Teorías sobre la división sexual del trabajo

aspects as a name, a president, a venue, fundraising, educational activities, websites, events and so on, and were given forty-five minutes to put together a coherent plan, working in their 3x3 groups. The groups then presented their ideas to the rest of the class. It would be wonderful if we could make the idea of a Language Awareness society a reality at Hiroshima University as of 2010!

153 principal theme of focus. These two articles together formed the basis for an in-class discussion.

My research journal recorded that the participants appeared generally sympathetic to the views expressed in the articles, these essentially calling for the promotion of a more pluralistic appreciation in respect of L2 target models. This therefore represented something of a shift in opinion, in view of the participants’ near unanimous initial identification of exclusively ‘Inner Circle’ native varieties as the appropriate (exonormative) targets.

Our week thirteen focus on WENS materials reference 2906 represented another example of an extension of the initial cross-linguistic focus to include (and develop) a greater L2-internal awareness. In the event, the focus raised as many questions – viewed from a World Englishes perspective – as it answered.

Again, a little cross-linguistic background: Japanese has a device – the addition of the

suffix ‘suru’ – which instantly (and very conveniently for L2 Japanese learners)

converts nouns to verbs, and countless Japanese verbs are constructed in this way. L1 Japanese/L2 English interlanguages include numerous examples of L2 nouns (particularly if they happen to be loan-words) ‘erroneously’ used as verbs; prime examples being, ‘I will effort’ and ‘I can image’.

In addition to highlighting this phenomenon, unit 2906 draws learners’ attention to a selection of English nouns which are routinely used as verbs but which are conspicuously neglected in this respect in L1 Japanese/L2 English interlanguage(s) – ‘rain’, ‘snow’, ‘plan’ and ‘relax’ being prime examples.

With the aid of an article which I had taken off the internet, the participants thoroughly enjoyed experimenting with the possibilities offered by ‘verbing’ (proper) nouns, along the lines of ‘(to be) Bangalored’. Noting the general trend towards ‘verbing’ nouns within the wider context of ‘language change’ (think of ‘impact’, ‘evidence’ and ‘action’), we posed the question of whether ‘Japanese English’ was, in a sense, ahead of the curve in this respect - the phrase another collectable L2 by- product (the participants noted it down in their learning journals) of an initial cross- linguistic focus.

154 3.2.14 2010 Language Awareness Program - Week 14

The participants’ second and final micro-teaching demonstration, the follow-up

(achievement) test, and a written program evaluation assignment comprised the principal elements of week fourteen of the program (see appendix 14 for full program details).

Week fourteen, then, saw the second micro-teaching practice session, in which connection my research journal entry for Monday, July 26th 2010 noted:

Data Source: Researcher’s Journal, Neil Morgan, 26.7.2010. Although the participants again made use of the four-point checklist for reflective lesson (self-) evaluation, as the summary above reveals, the language points selected

and addressed in the participants’ second micro-teaching practice session were not the

same as those selected and addressed in the first micro-teaching session (week ten) – a fact which precluded a focused like-with-like comparison between the two sessions. Although a sound case could no doubt be made for either approach, I took the view that, despite the opportunity cost, a formalizing of the evaluative aspect of the task was best avoided, given the considerable demands entailed by the participants’ overall workload. The micro-teaching occupied us for the entire pre-lunch session on July 28th _{2010. The afternoon session was given over to the follow-up test – an} ‘achievement’ test, designed to provide an indication of the extent to which the participants had succeeded in familiarizing themselves with program content. The test results were as follows, with initial test scores in the first set of parentheses and the initial/follow-up differences in the second:

This micro-teaching practice in a sense represents the culmination of Wright’s (2002) five-stage cycle for the design and sequencing of language awareness activities, designed to interconnect the ‘language user’, ‘language analyst’and ‘language teacher’ roles in the context of an L2 teacher development program.

155 Koji: 1576/1800 (1028/1800) (+548 or +30.4%) Shunta: 1771/1800 (1038/1800) (+733 or +40.7%) Ayako: 1717/1800 (1133/1800) (+584 or +32.4%) Tomoya: 1769/1800 (1002/1800) (+767 or +42.6%) Yuya: 1778/1800 (1159/1800) (+619 or +34.4%) Takashi: 1626/1800 (1051/1800) (+575 or +31.9%) Shinsuke: 1710/1800 (1055/1800) (+655 or +36.4%) Yuriko: 1777/1800 (1205/1800) (+572 or +31.8%) Shoko: 1631/1800 (1218/1800) (+413 or +22.9%)

The group average (mean) score on the follow-up test was 1706.1, as against a group mean score of 1098.8 on the initial test, giving a mean initial/follow-up difference of +607.3 or +33.7% for the group as a whole. Given that this was an ‘achievement’ test based squarely on program content, I was of course expecting a substantial increase in the test scores – and, indeed, I would have been disappointed had that not been the case. I was, however, surprised by the scale of the improvement in the scores, across the whole group (the range of scores narrowed slightly, from 216 on the initial test to 202 on the follow-up). Figure 13 overleaf graphically displays both the initial diagnostic and follow-up test scores, converted to percentage figures.

