Discourse and Disciplinarity in Educational Research Conference
Language Teacher Education: A New Discursive Space
Suzanne Burley & Cathy Pomphrey (LondonMetropolitanUniversity
Time/Who / Plan / ResourcesPart 1
Introduction – names, subjects and why we present together – work together because we feel it is important for English and ML to explore common purposes related to language and language pedagogy. This collaboration has revealed the ways in which the two subjects are constructed differently and our research is exploring the boundaries of these subject areas. This exploration is around both interpretations of subject content and subject pedagogy in secondary schools.The context for this exploration is a language teacher e ducation programme within a one year PGCE secondary teacher training course.which uses dialogue between the two subjects to allow trainee teachers to use their own and other voices to construct different knowledge and approaches to language and language teaching.
Lantolf (2000) identifies dialogue as having potential to open “a new discursive space”
We have borrowed his term to describe dynamics of the joint subject collaboration around language
In this presentation we will offer some theoretical and policy constructions of subject, describe the setting up and characteristics of the discursive space, explore the space through data from student voice and show the impact of the loss of the discursive space in the first year of teaching. This presentation is based on a paper we are writing.. / Slide 1 – title & names
Slide 2 -
Lantolf quote
Slide 3 – different parts of the presentation
Part 2
Theoretical and policy constructions of subject.Evans (1993) distinguishes between the terms discipline and subject. Discipline is understood as the term defining the body of knowledge, which constitutes the boundaries of the discipline. The term subject is used to define how this body of knowledge is organised or institutionalised as part of a University or school curriculum. When we start working with the students they already have a variety of subject constructions from schooling and University- these can be diverse. Evans goes on to suggest that it is perhaps a difference in perception and or experience of a discipline which leads to institutionalised difference as subjects rather than intrinsic differences in discipline / Slide 4 – discipline … school curriculum (Evans 1993)
Slide 5 – Evans … discipline
Student voices from three year ago offered the following views of their subject at the beginning of the PGCE course.
English
“The majority responded using definitions, which identified English as including; creativity, text, self-expression and English as a tool for communication” (Burley 2004?)
English to my knowledge has mainly been concerned with literature past and present. Poetry has always had a major part.
The content might include creative writing, Shakespeare, a variety of texts through the ages from Paradise Lost to post modernism
Modern Languages
These students at the start of their course saw the subject in terms of developing language skills and knowledge in a specific language.
“… the four skills of reading, writing, listening and speaking; grammar; vocabulary, pronunciation and intonation”
“Modern Languages as a subject included mainly studying grammar and vocabulary – concentrating on accuracy when writing/speaking in target language” / Slide 6 – English student voices
Slide 7 – MFL student voices
Subject Constructions which informed policy about subject delivery in secondary schools
Many previous national models of language and language education have constructed the two subjects of English (L1) and Modern Languages as discrete areas of knowledge. Even models which have attempted to provide a more holistic language across the curriculum approach e.g Hawkins 1984 and Carter 1990, have focussed on subject knowledge content without addressing issues related to pedagogical process. / Slide 8 – previous models of language & language education
Part 3
Setting up and characteristics of the discursive space.In our work discursive space includes the following key components:
A focus on language, a key aspect of both English and Modern Languages as school subjects, through a language teacher education programme which brings together student teachers from the two subject areas
A developing dialogue between the two groups
As well as subject differences the PGCE student teachers bring to the cross subject dialogue considerable linguistic and cultural diversity.
1. The language teacher education programme includes three broad areas of content about language: linguistic and cultural diversity starting with the personal, language as system and language teaching pedagogy.
2. Developing dialogue.
The pedagogical approach used in this programme can be located within a social constructivist model of language teacher education. Roberts (1998) states ` The social constructivist perspective recognises dialogue, talk, to be central to teacher learning` (45)
Through the dialogue between the two subjects, subject diversity is activated as a focus for learning.
