice: A Reevaluation.” TESOL Quarterly 40(4):807-817. Miller, Elizabeth. 2010. “Agency in the Making: Adult Immigrants’ Accounts of Language Learning and Work.” TESOL Quarterly 44(3):465-487. Richards, Keith. 2009. “Trends in Qualitative Research in Language Teaching since 2000.” Language Teaching 42(2):147-180. Savignon, Sandra, and Chao Chang Wang. 2003. “Communicative Language Teaching in EFL Contexts: Learner Attitudes and Perceptions.” International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 41(3):223-249. Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, Etienne, Richard McDermott, and William M. Snyder. 2002. Cultivating Communities of Practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Paul S. Berg: I have taught EFL at universities in Taiwan for over twenty years. My research interests include curriculum and policy issues especially pertaining to EFL, communicative practices, situated learning, and social learning.

25

Process Drama for 21st Century Learning: Building Multiliteracies and Creative-Adaptive Capacity Shamini Dias, Claremont Graduate University, USA Abstract: This paper builds a case for the serious consideration of process drama as an effective and relevant pedagogy for the twenty-first century. Today, we witness the outcomes of a paradigm shift from an industrial economy to a postindustrial, postmodern, creative and knowledge economy. Our world is marked by accelerating change and multiplicity that are paradoxically inter-connected into a global economy through rapidly developing technological communication and information networks. We, therefore, live in an organic, dynamically evolving knowledge space that constantly shapes and re-shapes our lives and identities. As educators, we are charged to prepare students to be effective knowledge makers. This means focusing on multiliteracies, which enable students to access, sense-make, query, deconstruct, and re-construct knowledge using multiple modes beyond reading and writing. These include audio, visual, gestural, physical communication in both traditional and digital forms. However, these skills cannot be effectively nurtured without also building the adaptive capacities of flexibility and resilience that enable us to deal with unpredictable and rapidly shifting information and knowledge. These skills also demand creative capacities of openness and precision that support collaborative and divergent ways of working to find new pathways for thinking and building knowledge. This paper synthesizes these creative-adaptive capacities with the New London Group’s (1996, 2000) four-part design pedagogy for multiliteracies (overt instruction, situated practice, critical framing, and transformed practice). This synthesis demonstrates how process drama, or unscripted and facilitated role-play drama, offers us pathways for helping students develop multiliteracies and learning skills for the twenty-first century. The paper shows how process drama engages students in situated learning, using overt instruction as a facilitation process in collaborative, improvisational role-playing through critical framing and transformed practice. Process drama is, thus, shown to be a viable approach for multiliteracies development. Implications for action and further research are suggested. Keywords: Process Drama, Literacy Development, Literacy Pedagogy, 21st Century Skills, Multiliteracies, CreativeAdaptive Capacities

I

n the twenty-first century, we can no longer only be concerned with literacy. Our world is richly diverse, increasingly connected, with all aspects of life dependent on knowledge innovation, exchange, and communication. Our students are called upon to use a wide range of sense-making skills to navigate multiple points of information, perspectives, and text-types that are constructed and delivered via multiple forms, channels, and processes. We must, therefore, move beyond literacy to “multiliteracies”, a more embodied sense of communication that integrates words, still and moving images (gestural, physical, relational), and sound. Luke and Freebody define multiliteracies as “the flexible and sustainable mastery of a repertoire of practices with the texts of traditional and new communication technologies via spoken, print, and multimedia” channels (Luke and Freebody 2000, 9). Anstey and Bull (2006) expand this definition by locating multiliteracies as embedded in and mediated by socio-cultural contexts. They propose a flexible, multiliterate identity that must constantly master emerging literacy modes in multiple contexts. Other researchers have also contributed significantly to our growing understanding of the importance of developing multiliteracies in our classrooms (Anstey and Bull 2006; Cazden 2000; Cope and Kalantzis 2000; Luke 2000; Luke and Freebody 2000; New London Group 1996; Thwaites 1999; Tracy, Storer and Kazerounian 2010; Unsworth 2001; Villeneuve 2003). Multiliteracies are also reflected in the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE 2008) definition of literacies for the twenty-first century, viz., technological proficiency; cross-cultural collaboration in solving problems; information design and sharing for multiple purposes in global settings; managing, analyzing, and synthesizing multiple streams of simultaneous information; and working ethically in complex environments.

The International Journal of Literacies Volume 19, 2013, thelearner.com, ISSN: 2327-0136 © Common Ground, Shamini Dias, All Rights Reserved Permissions: [email protected]


While multiliteracies are clearly critical for thriving in the twenty-first century, there has been far less research on the human capacities that would best support multiliteracies development in the face of constant, rapid change and unpredictability. We must be able to constantly re-learn and adapt. John Dewey wrote that “it is impossible to foretell definitely just what civilization will be twenty years from now,” and exhorted educators to, therefore, prepare students to know how to learn (Dewey 1897, 78). Over a century later, Sir Ken Robinson echoes Dewey but with a compressed time frame, describing the “massive unpredictability” that precludes knowing “what the world’s going to look like in five years, or even next year” (Robinson 2001, 24). Scholars across different disciplines find common ground in defining our world in terms of constantly emerging socio-cultural spaces shaped by intensely inter-connected but divergent perspectives, media, and information (Argryis 2003; Banathy 1996; 2000; Brown 2010; Darling-Hammond 2010; Drucker 1996; Florida 2002; Habermas 1996; Jarvis 2000; Lipman-Blumen 1996; Lyotard 1984; Peters and Araya 2010). Rapid and constant change being the tenor of our world, we cannot develop multiliteracies without also developing the supporting or foundational capacities of adaptivity and creativity1 that will help students thrive in a world of multiplicity and constant change. In this paper, I analyze how process drama can integrate adaptive and creative capacities into the development of multiliteracies using a design pedagogy. Process drama has strong precedents in multiliteracies development (Anderson and Donelan 2009; Bolton and Heathcote 1995; Crumpler 2003; Edmiston 1991, 2007; Edmiston and Wilhelm 1998; Flinthoff 2009; O’Neill 1995; Schneider, Crumpler, and Rogers 2006; Wagner 1998), particularly in integrating digital texts (Carroll and Cameron 2003; Davis 2006). This paper extends this research by demonstrating how process drama can simultaneously nurture creative-adaptive capacities. I argue that these capacities are the foundations that sustain multiliteracies by providing agency and self-determination to effectively and ethically access, build, and share knowledge.

Foundations for Nurturing Multiliteracies A Design Pedagogy Multiliteracies entail active sense-making of the multiple “texts” and contexts we live among and within. Calling attention to a pluralized, inter-connected world, and especially to digitally mediated spaces, the New London Group2 proposes approaching multiliteracies from a design perspective, where sense-making is a conscious, semiotic activity to access, deconstruct, re-combine, and construct meaning. This idea of “design”, rather than “comprehension” underscores the active nature of communication; we seek patterns of meaning by linking elements in a text or situation, and by understanding a text’s purpose and audience. Literacy is a multimodal design process, where we seek “the pattern of interconnections among the other modes” (New London Group 2000, 25) i.e. our linguistic, visual, audio, gestural, and spatial social conventions of meaning. We work transformatively in a Bakhtinian dialogic process (Bakhtin 1982) when we integrate different perspectives and re-contextualize meaning in this way. Thus, instead of just reproducing meaning, we re-construct and design it through our own perspectives. Meaning comprehension and knowledge construction shift from passive one way transmission (sender to receiver,) to an active, dynamic, constructive process. This reflects the shifting, emerging nature of the knowledge-world today, as well as the embodied and socially situated nature of knowledge and learning. It further

In this paper, “creative” expands the term’s more common and narrow meaning of artistic processes and outcomes to include innovative and constructive processes of knowledge building. 2 This four-part pedagogy has also been explored and clarified by Paul Gee (2000), and Cope and Kalantzis (2000). 1

28

DIAS: PROCESS DRAMA FOR 21ST CENTURY LEARNING: BUILDING MULTILITERACIES

points to how our unique identities, perspectives, and contexts are integral in this dynamic sensemaking process. Therefore, an appropriate pedagogy for nurturing multiliteracies must address the social embeddedness of knowing and the metacognitive nature of sense-making as design, a creative and transformative process. The New London Group’s (2000) four-part pedagogy for multiliteracies does this, comprising situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformed practice. Learner-centered situated practice is based on contextual or social theories of learning (Brown and Campione 1994; Gee 1996, 2000; Lave and Wenger 1991; Vygotsky 1978) where meaning is socially and contextually embedded and learning is grounded in students’ lives and interests. Gee’s (2000) analysis of the knowledge economy’s more distributed, agentic system distinguishes between learning that is focused on disciplinary reproduction, and knowledge building as a collective enterprise to “add value through distributed knowledge and understanding” (50). This suggests that we can develop multiliteracies effectively through situating learning in a community of practice (Gee 2000; Lave and Wenger 1991) where different levels and modes of knowing interact dialogically to find and design new meaning and knowledge. In practice, this means moving from teacher-centered knowledge transmission to locating learning in communities of learners who collaborate experientially to explore and construct knowledge. We see this in project based learning, and in process drama, as will be shown below. In overt instruction (not to be confused with top-down, teacher-centered approaches) the teacher explicitly focuses students on making sense of and constructing texts using different design modalities (speaking, print, electronic text, images, gestures, sound). In addition to building multimodal sense-making skills, students also develop metacognitive capacities, which are critical in working with open or multiple texts that present different perspectives. Students, thus, are able to actively query, seek patterns, and create their own pathways to understanding meaning 3 . Increasingly, we find that we must work in this way rather than in situations where meaning is so fixed and explicit that no active interpretation and engagement is needed. Overt instruction also helps students develop awareness of intentionality as they learn that all texts are created with a purpose in relation to an audience or audiences. When they are more explicitly aware of this, they become skilled in selecting and designing texts to actively shape meaning. They become more effective communicators. Critical framing develops positioning and perspective skills, adding another layer of metacognition to help students understand how context, structure, mode, intention, and audience interact to create meaning. Students, thus, gain skills in analyzing and querying a variety of texts to identify veracity, assumptions, gaps, and implications. In 1987, Freire and Macedo wrote about the importance of relating text information to real contexts (“reading the world”) in order to critically access meaning. They argued that “reading the world is not preceded merely by reading the word, but by a certain form of writing it or rewriting it, that is, of transforming it by means of conscious, practical work” (Freire and Macedo 1987, 25). Today, in a pluralistic world, this dynamic interaction between the audience, text, and context is even more important. Critical framing helps us become active, autonomous readers, confident in not merely taking a position in relation to texts and contexts, but also in exploring these texts and contexts from multiple perspectives or positions. In transformed practice, we interpret or create texts in new contexts and forms by applying our understanding of how meaning is designed. In recognizing that narratives are unstable because

In his critique of traditional, canonical literature, Roland Barthes (1975) distinguished “writerly” texts where the meaning is the product of the audience’s interpretation, from canonical, “readerly” texts which imposes meaning on the audience. Today, we can say that many, if not most, texts our students encounter in the real world are of the “writerly” type, demanding active and cogent interpretation. 3

29


of shifting audiences and contexts, we become aware of and comfortable with multiplicity in accessing and creating meaning. Texts may contain contradictions, be inter-textual, where one text references or embeds another, or hybrid in articulating and connecting in new ways. We become effectively multiliterate in playing with these semiotic multiplicities and instabilities, shifting our perspectives to better craft texts that connect with different audiences and contexts.

Creative-Adaptivity: Foundations for Effective Design Pedagogy Design pedagogy, as shown above, presupposes adaptive and creative skills and capacities. In discussing optimal human functioning, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, whose seminal research gave us the theory of optimal experience or “flow,” describes adaptive and creative capacities as innate and interrelated drives of self-preservation (adaptivity) and expansiveness (creativity) (Csikszentmihalyi 1996, 11). The four aspects of design pedagogy that help develop multiliteracies are richly strengthened by these twinned capacities. To be multiliterate, we must engage in creative, critical collaboration using multiple modes and media with diverse audiences. To do this effectively, we must be simultaneously adaptive and creative. We must be flexible and agile in our thought and actions, while remaining open and insightful in working with plurality. This combination of creativity and adaptivity is, thus, an important human capacity that supports multiliteracies. The adaptive capacities of flexibility and resilience help us adjust to emerging, unpredictable contexts, and to persist through turbulence and the unknown. This, in turn, enables and supports openness and precision which determine success in dealing with multiple sources and possibilities of meaning. Flexibility, a pliability of mind, supports the risk-taking and cognitive shifting we need in order to be open to wonder, imagination, curiosity, empathy, divergent ideas, and multiple perspectives. Resilience, the ability to persist through turbulence, reinforces this flexible openness. In addition, resilience is critical for precision, which is an important multiliteracies skill. Precision enables critical exploration, reflection, pattern seeking, and analysis. This is important for identifying assumptions, implications, and gaps in information in order to query, interpret, connect, and position knowledge construction. Precision, therefore, supports critical thinking and the accuracy needed for effective feedback, debate, and reflection in sense-making, especially when using new information. 4 Together, adaptive-creativity support us in engaging in critical and creative thinking and collaboration, which are essential attributes of multiliteracies skills and lifelong learning processes. The argument so far has demonstrated that a design pedagogy for nurturing multiliteracies comprising situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformed practice demands a complex range of skills that enable critical, creative thinking, collaboration, and communication. The creative capacities of openness and precision that drive these skills demand adaptive strengths of flexibility and resilience to sustain them; creative-adaptive capacities are inextricably interconnected. To effectively implement a pedagogy for developing multiliteracies, we must help learners develop a foundation of dynamically interacting creative and adaptive capacities. In the section below, I demonstrate how process drama is an effective way to do this.

Process Drama: Building and Sustaining Multiliteracies

4

These critical qualities are also being investigated in studies of psychological capital (Luthans and Youssef 2004) and human flourishing (Seligman 2011; Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi 2000).

