Including Global Citizenship in Our Planning Framework

At our sixth meeting, we analysed Oxfam’s Global Citizenship Guides in order to determine how the key elements described in the guides fit into our planning framework based on TBLL and CLIL principles.

Photo Credit: net_efekt via Compfight cc

We read two of these free guides. In the first one, Education for Global Citizenship: A Guide for Schools, the Oxfam’s Curriculum for Global Citizenship is outlined in terms of three key elements: the knowledge and understanding, the skills, and the values and attitudes which are believed to be needed in order for young people to develop as global citizens.

The guide suggests several participatory activities (e.g. discussion and debate, role-play, ranking exercises, and communities of enquiry) applying a global perspective to help students learn “how decisions made by people in other parts of the world affect our lives, just as our decisions affect the lives of others” (Oxfam Development Education Programme, 2006: 2). It also shows how the global citizenship syllabus can be implemented at different levels within the British education system in a progressive and cross-curricular fashion (ibid.: 4-7).

Next, we analysed what, what for and why can be borrowed from Getting Started with Global Citizenship (England). This guide is actually meant to be used by teachers working in England. So bearing in mind our particular teaching context(s), we suggested some relevant ways to adapt the materials. Then we thought of some possible activities to help our students foster intercultural communicative competence (ICC) in order to develop global citizenship (GC) as described in this previous post.

In a nutshell, the knowledge and understand element of the Oxfam’s Curriculum for Global Citizenship (OCGC) roughly matches the knowledge (savoirs) component in Byram’s ICC model (Byram et al., 2002: 11-13). The skills element in the OCGC roughly matches the skills of interpreting and relating (savoir comprendré) and discovery and interaction (savoir aprendre/faire) components in Byram’s ICC model (Ibid.). The values and attitudes element in the OCGC roughly matches the intercultural attitudes (savoir être) and cultural awareness (savoir s’engager) components in Byram’s ICC model (Ibid.).

It’s easy to notice that despite some overlapping, all these components have especially to do with the 4^th C, Culture, in the 4 C’s Framework put forward by Coyle, Hood and Marsh (2010: 41-42, 53-55) as discussed in this previous post. That is, when planning a project along the lines discussed in this course, especially if you’re applying this framework for project planning, we should analyse contents and resources in terms of both Byram’s ICC components and the GC elements.

Photo Credit: lumaxart via Compfight cc

To so doing, Baker (2008: 6) puts forward a framework for global learning that involves five elements in which students play an active role asking questions, making connections, exploring viewpoints and values, responding as active global citizens and assessing learning. Do you see how Baker’s framework can be integrated into the Culture component of the 4 C’s Framework? If you don’t, you can read more about this framework here.

Besides, Baker states that the only real difference between the global dimension (GD) and GC is that GD usually refers to a set of key concepts in education (e.g. social justice, human rights, conflict, diversity, values and perceptions, sustainable development and global citizenship), whereas GC is about the outcomes in the individual (Ibid.: 2).

Going back to the mindmap on this previous post, now I can expand on what I tried to say there. In the mindmap, GD is thought to be a means to an end. That is, in order to develop GC at the individual level, we should include the GD in our teaching practice at a social level.

Finally, I’d like to share the resources I got via Prof. Rubén Mazzei. Click on the links below. These resources are meant to help students (who are living in Buenos Aires Province) develop their ICC and eventually become global citizens.

English Language Workbook for year 1 of Secondary Education.

Intercultural Studies Workbook for years 5 and 6 of Secondary Education with specialism in Foreign Languages.

You can find resources for year 4 of Primary Education here and here.

More resources (years 5 & 6 of PE, and years 2 to 6 of SE) might be published soon on cuadernos de trabajo.

