Catherine Mitsaki The Language Centre, School of Languages, Linguistics & Film

1. How ‘critical’ can Critical Friends be? Quantifying critical skills development Catherine Mitsaki The Language Centre, School of Languages, Linguistics & Film

2. Agenda • The concept • Social theory of learning • Action research: background & design • Findings & discussion • Conclusion • Q & A

3. The concept: description Permanent groupings • Shared goals • Shared responsibilities • Negotiate views • Construct arguments • Develop persuasive techniques

4. The concept: aims • Group as a safety net • Collaborative Learning • Constructive feedback • Collegial support • Learner autonomy • Study skills • Ensure high academic standards • Enhance open-mindedness • Build-up self-confidence • Develop critical thinking • Overcome unsuitable learning habits

5. The concept: questions Are CFGs more effective than random groups? Why are some CFGs better than others? Do good linguistic habits evolve in CFGs? How much learner autonomy is too much? Which indicators may show relevant progress? Which skills can be developed or transferred without prior instruction?

6. Social theory of learning • Learning is a situated social practice • Learning involves acquisition of knowledge • Learning requires sociolinguistic competence • Learning involves practice ‘…learning, thinking and knowing are relations among people engaged in activity in, with and arising from the socially and culturally structured world.’ Lave & Wenger, 1991:67

7. Social theory of learning

8. Communities of Practice (CofP) Mutual engagement Joint negotiated enterprise Shared repertoire of negotiable resources accumulated over time (Wenger, 1998: 76) Social groups where the notion of ‘practice’ is central

9. Communities of Practice (CofP) Members are informally bound A sense of self, immediate environment and world is developed Practices are negotiated and established Identities are negotiated within and across groups ‘Once launched, it has its own life and develops its own trajectory. … not isolated and inward-looking, but shapes its participants’ relations both among themselves and with the rest of the world.’ Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 1999: 2

10. QMUL experience: background Last year: same groups for 2 terms / covered all aspects of programme This year: 1 term Only Reading & Writing 4 groups, 4 students each Focus mainly on essay design & argument structure Not enough time to develop formative feedback skills / enough time to bond and develop critical thinking skills

11. Action research design 10 weeks G2 (my class) wks 5 & 10 same type of task compare participation / engagement (5 mins for 2 groups / weak Vs average to good) compare outcome Across groups (G2 Vs G1) wks 6 & 10 same task & rubric 5 mins conversation recorded compare outcome Questionnaire (G2) wk 10

12. Findings I Participation / engagement Bonnie’s group Edison’s group Wk 5(observed for 5 minutes / discussing essay plans)Wk 10 X Ba Bo E Y C X T Ba T X X E Bo Y

13. Findings II Questionnaires General

14. Findings II Questionnaires • Group Coherence (3 important Qs) • People fit together • Future group similar? • Trust

15. Findings III Extract G1.1.1 Extract G1.1.2 Extract G1.2.1 Extract G1.2.2 • Clear turn-taking • Whole views expressed • Use ‘I think…’ more (‘we’ only refers to task) • 1-2 students are clearly dominant Extract G2.1.1 Extract G2.1.2 Extract G2.1.3 Extract G2.2.1 Extract G2.2.2 • All contributing together, no gaps, no clear turns • Thinking aloud • Look through sources together • Use ‘we’ instead of ‘I’ • More speaking time does not reflect dominance but roles

16. Conclusion Participation / engagement improved with time (more obvious in the weaker group) CFGs have shown increased levels of group cohesiveness Outcomes were similar in terms of quality of the final product; yet, G1 are generally considered ‘better / stronger’ group.

17. References Dornyei, Z. & Murphey, T. (2003), Group dynamics in the language classroom, Cambridge: CUP Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992), Communities of Practice: Where Language, Gender and Power all live in Coates, J. (ed) 2005, Language and Gender: a reader, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd Holmes, J. & Meyerhoff, M. (1999), The Community of Practice: Theories and methodologies in Language and Gender research, Language in Society, 28: 173-183 Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge: CUP Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: learning as a social system, Systems Thinker, Vol. 9, N. 5

18. Acknowledgements Special thanks to QMUL Language Centre & the PMP Team for their support and PMP Group 2 for their trust and cooperation. Thank you! c.mitsaki@qmul.ac.uk