30


Process drama approaches learning through dramatic, improvisatory, and collaborative actions to “explore issues, events, and relationships (O’Neill and Lambert 1982, 11). Founded on socialconstructivist theories of learning (Bruner 1990; Vygotsky 1978), it is congruent with the pedagogy for multiliteracies. Process drama emerged strongly in the United Kingdom through Dorothy Heathcote’s innovative teaching, and was further developed by Peter Slade, Brian Way, Gavin Bolton, and Cecily O’Neill among others 5 . Bolton defines process drama as “engaging with something outside oneself using an ‘as if’ mental set in order to activate, sustain, or intensify that engagement” (Bolton 1984, 19). In the video Pieces of Dorothy (Mantle of the Expert, n.d.), Heathcote describes process drama as engaging in “education for self-direction”. Neelands (2009) advocates process drama’s ensemble approach as effective for breaking classroom boundaries and positioning content material more relevantly in students’ lived experiences, and helping them develop a model of democratic living. McCaslin (2006) defines it as a way of learning where children collaborate to explore and discover knowledge, and thus develop skills for group work, responsibility, and self-expression. This is echoed by O’Toole, Stinson and Moore (2009). Process drama is clearly distinct from theatre where students are cast in roles, often with a pre-existing script, and taught the craft of acting, script analysis, and play production. In process drama, by contrast, students co-create and collaborate through improvisation both in and out of role to explore problems, situations, or ideas. Process drama is guided by four principles, viz., collaboration and co-creation, role-playing and positioning, improvisation and emergence, and feedback and reflection. The teacher co-creates with students using improvisation and a reflective process to explore and construct ideas. A trigger or pre-text (O’Neill 1995) initiates exploration, suggests roles and actions, establishes situations and atmospheres, offers pathways for explorations, and constraints to maintain coherence. The trigger or pre-text is not deceptive, although O’Neill points out the play on the word “pretext” in that students and teacher agree to enter into the imaginative drama world. The pre-text could be a line or quotation, a real or manufactured artifact, a fragment of a letter or story, a news article, an image, a song, a film clip, etc. In the second principle, The teacher works in-role, playing different characters within the dramatic frame, interacting and improvising with students, as well as out of role, to facilitate interaction between dramatic and real worlds. Process drama, therefore, is strongly reflective. That is, moving between worlds integrates emergence and discovery of new meaning with reflective sense-making. This consolidates emerging knowledge while building metacognition of self, other, and meaning structures. These four process drama principles help articulate and implement the design pedagogy for developing multiliteracies. At the same time, these principles activate and build creative-adaptive capacities through dynamic and sustained situated practice within which overt instruction optimizes critical framing and transformed practice. The conceptual analysis and model developed below are informed and illustrated by examples drawn from process drama explorations of a historical theme. These examples come from different after-school programs conducted with groups of Singaporean students aged fourteen to fifteen. The examples function as illustrations and anecdotes to the conceptual model being built rather than as data points to be analyzed.

In the United States process drama was propounded as early as the 1930s with Winifred Ward’s book Creative Dramatics that proposes much the same notion of a non-performance approach to drama. However, for historical reasons that are beyond the scope of this paper, this rapidly reverted to theatre for children in many places, and the main thrust and study of drama as an educational process was more significantly developed in the United Kingdom. 5

31


Co-Creation and Collaboration Process drama powerfully enacts Lave and Wenger’s (1991) presentation of learning as a contextualized, social process of knowledge co-construction. This collaborative learning process helps us use situated practice to develop multiliteracies awareness and skills in a community of inquiry where context, intention, negotiation, and the co-existence of multiple meanings and possibilities become richly salient. The teacher uses a theme from a curricular area and works on discovery and knowledge building with students, drawing from both real-world and imagined sources. For example, exploring prejudice and power in the context of Nazi oppression of Jews in World War Two, students role-played from Anne Frank’s perspective (the teacher’s choice) as well as from the perspectives of fictitious characters, for example, non-Jewish neighbours’ confusion and torn loyalties, a Nazi soldier’s torment at turning on his friends, and Anne’s modernday Singaporean pen-friend (moving the drama into a non-real temporal frame). Other students developed a parallel drama based on digital and print texts and images of the Rwandan genocide. In doing this, they broadened their exploration of race-relations, oppression, and politics using multiple modes and sources of information. This process strongly nurtures openness (creativity) as well as flexibility and resilience in working with the ambiguities and contradictions of multiple perspectives (adaptivity).

Mantle-of-the-Expert and Positioning: Multiple Perspectives Role playing, the engine that drives dramatic exploration, engages situated practice and critical framing as we work in and out of role to integrate our perspectives with perspectives from imagined contexts and roles. In the Mantle-of-the-Expert approach (Bolton and Heathcote 1995), students learn by being and doing as “experts” in role, situated in real and imagined contexts in a shared exploration of multiple roles and perspectives. Here, they have full agency in learning. Through role-play, they entered and adopted the perspectives of people connected with the topic. They explored current conflicts and genocides dramatically across time or in their own contexts of local race tensions. By playing multiple roles students were able to critically frame these different perspectives in relation to each other, and move from pre-conceived black and white assumptions and judgments to a more nuanced understanding of how ideology and group-think affect race relations. This dynamic, embodied critical framing develops our ability to accept and work with diverse viewpoints. Thus, we develop cognitive and affective flexibility and resilience in tolerating multiple perspectives and, hence, ambiguity.

Improvisation and Emergence The improvisation process in collaborative, role-playing facilitates emergent learning, engaging students in critical framing and transformed practice. Improvisation demands a strong integration of creative capacities, i.e. open exploration within precise structures and parameters (Berliner 1987; Gershon 2002; Leinhardt and Greeno 1986; Sawyer 2004). We must be adaptive in working with uncertainty and unpredictability, adjusting pathways depending on discoveries emerging as we work. We, therefore, must pay mindful attention to what is emerging while, at the same time, transposing, querying, and constructing new ideas as needed. For example, in an improvised scene, students converged time-lines putting Anne Frank into conversation with a school boy in the 1964 Singapore race riots, as well as with fictitious students in immediate contexts of school bullying. This improvisation allowed students to critically examine assumptions and intentions around the themes of race, power, and politics, both historically as well as in local, contemporary settings. In these co-constructive improvisations, students also practiced group skills, learning to listen and make offers, to debate and champion

32


ideas, to concede to group decisions, and explore from multiple perspectives. The demands for constant contextualization and knowledge sharing as different pieces of real and fictitious information developed their understanding of the ideas being explored. Improvising scenes between Jews and non-Jewish neighbours surfaced ideas of fear and crowd mentality students had not previously anticipated, prompting new research and perspectives.

Feedback and Reflection Feedback and reflection through explorations in- and out-of-role are integral in activating discovery and knowledge construction. This strongly engages both critical framing in questioning from different perspectives and transformed practice in changing thought and action. Students listen, watch, comment, and reflect on themselves and each other from multiple perspectives in role-play, and as themselves. For example in Hot-Seating6, a student playing a young German officer was questioned about thoughts, contexts, and motivations. This reflection in-role revealed the disconnect between outer actions of harsh duty and an inner tension of conflicting loyalties, ethics, and fear. Students realized how what we see is often complicated by hidden and unarticulated explanations. In Still Images7, students built tableaux of critical moments or ideas, so externalizing and visualizing thoughts and assumptions about historical events. In reflecting on tableaux on oppression, fear, and courage, students developed metacognition of the semiotics of spatial and body language and the assumptions we make in response. We also reflected in and out of role through journals, letters, or drawing. These processes of revelation and re-construction build metacognition about the fluidity of ideas, perspectives, and identities, and the many different modes through which we access and construct meaning. Feedback and reflection are hallmarks of exploratory learning and innovation in all domains and are critical life-long learner skills (Argryis 2003; Argryis and Schon 1996; Boud, Keogh, and Walker 1985; Dewey 1933; Kolb and Kolb, 2005). Kolb defines learning as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (Kolb 1984, 38). Kolb’s model of Experiential Learning is congruent to process drama in moving from Experience (imaginative role playing) to Reflection (in-role and out of role), to Generalizing (developing and synthesizing meaning), and Testing (using discoveries in and out of role to move the drama forward). At the Reflection phase, process drama’s unique use of reflection in multiple roles makes us query fundamental values and assumptions. This then shifts us into double-loop learning. Argryis (2003) explains double-loop learning as a shift toward new knowledge construction, which is contrasted to single-loop learning where we work within established knowledge structures, values, and assumptions. In Piagetian terms, we assimilate information in congruence with existing knowledge structures. Double-loop learning, in contrast, queries and changes what we know according to the emerging situation. We accommodate new information, de-constructing assumptions and building new knowledge structures. When this happens, we engage in transformed practice. Multiple role exploration in process drama, thus, creates a mechanism for powerful transformed practice. This conscious interaction of experience and prior knowledge builds metacognition, which is a valuable capacity for developing multiliteracies skills and buliding new knowledge. None of the above intersecting principles would be half as effective if not for the unique integration of overt instruction in process drama. Overt instruction facilitates collaborative role-

6

Hot-seating is a drama structure where one student answers questions while in role, from the perspective of a character. The questions are asked by the class either in role as other characters or out of role as themselves. 7 Still Images is a drama structure where students working in groups use their own bodies to capture a moment, an idea, or a situation.

33


playing, improvisation, and reflection and helps develop metacognitive skills for multiliteracies. Working in and out of role, the teacher instrumentally moves the drama process into double-loop learning that constructs new understanding and knowledge. The dramatic-reflective process is intensified as a result of engaging in multiple roles and perspectives, giving students an acute and explicit design awareness of how meaning is subjective, depending on multiple factors of identity, intention, and interaction. The centrality of co-construction, improvisation, and role-play in process drama powerfully involves students in multimodal design (working with different text-types and media), which is fundamental to developing multiliteracies. The flexibility and student-centeredness of process drama enables us to use print and digital media, accessing linguistic, visual, audio, physical, and gestural semiotic patterns to explore, interpret, reflect, and express ideas. We can integrate real and digital worlds using websites, wikis, podcasts, blogs and other social networking tools 8 . As exploration commences, students and teachers collaboratively reach for different modes, as needed, to explore ideas. This helps us differentiate learning across students’ preferred modalities and interests. At the same time, this also helps students interact with multiple text-types and communication forms, thus developing multiliteracies skills and metacognition of how meaning is shaped and communicated in different ways. For example, in exploring the Nazi oppression of Jews, students role-played, researched, and expressed discoveries and ideas using printed and digital texts, (paper letters and journals, emails, blogs), and art work. They made soundscape collages comprising footsteps and other sounds of hiding while soldiers searched a home, of crowds rioting and gunfire, superimposing these with their own written narration; they found songs in contemporary pop culture that reflected some of the ideas about power and prejudice they were exploring. In other projects, Carroll and Cameron (2003) describe a process drama using the interactivity of websites, e-mail, blogs, and video to facilitate an exploration of the history of the Dutch East India Company through the fictitious Australian Netherlands Marine Research Centre. Davis (2006) also used similar multiple digital modes to facilitate a drama about a missing girl called Cleo.

Conclusion The above analysis demonstrates the relevance of process drama for teaching and learning in the 21st century. Process drama could be a powerful way to realize a design pedagogy that nurtures multiliteracies and prepare students to be both creative and adaptive. Overt instruction within collaborative, reflective improvisational role-playing engages students in critical framing and transformed practice. At the same time, process drama integrates seemingly opposing qualities like precision and attention to accuracy with openness and flexibility in working with multiple possibilities and differences. In thus integrating cognitive-affective sense-making in a dialogic design process, process drama equips students with agility and resilience to navigate the complex knowledge age in which they live and work. At the same time, it also offers an organic way of integrating and embedding multiple technological modes and tools into the teaching and learning process. Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21), a United States based organization that focuses on developing twenty-first century readiness, highlights creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration, as essential for twenty-first century learners (P21, 2012). In

8 See, for example, a process drama that was initiated by a blog text and involved students in an authentic investigation to find a missing character interacting with actors who behind the scenes (in cyberspace) mediated the emerging story the students’ reflections and actions created. See www.cleo-missing.com

34


developing multiliteracies through process drama, we engage students in developing these four skills areas. We need more research on targeted areas of process drama implementation to improve the case this paper makes for process drama as a promising approach for developing multiliteracies and effective pedagogy for twenty-first century learning. We must further define the extent to which process drama may be applied in formal educational contexts. Which specific subjects and topics are best suited for this approach? How can we best include process drama in formal school curricula? What are the implications for teacher education and professional development? What training will enable teachers to facilitate exploratory, student-centered learning using process drama? And, most importantly, how can process drama better integrate the burgeoning array of digital tools ubiquitous in our students’ lives? John Dewey (1897) spoke of the impulse to learn throughout one’s life. This attitude has never been more important than it is now. The mindsets we nurture will determine whether our students feel limited and afraid of this rapidly changing world or see their interaction with the world as challenging but full of opportunities. Process drama might well be a learning mode that can make a difference as to whether students approach their work and lives seeing opportunities and connection rather than barriers and divisions. It, therefore, seems a shame that process drama is under-utilized in spite of its potential for highly motivating and relevant experiential learning processes. Currently, process drama is delivered in schools by teaching artists, often in after school settings, and sometimes by teachers in formal curriculum time. For the most part, process drama has had more play in second-language teaching contexts, helping learners develop language facility through meaningful construction of meaning (Di Pietro 1982; Kao and O’Neill, 1998). Yet, even here, the use of process drama tends to be limited to teacher-directed, short exercises focusing on smaller units of language rather than global sense-making skills (Kao and O’Neill 1998) and the developmental needs underpinning multiliteracies. If we are to effectively address education’s mission in the knowledge era, we should address this gap between process drama’s potential for multiliteracies and learning capacity development. Clearly, further research to gather more empirical data, specifically on outcomes of process drama instruction based on a design pedagogy, will help establish more clearly what drama practitioners know experientially. However, it is not the case that we lack evidence entirely; we do, in fact, have robust evidence for the power of the arts in general to motivate and engage students toward success (See for example, Catterall 2009; Edmiston 1991; Henry 2000; Hovda and Kyle, 1997; Inner City Arts, 2000; Werner 2002). Undoubtedly, drama and arts integration seem daunting or impractical, given the systemic, economic, and environmental realities in many of our schools. We are severely challenged by massive legacy problems from the transmission model of education that worked well through most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries but is now woefully incongruent with the world and future demands being made on our children. To persist in pedagogies rooted in an incongruent past is to ignore impending reality. Our future requires that we teach children to thrive in complexity and that we nurture adaptive creativity and multiliteracy skills. The glaring fact remains that twenty-first century education can no longer ignore pedagogy that addresses and facilitates the development of skills critical for sustainable lives. As educators, we reach out and touch the future. We make a difference today to our students’ intentions and actions tomorrow. Given the highly inter-connected lives we lead, we do not merely teach our students to succeed academically in school; we prepare them to be responsible citizens. Thoreau wrote that engaging in civic life demands that we make “an effort to throw off sleep” so that we may “live deliberately” rather than lead “lives of quiet desperation” (Thoreau 1854/2004, 66). Today, civic life encompasses the whole world, and a highly diverse, complex, and rapidly changing world at that. If our students are to live deliberately, they must be multiliterate in working with multiple and shifting meanings that swirl about us as combinations of text, image, movement,

35


and sound. They must also be resilient in the face of change. They must have agency in navigating challenges and opportunities so they remain life-long learners, able to sustain and develop their multiliteracies as the world about them changes. Process drama is a design-based pedagogy that nurtures these complex and inter-related skills. In offering effective pathways for developing multiliteracies, process drama, is no longer merely a desirable extra for privileged children, but a critical right of all children that we cannot afford to ignore.

