Upper Secondary Students’ Beliefs About Learning English as a Foreign Language : A contrast between the students’ beliefs and the Swedish curriculum

Learning English as a foreign language (EFL) entails different factors. Language learners use different strategies in order to make their language acquisition successful. Motivation and self-regulated learning are other factors that influence how successful the EFL learner is. This paper aims to analyze the beliefs of upper secondary students in a Swedish school about learning EFL, as well as how their beliefs relate to what is specified in the Swedish curriculum. An analysis of the differences between students’ beliefs and what is stated in the curriculum was done. A survey was conducted on a total of 54 students who were enrolled in the social sciences program. The results showed that students believed that motivation and self-regulated learning were important factors for a successful learning. For them, the language skill of reception is more important than production, which does not correspond with what it is stated in the national curriculum. First and second year students’ beliefs were similar in most of the cases, but not all of them.

Reading in the Australian curriculum English : describing the effects of structure and organisation on multimodal texts

The recently introduced Australian Curriculum: English Version 3.0 (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2012) requires students to ‘read’ multimodal text and describe the effects of structure and organisation. We begin this article by tracing the variable understandings of what reading multimodal text might entail through the Framing Paper (National Curriculum Board, 2008), the Framing Paper Consultation Report (National Curriculum Board, 2009a), the Shaping Paper (National Curriculum Board, 2009b) and Version 3.0 of the Australian Curriculum English (ACARA, 2012). Our findings show that the theoretical and descriptive framework for doing so is implicit. Drawing together multiple but internally coherent theories from the field of semiotics, we suggest one way to work towards three Year 5 learning outcomes from the reading/writing mode. The affordances of assembling a broad but explicit technical metalanguage for an informed reading of the integrated design elements of multimodal texts are noted.

Playing with Grammar in the Early Years : Learning about Language in the Australian Curriculum : English

As teacher/researchers interested in the pursuit of socially-just outcomes in early childhood education, the form and function of language occupies a special position in our work. We believe that mastering a range of literacy competences includes not only the technical skills for learning, but also the resources for viewing and constructing the world (Freire and Macdeo, 1987). Rather than seeing knowledge about language as the accumulation of technical skills alone, the viewpoint to which we subscribe treats knowledge about language as a dialectic that evolves from, is situated in, and contributes to a social arena (Halliday, 1978). We do not shy away from this position just because children are in the early years of schooling. In ‘Playing with Grammar’, we focus on the Foundation to Year 2 grouping, in line with the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority’s (hereafter ACARA) advice on the ‘nature of learners’ (ACARA, 2013). With our focus on the early years of schooling comes our acknowledgement of the importance and complexity of play. At a time where accountability in education has moved many teachers to a sense of urgency to prove language and literacy achievement (Genishi and Dyson, 2009), we encourage space to revisit what we know about literature choices and learning experiences and bring these together to facilitate language learning. We can neither ignore, nor overemphasise, the importance of play for the development of language through: the opportunities presented for creative use and practice; social interactions for real purposes; and, identifying and solving problems in the lives of young children (Marsh and Hallet, 2008). We argue that by engaging young children in opportunities to play with language we are ultimately empowering them to be active in their language learning and in the process fostering a love of language and the intricacies it holds. Our goal in this publication is to provide a range of highly practical strategies for scaffolding young children through some of the Content Descriptions from the Australian Curriculum English Version 5.0, hereafter AC:E V5.0 (ACARA, 2013). This recently released curriculum offers a new theoretical approach to building children’s knowledge about language. The AC:E V5.0 uses selected traditional terms through an approach developed in systemic functional linguistics (see Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004) to highlight the dynamic forms and functions of multimodal language in texts. For example, the following statement, taken from the ‘Language: Knowing about the English language’ strand states: English uses standard grammatical terminology within a contextual framework, in which language choices are seen to vary according to the topics at hand, the nature and proximity of the relationships between the language users, and the modalities or channels of communication available (ACARA, 2013). Put simply, traditional grammar terms are used within a functional framework made up of field, tenor, and mode. An understanding of genre is noted with the reference to a ‘contextual framework’. The ‘topics at hand’ concern the field or subject matter of the text. The ‘relationships between the language users’ is a description of tenor. There is reference to ‘modalities’, such as spoken, written or visual text. We posit that this innovative approach is necessary for working with contemporary multimodal and cross-cultural texts (see Exley and Mills, 2012). We believe there is enormous power in using literature to expose children to the richness of language and in turn develop language and literacy skills. Taking time to look at language patterns within actual literature is a pathway to ‘…capture interest, stir the imagination and absorb the [child]’ into the world of language and literacy (Saxby, 1993, p. 55). In the following three sections, we have tried to remain faithful to our interpretation of the AC:E V5.0 Content Descriptions without giving an exhaustive explanation of the grammatical terms. Other excellent tomes, such as Derewianka (2011), Humphrey, Droga and Feez (2012), and Rossbridge and Rushton (2011) provide these more comprehensive explanations as does the AC:E V5.0 Glossary. We’ve reproduced some of the AC:E V5.0 glossary at the end of this publication. Our focus is on the structure and unfolding of the learning experiences. We outline strategies for working with children in Foundation, Year 1 and Year 2 by providing some demonstration learning experiences based on texts we’ve selected, but maintain that the affordances of these strategies will only be realised when teaching and learning is purposively tied to authentic projects in local contexts. We strongly encourage you not to use only the resource texts we’ve selected, but to capitalise upon your skill for identifying the language features in the texts you and the children are studying and adapt some of the strategies we have outlined. Each learning experience is connected to one of the Content Descriptions from the AC:E V5.0 and contains an experience specific purpose, a suggested resource text and a sequence for the experience that always commences with an orientation to text followed by an examination of a particular grammatical resource. We expect that each of these learning experiences will take a couple if not a few teaching episodes to work through, especially if children are meeting a concept for the first time. We hope you use as much, or as little, of each experience as is needed. Our plans allow for focused discussion, shared exploration and opportunities to revisit the same text for the purpose of enhancing meaning making. We do not want the teaching of grammar to slip into a crisis of irrelevance or to be seen as a series of worksheet drills with finite answers. Strategies for effective practice, however, have much portability. We are both very keen to hear from teachers who are adopting and adapting these learning experiences in their classrooms. Please email us on b.exley@qut.edu.au or lkervin@uow.edu.au. We’d love to continue the conversation with you over time.

