A Transdisciplinary Framework for SLA in a Multilingual World [Journal Article Review]
I found this to be a fascinating paper, in both the content, and the context in which it was written.
I love that so many SLA researchers contributed, and embodied the kind of interdisciplinary and collaborative approach that they advocated for.
I thought it was actually a good overview of the field of Second Language Acquisition in general, in that different influences and considerations in SLA were explored. I particularly enjoyed discussions of emotion and identity, and the idea of continuity from first language acquisition mechanisms into additional languages acquisition, such as mediation by attention and social interaction.
I appreciated the acknowledgment of macro level features of influence such as language ideologies, which may either promote of constrain learning. Particularly with regard to socioeconomic access and opportunity, and capital.
I liked revisiting also the concepts of imagined and real communities of practice,and the learner's self-perception of competency being a strong mediating factor in their successful use of language.
The way the paper was structured into themes was quite good. It gave me a lot of food for thought.
I wonder why this was chosen as a text for meso level evaluation though [the topic of study for Week 5]. It does present a diagram of micro, meso and macro level influences, with meso being institutions, but I am not sure if this is directly applicable or relevant to evaluation.
Nonetheless, it is one of my favourite reads in the course thus far.
The Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A Transdisciplinary Framework for SLA in a Multilingual World. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 19-47. doi:10.1111/modl.12301
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I’ve been absent the last few weeks because I was doing my first assignment, and this weekend I’ve been catching up on the weekly study!
For the first assignment, I had to discuss one consideration of program evaluation covered in class with regard to language program evaluation specifically. I chose to cover the topic of stakeholder evaluation with reference to Indigenous language revitalisation programs in schools.
I probably made it a bit too top heavy, as I covered the context of Indigenous languages in Australia and decolonisation epistemologies more than I got into the specifics of stakeholder engagement, but hopefully it’ll do alright.
I don’t think it would be a good idea to post it before it’s marked, but I wonder if there’s any issue in posting it afterwards? I might check with my teacher on that...
This week kind of had three focuses: (1) Further considering an argument-based framework for language program evaluation, (2) working with stakeholder in evaluation, and (3) overview of ethical considerations.
Argument Based Planning
In the third week now, I feel like I’ve got a pretty good grasp of what this is an how it applied to language program evaluation, however, it was good to see it said in different ways to cement the ideas a little more.
For example, we watched this short video: https://youtu.be/Nq8-w2BAJkU
Which explains that an argument is a technical term which is a set of claims, one of which is the conclusion, and the others are the premises which are intended to offer reasons to accept the conclusion.
Argumentation based evaluation can be effective because an interpretive argument allows for flexibility across contexts and purposes, customization for stakeholders and transferablity across programs. So basically, rather than coming in with a tick and flick check list to evaluate a program, or just administering a pre and post test to determine program worth, you have to set up an argument as the structure of your work? I think.
It can be an iterative process, and therefore good for this “developmental” idea that the program is emergent and continuous, and improvements can be made on an ongoing basis.
The stages of this kind of evaluation are:
1) Planning- Create a structure of argument (chain of inferences linking claims). Outline your warrants, assumptions and evidence associate with each inference.
2) Gathering - Gather that data. It could be quantitative, qualitative, most likely mixed.
3) Presenting - there was this whole table of the argument structure that guides this step but I won’t insert it bc copyright.
4) Appraising - what are rebuttals for some of these premises. How strong is the backing for the claims.
Working with Stakeholders
So you have to acknowledge that you are going into some place (or you may already be there is an insider in action research) and evaluation has a long history of being harsh and judgemental. So there may be some conflicts and tensions.
You should apparently align yourself strategically with powerful people who will support the evaluation. The vision of what the evaluation is for and what is will bring is important, as the participants need to buy in to have the motivation for this evaluation.
The insiders should be the ones to ultimately lead change, otherwise the recommendations will not be followed through. Administrators, who set up the structures for the program, will also need to be empowered.
During the evaluation process, success should be shown and celebrated, again to sustain motivation. There should not be unrealistic expectations set as to how much can change in a short time-frame, as institutionalised change may take years.
The evaluators role in the process might be thought of as an advocate, critical friend, facilitator, questioner etc. Attention should be paid to capacity building within the program - how can evaluation and improvement continue once the evaluator is gone? How can the program be sustainable?
Ethics
Not that much to say about this one. Basically got an overview of Australian National Ethics Statement, and how ethics stuff is worked out at this university.
Probably the most notable point here was how institutional ethics are often not enough, or even clash with, the wider or more relevant ethical considerations of the actual research or work you are doing. I think this is relevant to work within Aboriginal contexts especially.
This chapter primarily delved deeper into the interpretive argument approach to evaluated blended language programs. It commences by briefly touching on the key challenges to (language) program evaluation, which are understanding the sociopolitical context, attaining stakeholder engagement, understanding what constitutes achievement in the program, understanding what kinds of evidence is required to back up claims, and how evaluation can be used outside of the immediate context.
Something that was a bit of a breakthrough for me, reading this chapter, was understanding how the interpretive argument approach matches up with developmental evaluation's suitability to emergent and continuous goals. It also aligns nicely with the cyclical action research methodology. I liked in particular the quote about developmental research aiming to foster a curiosity and love of learning, rather than being judgemental and stifling continuous improvement. Basically summative and formative approaches to evaluation are based on external stakeholder accountability and are suitable when the program is short in duration, well established, has a clear end point etc.