36


REFERENCES Anderson, Michael and Kate Donelan. 2009. “Drama in Schools: Meeting the Research Challenges of the Twenty-First Century.” Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 14(2): 165 – 171. Anstey, Michele. and Geoff Bull. 2006. Teaching and Learning Multiliteracies. Delaware, USA: International Reading Association. Argryis, Chris. 2003. “A Life Full of Learning.” Organizational Studies 24(7): 1178-1192. Argyris, Chris, and Donald Schön. 1996. Organizational learning II. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1982. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Edited by Michael Holquist. Translated by Vadim Liapunov and Kenneth Brostrom. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Banathy, Bela. H. 1996. Designing Social Systems in a Changing World. NY: Plenum Press. Banathy, Bela. H. 2000. Guided Evolution of Society: A Systems View. NY: Plenum Press. Barthes, Roland. 1975. S/Z: An Essay . Translated by Richard Miller. London: Cape,. Berliner, David C. 1987. “Ways of Thinking About Students and Classrooms by More and Less Experienced Teachers.” In Exploring Teachers’ Thinking, edited by James Calderhead, 60–83. London: Cassell Education Limited. Bolton, Gavin. 1984. Drama as Education. London: Longman. Bolton, Gavin and Dorothy Heathcote. 1995. Drama for Learning: Dorothy Heathcote's Mantle of the Expert Approach to Education. New Hampshire: Heinemann. Boud, David, Rosemary Keogh, and David Walker. 1985. Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. New York: Routledge. Brown, John Seely. 2010. “Foreword.” In Education in the Creative Economy: Knowledge and Learning in the Age of Innovation, edited by Daniel Araya and Michael A. Peters, ix-xii. New York: Peter Lang. Brown, Ann L., and Joseph C Campione. 1994. “Guided Discovery in a Community of Learners.” In Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice edited by Kate McGilly, 229 – 272. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bruner, Jerome. 1990. Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Catterrall, James. 2009. Doing Well and Doing Good by Doing Art: A 12-Year Longitudinal Study of Arts Education. Effects on the Achievements and Values of Young Adults. Los Angeles, CA: I-Group Books. Carroll, John. and David Cameron. 2003. “To the Spice Islands: Interactive Process Drama.” Fine Art Forum, 17(8). Cazden, Courtney. 2000. “Taking Cultural Differences into Account.” In Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures, edited by Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis, 249266. London: Routledge. Cope, Bill. and Mary Kalantzis. 2000. “Introduction.” In Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures, edited by Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis, 3 – 8. London: Routledge. Crumpler, Thomas P. 2003. “Becoming Dragons and Pirates: The Possibilities of Using Process Drama with Literature To Reimagine Young Children's Writing Instruction.” New Advocate, 16(1): 17 – 27. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1996. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Collins. Darling-Hammond, Linda. 2010. The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity will Determine Our Future. New York: Teachers College Press.

37


Davis, Sue. 2006. “Cyberdrama: Exploring possibilities.” Drama Australia Journal, 30(1): 91– 103. Dewey, John. 1897. “My Pedagogic Creed.” The School Journal 44(3): 77-80. Dewey, John. 1933. How We Think. A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Di Pietro, Robert J. 1982. “The Open-Ended Scenario: A New Approach to Conversation.” TESOL Quarterly, 16(1): 15-20. Drucker, Peter. 1996. Landmarks of Tomorrow. 2nd ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Edmiston, Brian W. 1991. “What Have You Travelled? A Teacher-Researcher Study of Structuring Drama for Reflection.” PhD Dissertation., Ohio State University. Edmiston, Brian W. 2007. “Mission to Mars: Using Drama to Make a More Inclusive Classroom for Literacy Learning.” Language Arts, 84(4): 337-346. Edmiston, Brian W., and Jeffrey D Wilhelm. 1998. “Repositioning Views/ Reviewing Positions: Forming Complex Understandings in Dialogue.” In Educational Drama and Language Arts: What Research Shows, edited by Betty Jane Wagner, 90-117. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann. Flintoff, Kate. 2009. “Second Life/Simulation. Online Sites for Generative Play. In Drama Education with Digital Technology, edited by Michael Anderson, John Carroll, and David Cameron, 202 – 221. London: Continuum Press. Florida, Richard. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class and How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books. Freire, Paolo and Donaldo Macedo. 1987. Literacy: Reading the Word and the World. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Gershon, Walter S. 2002. Improvisation: A Theoretical Lens for Classroom Observation. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Riverside. Gee, James P. 1996. Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. London: Taylor and Francis. Gee, James P. 2000. “New People in New Worlds: Networks, the New Capitalism and Schools.” In Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures, edited by Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis, 43 – 68. London: Routledge. Habermas, Jurgen. 1996. “Modernity: An Unfinished Project.” In Habermas and the Unfinished Project of Modernity, edited by Maurizio P. Dentreves and Seyla Benhabib, 39-55. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Henry, Mallika. 2000. Drama’s Way of Learning. Research in Drama Education, 5(1): 45-62. Hovda, Ric. A. and Diane W. Kyle. 1997. Different Ways of Knowing. Study B: Research and Evaluation Project. Louisville, KY: The Galef Institute – Kentucky Collaborative for Teaching and Learning. Inner-City Arts. 2000. Arts for Language and Learning Project (Project ALL) Evaluation Report. Los Angeles, CA: Inner-City Arts. Jarvis, Peter. 2000. “Globalization, the Learning Society and Comparative Education.” Comparative Education 36(3): 343–355. Kao, Shin-Mei and Cecily O'Neill.1998. Words into Worlds: Learning a Second Language Through Process Drama. Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing. Kolb, David A. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kolb, Alice Y. and David A Kolb. 2005. “Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education.” Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(2): 193–212.

38


Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leinhardt, Gaea and James G Greeno. 1986. “The Cognitive Skill of Teaching.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2): 75–95. Lipman-Blumen, Jean. 1996. Connective Leadership: Managing in a Changing World. New York: Oxford University Press. Luke, Allan. 2000. “Critical Literacy in Australia: A Matter of Context and Standpoint.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43(5): 448-461. Luke, Allan and Peter Freebody. 2000. Literate Futures: Report of the Review for Queensland State Schools. Brisbane, Australia: Education Queensland. Lyotard, Jean-Francois. 1984. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Mantle of the Expert. Pieces of Dorothy. Retrieved 15th April, 2012 from http://www.mantleoftheexpert.com/film-and-video/dh-video-archive/pieces-of-dorothy/ McCaslin, Nellie. 2006. Creative Drama in the Classroom and Beyond. Boston: MA: Allyn and Bacon. National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). 2008. “The NCTE Definition of 21st Century Literacies”. National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved May 4th 2011 from www.ncte.org/positions/statements/21stcentdefinition Neelands, Jonathan. 2009. “Acting Together: Ensemble as a Democratic Process in Art and Life.” Research In Drama Education, 14(2): 173-189. New London Group. 1996. “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.” Harvard Educational Review, 66(1): 60-92. New London Group. 2000. “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies Designing Social Futures.” In Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures, edited by Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis, 9 - 37. London: Routledge. O'Neill, Cecily. 1995. Drama Worlds: A Framework for Process Drama. Portsmouth: New Hampshire: Heinemann. O'Neill, Cecily and Alan Lambert. 1982. Drama Structures: A Practical Handbook for Teachers. Portsmouth: New Hampshire: Heinemann. O’Toole, John., Madonna Stinson, and Tiina Moore. 2009. Drama and Curriculum: A Giant at the Door. Dordrecht: Springer. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. 2012. Framework for 21st Century Learning. Retrieved March 20 from http://www.p21.org/overview/skills-framework. Peters, Michael A. and Daniel Araya. 2010. “Introduction.” In Education in the Creative Economy: Knowledge and Learning in the Age of Innovation, edited by Daniel Araya and Michael A. Peters, xiii-xxx. New York: Peter Lang. Robinson, Ken. 2001. Out of Our Minds: Learning to be Creative. Oxford, UK: Capstone Publishing. Sawyer, R. Keith. 2004. “Creative Teaching: Collaborative Discussion as Disciplined Improvisation.” Educational Researcher, 33(2): 12-20 Schneider, Jenifer J., Thomas P. Crumpler, and Theresa Rogers. 2006. Process Drama and Multiple Literacies: Addressing Social, Cultural and Ethical Issues. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann. Thoreau, Henry David. 1854/2004. Walden: A Fully Annotated Education, edited by Jeffrey S. Cramer. New Haven: Yale University Press. Thwaites, Trevor. 1999. “Multiliteracies: A New Direction for Arts Education” Australian Association for Research in Education. Retrieved April 11th 2012 from http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/thw99528.htm

39


Tracey, Diane H., Alex W. Storer, and Sohrob Kazerounian. 2010. “Cognitive Processing Perspectives on the New Literacies. In The New Literacies: Multiple Perspectives on Research and Practice, edited by Elizabeth A. Baker. New York: Guildford Press. Unsworth, Len. 2001. Teaching Multiliteracies Across the Curriculum: Changing Contexts of Text and Image in Classroom Practice. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Vygotsky, Lev. 1978. Mind in Society. London: Harvard University Press. Villeneuve, Pat. 2003. “Why Not Visual Culture?” Arts Education, 56(2): 4 – 5. Wagner, Betty Jane. 1998. Educational Drama and Language Arts: What Research Shows. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Werner, Linnette R. 2002. Artist, Teacher, and School Change Through Arts for Academic Achievement: Artists Reflect on Long Term Partnering as a Means of Achieving Change. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Shamini Dias, PhD: Shamini is a researcher and Director of the Preparing Future Faculty program at Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, California. Her research focuses on imagination and adaptive capacity as a core skill for learning in the 21st century, specifically in the development of literacy and information literacy skills in a knowledge economy. She has a transdisciplinary research interest in exploring meaning-making processes integrating research in art, mindfulness, positive psychology, and literature. Shamini has also been an education consultant in Singapore, working with schools and businesses to advocate and develop creative approaches to literacy, communication, thinking, and leadership development. Between 1997 and 2001, she was the Director of the Written Language Arts programme, and Director for Curriculum and Publishing at the Julia Gabriel Speech & Drama Centre, Singapore. Shamini has presented workshops on creative approaches to literacy, leadership, and life skills at regional conferences for the International Reading Association, Singapore and LitCon, Malaysia, as well as at international conferences for NAEYC (National Association of the Education of Young Children), ACEI (Association for Childhood Education International), the American Educational Research Association (AERA), and the Imaginative Education Research Group (IERG).

40

Learning English as Foreign Language in Indonesia through English Children’s Literature Leni Marlina, State University of Padang, Indonesia Abstract:In order to improve learning English as foreign language (EFL) in the developing country such as Indonesia, English teachers need to integrate children’s literature in teaching and learning process. Despite children’s literature is sometimes stereotyped as books for young learners only, the use of English children’s literature for teaching EFL at secondary schools has many benefits for the adolescent students. The aim of this paper is to discuss: (1) the importance of utilizing English children’s literature; (2) the types of English children’s literature which can be used in teaching; and (3) the implementation of integrating English children’s literature into EFL classroom. The main reason to use English children’s literature in EFL classroom according to Hismanoglu (2005) is that because it has valuable authentic material, cultural enrichment, language enrichment and personal involvement. The implementation of integrating English children’s literature has to consider two main factors: selection of the literary texts and teaching implementation. The model of teaching by using children’s literature can use a certain format which suggested by Richard-Amato and Snow (2005), it is framed as a sequence of Into, Thought, and Beyond (ITB). Into is the step that occurs before reading. On the stage of Into, a teacher attempts to make students interested in the text upon preparation of many resources. Thought is the step when students are ready to read the literary works. On the stage of Thought, it requires the way to engage the class to a story by reading aloud and having expression. Beyond is the step where students can do activities to extend the appreciation of the work. In improving student’s English learning capacity, the model of ITB will strongly need to be supported by Literature Circle which is design to be able use both in and outside classroom. Keywords: Teaching English as Foreign Language, Children’s Literature

Introduction: English as Foreign Language (EFL) in Indonesia

I

n Indonesia, as well as many other countries, it is necessary for students to learn at least three languages. They are mother language, national language and appropriate foreign language. English has been taught and used as a foreign language in Indonesia over sixty five years. Jayadi (2004) points out that English as a foreign language is being made as a compulsory subject in secondary schools throughout Indonesia in 1945 soon after the Indonesian Independence Day, August 17, 1945. Meanwhile at Indonesian primary schools, formal ELT education began since early nineties and English has been taught at primary schools students starting in Grade Four as a local curriculum only (Cahyono and Widiati 2004). However, the recent policy of curriculum Indonesia (curriculum 2013) has just removed English at elementary school in order to increase Indonesian students’s awareness and ability to study their national language. There have been at least eight curriculum reforms that have been introduced and implemented in Indonesia secondary schools until nowadays. Despite these efforts most Indonesian students still face the same issues in English learning. Most of students are far than successful in both and in oral and written English (Nur, 2004), unless those who take extra English course outside the formal classroom. Lie (2007:1) also insists the same issue and she points out “In spite of the many years of English instruction in formal schooling, the outcome has not been satisfying. Very few high school graduates are able to communicate intelligibly in English.” The similar issue in the teaching of English as foreign language encountered in Indonesia also probably happens in other countries where English is taught as foreign language. Ho (2004:3) suggests that the term of English as foreign language (EFL) and English as second language (ESL) sometimes can be used interchangeably. In the general contact of teaching English in most of Indonesians schools, the term of EFL is more appropriate than ESL because the EFL learning refers to the situation where the learners are learning English in context The International of Literacies Volume 19, 2013, thelearner.com, ISSN: 2327-0136 © Common Ground, Leni Marlina, All Rights Reserved Permissions:[email protected]


where English as a target language is not uncommon within the society in which the learners are living.This situation is different with Indonesian neighbor countries such Malaysia and Singapore in which they regard English as a second language. Since there is increasing number of international schools in many cities in Indonesia recently and since there are more learners are situated in a context where English has a communicative function in urban areas, the term of ESL is also probably appropriate for those learners. However, EFL is the most appropriate term in Indonesian contexts until nowadays. One of the most challenging tasks constantly faced by EFL teachers is how to empower or enable their students in studying English. Also, the teachers are expected to capture the interest and stimulate the imagination of their students so that they will be more motivated to learn. Oura (2010) states that there is currently a wide array of teaching materials available to ESL and EFL teachers to accommodate student’s various study needs and empower them in studying. Many of these materials are commercially produced and can be authentic teaching materials. Nunan (1999) defines authentic materials as spoken or written language data that has been produced in the course of genuine communication, and not specifically written for the purposes of language teaching. One of the authentic materials which can empower students in studying English is literary texts. Additionally, Brown (2004) states that typically in an EFL or ESL context literary texts are mostly taught to advanced level for university students or other high level adults’ proficiency. It is no surprise that the use of literary texts as part of authentic texts are likely absent in the EFL curricula of secondary schools in Indonesia. This occurs probably because students seem to lack the grammar and cultural knowledge necessary to understand the complex nature of literary texts. When presented with canonical literature or text for young adults, many EFL students at EFL secondary schools can feel overwhelmed, frustrated, discouraged and anxious. In search of other forms of authentic texts, children’s literature can be accepted by students. Utilizing children’s literature in EFL classroom of secondary schools will give many benefits for students. Besides having interesting topics, children’s literature employs simple grammar and vocabulary, colorful illustrations, and short length, among other characteristics that facilitated comprehension. In fact, teaching English by using literature especially children’s literature at Indonesian secondary schools is still neglected. Even though English current curricula has given much proportion to functions in English, experience and observation as well as research shows that EFL classrooms in Indonesia still emphasizes on forms. School textbooks in secondary schools tend to include less literary works as teaching materials. The use of literature in English learning in schools does not extend to discussions of language use or cross cultural understanding. If literature is presented, it is usually to model a generic structure for a narrative text. So, teaching English like nowadays at most of secondary schools in Indonesia is not optimal enough to enable students to understand English and to practice critical thinking because typically teachers ignore English children’s literature in the process of teaching and learning.

