Promotion of exploratory talk in group work: The Thinking Together Programme

 

 

to improve the quality of CLIL and L1 talk, in the next section we will only present this programme in further detail.

3.3.3 Promotion of exploratory talk in group work: The

 

reproduce information, known as reproductive ability.

Although over the years different versions of the Raven’s Matrices have been elaborated, the matrices are usually presented in three ways according to the participants’ abilities:

(a) Standard Progressive Matrices: First published in 1938, these are the original matrices. Designed for average adults or adolescents, they comprise five sets (A to E) of 12 items each (e.g., A1 through A12) in a black‐and‐white format. Items within each set become increasingly difficult, requiring a progressively greater cognitive capacity to encode and analyze information. This version was the one used in this study as it was employed in the first study on the programme implementation and its results (Mercer et al., 1999) (see Appendix 7).

(b) Coloured Progressive Matrices: This version of the test was designed for younger children, the elderly, and people with moderate or severe learning difficulties. It contains sets A and B from the standard matrices, with an additionalset Ab inserted between these two and also containing 12 items.

To make the test visually stimulating for participants, most items are presented on a coloured background. However, several last items in set B are black‐and‐white; in this way, if a subject exceeds the tester's expectations, transition to sets C, D, and E of the standard matrices is facilitated.

(c) Advanced Progressive Matrices: The advanced form of the matrices is considered appropriate for adults and adolescents of above‐average intelligence since it contains 48 items, presented as one set of 12 items (set I), and another set of 36 items (set II), all in black‐and–white format. As in the case of standard matrices, items in this test also become increasingly difficult as progress is made through each set.

In 1998, "parallel" versions of the Standard and Coloured Progressive Matrices were published to address the problem of the Raven's Matrices being too well known among general population. In addition, an extended version of the Standard Progressive Matrices, Standard Progressive Matrices Plus, was published at the same time, offering greater discrimination among more able young adults. Some scientific societies, such as The Tripe Nine Society or the International Society for

 

 

Philosophical Enquiry, accept the Advanced Progressive Matrices version as one of their admission tests.

In studies done by Mercer and his colleagues (Wegerif and Mercer, 2000; Mercer et al., 1999), the Standard Progressive Matrices test was administered in experimental and control groups both to students working in groups and individually before and after the TT programme. Results obtained on the implementation of the programme both in the UK and Mexico (Wegerif and Mercer, 2000; Mercer et al. 1999; Rojas‐

Drummond et al., 2003) showed that it was possible to improve the ability of primary school children to use ET and the promotion of this type of talk resulted in notable improvement of reasoning in group and individual problem‐solving in the children. Since the results were also confirmed in Mexico, it was concluded that the programme functioned well with children coming from very different cultural, linguistic and educational contexts. In this study, the TT programme was adapted to L1 Spanish speakers and EFL CLIL students with the aim to improve the quality of group talk in both settings. The next section presents the programme in more detail.

3.3.3.2 Key elements of the TT programme

Drawing on the original version of the programme (Mercer et al., 1999), Dawes et al. (2004) elaborated a guidebook for teachers interested in applying the TT programme to their classrooms. The first part of the book establishes the aims of the activities in the programme which were designed to develop speaking, listening and reasoning skills of children aged 8‐11. It also explains that this is done by raising children’s awareness and understanding of their use of the spoken language, supporting them in communicating with each other and working together more effectively in groups and improving their critical thinking skills. Research results are also provided to show how the appropriate development of students’ speaking, listening and reasoning skills improves their general educational or academic achievement (Dawes et al., 2004:2).

One of the key elements in the programme is ET. To make this concept easily accessible for teachers, Dawes et al. (2004) define it and explain how it entails that

 

sought from every participant and that challenges and alternative proposals are accepted, yet justified with reasons, and agreement is sought and achieved wherever possible (idem:3). They also argue that through ET children not only learn to engage in their own ideas and learn from those of others, they also learn skills in talking and thinking which enable them to work more effectively in teams which can help them take an active role in society. According to the authors, the success of the programme is in the hands of the teacher who should bear in mind some important pedagogical aspects when implementing the programme. These aspects are the following (Dawes et al., 2004:3‐5):

1. Establish the ground rules of talk: These rules are built by children in the first three lessons of the programme and ensure that children begin to use ET as soon as possible.

