The Role of Sociocultural Factors weighed against Strategy Based Instruction

Michael Grenfell (Southampton University) and Vee Harris (London University)

Context of the StudyTheoretical: Shift in focus from the idealised, individual ‘Good Language

Learner’ to recognising impact of sociocultural context on learning

Practical: 1. Concern over poor performance and lack of interest in Modern

Languages in the UK, specially boys2. Social class inequalities a constant feature of GB education research

(Whitty 2012)

Study: SBI over a year with near-beginners adolescent learners of French in two London schools with different socio-economic backgrounds

Issues in Strategy Based InstructionLittle known about:1. Effectiveness of SBI with 12-13 year old near-

beginners of French;

2. How much ‘weight’ compared to other factors eg. - gender- socio-economic background- bilingual or monolingual status;- 3. Extent to which same factors impact on learners’

response to SBI? Do some sub groups benefit more from SBI?

Responsiveness to SBI?Gender; Girls more motivated in ML, so motivated or complacent to SBI (know it already)?

SBI reverses downward trend for boys as generic study indicates they benefit from self-regulation skills? (Watkins 2007)

Social class: Students can opt out at 14: elitist subject (CILT 2006)

Middle class holidays abroad> more motivated and receptive to SBI?

•Attitude/Motivation

Responsiveness to SBI: BilingualBilingual: facilitates Third Language Acquisition eg:

• Heightened metalinguistic awareness, flexibility of thought (Hamers and Blanc 2000) •Use of social and affective strategies (Wharton 2000)

Receptive to SBI? Waste of time as know it already?

Gap between natural home environment and school?

Research Questions

1) Impact of SBI relative to other factors?

2) Within group exposed to SBI, what role do other factors play, if any?

Research Methods: Participants• West School (inner-city, multi ethnic) and

Moreton school (suburban); different socio-economic intake

• Two parallel classes in each school of 30 students aged 12-13 years learning French (control and experimental)

• 120 students: 18% ‘bilingual’

• Explicit SBI in reading and listening for experimental classes from Autumn to Summer term (Harris 2007)

Research Measures

• Pre- and post- intervention listening and reading tests

• Pre- and post- intervention attitude questionnaire

• Pre- and post- intervention think alouds with 24 case study monolingual students of different attainment levels and 3 bilinguals

• Semi-structured interviews with 3 bilingual students

Multiple Regression Analysis (MRA): ‘Weight’ of SBI

• Multiple Regression Analysis- compare intervention’s impact with that of other factors determining students’ progress

Across control and experimental groups, SBI weighed against:

• students’ prior attainment (autumn test score); • school attended (socio-economic background); • gender; • bilingual/ monolingual status; • students’ prior motivation (autumn attitude

score)

Multiple Regression Analysis: Response to SBI

• Interaction of same factors (ie gender, etc.) with the SBI to explore whether especially valuable for particular groups of students;

• Outcome measures:- Students’ gain scores (from autumn to

summer) in the reading and listening test; - Students’ gain scores in the attitude

questionnaire i.e. progress made not final attainment level

Results:

•Quantitative

•Qualitative

Quantitative: main findings ACROSS Control and Experimental Groups (1)

•SBI is a significant factor in both listening and reading progress

•Gender does not play significant role in progress at this stage

•Bilingual students achieve greater listening gain scores than monolingual peers

• Start below monolinguals but by summer little difference between them

Listening Score by Bilingual/Monolingual Status

30

40

50

60

70

Autumn Summer

Lis

ten

ing

test

sco

re

Monlingual Bilingual

Main findings ACROSS Control and Experimental Groups (2)

• Motivation: Decline in level for all students between the autumn and summer terms;

• Less marked for the SBI group. Histogram suggests not due to ceiling effect.