The dialogic process uses personal voice to articulate experience and knowledge through first person narration. Trainee teachers’ reflections on the ways in which this narration impacts on the listener or listeners enables the process of reconstruction of identity to take place and thus affect changes in previously held beliefs. Hogg & Abrams (1998)) state that individuals gain a sense of identity and understanding of self “… in great part from the social categories to which they belong”. They continue to describe self-definition as a dynamic process “… temporally and contextually determined, and … in continual flux.” (p.19) / Slide 9 – Language teacher education programme
Slide 10 – Developing dialogue - Roberts quote
Slide 11 – Hogg & Abrams quote
Part 4
Explorations from within the discursive spaceFocus on one session. In a further teaching session student teachers analyse and compare the different language teaching approaches they met in their subject areas in teaching placements in Secondary schools. They are asked to identify and compare teaching approaches at word, sentence and text level and discuss approaches to learning about socio-cultural aspects of language. Areas of similar practice as well as a number of specific differences between the two subjects are identified.
Introduce audio – extract where they 2 ML and 2 English students are discussing work at sentence level within and between their own subjects.
This enhanced pedagogical understanding is further deve
loped in a session in which trainee teachers collaborate across the subjects of English and Modern Languages to create teaching approaches to working with poems. In mixed subject pairs trainee teachers use poems in English and another language to plan activities which would enable pupils to have some understanding of both the meanings in the poems and the way language has been used to convey them.
Introduce DVD – extract where the same 4 student teachers present their collaborative work to each other.
This is an example of what the discursive space looks like.
Impact of the discursive space
We have a range of data from a number of years showing a clear impact on student teachers’ constructions of subject knowledge some of which we have included in the paper, but what we have selected for this presentation is evidence from the 4 student teachers we have focussed on most recently.
Analysis of this data has confirmed previous findings in relation to the effectiveness of the new discursive space in reconstructing views of the subject . One student teacher stated : “I now believe that my subject is more open than originally thought.” Another student teacher wrote about how “analysis of any texts, English or MFL can apply mutually.” A third student teacher saw such collaboration as “ an excellent opportunity and should be implemented in schools … to gain new ideas into exploring language.” The fourth student teacher wrote “I found the opportunity gave me a lot of insight on how to explore new materials. I had not yet used poems but now feel that I can use them and possibly explore new language resources.” / Audio tape
Slide 12 – the poetry task
DVD
Slide 13 & 14 – 4 quotes from poetry session
Part 5
The loss of the discursive spaceAll of the data presented so far was collected during the PGCE course. Three years ago we also collected data via interviews from a few student teachers at the end of their first year of teaching. These interviews focussed on finding out what impact, if any the discursive space and dialogue continued to have at this stage in their career.
The analysis of this data revealed :
- A willingness to make informal contact with teachers of the other subject, eg through personal language learning and social contact
- A positive attitude towards the idea of collaboration with the other subject, but many practical difficulties offered as reasons why this was not happening e.g. when asked if she had had an opportunity to work with Modern Languages teachers, one English teacher reports “… we were trying to do more but it hasn’t worked out as well, just because of staffing problems”
- Evidence of some tentative links e.g. A Modern languages teacher said “I read an article or I see something interesting on the newspaper. Even in English … I think … what can they do with the text in English?”
- Evidence from one of the English teachers of regular use of different languages and language varieties in her teaching e.g. “So we’ve got all like key words that you would say in an English class, and we’ve got them all written up in things like Somali, Arabic .…
- Evidence of using their linguistic identity as part of their teaching role e.g. a Modern Languages teacher said “You know this is not just text book stuff. It’s stuff that we’ve lived and if they know that I’ve lived through it … they can get interested as well.” An English teacher reported: “I started telling them about my background in Italy and they went, ‘Oh Miss, talk to us in Italian, so I did and I taught pretty much the whole lesson in this dialect that I speak.”
- Evidence of barriers to continuing a dialogue with the other subject – barriers of physical distance between subject departments, resistance from school management, workload and pupil motivation.
- Some evidence of a narrower view of their curricular subject than was expressed during the PGCE course. An English teacher reports that she is trying to “push it (the English curriculum) towards the skills base…they (the pupils) can see the relevance of it” . A Modern Languages teacher presents her subject as defined by “getting the best grade that we can from this.”
Part 6
What all this reveals- It is possible to extend and/or problematise subject boundaries through setting up a discursive space in which personal understandings of subject can be broadened.
- Dialogue is key but also the choice of focus for the dialogue is crucial. The dialogue needs to be centred around an area of subject content relevant to both subjects but which may be traditionally differently constructed by each subject.
- The loss of the discursive space results in a return to more exclusive and narrow ‘institutionalised’ subject boundary definitions. In this case ones which do not go beyond prevailing policies both institutional and national.