Enhancing Teaching & Learning Through Purposeful and Productive Thought Karen Sykes

Encouraging and enhancing purposeful and productive thinking in the Second Language classroom within the context of A Level Spanish teaching and learning:

managing ‘affective filters’.

(Based on a paper for Durham University, March 2017.)

In the course of this paper, the aim is to apply ideas from action research to the kind of reflective practice engaged in routinely when working with advanced language learners. Effectively, drawing upon the experience of research and upon own practice, selected ideas will be proposed for application to teaching, reflection and evaluation to establish if thinking about productive and purposeful thinking (PPT) can assist with the problems elicited by A2 learners as part of routine practice.

The following priorities have been derived which are, on the one hand, specification-related, yet, on the other, motivated by the wish to foster PPT above and beyond the confines of any public examination / specification:

Facilitating a purposeful classroom ecology for creative thinking; Evaluative thinking for the particular benefit of qualitatively improved spoken and

written Spanish; Wise decision-making for the benefit of enhanced debate and academic essay-

writing in Spanish.o Throughout, the object is to provide context and opportunities for

empowerment of learning individuals (e.g. through emotionally literate activities which activate a sense of worth, ethical value and mutual appreciation).

Importantly, as L2 learning is emotional process, this paper intends to frame the above points through the schemata of theoretical perspectives which address thinking and feeling (language) students and by proposing normal classroom strategies that would be employed as a matter of course to collect feedback from students (inter alia, discussion, written work, self-reflections in plenaries following tasks). It will aim to address:

productive and unproductive beliefs and values; the impact of these on the efficacy of learning and understanding; the mismatch (or congruence) between teacher and learner beliefs; the way in which perceived progress (in what research reviewed suggests language

students feel counts) can be made to be a cohesive tool; and the need to address the gulf between ‘hard’ science perspectives on language

acquisition and the critical role which affective dispositions can be shown to have (even in a modestly sized sample), either by impacting on a sense of personal effectiveness or on undermining learning of a second language.

Through the concept of ‘relatability’ (Bassey, 1998), i.e. how one’s own experiences with a relatively small sample can apply in a far wider sense, the paper seeks to indicate what

1

Enhancing Teaching & Learning Through Purposeful and Productive Thought Karen Sykes

makes a real language learner and not only a measured success on paper. The two, it is hoped are demonstrated, are compatible, yet the former is a quality educational project founded on principles with longevity for the age in which we live, one that demands, more than ever, adaptability, skill transferability, innovation, considered decision-making, and the empathetic understanding of ‘others’ (Piirto, 2011).

However, the key dilemma is to address the risk of resistance on account of enculturation – that is, habits of mind which can become yet more entrenched in the face of challenges to the performativity framework (Ball, 1998) of operation (“market-oriented visible pedagogies”, Bernstein, p.86) to which students (and teachers) may hold – willingly or otherwise - a powerful attachment within the context of a pervasive notion that only grades equal university and employability.

Facilitating a purposeful classroom ecology for creative thinking: Ferreira Barcelos (2015, pp. 301 – 325) throws up some important considerations from a social constructivist perspective worthy of exposition in this section introduction. They concern identity, subjectivity and agency in L2 learning. She argues that to understand L2 student interrelationships, we need to see to it that what happens in the classroom influences how learners construct their identities, emotions, and beliefs within that group. Following this line of thinking, it stands to reason that we should not only preoccupy ourselves with what language learners and teachers are bringing into the classroom, but, more essentially, with the kinds of emotions which are being constructed through their interactions within the classroom context, and, she posits, in classroom discourses and practices. For this essay, the message from a reading of her work is the centrality of reflecting on the ways L2 learners and their teachers assist (or don’t) in constructing (fictional) identities, emotions and beliefs. Taking her work a step further, the construction should be predicated on the creation of a classroom environment that fosters ways of thinking which improve behaviours, self-esteem and motivation for language-learning.