2. Make the aims for each lesson clear.

3. Combine whole‐class and group activities: Each lesson has three main sections that are composed of a whole class introduction, a group work activity and a whole‐class plenary.

4. Make the most of group work: Children need help to learn how to use spoken language effectively; therefore, as educators, teachers need to make clear what they expect when they ask groups to “discuss” or “talk together to decide” on something.

Although all these indications to teachers are essential, the authors particularly highlight the importance of the first and the last items. Thus, in regards to the first one (establishing the ground rules for talk), and as we will see in the data presented in this study, the teacher’s constant reminder of these rules and the insistence on their use can have a significant effect on the students’ use or not of ET in group interactions. In respect to the last item (making the most of group work), Dawes et al. (2004:5) give a series of recommendations on how to ensure a productive and fulfilling group activity:

 All members of the group take an active part.

 Everyone’s ideas and suggestions are accepted openly for consideration.

 Everyone accepts that their ideas can be questioned.

 

 

 Everyone gives reasons to support their objections and proposals.

 Members of the group take joint responsibility for decisions.

These recommendations are reflected in the ground rules for talk group members should agree upon, which means that the last point in Dawes et al.’s (2004) list is actually connected with the first one, thus emphasizing the need to make sure groups are really working in a collaborative way. The authors also point out that group interaction with a high amount of ET not only results in better group activity, but “it can also help individual children to improve their ‘critical thinking’ or reasoning” (idem:5).

For the successful implementation of the programme, Dawes et al. (2004:6) also suggest teachers to use appropriate teaching strategies aimed at guiding the development of children’s language use and understanding. Some of these strategies are the following:

 Make the learning intentions for each activity clear.

 Regularly remind students to use their “ground rules” for talk.

 “Model” for children the kinds of language they should use to talk to each other in group

 Use a series of related questions to guide children through a line of reasoning.

 Help children recognise and value the language and reasoning skills.

In reference to how assess students’ “thinking together” process, teachers are recommended to assess children’s talking and thinking during group work using a list of questions suggested by the authors. As for students, they should use self‐

assessment during plenary time and through a talk diary reflected in an individual rubric to check if they followed the ground rules for talk during group activities and reflect on the quality of their talk (idem:7).

Since the developers of the TT programme were concerned with the British national curriculum, they established links to different curricular objectives with the aim “to promote speaking and listening for learning within all areas of the curriculum”

(Dawes et al., 2004:9). Thus, in the programme they make links to literacy skills, key

 

the TT programme to the context of the L1 classrooms of the present study set in the Spanish national curriculum, although this section was approached with caution and expecting many changes, few problems were encountered in this regard. However, slightly more problematic was the use of the English version for CLIL students. The proficiency in the L2 required of the CLIL students to understand certain words in the original version which was designed for native English‐speaking children was the field where more adaptation has to be done. On the contrary, in the curriculum topics which were more related with content‐subjects, the content was found to be adequate for both the CLIL and the L1 students.

The TT programme is divided in two sections: Focus on Talk which comprises 5 lessons and Talking, Thinking and Learning which contains 11 lessons. Thus, the whole programme is made of 16 lessons:

SECTION A: FOCUS ON TALK Lesson 1: Talk about talk Lesson 2: Talking in groups

Lesson 3: Deciding on ground rules Lesson 4: Using the ground rules

Lesson 5: Reasoning with the ground rules

SECTION B: TALKING, THINKING AND LEARNING Lesson 6: Persuasion

Lesson 7: Kate’s choice Lesson 8: Who pays?

Lesson 9: Water volves Lesson 10: Town Plan Lesson 11: A fair test Lesson 12: Non‐fiction

Lesson 13: Looking into poems Lesson 14: Staying friends Lesson 15: Strategy

Lesson 16: ICT and learning conversations

Section A: Focus on Talk is the introductory section with 5 lessons where the ground rules are established. The authors state that in these five lessons children are

 

 

encouraged to become more aware of the ways they talk together and, based on their first discussions, they have to establish specific ground rules for group talk.

These rules, if followed, will help them use ET effectively in their group discussions.

The rules are established in lesson 3 with the guidance of the teacher who is instructed to make sure that the ground rules reflect the following ideas:

1. 1.All relevant information is shared amongst the group.

