Re: it is ok -- Work Group One

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2] ]

Subject: Re: it is ok

Author:
Mar�lia

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:35:53 08/22/10 Sun
In reply to: Luciano Valadares 's message, "new version (revised)" on 14:28:28 08/21/10 Sat

>Please, take a look in this new version of Question 3.
>And send me an OK message. Thank you.
>
>
>3- How do the article writers validate their own
>thoughts and conclusions?
>
>The writers validate their own thoughts and
>conclusions studying, reading, going to workshops and
>observing researcher�s works that bring them support
>and knowledge to produce and empower their own studies
>and experiences. That is to say, they can get their
>own conclusions based on data collections and
>consequently they focus on the recurrent issues that
>need to be improved.
>
>The article one focus their studies on the spread of
>English as the global language. Because of this, as
>they said, �many people from English-speaking
>countries go to foreign land to work as English
>teachers.�
>
>This article is based on the study conducted by
>Gingerich (2004). She observed the problems and
>difficulties that three English teachers from South
>Africa had in their classes. It is part of a larger
>study which examines local and foreign English
>teachers� collaboration and professional development
>in intercultural team teaching.
>
>To write the article, data were collected via
>different methods including: interviews,
>questionnaires, classroom observation, field notes,
>research journals and document inspection. All the
>interviews were recorded and transcribed for further
>analysis.
>
>In addition, writers follow all the steps mentioned
>above, they will analyze the data and information,
>aiming to solve problems or at least try to settle
>them. In this article they noticed the deficiencies
>related to the teachers and gave solutions to be
>followed.
>
>It was said that for students to gain maximum benefits
>of intercultural team teaching, the participating
>foreign teachers need to be better prepared for the
>challenges they may face in an unfamiliar educational
>system. Snow (2006) states that foreign English
>teachers should be encouraged to reflect on their
>teaching regularly so that, their teaching is guided
>by more informed decisions. In the case of the Hsinchu
>Program (Taiwanese program), this reflection can take
>many forms, such as engaging in casual conversations
>about the lesson they taught together with their
>team-teaching partners, writing a reflective journal
>and exchanging it with their partners and conducting
>action research to investigate a certain aspect of
>team-teaching. It is hoped that with better
>preparation and continued professional development,
>foreign English teachers can thrive and contribute
>their teaching expertise to the foreign land.
>
>In the article 3, the author demonstrates her worry
>about students that are learning English through
>immersion in the mainstream curriculum. According to
>her, there are many native speaker students whose
>learning difficulties are linguistic in origin and
>require a language-oriented pedagogy in all curriculum
>areas.
>
>After Reading her article, we can say that Susan Gray
>develops a work with a validity character. She uses
>not only her words, but she tries to justify with
>other authors words or with words of people who has a
>credit position in society. She also searches and
>quotes other theories that could dialogue with the one
>she works with.
>
>To justify her central arguments, she quotes authors
>like Ellis, Fisher, Westerman, Pica among others.
>Quoting Pica�s words while justifying her work:
>
>� � he observed when considering data from a wide
>range of content-based classrooms where the target
>language was English that students� language
>production was �fluent, but linguistically inaccurate`
>(p. 343); attention in the class was directed to
>meaning rather than form.�
>
>And explain that in her paper:
>
> �uses and extends the view of form proposed by Ellis
>et al. (2002) which incorporates phonological,
>graphological, lexical, and grammatical form to
>include discoursal aspects of language. This focus
>beyond the level of the sentence to text structure is
>critical for the language demands of academic
>writing.�
>
>Here, once again, when she says: ��proposed by Ellis
>et al (2002)� she is looking for theoretical
>justifications. Another important point is that she
>not only substantiates the principles of the research,
>but she also defines specific terms as in �Sardo Brown
>(1993, p. 63) defines teacher planning as �the
>instructional decisions made prior to the execution of
>plans during teaching`.�
>
>Defending her afirmation that many secondary students,
>not just new learners of English, need informed
>language focused planning and that each of the
>secondary learning areas has its own language, she
>demonstrates that there are other authors that said
>that, so she puts it in parenthesis �(Bullock
>Committee, 1975; Vollmer, 2006)� and continue
>explaining that educational systems are challenged to
>develop language-oriented pedagogy that benefits
>native speaker as well as non native speaker students.
>
>It is relevant that the author still points out that
>the research area is relevant:
>
> �there is renewed interest in earlier work in
>language across the curriculum issues which guided
>teachers to focus on the reading and writing demands
>in their subject areas (for example, Davies and
>Greene, 1984; Lunzer and Gardner, 1979; Morris and
>Stewart-Dore, 1984 and the Council of Europe�s current
>project on Languages of Education).�
>
>Another point used to give validity to her work is
>the mention of the New Zealander national curriculum:
>
> � it argues that each teacher needs to provide
>specific guidance with the specialist vocabulary, the
>reading demands, and appropriate ways of conveying
>knowledge in each subject area (Ministry of Education,
>2007).�
>
>The author also searches for the words of the Ministry
>of Education that English language learners will
>��need explicit and extensive teaching of English
>vocabulary, word forms, sentence and text structures,
>and language uses� (Ministry of Education, p. 16).
>
>And in the conclusion was shown the principles chosen
>to assist teachers in their instructional decision and
>the way teachers have put principles into practice,
>using a descriptive account. This validates her
>research showing teachers experiences in their own
>teaching as well as those of their students. And she
>justifies:
>
>�The descriptive account also enabled a critical
>examination of the theoretical input in one TESOL
>teacher education programme teachers in the study used
>principles as a pivot between the needs analysis and
>subsequent planning and as the criteria for selecting
>and sequencing the learning activities.�
>
>So, the author always underlies her words through
>theoretical ones, doing this she transmits the idea of
>being a good researcher and get readers� confidence.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]