Feedback collected anecdotally from the start of Year 13 may often demonstrate a bias towards oral communication over other language ‘skills’ and a desire to communicate orally. Using this willingness to oracy, and by engaging with the work of Dörnyei et al (2003/2014) on L2 motivation, reflections might be centred on engendering conditions which would enable a classroom ecology that provides a context and opportunities for purposeful thinking through verbal interactions, although at this stage of reflection, students’ communicative proficiency does not need to be ‘publicly’ assigned the higher importance in the hierarchy of learning goals. The elements under consideration (as per Dörnyei) might be, in fact, group cohesion, goal commitment, the nature of the task set (adding an ‘angle’ to counteract inertia or ennui), and student self-regulation strategies.

Such a reflective undertaking requires the usual teacher reflection on the characteristics of the learner group, such as its cohesiveness and goal-orientedness. It can then be noted if the group displays, for example, a tendency to split along gender or self-perceived competence lines. For this latter reason, consideration of the implications of the zone of

2

Enhancing Teaching & Learning Through Purposeful and Productive Thought Karen Sykes

proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) and, specifically, the argued benefits of collaboration with more capable peers, in turn, might result in a re-consideration of the use-value of Kagan structures (cf. Kagan,1989). The principles of Kagan’s ideas might well be implemented with the aim of promoting co-operative learning structures within the advanced language group, for example, pairings and groupings which change within a lesson and every lesson to encourage various dynamics of co-operation, a risk, of course, given the possible source of language anxiety entailed from self-perceived lower ability students (Young, 1991, p. 427).

However, on balance, this strategy can bear fruit as both a motivator and cohesive strategy. Yet, it requires continuous thought on the changing nature of motivation and the temporal variations this can undergo. On occasions, where moods (Newton, 2014, p.19) appear lower, less structural change may seem an appropriate trade-off in fostering a positive learning environment with the emotional climate required for creative thinking. This, in turn, seeks to limit the risk of a compromised focus, and preserves commitment to the goal, willingness to engage with the tasks and meaningful learning outcomes (as would be evidenced in routine class work, and continual formative - low stakes - assessment).

Secondly, further reflection on achieving a purposeful classroom ecology for creative thinking might lead to teacher thoughts on both context and opportunities, for example, by adding extra attraction or interest to the oral activities as a means to increase learners’ commitment to L2 learning and the collective. More significantly, however, the introduction of a ‘Trojan horse’ offers a playful way to tackle a matter of a more serious nature – the appearance of the ludic, yet, within, a much more potent concept to initiate higher thinking: creative problem-solving.

Readings on creativity (McGregor, 2007 / Craft, 2005) highlight the divergent, open nature of critical thinking and the centrality of originality. In addition, they engender reflection on how teaching for creativity (Jeffrey & Craft, 2004) involves, in summary, creative pedagogy and that learners question or challenge, spot interrelationships, hypothesise about what might be, maintain an open-mind about options, as well as reflect on the viability of ideas, actions or outcomes. NACCE (1999) concisely defines creativity as “imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are of original...value”. Moreover, creativity is process and product (Newton, 2014, p. 65), the latter (the linguistic output, in this case) requiring some careful consideration – the meaningful rather than the farfetched. These academic sources coalesce well with existing pedagogical approaches (and, a secondary advantage, the Year 13 requirements). To be clear, and to borrow from Craft (in Craft, 2005), the processes and products to apply language creatively are creative with a lower case ‘c’.

Thus, with the aim of more powerfully stimulating and communicating imagination and innovation within the context of any declared preferred mode (e.g. oral communication), the design of activities can perforce take into account students’ factual and conceptual knowledge (past, current) and the opportunities for creating the novel from that base.

3

Enhancing Teaching & Learning Through Purposeful and Productive Thought Karen Sykes

Knowledge may be supplemented or acquired more conventionally through brief textual inputs or models (visual, written and/or auditory, adapted from the internet). The emotional climate – or ‘stream of affect’ – can be initially teacher-managed to be upbeat and positive through role-modelling, appropriate humour and body language, as well as a non-threatening tone of voice, in particular when intervening to redirect student thinking (through assertive questioning prompts which do not give the game away).

In this way, the oral tasks then provide a framework within which to engage, allowing, firstly, autonomy (time and space) to work in pairs and groups to think through ideas, connections and responses. Students use the internet in a focused way (and with advice) to extend knowledge where they feet it is required (e.g. Wordreference, 20minutos.es, Bowdoin Spanish Grammar online, selected Youtube sources). The employment of short interventions encourages students away from received wisdom, partial sources or, in some cases, an undiscerning fact-based approach. For example, if the L2 learners respond to questions to elicit evidence for their use or choice of resource their inability to explain convincingly, predict the implications, or apply to the context under discussion, gives them hints that they might need to modify their approach.