The Importance of Appropriating Children’s Literature There are four main reasons which lead an English teacher to use literature included children’s literature in a foreign language class (Hismanoglu, 2005). They are valuable and authentic materials, children’s literature has highly cultural enrichment, language enrichment and personal involvement.

Valuable Authentic Material Children’s literature is authentic material. Most of works of children’s literature are not created for the primary purposes of teaching a language. Thus, in a classroom context, learners are exposed to actual language samples of real life settings. In reading children’s literary text, secondary school students have to also cope with language intended for native speakers. 42

MARLINA: LEARNING ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN INDONESIA

Therefore, the students become familiar with many different linguistic forms, communicative functions and meanings. In addition, since children’s literature requires teaching authentic material, it is good to expose learners to this source of unmodified language in the classroom. The skills the students acquire in dealing with difficult or unknown language can be used outside the class.

Motivating Material Children’s literature is more likely to engage and motivate students than artificial teaching inputs because it is generated by some genuine impulse of the writer and it deals with subjects and themes which may be interesting to the students as readers. Furthermore, Rass and Holzman (2010) in their research show that authentic children’s stories could be very motivating, enjoyable and effective method of foreign language learning. In addition, it could be used as a stimulus to increase the learners' participation in EFL classroom language learning activities. In other word, using children’s stories in EFL classrooms could be a very motivating and encouraging tool for achieving a positive attitude among the learners as well as their teachers.

Cultural Enrichment Children’s literature facilitates understanding of methods of communication in the country within which English is spoken. The world described in tales, short stories or novels is an imaginary one; it presents a full and colorful setting in which characters from many social or regional backgrounds can be described. The students can discover the way the characters in such literary works see the world outside such as their thoughts, feelings, customs, traditions, possession, belief, fear, how they speak and behave in different settings.

Language Enrichment Children’s literature provides learners with a wide range of individual lexical or syntactic items. The students become familiar with many features of written language, reading a substantial and contextualized body of text. Thus, the students can enrich their writing skills. Smallwood (1998) explains that children's literature is important for both students at primary and secondary schools to developed language and literacy skills and content knowledge. In addition, because high quality children's literature is characterized by economy of words, stunning illustrations, captivating but quickly moving plots, and universal themes, carefully chosen children’s literature can offer educational benefits for adult English language learners as well as for children. In addition to improving reading and writing skills in general, literature presents an excellent source of vocabulary.

Personal Involvement Children’s literature can be useful for students’ personal involvement. Once the students read the literary works, they begin to inhabit the text. They are drawn into the text. The students become enthusiastic to find out what happens as events unfold culminating in the climax. They feel close to certain characters and share their emotional responses. Furthermore, children’s literature can train readers’ mind and sensibility. Children’s literature also has a significant role because it evokes critical discussion since literature presents problems faced by human beings. In addition, it is significant to secondary students because of its memorable themes and symbols. The last, Harvey and Burrows (1992) explains that EFL teachers can empower students by giving them more control over their own learning. Generally, empowerment means the development of knowledge, skills and abilities of students to enable them to control and develop their own learning.

43


Students’ Language Skills Empowerment Students’ language skill empowerment means enabling students to gain language skills: reading, writing, speaking and listening. Children’s literature, compared to adult literature, has arguably simpler language, fewer lengthy stories, fewer abstract ideas, less complicated themes and offers just as a wide variety of stories. All of these features were encouraging, especially in boosting reading confidence. In reading children’s literary text, secondary school students have to cope with language intended for native speakers. It is good to expose learners to this source of unmodified language in the classroom because the skills they acquire in dealing with difficult or unknown language can be used outside the classroom. Moreover, the natural convergence between literature, language, and culture suggests the use of children’s literature in the EFL curriculum. In an EFL classroom where mastery of linguistic and cultural literacy becomes the main attention, children’s literature can be suitable material for literacy development due to its simple language style, embedded cultural information, and comfortable length (Chen, 2006). Furthermore, children’s literature encourages students to reflect on what they read and to share their thoughts in writing, thus developing their writing skills. When students read children’s literature, they are exposed to horizons of possibility. They raise questions, recognize problems and look for causes and solutions, reflect on ideas, and make connections. For that reason, literature encourages students to talk, thus developing their listening and speaking skills.

Areas of Empowerment in Students’ Language To empower means to enable students to meet learning objectives. In terms of vocabulary, the language used in children’s literature shows certain characteristics (Martin, 2009). They are (1) simple but creatively-built, (2) used in daily casual interaction, and (3) rhythmical. These features can be represented in various linguistic forms dominantly found in the the texts, such as specific registers to children and onomatopoeias - the vocabularies derives from the imitation of the real objects’ sound. Consequently, children’s literature presents an excellent source of vocabulary. Students absorb the sophisticated words found in books through language activities, which resulted in a significant improvement in vocabulary.

Students’ Critical Thinking Empowerment Learning and classroom activities using children’s literature will help the students to provide stimulating materials for peer interaction, foster co-operation, open up avenues for individual expression and critical thinking, encourage the faculty of imagination, and increase multicultural exposure (Hai-yan, 2008). Accordingly, texts in children’s literature are often rich in multiple layers of meaning, and the text can be effectively used for discussing and sharing feelings or opinions. This evokes critical discussion since literature presents problems faced by human beings. In doing so, students are expected to be aware of not only how to use English correctly and appropriately, but also to engage their mind critically.

The Types of Children’s Literature Which Can be Used in Teaching English at Secondary Schools Hancock (2000:5) defines children’s literature as ‘literature that appeals to the interests, needs, and reading preferences of children and captivates children as its major audience’. However, adults can be sometimes as part of that audience for certain purposes. The term children’s literature is not like what many people assume that children’s literature means picture books

44


only. Children's literature can be divided in many ways. Basically, children’s literature can be classified into four categories. They are books written by children, books written for children, books chosen for children and books chosen by children. The most suitable definition of children’s literature for secondary school students are books written for children. In addition, children’s literature can be also categorized based on its genre. Typically, children’s literature is divided into prose and poetry. Genres in prose include nonfiction and fiction. Furthermore, Hunt (1994) states that children’s literature encompasses stories, rhymes, poetry and plays. The stories are the most popular genre used in EFL classroom. I argue that the most appropriate of children’s literature for the beginner level at secondary schools are picture books, because pictures can speak louder than words. Putri (2007) claims that ‘picture books are outstanding ones that can carry the readers beyond the plain and the literal sense towards the more intangible and visible concepts and ideas.’ Both of picture books and other types of children’s literature with fewer pictures or without picture at all are suitable for secondary school students who have different level of ability or proficiency. Moreover, the other form of appropriate children’s literature for the intermediate level at secondary schools is short stories. Tseng (2010) claims that the choice of short stories is the most students’ favorite literary genre among other genres such as novels, poems, and plays. Short story is very useful to improve students’ vocabulary and reading.The short stories have a variety of choice for different interests and tastes. Even more, short stories can be used with all levels (from beginner to advance level), all ages (from young learners to adults) and all classes. Furthermore, they also can be powerful and motivating source for writing in EFL, both as a model and as subject of subject matter. In addition, the short story can be a powerful and motivating source for teaching both speaking and listening. In this paper, I will discuss two kinds of short stories as literary texts which can be used in EFL classroom. The short stories I mean are folktales and short fictions.

Folktales Folktales are the oldest spiritual companion of people. Very long ago folktales have been short and with simple structure but with the time passing they have become longer, richer, complicated stories. They have always been a source of moral values, a kind of religion, philosophy, and science. They have always enchanted and fascinated children as well as adults. There are many kinds of folktales such as the list below. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Fables: animal stories Folktales of the sea Starlore: tales of the night sky Story feast: folktales about food A garden of stories: folktales about plants Folktale heroes Myths from around the world Folktales of feathered friends (bird stories) Gender and story (strong women/ men) Tales of the supernatural (ghost stories) The flowing story (water in myth, legend, sea stories) Geographical studies through folktales (India, Arctic, Africa, Asia, America, etc.) Rites of passage (tales of childhood) Tales of peace & war Journeys: folkloric travel Tales of clothing (magical shoes, caps of invisibility, changing clothes Big and small: stories about size (giant tales, miniature characters)

45


18. Topography tales such as frost and fantasy in Artic, jungle expedition in global tropic, and story of desert.

Short Fictions Fictions can be classified into some genres. Some of them which can be used in ELF context are science fiction, crime story, love story and realistic story. Most of these fictions are written in novel genre, but a few of them are also available in the form of short stories. For that reason, these short stories are not appropriate for students who still have low English proficiency. Firstly, science fiction plots commonly explore ideas like space travel, cloning, time travel, or aliens. Science fiction is a genre of fiction in which its plots commonly explores imaginary but more or less plausible content such as space travel, cloning, time travel, or aliens. One purpose of science fiction is exploring the consequences of scientific innovations by employing various fictional elements. Secondly, crime story is also called mystery. Crime story is usually distinguished from mainstream fiction and other genres such as science fiction, but boundaries can be, and indeed are, blurred. Its plots always involve characters trying to discover a vital piece of information which is kept hidden until the climax. Unlike some literary fiction, the crime story retains many of the time-honoured techniques of fiction character, theme, narrative, and tension. Thirdly, a realistic story is a story that can actually happen in real life. Realistic fiction is basically just showing real characters dealing with real problems, which may not be true at all times and could take place in the past, present or the future. Realistic fiction is mostly set in modern and present times. It can also have a historical setting - events usually have something to do with an important historical event, characters will be ordinary, believable people.

Integrating Children’s Literature in EFL Classroom Selection of Children’s Literature Tseng (2010) states that to maximize the benefits of literature teaching in language classrooms, selection of literary text is a crucial issue. Selection of literary texts should partly depend on the target students’ needs and preferences. Criteria for literature selection generally involve two aspects: students and the text itself. Regarding the students, the literary text selected should consider the students’ tastes, interests and. The selected text should also consider the students’ linguistic proficiency, cultural background, and literary background. Additionally, Chen (2006) mentions that when a teacher faces numerous literature resources, selection becomes the first and foremost issue. To choose appropriate materials for EFL students, generally an English teacher needs to take three important factors into consideration: language, content, and length. First, the language of literature text should not be stylized, dialectal, or otherwise difficult. This does not mean simplifying the text by limiting the length of sentences or the number of words within the text. The text should be simple but it does not kill readers’ interest. Second, the good content of literature should involve the readers at three levels: personal, cultural, and universal. Priority must be placed on stories that enable the students to relate their own experiences and feelings to the reading. The students’ interests and backgrounds may influence their responses to and comprehension of the stories. Third, length is another important element in choosing literature. The story should be short but long enough to stimulate students’ interests and feelings.

Implement Model of ITB (Into, Thought, and Beyond) Once children’s literature has been selected, the teacher, supplied with strategies and methods, begins lesson planning. The model of teaching by using children literature can use a certain

46


format suggested by Richard-Amato and Snow (2005), it is framed as a sequence of Into, Thought, and Beyond (ITB). ITB model is easy to be remembered, fits well with the reading and writing process, and allows for great adaptation.

Into Into is the step that occurs before reading. During Into, the teacher draws upon many resources to be prepared and make students interested in the text. There are some activities can be done such as using illustration, pre-teaching vocabulary, introducing theme and talking cultural background. On Into step, the teacher may need to first explain and justify the use of tale or story. The story is then briefly introduced, key vocabulary is previewed, and some key illustrations or characters may be highlighted. The students are invited to predict the story from the illustrations and other clues. These motivational strategies involve the students in the story and help them to connect with the story, other experiences, and literary or real-life.

Thought Thought is the step which is followed when students are ready to read the work. The way to engage a class with a story is to read aloud with expression. The teacher can also use the following strategies: move slowly around the room; take time to show the pictures; modify the language of the text as needed to facilitate comprehension; and pause occasionally for dramatic effect, to highlight new words or concepts, or to check for comprehension. Furthermore, there are some activities during reading such as using a variety of ways to read, sustaining reading, total physical response, following characters and their voice, and vocabulary assistance. During Thought, there is no passive activity but an interactive one. To comprehend and appreciate a work, the students need to follow an event sequence, recognize foreshadowing, distinguish flashback, visualize the setting, analyze characters and motive, experience the mood, comprehend the theme and symbols. Moreover, the students need activities to aid them in these tasks. The teacher may select passages for in-depth discussion and analysis, help the students to draw attention to the significant features and issues in the work.

Beyond Beyond is the step which enable the students to do various activities in order to extend the appreciation of the works. This step is also called post-reading activity. The student’s activities in this step are to check quick comprehension, make a poster or illustrated story, do stimulus for writing, and do role play or acting out. During Beyond, students traditionally write to clarify their thinking and deepen understanding. Moreover, the students recall the plot of the short story and identify the process that furthers the plot. To become successful in writing, students need opportunities for conferencing and comments on the content of their writing, peer revision activities, and comprehensible feedback on their attempts to use the new language in academic ways. Another Beyond activity includes comparing a text with its film representation or preparing a dramatization based on scenes or ideas from the work. On Beyond step, the teacher may give different tasks depending on the story and on our aims. The task may include multiple choices, true or false, guessing the meaning, writing the sentences in the correct order, and answering the questions about the story.

Implementation by Using Literature Circle To empower the students, the teacher also has to ask students to read children’s literature texts as homework and to come to class prepared to discuss the story. Sometimes students are very

47


resistant to this type of assigned reading and whole class discussion. To anticipate this condition, the introduction of Literature Circle is required. According to Furr (2010) Literature Circle is small student reading groups which provide a specific framework allowing EFL students to have meaningful discussions about literature in English. It is fun and focused classroom-based student reading and discussion groups which naturally combine the skills of reading, writing, speaking and listening. Successful EFL Literature Circles will contain most of the following features. First, the teacher selects reading materials appropriate for her students. Then, small temporary groups are formed. Different groups usually read the same text. After the books are finished, readers may prepare a group project. Next, groups meet to a predictable schedule to discuss their reading. To make this becomes true, a Role Sheet is needed. The Role Sheets break down the skills of a reader into smaller, manageable parts so that each member of the group is responsible for one aspect of what a reader does naturally. The role of students consists of Group Discussion Leader (GDL), Summarizer, Connector, Word Master (WM), Passage Person (PP) and Cultural Collector (CC). Each student will have an active role in doing Literature Circle. GDL acts as a facilitator in the group and to keep the discussion flowing. Summarizer presents the summary early in the discussion so that everyone can remember the plot of the story. It is important to emphasize that the summarizer gives a brief, but complete summary of the plot. Connector is to try to find connections between the text and the real world in which she lives. For example, the Connector may make connections between the thoughts, feelings or actions of characters in the story and family members, friends or classmates. While GDL and Summarizer need to read the text and prepare to discuss the story from a global standpoint, WM focuses on single words or very short phrases; thus, the WM is doing a very close reading of the text. WM may choose only five words which he believes to be the most important words found in a story. PP is asked to make a very close reading of the text and to look for well-written or key passages in the story. CC is to work with the cultural and historical backgrounds of some of the stories which they had read. As discussed above, Literature Circle will enable the learners to strengthen their personal capacity and empower themselves in English learning process. Furthermore, learners who are following steps of ITB and implementing Literature Circle will have intentional actions in order to do their role and achieve their goals in studying English through children’s literature. For that reason, the sense of agency is clearly embedded in each learner who is studying English by using children’s literature.