The ‘Indigenous Australian’ theme in the Australian Curriculum English : necessary or not?

On Friday 10 January 2014 Education Minister Christopher Pyne formally announced a review of the inaugural Australian curriculum. In his three and half minute televised justification, Pyne (2014) identified a number of criticisms of the national curriculum document, including the ‘necessity to have themes’ of ‘Australia’s place in Asia, Indigenous Australia and sustainability’. It is the second of these themes that we consider as ALEA’s Hot Topic for March 2014. We respond to Pyne’s momentary musing of the necessity of the ‘Indigenous Australian’ theme in the Australian Curriculum with a particular focus on the discipline of English. In the nomenclature of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority’s Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2013), we are of course referring to the ‘cross curriculum priority’ of ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures’.

Tensions between policy and practice : reconciliation agendas in the Australian curriculum English

In various parts of the world, Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples are actively working towards Reconciliation. In Australia, the context in which we each undertake our work as educationalists and researchers, the Reconciliation agenda has been pushed into schools and English teachers have been called on to share responsibility for facilitating the move towards a new national order. The recently introduced Australian Curriculum mandates that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures be embedded with “a strong” but “varying presence” into each learning area (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2013). In this paper we consider the tensions between policy and practice, when discourses external to education are recontextualised into the discipline of English. We do so by applying an analytical framework based on Bernstein’s (1990, 1996,2000) sociological theories about the structure of instructional and regulative discourses. Our findings suggest that the space to exert Reconciliatory agendas in the Australian Curriculum English is ambiguous and thus holds the potential to not only marginalise Indigenous knowledges but also to create tensions between policy and practice for non-Indigenous teachers of English.

