1 / 30

Using corpus software to evaluate ODL materials

This article explores the challenges of promoting student-centered learning in Open and Distance Learning (ODL) materials. It presents an analytic framework for objectively analyzing study guides in terms of student-centeredness, highlighting pedagogical views and linguistic characteristics associated with student-centeredness.

roachd
Download Presentation

Using corpus software to evaluate ODL materials

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using corpus software to evaluate ODL materials Gerda Mischke

  2. It’s the law! South African Government Education White Paper 3 (Republic of South Africa, 1995) transformation higher education in South Africa.

  3. What did the move entail?

  4. Some challenges • Largely print-based communication in ODL. • How to promote deep learning rather than rote learning in ODL texts. • How to do an authentic analysis of the student-centredness of ODL texts. • How to analyze ODL texts objectively to determine how student-centred they are.

  5. Aim • Develop an analytic framework that allows for an authentic and objective analysis of study guides in terms of student-centredness. • Highlight some of the pedagogical views underlying the notion of student-centredness. • Interpret the notion of student-centredness in linguistic terms.

  6. Pedagogical: transformative learning • Disorienting experiences: Transformation begins when we encounter emotionally charged experiences that fail to fit our expectations (Mezirow, 1991). • Reflection: Enables the practitioner to assess, understand and learn through by discussing experiences; personal process that result change for the individual in their perspective (Johns,1995). • Affect(emotion): Attitude (stance) is an emotional interpretation of the world and challenges the individual to respond (Martin, 2004).

  7. Pedagogical: constructivism • Learning is an active process in which students construct new ideas or concepts, which result from their current and past knowledge and worldview. • Students are allowed to discover principles by themselves within the context of a given situation. • Teacher interactively engage in dialogue with students. (Bruner, 1996)

  8. Pedagogical: whole person learning • Emotion forms the foundation upon which all learning rests, central to the learning process is to address student emotion (Heron, 1992, 1996; Yorks and Kasl, 2002). • Emotions are indispensable for rationality to occur (Dirkx 2001). • A lot of learning takes place outside cognitive processing (Taylor 2001).

  9. Conclusion: foundations of student-centredness • Interaction • Active participation (involvement) • Emotion (attitude) • Reflection

  10. Against this background, how do we do an authentic and objective analysis of ODL texts to determine how student-centred they are?

  11. Interpret student-centredness in linguistic terms!

  12. Linguistic characteristics: student-centred texts Linguists agree: specific language features associated with interaction, involvement, attitude and reflection (Hubbard, 2001; Martin, 2000, 2000, 2002, 2004; White, 2000, 2002, 2003; Bybee and Fleischmann, 1995; Biber, 1988).

  13. Linguistic characteristics: student-centred texts • private verbs ─ included are: intellectual states (e.g. learn, mean, reflect, think), nonobservable intellectual acts (e.g. agree, decide, determine, discover, find), sensory experiences (e.g. hear, see), emotional states (e.g. hope, fear, feel), • contractions (‘d, ‘ll, ‘m, ‘re, ‘s, ‘ve, n’t, it’s), • second person pronouns (you, your, yourself, yourselves, all contracted forms), • analytic negation (not),

  14. Linguistic characteristics of student-centred texts • demonstrative pronouns (that, these, this, those), • emphatics (for sure, a lot, such as, just, really, most, more), • first person pronouns (I, me, we, us, my, our, myself, ourselves and all contractions), • pronoun it, • causative subordination (because), • discourse particles (e.g. anyhow,anyway),

  15. Linguistic characteristics of student-centred texts • indefinite pronouns (e.g. anybody, anyone, anything, everybody, everyone, everything), • general hedges (about, something like, more or less, almost, maybe, sort of, kind of), • amplifiers (e.g. enormously, entirely, extremely), • wh-questions (what, when, where, which, who, whose, why, how),

  16. Linguistic characteristics of student-centred texts • possibility modals (can, could, may, and might), • place and timeadverbs (e.g. afterwards, again, earlier, aboard, above), • adverbs ending on –ly (suitably, excellently, efficiently, etc), • conditional subordination (if and unless).

  17. How do I explore these features in large text corpora? Do a corpus analysis!

  18. Analytic procedure • Counted incidences of above-mentioned word types in old and new Unisa study guides using WordSmith Tools (integrated suite of programs for analysing a large corpus of texts). • Interpreted research results statistically by means of a one-way Chi2 test.