Conclusion Children’s literature appears to be a great means to EFL at Indonesian secondary schools. The discussion above has focused largely the benefits of using children’s literature on secondary students’ EFL. However, the content of children’s literature may not necessary reflect the experience of the secondary students since the children’s literature are written for the younger ones. On account of this limitation, the use of children’s literature is highly appropriate for those who are still in the beginner and intermediate levels of English proficiency. For EFL classrooms which have dominantly student with advanced proficiency are suggested to integrate the selected texts for young adults (YA) since YA literature may strongly reflect the general experience of secondary students as teenagers. For this purpose, EFL teachers need to be creative in teaching English by using texts for young adults. However, the other forms of children’s literature such as novel and poems still can be highly appropriate for those with advanced level of English. To repeat, integrating children’s literature in Indonesian EFL secondary classroom gives large benefit in the process of learning English. In the meantime, the use of children’s literature in EFl classroom also provides some challenges for teacher. The main challenge for the English teachers is to select children’s literature which is appropriate to be used in different classroom. I would like to suggest that the most appropriate type of children’s literature to be used in

48


Indonesian EFL classroom at secondary schools are folktales which consist of various forms and short fictions. Teacher can adapt the usage of children’s literature as part of authentic materials to suit the age and language proficiency level of the students. To empower the students in learning English, the teacher should apply Richard-Amanto and Snow’s model of ITB (Into, Though, Beyond) at EFL classroom and ask the students to run Literature Circle outside the classroom. To sum up, the learning practice of EFL in Indonesian secondary schools through English children’s literature should apply the model of ITB (Into, Though, Beyond) which is supported by Literature Circle.

49


REFERENCES Brown, E. 2004. “Using Children’s Literature with Young Learners”. TESL Journal, Vol. X, No. 2, February 2004. (Online). http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Brown-Childrens Lit.htm.Retrieved in July 2010. Chen, Y. 2006. “Using Children’s Literature for Reading and Writing Stories”. ASIAN EFL Journal. Vol. 8. No. 4. (Online). www.asian-efl-journal.com/ Dec_06_ymc.php. Retrieved in January 2010. Cahyono, B.Y; Widiati, U. 2004. “Introduction”. In BY Cahyono and U Widiati (eds.). The Tapestry of English Language Teaching and Learning in Indonesia. Malang, Indonesia: State University of Malang. pp. xi-xxi. Furr, M. 2010. “How and Why to Use EFL Literature Circles”. (Online). http://www.eflliteraturecircles.com. Retrieved in November 2010. Hancock, M. 2000. A Celebration of Literature and Response: Children, Books, and Teachers in K-8 Classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Harvey, L.; Burrows, A.1992. “Empowering students”.New Academic. Vol.11, No. 3. Ho, W.K. 2004. “English Language Teaching in East Asia Today: an Overview.” In WK Ho and R Wong (eds.). English Language Teaching in East Asia Today: Changing Policies and Practices. 2ndEdition. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press. Hunt, P. 1994. An Introduction to Children’s Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hismanoglu, M. 2005. “Teaching English through Literature”. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. Vol.1 No.1. Jayadi, I. 2004. “ELT in Indonesia in the Context of English as a Global Language”. In BY Cahyono and U Widiati (eds.). The Tapestry of English Language Teaching and Learning in Indonesia. Malang, Indonesia: State University of Malang. pp. xi-xxi. Lie, A. 2007. “Education Policy and EFL Curriculum in Indonesia: Between the Commitment to Competence and the Quest for Higher Test Scores”. TEFLIN Journal. Vol. 18. No. 1. Martin, L.2009. “Children’s Literature in EFL Classroom: The Stylistic Considerations”. (Online). http://cotefl.blogspot.com/2009/05/childrens-literaturelaily-martin. Retrievedon July 27, 2010. Metcalf, E. 2009. “Using Literature in the EFL Classroom with Specific Reference to Children’s Literature and Literature and Film”. (Online). http://www.developing teachers.com/articles_tchtraining/litemma2.htm. Retrieved on July 27 th, 2010. Nunan, D. 1999. Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle Publishers. Nur, C. 2004. “English Language Teaching in Indonesia: Changing Policies and Practical Constraints”. In WK Ho and R Wong (eds.). English Language Teaching in East Asia Today: Changing Policies and Practices. 2ndEdition. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press. Oura, G. 2010. ”Authentic Task- Based Materials: Bringing the Real World Into the Classroom.” (Online). www.jrc.sophia.ac.jp/kiyou/ki21/gaio.pdf. Retrieved in September 2010. Putri, D.P. 2007. “Picture Speak Louder Than Words”. JurnalPolygot. Vol.1 No.2. January 2007. Rass, R.A.; Holzman, S. 2010. “Children’s Literature in traditional Arab Schools for Teaching English as a Foreign Language”. English Language Teaching. Vol.3 No.1. (Online). www.ccsenet.org/elt. Retrieved on July 14th, 2010. Richard-Amato, P.; Snow, M.A. 2005. Academic for English Language Learners. New York: Pearson Education, Inc. Smallwood, B.A. 1992. “Children’s Literature for Adult ESL Literacy”. ERIC Digest. (Online). http://www.ericdigests.org/1993/adult.htm. Retrieved on July 14th, 2010. Tseng, F. 2010. “Introducing Literature to an EFL Classroom: Teacher’s Presentations and Students’ Perception”. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. Vol. 1, No. 1.

50


ABOUT THE AUTHOR LeniMarlina: Leni Marlina is an English Teaching staff at State University of Padang (UNP) in West Sumatra, Indonesia. She has been teaching at UNP since 2006. She finished her bachelor degree in 2005 at UNP. Additionally, she finished her master degree program (Master of Writing and Literature) in April 2013 at Deakin University, Australia. One of her study specializations is Children’s Literature. She studied in Australia by having scholarship sponsored by DGHE (Directorate General of Higher Education of Indonesia). Leni is registered as the member of ACLAR (Australasian Children’s Literature Association for Research), Victoria writer, Indonesia Society for the Advancement of Children’s Literature, and ChLA (The Children’s Literature Association) in U.S.A. In addition, she is interested in EFL. The last but not the least, she is also interested in young adults literature and creative writing.

51

Narrative Skills and Genre Based Literacy Pedagogy Teaching Material: The Case of Greek Upper Elementary School Pupils One Year after the Implementation of the Current Teaching Material Anna Fterniati, University of Patras, Greece Abstract: This article presents and discusses the findings of a research study on the issue of literacy competency, focusing on the narrative written text production. The study examines the narrative text writing skills of 11-12 year old students (attending the last grade of Greek elementary school), before and after the first year of implementing the language teaching material introduced in 2006-07, considered to be consistent with the logic of genre based literacy pedagogy. It also investigates whether parameters such as gender, socio-educational background, and teachers’ practices regarding students’ written discourse production influence such performances. The students’ narrative skills were examined using part of the written composition test of the IEA - International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (the part assessing the narrative text), revised and adapted to the Greek language and educational context. Analysis of the pre- and post- implementation data suggests that after the first year of implementing the current teaching material, the pupils’ narrative skills display a considerable increase. Additionally, their performances are related to their gender, social background, and practices regarding students’ written discourse production. Keywords: Literacy, Narrative Genre, Narrative Skills, Genre-based Literacy Pedagogy, Textual Competence, Written Discourse Production, Writing Assessment, Language Arts Textbooks, Primary Education, Elementary School.

Introduction

O

ver the last three decades, language teaching worldwide has revolved around the concept of literacy, that is a social practice constantly redefined in terms of the socio-cultural environment in which it takes place and that deals with the individual’s ability to understand, interpret, critically manage and produce all genres and discourse types necessary for society and generally to control his/her life and environment through written discourse (Barton, Hamilton and Ivanic 2000). Over this period of time, the debate on the concept of literacy created the framework and principles of literacy pedagogy. According to genre based literacy pedagogy (see Sydney school, i.e. Johns 2002; Macken et al. 1989), the main unit of literacy is the genre, as shaped by the respective socio-cultural reality. As students become familiarised with authentic texts from the social sphere belonging to different genres (e.g. narrative, descriptive, argumentative), which are inter-related to the cultural dimension of language, and learn about their rules and conventions, they gain the opportunity to participate in social processes and function successfully in any situational context (Baynham 1995; Freedman and Medway 1994). Consequently, school literacy (Macken et al. 1989) is mainly achieved through the elaboration and production of – mostly written – genres considered important for defining and transmitting knowledge in various sectors, aiming to develop critical language awareness (Goatly 2000; Fairclough 1992). It is recommended to conduct communicational and interactive activities (between students and their peers or their teachers), which include practices that help students realise the characteristics of each genre, and to allocate time for the production, reviewing and editing of written discourse by the students themselves. In this way, language is not viewed as a static product, constructed through specific grammar and syntax rules, but as a dynamic semiotic system.

The International Journal of Literacies Volume 19, 2013, www.thelearner.com, ISSN 2327-0136 © Common Ground, Anna Fterniati, All Rights Reserved Permissions: [email protected]


Such educational programmes have already been successfully implemented worldwide over the last thirty years (Brown 2001; Cope and Kalantzis 1993; Hedge 2000; Richards and Renandya 2002). In Greece, this debate led to the 2003 National Curriculum for the Greek language in the Elementary School (FEK 2003) and the 2006 school textbooks and teacher manuals for the language arts class (Ministry of Education 2006a, 2006b). Prior to the implementation of the 2003 and 2006 material, several Greek studies and research projects (see Fterniati and Spinthourakis 2004; Koukourikou et al. 2006; Kostouli 1997, 1998; Papoulia-Tzelepi 2000; Papoulia-Tzelepi and Spinthourakis 2000) had been conducted on the previous teaching material and, more generally, on the quality of language teaching in primary education and on important points revealed by the pupils’ written text production. These studies focused both on the common problems faced by children of different social background when producing written texts and on socially determined differences in language use. The studies included textual analysis of a large number of texts of various genres, written by students of different social background and addressed the problems faced by children of different social groups when producing written discourse. The results were disappointing. They demonstrated that the majority of students displayed medium or low written discourse achievement, while their success depended on their social background. The above results were attributed to the nature of the teaching material, which was based on the structural approach in language teaching (Galisson 1980) and relevant teaching practices, as well as to a lack of adequate educator training. Furthermore, these results were due to the teachers’ views and practices on teaching written discourse (Kostouli 2002; Papoulia-Tzelepi and Spinthourakis 2000). As they point out, before the 2003 curriculum and the 2006 teaching material were implemented, written discourse production as a dynamic cognitive process was ignored. This refers to a process that includes the elaboration of various versions of a text before the final product, under interactive circumstances, and taking into account both the communicational objective and the intended recipient/audience. According to the above research, written discourse practices were limited to 15-minute written production exercises, with neither previous planning nor later elaboration, and without any self- or peerevaluation. Evaluation, conducted by the teacher, was limited to the discussion of grammatical errors, and paid little or no attention to generic structure. Therefore the pupils received no feedback from their teachers, in the sense of fruitful guidance that would help them realise any weaknesses and find relevant solutions, but solely consisted of unfruitful error correction. As a result, new educational material (language arts textbooks, student workbooks, grammar guide, dictionaries, literature anthologies and software, as well as the teacher’s guide) was implemented in elementary school language arts, as mentioned above. This teaching material introduces important changes in Greek elementary school practices, including the formal adoption of specifically defined communicative genre-oriented approaches, as well as collaborative teaching/learning. According to the teacher’s guide (Ministry of Education 2006b), the new teaching approach aims to help students realise each genre’s different structure, and choose the appropriate linguistic means to produce specific texts. This is attempted through the analysis and production of different discourse types and genres in specific situational contexts. Ultimately, students should develop efficient communicative skills, by perceiving and producing various socially acceptable discourse types and genres. Texts provided should be authentic, while discourse production should be placed in context and culminating in the assessment of the produced discourse by the students themselves (self- and peer-evaluation). The reforms outlined, while not new in contemporary language learning and teaching theory and practice, are however highly innovative from the vantage point of the Greek educational reality (see Glossa 2002; Fterniati and Spinthourakis 2006). So far, the research conducted to evaluate the above, in terms of meeting the stated objectives, focus on the teaching material (see Kapsalis and Katsikis 2007; Fterniati 2007; Papoulia and Fterniati 2010; Pourkos and Katsarou 2011). They examine whether the textbooks implement the

54

ANNA FTERNIATI: NARRATIVE SKILLS & GENRE BASED LITERACY PEDAGOGY

main teaching practices adopted worldwide. Most of them take the view of aligning the textbooks’ theoretical and practical choices with contemporary principles of teaching modern languages. However, so far no research has been conducted on evaluating the impact of introducing the current material and related teaching practices on the students’ literacy skills level. For this reason, it was considered necessary to conduct research focusing not on the teaching material, but on its actual product, that is the students’ written production, and on relevant teaching practices. The results of such a study could demonstrate whether the pupils’ literacy skills display any improvement after the implementation of the current textbooks, which is whether the current Greek elementary school Language Arts practices are effective, in relation to the improvement of the pupils’ literacy skills.

Methodology Research Objective The aim of the above mentioned study is to examine and discuss the findings of a research study focusing on the writing skills of Greek elementary school pupils producing narrative, descriptive and argumentative text before the current material was introduced in 2006-07, one year after its implementation, and six years after its implementation. The research lasted six years (2006-2012), so that the pupils who attended the first grade in 2006, when the current books were introduced, would complete their primary education with this teaching material. This paper presents some initial results from the first year of data collection on the pupils’ narrative skills. In particular, the study examines the narrative text writing skills of 11-12 year old students (attending the last grade of Greek elementary school), before and after the first year of implementing the language teaching material introduced in 2006-07, which is considered to be consistent with the logic of genre based literacy pedagogy. Specifically, the paper aims to reveal any differences on the level of the pupils’ narrative skills after the 1st year of implementing the current teaching material in schools that operate in areas of different social background. An effort was also made to explore whether the pupils’ skills are influenced by parameters such as gender, social background, and teachers’ practices regarding written discourse production.

Sample The research took place in two phases (pre and post-test), October 2006 and June 2007, in ten Greek state elementary schools. The grade that participated was the 6th (ages 11-12). The schools were located in a large prefecture and operated in urban, suburban, semi-urban and mountain rural areas, and were chosen so that both higher and lower parental social background could be represented. The population of the study consisted of 151 students (78 boys and 73 girls).

Data Collection The students’ literacy skills were examined using part of the written composition test of the IEA (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement), revised and adapted to the Greek language and educational context (ΙΕΑ 2010). This specific test examines a variety of pupil literacy skills, including narrative, descriptive and argumentative text production skills, information management skills and metacognitive skills. Overall, the study evaluates the effectiveness of pupil discourse and their awareness, in terms of the respect shown to restrictions imposed by linguistic and extralinguistic (purpose, recipient/audience) factors in different genres (narrative, descriptive and argumentative).