Exploring with Grammar in the Primary Years: Learning about Language in the Australian Curriculum: English

This new volume, Exploring with Grammar in the Primary Years (Exley, Kevin & Mantei, 2014), follows on from Playing with Grammar in the Early Years (Exley & Kervin, 2013). We extend our thanks to the ALEA membership for their take up of the first volume and the vibrant conversations around our first attempt at developing a pedagogy for the teaching of grammar in the early years. Your engagement at locally held ALEA events has motivated us to complete this second volume and reassert our interest in the pursuit of socially-just outcomes in the primary years. As noted in Exley and Kervin (2013), we believe that mastering a range of literacy competences includes not only the technical skills for learning, but also the resources for viewing and constructing the world (Freire and Macdeo, 1987). Rather than seeing knowledge about language as the accumulation of technical skills alone, the viewpoint to which we subscribe treats knowledge about language as a dialectic that evolves from, is situated in, and contributes to active participation within a social arena (Halliday, 1978). We acknowledge that to explore is to engage in processes of discovery as we look closely and examine the opportunities before us. As such, we draw on Janks’ (2000; 2014) critical literacy theory to underpin many of the learning experiences in this text. Janks (2000) argues that effective participation in society requires knowledge about how the power of language promotes views, beliefs and values of certain groups to the exclusion of others. Powerful language users can identify not only how readers are positioned by these views, but also the ways these views are conveyed through the design of the text, that is, the combination of vocabulary, syntax, image, movement and sound. Similarly, powerful designers of texts can make careful modal choices in written and visual design to promote certain perspectives that position readers and viewers in new ways to consider more diverse points of view. As the title of our text suggests, our activities are designed to support learners in exploring the design of texts to achieve certain purposes and to consider the potential for the sharing of their own views through text production. In Exploring with Grammar in the Primary Years, we focus on the Year 3 to Year 6 grouping in line with the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority’s (hereafter ACARA) advice on the ‘nature of learners’ (ACARA, 2014). Our goal in this publication is to provide a range of highly practical strategies for scaffolding students’ learning through some of the Content Descriptions from the Australian Curriculum: English Version 7.2, hereafter AC:E (ACARA, 2014). We continue to express our belief in the power of using whole texts from a range of authentic sources including high quality children’s literature, the internet, and examples of community-based texts to expose students to the richness of language. Taking time to look at language patterns within actual texts is a pathway to ‘…capture interest, stir the imagination and absorb the [child]’ into the world of language and literacy (Saxby, 1993, p. 55). It is our intention to be more overt this time and send a stronger message that our learning experiences are simply ‘sample’ activities rather than a teachers’ workbook or a program of study to be followed. We’re hoping that teachers and students will continue to explore their bookshelves, the internet and their community for texts that provide powerful opportunities to engage with language-based learning experiences. In the following three sections, we have tried to remain faithful to our interpretation of the AC:E Content Descriptions without giving an exhaustive explanation of the grammatical terms. This recently released curriculum offers a new theoretical approach to building students’ knowledge about language. The AC:E uses selected traditional terms through an approach developed in systemic functional linguistics (see Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004) to highlight the dynamic forms and functions of multimodal language in texts. For example, the following statement, taken from the ‘Language: Knowing about the English language’ strand states: English uses standard grammatical terminology within a contextual framework, in which language choices are seen to vary according to the topics at hand, the nature and proximity of the relationships between the language users, and the modalities or channels of communication available (ACARA, 2014). Put simply, traditional grammar terms are used within a functional framework made up of field, tenor, and mode. An understanding of genre is noted with the reference to a ‘contextual framework’. The ‘topics at hand’ concern the field or subject matter of the text. The ‘relationships between the language users’ is a description of tenor. There is reference to ‘modalities’, such as spoken, written or visual text. We posit that this innovative approach is necessary for working with contemporary multimodal and cross-cultural texts (see Exley & Mills, 2012). Other excellent tomes, such as Derewianka (2011), Humphrey, Droga and Feez (2012), and Rossbridge and Rushton (2011) provide more comprehensive explanations of this unique metalanguage, as does the AC:E Glossary. We’ve reproduced some of the AC:E Glossary at the end of this publication. We’ve also kept the same layout for our learning experiences, ensuring that our teacher notes are not only succinct but also prudent in their placement. Each learning experience is connected to a Content Description from the AC:E and contains an experience with an identified purpose, suggested resource text and a possible sequence for the experience that always commences with an orientation to text followed by an examination of a particular grammatical resource. Our plans allow for focused discussion, shared exploration and opportunities to revisit the same text for the purpose of enhancing meaning making. Some learning experiences finish with deconstruction of a stimulus text while others invite students to engage in the design of new texts. We encourage you to look for opportunities in your own classrooms to move from text deconstruction to text design. In this way, students can express not only their emerging grammatical understandings, but also the ways they might position readers or viewers through the creation of their own texts. We expect that each of these learning experiences will vary in the time taken. Some may indeed take a couple if not a few teaching episodes to work through, especially if students are meeting a concept or a pedagogical strategy for the first time. We hope you use as much, or as little, of each experience as is needed for your students. We do not want the teaching of grammar to slip into a crisis of irrelevance or to be seen as a series of worksheet drills with finite answers. We firmly believe that strategies for effective deconstruction and design practice, however, have much portability. We three are very keen to hear from teachers who are adopting and adapting these learning experiences in their classrooms. Please email us on b.exley@qut.edu.au, lkervin@uow.edu.au or jessicam@ouw.edu.au. We’d love to continue the conversation with you over time. Beryl Exley, Lisa Kervin & Jessica Mantei

