hannah cowell matesol candidate emporia state university an oral and conceptual framework for l2...
TRANSCRIPT
HANNAH COWELLMATESOL CANDIDATE
EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY
An oral and conceptual framework for L2 academic
language development
2
Introduction and Abstract
Abstract: This presentation provides a critical and
sociocultural framework to understand L2 social language proficiency’s role in L2 academic language development.
This topic pertains to adult or adolescent English learners of limited literacy and/or academic language competence in their L1.
Participants will gain insight into oral language development strategies which will develop academic language and conceptual thought in the L2.
3
Blueprint: Where are we going?
Introduction and abstract The achievement gap & a literature gap My research questions My background and personal interest in the topic Distinguish between different types of language Relationship between L1 and L2 cognitive academic language
proficiency (CALP) My conceptual framework for understanding and teaching
CALP The role oral language plays in academic development through
vocabulary, structures, and instructional/corrective techniques Pedagogical implications for language teachers, including
linguistic, metacognitive and oral language strategies References Future research and conclusion Contact information
4
A gap in the literature on the achievement gap
Achievement gap between English Learners (ELs) and monolingual English-speaking peers in academic areas is well documented
ELs often seem to be proficient in English yet the gap in reading, math, and other academic content areas generally worsens over time instead of improving (Cummins, 1982, 1984)
General academic proficiency represents access to higher education, gainful employment, etc. (Cummins, 2012)
Low L1 literacy students may come from a culture where print literacy is not part of the process of socialization but oral literacy is
Bias toward developing academic proficiency through reading and writing, not speaking and listening (Soto-Hinman, 2011)
Studies have traditionally focused on positive academic language transfer among students who were literate and/or had some formal schooling in their L1 (Bigelow, Delmas, Hansen, & Tarone, 2006)
Framing my research questions
In this presentation I will propose a critical, conceptual, and culturally sensitive framework through which to explore these questions:
1. What are the necessary components of English CALP and how can learners with low L1 literacy acquire them?
2. How can L2 oral language development and fluency promote the development of L2 CALP?
6
My background and why I care
7
My background and personal interest
Story telling and oral literacy but little value for/access to print
Need for academic language in jobs, educational opportunities
Widespread use of communicative techniques in EFL classesHow could I teach academic language effectively so my
students could read and write proficiently in English?Limited research on CALP related to these types of studentsReading and writing (which may be initially out of reach for
these learners) often emphasized as THE way to develop CALP, particularly in my SLA textbooks and even occasionally my methods book
CALP (as defined in its broadest sense) is a social, economic, academic, and employment gateway—it must be accessible to all learners!
8
BICS CALP
Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills
Used in social and casual interactions
“Playground language”Acquired in 1-2 yearsContext-embeddedCognitively undemandingAssociated with listening
and speaking
Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency
Used in formal and school settings
Underlying proficiency needed for academic success
Acquired in 5-7 years Context-reduced Cognitively demanding Associated with reading
and writing
Cummins’ (1982) different types of language
9Cummins’ Framework for BICS/CALPFour quadrants:
Quadrant 1:
Cognitively undemanding + context-embedded
Quadrant 2:
Cognitively undemanding + context-reduced
Quadrant 3:
Cognitively demanding + context-embedded
Quadrant 4:
Cognitively demanding + context-reduced
Taken from Roessingh (2006)
10
The four quadrants of BICS/CALP
1. “Here and now”
2. “My lived experience”
3. “There and then”
4. Metaphoric competence
Taken from Roessingh (2006)
11BICS, CALP, CUP – the acronyms keep Cummin’
Cummins (1984) proposed a “Common Underlying Proficiency” or CUP between L1 & L2
Potential for CALP cross-linguistic transfer
CUP addresses relationship between language and thought
Also called the “Interdependence Hypothesis”
Ideal representation of Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP) between
L1 and L2
Taken from Roessingh (2003)
12
Metacognition and CALP
Directing attention Setting goals Exploring multiple
meanings Making inferences Drawing conclusions Evaluating
information Synthesizing
information Comparing/
contrasting Persuading
Metaphorical & symbolic Abstract concepts Complex relationships Relates thought to
language Using learning strategies Applying prior
knowledge Linguistic transfer
strategies Pragmatic, Strategic,
Discourse competences
13
CALP = specialized vocab + complex syntactic structures?
