Language Gardening Practices of English-Medium Instruction Teachers in Higher Education
•Télécharger en tant que PPT, PDF•
1 j'aime•884 vues
Oral presentation at 10th Newcastle upon Tyne Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics 20 March 2015
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
Similaire à Language Gardening Practices of English-Medium Instruction Teachers in Higher Education
Similaire à Language Gardening Practices of English-Medium Instruction Teachers in Higher Education (20)
Plus de Ali Karakaş
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Language Gardening Practices of English-Medium Instruction Teachers in Higher Education
- 1. Language Gardening Practices of English-Medium Instruction Teachers in Higher Education Ali Karakaş Ph.D Candidate in Applied Linguistics 10th Newcastle upon Tyne Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics 20 March 2015
- 2. Overview
- 3. Background English-medium instruction (EMI) gathered great momentum in educational institutions. •Dramatic increase in the number of EMI programs/universities - both at undergraduate and postgraduate level (Ammon & McConnell, 2002; Dearden, 2014; Wächter & Maiworm, 2008). •Increasing number of international students and teaching staff in non- Anglophone countries In Turkey: Internationalization strategies •Membership to the Bologna process •Big switch to EMI: around 20% of the programs (Arik & Arik, 2014) •Huge increase in the number of international students and staff
- 4. Rationale So far, focus on issues unrelated to language: – Cognitive pedagogical aspect – Socio-political aspect – Educational language planning aspects (Selvi, 2014) – Largely discussed & researched Currently, focus on language-related issues: – Linguistic aspects language policy & practice matters (Turner & Robson, 2008). – Little research in non-Anglophone settings (e.g. Björkman, 2011, 2013; Kuteeva, 2014; Saarinen & Nikula, 2013), particularly in Turkey (Jenkins, 2014). Medium of Instruction (MI) debate The notion of ‘E’ (English)
- 5. Why English language policies? Rationale ‘’…determine criteria for language correctness, oblige people to adopt certain ways of speaking and writing, create definitions about language and especially determine the priority of certain languages in society and how these languages should be used, taught and learned’’ (Shohamy, 2006, p. 77) ‘’[EMI] programs [are] being introduced with scant underpinning of research findings into the relationships between language and content” or of language ideology (Wilkinson & Zegers, 2006, p. 12) Why EMI programs?
- 6. How do Turkish EMI universities and their teaching staff orient to students’ language use? •How do content teachers orient to their students’ written and spoken English in respect of language practices? •Are there any differences in content and language teachers’ expectations of their students’ spoken and written English? If so, what are the underlying reasons? Research questions
- 7. Language gardening: why a ‘gardening’ image? “… an image that nicely caters for the arsenal of prescriptive texts (dictionaries, style guides, usage books, grammars) that give a standard language like English much of its muscle” (Burridge, 2008, p. 3). Language gardener •anyone who has concerns about language and its use •one who “who simply enjoy[s] looking things up in dictionaries and usage books” (p. 2) •one who attempts to modify the language practices of others Conceptual orientations
- 8. Critical Language Policy (LP) Definitions “an officially mandated set of rules for language use and form within a nation-state” (Spolsky, 2012, p. 3). “language policy (LP) is the primary mechanism for organizing, managing and manipulating language behaviours as it consists of decisions made about languages and their uses in society” (Shohamy, 2006, p. 45) is concerned with choices, as noted by Walter and Benson (2012), but they also comprise the beliefs and values shaping the choices made (Spolsky, 2005). Conceptual orientations
- 9. Language policy framework (Spolsky, 2004) - a set of beliefs as regards language and language use “the formulation and proclamation of an explicit plan or policy, usually but not necessarily written in a formal document, about language use” (Spolsky, 2004, p. 14). what individuals actually do while using the language (e.g. their pattern of linguistic choices, formality, following the agreed rules or not and etc.).
- 10. … LP [language policy] should not be limited to the examination of declared and official statements. Rather, the real policy is executed through a variety of mechanisms that determine the de facto practices. There is a need, therefore, to examine the use of mechanisms and study their consequences and effects on de facto LP, as it is through these mechanisms that the de facto language policy is created and manifested” (Shohamy, 2006, p. 54) Language policy mechanisms a.Rules and regulations b.Language educational policies c.Language tests d.Language in public space e.Ideologies, myths, propaganda and coercion Extended language policy (Shohamy, 2006)
- 12. The Study • Online & hard copy questionnaire on perceptions of English/EMI and experiences (40 questions, roughly 15 mins) • 423 responses (351 Ss/72 Ls) • 14 lecturers & 20 students • Content analysis and discourse analysis • Two focus groups: one with Ss from Bilkent, the other with Ss from Bogazici • Each university's website data and accessible policy documents
- 13. Lecturers’ orientations to students’ writing Findings No N S. agree Agree Disagree S. disagree Mean SD f % f % f % f % x̄ s S3 72 8 11.1 30 41.7 27 37.5 7.82 9.7 2.54 S3. Students' academic writing should conform to either American or British English in their exam papers and assignments.