The chapter also goes into further detail regarding micro, meso and macro levels of evaluation. Although I previously interpreted these as static categories, I now understand the are relational and context based. So in an international context, International is macro, National is meso and institutional is micro. It also again touched on the considerations of appropriateness, purpose, multimodality and sustainability. They then used these variables to make little tables to show how you can do evaluations at all different levels.
Finally, the chapter goes on to explain the stages of evaluation. Planning involves identifying stakeholders, considerations, focal questions and levels of evaluation. Gathering evidence includes ethical considerations, collecting empirical or analytical evidence, keeping in line with the level and the question. Presenting the argument entails involving stakeholders to articulate the argument, and finally appraising involved assessing the strength of claims, the clarity and coherence of the argument, and the plausibility of inferences and assumptions. Rebuttals are also examined.
Gruba, P., Cárdenas-Claros, M. S., Suvorov, R., Rick, K. (2016). Essentials of Blended Language Program Evaluation: Towards an Argument-Based Approach. In Blended Language Program Evaluation (pp. 20-45). London: Palgrave Macmillian.
(I’m super tired, sorry if you read this and it’s not great.)
So this week delved a little bit more into program evaluation history, from positivist to post-positivist approaches, and furthermore explored the argument based approach to developmental program evaluation.
Although not much was touched on about the positivist approach, it was basically in the era of Industrial Revolution and beyond, where external evaluators would come in and lambast everyone lol. This made teachers and institutions overall weary of evaluation. Might involve things like pre- and post-testing to determine program effectiveness.
Post-positivist approaches developed from 1970′s onward. Won’t list of all of these, but one I found quite interesting by the sound of it was Educational Connoisseurship which focused on an impressionistic narrative, considering the program as an artistic object.
The difference between research and evaluation largely comes down to practical application. Research has the purpose of discovering new knowledge and better understanding issues, research questions originate from theories or previous research, their is no applicability necessary, or at least not immediately. Evaluation has the purpose of serving decision making for any number of stakeholders, questions originate from informational needs of stakeholders, and applicability is crucial.
There are a number of challenges for (language) program evaluation, including understanding the sociopolitical context, involving stakeholders, understanding what constitutes success or achievement in the program, understanding what evidence is needed to back claims and considering applicability beyond the immediate context of the evaluation.
Something I liked about the description of developmental approaches to language program evaluation was their goal of “nurturing a hunger for learning as opposed to using methods for striving for goals that engender a fear of failure”.
I might post my notes from the key reading separately.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
The first of this subject introduces the concepts of Blended Language Learning, language program evaluation, and interpretive argument as a basis of evaluation.
In this post, I will give an overview of these concepts, and describe some of the questions that have been spurned from this.
Blended Language Learning
So Blended Language Learning means integrating technologies into the language program so that they are as seamless and pretty much invisible as the standard/traditional tools like textbooks and pen and paper. To my mind, this is already the case for the majority of language programs that you would come across in schools and universities.
For example, when I studies French at school, we listened to audio context from the online site of the textbook and did phone lessons which used a shared online screen for writing and sharing information. I used online dictionaries to translate between French and English and online resources for practicing grammar activities. In my university studies, there were also video clips that were used for listening comprehension practice.
Rather than a distinction between traditional and blended, the distinction these days may be better described at blended vs. purely online. For example, Duolingo is purely online, as well as many other popular language learning apps and sites. I think it would be more difficult to find programs that don’t use technologies, although I suppose conversation groups might fall into this category.
That being said, what counts as a technology is hazy. Does a CD still count as technology, or not, because it is more out of date? Tapes surely would have been considered technology once, but not anymore. To me, I use my computer for all of study, so it’s definitely passed into that fully blended state.
But I think further and more widespread integration could be attempted. For example, why not have students create Youtube style videos on a particular topic, rather than do a speech? If it weren’t for lack of resources, I would love if assignments at uni had the option of being presented in a video format. I have great appreciate for Philosophy Tube and his exploration and explanation of topics in an entertaining way through video. He even integrates references to his sources. Thus why can’t this be the modern alternative to writing essays?
Language Program Evaluation
According to the content from this week, there has been very scant research and analysis regarding language program evaluation, which is quite surprising. I wonder if this is because language programs may be influenced a lot by instinct or intuitions?
Language program evaluation and program evaluation in general historically involved outsiders coming in to pass judgement on programs without transparency as to criteria. This was alienating and intimidating for the stakeholders such as teachers and students. As a result, recommendations may not have been implemented after the evaluation. A key question in designing an evaluation is: “Who is the evaluation for?”
The approach to evaluation now focuses on stakeholder engagement, and is even often spurned by action research (research undertaken by a teacher/staff member in their own teaching/working context). In Blended Language Program Evaluation (Gruba, Cárdenas-Claros, Suvorov,& Rick, 2016) set out four key considerations for language program evaluation: Appropriateness, Purpose, Multimodality and Sustainability.
Interpretive Argumentation
Another key idea in language program evaluation is the distinction between formative and summative evaluation. Formative evaluation focuses on continuous development, and suggests ways for the program to develop. This seems to be better approach when it comes to engaging stakeholders. Summative evaluation judges effectiveness of a program, and may be appropriate if the program is more short term or is coming to an end.
Interpretive argument can be used in formative evaluation. By investigating a claim logically, this approach can be more flexibly in answering diverse questions and fitting an array of purposes.
I will need to do more reading on this point though, as it is still not well formed in my head.
Questions
Has there been any decolonial investigations or approaches to program evaluation?
Can the context-adaptive evaluation approach suit the needs of Indigenous Language Revitalisation programs?