2. Assertions and opinions should be backed up by reasons.

3. It is important to challenge and discuss suggestions and opinions.

4. Alternative options are carefully viewed before any decision is made.

5. Everyone in the group should be considered to speak by the other members.

6. Contributions are treated with respect.

7. The group should try to reach agreement.

8. The group accepts collective responsibility for decisions made and actions taken because of those decisions (Dawes et al., 2004:30).

After establishing the ground rules for talk by the students in section A of the programme, ground rules the class is supposed to agree upon, these will be displayed prominently in the classroom, and referred to frequently during the duration of the whole programme (idem:14). Each lesson in section A focuses on a different ground rule or sub‐component of effective thinking together (idem:12).

For example Lesson 2: Talking in groups is about two members of the group interviewing the third member about their personal preferences with an available set of questions. When one member is interviewed, the roles change and one of the interviewers becomes the interviewee until all of the members have performed the two roles. Later in the whole‐class session a speaker is chosen to tell the rest of the class about their group members’ preferences. This lesson aims to establish group cohesion and to make children practice taking turns to talk and listening to each other.

Section B: Talking, thinking and learning is made of 11 lessons, where the ground rules are put to practice. In it, children apply the ground rules for thinking to problem‐solving and collaborative learning in different curriculum areas. As in section A, here each lesson also highlights specific ground rules and aspects of thinking together (idem). For example, Lesson 9: the Water voles introduces the

 

riverbanks have suffered in order to play a board game where students have to try to expand the population of water voles and deal with the interests and opinions of the different members of the community. This lesson aims to (i) encourage students’

critical thinking and reasoning by affording them opportunities to practice taking decisions and presenting ideas (as they have to take the roles of the different community members) and (ii) deepen their awareness of ecology issues.

In the TT program each lesson plan has a specific structure and is divided into the following parts (Dawes et al., 2004:14):

 Resources: materials needed for each activity.

 Aims: as each lesson starts, the teacher explains the lesson aims to children. It helps to establish a shared purpose for each activity and keeps the purpose firmly on the talk.

 Whole‐Class Introduction: explanation of aims, talking about themes and setting up of activities.

 Group Work: Students join designated talk groups.

 Plenary: brings the class together for groups to share their work, lead a class discussion and review lesson aims.

 Extension Work: extra activities for students to work on.

Therefore, although each lesson has a varied activity type, the same lesson pattern is followed in putting together a whole class introductory session, a part where students work in groups and finally a. plenary in which students can reflect and, finally, although not mentioned here, writing the talk diary is another individual reflecting activity of self‐assessment. For a more complete account of the program, see Dawes et al (2004); for a more detailed presentation of the TT programme as adapted to this study, see Appendix 11.

3.3.3.3 Results of the TT programme

Two studies have accounted for results of the TT programme in an L1 setting. The first was the study performed by Mercer et al. (1999) in the U.K, which included 60

 

 

primary year 5 school children (age 9‐10). This study used an earlier version of the TT programme, the Talk, Reasoning and Computer (TRAC) programme. All participating children were divided into 4 classes which constituted the experimental group that followed the programme. These four classes were matched with 4 similar classes (64 children in total) that constituted the control group. Both the teachers and the students in the experimental classes followed the TT programme whereas the control classes didn´t.

The programme was developed in 10 weeks (2 months and a half). In the experimental classes children were divided into mixed‐ability and mixed‐gender groups of three. The study sought to test three hypothesis: (i) following the ground rules of ET would benefit joint reasoning; (ii) children’s use of ET could be increased by especially designed teacher‐led and peer‐group activities, and (iii) children in the target classes would make significantly greater gains in their scores on the RPMT over the period of implementation of the TRAC programme. Therefore, the first hypothesis aimed to investigate whether ET was useful for reasoning; the second, whether the TRAC programme increased the use of ET and the third, aimed to evaluate changes in the students’ performance in the RPMT before and after the intervention. Since only the third hypothesis was replicated in this study, it will be presented in more detail. The rest of the results will be commented on more briefly.

In order to prove the first hypothesis, the authors tested whether ET was useful for reasoning by analysing the data from one group qualitatively. This group was chosen because it had obtained the highest punctuation difference in the RPMT in the comparison between the pre‐ and post‐test. In this part of the study, the discourse of the students while dealing with 8 out of the 60 problems in the RTPM, which had been solved incorrectly in the pre‐test and correctly in the post‐test, was examined.