Attitude Score by Group

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

Autumn Summer

Att

itu

de s

co

re

Control Experimental

Quantitative: Main findings WITHIN Experimental Classes

•Reading and listening SBI benefits all experimental students regardless of gender or bilingual status•Role of socio-economic background not as expected• Experimental students in West School make more progress in listening than Moreton School and those in the control classes, in spite of challenging behaviour, fewer holidays •Suburban school values reading more?

Summary: Quantitative• Promising, if limited, findings for impact

of SBI on reading and listening comprehension with near beginners;(10% for listening, 5% for reading)

• Assumptions about the role of gender and background challenged: potential for all students at this stage to progress;

• Benefits of bilingualism for development of listening skills.

Qualitative: Main Findings Think Alouds

• MRA only explains 47% for listening, 52% for reading of the variance between pupils;

• Other possible variables not included in the MRA?

• Anticipated difference in strategy deployment between control and experimental case study pupils. But in some cases little evidence to distinguish them

• Affective differences in way pupils tackle text may underlie some of the remaining variance

Affective Strategies• Affective Strategies List: ‘Affect, which consists of emotions, beliefs,

attitudes and motivations, is integral to all learning’ (Oxford 2011: p61)• Québec Ministry of Education project developed Progression of Learning

(2010)• Includes progression of the teaching of strategies prescribed in the

curriculum, from grade 1 to the end of secondary school:• Elementary: ‘perseveres despite not understanding everything listened

to or read, without getting overly anxious’• Secondary: ‘pushes oneself to experiment with language and ideas’

Two Sets of Case Study pupils1. Monolingual: comparison of Alison (experimental ) and Hannah (control): differences in approach;

•Identical autumn term listening scores but by summer, Alison’s gain score improved by 12% Hannah’s dropped by same amount. Why? SBI?

2. Bilingual: Martelle (Jamaican): impact of home environment on strategy development.

Think Aloud: Summary of Differences in Approach of Monolinguals

Alison (experimental): Persists

Hannah (control): Gives up rapidly

Assurance: tolerates ambiguity, ‘not knowing’-moves backwards and forwards, piecing information together

Self-doubt: unsure of

each piece of information so can’t relate it to the next

Constant willingness/openness to re-evaluating, takes risks with the language

‘Blocked’, rapidly loses interest

Assurance->Relates ‘clues’ to each other

Teacher:

What makes you say that they had to repeat things?

Alison:

‘Erm well first of all because the music was on. And then because they kept on asking each other to repeat what they were saying. They said it more high pitched, as if they were actually asking a question.

Self-doubtHannah:

Um.. are they dancing to rock or something? But I don’t know whether it was a question or he was telling her. I think it was probably a question

By summer, Alison’s gain score improved by 12% . Hannah’s dropped by same amount.

SBI and Individual Differences• Given same starting point, would these pupils

have made same amount of progress regardless of the SBI because of existing personality traits?

• OR did the SBI capitalise on Alison’s strengths eg:

- Knowing a range of strategies for tackling a text encourages persistence?

- Having a name for what already doing (comprehension monitoring) validates and reinforces it?

Alison: Follow up• SBI played a role in Alison’s progress? • Questionnaire three years later- asked how to

explain to beginner what learner strategies are:

• ‘Ways to tackle reading and listening tasks so they are maybe not easier in themselves, but easier to cope with and get through’

• Links to affective strategies and MRA motivation finding: SBI makes text less daunting?

Summary of Monolingual Pupils

Complex interaction between emotions ( risk-taking, persistence), linguistic repertoire and flexibility in strategy deployment.

Bilingual Students

• Interviews highlight impact of the home environment. (Harris and Grenfell 2015)

Listening progress: How Martelle infers meaning

‘I use the words that I do know, and the words that I don’t, I put “something” there instead of it. Like if they were saying “I work in..”, I would think of what sort of person they are, I close my eyes, and sort of bring my spirit out, and get myself into that word, what it can mean’.