I set to work on the grading of the test papers almost immediately, as I wanted the participants to be aware of their follow-up test scores before they undertook the evaluative feedback assignment on July 30th _{2010 (two days after the follow-up test).} The elicitation of retrospective evaluative feedback from participants would, of course, be a standard feature of most such programs. The added research dimension in this case, however, informed my decision to allow for the incorporation of participants’ reactions to both their pre- and post-test performances in their evaluation of the program – an affordance which would have applied regardless of the post test scores. And indeed, one of the participants, Yuya, began his written assignment by explicitly referring to his performance on the follow-up test:

Now I’m writing this report with a sense of achievement. It may be because my last score was very good, but it is mostly because I managed to keep on studying your program, ‘Language Awareness’. From now I’ll answer my honest opinion against your questions… (Yuya)

Figure 13. Initial/Follow-Up Test Scores by Participant (Mean Scores Added): 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 90 0 56 58 67 63 68 58 57 64 59 100 99 88 90 91 95 99 98 98 95 Initial Test Score (%) % Gain on Follow-Up

95

61

156 Data Source: Written Evaluative Feedback Assignment, Yuya, 30.7.2010. I checked through the participants’ evaluative responses in order to inform my lesson planning for the final week of the program, and additionally that I might notify my Japanese colleague Masaki, who was scheduled to conduct the nine one-to-one ‘exit’ interviews on August 2nd _{and 4}th _{2010, of any burning issues or particular topics that} could potentially have a bearing on his line of questioning. The substantive content of these assignments, together with other evaluative contributions elicited in respect of the language awareness program, will be considered in detail in the evaluative account of the program which follows the current chapter.

3.2.15 2010 Language Awareness Program - Week 15

The program’s instructional and substantive content having been essentially covered by this stage, the nine one-to-one ‘exit’ interviews comprised the principal program element of week fifteen – a week which might fairly be characterized by the phrase ‘taking stock’ (see appendix 15 for full program details).

At the end of week fifteen, I estimated that the language awareness module had accounted for approximately twenty percent of the 2010 program’s total classroom contact time over the fifteen weeks. This represented, I believe, a significant slice of the instructional pie and was, in truth, more than I had dared hope for at the program’s outset or, indeed, at the program’s halfway stage. These sentiments reflect the negotiated, evolutionary nature of the composite program, and in this respect I owe Cheryl, the Warwick/Hiroshima Course Director, an added debt of gratitude.

The historic links that now exist between the cities of Coventry and Hiroshima meant that several of the participants were unable to attend the language awareness classes in week fifteen due to semi-official commitments. This, together with the fact that essential program material had, of necessity, been covered prior to the follow-up test the previous week gave something of a sub-optimal, end-of-term feel to week fifteen of the language awareness module in terms of its substantive content.

Given the light participant numbers, I decided to abandon the planned discussion, which was to be centred around some thought-provoking commentary on the Japanese EFL context, in favour of an informal question-and-answer session on issues arising 162

157 from the written feedback assignment, features of L2 English, and potential scenarios in respect of participants’ future professional practice.

We then reviewed the program, and turned our attention forwards to the extension of program content and the meaning and ongoing nature of a ‘language awareness approach’. The desirability of establishing some form of Language Awareness society at Hiroshima University was reiterated, and the setting up of a web-based interactive forum via which to link Warwick/Hiroshima teachers and learners was posited as a potentially rewarding project. The forward-looking orientation of these ideas suggests a longitudinal dimension in respect of the program content – a dimension with which it will be essential to engage if constructs such as ‘learning’ and ‘acquisition’ are to be operationalized and effectively monitored. In this connection, my research journal for week fifteen records the following entry, made in the final days of the program:

158 Data Source: Researcher’s Journal, Neil Morgan, 6.8.2010. Having thus taken the reader inside the language awareness program module experience in order to detail its evolution, its content, and the manner in which a cross-linguistic awareness-raising focus was introduced into a particular ITE context as a key component of L2 teacher development, I shall now proceed to evaluate the