Within this framework of the positive classroom ecology, meta-cognitive control strategies have value to monitor and control focus, as well as dissuade procrastination (e.g. focusing on approaches to take, scaffolding, interventions to keep students on track, and identifying likely distractions). In addition, as Saunders and Crockall in Young (1991) rightly point out, the management of the ‘playful’ is essential in responding to affective needs, i.e. to protect against the ascent of overly competitive students with higher self-esteem.

It has been noted, with this reflection in mind, that particularly enjoyable and successful collaborative task types for Year 13 (involving humour and laughter) can be pair-work improvisations, debates (thesis and antithesis), ‘what if’ hypothetical scenarios (nuclear repository in my backyard), role-plays (adopting the safety of another identity which ‘protects’ the self, e.g. with the topic of immigration), and, to some extent, De Bono’s thinking hats (in discussing the A- Level literary work). However, pedagogical assumptions that students understand terms and how to apply the meaning of the coloured hat roles to the topics under discussion, and in an L2 language at that, are a legitimate evaluative criticism of task over-complication. In view also of literature reviewed that suggests tensions arise as a result of differences in conceptions between teacher and student learners (Bernat quoting Horowitz, 2009, p. 136), it seems a yet more valid reflection to take into account for subsequent planning purposes. It is also worth considering that students are more likely to increase effort when the intended goal “is clear, when high commitment is secured for it, and when belief in eventual success is high” (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996, p. 260).

In summary, the empowerment of individuals (e.g. through emotionally literate activities which activate a sense of worth, ethical value and mutual appreciation), can be seen in this example to be achieved through tasks which foster creative thinking and resilience in

4

Enhancing Teaching & Learning Through Purposeful and Productive Thought Karen Sykes

the face of gentle challenges. Moreover, teaching in this way results in deeper understanding among the learners in question, admittedly in a form of learning that can be more challenging to quantitatively assess (Sawyer, 2004). Even so, discursive collaboration within an L2 classroom of advanced learners can be harnessed to foster both a positive ecology and enhance creative thinking capacities, not to mention confidence.

Furthermore, by using the management strategies outlined above, the L2 students themselves look set to report on a greater sense of confidence in communicating more originally. Nevertheless, the vestigial impacts of public examination pressures cannot be underestimated in their potency to set students adrift. They can augment feelings and moods predisposed to creating student-teacher misalignment or unfavourable interpretations of progress – the washback effect (Alderson & Wall, 1992), whereby instructional approaches which favour superficial or strategic learning may be favoured (or demanded) as more secure routes to exam success. However, this phenomenon must not be permitted to gain purchase and colonise the classroom space or impede imaginative and novel verbal communication.

Evaluative thinking for speaking and writing: the first element which will be explored in this section is the promotion of evaluative (also known as critical or reflective – McGregor, 2007, p.172) thinking with the production of qualitatively improved spoken and analytical, discursive written Spanish in mind. Qualitative refers here principally to quality learner engagement with persuasive term-defining, analysis, argumentation, and conclusion-drawing. Discussions with A-Level students can reveal exclusive concern on their part to acquire a broader lexis and knowledge of complex grammatical structures (as ‘set phrases’), rather than a preoccupation with enhancing the skill of evaluative thinking when communicating verbally or on the page at a higher level, e.g. as a deep learner. This seems to suggest a student tendency to view learning for the productive skills as memorizing and recalling a corpus of knowledge, important as a basis, yet insufficient to understand material in any deep way or develop higher order thinking in speaking and writing. The seeming disjuncture between teacher-thinking and student certainty about their needs emphasises the significance of the notion of exploring with students a methodology of evaluation to “identify central issues and assumptions in an argument, recognize important relationships, make correct inferences from data, deduce conclusions from information or data provided, interpret whether conclusions are warranted on the basis of the data given and evaluate the evidence of authority” (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, p. 118).

