Enhancing Teaching Learning Through Purposeful and Productive Thought Karen Sykes

Enhancing Teaching Learning Through Purposeful and Productive Thought Karen Sykes

Encouraging and enhancing purposeful and productive thinking in the Second Language classroom within the context of A Level Spanish teaching and learning: managing ‘affective filters’.

(Based on a paper for Durham University, March 2017.)

In the course of this paper, the aim is to apply ideas from action research to the kind of reflective practice engaged in routinely when working with advanced language learners. Effectively, drawing upon the experience of research and upon own practice, selected ideas will be proposed for application to teaching, reflection and evaluation to establish if thinking about productive and purposeful thinking (PPT) can assist with the problems elicited by A2 learners as part of routine practice.

The following priorities have been derived which are, on the one hand, specification-related, yet, on the other, motivated by the wish to foster PPT above and beyond the confines of any public examination / specification:

·  Facilitating a purposeful classroom ecology for creative thinking;

·  Evaluative thinking for the particular benefit of qualitatively improved spoken and written Spanish;

·  Wise decision-making for the benefit of enhanced debate and academic essay-writing in Spanish.

o  Throughout, the object is to provide context and opportunities for empowerment of learning individuals (e.g. through emotionally literate activities which activate a sense of worth, ethical value and mutual appreciation).

Importantly, as L2 learning is emotional process, this paper intends to frame the above points through the schemata of theoretical perspectives which address thinking and feeling (language) students and by proposing normal classroom strategies that would be employed as a matter of course to collect feedback from students (inter alia, discussion, written work, self-reflections in plenaries following tasks). It will aim to address:

·  productive and unproductive beliefs and values;

·  the impact of these on the efficacy of learning and understanding;

·  the mismatch (or congruence) between teacher and learner beliefs;

·  the way in which perceived progress (in what research reviewed suggests language students feel counts) can be made to be a cohesive tool;

·  and the need to address the gulf between ‘hard’ science perspectives on language acquisition and the critical role which affective dispositions can be shown to have (even in a modestly sized sample), either by impacting on a sense of personal effectiveness or on undermining learning of a second language.

Through the concept of ‘relatability’ (Bassey, 1998), i.e. how one’s own experiences with a relatively small sample can apply in a far wider sense, the paper seeks to indicate what makes a real language learner and not only a measured success on paper. The two, it is hoped are demonstrated, are compatible, yet the former is a quality educational project founded on principles with longevity for the age in which we live, one that demands, more than ever, adaptability, skill transferability, innovation, considered decision-making, and the empathetic understanding of ‘others’ (Piirto, 2011).

However, the key dilemma is to address the risk of resistance on account of enculturation – that is, habits of mind which can become yet more entrenched in the face of challenges to the performativity framework (Ball, 1998) of operation (“market-oriented visible pedagogies”, Bernstein, p.86) to which students (and teachers) may hold – willingly or otherwise - a powerful attachment within the context of a pervasive notion that only grades equal university and employability.

Facilitating a purposeful classroom ecology for creative thinking: Ferreira Barcelos (2015, pp. 301 – 325) throws up some important considerations from a social constructivist perspective worthy of exposition in this section introduction. They concern identity, subjectivity and agency in L2 learning. She argues that to understand L2 student interrelationships, we need to see to it that what happens in the classroom influences how learners construct their identities, emotions, and beliefs within that group. Following this line of thinking, it stands to reason that we should not only preoccupy ourselves with what language learners and teachers are bringing into the classroom, but, more essentially, with the kinds of emotions which are being constructed through their interactions within the classroom context, and, she posits, in classroom discourses and practices. For this essay, the message from a reading of her work is the centrality of reflecting on the ways L2 learners and their teachers assist (or don’t) in constructing (fictional) identities, emotions and beliefs. Taking her work a step further, the construction should be predicated on the creation of a classroom environment that fosters ways of thinking which improve behaviours, self-esteem and motivation for language-learning.

