Polytechnic University of the Philippines
Graduate School
Sta. Mesa, Manila
Filipino Subject Classroom Atmosphere:
Applying the Educational Linguistic Model
Prepared by:
Mr.
Raymark D. Llagas
Master in Educational Management
major
in Instructional Leadership
Submitted to:
Dr.
Josefina U. Parentela
Professor
Education Models, Paradigms and
Procedures
(MEM 651)
April 2014
Background of
Educational Linguistic Model
Educational
Linguistics is relatively young, as its foundation only dates back some 30-40
years. It was first named, defined and described by Bernard Spolsky in the
1970s (Spolsky, 1978) and continues to establish it- self in the 21st century.
What is probably obvious to someone who has never heard of ‘educational
linguistics’ as a discipline is that it can be situated somewhere at the
intersection of educational and linguistic concerns. A definition by Francis
Hult suggests that “Educational linguistics is an area of study that integrates
the research tools of linguistics and other related disciplines of the social
sciences in order to investigate holistically the broad range of issues related
to language and education” (Hult 2008: 10). At first sight this also seems to
hold true for applied linguistics. However, researchers suggest that
educational linguistics is to be separated from AL (cf. Hornberger 2001; Hult
2008; Spolsky 2008).
1. a. That
which is a model or a pattern; a type, a standard. […] b. A
standard or pattern of social behavior that is accepted in or expected of a
group. Usu. in pl. […] c.
A value used as a reference standard for
purposes of comparison (OED
2009: ‘norm’)
In the educational
linguistic context, norms appear to be a particularly interesting object for
study because norms and the related issue of standards play an important role
on a number of levels in the complex interplay of language, culture, society
and education. Education, or rather, educational institutions, shape a society
and the people that live in it, but society or culture can also influence education.
The Main Streams of
Educational Technology
It is worth noting,
as a starting place, the major lines of work that comprise educational
linguistics. These are the domains that characterize the Educational
Linguistics,
• using
language in classrooms,
•
literacy development,
•
language learning,
•
planning language use in educational settings,
•
assessing language knowledge.
Clearly, the role
of educational linguistics in each of these domains is somewhat different. In
the first three domains, the primary customer for linguistic insight is the
classroom teacher, who would benefit from knowing how his/ her own language use
facilitates or interferes with student learning, from understanding the
linguistic challenges inherent in texts and classroom discourse, from valuing
(while also decreasing) the linguistic variability displayed by student
language users, from understanding how to shape classroom discourse to promote
active engagement, critical thinking, and rapid learning, and from specific
techniques to promote language and literacy development. In the last two
domains, the primary customer is the ministry of education or the local
educational authority, responsible for decisions about which language to use in
schools, what standards for use of that language to impose, and how to assess
whether those standards are being met. Furthermore, work on educational
linguistics will inevitably have varying priorities in different parts of the
world. Each region faces unique challenges, and educational researchers need to
attend to those challenges with a genuine focus on the specificity of each
situation. In some places, for example, issues of educational language planning
hardly arise. Yet, whether the focus is on the 781 million illiterate adults in
the world (http://portal.unesco.org/education),
on the need to prepare students for tertiary education beyond national
boundaries and thus often in a second language(http://www.uis.unesco.org/ ev.php?ID=6028_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC),
or on the design of education for either indigenous or immigrant students who
do not speak the national language (http://www.cal.org/topics/ell/), certain
fundamental questions arise:
1 What
should we be teaching our students about language to prepare them for academic
success, for professional success, for their broader intellectual challenges in
adult life?
2 What
do teachers need to know about language in order to be effective in promoting
the desired linguistic outcomes with the full range of students in their
classes?
3 Once
we have identified the desired linguistic outcomes of education and the
required teacher knowledge, how do we go about fostering them? In the sections
that follow, we use these three questions both to organize the knowledge
accumulated across the various chapters and as a first cut in specifying more
precisely the most urgent questions for the future.
What do Teachers Need to Know about Using
Educational Linguistics Model?