‘Well I just picked it up, cos my mum always said to me when I can’t understand Patois, if you just think of all the different possibilities it could be, jumble them up, and that’s what I done’.

Home Environment: Listening Strategies

• One reason underlying significant difference between monolinguals and bilinguals in MRA results

• Bilingual students’ exposure to spoken form of two languages fosters development of key strategies like inferring and substitution

• Bilingual students forced to work out meanings more than monolinguals

•

Issues from Qualitative Findings

•Why are some learners more able than others to persist, to tolerate ‘not knowing’ and to take risks with the language?

• Does home environment play a part in developing these affective strategies, just as it appears to influence bilingual learners?

Pedagogical Implications• SBI to include more affective strategies

• Integrate SBI throughout educational life span…

…but since effective for all students, especially important at age 12-13 years in order to halt decline in performance

and motivation;

• Potential to reduce achievement gap between boys and girls.

The End

ReferencesBartram, A. (2006) An examination of perceptions of parental influence on attitudes to

language learning. Educational Research 48 (2): 211-21.CILT (2006) Language Trends 2006. London : CILT, the National Centre for Languages.Grenfell, M and Harris, V (2013) Making a Difference in Language Learning: The Role of

Socio-cultural Factors In Learner Strategy Instruction, Curriculum Journal, 24 (1), 121-152.

Harris, V. 2007. Exploring progression: Reading and listening strategy instruction with near-beginner learners of French. Language Learning Journal 35, no. 2: 189–204.

Harris, V. and Grenfell, M. (2015) Learning a third language: what learner strategies do bilingual students bring? Journal of Curriculum Studies 1-24.Hamers, J., & Blanc, M. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Oxford, R. ( 2011) Teaching and Researching: Language Learning Strategies. Harlow:

Pearson.Watkins, C. (2007) ‘Learning and teaching’ in Myers, K. and Taylor, H. (eds.) Genderwatch:

still watching. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.Wharton, G. (2000) Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in

Singapore. Language Learning 50 (2), 203-243. Whitty, G. (2012) A life with the Sociology of Education. British Journal of Educational

Studies 60 (1) : 65-75.

Outcome measure; sample size

Effect size Main effects Interaction with Experimental Group

Experiment-al Group

Prior achieve-

ment (autumn score)

School Gender Bilingual Prior Attitude

Prior achieve-

ment (autumn score)

School Gender Bilingual Prior Attitude

Listening gain Variance Zero order 10%** 22%*** 8%** 1% 5%* 1% 0% 4%* 0% 1% 0%

(N=99) explained Semipartial 7%** 20%** 2%+ 0% 4%* 4%** 0% 5%** 0% 0% 0%

Beta 0.27 -0.64 0.22 -0.01 0.22 0.24 0.05 -0.33 0.03 0.04 0.03

^ experimental group

^ lower achievers

Zero order: ^ school C Semi partial: ^ school R

^ bilingual ^ Higher attitude

^ school C

Reading gain Variance Zero order 5%* 36%*** 22%*** 1% 3%+ 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%

(N=107) explained Semipartial 2%+ 20%** 4%** 2%+ 1% 0% 3%* 0% 0% 0% 1%

Beta 0.13 -0.55 -0.25 0.15 0.11 0.04 -0.21 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.12

^ experimental group

^ lower achievers

^ school C ^ girls

^ bilingual ^ low autumn scores

Attitude/ motivation Variance Zero order 4%* 1% 0% 0% 5%* 2% 1% 0% 3%+

change explained Semipartial 5%* 0% 1% 0% 6%* 4%* 0% 1% 1%

(N=99) Beta 0.24 0.07 0.12 -0.05 -0.27 0.22 -0.03 0.10 -0.13

Less decline in

experimental group

Less decline for lower prior

attitude

^ school R

Variances explained are based on unadjusted R-squared + p < .100; * p < .050; ** p < .010; *** p < .001

^ indicates which group/ subgroup made more progress