55


In this phase, as mentioned, the research initially utilised narrative text criteria. It examined the effectiveness (Clark and Ivanic 1997) of the pupils’ narrative discourse, regarding the main characteristics of the narrative genre, grouped into 5 categories: 1. the narrative pattern (de Beaugrande and Dressler 1981; Labov and Waletzky 1967; van Dijk 1980), that is the basic generic structure including orientation, complicating action and coda, 2. the evaluation (commentary) (Labov and Waletzky 1967), 3. the cohesion (Halliday and Hasan 1976) 4. the coherence (Halliday and Hasan 1976) and 5. the grammaticality and semantic acceptability of the text. The above was analysed in twenty criteria and each criterion was evaluated using a five-point scale. The total score of the five categories, in case of the highest performance, would be 100. Apart from the analytic scoring it was considered useful to include the texts’ holistic scoring (evaluation of the text as a whole, overall impression). Both a six-point and a ten-point scale were used, so as to ensure greater objectivity (McCabe 1996). The 5 categories are analysed below: 1.

Regarding the narration of a complete episode (de Beaugrande and Dressler 1981; Labov and Waletzky 1967; van Dijk 1980) based on narrative generic structure, the criteria examined the degree to which the pupils’ texts: a. Developed orientation successfully, that is whether they provide sufficient information on the characters/heroes, the place, the time frame, and the initial situation in general, so that the reader can be orientated and successfully introduced to the narration. b. Developed complicating action, that is first whether they: Include the event that upset the initial state, sufficient plot/action development (internal and external action), the climax and the end of the episode. c. Developed complicating action, that is second whether they: Develop the heroes’ characters according to the facts. d. Developed complicating action, that is third whether they: Follow a clear sequence of events. e. Display a successful coda/resolution, that is a conclusive statement that provides a sense of closure. Five criteria were utilised in order to examine the above. 2.

The study then examined whether the pupil provides an evaluation (commentary) of the narration, that is whether the text presents the pupil’s judgment as a narrator, on the meaning of the story, the point of the facts, and the narrator’s attitude and feelings (Labov and Waletzky 1967). The texts were tested for: a. Commentary on actions or situations, e.g. with adverbs that define the heroes’ actions, with explanatory (because, since), final (so that, in order to), concessive clauses (although, however), or other phrases/utterances expressing an event’s cause or consequence. b. Commentary on the characters/heroes, e.g. clauses (mostly relative), adjectives, participles, or other phrases/utterances that state perception, judgment, will, feelings and constitute the narrator’s comments on the heroes’ behaviour and state of mind. Two criteria were utilised in order to examine the above. 3.

56

The study then examined whether the pupils’ texts displayed cohesion, that is how they structured meaning intratextually. The term refers to various linguistic means (grammar, vocabulary) that link sentences to form larger units and comprises the functional use of


grammar and syntax structures. Starting from the original work of Halliday and Hasan (1976), cohesion is considered to be the main quality that distinguishes a text from a random series of sentences. Cohesion is established by linking successive utterances with specific elements (connectors, pronouns, zero reference, etc.). In a narrative, events are semantically linked with time and causal relationships, that is the ways in which a situation or an event affects the circumstances of another situation or event (de Baugrande and Dressler 1981). The verbs are in past tenses. The texts were tested for: a. The number and successful use of time indicators (conjunctions, adverbs, various determiners, participles, etc.). b. The number and successful use of causal indicators (conjunctions, adverbs, various determiners, participles, etc.) and other connectors. c. Textual cohesion, established through reference to people and places. d. Textual cohesion, established through lack of reference to people and places. e. The variety of past tenses. f. The correct use of past tenses. Six criteria were utilised in order to examine the above. 4.

The term coherence, according to Halliday and Hasan (1976), refers to the sequence of meanings, which makes a piece of discourse understood as a text. It refers to the suitability of the text content relative to the situational context. Coherence is established when the text is suitable, in part and in whole, for the reader and the purpose for which the text was written. The study examined the extent to which: a. The pupils understand the text’s purpose and their texts are suitable for the specific situational context. b. The texts are focused. All details are organised in a distinct pattern. The story is developed sufficiently, clearly, without digressions, with logical connections throughout the parts of the narration (including the paragraphs). It includes all necessary information, no more and no less. Two criteria were utilised in order to examine the above. 5.

Regarding grammaticality and acceptability, the study examined the texts’: a. Grammar and syntax (compliance with rules, grammar and syntax errors, spelling and punctuation). b. Conceptual and semantic correctness, and the accuracy and compatibility with its linguistic choices for written discourse. c. Visual presentation and readability. d. Errors, and the extent to which they influence its understandability. e. The study also examined whether the vocabulary was rich and suitable for the occasion, also accounting for verbs and other utterances that indicate action, change, contact, distancing, request, provision and so on, describing the heroes’ actions. Five criteria were utilised in order to examine the above.

As mentioned above, the texts were scored both analytically and holistically (evaluation of the text as a whole). To ensure greater objectivity, two scales were used, both a ten-point and a sixpoint. The study examined whether the plot is clear, complete, interesting, and sufficiently developed, and whether the narrative is vivid and reveals personal style. Each text was evaluated by two examiners, who had been previously trained on evaluating the effectiveness of student narrative discourse in terms of the main characteristics of the narrative genre. The final score emerged from the mean average of the two scorings. On the rare occasion

57


that the two scorings displayed a difference larger than two points, a third examiner was called in to evaluate the text. The data collected from the pupils’ texts were complemented by two questionnaires. The first questionnaire was administered to the parents of the participant pupils, and referred to the parents’ educational level, which was measured in a ten point scale, from not completing elementary school (1) to obtaining a doctorate degree (10). The questionnaire aimed at relating parental education to pupil performance. The second questionnaire was administered to the participant pupils’ teachers, and referred to written production in class, in terms of allocated time, how it is conducted, and whether self/peer assessment is implemented. The questionnaire aimed at relating the above to pupil performance, to see whether the allocation of more time for text elaboration including interactive practices enhances pupil performance. All data were statistically elaborated using the SPSS software, with both descriptive and inferential statistical elaboration. The data analysis below reflects the above.

Presentation and Analysis of Findings As seen above (in the methodology section), pre and post-test evaluation comprised of 20 criteria (score of 100 for the highest performance) measuring five aspects of narrative competency, and two types of holistic scoring were used. Table 1 presents the performance mean average of all participant pupils and the difference between pre and post-test. Table 1: Performance Mean Average throughout the Sample Mean average POST-TEST

PRE-TEST

Mean difference

1. Holistic score (1-10)

6,2050

5,5917

0,61333

2. Holistic score (1-6)

3,4603

3,1159

0,34437

A. Narration (orientation, complicating action, coda)

10,1329

9,4580

0,67483

B. Commentary – Evaluation

5,7604

5,1875

0,57292

C. Cohesion

16,4615

14,5105

1,95105

D. Coherence

2,2014

1,9410

0,26042

E. Grammaticality - Acceptability

16,9894

16,0709

0,91844

51,5081

46,9879

4,52016

Category

Narrative competency: Total of mean average A, B, C, D, E.

Mean average difference is statistically significant at α = 0,01

This section first examines the two holistic scorings (six-point and ten-point, for greater objectivity), and then the categories/factors that constitute a clear, interesting and coherent narration: Complete episode narration (orientation, complication action, coda), Evaluation–

58


Commentary, Cohesion, Coherence, Grammaticality–Acceptability. For each category, the tables present the mean average of the sum of the criteria involved, while at the end of the table (Narrative Competency), there is the mean average of the sums of all twenty criteria of the five categories (excluding the initial two holistic scorings). The total score of the five categories in the case of the highest performance would be 100. All cases demonstrate enhanced performance from pre to post-test. The most marked increase is demonstrated by cohesion, followed by grammaticality-acceptability. They are followed by episode narration and its evaluation. The least marked increase is demonstrated by coherence. Inferential statistical elaboration revealed that all the differences are statistically significant at α = 0.01. Table 2 presents the pupils’ performance mean average per school location, and the difference between pre- and post-test. Table 2: Performance Mean Average per School Location.

B. Commentary – Evaluation

4,42 3,93 0,49 5,59 4,50 1,09 4,88 4,69 0,18 7,58 6,81 0,77

C. Cohesion

15,74 13,35 2,39 14,59 13,97 0,62 14,41 13,73 0,67 19,08 16,11 2,97

D. Coherence

1,99 1,62 0,36 1,88 1,56 0,32 2,05 1,87 0,18 2,59 2,35 0,24

Diff.

9,15 8,69 0,45 9,71 8,62 1,09 9,49 9,11 0,38 11,61 10,55 1,06

PRE

A. Narration

Diff.

2,97 2,51 0,46 3,21 2,85 0,35 3,10 3,00 0,10 4,20 3,73 0,47

PRE

2. Holistic score (16)

Diff.

5,39 4,69 0,70 5,82 5,24 0,59 5,65 5,40 0,25 7,38 6,51 0,87

PRE

1. Holistic score (110)

Diff.

POST

URBAN

Category

PRE

POST

SUBURBAN

POST

SEMI-URBAN POST

MOUNTAIN RURAL

School location

E. Grammaticality – 14,73 13,49 1,24 15,91 14,26 1,65 15,99 15,07 0,92 20,24 19,69 0,55 Acceptability Narrative competency: Total of 46,31 41,26 5,05 48,13 42,91 5,21 46,64 44,39 2,25 61,34 55,89 5,45 mean average A, B, C, D, E. Mean average difference is statistically significant at α = 0,05

We observe that all cases demonstrate enhanced performance from pre to post-test. Inferential statistical elaboration revealed that the differences are statistically significant at α = 0.05.

59


Three area types show enhanced performance. The most marked increase is demonstrated in urban schools, followed by semi-urban and mountain rural locations. The least marked increase is demonstrated in suburban areas. These findings can be explained as follows: Table 3 presents parental education (mean average) per school location. Table 3: Parental education per School Location (Ten-Point Mean Average) Mean: Father’s

Mean: Mother’s

educational level

educational level

URBAN

8,45

7,92

SEMI-URBAN

4,82

5,06

SUBURBAN

4,23

4,60

MOUNTAIN RURAL

3,05

3,43

Total

5,46

5,51

School location

As seen above, parental education was measured in a ten-point scale, from not completing elementary school (1) to obtaining a doctorate degree (10). We can see that parental education levels are high in urban schools, because the corresponding area is populated by a higher social class (most of the parents belong to the teaching and administrative staff of the University of Patras). In terms of parental education level, the next area is the semi-urban location, which is actually an affluent small town. This is followed by parental education level in the suburban location, which is a degraded area, characterised mostly by working class population and more immigrants than the other areas under study. This location demonstrated the least marked increase in pupil performance. The lowest parental education level is displayed by mountain rural area. This area demonstrated both the lowest pupil performance and a marked performance increase from pre to post-test, almost equal to the urban and semi-urban locations. The area consists of poor mountain villages which are populated mostly by farmers, and have few immigrants. Over the last decades, the correlation of the students’ linguistic performance to their social background has been established by numerous research worldwide (cited in Hannon 1995) and has been interpreted in various ways (i.e. Bernstein 1971; Labov 1972). A common point is that the process of mastering language as a communication tool can only be understood in relation to the social environment in which it takes place. As expected, the present study confirms this, as is indicated by the correlation between parental educational level and pupil performance (Tables 4 and 5). The correlations here are shown to be strong. The more privileged their background the higher the students’ performance in written expression.

60


Table 4: Correlation of Father’s Educational Level and Pupil Performance Father’s educational level Pearson Father’s Correlation educational level Sig. (2-tailed)

Narrative competency (PRE-TEST) 1

Narrative competency (POST-TEST)

,546**

,575**

,000

,000

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 5: Correlation of mother’s educational level and pupil performance Mother’s educational level Pearson Mother’s Correlation educational level Sig. (2-tailed)

Narrative competency (PRE-TEST) 1


,507**

,554**

,000

,000

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 6 shows a difference between performance mean average for boys and girls, with girls displaying higher performance. Table 6: Performance Mean Average per Gender Mean

Narrative competency

Sex

PRE-TEST

POST-TEST

Difference

Girl

50,4365

53,5076

3,07

Boy

44,4133

49,3986

4,98

6,02*

4,10

Difference

Mean average difference is statistically significant at α = 0,01

However, the boys show a more marked increase compared to the girls (mean difference from pre to post test: 4,98 for boys versus 3,07 for girls). Moreover, the mean difference between boys and girls in the pre-test is higher (6,02) than in the post-test (4,10).

61


Inferential statistical elaboration revealed that the difference of performance mean average between boys and girls in the pre-test is statistically significant at α = 0.01, while at the post-test this difference is not statistically significant. This can probably be explained by the fact that all recommended activities to utilise the teaching material serve as a motive for action and sociability. Compared to girls, boys are more active and with a narrower attention span, so it is easier for them to be distracted when performing repetitive mechanical exercises to reproduce discourse (previous teaching material) than when involved in various communication roles (current teaching material) (Μillard 1997). Summarising, the results suggest a strong and consistent effect of the use of genre based literacy pedagogy teaching material and of the respective practices adopted in some cases to the narrative competency of the students. This effect may vary depending on some other factors but it is always present. However, given that the total score of the five categories for the highest performance would be 100, as can be seen (Table 1) from the performance mean average for all students (46,9879 in pre- and 51,5081 in post-test), pupil performance is mediocre even after the implementation of the new material and despite their improvement. When we examine the results for each location (seen above in Table 2), we observe that even in the higher socio-educational level area, mean scores are barely 61,33/100, followed by 48,25 in the semi-urban area, 46,63 in the suburban area and 46,30 in the mountain rural area. In the last three areas, student performance remains below average scoring (50/100). Finally, Tables 7-9 examine the relationship between pupil performance and the way in which written discourse is produced, since in the teacher’s guide (Ministry of Education 2006b) it is recommended to allocate time for the production, reviewing and editing of written discourse by the students themselves and their peers at school. Table 7: Performance Mean Average per Location of Written Discourse Production Where do students produce written discourse? Both at home and at school At school

Narrative competency (POST-TEST) 47,6194 55,1397

Table 8: Performance Mean Average per Way of Producing Written Discourse How are the students’ texts edited?


Only the teacher edits texts Texts are edited by both teacher and students Texts are mostly corrected with self/peer editing

44,4800 47,6194 61,3372

Table 9. Performance Mean Average per Time Allocated to Written Discourse Production Time allocated to the production and editing of written discourse Twenty (20) minutes One (1) hour Two (2) hours Three (3) hours

62

Narrative competency (POST-TEST) 43,5250 48,8056 49,3704 57,2981


We observe that performance is higher when written discourse is produced exclusively at school and lower when written discourse is sometimes produced at home (Table 7). It also seems that performance is higher when the pupils’ texts are reviewed and edited using communicational and interactive practices and when the pupils themselves are involved in the process (Table 8). We also observe that pupil performance is higher when more time is allocated to producing and editing written discourse (Table 9).