The issue of what teachers need to know
about language is, of course, a burning and recurrent problem for educational
linguists. There is a very long list of ‘need to know’, for example:
•
understanding the difference between non-standard dialects, second language
characteristics, and language disorders;
•
understanding the inevitability of variation in language use, and the identity
work such variation accomplishes;
•
understanding the characteristics of normal language development, in both first
and second language speakers, and how to measure it
•
understanding how oral language both relates to and differs from written
language, and what (meta)linguistic skills children need to be explicitly
taught in order to make the transition from oral to literate comprehension;
•
understanding what constitute normal developmental errors in spelling and in
writing, and which student errors should be responded to with explicit
instruction;
•
knowing enough about etymology and morphology to be able to explain the meanings
of words and their morphological and etymological neighbors.
This brief list
could be greatly extended (Fillmore & Snow, 2002). Most notably, though,
this list primarily reflects declarative knowledge, whereas in fact an
additional long list of linguistic knowledge items could be added that fall
more in the domain of enacted knowledge, for example:
•
knowing what kinds of questions to ask to generate productive classroom discussions;
•
using sophisticated vocabulary words frequently in the course of interactions with
students;
•
understanding what aspects of written text are likely to be confusing to students;
•
understanding how to respond to student writing to make it more sophisticated;
•
being familiar with many literary and expository texts of potential interest
The difficulties of
providing teachers with sufficient declarative knowledge about education are
clear; ensuring the availability to them of enactable knowledge is even more
challenging (Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005). Various teacher education
programs have tried sending their students to courses in the linguistics
department, or hiring in a linguist to teach pre-service teachers about
language; such experiments are not notably successful (Burling, 1971) for many
reasons, including of course the multiplying list of competencies teacher
certification programs must provide access to.
The Challenge of
Instruction and Assessment
Language
development researchers, as noted above, have focused primarily on young
children and the major advances in language skills achieved between ages 1 and
3–4 years. Their work is directly relevant to the practice of early childhood
educators and has informed and improved the design of preschool and
parent-involvement programs. Most educators, though, take those early
accomplishments for granted, and concern themselves with later language
development – development of the capacity to engage in classroom discussion, to
produce extended discourse orally and in writing, to acquire sophisticated
vocabulary, and deploy complex grammar. Understanding these later developmental
challenges, for students operating in their first language and for those
acquiring a second language, is a task with which educational linguistics could
help. As Hull and Hernandez point out, adolescent literacy has lately received
more attention; however, there are still numerous gaps to fill in to fully
understand how to better serve older students.
The Educational Linguistic Model Structure applied in Teaching
Filipino Subjects
The Education-Linguistic Model (ELM) which
was developed by the researchers through a reframing of Neuro-Linguistic
Programming (NLP). Here is the Theoretical Framework of Educational Linguistic
Model and their conceptual ideas.
In the proposed ELM,
the former has been allocated the standalone category “addressing challenging
behaviour”. “Monitoring correct or incorrect knowledge”, along with
“elicitation with learner” and “leading the learner,’ is categorized as
“scaffolding the learner”. These three conceptual ideas focus on correcting,
guiding, and/or challenging the learner. “Collapsing an anchor” was replaced by
“acknowledging success” to refer to “reinforcing learner achievement by
emphasizing success”. “Calibration of the learner” and “pacing with the
learner” refer to recognizing individual differences and adjusting the teaching
pace to suit the learner. These two have been combined under the category
“responding to individual learners”. Lastly, “re-framing the approach” refers
to “stopping unproductive strategies, and providing better alternatives”. It
has been reclassified as “self-monitor the teaching” which reflects the agency
of the teacher.
Findings: Educational
Linguistic Model as Applied in Teaching Filipino and English
Rapport
The teacher in this
study particularly excelled in establishing a rapport with their students. The
following examples illustrate how teacher developed a rapport with their
students to maximize a relaxed and enjoyable classroom atmosphere.
In a
class,
I.
Teacher:
Ito ay lamang isa sa aking iniidolong
Pilipino. Gwapo siya di ba?
Students: [Laughter]
[Nagpapakita ang guro ng iba’t ibang mga
larawan ng mga natatanging Pilipino]
II.