Such incongruence requires focused work with the students over a series of lessons on definitions of evaluative thinking and intellectual standards through word association and by providing model examples (written and spoken) which the students can be asked to critique as effective and/or ineffective evaluative practice. Furthermore, their cognitive development should be accompanied in parity by an application of the Vygotskian notion

5

Enhancing Teaching & Learning Through Purposeful and Productive Thought Karen Sykes

of microgenesis (1978). That is, the source of higher mental processes is social, namely, brought about by social interactions. In this context, that amounts to a continued emphasis on ‘engineered’ peer-to-peer interactions, as outlined above. This interactivity is also encapsulated well by Sadler citing Lindemann (1982, p. 142) in his work on formative assessment and the feedback loop:

“Students who become conscious of what they’re doing by explaining their decisions to other students also learn new strategies for solving writing problems. And because students would become progressively independent and self-confident as writers, they need to evaluate each other’s work and their own frequently, a practice which teaches constructive criticism, close reading and re-writing”.

With the evaluative in focus, planning of A-Level lessons for reflective speaking and discursive writing might be informed by an updated Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2000), adapted as a framework from which to hang the specifics of the discipline. The elements of this framework might be applied in conjunction in teaching and learning planning to support evaluative thinking about topic-based phenomena and issues. However, the taxonomy elements are best not viewed as mutually exclusive. On the contrary – there is merit to applying them in teaching concomitantly, as in the style of an overlapping Venn diagram. Students can be supplied with a simplified format of the taxonomy to keep on file and have access to one on the classroom wall for reference in discussion and reflection.

Accordingly, and in view of the focus on productive and purposeful thinking, the lessons should be planned as student-centred. Input and output channels ought to be consciously varied – for example, visual stimuli, auditory material, authentic sources, communicative, collaborative (peer and group), and independent tasks. Moreover, as per Krashen (1982), being mindful of ‘dropping’ the students’ affective filters by, as it were, focusing on ‘masking the demand’ is - once again - an important consideration. Student planning time can be a significant element of the process towards producing extended written pieces and sustaining spoken language in which task prompts focus primarily on the hows, to what extents and whys.

Regular low-stakes high challenge formative assessment intervenes in this to promote a sense of purpose and facilitate written and verbal feedback opportunities, perhaps at student request. Tasks can be principally self-marked, peer-marked and teacher-audited, with verbal or written feedback, often without distracting numerical or grade marks. Students reflect actively on shortcomings in a positive and productive way, self-correcting and improving their own spoken and written work as a matter of course both in class and at home. The regular feedback loop is welcomed and found to be motivational. To allow teacher reflection and modification of approach, students reflect honestly on the resources, tasks and quality of regular verbal and written teacher feedback, the regularity of the latter

6

Enhancing Teaching & Learning Through Purposeful and Productive Thought Karen Sykes

proving – with all probability - a particular benefit (suggesting correlation with the large effect size noted by Hattie, 2009).

The broad learning terminology of BLP (Guy Claxton) is well worth explicitly over-layering in lessons and can be codified in wall displays within the teaching classroom, e.g. reciprocity, reflection, resourcefulness, resilience. These terms are used then to intervene or correct approaches. In addition, compatible elements of ‘Mindset’ (Dweck, 2000; Hymers, 2015) can be introduced to encourage students to regard uncertainty or confusion with concepts or their inter-relatedness as a ‘normal’ experience in constructing meaning. Students might consider their meaning-making, using the visual by Nottingham (‘the pit’) to verbalize their feelings of clarity or confusion: “emotions are interpersonal, not private (intrapsychic)” (Swain, 2013, p.196). Beyond this self-reflection, students should be encouraged to think their way out of ‘the pit’, by suggesting group strategies for clarification of concepts, causation or interrelationships. As an extension, students might complete a version of the Johari window (Smrke, 2016, pp.139 -141) for their own use and consumption, as a way of encouraging them to achieve a greater self-awareness. This self-knowledge, it is hoped, encourages more honest reflection and acceptance of feedback on evaluative work.

