1 / 14

Second Language Learners and Hierarchical Forms of Citizenship

Second Language Learners and Hierarchical Forms of Citizenship. ACLA 2008 Dr. Douglas Fleming Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa Faculté d’éducation, Université d’Ottawa http//members.shaw.ca/douglasfleming dfleming@uottawa.ca.

shayla
Download Presentation

Second Language Learners and Hierarchical Forms of Citizenship

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. Second Language Learners and Hierarchical Forms of Citizenship ACLA 2008 Dr. Douglas Fleming Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa Faculté d’éducation, Université d’Ottawa http//members.shaw.ca/douglasfleming dfleming@uottawa.ca

  2. As Shohamy (2007) points out, assessment instruments often take on the character of curriculum documents and implementers of language policy. This is especially true in the absence of formal curricula. Despite claims to the contrary, I believe that such is the case here.

  3. Major changes to Canadian language policy and planning have been undertaken in recent years (Fleming, 2007). The creation of the Canadian Language Benchmarks has been a major part of this process. The CLB’s official character: consultation process (Pierce & Stewart, 1997); “newcomer language training is based on the Canadian Language Benchmarks” (Citizenship and Immigration, 2003); Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks.

  4. The CLB: covers the full range of English proficiency that features stand-alone descriptors for 12 levels; incorporates literacy and numeracy; includes proficiencies related to learning strategies, socio-cultural and strategic competencies; focuses on pedagogical tasks.

  5. Related Documents The Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000: Theoretical Framework (Pawlikowska-Smith, 2002); The Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000: ESL for Literacy Learners (Johansson, et al., 2002); The Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000: A Guide to Implementation (Holmes, Kingwell, Pettis & Pidlaski, 2001); Summative Assessment Manual - SAM (volumes 1 and 2) (Pawlikowska-Smith, 2005);

  6. The Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000: Additional Sample Task Ideas (Pawlikowska-Smith, 2002); Developing an Occupation-Specific Language Assessment Tool (CCLB, 2004); Integrating CLB Assessment into your ESL Classroom (Holmes, 2005); The LINC 1 - 5 curriculum guidelines: A computer integrated curriculum based on Canadian language benchmarks 2000. Toronto Catholic District School Board (1997); The LINC 4 & 5 curriculum guidelines. Toronto Catholic District School Board (1999); The LINC 5- 7 Curriculum Guidelines. Toronto Catholic District School Board (2007).

  7. Although the CLB’s introduction states that it “is not a curriculum guide”, the document does describe “what adult ESL instruction should prepare adult ESL learner to do”. (p. V111). Extensive exemplar tasks within benchmarks. Teachers are expected to organize learning opportunities for the successful completion of these tasks.

  8. Since the dominance of the communicative approach in SLE, taskshave been used as criteria for linking assessment with the organisation of pedagogical content (Fleming & Walter, 2004; Skehan, 2002). “Fluency in the communicative process can only develop within task-orientated teaching,” (Johnson 1979, 200). Through its task-based organization, the CLB thus informs both: pedagogical content; and treatment options.

  9. Practioners are led to use document as a curriculum guideline because the document provides high degree of detail regarding sample tasks, (Fox and Courchêne, 2005; Haque & Cray, 2008). The CLB privileges particular curricular content and treatment options. An example of governmentality (Foucault, 1978): “governed” less through centralized, top-down authority; “managed” more through strategic alignments of ostensibly “non-political” micro-practices.

  10. References to citizenship within the CLB are rare and vague: • only three found (all at the very highest levels of English language proficiency): • developing opinions about current events • writing letters to the editors of newspapers • participating in meetings. • the word "vote" does not appear throughout; • rights and responsibilities almost exclusively related to being good consumers;

  11. tendency to represent learners as somewhat isolated and passive; • “client, customer, patient and student” (p. 95), but not as workers, family members, participants in community activities, or advocates; • labor rights are almost nonexistent; • in great contrast to the way that citizenship is conceptualized by ESL students (Fleming, 2007).

  12. CLB is a hidden curriculum (Jackson, 1968): • encapsulates a privileged body of content and methods meant to socialize learners (and teachers); • promotes a dutiful, obedient and passive engagement with the politics of the nation-state; • links (rarely attainable) normative English language fluency with full citizenship; • promotes a ‘radicalized’ hierarchy of citizenship.

  13. Related documents contain: increasingly unapologetic references to the CLB’s use as a document that informs curriculum, and the inclusion of explicit themes and tasks that use critical-analytic and participatory models of citizenship. Many sites for and multiple forms of contestation (Pennycook, 2006; Rose, 1996).

  14. http://members.shaw.ca/douglasfleming Dr. Douglas Fleming Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa Faculté d’éducation, Université d’Ottawa dfleming@uottawa.ca end

More Related