References

Baker, R. (2008). Getting Started with Global Citizenship (England). Oxfam’s Education and Youth Programme. GB: Oxfam House. Available at http://www.oxfam.org.uk/~/media/Files/Education/Global%20Citizenship/GCNewTeacherENGLAND.ashx retrieved 18.05.2013

Byram, M., B. Gribkova and H. Starkey. (2002). Developing the Intercultural Dimension in Language Teaching. A Practical Introduction for Teachers. Language Policy Division, Directorate of School, Out-of-School and Higher Education, DGIV. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available at http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/guide_dimintercult_en.pdf retrieved 21.04.2013

Coyle, D., P. Hood and D. Marsh. (2010). CLIL. Content and language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oxfam Development Education Programme. (2006). Education for Global Citizenship: A Guide for Schools. GB: Oxfam House. Available at http://www.oxfam.org.uk/~/media/Files/Education/Global%20Citizenship/education_for_global_citizenship_a_guide_for_schools.ashx retrieved 18.05.2013

Task Design Principles: A mash-up of TBLL and CLIL

In my previous post, I reviewed some definitions of task within the field of Second Language Learning (SLL) and, more specifically, along the lines of both Task-Based Language Learning (TBLL) and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL).

At the fourth meeting, we analysed some teaching sequences and talked about the factors influencing the choice of resources and the design of tasks. Among other things discussed, we came to the conclusion that we, as EFL teachers, need to make sure the subject content is relevant, interesting and cognitively challenging to learners through language input that is comprehensible and accessible.

In other words, we must customise tasks by meeting the students’ learning needs in terms of the ideational, interpersonal and textual metafunctions of language described by M. A. K. Halliday and in terms of Coyle, Hood and Marsh’s Language Triptych, a conceptual representation that analyses the connexions between cognitively demanding subject content, language learning and language using (2010: 36-38).

That is, tasks should exploit the language of learning (the language needed to access basic concepts and skills related to the theme; the language directly derived from the subject content), the language for learning (the language needed to operate in a foreign language environment; the language need to carry out tasks and communicate in the classroom, together with the language skills and metacognitive strategies to go on learning) and the language through learning (the language that emerges as the result of developing new knowledge and skills; continuously recycling and extending new language so that it becomes embedded in the learners’ repertoire).

Moreover, since there’s always a sociocultural component embedded in the resources chosen and the tasks designed, tasks must also help learners meet the challenges imposed by the features of our particular teaching context. When working at a state secondary school in Buenos Aires Province, among other aspects, we must take account of:

a) the learners’ representations of their culture and of their role as students,

b) the teachers’ representations of their culture and of their role as education professionals, c) the availability of educational resources (including graduate EFL teachers and graduate subject teachers),

d) the fact that we are teaching English as a foreign language at state secondary schools where CLIL is implemented as language-based projects (i.e. only English language teachers are in charge of these projects),

e) the fact that the curriculum design of secondary education is prescriptive and clearly establish the attainment goals, learning objectives, teaching objectives, contents, teaching methods, assessment tools and, in some subjects, the compulsory bibliography,

f) the fact that some students live in very poor conditions in shanty towns and have to work long hours before or after school,

g) the teachers’ working conditions (e.g. secondary teachers usually have to teach several large classes a week in order to make ends meet; sometimes they barely get to know and remember all the students they teach; there's not prep-time at state schools), and so on.

“… Task design needs to cater for scaffolded activity which engages and stimulates thinking in the learners, but which also offers opportunities for specific help to be available when needed from teachers, peers or support material (Coyle, Hood and Marsh, 2010: 99).”

Besides, we must make sure that the prior knowledge required by both the subject content and language is activated, or built up, and that enough cognitive/linguistic scaffolding is provided throughout the teaching sequences we plan. That is, in terms of language, there must be a balance between input-providing and output-prompting tasks because learners need to receive meaningful comprehensible input before they can be reasonably expected to produce anything (Krashen’s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis). Then, learners also need to have some control over their interlanguage to become aware of the gap between the target language and their own current production (Swain’s Comprehensible Output Hypothesis).