Discussion and Conclusions The findings of the study indicate that after the first year of implementing the current teaching material and the respective teaching practices, the pupils’ narrative skills display a considerable improvement, since both the scoring in all separate criteria and the two holistic scorings display a significant difference from pre to post-test. It also suggests that their skills, at both time points, relate to their gender, social background, and teachers’ practices, with higher performance attributed to girls, high social background and more time allocated to the production and (self) reviewing of written discourse in the classroom. Particularly regarding the relationship between performance and gender, although the boys’ performance before the implementation is often remarkably lower than the girls’, after the implementation the boys demonstrate a more marked increase in their performance than the girls. As mentioned above (see analysis of Table 6), this fact could possibly be attributed to the fact that all recommended activities to utilise the teaching material serve as a motive for action and sociability (Μillard 1997). Furthermore, pupils display an improved performance, to a greater or lesser degree, regardless of whether they come from a privileged or less privileged social background (see Table 2). Sociolinguistics have established that children from non privileged backgrounds have less access to formal language, particularly to written discourse, which represents its most challenging form (see analysis of Tables 4 and 5). It is most important that these children are introduced to this challenging process through original texts from the social sphere, which are more familiar, and through their participation in different interactive activities, where they assume various roles. It seems that this practice offers non privileged children a motivation to critically elaborate different genres and expand their discourse competency. However, despite a general enhancement, we observed that the pupils of the sample overall display a mediocre performance in terms of narrative competency. For most pupils, the scores are mediocre and their performance greatly depends on their social background. To a great extent, the findings of the present research confirm previous research mentioned above (Fterniati and Spinthourakis 2004; Koukourikou et al. 2006; Kostouli 1997, 1998; PapouliaTzelepi 2000; Papoulia-Tzelepi and Bleka 2000) on pupil written discourse performance in the Greek elementary school (see Introduction). They are also related to the findings of research conducted in the USA and other countries (Kress 1994; Reading today 2000; U.S. Dept of Education 2000; U.S. Dept of Education NAEP 2011). In the above studies, textual analysis of a large number of texts of various genres, written by students of various socio-cultural backgrounds, demonstrated that the text performance scores of most students are low or medium, and their success is directly related to their social background; the more privileged their background the higher the students’ performance in written expression. According to previous research on the quality of written discourse teaching in Greece (Kostouli 2002; Papoulia-Tzelepi and Spinthourakis 2000), these results are partly due to certain older views and practices on teaching written discourse. This refers to a process that ignores the written discourse production as a dynamic cognitive process (elaboration of various versions of a text, allocating time for interactive activities, that is self- or peer-evaluation) (see also Introduction).

63


To a certain extent, these older views still survive in primary education, as can be seen from the teachers’ questionnaire answers. For instance, in some cases written discourse production is assigned as homework. When conducted in school, in some cases it is neither allocated sufficient time nor characterised by interactive practices and self- and peer-assessment techniques. These causes probably explain the pupils’ mediocre performance in terms of their narrative competency, both before and after the implementation of the current teaching material, despite a significant increase in the first year of the material. This happens because it does not suffice to simply design and implement teaching material based on contemporary teaching principles. It is also necessary to properly and sufficiently train all educators involved, so that the teaching material can be implemented properly and yield maximum benefits. In the context of training educators in the new (at the time) educational materials, the Greek Pedagogical Institute organised and implemented a large scale training programme from 2005 to 2007 (Pedagogical Institute Report for 2005-2007). However, this training programme received heavy criticism and was considered insubstantial, as it failed to help educators to meet the demands of the new teaching material. According to research conducted by the Institute of Pedagogical Research of the Greek Teachers Association (IPR-GTA 2009) throughout the country on the new textbooks, educators were not satisfied by the instructions provided by competent authorities for the implementation of the new books. Apparently, the training focused mostly on presenting the books and not on illustrating the underlying teaching approach. Of course, for any educational reform to succeed, educators must familiarise themselves with the new fields of information and knowledge, so that they can obtain the appropriate qualifications to master teaching practices that are different than the previous teaching practices. Despite the intention to change educational practice, the change can be pointless when the educators have not been properly trained or not as productive when educator training is limited to short informational presentations which are not followed up. The findings of this study indicate that, after the implementation of the current teaching material and the respective teaching practices adopted in some cases, the pupils enhanced their awareness of textual communication, particularly their understanding of a text’s communicational effectiveness, for a specific genre in this phase of the research. At the same time, the findings stress the need to enhance written discourse teaching practices. Overall, after the findings of the six year research on the pupils’ literacy skills in narrative, descriptive and argumentative text have been completed and published 1, the conclusions of this study could contribute to the debate on promoting changes in language arts teaching in Greece. This is particularly valid for the need to change the teaching of written discourse in Greek elementary schools, after the current teaching material has been enhanced and the educators have been properly trained on genre based literacy pedagogy teaching practices.

Acknowledgement This study was supported by the ‘‘K. Karatheodoris’’ research grant (contract D157) awarded to the author by the Research Committee of the University of Patras.

1

More recent findings of the six year research are going to be announced in Ninth Bi-annual Conference of IAIMTE (International Association for the Improvement of Mother Tongue Education), to be held in Paris, 11-13 June 2013, focusing on Literacies and Effective Learning and Τeaching for all. Moreover, more findings will be announced at the International Conference on Greek Linguistics, to be held in Rhodes, 26-29 September 2013, with a special focus on Language and Education. 64


REFERENCES Barton, David, Mary Hamilton, and Roz Ivanic, eds. 2000. Situated Literacies: Reading and Writing in Context. London: Routledge. Baynham, Michael. 1995. Literacy Practices: Investigating Literacy in Social Contexts. London: Longman. Beaugrande de, Robert-Alain and Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman. Becker, Patricia. 2010. Who, Did What, Where, When: Facilitating Personal Narrative and Storytelling Skills. Presentation on WSHA 2010. Retrieved from http://www. wisha.org/convention/ con_10/handouts/Session%2055.pdf (accessed September 22, 2012). Bernstein, Basil. 1971. Class, Codes and Control. London: Routledge and Keagan Paul Brown, Douglas H. 2001. Teaching by Principles. An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. London: Longman. Clark, Romy and Roz Ivanic. 1997. The Politics of Writing. London: Longman. Cope, Bill, and Mary Kalantzis. 1993. The Powers of Literacy: A Genre Approach to Teaching Writing. London: The Falmer Press. Fairclough, Norman, ed. 1992. Critical language awareness. London: Longman. FEK (Government Gazette). Vol. B, 303/13-03-2003, tome A΄. National Curriculum for the Greek language in the Elementary School. Freedman, Aviva, and Peter Medway, eds. 1994. Learning and teaching genre. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Fterniati, Anna, and Julia Athena Spinthourakis. 2004. “The L1 communicative-textual competence of Greek upper elementary school students”. L1. Educational Studies in Language and Literature 4: 221-240. Fterniati, Anna, and Julia Athena Spinthourakis. 2006. “National curriculum reform and new elementary school language arts textbooks in Greece”. The International Journal of Learning 13: 37-44. Fterniati, Anna. 2007. “The New Greek Elementary Language Arts Textbooks: Teaching Written Discourse Production”. The International Journal of Learning 14 (9): 112-121. Galisson, Robert. 1980. D'hier à aujourd'hui la didactique générale des langues étrangères: Du structuralisme au fonctionnalisme. Paris : CLE International Glossa. 2002. Special Issue dedicated to the new National Language Arts Curriculum. Glossa, 54. [in Greek] Goatly, Andrew. 2000. Critical Reading and Writing: An Introductory Coursebook. London & New York: Routledge. Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood and Ruqayia Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Hannon, Peter. 1995. Literacy, Home and School. London: Falmer Press Hedge, Tricia. 2000. Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. IEA. 2010. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. http://www.iea.nl/written_composition.html (accessed on April 13, 2010). IPR-GTA. 2009. Institute of Pedagogical Research of the Greek Teachers Association. http://www.doe.gr/1nea/books19102009.pdf (accessed May 6, 2012) [in Greek]. Johns, Ann, ed. 2002. Genre in the classroom. Multiple perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kapsalis, Georgios and Apostolos Katsikis, eds. 2007. Primary education and contemporary challenges. Ioanninna: University of Ioannina.

65


Kostouli, Triantafillia. 1997. “Social environment, textual skills and school achievement”. Glossa 41: 43-57. [in Greek] Kostouli, Triantafillia. 1998. Social differences in language use. In Studies on the Greek Language: Minutes of the 18th Meeting of the Linguistics Department of the Faculty of Philosophy. Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki. [in Greek] Kostouli, Triantafillia. 2002. “Teaching Greek as L1: Curriculum and textbooks in Greek elementary education”. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 2: 5–23. Koukourikou, Aristi, Aidinis Athanasios et al. 2006. “Evaluating the structure, content and vocabulary of narrative and descriptive texts written by pupils of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th grades of elementary school”. http://ipeir.pde.sch.gr/educonf/2/05DimotikoSholio/ koukourikou/koukourikou.pdf (accessed November 25, 2011) [in Greek]. Kress, Gunther. 1994. Learning to Write. London ; New York : Routledge. Labov, William and Joshua Waletsky. 1967. Narrative analysis. In Essays in the Verbal and Visual Arts. Edited by June Helm. Seattle: University of Seattle Press. Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns: Conduct and Communication, 4. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Macken, Mary, Mary Kalantzis, Gunther Kress, Jim Martin, and Bill Cope. 1989. A Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Writing, Years 3-6, Book 1: Introduction. Sydney: Directorate of Studies, N.S.W. Department of Education. McCabe, Allissa. 1996. Evaluating narrative discourse skills. In Assessment of communication and language. Edited by Kevin N. Cole, Philip S. Dale, and Donna J. Thal. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Millard, Elaine. 1997. Differently Literate: Boys, Girls and the Schooling of Literacy. London: Falmer Press. Ministry of Education. Pedagogical Institute. 2006a. Glossa. (Language textbooks, first to sixth grade , 17 volumes). OEDB. [in Greek] Ministry of Education. Pedagogical Institute. 2006b. Glossa. Book for the teacher. (First to sixth grade, six volumes). OEDB. [in Greek] Papoulia, Panayota, and Anna Fterniati, eds, 2010. Minutes of the 5th International Literacy Conference. Writing and writings in the 21st century: A challenge for education. Patras: Faculty of Primary Education, University of Patras, and the Greek Society of Language and Literacy [in Greek]. Papoulia-Tzelepi, Panayota, and Julia Athena Spinthourakis. 2000. “Greek teacher’s personal theory on writing at the elementary level”. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Studies 5(1): 55-75. Papoulia-Tzelepi, Panayota, and Vassiliki Bleka. 2000. Writing from personal experience: Developing specific characteristics of the narrative written expression. In Teaching Greek as a native or a foreign language. Edited by Michalis Vamvoukas and Aspa Hatzidaki. Athens: Atrapos [in Greek]. Papoulia-Tzelepi, Panayota. 2000. Written expression in the elementary school: first estimates. In Literacy in the Balkans. Edited by Panayota Papoulia-Tzelepi. Athens: Greek Language and Literacy Association. [in Greek] Pedagogical Institute. 2005-2007 Report. Athens: Pedagogical Institute. [in Greek]. Pourkos, Marios and Eleni Katsarou, eds. 2011. Experience, Metaphor and Multimodality: Implications in Communication, Education, Learning and Knowledge. Thessaloniki: Nisides [in Greek]. Reading Today. (December 1999 – January 2000). US students writing falls short of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) goals. Reading Today Bimonthly Newspaper of the International Reading Association. Richards, Jack C. And Willy A. Renandya, eds. 2002. Methodology in Language Teaching. An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

66


Stern, Ηans Η. 2001. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford Uniνersity Press. U.S. Dept of Education NAEP http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ (accessed November 25, 2011). United States Department of Education. National Center for Educational Statistics (2000). Major Findings from the NAEP 1998 Writing Report Card. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/writing/ (accessed December 10, 2000). van Dijk, Teun Adrianus. 1980. Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction, and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Anna Fterniati: Anna Fterniati is an assistant professor in language education at the Department of Elementary Education of the University of Patras in Greece. She has participated in various research projects, and has published papers and books in the field of language education, literacy pedagogy-written discourse instruction, and multiliteracies. She also has experience and publications in curriculum design, development, and assessment.

67

Associations of the Home Literacy Environment with Thai University Students’ Leisure Reading Habits Nicholas Ferriman, Mahidol University International College, Thailand Abstract: This study investigated the long-term impact of the Home Literacy Environment (HLE) on Thai leisure reading rates using an adapted version of a questionnaire from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Though size effects are generally small, results from the responses of 475 university students at a college in the north of Thailand indicate that five of the key HLE parameters are significantly associated with respondents’ present reading rates. The implications for Thailand’s participation in the “information age” are discussed. Keywords: Literacy Practices, Pleasure Reading, Free Reading, Free Voluntary Reading, Independent Silent Reading

Introduction

I

n 2000, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) started the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) to investigate the readiness of 15year-olds to join the ‘knowledge economy’. Thailand participated in the PISA surveys of 2006 and 2009, and like other countries in the developing world scored significantly below the OECD average (see Table 1).

Table 1: Comparison of mean reading scores of nine countries from PISA 2006 and 2009 Country Year 2006 2009 Korea 556 539 Finland 547 536 *Singapore ** 526 Japan 498 520 United Kingdom 495 494 OECD Average 492 492 USA ** 500 *Thailand 417 421 *Indonesia 393 402 *Brazil 393 412 *non-OECD countries; **no data; (taken from PISA Country Profiles 2006; PISA 2009 Profiles 2009) It may seem invidious to compare developing countries with the OECD, but PISA offers benchmarking which is of immense value in determining best practice. Far from being upset, Thailand has acted on the results and put in place strategies to narrow the gap (see Mosika et al. 2011). Though PISA has focused primarily on identifying best practice in schools, these may not be the only source for the reading differences. Home may be another. OECD students are likely to have a wider range of resources at home, such as books and computers, than their peers elsewhere (Hilton 2006). They are also more likely to have ‘active’ parents, and children whose parents are engaged in their education do better academically (Flouri and Buchanan 2004). Using data from PISA 2000, Fuchs and Wößmann (2007) found that 38% of the variance in PISA

The International Journal of Literacies Volume 19, 2013, thelearner.com, ISSN: 2327-0136 © Common Ground, Nicholas Ferriman, All Rights Reserved Permissions: [email protected]


reading performance could be accounted for by the home literacy environment (HLE). Maximising HLE may be a way of minimizing the gap. On the surface, Thai literacy rates of over 94% (Human Development Reports 2009) compare favorably with other parts of the world, but the amount of actual reading done may tell a different story. Though institutional data is sparse, a number of Thai academics acknowledge that Thais are reluctant readers (e.g. Priwatrworawute 2000; Nimsomboon 2006). This study surveyed a group of college students to help map Thai leisure reading rates and explore the associations with HLE.