In terms of identifying the intellectual standards which deep understanding in speaking and writing would entail, students’ work needs to evolve to include (in regular debating, discussions, and analytical written tasks) increasing relevance (not getting distracted by secondary detail), clarity, accuracy (in all senses), precision, and logic. By not allowing the kinds of emotions often expressed in the early part of Year 13 (the elephants in the room) to seem inferior to rational thought, harnessing them, firstly, for honest self-reflection, and, in addition, for ‘role-playing’ and performance, allows the students to shed a level of self-consciousness that might well impede progress in enhancing their productive language skills.

Bearing in mind the relative efficacy of mind-mapping (cf. effect size: Hattie, 2009), mapping prior factual and/or conceptual knowledge to start each sub-topic can provide students with a stock-taking strategy, and teaching colleagues with a diagnostic benchmark of where students are starting from. This method of ordering and retrieving facts and concepts can be fostered throughout each sub-topic. The A3 mind-maps grow in visual detail as the learning extends. Students can effectively support speaking tasks and written work, and grow their mind maps to include exemplified pros and cons lists relating to key problems, debates, solutions or alternatives. (However, as will be shown in the final section on wise decision-making, the tendency to dichotomize is a process ripe for deconstruction through the insertion of more grey nuances of ambiguity.)

Empirically, Swain seems correct to assert that it “is critical in the process of language learning, not just as practice, but because when students notice a gap(s) in their knowledge, they often work towards filling it. It is important, therefore, that we give our students multiple opportunities to produce language, written or spoken.” (2011, p. 200).

7

Enhancing Teaching & Learning Through Purposeful and Productive Thought Karen Sykes

For that very reason, students are making use, as a matter of course, of the knowledge captured in routine evaluative speaking and writing tasks.

It is valid to state that advanced study also requires of the learner grammatical competence in their evaluative written and spoken work. Learners, therefore, need to be ‘socialised’ (Oxford, 1996) to know that errors are not taboo; in fact, empirically, errors can and do contribute to learning in a meaningful way. Through constructive, yet empathetic, feedback and interventions (verbal and non-verbal hints or challenges which allow students time to re-consider, the advanced learners’ eye/ear for detail and thoroughness of approach in self-eliminating and self-correcting can become better enculturated. In itself, this offers opportunities that potentially can lead to less anxiety over mistake-making and help to re-cast small-scale failures as minor way-markers en route to making progress in precision of expression – in the spirit of ‘Mindset’ (Dweck, 2000).

While studies (admittedly related to ESL) may have found significant belief differences between teachers and their learners that indicate students prefer grammar, translation, and vocabulary exercises (Bernat, Carter & Hall, 2009, p. 136), which chimes in part with earlier comments made in this essay, it can be possible to harness and subvert with this L2 group this suggested tendency. This will need to be done for the benefit of increased evaluative thinking in handling language, register, content, and argument. Students tend to acknowledge openly the linguistic benefits of analysing Spanish and English texts lexically and grammatically for the purpose of precise renderings (into and out of the L2).

By way of finalising this section, as Bernat et al citing Eagly & Chaiken, (2009, p. 134) suggest, social psychology offers compelling and corroborating evidence that when learners are presented with new information, they are influenced significantly by what they already know or believe. Strong beliefs are highly accessible, easily activated and tend to bias information processing, yet the quality of student evaluation in speaking and writing must focus on taking less and less material used in teaching and learning at face value, and, on the other, evidence an improving critical disposition when identifying relevance, partiality, and lack of specificity in source material. Routine writing and speaking practice can be employed to bear out these improving features of objectivity in students’ evaluative work.

Wise decision-making for the benefit of enhanced debate and academic essay-writing in Spanish: For the purposes of this essay, wise decision-making assumes an intrinsic integration of cognition and emotion. Of particular importance to the L2 learning experience, at this level, and in the domains of debate and extended writing, is a sage acceptance by the students of the limitations in reliability of their own knowledge (Marchand, 2003, unpaginated): a readiness to accept the new, ditch the old, and re-think the long-held. Besides the cognitive, wisdom in this learning context posits an attitude to knowledge that is evidenced in a high level of interest in others, in an understanding of Hispanic peoples and their problems, in an acceptance of different opinions or points of view, and, lastly, in an awareness that the wise subject continues to learn from others. In

8

Enhancing Teaching & Learning Through Purposeful and Productive Thought Karen Sykes

this analysis, the wise L2 subject is reflective, is an attentive listener, and may well be required to concede misapprehensions: in debate and on paper, they must be susceptible to change and re-evaluation. This is arguably a tall order pedagogically and emotionally for young adults, particularly in a context where reproductive learning for public examinations may run the risk of apparently undercutting the validity of deeper, more durable thinking, transferable to other learning or life contexts.