According to Coyle, Hood and Marsh (2010: 98-101), some issues that have to be addressed when planning tasks are:

• What type of tasks is the most cognitively relevant / meaningful / appropriate / engaging / motivating at different stages within the teaching sequence?
• What type of information is required by the task? What type of text type is required? What type of comprehension processes is involved? Does the task ask for interpretation / inference / summary / analysis / comparison / evaluation of information?
• What type of interaction pattern is required by the task at different stages? Does the task involve students working on their own, in pairs, in small groups or class-as-a-whole?
• What type of scaffolding does the task require at different stages?
• To what extent does the task allow learners to show they have understood the concepts?
• To what extent are the task output formats customised to meet the learners’ educational needs?
• To what extent do the outputs produced by the learners allow the learners to revisit what they have learnt and how they have done so?

Coyle, Hood and Marsh (2010: 41-42, 53-55) put forward the 4 C’s Framework to map the integration of content and language learning in four contextualised building blocks: content (progression in learning subject matter knowledge and developing skills and understanding), communication (interaction together with progression in learning to use the language and using the language to learn), cognition (engagement in higher-order thinking, understanding, problem-solving, and accepting challenges and reflecting on them) and culture (developing self and other awareness, identity and progressing towards intercultural understanding and global citizenship).

According to Coyle (2005: 4-5), the content is the starting point of the planning process and determines the learning route. He goes on to state that while the 4C’s framework provides a useful guide for the overall planning of a unit of work, the 3A’s Tool can be used for more detailed lesson planning. There is clearly some overlap between the framework and the tool. However, their suggested use is significantly different. The 3A’s tool operates in three stages and is used with specific content.

Stage 1: Analyse content for the language of learning. This involves systematic content analysis to identify key words (including specialised contextualised vocabulary), phrases, grammatical functions for concept formation and comprehension.

Stage 2: Add to content language for learning. This involves adding language experiences to the lesson plan for specific attention which enable the learner to operate effectively in a CLIL setting (including strategies for information processing and understanding a difficult spoken/written text, metacognitive strategies, classroom talk and discussion, strategies to cope with task demands, considering ways in which the learning will be scaffolded and so on).

Stage 3: Apply to content language through learning. This involves building on the language which emerges through the learning context in order to make sure that there is cognitive and cultural capital. This stage involves exploring how thinking skills have been incorporated into the lesson plan in order to advance learning. It uses emergent knowledge and skills to apply thinking skills and high level questioning, which also demands cultural awareness. Since language and thinking are explicitly related, this stage is also necessary to ensure that a translated transmission model of learning won’t evolve.

When planning a project, we could combine the elements of the 4 C’s Framework and the 3 A’s Tool with those of the Six-T’s Approach to Content-Based instruction designed by Fredricka Stoller and William Grabe. Thus, in this approach, we follow these steps:

• First, we determine the most relevant, meaningful and interesting themes (central ideas that organise major curricular units of subject content) for the students we’re going to teach.
• Second, we look for the most appropriate authentic spoken/written/multimedia texts.
• Third, we carefully analyse the texts collected to spot the topics (the subunits of subject content which explore more specific aspects of the theme) discussed in each text. At this stage, we should use the 3A’s Tool.
• Fourth, we establish the abstract concepts that work as cross-curricular linkages or threads. That is, we determine how the theme and topics are linked to other themes in order to create greater curricular coherence. 
• Fifth, bearing in mind the features of different task types and the learners’ needs, we design tasks to teach content and language in an integrated fashion.
• Finally, we plan topic and task transitions. That is, we organise the topics creating links across them and providing constructive entries for new topics within the same theme unit. Then, we put the tasks into a given order that both creates links across them and provides constructive entries for follow-up tasks within the same topic.

On the video below, Dr. Fredricka Stoller talks about the possibilities and benefits of introducing Project-Based Learning (PBL) through a 7-step process as well as the potential challenges a teacher may face.

Well, so far so good. I’ve been applying in practice the main principles of CBI, TBLL and project work for fifteen year and CLIL for about 5 years. Lately, I’ve noticed I’ve been developing my own way of putting all these ideas into practice in the particular teaching context where I work. Maybe, I should share my own interpretation of these principles in the following post. In the meantime, what do you think about all these ideas? In your specific teaching context, are these ideas relevant/useful? Are they easy to apply in practice? Why (not)?