Feedback collected anecdotally from the start of Year 13 may often demonstrate a bias towards oral communication over other language ‘skills’ and a desire to communicate orally. Using this willingness to oracy, and by engaging with the work of Dörnyei et al (2003/2014) on L2 motivation, reflections might be centred on engendering conditions which would enable a classroom ecology that provides a context and opportunities for purposeful thinking through verbal interactions, although at this stage of reflection, students’ communicative proficiency does not need to be ‘publicly’ assigned the higher importance in the hierarchy of learning goals. The elements under consideration (as per Dörnyei) might be, in fact, group cohesion, goal commitment, the nature of the task set (adding an ‘angle’ to counteract inertia or ennui), and student self-regulation strategies.

Such a reflective undertaking requires the usual teacher reflection on the characteristics of the learner group, such as its cohesiveness and goal-orientedness. It can then be noted if the group displays, for example, a tendency to split along gender or self-perceived competence lines. For this latter reason, consideration of the implications of the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) and, specifically, the argued benefits of collaboration with more capable peers, in turn, might result in a re-consideration of the use-value of Kagan structures (cf. Kagan,1989). The principles of Kagan’s ideas might well be implemented with the aim of promoting co-operative learning structures within the advanced language group, for example, pairings and groupings which change within a lesson and every lesson to encourage various dynamics of co-operation, a risk, of course, given the possible source of language anxiety entailed from self-perceived lower ability students (Young, 1991, p. 427).

However, on balance, this strategy can bear fruit as both a motivator and cohesive strategy. Yet, it requires continuous thought on the changing nature of motivation and the temporal variations this can undergo. On occasions, where moods (Newton, 2014, p.19) appear lower, less structural change may seem an appropriate trade-off in fostering a positive learning environment with the emotional climate required for creative thinking. This, in turn, seeks to limit the risk of a compromised focus, and preserves commitment to the goal, willingness to engage with the tasks and meaningful learning outcomes (as would be evidenced in routine class work, and continual formative - low stakes - assessment).

Secondly, further reflection on achieving a purposeful classroom ecology for creative thinking might lead to teacher thoughts on both context and opportunities, for example, by adding extra attraction or interest to the oral activities as a means to increase learners’ commitment to L2 learning and the collective. More significantly, however, the introduction of a ‘Trojan horse’ offers a playful way to tackle a matter of a more serious nature – the appearance of the ludic, yet, within, a much more potent concept to initiate higher thinking: creative problem-solving.

Readings on creativity (McGregor, 2007 / Craft, 2005) highlight the divergent, open nature of critical thinking and the centrality of originality. In addition, they engender reflection on how teaching for creativity (Jeffrey & Craft, 2004) involves, in summary, creative pedagogy and that learners question or challenge, spot interrelationships, hypothesise about what might be, maintain an open-mind about options, as well as reflect on the viability of ideas, actions or outcomes. NACCE (1999) concisely defines creativity as “imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are of original...value”. Moreover, creativity is process and product (Newton, 2014, p. 65), the latter (the linguistic output, in this case) requiring some careful consideration – the meaningful rather than the farfetched. These academic sources coalesce well with existing pedagogical approaches (and, a secondary advantage, the Year 13 requirements). To be clear, and to borrow from Craft (in Craft, 2005), the processes and products to apply language creatively are creative with a lower case ‘c’.

Thus, with the aim of more powerfully stimulating and communicating imagination and innovation within the context of any declared preferred mode (e.g. oral communication), the design of activities can perforce take into account students’ factual and conceptual knowledge (past, current) and the opportunities for creating the novel from that base. Knowledge may be supplemented or acquired more conventionally through brief textual inputs or models (visual, written and/or auditory, adapted from the internet). The emotional climate – or ‘stream of affect’ – can be initially teacher-managed to be upbeat and positive through role-modelling, appropriate humour and body language, as well as a non-threatening tone of voice, in particular when intervening to redirect student thinking (through assertive questioning prompts which do not give the game away).