The comparative analysis of the successful talk and unsuccessful talk of the group showed that the successful talk contained a much higher number of incidences of the linguistic features linked to ET such as the use of long turns, of the words because or cause, I think and agree).

 

programme increased the use of ET, for which, first, a qualitative analysis of the several focal groups was performed. This analysis confirmed the link between certain linguistic features and ET. Later, a quantitative analysis of the key discourse features produced in the focal groups was compared with those of the control groups. Results showed a fourfold increase in the use of the key linguistic features of the ET in the experimental groups, while in the talk of the control groups the incidence remained the same.

Lastly, to prove the third hypothesis, the changes achieved in the target group in the RTPM were tested. In Mercer et al. (1999) study, the children performed the RTPM both in groups and individually in the pre‐ and post‐test. Results showed a relatively greater improvement in the experimental groups (4.05 mean punctuation increase) as compared with the control groups (1.36 average punctuation increase). However, the difference when comparing individual results was even greater (2.11 average in the individual scores of the experimental classes; 1.01 in the individual scores of the control classes).

The second study was the one performed by Rojas‐Drummod, Pérez, Velez, Gómez and Mendoza (2003), with 84 primary school Mexican children (age 10‐12). In this study two schools participated, one was assigned the experimental and the other the control condition. The Mexican version of the TT program was developed by adapting it to the specific cultural and linguistic context of the Mexican school as well as to the Spanish language and of the Mexican curricular content. The 16 lessons that the original TT programme comprises were reduced to 10 lessons and these were developed during 20 weeks (5 months) period. Six teachers taught the experimental group and other six taught the control group in a big multi‐purposed classroom. Rojas‐Drummod et al. (2003) developed a method for analysing symmetric interactions and discourse based on a previous model by Mercer and Wegerif (1996). This model comprised a quantitative and qualitative analysis of observations at three levels: interaction level (level I); discourse level (level II) and problem‐solving level (level III). These levels can be paralleled to the three hypotheses formulated in Mercer et al. (1999).

 

 

In Level I (interaction level), a focus group was qualitatively analysed through videos and transcripts. Results showed that the group used a exploratory type of talk both in the pre‐ and post‐test, which seemed to meet the criteria of an elaborated ET.

When analysing the data, Rojas Drummod et al. (2003) saw the need to make a further distinction between what they called Incipient Exploratory Talk and Elaborate Exploratory Talk. The first type suggests that ET is neither very consistent nor very prominent in the way children talk, whereas the second type indicates that ET is more consolidated and sophisticated (Rojas‐Drummod et al., 2003).

In Level II (discourse level), a quantitative analysis of several features of three experimental groups were analysed in order to determine whether the results found in these focus group could be generalized. Three aspects were quantified for this analysis: types of talk used per problem, features of talk used and key words in context. This last aspect is similar to focal aspect of the second hypothesis in Mercer et al.’s (1999) presented above where they sought to find out whether the TRAC programme increased the use of ET in relation to specific linguistic features. On the basis of the ground rules for talk developed by groups, Rojas‐Drummond et al.

(2003) used specific criteria to decide the orientation towards the three types of talk exhibited by the children to solve a problem. Additionally, and in this level, they looked at various features of the language used, including the speech acts implied by the talk and, particularly, the use of arguments. Once quantified and compared, the results of the analysis in this level showed that after received training through the TT programme the experimental group, in contrast to the control group, significantly increased their use of ET, and particularly of the more sophisticated type of the ET.

In Level III (problem‐solving level) the way the children solved the RTPM, which following Mercer et al. (1999) was also administered both individually and in groups, was qualitatively analysed. There was also a quantitative analysis of the scores obtained by each triad and each individual. Results in this level showed that both the experimental and control groups performed very similarly in the pre‐test.

In contrast, results in the post‐test showed that the experimental group increased

  test.

In sum, results shown by both studies prove an increase in the use of ET and, as a consequence, in problem‐solving reasoning (measured by RTPM) in the experimental groups that followed the TT program more than in the control groups that didn’t. Both studies are set in the L1 context. In the present study however it will be examined whether this change is also present in a CLIL context and to what extent it is similar to the performance of an L1 group of parallel characteristics. In the next section, we will refer to ET in the specific context which is the focus of this study, the CLIL context.

In document Language use and knowledge contruction in CLIL group work activities. Underpinning content and language integration (página 154-165)