L1 & L2 in Formative Assessment: : Bilingual

0 downloads 0 Views 739KB Size Report
(MOI) for English language teaching in South Korea. (SK). 3. Research ... FA is assessment conducted for teachers' and students' use, and to inform the direction ...
L1 & L2 in Formative Assessment: Bilingual repertoires in language classrooms in South Korea Taehee Choi

L1 & L2 in Formative Assessment: : Bilingual repertoires in language classrooms in South Korea

Outline 1. Bilingual repertoires during formative assessment (FA) 2. Research context: FA & Medium of instruction (MOI) for English language teaching in South Korea (SK) 3. Research questions, data & analysis 4. Findings: FA, Roles of L1 & L2, and their alternation 5. Discussion

L1 & L2 in Formative Assessment: : Bilingual repertoires in language classrooms in South Korea

Why Bilingual repertoires in FA? 1. FA has recently received much attention as a means to ensure quality education (e.g., Black and Wiliam 2009; Davison and Leung 2009) 2. The MOI has also become an important issue, as in many contexts English is promoted as the MOI considering it to be a tool to ensure the competitiveness of individuals and territories in the globallised world (Hamid, Nguyen, and Baldauf Jr 2013; Tollefson 2013) 3. The role of languages during FA in a foreign language* classroom has yet to be systematically investigated

L1 & L2 in Formative Assessment: : Bilingual repertoires in language classrooms in South Korea

• 1 of 7 principles of assessment

Research context: FAforinteachers’ South • FA is assessment conducted and Korea students’ use, and 1.

2.

to inform the direction for the next step of teaching or learning. It FA may was ppen introduced into the official curriculum of SK as early during observation of students’ task performance, questioning, [ohabserving] student responses to questions, as in 1973, only 6 years after Scriven (1967) introduced FA submitted homework, [analysing students’ intoreviewing educational assessment performances with] worksheets, or providing feedback to (77,curriculum 78) But actual (e.g., Kim &FA Leeas 2010) Thestudents national ofpractice? SK still promotes a tool to

ensure quality education (e.g., Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MEST) 2011) 3. FA promoted in the curriculum reflects recent view of FA, integral part of day-to-day student-teacher interaction in class; elicitation and use of evidence to inform the next move of teaching or learning (Black & William 2009, 9)

L1 & L2 in Formative Assessment: : Bilingual repertoires in language classrooms in South Korea

Research context: MOI for ELT Two main, conflicting pulls on MOI -The college entrance exam (focus on receptive skills & grammatical knowledge) -Reforms to transform ELT to actually develop students’ command of English (focus on productive skills) (e.g., maximal use of English as the MOI since 2001; TEE certification; the National English Ability Test (NEAT))

Case Study

L1 & L2 in Formative Assessment: : Bilingual repertoires in language classrooms in South Korea

Research Questions 1. Does teacher-led FA happen in the focal bilingual classroom? If so, what are its forms and orientations? 2. What roles does the bilingual use of Korean and English serve during FA? 3. What were the factors that influenced bilingual FA practice in the classroom?

L1 & L2 in Formative Assessment: : Bilingual repertoires in language classrooms in South Korea

Data & Analysis • Case study of NEAT writing sessions • Documents (e.g., lesson materials, guidelines), lesson observation & interviews • Data analysis 1. Segmentation of lessons (Bloome, Beierle, Grigorenko, & Goldman 2009; Nagy & Robertson 2009) 2. Identification of formative moments (FMs) & analysis (orientation & means) 3. Roles of the two languages; their alternation* (initiators, directions, types & functions) (e.g., Auer 1999; Lin 2013; Sincotta-Segi 2012)

L1 & L2 in Formative Assessment: : Bilingual repertoires in language classrooms in South Korea

Findings: FA in the focal NEAT sessions 1. FA did happen; Frequency of FA varies across the 4 sessions 2. Occurs when introducing or explaining the topic or language items & setting up the task 3. On lesson content & language*, sometimes mixed orientation 4. Linguistic (e.g., giving question prompts & codeswitching*) & other semiotic means (supralinguistic change such as tone, resorting to a realia)

L1 & L2 in Formative Assessment: : Bilingual repertoires in language classrooms in South Korea

