Faculty of Education - Theses
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2
-
ItemA preliminary investigation of language function and educational success in primary school children( 1980)This study is an attempt to establish if there exist differences in pupil performance at the level of language function which will support teachers' intuitive judgements of pupil ability in the context of the primary school classroom. The type of study was naturalistic and descriptive and involved children in grades two and six of a regional city State Primary School. The 12 subjects were selected by the respective grade teachers on perceived performance, and allocated by them to either an upper or lower ability grouping. Each group consisted of three pupils and the same teacher conducted each lesson in the same classroom situation. The task was concerned with the developing concept of floating and sinking and involved pupils having to initially classify 82 items as either float or sink objects. After this task was completed the pupils tested each object to establish if their initial hypothesis was correct. Results were analysed using an interaction based functional model of language and subjected to statistical analyses to establish which functions reached a level of significance. Results indicate that significant differences do exist at the level of function between ability groups at each grade level and between respective grades. The lower ability pupils at grade two appear to interpret the demands of the educational task differently from their upper ability counterparts. At the level of cognitive discourse function the lower ability group interpreted the task as requiring the use of the hypothesis discourse function which was linguistically realised principally by use of the one term/single response strategy and by general statement. The upper group however interpreted the task as requiring the use of evidence in support of any hypothesis made in an initial response and this function was linguistically expressed by using the causal statement strategies. The lower ability group also used the procedural function as a continuous commentary on their ongoing actions but the upper group employed this function significantly less. There was no significant difference in the choice of cognitive discourse function between groups at grade six, and both groups interpreted the task as demanding a different approach than that adopted by grade two. Both groups employed the 'use evidence' function as an initial response and the procedural function virtually disappeared. Differences did emerge in the selection of linguistic strategies to realise the cognitive discourse functions and three of these reached a level of significant difference. These were the one word/single term, single attribute, and no response strategies which were consistently employed by the lower ability group. The upper ability group employed more anecdote and affirm/ deny strategies than the lower group. The use of the social discourse function also changed between grades. At grade two both ability groups interposed their own social discourse between educational exchanges with the teacher. By grade six this function was almost exclusively used by both groups to support peer statements and acted as a cohesive element in the discourse. At the level of teacher reaction the teacher used significantly more of those reaction types which extended discourse with upper ability groups at both grade levels. The teacher also employed 'request for extension' significantly more at the grade six level than with the grade two groups. In this study, because only two groups of three subjects each have been compared, individual differences could influence the results obtained and therefore any interpretation and generalisation from the results found in this study will have to be limited and tentative in nature.
-
ItemUses made of students' writing: implications in terms of language and learning( 1980)Students in our schools do a great deal of writing - writing has always been regarded highly in our educational system. We, as teachers, are responsible for giving our students most of the writing that they do and, because of this, we need to answer some pertinent questions: e.g. Do we know why we give our students the writing? Are we aware of where writing fits in the overall learning process of our students? Is what we are actually doing in the classroom with respect to our students' writing the same as what we think we are doing? This study is concerned with questions such as these in order to determine what is current practice, and to critically discuss such practice in terms of its impact on the learning success of students. The relationship between thought and language is intricate, but there is evidence that these have different genetic roots and develop differently; at certain stages, their curves of development meet. Word meanings may be. viewed as the overlap of thought and speech, and it is through word meanings that there is transition from thought to words. Written language requires a higher level of abstraction than spoken language. There is a reliance on formal meanings of words, and more words are needed than with speech, due to the absence of a communicating partner whose knowledge of the current subject can be pre-supposed. The communication is meant for a person who is not present or who may even be imaginary; motives for written language differ from those for spoken language. Different types of language can be discerned. James Britton categorized language as being transactional, expressive or poetic, where the purpose of the language differs in each case. Language closest to the students' everyday speech is expressive, yet there is evidence the predominant language demanded of secondary school students is transactional, and this demand increases as the student moves up the school. If language plays, a central role in students' learning, what are the consequences of this? There is also evidence that, as the student moves through the secondary school, the teacher is seen increasingly as almost the sole audience for the writing. What impact does this have? What then, are the uses made of students' writing? Why do teachers set it? How do they mark it? What uses are made of it by teachers after they have marked it and handed it back? Two research reports are considered in detail which focus on such issues in order to determine what is happening across the curriculum at about middle secondary school level. The first, by Douglas Barnes and Denis Shemilt, made use of an open questionnaire. Factor analysis was employed to establish patterns. Replies were seen as falling on a dimension which was called the Transmission-Interpretation dimension. The researchers further hypothesized by extrapolating from teachers' attitudes to writing in order to reconstruct their attitudes to knowledge and learning. The second research report resulted from a survey conducted by the present writer. A closed questionnaire was circulated to teachers of middle secondary level in twelve schools and the replies were factor analyzed. Two factors were discussed in detail; for both factors, there was evidence that patterns in responses closely matched the pattern obtained by the Barnes-Shemilt study. Having obtained some knowledge of language types expected or demanded, audiences provided for students' writing and the uses made of the written work, the implications in terms of language and learning are discussed.