Secret Squirrel Stuff in the Australian Curriculum English: The genesis of the ‘new’ grammar

In much the same way that a squirrel stores a range of food in a range of places, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority’s (ACARA) Australian Curriculum: English (ACARA, 2015) stores references to grammar in a range of places. This paper explores some seemingly ‘hidden’ grammars within the AC:E to (re)discover their genesis and how they unfold across Foundation to Year 6. The first ‘Secret Squirrel’ moment centres on the introduction of a new grammar which weaves traditional Latin-based and Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) theory. The second ‘Secret Squirrel’ moment centres on the use of one sub-system of SFL Theory, the System of Appraisal, and its potential to provide an analytical lens for ‘reading’ the interpersonal meaning within narratives. The remainder of the paper draws on Goodson’s (1990) notion of curriculum as a social construction, paying attention to the levels of processes and (potential) practice. This part of the paper focuses on the System of Appraisal as it is introduced in the AC:E and then translates the Content Descriptions to an example analysis. One stimulus text, Melanie Watt’s (2012) children’s picture book ‘Scaredy Squirrel at the Beach’, is introduced then analysed using the System of Appraisal as an analytical lens for identifying how language choices ‘go to work’ (Macken-Horarik, 2003, p. 285) on readers, that is how Watt’s language choices are crafted so a ‘compliant’ child reader (Martin & White, 2005, p. 62) has the opportunity to ‘feel with’ and thus ‘adjudicate’ the behaviour of characters in particular ways (Macken-Horarik, 2003, p. 285).

Authentic Texts in English Language Teaching : An empirical study on the use of and attitudes towards authentic texts in the Swedish EFL upper elementary classroom

International assessments indicate that Swedish students achieve high results in reading, writing and understanding English. However, this does not mean that the students display oral proficiency, despite an emphasis on functional and communicative language skills in the current English Syllabus. While a previous literature study by this researcher has shown that authentic texts are a way to increase these skills, most of the results shown are from an international viewpoint. Thus an empirical study was conducted within Sweden with the aim to examine the use of authentic texts in the Swedish EFL upper elementary classroom. Twelve teachers have answered a questionnaire on how they use authentic texts in their language teaching, as well as their opinions about these as a teaching tool. Additionally, 37 students have answered a questionnaire on their attitudes about authentic texts. Results indicate that all of the teachers surveyed see authentic texts as an effective way to increase students’ communicative competence and English language skills; however, only a few use them with any frequency in language teaching. Furthermore, this seems to affect the students’ attitudes, since many say that they read authentic texts in their free time, but prefer to learn English out of a textbook at school. These findings are based on a small area of Sweden. Therefore, further research is needed to learn if these opinions hold true for the entire country or vary dependent upon region or other factors not taken into consideration in this study.

