Abstrakt
While teacher feedback has got a long established tradition in pedagogic or educational discourse as a form of reflection, it has to be noticed by students to result in raised awareness. Apprehension of teacher feedback depends on its various characteristics such as salience, length, complexity or linguistic features (Swain, 2006a). Thereby its value may be too much engrained in the positivist paradigm of knowledge and language. Sociocultural approaches to learning, resting firmly on constructivist theories of knowledge and interactive theories of language, underscore the centrality of the learner. The agency of the learner places reflection in the form of talks (Moate, 2011) or languaging (Swan, 2006a). The aim of this paper is to present a microgenetic analysis of languaging on the concept of “noticing” (Schmidt, 1990) in teacher training during a methodology class. The working hypothesis is the claim that reflection, in the form of substantiated thinking, presents a potential for developing procedural dimension of teacher language awareness.
Bibliografia
(IRF) http://labspace.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=445539§ion=1.3.1 ED. 08.12.2013.
(KRK, 2011). Rozporządzenie Ministra Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego z dnia 2 listopada 2011 r. w sprawie Krajowych Ram Kwalifikacji dla Szkolnictwa Wyższego.
(Rozporządzenie, 2012). Rozporządzenie Ministra Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego z dnia 17 stycznia 2012 r. w sprawie standardów kształcenia przygotowującego do wykonywania zawodu nauczyciela.
Andrews, S. J. 2001. “The language awareness of the L2 teacher: Its impact upon pedagogical practice”. Language Awareness 13(3): 75–90.
Andrews, S. J. 2003. “Teacher language awareness and the professional knowledge base of the L2 teacher”. Language Awareness 12(2): 81–95.
Andrews, S. J. 2007. Teacher Language Awareness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Benson, P. 1997. “The philosophy and politics of learner autonomy” (in:) Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning (eds. P. Benson and P. Voller). London: Longman: 18-34.
Bernstein, B. 1971. Class, Codes and Control (Volume 1). London: Routledge and Kegan.
Bernstein, B. 1999. “Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay”. British Journal of Sociology of Education 20(2): 157-173.
Borg, S. 2003. “Teacher cognition in grammar teaching: A literature review”. Language Awareness 12(2): 96-108.
Borg, S. 2006. Teacher Cognition and Language Education: Research and Practice. London: Continuum.
Carter, R. 2003. “Language awareness”. ELT Journal 57(1): 64-65.
Cross, J. 2002. “‘Noticing’ in SLA: Is it a valid concept?”. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language 6(3): 1-9. http://tesl-ej.org/ej23/a2.html ED. 08.12.2013.
Danilewicz, T. 2011. Language Awareness and a Second Language Teacher. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.
Droździał-Szelest, K. 2006. “Resent developments in ELT methodology and their implications for language teacher pedagogy” (in:) Issues in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching (ed. J. Zybert). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego: 46-65.
Eco, U. 2000. Kant and the Platypus: Essays on Language and Cognition. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Ellis, R. 1997. SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Evans, V. and M. Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Gattullo, F. 2000. “Corrective feedback and teaching style: exploring a relationship” (in:) Researching into English Teaching for Young Learners (eds. J. Moon and M. Nikolov). Pecs: University of Pecs Press: 295-311.
Harmer, J. 2001/2007. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Hicks, D. 1995. “Discourse, teaching and learning”. Review of Research in Education 21: 49-95.
Järvinen, H-M. 2009. “What has ecology to do with CLIL? An ecological approach in content and language integrated learning” (in:) CLIL Practice: Perspectives from the Field. (eds. D. Marsh, P. Mehisto; D. Wolff, R. Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M. J. Frigols-Martin, S. Hughes and G. Langé). CCN: University of Jyväskylä: 164-171.
Kelly, G. 1983. A Theory of Personality. New York: Norton.
Lankiewicz, H. 2013a. “EAP and academic discourse: Mediating elaborated code in a CLIL type teacher education”. Neofilolog 41(2): 169-185.
Lankiewicz, H. 2013b. “Filologiczna praca licencjacka a rozwój kompetencji naukowych studenta”. Neofilolog 40(1): 111-125.
Lankiewicz, H. and E. Wąsikiewicz-Firlej. 2014. Languaging Experiences: Learning and Teaching Revisited. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge University Press.
Lantolf, J. P. 2000. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leontiev, A. N. 1978. Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mercer, N. and K. Littleton. 2007. Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking. London: Routledge.
Moate, J. 2011. “Reconceptualising the role of talk in CLIL”. Journal of Applied Language Studies 5(2): 17–35.
Munby, H. 1989. “Reflection-in-Action and Reflection-on-Action”. Education and Culture 9(1): 31-41.
Munby, H., T. Russell, and A. K. Martin. 2001. “Teachers knowledge and how it develops” (in:) Handbook of Research on Teaching (4th ed.). (ed. V. Richardson). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association: 877-904.
Newman, D., P. Griffin and M. Cole. 1989. The Construction Zone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. 1990. “The role of consciousness in second language learning”. Applied Linguistics 11: 129-158.
Schön, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
Schön, D. A. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shulman, L. 1987. “Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform”. Harvard Educational Review 57(1): 1-22.
Swain, M. 2000. “The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue” (in:) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (ed. J. Lantolf). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 97–114.
Swain, M. 2006a. “Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency” (in:) Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (ed. H. Byrnes). New York: Continuum: 95-108.
Swain, M. 2006b. “Verbal protocols: what does it mean for research to use speaking as a data collection?” (in:) Inference and Generalizability in Applied Linguistics: Multiple Research Perspectives (eds. M. Chalhoub-Deville, C. Chapelle and P. Duff). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 97-113.
Swain, M. and S. Lapkin 2002. “Talking-it-through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation”. International Journal of Educational Research 37: 285-304.
Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 2011. “Languaging as Agent and Constituent of Cognitive Change in an Older Adult: An Example”. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 14(1): 104-117.
Truscott, J. 1998. “Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review”. SLA Research 14: 103-135.
van Lier, L. 2000. “From input to affordances: Sociocultural-interactive learning form the ecological perspective” (in:) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (ed. J. P. Lantolf). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 245-285.
van Lier, L. 2004. The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning. A Sociocultural Perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wells, G. 1999. Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. 1998. Mind as Action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. and M. Hickman. 1987. “Problem-solving in social interaction: A micro¬genetic analysis” (in:) Social and Functional Approaches to Language and Thought (ed. M. Hickman). Orlando, FL: Academic Press: 251-266.
Licencja
Prawa autorskie (c) 2019 Hadrian Lankiewicz
![Creative Commons License](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nd/4.0/88x31.png)
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
Przedstawiany utwór (artykuł) upubliczniany jest na podstawie umowy z autorem i na licencji Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0).
Użytkownicy mają obowiązek podania wraz z rozpowszechnionym utworem, informacji o autorstwie, tytule, źródle (odnośniki do oryginalnego utworu, DOI) oraz samej licencji;
- bez tworzenia utworów zależnych,
- utwór musi być zachowany w oryginalnej postaci.
Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu zachowuje prawo do czasopisma jako całości (układ, forma graficzna, tytuł, projekt okładki, logo itp.).