References

Coyle, D. (2005). CLIL. Planning Tools for Teachers. Nottingham: University of Nottingham. Available at http://clilrb.ucoz.ru/_ld/0/29_CLILPlanningToo.pdf retrieved 04.05.2013

Coyle, D., P. Hood and D. Marsh. (2010). CLIL. Content and language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Snow, M. A. and D. M. Brinton (1997). The Content Based Classroom: Perspectives on Integrating Language and Content. UK: Pearson Education.

Connecting Global Dimension with Global Citizenship, Culture and Interculturality

Photo Credit: lumaxart via Compfight cc

In my previous post, I drafted an inaccurate definition of global dimension. Actually, that definition was construed by talking about the concept with Natalia Iglesias and Sabina Bora in the first meeting. It’s interesting to notice that so far I haven’t found any relevant result in Spanish by googling La Dimensión Global. You can find more information about this concept on Prof. David Hicks’ Teaching For A Better World website, however.

At our second meeting, we were asked to relate global dimension, global citizenship (more about this concept on Oxfam Education website and in Global Citizenship – What Are We Talking About and Why Does It Matter?), culture (more definitions of this concept on Texas A&M University) and interculturality by drawing a mindmap. Here’s my first draft:

Notice that though global citizenship is thought to be one of the eight elements through which the global dimension is understood, I suggest that global citizenship is developed through global dimension since the latter is an approach to education.

Then, following Prof. Michael Byram‘s ideas (Byram et al., 2002: 11-13), we explored the concept of intercultural communicative competence (ICC) as a set of attitudes, knowledge and skills which are complemented by the set of values one holds.

To be more precise, ICC consists of…

a) Attitudes (savoir être) that involve

- curiosity

- openness

- readiness to suspend disbelief about other cultures and belief about one’s culture

- willingness to relativise one’s own values, beliefs and behaviours;

b) Knowledge (savoirs) of

- social groups (including their identities, practices and products) and

- illustrations of those groups (including their identities, practices and products);

c) Skills of

(savoir comprendre)
- comparing new knowledge from another culture

- interpreting new knowledge from another culture

- relating new knowledge from another culture to one’s own

(savoir apprendre/faire)
- finding out and integrating new knowledge from another culture, and

- interacting appropriately in real-time communication; and

d) Critical cultural awareness (savoir s’engager) or the ability to evaluate, critically and on the basis of explicit criteria, perspectives, practices and products in one’s own and other cultures.

To develop ICC in our classrooms, we should move from the traditional communicative language teaching approaches in which the native speaker’s language variety is the target language towards a conception of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) in which interlanguage or the learner language is now accepted as a valid language.

We should choose appropriate materials and resources and plan activities in which students are given the opportunity to explore cultural issues from different perspectives. The materials and resources should be chosen taking account of the pros and cons involved when dealing with the target culture vs. the source culture vs. the international culture.

That is, we should ask ourselves:

• Up to what extent are the materials and resources relevant to students?
• Up to what extent are the materials and resources interesting to students?
• Up to what extent may the materials and resources cause cultural conflict?
• Up to what extent will the materials and resources help students learn more about their own culture? Do the materials and resources have any potential for fostering interculturality?
• Up to what extent are cultural references explicit in the materials and resources?
• Up to what extent are diverse contexts illustrated in the materials and resources?
• If the materials and resources are somehow biased, to what extent do the activities help student to identify different points of view, stereotypes and prejudices?

By the way, why is it that Compfight keeps on turning out photos of Mardi Gras parades or people wearing traditional outfits when I type cultural diversity in the search box? Is that the only way cultural diversity can be shown by this searching tool? (See the screenshot below or click on the links above)

References

Byram, M., B. Gribkova and H. Starkey. (2002). Developing the Intercultural Dimension in Language Teaching. A Practical Introduction for Teachers. Language Policy Division, Directorate of School, Out-of-School and Higher Education, DGIV. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available at http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/guide_dimintercult_en.pdf [retrieved 21.04.2013]

Byram, M. (2009). Plurilingual and intercultural competences; two elements of a single European language policy. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMoesr2Oz-s [retrieved 20.04.2013]