Negotiating the meaning of achievement standards in the Australian curriculum

Planning for assessment using the achievement standards in the implementation of the Australian Curriculum presents a challenge for teachers. The achievement standards differ in appearance and function from current assessment practices. This research inquiry used qualitative focus group discussions to investigate how Year 6 teachers from three Queensland schools negotiated the meaning of the English and Mathematics achievement standards for their assessment practice. A sociocultural theoretical perspective was used to analyse the data. Three significant influences on the teachers’ understanding of the achievement standards were their understanding of the achievement standard text, their beliefs about learning and assessment, and the assessment culture of the school. The opportunity to learn through supported professional conversations with peers, and the need for a shared assessment discourse were identified as necessities to support teachers as they seek to implement the new practices inherent in the achievement standards in the Australian Curriculum.

English in the urban environment : resources for 21st century readers

Where teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) once observed a paucity of authentic language input, public displays of written English are now proliferating. Ideas for capitalising on this abundance can be drawn from two strands of pedagogic thought: a psycholinguistic approach to conventional literacy long established in foreign, second and first language education (e.g., Teng, 2009), and a more recent and critical approach informed by diverse theoretical understandings of the ‘linguistic landscape’ (e.g., Rowland, 2013). In this paper I draw from these two approaches to suggest ways of helping EFL learners use environmental print to develop knowledge and skills required of English readers in the twenty-first century: (1) fluency in breaking the codes of English and other languages of publicly displayed text; (2) facility with making meaning as the English of these texts becomes ever more diverse in cultural, historical and contextual implication; (3) use of environmental English in contexts that range from the local to the transnational; and (4) critique of the presence of English and attendant worldviews in the urban environment (Chern & Dooley, forthcoming). The psychological concept of motivation and the complementary sociological concept of investment are at the heart of my deliberations here: realisation of the pedagogic potential of environmental print to develop literate resources requires consideration of sources of motivation in the classroom learning situation (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011), as well as learner investment in literate practices in English (Norton, 2010).

Modelling as a vehicle for philosophical inquiry in the mathematics curriculum

Philosophical inquiry in the teaching and learning of mathematics has received continued, albeit limited, attention over many years (e.g., Daniel, 2000; English, 1994; Lafortune, Daniel, Fallascio, & Schleider, 2000; Kennedy, 2012a). The rich contributions these communities can offer school mathematics, however, have not received the deserved recognition, especially from the mathematics education community. This is a perplexing situation given the close relationship between the two disciplines and their shared values for empowering students to solve a range of challenging problems, often unanticipated, and often requiring broadened reasoning. In this article, I first present my understanding of philosophical inquiry as it pertains to the mathematics classroom, taking into consideration the significant work that has been undertaken on socio-political contexts in mathematics education (e.g., Skovsmose & Greer, 2012). I then consider one approach to advancing philosophical inquiry in the mathematics classroom, namely, through modelling activities that require interpretation, questioning, and multiple approaches to solution. The design of these problem activities, set within life-based contexts, provides an ideal vehicle for stimulating philosophical inquiry.

Attitudes toward Konglish of South Korean teachers of English in the Province of Jeollanamdo /

This study examined the attitudes of South Korean teachers of English in Jeollanamdo toward Konglish, particularly in relation to English education. The literature search shows that Konglish is a typical local variety, evolved from the borrowing and redefining of English words that became part of everyday South Korean speech. Konglish is not unique in this regard. Japlish in Japan and Chinglish in China developed for similar reasons and display the distinctive characteristics of those languages. However, Konglish is usually defined as poor and incorrect. Teachers in the study expressed embarrassment, shyness, guilt, and anger about Konglish. On the other hand, they also valued it as something uniquely theirs. Teachers believed that students should not be taught that Konglish is bad English. However, students should be taught that it is poor or incorrect. With few exceptions, they correct Konglish in their classes. Teachers exhibited considerable inner conflict. They defined Konglish as valid when used in Korea with Koreans. However, some preferred that their students not use it, even with their friends. This may cause students to judge Konglish as unacceptable or inferior. The teachers believed that students should learn to distinguish between Konglish and "Standard English," and that they should learn about the contexts in which each is appropriate or preferred. The conclusion, therefore, is that South Korean teachers see the value of teaching about varieties of English. The recommendations are that intelligibility, broader communication skills, and information about International English be included in the curriculum in South Korea.