- 14. Conformity to standard English desirable A: Interviewer L1: Male, Bilkent University, International Relations
- 15. Conformity to standard English desirable A: Interviewer S5: Male, Metu, Mechanical Engineering
- 16. Variation from StE acceptable: Focus on content & meaning A: Interviewer L5: Female, Bilkent, History
- 17. Lecturers’ orientations to students’ speaking Findings S4. Communicative success is more important than speaking correctly in oral contexts (e.g. presentations, discussions). No N S. agree Agree Disagree S. disagree Mean SD f % f % f % f % x̄ s S4 72 7 9.7 43 59.7 20 27.8 2 2.8 2.76 .66
- 18. Flexible approach: Communication & intelligibility important than conformity to native English but using StE desirable A: Interviewer S1: Female, Bilkent, History
- 19. Non-conforming position: Maintaining non-native accents acceptable A: Interviewer L8: Female, Bilkent, History
- 20. Conformity to standard English desirable A: Interviewer S1: Female, Bilkent Metu, International Relations
- 21. Language teachers: conformity to StE important A: Interviewer S2: Male, Metu, Mechanical Engineering
- 22. Language teachers: conformity to StE important A: Interviewer S15: Male, Bogazici, International Relations
- 23. Conclusions Content teachers are more inclined to intervene students’ writing •Ideal for academic teaching •Non-native English usage not appropriate for academic writing •Conformity to a standard desirable & important More tolerant with respect to speaking •Focus on content & meaning •Equity issues & acceptance of non-native usage •Creative language use acceptable Language teachers are harsher compared to content teachers •Standard English is best in educational contexts & for academic writing
- 25. References • Ammon, U., & McConnell, G. (2002). English as an academic language in Europe: A survey of its use in teaching. Bern: Peter Lang. • Arik, B. T., & Arik, E. (2014). The role and status of English in Turkish higher education. English Today, 30(4), 5–10. doi:10.1017/S0266078414000339 • Björkman, B. (2011). English as a lingua franca in higher education: Implications for EAP. Ibérica, 22, 79–100. • Burridge, K. (2004). Blooming English: Observations on the roots, cultivation and hybrids of the English language. Cambridge University Press. • Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction – a growing global phenomenon: phase 1 Interim report (pp. 1–8). Oxford: British Council. • Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a Lingua Franca in the international university. The politics of academic English language policy. Abingdon, GB: Routledge. • Kuteeva, M. (2014). The parallel language use of Swedish and English: the question of “nativeness” in university policies and practices. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(4), 332–344. doi:10.1080/01434632.2013.874432. • Saarinen, T. & Nikula, T. (2013). Implicit Policy, Invisible Language: Policies and Practices of International Degree Programs in Finnish Higher Education. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.). English- medium instruction at universities: Global Challenges. (pp. 131-150). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. • Selvi, A. (2014). The medium-of-instruction debate in Turkey: oscillating between national ideas and bilingual ideals. Current Issues in Language Planning, 1–20. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14664208.2014.898357 • Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London: Routledge. • Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy: Key topics in sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Turner, Y., & Robson, S. (2008). Internationalizing the university. London: Continuum Intl. Pub. Group. • Wachter, B. & Maiworm, F. (2008). English-taught programmes in European higher education: The picture in 2007. Lemmens: ACA Papers on Cooperation in Education
Notes de l'éditeur
- The use of English as a medium of instruction in educational institutions around the world has gathered great momentum in the last few years and is now sweeping across the educational land-scape. The increase in the offer of EMI mostly occurred as a result of institutions’ internationalization efforts, including partnerships, collaboration, exchange agreements with countries abroad. English is the language of instruction in around 20% of the programs in Turkish universities. We see different fashions in the use of EMI: partial and full use of English. There is diversity in regards to student body and teaching staff cohort. But what about language?
- Linguistic aspects: whose English & norms, what kind of English, whose proficiency, policy rhetoric v.s. ground-level reality, reconsideration of some notions such as good English, the ideal speaker, norms for spoken and written English. English is a tool to teach and learn content-specific courses, not a subject to be learned and mastered.
- Educational language policy
- So, we understand that language gardening practices are those which force or guide individuals to adopt certain ways of language use, by following particular conventions. In linguistics, norms are the rules and expectations that govern our language practices. Rules and expectations may vary by culture, compliance with established is expected of every individual language user. Every norm can be placed in one of two categories: prescriptive or proscriptive. Proscriptive Norms Proscriptive norms provide guidance on what is unacceptable language behaviour (incorrect grammar, pronunciation unacceptable). Proscriptive norms focus on what people cannot do while using language. Prescriptive Norms Contrary to proscriptive rules, prescriptive norms inform individuals of what they should do in their language practices. where people are advised but not required to take action. Prescriptive norms are designed to influence individuals to voluntarily engage in desired language behaviour.
- Language policy data: how universities orient to English? What kind of English they refer to in their policies? The kind of ideology language management have regarding language practices of its stakeholders?