Findings: Alternation of L1 & L2 in FA (I) 1. Codeswitching prevalent during FMs (61% of teacher turns during RMs, 29/32 FMs) 2. Teacher initiated most codeswitching (90%) 3. Both alternational & insertional 4. Insertional more frequent during FMs (40% vs. 30% during non-FMs) *L2 is the main MOI [most monolingual turns] but L1 also constitutes significant part of teacher talk

L1 & L2 in Formative Assessment: : Bilingual repertoires in language classrooms in South Korea

Findings: Alternation of L1 & L2 in FA (II) Switching both ways

(Almost) exclusively (Almost) exclusively L2 > L1 L1 > L2

• Go back to the original code

• Provide difficult words

• Accept students’ code

• Engage students • Assure students

• Repeat previous info • To segment a • Expand/qualify stretched interaction in previous info English (See the handout for examples)

• Meta-talk about the flow of the lesson (e.g., introducing a new task) • Read/quote the texts on teaching materials • Recycle labels & descriptors of the task • Allocate speech turns

L1 & L2 in Formative Assessment: : Bilingual repertoires in language classrooms in South Korea

Findings: Factors affecting the MOI in FA 1. The roles of L1 & L2 are similar to the findings from research on bilingual classroom talk (L2 as the official MOI, L1 as a language of affect & access ([in 2013; Sincotta-Segi 2012]) 2. Contextual factors (MOI policy, student expectation) 3. Identified needs (L2 as a barrier, or emotional needs> Switch to L1; Students missed the information>Either L1/L2; Official functions (e.g., flag up transition)> switch to L2) 4. Teachers’ knowledge and beliefs

L1 & L2 in Formative Assessment: : Bilingual repertoires in language classrooms in South Korea

Conclusion • FA as prescribed in the national curriculum does

happen in SK, through linguistic and other semiotic means • Analysis of L1 & L2 use in FA shows that the teacher considers multiple factors (educational policy, college entrance exam, roles/perceptions of each language, types of learner needs) which are perceived through the prism of teacher knowledge and beliefs

L1 & L2 in Formative Assessment: : Bilingual repertoires in language classrooms in South Korea

References Auer, P. 1999. “From Codeswitching via Language Mixing to Fused Lects: Toward a Dynamic Typology of Bilingual Speech.” International Journal of Bilingualism 3(4): 309–332. Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 2009. “Developing the Theory of Formative Assessment.” Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 21(1): 5-31. Bloome, D., M. Beierle, M. Grigorenko, and S. Goldman. 2009. “Learning over Time: Uses of Intercontextuality, Collective Memories, and Classroom Chronotopes in the Construction of Learning Opportunities in a Ninth-grade Language Arts Classroom.” Language and Education 23(4): 313-334 Davison, C., and C. Leung, 2009. “Current Issues in English Language Teacher-based Assessment.” TESOL Quarterly 43(3): 393-415. Hamid, M. O., H. T. M. Nguyen, and R. B. Baldauf Jr. 2013. "Medium of Instruction in Asia: Context, Processes and Outcomes." Current Issues in Language Planning 14(1): 1-15. Lin, A. 2013. "Classroom Code-switching: Three Decades of Research." Applied Linguistics Review 4(1): 195218. Ministry of Education Science and Technology. 2011.영어과 교육과정 [English curriculum]. Seoul: Ministry of Education Science and Technology. Nagy, K., and D. Robertson. 2009. “Target Language Use in English Classes in Hungarian Primary Schools.” In First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning, edited by M. Turnbull and J. Dailey-O'Cain, 6686. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Scriven, M.1967. The methodology of evaluation, In Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (Vol. 1), edited by R.W. Tyler, R.M., Gagne and M. Scriven, 39-83. Chicago: Rand McNally. Sincotta-Segi, A. R. 2012. “Signalling L2 Centrality, Maintaining L1 Dominance: Teacher Language Choice in an Ethnic Minority Primary Classroom in the Lao PDR.” Language and Education 25(1): 19-31. Tollefson, J. W. 2013. Critical Issues in Language Policy in Education. In Language Policies in Education: Critical Issues, edited by J. W. Tollefson, 3-11. New York, NY: Routledge.

L1 & L2 in Formative Assessment: : Bilingual repertoires in language classrooms in South Korea

Questions or comments? [email protected]

Download the slides at: https://ied.academia.edu/TaeheeChoi https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tae_Hee_Choi