Work with A Level students on the issues associated with an ageing society illustrates well that students are being confronted with radically different ideas, or emotionally difficult concepts, and are being obliged to question some of their perceptions of the implications of an increasing number of elderly citizens. One suspects that prevailing cultural tendencies in Anglo-Saxon countries, as well as some less than flattering UK media presentations of older people, stand to colour initial learner stances or viewpoints advanced, thus highlighting - in a wider sense - the challenging job of encouraging wise choices in debate and on paper. However, after careful teacher-guided teasing out of conceptual parameters (e.g. cause and effect) in this particular case, students can reveal themselves over time to be more reflective and empathetic. In tripartite mini-group debates, centred on the fiscal, medical and societal dimensions of the issue, the students can be given the opportunity to demonstrate a significant development in moving their thinking forward, citing detail discerningly from multiple valid authentic sources and interpreting its significance with deeper engagement.

Tolerance and depth of thinking are, therefore, significant advantages in these verbal and written contexts, as is high level competency when developing appropriate and viable judgements within uncertain contexts, i.e. the hypothetical mode or the counterfactual, central to strong conceptual and linguistic competence, and also a requirement in the A Level Spanish course. This amounts to an awareness on the part of students of the amorphous, contradictory, and even paradoxical nature of reality (see Marchand, 2003, quoting Kramer’s work of 1990), that is, the need to work above and beyond familiar and comfortable dichotomies. In the particular case of young adult L2 learners, the notion of “imported emotions” (Newton, 2017, p. 35), plays a particularly strong role in their decision-making. This is evidenced in debating work (e.g. concerning the death penalty). Emotions tend to run high, seeming to be informed by the extraneous discourses surrounding prison inmate figures, recent terror incidents or an enthusiasm (“less expensive than prison”) for capital punishment.

Arguably, this viewpoint could offend interlocutors, and it is suggested in literature reviewed that an ethical dilemma also arises: to what extent can L2 students be obliged to change their minds and surrender views? Beliefs are like possessions: “we hold onto them, value them and can be resistant to letting them go” (Bernat et al, 2009, p. 135). Assuming that this position is held to be the case, it is suggested here, alternatively, that where the enterprise of encouraging wise decision-making in the classroom is concerned, it is the role of the teacher (and peers) to manage activity and question styles which allow the individual students to explore their beliefs in a safe context and interrogate them to

9

Enhancing Teaching & Learning Through Purposeful and Productive Thought Karen Sykes

establish if they lend themselves to robust substantiation or revision. Is this not about learning resilience, then, and the pedagogical role of providing learners with the tools for working and living in the world beyond school?

While the 2009 study quoted, according to its authors, is the first known attempt that aimed to establish a relationship between language learner beliefs about learning and personality traits, the research field has yet to explore fully the possibility and plausibility of altering learner beliefs in the classroom context, should they be perceived to be unproductive to the L2 learners’ progress. In the interests of protecting the learner emotionally, in some sense, encouraging him / her to adopt the mantle of the wise subject, through the role of debater (fictional identity) or authoritative pseudo-expert on paper, may be a beneficial fillip with the learner types featured in this paper. It could be likewise adopted with other advanced L2 learners.

Conclusion: Through the three analytical lenses chosen:1. facilitating a purposeful classroom ecology for creative thinking;2. evaluative thinking for the particular benefit of qualitatively improved spoken and

written Spanish;3. wise decision-making for the benefit of enhanced debate and academic essay-writing

in Spanish;

this paper has focused on L2 student-centred pedagogies in which language acquisition has been displaced in favour of a framework that foregrounds reflections and research which conceive learners as both sentient and emotional subjects in search of personal effectiveness. Language-learning is not only a process of cognitive acquisition, but one in which the affective dimensions are evinced as central to sustaining this long-term learning project.

