Using language and culture to construct group work in higher education

Second language students’ experiences of group work is not often transparent in evaluation studies although the multicultural nature of the student population in Australasia would suggest that culture and language should be on the research agenda. Culture and language is used in the higher education literature to mark out the Asian learner as different and problematic although such cultural models and stereotypes have been the subject of some criticism in recent years. Through semi-structured qualitative interviewing in focus group interviews with 19 South East Asian students I explore the ways language and culture intervene to structure these students’ experiences.

Shifting to more authentic language and literacy activity in the middle years

This paper reports on the shifts in literacy teaching and learning that occurred at a Melbourne primary school, one of twelve schools that took part in a large research project undertaken by staff at Deakin University funded by the Victorian Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs: Middle Years Literacy Research Project. The project focused on literacy teaching, learning, and assessment of students in the middle years of schooling. Through close collaboration between the researcher and teachers at the school, significant changes were made to the language and literacy program. These changes reflected current language theory and extended the school's focus on independent learning to the area of literacy. The development of more authentic ways of assessing student learning grew out of the work in the project as teachers sought assessment practices that were consistent with their philosophy of teaching and learning. With a focus on developing authentic literacy practices, teachers developed new ways of tracking and reporting student achievement.

Oral language competence, social skills and high-risk boys : what are juvenile offenders trying to tell us?

A cross-sectional study examining the oral language abilities and social skills of male juvenile offenders is described. Fifty juvenile offenders and 50 non-offending controls completed measures of language processing and production, and measures of social skill and IQ. Information about type of offending, substance use histories and learning/literacy problems was also gathered.

Young offenders performed significantly worse on all language and social skill measures, but these differences could not be accounted for on the basis of IQ. Just over half of the young offenders were identified as language impaired. This subgroup was compared with non-language impaired offending peers on a range of variables. The findings have particular implications in the areas of early intervention for high-risk boys and investigative interviewing of juvenile offenders.

The Civic School : Australian-Indonesian professional collaboration to model and audit the development of democratic primary classrooms and teacher language using the index for inclusion

The study is a pilot project in Australian-Indonesian institutional collaboration for the professional development of primary school teachers in West Sumatra in citizenship education. Senior staff in the department of Pancasila and Citizenship Education at the State University of Padang (UNP), West Sumatra initiated the project. UNP staff sought the collaboration of the Faculty of Education at the University of Tasmania for bringing about and sustaining changes in teacher practice needed to implement the new civic goals in the 1999 Suplemen. The Index for Inclusion was used to model and audit the development of democratic primary classrooms and language use in a cluster of Padang schools in West Sumatra. The paper describes the background to the project and how the Index for Inclusion was understood during the initial two-week implementation phase by teachers and school principals. The significance of the study lies in the potential of the Index for Inclusion internationally to citizenship education, a field of education that was not considered in the initial development of the Index project and the contribution of the multiple fields of inquiry to the evolving theoretical understandings of inclusive education.

Outcomes of population based language promotion for slow to talk toddlers at ages 2 and 3 years: let’s learn language cluster randomised controlled trial

Objective To determine the benefits of a low intensity parent-toddler language promotion programme delivered to toddlers identified as slow to talk on screening in universal services.
Design Cluster randomised trial nested in a population based survey.
Setting Three local government areas in Melbourne, Australia.
Participants Parents attending 12 month well child checks over a six month period completed a baseline questionnaire. At 18 months, children at or below the 20th centile on an expressive vocabulary checklist entered the trial.
Intervention Maternal and child health centres (clusters) were randomly allocated to intervention (modified “You Make the Difference” programme over six weekly sessions) or control (“usual care”) arms.
Main outcome measures The primary outcome was expressive language (Preschool Language Scale-4) at 2 and 3 years; secondary outcomes were receptive language at 2 and 3 years, vocabulary checklist raw score at 2 and 3 years, Expressive Vocabulary Test at 3 years, and Child Behavior Checklist/1.5-5 raw score at 2 and 3 years.
Results 1217 parents completed the baseline survey; 1138 (93.5%) completed the 18 month checklist, when 301 (26.4%) children had vocabulary scores at or below the 20th centile and were randomised (158 intervention, 143 control). 115 (73%) intervention parents attended at least one session (mean 4.5 sessions), and most reported high satisfaction with the programme. Interim outcomes at age 2 years were similar in the two groups. Similarly, at age 3 years, adjusted mean differences (intervention−control) were −2.4 (95% confidence interval −6.2 to 1.4; P=0.21) for expressive language; −0.3 (−4.2 to 3.7; P=0.90) for receptive language; 4.1 (−2.3 to 10.6; P=0.21) for vocabulary checklist; −0.5 (−4.4 to 3.4; P=0.80) for Expressive Vocabulary Test; −0.1 (−1.6 to 1.4; P=0.86) for externalising behaviour problems; and −0.1 (−1.3 to 1.2; P=0. 92) for internalising behaviour problems.
Conclusion This community based programme targeting slow to talk toddlers was feasible and acceptable, but little evidence was found that it improved language or behaviour either immediately or at age 3 years.