In this way, the oral tasks then provide a framework within which to engage, allowing, firstly, autonomy (time and space) to work in pairs and groups to think through ideas, connections and responses. Students use the internet in a focused way (and with advice) to extend knowledge where they feet it is required (e.g. Wordreference, 20minutos.es, Bowdoin Spanish Grammar online, selected Youtube sources). The employment of short interventions encourages students away from received wisdom, partial sources or, in some cases, an undiscerning fact-based approach. For example, if the L2 learners respond to questions to elicit evidence for their use or choice of resource their inability to explain convincingly, predict the implications, or apply to the context under discussion, gives them hints that they might need to modify their approach.

Within this framework of the positive classroom ecology, meta-cognitive control strategies have value to monitor and control focus, as well as dissuade procrastination (e.g. focusing on approaches to take, scaffolding, interventions to keep students on track, and identifying likely distractions). In addition, as Saunders and Crockall in Young (1991) rightly point out, the management of the ‘playful’ is essential in responding to affective needs, i.e. to protect against the ascent of overly competitive students with higher self-esteem.

It has been noted, with this reflection in mind, that particularly enjoyable and successful collaborative task types for Year 13 (involving humour and laughter) can be pair-work improvisations, debates (thesis and antithesis), ‘what if’ hypothetical scenarios (nuclear repository in my backyard), role-plays (adopting the safety of another identity which ‘protects’ the self, e.g. with the topic of immigration), and, to some extent, De Bono’s thinking hats (in discussing the A- Level literary work). However, pedagogical assumptions that students understand terms and how to apply the meaning of the coloured hat roles to the topics under discussion, and in an L2 language at that, are a legitimate evaluative criticism of task over-complication. In view also of literature reviewed that suggests tensions arise as a result of differences in conceptions between teacher and student learners (Bernat quoting Horowitz, 2009, p. 136), it seems a yet more valid reflection to take into account for subsequent planning purposes. It is also worth considering that students are more likely to increase effort when the intended goal “is clear, when high commitment is secured for it, and when belief in eventual success is high” (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996, p. 260).

In summary, the empowerment of individuals (e.g. through emotionally literate activities which activate a sense of worth, ethical value and mutual appreciation), can be seen in this example to be achieved through tasks which foster creative thinking and resilience in the face of gentle challenges. Moreover, teaching in this way results in deeper understanding among the learners in question, admittedly in a form of learning that can be more challenging to quantitatively assess (Sawyer, 2004). Even so, discursive collaboration within an L2 classroom of advanced learners can be harnessed to foster both a positive ecology and enhance creative thinking capacities, not to mention confidence.

Furthermore, by using the management strategies outlined above, the L2 students themselves look set to report on a greater sense of confidence in communicating more originally. Nevertheless, the vestigial impacts of public examination pressures cannot be underestimated in their potency to set students adrift. They can augment feelings and moods predisposed to creating student-teacher misalignment or unfavourable interpretations of progress – the washback effect (Alderson & Wall, 1992), whereby instructional approaches which favour superficial or strategic learning may be favoured (or demanded) as more secure routes to exam success. However, this phenomenon must not be permitted to gain purchase and colonise the classroom space or impede imaginative and novel verbal communication.

Evaluative thinking for speaking and writing: the first element which will be explored in this section is the promotion of evaluative (also known as critical or reflective – McGregor, 2007, p.172) thinking with the production of qualitatively improved spoken and analytical, discursive written Spanish in mind. Qualitative refers here principally to quality learner engagement with persuasive term-defining, analysis, argumentation, and conclusion-drawing. Discussions with A-Level students can reveal exclusive concern on their part to acquire a broader lexis and knowledge of complex grammatical structures (as ‘set phrases’), rather than a preoccupation with enhancing the skill of evaluative thinking when communicating verbally or on the page at a higher level, e.g. as a deep learner. This seems to suggest a student tendency to view learning for the productive skills as memorizing and recalling a corpus of knowledge, important as a basis, yet insufficient to understand material in any deep way or develop higher order thinking in speaking and writing. The seeming disjuncture between teacher-thinking and student certainty about their needs emphasises the significance of the notion of exploring with students a methodology of evaluation to “identify central issues and assumptions in an argument, recognize important relationships, make correct inferences from data, deduce conclusions from information or data provided, interpret whether conclusions are warranted on the basis of the data given and evaluate the evidence of authority” (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, p. 118).