CALP is more than the sum of its linguistic parts It is academic language + cognitive proficiency (Roessingh,
2003) Don’t forget about Vygosky: Language + verbal thought (Bylund,
2011) Self-regulatory and metacognitive processes Discourse types and literacies vary across cultures (Saville-
Troike, 2007) Dynamic, socioculturally and educationally-mediated process Even cognitive abilities are socioculturally mediated! (Example
of oral literacy) (Aukerman, 2007) All meaningful language has a context (Aukerman, 2007) Expand ability in identifying, creating & expanding
(para)linguistic contexts Re-contextualization of familiar social forms as academic
metaphors
A critical and sociocultural framework for understanding CALP
14
Oral Language and CALP: Dialogical possibilities
CALP is not merely linguistic structure, but vocab and syntax are crucial in academic development (Saville-Troike, 2007)
L2 Oral fluency creates automaticity of processing (freeing up mental resources for metacognition)
Some learners are more comfortable learning through the oral medium
Oral language and “academic talk” can provide scaffolding for CALP development (Soto-Hinman, 2011)
Output elicited from ELs tends to be BICS rather than CALP-oriented
Oral language can support vocabulary, academic structure & syntax when appropriate instructional and corrective techniques are used
15
Oral Language: Vocabulary
o Acquiring a word for recognition and automatic retrieval requires multiple meaningful encounters (Saville-Troike, 2007)
o Enough encounters are not likely to be garnered through reading alone
o To decipher a word from context clues, the reader must understand 95% of the other words in the text
o ELs have a significant vocabulary gap when compared with monolingual English speaking peers
o BICS-type speech only requires about 2,000 words, while CALP-oriented speech can require 20,000 words or more (Roessingh, 2006)
o Oral structured practice can provide the extra support ELs need to close this gap
16
Oral Language: Structures
o The most troubling language for ELs tends to be figurative and idiomatic language (idioms, phrasal verbs, formulaic sequences) (Guduru, 2011)
o These structures often represent cognitive processes, complex relationships, and abstract concepts
o Multi-word “syntagmatic” chunks are hard to deciphero There is need for explicit instruction and practice in a
medium that students feel naturally comfortable with, i.e. oral language
o Cooperative learning of these forms promotes self-analysis and reflection on meaning and metaphor
o Students with low L1 literacy may rely more on semantic processing rather than morphosyntactic awareness
17
Instructional Techniques
Corrective Techniques
o Explicit instruction!o Cooperative learningo Engage with texts through
oral languageo Negotiate meaning
through interactiono Recognize students’
unique abilities such as semantic processing, memorization, and strategic competence
o Direct metalinguistic feedback
o Create awareness when using recasting
o Focus on errors that DO NOT impede meaning – these are most likely to fossilize
o Repeat, repeat, repeat and be patient!
Oral Language: Classroom Methods
18
CALP Summary & Model
Specialized vocab and complex syntax
Figurative language & metalinguistic
messages
Metacognition, abstract thought, and metaphorical relationships
Automaticity of processing
Content-area vocab, passive voice, subordinates, relative clauses, etc.Idioms, cohesive ties, logical connectors, discourse markers, formulaic sequences
Summarize, infer, compare, evaluate, conclude, self-regulation strategies
Socioculturally and educationally-mediated
19
Linguistic CALP: Pedagogical Implications
Explicit instruction of specialized, content-area vocab and complex syntactical structures
Use collocations by grouping words together; create semantic maps and group vocabulary meaningfully
Create dual-language projects/presentations (Cummins, 2012)
Allow for translation/clarification in the L1 Model and structure output of formulaic language such as
cohesive ties, logical connectors, discourse markers Give explicit corrective feedback especially regarding
errors that do not impede meaning Use non-verbal cues to signal correction through recasting
(Saville-Troike, 2007)
20
Metacognitive CALP: Pedagogical Implications
Teach substantiating thoughts from a text Assign roles of summarizing, questioning, predicting,
analyzing, and connecting within group work (Guduru, 2011)
Show students how to paraphrase and guess from contextual clues; this can lead to self-reflection
Teach language, learning, and transference strategies explicitly
Make use of thematic units which activate prior knowledge Encourage peer response and peer editing groups (after
extensive and structured modeling) Model questioning and peer response techniques to elicit
more elaborate responses
21
Oral Language: Pedagogical Implications
Scaffold students’ oral production through repetition, paraphrasing, expansion, elaboration, sentence completion, substitution frames, vertical construction, and comprehension checks (Saville-Troike, 2007)
Shadow an EL to assess their use and comprehension of “academic talk” (Soto-Hinman, 2011)
Model and demonstrate genuine questioning Cooperative techniques such as “think-pair-share” Use techniques that promote fluency & automatic
processing such as rehearsal, repetition, consciousness-raising, and use of formulaic sequences and discourse markers
22
References
Aukerman, M. (2007). A culpable CALP: Rethinking the conversational/academic language proficiency distinction in early literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 60(7), 626-635. doi: 10.1598/RT.60.7.3
Bigelow, M., Delmas, R., Hansen, K., & Tarone, E. (2006). Literacy and the processing of oral recasts in SLA. TESOL Quarterly, 40(4), 665-689. Stable url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40264303
Bylund, J. (2011). Thought and second language: A Vygotskian framework for understanding BICS and CALP. Communiqué, 39(5), 4-6.
Cummins, J. (1982). Bilingualism and minority language children. Toronto, ON: OISE Press. Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy.
London: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2012). The intersection of cognitive and sociocultural factors in the development of
reading comprehension among immigrant students. Reading and Writing, 25(8), 1973-1990. doi: 10.1007/s11145-010-9290-7
Guduru, R. K. (2011). Enhancing ESL learners’ idiom competence: Bridging the gap between BICS and CALP. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 1(4), 540-556.
Lightbrown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2011). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roessingh, H. (2006). BICS-CALP: An introduction for some, a review for others. TESL Canada Journal, 2, 91-96.
Saville-Troike, M. (2007). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Soto-Hinman, I. (2011). Increasing academic oral language development using English language learner shadowing in classrooms. Multicultural Education, 18(2), 20-23.
23
Future Research & Conclusion
Lastly, further research is needed, particularly in the area of L1-L2 CALP transfer in L1 illiterate or low L1 literacy learners (Bigelow, Delmas, Hansen, & Tarone, 2006). This population is often understudied yet needs access to CALP just as much as more literate students.
Remember the importance of explicit instruction in the area of CALP whether using
the oral or print medium.
Good teaching does not happen by
accident and students cannot run unless we teach them to crawl
first.
24
To view a voice-embedded form of this presentation, please visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cyc83bTGDw&feature=youtu.be
Please feel free to contact me!
785-383-5177
Hannah Cowell
Emporia State University
TESOL Program, Box 4023
Department of IDT - TESOL
1200 Commercial St
Emporia, KS 66801