As outlined in the introduction, action research and reflection have encouraged consideration of the efficacy (or otherwise) of routine classroom practices which seek to develop deep and independent L2 learners with a creative, evaluative and wise disposition. Far from fortifying a pedagogical approach to promote surface learners capable of applying their learning solely for the short-term purposes of strategically passing examinations, this dilemma has prompted reflections and readings which have reinvigorated belief in the case – already supported by the writer – that effective learning of a second language is closely linked to the management of the complex affective dynamics between learners and their teachers.

Word count: c. 4,730 (excl. title)

10

Enhancing Teaching & Learning Through Purposeful and Productive Thought Karen Sykes

Bibliography (incl. References)

Alderson, C. & Wall, D. (1992). Does the backwash effect exist? Symposium on Educational and Social Impacts of Language Tests, Language Testing Research Colloquium, February 1992, pp 1 – 23.

Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds) (2000) A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman

Acedo, C. & Hughes, C. (2014). Principles for learning and competences in the 21st-century curriculum, Prospects, 44, 503–525, DOI 10.1007/s11125-014-9330-1.

Baker, M. Rudd, R. & Pomeroy, C. (2001). Relationships between Critical and Creative Thinking, Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, Volume 51, Number 1.

Ball, S.J. (1998). Performativity and Fragmentation in ‘postmodern schooling’. In J. Carter (Ed.), Postmodernity and the Fragmentation of Welfare, London: Routledge, pp 87 – 203.

Barkhuizen, G. (Ed.). (2017). Reflections on Language Teacher Identity Research. London: Routledge.

Bassey, M. (1998). Fuzzy Generalisation: an approach to building educational theory, British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, 27 – 30 August 1998. Retrieved from: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000801.htm

Bernat, E., Carter, N. & Hall, D. (2009).Beliefs about language learning: Exploring links to personality traits, University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 4, 115-148.

Bernstein, B. (2004). The Structuring of Pedagogical Discourse. London: Routeldge.

Beyer, B.K. (1987). Practical strategies for the teaching of thinking. Boston MA: Allyn andBacon, Inc.

Bowell, T. & Kemp G. (2002). Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide. London: Routledge.

Cohan, A. & Honigsfeld, A. (Eds.). (2013). Breaking the Mold in Education. Rowman & Littlefield: New York.

Costa, A. & Kallick, B. (Eds.). (2009). Habits of Mind Across the Curriculum. ASCD: Virginia.

Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in Schools: Tensions and Dilemmas. London: Routledge.

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, Orientations, and Motivations in Language Learning: Advances in Theory, Research, and Applications. Retrieved December 2016:

11

Enhancing Teaching & Learning Through Purposeful and Productive Thought Karen Sykes

http://web3.apiu.edu/researchfile/Research%20Materials/Teaching%20Method%20and%20Student%20English%20Learning%20Performance/Student%20learning%20attitudes%20or%20motivation/Attitudes,%20orientations,%20and%20motivations%20in%20language%20learning.pdf

Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P. & Henry, A. (Eds.). (2014). Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning. Multilingual Matters: Bristol.

Dweck, C. (2012). Mindset: Changing the Way You Think to Fulfil Your Potential. London: Robinson.

Ferreira Barcelos, A. M. (2015). Unveiling the relationship between language learningbeliefs, emotions, and identities, SSLLT 5 (2), 301-325. doi: 10.14746/ssllt.2015.5.2.6.

Griffiths, C. & Oxford, R. (2014). Twenty-first century landscape of language learning

strategies. System, 43, 1-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2013.12.009

Janssen, F. & de Hullu, E. (2008). A toolkit for stimulating productivethinking, Journal of Biological Education, 43:1, 21-26, DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2008.9656145.

Jeffrey, B. & Craft, A. (2004). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies, 30:1, 77-87, DOI:10.1080/0305569032000159750.

Jones, W.E. (2014). Wisdom as an Aim of Higher Education. Published online: 24 August 2014 J, Value Inquiry (2015) 49:1–15, DOI 10.1007/s10790-014-9443-z.

Kagan, S. (1989). The Structural Approach to Co-operative Learning. Retrieved 24th February. http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198912_kagan.pdf

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Lahuerta Martínez, A.C. (2002:2003) A Study of the Relationship between SpanishUndergraduates' Motivational Factors and Foreign Language Achievement, Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos No.’s 9 y 10.