Teacher:
Ang kapital ng Japan ay Tokyo. Ito ang
pinakamalaking metropolitan area sa mundo.
Student:
Gusto ko sa Tokyo. Masarap pagkain doon.
Teacher:
Tama! Mahusay, marami silang mga food
delicacies doon.
Student:
Oo nga po sir, actually noong isang araw
kumain kami doon kasamang aking mga magulang at kapatid.
III.
Teacher: How do we say “Do you like coconut-man?
Student: I like coca-cola.
Teacher: Yeah, its not good to your health.
IV.
Teacher: Kapag
narinig niyo ang salitang paruparo, ang sasabihin niyo ay “sino ang nandyan?”
Handa na ba?
Student: Opo.
Teacher: Sino ang nadyan? (Paruparo). Ok!
Mahusay. Sino ang nanyan? Siyempre and paruparo.
In the first
conversation, the teacher tried to use personal pronouns (akin, siya) to engage her students and the students responded with
“laughter”. In the second conversation, the teacher successfully engaged
students by using young students’ language (mahusay).
It is obvious that the teacher aimed to teach the students what is Tokyo all
about. Although she didn’t achieve this aim, she enlisted students’ responses
relating to their personal “likes”. In the third conversation, the teacher
commenced with a topic “coconut man”, assuming the students would be
interested. This stimulated a student’s association with “coco” in “cococola”.
To establish further teacher-student
harmony, this teacher also used a pronoun (your) to make the conversation
relaxed and personal. In the last excerpt, the teacher relied on the sound
similarity between Filipino “sinong
nandyan?” and “paruparo” to engage her students. The students’
spontaneous responses and laughter indicated that the teacher successfully
developed an interpersonal contact with the students. These teachers proved to
be successful in developing strategies to address teacher-student rapport.
Scaffolding Learning
The teacher also demonstrated their strengths in scaffolding
learning:
I.
Teacher: May
nakikita ba kayong… pagkakapareho sa dalawang tauhan sa kwento?
Student
1: Pareho silang lalaki.
Teacher:
Tama! Sa kanilang mga ginawa, may
pagkakapareho ba sila?
Student
2: Pareho silang nagsakripisyo para sa
ikararangal ng bayan.
II.
Teacher: Kung susuriin niyong mabuti itong larawan na
ito, Mukha ba itong
telebisyon
o ….?
Student
1: Parang TV naming sa bahay.
Student 2: Parang baul ni lola na nakatago sa bahay
namin.
III.
Teacher: Mayroon akong isang bugtong, buto’t balat,
lumilipad?
Student 1: Eroplano
Student 2: Helicopter
Student 3: Ibon
Teacher: Mahusay ang inyong mga isinagot, ngunit
hindi iyon ang sagot. Paka-isipan niyo pa, malapit niyo nang mahulaan. Mayroon
itong tali at madalas laruin kapag mahangin.
Student 4: Langit-lupa (isang larong pambata)
Student 5: Saranggola!
Teacher: Tama! Ito’y saranggola. Galing talaga ng mga
mag-aaral ko.
In the first and the
third excerpts, both of the teachers tried to scaffold the students by
providing minimum but necessary hints rather than telling students the answer
straight away. The first teacher asked the students to do a comparison and
analysis of the two characters and to deduce the meaning by themselves. The
third teacher guided the students to deduce the meaning of an ideographic
character based on the knowledge the students previously learned. In the second
conversation, the teacher used the pictographic features of characters to guide
the students to outputs. In all three cases, none of teachers simply provided
statements of new knowledge to the students. Instead, through questioning, they
built on what the students already learned and guided them to the new language
points. This allowed the students to play a full and active role in the lesson,
which maximized their learning opportunities and achievement in class. From the
students’ correct guess of the new words, it can be seen that the teachers were
successful in effectively employing scaffolding.
Modelling
This research found that modelling was successfully
implemented by the teachers and well received by their students. Examples were:
I.
Teacher: Basahin natin ang tula, sumabay pagkatapos
ko.