  19. WordList extract Number Word Freq. 1522 xenophobia 2 1523 years 9 1524 yes 8 1525 yet 9 1526 you 551 1527 you’d 2 1528 you’ll 2 1529 you’re 14 1530 you’ve 7 1531 your 386 1532 yours 3

  20. Data corpus • Department of Industrial Psychology • Organisational and Career Psychology (IPS202-D), 1984) Career Psychology (IOP303-V), 2002. • Department of Anthropology • Socio-Cultural Anthropology (SKA202-4), 1992. • Socio-Cultural Solutions to Problems of Human Adaptation (APY202-J), 2003. • Department of Psychology • Social Psychology (PSY313‑D), 1995. • Re-Imagining Community (PYC205-A), 2001.

  21. Excel spreadsheets: Conclusion Unisa study guides developed after a student-centred approach to teaching was adopted are very significantly more student-centred than guides developed before the adoption of such an approach.

  22. Findings: new guides • Most distinguishing features: very significantly higher counts for personal pronouns + the following: • private verbs: think, feel, find, consider, reflect (e.g. I think I am an important link …; ... you might have felt a bit exposed; Did you find it easy?), • general emphatics (e.g. … you may become more aware of …; What single event changed your life most significantly?),

  23. Findings: new guides • wh-questions (e.g. What does it tell you about …?; How do you personally experience being a black person, woman, a gay person, …), • contractions (e.g. You're welcome to do so; You're free to do that too; Of course you'd like to…), • possibility modals (You may find it almost impossible; It is true that it could be difficult),

  24. Findings: new guides • adverb today (How do the environmental crises of the past compare with those we experience today?; What are the differences between the criminal tendencies you experience today as opposed to …?; If you could change one dramatic aspect of your life today …

  25. New guides: conclusion 1 • Student is prompted to: • Develop understanding based on active participation in real world environments. • Reflect on acquired knowledge. • Heightened emotion is used by lecturers to: • Express their own opinion and to elicit a response from students. • Compel students to take a stance and transform their existing frames of reference.

  26. New guides: conclusion 2 • Multiple or alternative perspectives on reality are considered to allow for student’s own context. • Present-day issues are addressed as an acknowledgement of the student’s presence in the discourse.

  27. Final conclusion • One of the ways to do an authentic, objective analysis of ODL texts in terms of student-centredness: • Consider language features associated with student-centredness (interaction, involvement, attitude and negotiation of attitude). • Analyse texts by means of an automated, corpus-based programme.

  28. Thank you.Enjoy the rest of the conference! Tsamayang hantle!

  29. References • Biber, D. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Bybee, J. & Fleischmann, S. 1995 (eds). Modality and grammar in discourse. Typological Studies in Language 32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. • Bruner, J. 1996. The culture of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. • Dirkx, J.M. 2001. The power of feelings: emotion, imagination, and the construction of meaning in adult learning. In Merriam, S.B. (ed.) 2001. The new update on adult learning theory. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 63-72.Heron, J. 1992. Feeling and personhood: psychology in another key. Newbury Park, California: Sage. • Heron, J. 1996. Co-operative inquiry: research into the human condition. London: Sage. • Hubbard, E.H. 2001. Interaction as ‘involvement’ in writing for students: a corpus linguistic analysis of key readability feature. South African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 19:231-240. • Johns, C. 1995. The Value of Reflective Practice for Nursing.J. Clinical Nursing. 4: 23-60. • Martin, J.R. 2000. Beyond exchange: appraisal systems in English. In Hunston, S Thompson, G. (eds) 2000. Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 142-175. • Martin, J.R. 2002. Writing history: Constructing time and value in discourse. In Schleppegrell, M.J. & Colombi, M.C. (eds) 2002. Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: meaning and power. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum: 87-118.

  30. References • Martin, J.R. 2002. Writing history: Constructing time and value in discourse. In Schleppegrell, M.J. & Colombi, M.C. (eds) 2002. Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: meaning and power. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum: 87-118. • Martin, J.R. 2004. Mourning: how we get aligned. Discourse & Society. London: Sage Publications: 321-344. • Mezirow, J. 1991. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. • Taylor, E.W. 2001. Transformative learning theory: a neurobiological perspective of the role of emotions and unconscious ways of knowing. International Journal of Lifelong Education 20 (3):218-236. • White, P.R. 2000. Dialogue and inter-subjectivity: reinterpreting the semantics of modality and hedging. In Coulthard, M. Cotterill, J. & Rock, F. (eds) 2000. Working with dialog. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 67-80. • White, P.R. 2002. Appraisal B the language of evaluation and stance. In Verschueren, J. Östman, J. Blommaert, J. & Bulcaen, C. (eds.) 2002. The handbook of pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company: 1‑27. • White, P.R. 2003. Beyond modality and hedging: a dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, Special Edition: 1-25. • Yorks, L. & Kasl, E. 2002. Toward a theory and practice for whole-person learning: reconceptualizing experience and the role of affect. Adult Education Quarterly 53 (3):176-192.

More Related