MacIntyre, P.D. & Noels, K.A. (1997). Biases in Self-Ratings of Second Language Proficiency: The Role of Language Anxiety, Language Learning 47:2, 265–287.

RetrievedDecember2016:http://www.psych.ualberta.ca/~knoels/personal/Kim's%20publications/MacIntyreNoelsClement1997.pdf

12

Enhancing Teaching & Learning Through Purposeful and Productive Thought Karen Sykes

Marchand, H. (2003). An Overview of the Psychology of Wisdom. Prometheus Research Group: www.prometheus.org.uk.

McGregor, D. (2007). Developing Thinking Developing Learning. OUP: Maidenhead.

Méndez López, M. G. (2011). The motivational properties of emotions in Foreign Language Learning,Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, vol. 13, núm. 2, julio-diciembre, 43-59.

Méndez López, M.G. & Peña Aguilar, A. (2013). Emotions as Learning Enhancers of Foreign Language Learning Motivation, PROFILE Vol. 15, No. 1, April 2013. 2256-5760 (online), 109-124.

Morgan, B. & Clarke,M. (2011). Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (Vol. 2) in E. Hinkel (Ed.), (pp. 817-836). Routledge: London.

Newton, D. P. (2014). Thinking with Feeling. London: Routledge.

Newton, D.P. (2017). In Two Minds. The Interaction of Moods, Emotions, and Purposeful Thought in Formal Education. ICIE. Layout made available by the author December 2016.

Oxford, R. L. (2003). Learning Styles & Strategies, GALA, 1 – 25. Retrieved January 2017 from: http://web.ntpu.edu.tw/~language/workshop/read2.pdf

Oxford, R.L. (2015). Positive psychology in language learning: The role of hope, optimism, and resilience in learners’ stories. IATEFL Webinar

Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Peters, M.A. (Date unknown). ‘Performative’,‘performativity’ and the culture ofPerformance, Knowledge management in the new economy1 (Part 1), MiE, Vol 18 issue 1.

Piirto, J. (2011). Creativity for 21st Century Skills. How to Embed Creativity in the Curriculum. Boston: Sense Publishers.

Runco, M.A.(2015). Meta-Creativity: Being Creative About Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27:3, 295-298, DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2015.1065134.

Sadler, D. (1982). Formative assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems, Instructional Science 18, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 119 – 144.

Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative Teaching: Collaborative Discussion as Disciplined Improvisation. Educational Researcher, Vol. 33, No. 2, 12–20. Retrieved December 2016 from http://www.unc.edu/home/rksawyer/PDFs/Creative_teaching.pdf

Sternberg, R.J.(2001). Why Schools Should Teach for Wisdom: TheBalance Theory of Wisdom in Educational Settings, Educational Psychologist, 36:4, 227-245, DOI: 10.1207/S15326985EP3604_2.

Sullivan, M. H. & Sequeira, P. V. The impact of purposeful homework on learning

13

Enhancing Teaching & Learning Through Purposeful and Productive Thought Karen Sykes

The Clearing House; Jul/Aug 1996; 69, 6; ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collectionpg. 346.

Swain, M. (2013). The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second languageLearning, Lang. Teach. (2013), 46.2, 195–207 https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000486

Underwood, M. J. (2015). Searching for commonalities in theteaching of critical thinking skills from Masters’ to sixth form to primary. (2015). Paperpresented to: The University of Northampton Education Partnership Conference2015, The University of Northampton, School of Education.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp 79-91.Vygotsky, L. S. (2000). Thought and language (revised). A. Kozulin (ed.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Young, D.J. (1991). Creating a Low-Anxiety Classroom Environment: What Does Language Anxiety Research Suggest? The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 75, No. 4 pp. 426-439. Retrieved December 2016: http://www.jstor.org/stable/329492.

Other resources

http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/specifications/alevel/AQA-2650-2660-2695-W-SP-14.PDF

https://www.buildinglearningpower.com/

http://www.debonogroup.com/six_thinking_hats.php

http://www.jamesnottingham.co.uk/learning-pit/

https://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influences-effect-sizes-learning-achievement/

14