The article remarks a different interpretation of learning a second language: . a situated co-constructed process vs. a cognitive process (in the mind of the learner). It quotes different attempts to overcome the separation between language and context.
The authors report “how a novice learned to participate in one unfamiliar discursive practice. […] The novice was a Vietnamese learner of ESL, and the new practice was revision talk in weekly writing conferences between the student and his ESL writing instructor.” (p. 521)
The author quotes Conversation Analysis and microethnography as privileged methods of analysis in a framework considering language and context as mutually constitutive phenomena.
The authors identify a pattern, or “sequence of acts”, in the interaction between the student and the instructor.
Once again, I have this sensation of the authors trying to “sell” their idea…
In the attempt to adapt the theory of legitimate peripheral participation (that generally works for communities of practice, i.e. in peer-to-peer interactions) in a teacher-student relationship, they put together categories that sometimes overlap (p. 522), while not supporting their claims with a convincing explanation (p. 526). In other words, it looks like they are forcing an asymmetrical relation (teacher/student) in a community-oriented paradigm.
I don’t see the “co-construction of their (student/teacher) roles” and the instructor as a “co-learner”(p. 533), nevertheless, it is noteworthy to observe how the talk-in-interaction shapes the conversations and the points of intervention in the learning process.
No comments:
Post a Comment