[The whole
class followed]
II.
Teacher: Gusto ko, sulatin sa paraang dikit-dikit ang
titik “A.” Isulat ito ng tatlong beses sa inyong notebook.
[Some students started to talk to each other a bit while getting their workbook ready]
[Some students started to talk to each other a bit while getting their workbook ready]
Student: Kung
hindi niyo masundan ang titik “A” sa inyong workbook, tumingin sa pisara at
sundan ang susulatin ko. Simulan na natin….
[Most of the students raised their head and looked
at the board]
While
modelling the learning, the BSTs used straight-forward strategies such as “read
after me” or “follow me”. The researchers regarded the teachers’ modelling
strategies as simple but successful. Although the data excerpts under this
category were similar the students responded appropriately. Millrood (2004)
argues that excessive use of modelling in language teaching can create a
learning environment where students may easily become disengaged. However, no
evidence in this study indicated that students resisted this strategy.
Acknowledging success
These teachers
demonstrated strengths in promptly acknowledging students’ success.
|
Educational
Linguistic Model
(Acknowledging
Success)
|
|
1.
Mahusay! Ipagpatuloy mo yan.
2.
Napakagaling.
3.
Ok. Maaring tama ang sagot mo ngunit…..
4.
Marahil tama ang isang punto ang iyong sagot ngunit….
5.
Magaling.
6.
Gusto ko ang iyong kasagutan.
7.
Tama!
8.
Magandang pananaw.
9.
Isang napakagandang kongklusyon.
10.
Mahusay ang pagkakagawa.
11.
Karamihan sa inyo ay natapos ang gawain. Nawa’y ganyan kayo
lagi.
12.
Palakpakan sila.
|
Responding to the Learner
Teacher:
Tapos na bang basahin ang kwento.
Student:
[No Response]
Teacher:
Sige, bibigyan ko pa kayo ng karagdagang limang minuto.
The data indicated
that the teachers had the intention to pace a lesson appropriately to respond
to and include students with different needs. Although these expressions are
appropriate, they were not effective as they did not address individual learners.
In contrast, the classroom teachers’ questions were targeted at the particular
student or student group. For example, “Sige,
bibigyan ko pa kayo ng karagdagang limang minuto?” Their instructions
received more responses from the students.
Behaviour Management
It was found that the
use of English to manage students’ inappropriate behavior constituted a large
percentage of teacher discourse in both the primary and secondary school
classrooms. Table 3 lists some examples from each group.
|
Educational
Linguistic Model
(Behaviour
Management)
|
|
The teachers’ language
was more general, brief and conventional whereas the experienced teachers’
expressions were more specific, detailed and diverse.
Teacher: Tahimik!
[The students keep
talking]
Teacher: Lagi niyong tatandaan huh, kapag gusto
niyong sumagot, itaas lamang ang inyong kamay.
[The whole class
become quiet.]
Teacher: Justin,
upo!
[Justin, ignores
instruction]
Teacher: Isa! Kapag hindi ka umupo, dadalhin kita sa
office.
[Justin follows the
instruction]
Similarly to
“Acknowledging Success”, teacher did not just address students’ behaviors but
also tended to provide reasons for doing so, and provided additional
instructions for the students to follow. The language used by the BSTs was full
of formulaic expressions such as “Tahimik!”, ‘Upo’ ‘The researchers’
observation notes indicated when they articulated these words, their mind
seemed engaged with other issues. Perhaps they were thinking “They are not
stopping! Now what should I do?” Most of teachers did not try to provide
instructions for students to change their behaviour. Moreover, the researchers’
observation notes demonstrated that whenever the teachers disciplined the
students, their voice was often soft and low whereas the experienced teachers
always used a firm voice.
Self-monitoring strategies
The data revealed that the BSTs lacked
self-monitoring strategies. That is, stopping unproductive strategies, and
providing better alternatives.
Teacher:
Ngayon, sagutin natin ang mga idyoma. Ano
ang kahulugan ng salitang “Nang ipinanganak siya ay may ginto’t pilak siya sa
bibig”?