The Home Literacy Environment A number of reviews have highlighted the positive role of HLE in children’s reading development (Bus, van Ijzendoorn and Pellegrini 1995; Baker, Scher and Mackler 1997). Though much of the research has been on English, there is also evidence from other languages that HLE is associated with literacy (Chinese: Li and Rao 2000; Zhou and Salili 2008; French: Senechal 2006; Korean: Kim 2009; Bangla: Opel, Ameer and Aboud 2009). Using data from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), Park (2008) found that HLE influenced 4th graders reading performance in almost all 25 countries surveyed. A key method for assessing HLE has been to investigate the frequency of shared book reading, that is, how often parents or principal caregivers read a book with their child (Payne, Whitehurst and Angell 1994; Bus et al. 1995; Roberts, Jurgens and Burchinal 2005). In their reviews of studies into early literacy, Scarborough and Dobrich (1994) and Bus et al. (1995) found that shared book reading only accounts for 8% of the variance in reading achievement. There are other indices. One of these indices is the parent as reading role model. Parental literacy activities have been shown to correlate well with emergent literacy (Burgess, Hecht and Lonigan 2002; Weigel, Martin and Bennet 2005; Zhou and Salili 2008). Children whose parents view reading as a leisure activity have more positive views of reading (Baker et al. 1997; Baker and Scher 2002). Another index is the literacy environment parents create. The number of books in the home associates with children’s literacy development in a number of countries (Dutch: van Peer 1991; Chinese: Ko and Chan 2009; US: Payne et al. 1994). Multinational studies have revealed similar findings (Park 2008; van Ours 2008). There are other indices. Library visits for example correlate well with emergent literacy (Arterberry et al. 2007; Katzir, Lesaux and Kim 2009), as does parental socio-economic status (SES). In their meta-analysis covering three decades of US and UK studies, Scarborough and Dobrich (1994) concluded that SES accounted for as much or more of the variance on reading achievement than either shared book reading or any other home literacy index.

The Present Study The central hypothesis of this study is that Thais are reluctant readers and this has origins in the home. The literature shows HLE correlates well with preschooler’s language and emergent literacy skills, and carries on over into the first few grades of primary school, but apart from several Dutch studies, there is less evidence of the effects of HLE on adult reading habits. In addition, only recently has there been evidence of the impact of HLE outside of the Englishspeaking world. This study reports on the associations between HLE and the leisure reading habits of university students from a rural area in Thailand.

Method The survey was conducted at a tertiary institution in the north of Thailand in early 2012. Across the country 48% of young adults are in some form of tertiary education (UNESCO Institute for

70

FERRIMAN: ASSOCIATIONS OF THE HOME LITERACY ENVIRONMENT

Statistics 2011). This is in direct contrast to their parents’ generation when five years of primary education was not unusual.

Respondents There were 464 respondents (65% female) and the vast majority (95%) were aged 18-23 years old (median and mode of 21). 31% were studying accounting, 26% food science, 24% mechanical and electrical engineering, 9% fisheries, and 9% IT and business management. Of those who indicated, 97% had been educated in local high schools, and nearly 40% of mothers and 33% of fathers had left school after five years of basic education.

Theoretical Framework and Research Questions The theoretical basis for the survey draws on Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development and its concept of interrelated ecological levels, or nested spheres. Burgess et al. (2002) honed in on one of these spheres, the home environment, and conceptualized it from the perspective of literacy. Weigel et al. (2005) used the three components of HLE that Burgess et al (2002) had identified and relabeled them as follows: parental activities; parental literacy habits; parental demographics. They added a fourth component on parental beliefs which this study did not measure. Weigel et al. (2005) describe parental activities as those efforts intended by parents to encourage their children to read. Shared book reading is cited as one such activity, and has been one of the most common methods of measuring HLE (e.g. Payne et al. 1994; Bus et al. 1995; Roberts et al. 2005). It was therefore included in this survey. This study added another item, taken from PISA, which identifies the number of educational items in the home, including certain types of book. The second component, parental literacy habits, has, according to Weigel et al. (2005), two facets. The first of these, ‘time spent reading’, was explored through two questions which asked respondents to report on their parents’ past and present reading habits. The second facet, ‘books in the home’, was investigated by asking respondents to report on the number of books in their home. A fourth question on parental library membership was added to this survey by the author. The third component of Weigel et al.’s (2005) conceptualization, parental demographics, measures the number of years parents spent in formal education; in effect a measure of SES. This was investigated by asking respondents to identify when their parents left full-time education. To sum up, mirroring the conceptualisations of Weigel et al. (2005), the eight research questions (RQs) used in the survey are as follows: RQ1. Did the frequency that parents or other adults read to the respondents as children associate with respondents’ leisure reading habits? RQ2. Does the number of educational items in the home associate with respondents’ leisure reading habits? RQ 3. Do past parental reading habits associate with respondents’ leisure reading habits? RQ 4. Do present parental reading habits associate with respondents’ leisure reading habits? RQ 5. Does the number of books in the home associate with respondents’ leisure reading habits?

71


RQ 6. Does parental library membership associate with respondents’ leisure reading habits? RQ 7. Does maternal education associate with respondents’ leisure reading habits? RQ 8. Does paternal education associate with respondents’ leisure reading habits?

Leisure Reading and Assumptions It is commonly recognized that reading fluency is best supported through reading practice. The US National Reading Panel (NRP) identifies two instructional approaches to developing fluency: guided repeated oral reading; independent silent reading. It describes the latter as encouraging students to read “silently on their own, inside and outside the classroom, with little guidance or feedback from their teachers” (Teaching children to read 2000, 12). Various authors have used differing nomenclature to describe something similar: e.g. ‘extensive reading’, ‘free reading’ (Day and Bamford 1998; Gardner 2004, p2). This study has opted to call this activity ‘leisure reading’ to reflect the survey question which asked respondents to determine how much reading they do in their own time, for their own enjoyment and fun, and which is not related to homework. The study makes one important assumption, which is that leisure reading improves reading skill. In contrast, NRP, in an extensive review of the literature, was not able to confirm the causality of independent silent reading on improving reading skill (Teaching children to read 2000, 12). However, a large number of studies have shown a strong correlation between reading practice and reading performance.

Materials, Procedures, and Analysis The questionnaire was adapted from the one used in PISA 2009 and translated into Thai. It took respondents about 10-15 minutes to complete, and was handed out and retrieved by lecturers in February 2012. For analysis, data were entered into SPSS (Version 11). Descriptive and inferential statistics were calculated, and size effects (d) interpreted for practical importance using Cohen’s (1992) rule of thumb (e.g. d = 0.2 is a small effect; d = 0.5 is a medium effect; d = 0.8 is a large effect).

The Variables The respondents’ leisure reading habits were explored through two questions: the duration they read for pleasure each day, and the frequency they read eight types of print media (e.g. newspapers and magazines). These were the dependent variables. Both variables were measured using a five-level rating scale. The eight research questions were the independent variables.

Results The Dependent Variables Daily Reading Rates 445 respondents reported on how much leisure reading they do each day. The average rate is about 30 minutes a day and distribution is normal. None Less than 30 minutes a day

72

7.9% 42.2%


30-59 minutes a day

26.5%

1 - 2 hours a day

16.2%

More than 2 hours a day

7.2%

These five levels were then used in the statistical analyses with the eight independent variables. Results of the computations are shown in Table 2.

Print Media Reading Frequencies 445 respondents replied to this question. 0-4 points were allocated for the frequency respondents read each of eight different types of print media: e.g. zero points for “never or almost never” to four points for “2 or more times a week”. The frequency means for each type are as follows: Newspapers

3.51

Internet articles

3.34

Magazines

3.02

Cartoon books

2.79

Short stories

2.54

Technical books

2.50

Novels

2.41

Non-fiction

2.20

The scores for these reading frequencies were summed for each respondent and are normally distributed. The mean is 22.3, the median is 23, and the mode is 24 [the maximum possible score is 32]. Results of the statistical analyses with the independent variables are shown in Table 3.

73


Table 2: Daily reading rates computed with the 8 independent variables using the Independent Samples t Test Group 1 Group 2 (N) Mean SD (N) Mean SD t p d Independent t test Parental activities RQ1: 237 1.62 1.066 146 1.84 1.048 -2.032 .043* .11 t(381)=-2.03, p=.043 RQ2: 227 1.56 1.022 217 1.91 1.063 -3.565 .000*** .17 t(442)=-3.57, p=.000 Parental literacy habits RQ3: 175 1.54 1.071 265 1.85 1.036 -3.031 .003** .15 t(438)=-3.03, p=.003 RQ4: 201 1.53 1.025 242 1.89 1.057 -3.671 .000***.1 .17 t(441)=-3.67, p=.000 RQ5: 165 1.64 1.099 276 1.79 1.031 -1.383 .167 t(439)=-1.38, p=.167 RQ6: 255 1.65 1.050 29 2.14 1.026 -2.372 .018* .24 t(282)=-2.37, p=.018 Parental demographics RQ7: 203 1.70 1.016 171 1.71 1.065 -0.129 .897 t(372)=-0.13, p=.897 RQ8: 178 1.68 1.033 173 1.75 1.086 -0.583 .561 t(349)=-0.58, p=.561 *p once a week RQ5: books in the home: Group 1 ≤ 25 books; Group 2 > 25 books RQ6: parental library members: Group 1 = not members; Group 2 = parents are members RQ7: mother left education: Group 1 ≤ 14 years old; Group 2 ≤ 16 years old RQ8: father left education: Group 1 ≤ 14 years old; Group 2 ≤ 16 years old

74


Table 3: The frequency respondents read 8 types of print media (summed) computed with the 8 independent variables Group 1 Group 2 (N)

Mean

SD

(N)

Mean

SD

t

p

d

Independent t test

Parental activities RQ1: 237

21.24

6.23 146

23.89

5.16

-4.505 .000** .23

t(381)=-4.50, p=.000

RQ2: 227

20.79

6.22 217

23.88

5.34

-5.633 .000** .26

t(437)=-5.63, p=.000

Parental literacy habits RQ3: 175

21.28

6.54 265

22.98

5.54

-2.834 .005** .15

t(329)=-2.83, p=.005

RQ4: 201

21.37

6.20 242

23.09

5.73

-3.035 .003** .14

t(441)=-3.04, p=.003

RQ5: 165

21.33

5.96 276

22.91

5.94

-2.687 .007** .13

t(439)=-2.69, p=.007

RQ6: 255

21.87

6.03

29

24.52

5.10

-2.272 .024*

.24

t(282)=-2.27, p=.024

Parental demographics RQ7: 203

21.91

6.10 171

22.68

5.84

-1.243 .215

-

t(372)=-1.24, p=.215

RQ8: 178

21.54

6.44 173

22.83

5.48

-2.017 .044*

.11

t(343)=-2.02, p=.044

*p once a week Group 2 > 25 books; Group 2 = parents are

Group 1 ≤ 14 years old; Group 1 ≤ 14 years old;

Group 2 ≤ 16 years old Group 2 ≤ 16 years old

The Independent Variables For the results (below) of each independent variable, there is a brief description of the key features, along with a pie chart. Each pie chart also contains the significance values (p) and size effects (d) for each of the two dependent variables in the bottom right corner. For computation with the Independent Samples t Test, each independent variable is split into two groups. The sizes (N), means, and standard deviations of the two groups, as well as the results of the Independent Samples t Tests, are shown in Tables 2 and 3.

75


Shared Book Reading 383 respondents replied to the question on how often they were read to as children by a caregiver (see Figure 1). Nearly two thirds of respondents (61.9%) report never having been read to as a child. Of those who were read to, in 77% of cases it was with one or other of their parents (or both), and in 21% of cases it was another relative. The mean is 1.13, which is an average of just over once a month. Analysis reveals significant relationships with the dependent variables.

Figure 1. Frequency respondents were read to as a child

Educational Items in the Home 444 respondents replied and the percentage of “yes” answers is as follows:

76

A desk for homework

90.8%

A dictionary

90.3%

A computer for homework

87.9%

A room of your own

83.1%

Books to help with school work

75.3%

A quiet place for homework

65.8%

Technical reference books

62.6%

Educational software

53.7%

An Internet link

52.1%

Books of poetry

31.0%

Classic literature

18.2%


Zero points were then allocated to a “no” answer and one point for a “yes”, and scores summed for the eleven items for each respondent. The mean is 7.1, the median is 7, and the mode is 8. Analysis reveals very highly significant relationships with the two dependent variables.

Past Parental Reading Frequencies 440 respondents replied to the question on how often they saw their parents read as children. The average is about once to twice a week (see Figure 2). Analysis shows very significant relationships with the two dependent variables.

Figure 2. The frequency respondents saw parents reading

Present Parental Reading Habits 443 respondents replied to the question on how often they see their parents read nowadays. The mean is about once to twice a week (see Figure 3). Analysis reveals very significant relationships with the two dependent variables.

77


Figure 3. The frequency respondents see parents reading nowadays

Parental Book Ownership 441 respondents replied to this question, and the average is between 25-100 books (see Figure 4). Analysis reveals that there is only a significant relationship, albeit it a very significant one, with one of the two dependent variables (see Table 3).

Figure 4. Number of books in the home

Parental Library Membership 441 respondents replied to this question. A very large percentage (93.4%) reports that their parents were either not library members, or they don’t know (see figure 5). Analysis reveals significant relationships with both dependent variables.

78


Figure 5. Parental library membership

Mothers’ Education 374 respondents replied to this question on mothers’ education levels. Results indicate that almost two fifths of mothers had left school by 11, and over 55% by age 14 (see Figure 6). Analysis reveals no significance with either dependent variable.

Figure 6. Mothers’ education

Fathers’ Education 351 respondents replied to the same question on fathers’ education. Fathers generally had slightly more years of education than mothers (see Figure 7), and this was particularly so of tertiary

79


education where fathers’ attendance rates at university were nearly twice those of mothers’. Analysis reveals only a significant relationship with print media frequency (see Table 3).

Figure 7. Fathers’ education

Multiple Regression Multiple regression was computed using the data from 184 respondents - those with a complete data set - to check the predicted effects of the interaction between the eight independent variables on the two dependent variables. Mothers’ education and father’s education were excluded, as they both correlate highly with each other (r =.64), leading to problems of collinearity. The two variables number of books in the home and saw parents read were excluded, as they make the smallest contributions in the computation. The results for the remaining four independent variables with significant F values, and also contributing to the highest Adjusted R Square values, are shown in Table 4. Overall, though the Adjusted R Square values are low, the predicted potential effects are significant.

80


Table 4: Multiple regression results for the influences of four key independent variables Dependent variables F Adjusted Independent Beta R square variables Daily reading rates F4,238= 6.010, p=.000 .076 Shared reading .171 See parents read .128 Home study items .131 Library membership .047 8 reading materials F4,238= 6.010, p=.000 .107 Shared reading .198 See parents read .119 Home study items .188 Library membership .028 *p

Literacies

Literacies

Suggest Documents

Australian Literacies

Digital Literacies

Multiple Literacies, New Literacies, and Teacher Education

Literacies

Digital Literacies

Urban Language & Literacies

Embodied Literacies - SAGE Journals

Urban Language & Literacies

Digital literacies - LSE

Digital Literacies and Civic Literacies: Theoretical Issues, Research ...

A new literacies sampler

Mobile Literacies - WordPress.com

Multiple Literacies - CiteSeerX

Multiple Literacies - CiteSeerX

Digital literacies - LSE

Literacies, Learning & Libraries - PBworks

Researching New Literacies - CiteSeerX

Urban Language & Literacies

Urban Language & Literacies

Researching New Literacies - CiteSeerX

Digital literacies

Digital Literacies - Dialnet

Literacies, Learning & Libraries - PBworks

Researching New Literacies - CiteSeerX