[The
students are thinking]
Student:
kumakain?
Teacher:
Tama ba ng kanyang isinagot? Halimbawa
nito sa pangungusap, “lahat ay kanilang nabibili sapagkat sila ay may ginto’t
pilak sa bibig.”
Student:
Maraming alahas
Teacher:
Malapit na. Kung sila ay maraming alahas,
anong tawag sa kanila?
Student:
Ayaw ko na. Hindi ko alam.
In
these excerpts teacher used questioning to scaffold and guide the student to
the correct answer. Their scaffolding was unsuccessful in that rather than
readjust the question or give more support, the teacher kept rephrasing the
same question to seek the correct answer. This eventually made the students
lose interest and become distracted. In this study, although no evidence of
self-monitoring strategies was identified within the two supervising teachers’
classes, the assumption made by the researchers is that an experienced teacher
would automatically switch to an alternative strategy if the students were not
responding.
Conclusions
We
have concluded that educational linguistics model needs on the one hand to
narrow its focus to pay particular attention to the most pressing real-world
educational problems, and on the other hand to expand its focus beyond language
teaching/learning to an understanding of how language mediates all educational
encounters. Furthermore, in studying the role of language in all learning and
teaching, it is extremely helpful to remember the continuum proposed by Bailey,
Burkett, and Freeman: from learning situations in which the language used is
transparent to all concerned (teacher and students share a language and
students control the academic language
of the classroom) to situations were language use is opaque (students are still learning
the basics of the classroom language, even as learning through that
language is expected). Intermediate points on that continuum, where most students
and teachers probably find themselves, represent differing degrees of
transparency – i.e., students and teacher share a language but not necessarily all
the specific linguistic features that characterize disciplinary, metacognitive, or
classroom language use. Identifying the situations where lack of shared
language knowledge interferes with learning, and characterizing helpful approaches
to those situations, in the form of pedagogical strategies, curricular
adjustments, student commitments, or reorganization of learning settings, is
the common and urgent challenge for educational linguists.
References
Burling, R. (1971). Talking to teachers
about social dialects. Language
Learning, 21,
221– 234.
Felipe
Ruth E. (2013) Suliranin ng mga
Nagsasanay na Guro sa Pagtuturo ng Asignaturang Filipino sa Off-Campus.
Unpublished Thesis from Pangasinan State University-Bayambang Campus. Bayambang,
Pangasinan.
Fillmore, L. W. & Snow, C. E. (2002).
What teachers need to know about language. In Adger, C. T., Snow, C. E., &
Christian, D. (eds.), What
Teachers Need to Know About Language. (pp. 7–53) Washington, DC/McHenry, IL:
Center for Applied Linguistics/Delta Systems Co., Inc.
Gouleta, Eirini (2006) Language
Learning and Linguistic Policy in Education:Considerations for Successful
Bilingual Programs in Madagascar. Trinity University: Educational Approaches in
Bilingualism.
Han, J., & Yao, J. (2013). A Case Study of
Bilingual Student-Teachers’ Classroom English: Applying the
Education-Linguistic Model. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education.
Hornberger, Nancy H. (2004). The Continua of Biliteracy
and the Bilingual Educator: Educational Linguistics in Practice. University of
Pennsylvania.
Lang, Peter (2008). Norms in Educational Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Millrood, R. (2004). The role of NLP in teachers' classroom
discourse. ELT Journal.
Ramos, Teresita V. and Mabanglo, Ruth (2012) The Language
Learning Framework For Teacher of Filipino. Journal
of Southeast Asian Language Teaching.
Snow, C. E., Griffin, P., Burns, M. S., & NAE Subcommittee
on Teaching Reading (2005). Knowledge to
Support the Teaching of Reading: Preparing Teachers for a Changing World. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Uccelli,P.,
& Snow, C. E. (2008). A Research Agenda for Educational Linguistics.
Malden, MA:Blackwell Publishing.
Internet Resources
http://portal.unesco.org/education
http://www.uis.unesco.org/ev.php?ID=6028_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC
http://www.cal.org/topics/ell/
No comments:
Post a Comment