Lucy Macnaught

In teacher education, assessment tasks commonly expect students to reflect on and critique educational practices. However, the manner in which students are expected to critique and reflect on examples of practice and relate them to concepts in their studies may be unfamiliar for students. This chapter focuses on a reflective assessment task, called a ‘blog critique’, and associated academic literacy development within a Bachelor of Education program. The literacy teaching draws on the LCT concept of ‘semantic gravity’ to explore what students need to write about and reflect on. Additionally, genre theory, from Systemic Functional Linguistics, an approach often used alongside LCT, is used to examine the social purpose and function of this type of writing task. Examples of teaching materials illustrate how these complementary perspectives make crucial features of ‘successful’ blog critiques visible to students. Findings related to the macro-genre of a blog critique also challenge assumptions that this form of reflective assessment task may be more accessible or intuitive than traditional assessments. 

This paper presents findings from the Australian Research Council funded 'Disciplinarity, Knowledge and Schooling' project (DISKS) which investigates knowledge-building practices in Australian secondary schools and gave rise to the groundbreaking notions of 'semantic waves' (Maton, 2013) and 'power pedagogy' (Martin, 2013). In this paper, we investigate student writing in senior secondary school Ancient History. We focus on how students use evidence in their responses to different types of exam questions. Our research question focuses on the extent to which key features of responses to short answer questions appear in extended responses and vice versa. This focus arose through findings that teachers in our study tended to view short answer questions as a 'mini' version of extended responses and prepared students accordingly. The similarities and differences are important to identify as extended responses make a significant contribution to the overall exam grade.

To better understand the use of evidence in responses to different types of exam questions, the study draws on the dimension of Semantics in Legitimation Code Theory (Maton, 2013). We use the newly developed wording and clausing tools (Doran & Maton, 2018, forthcoming) to analyse the relative strength of context dependence in responses to Year 12 exam questions. Context dependence is particularly relevant to how students use evidence, as it involves relating the concrete particulars of specific historical artefacts, events, and the behaviours of historical figures to more abstract concepts in the discipline of history that are not bound to one historical setting. Our analysis tracks relative shifts in context dependence in student texts to generate semantic profiles of their exam responses.

Findings show that although teachers may use the writing of short answer questions as preparation towards the high-stakes extended writing tasks, short answer responses are not 'miniature' versions of extended responses. We argue that the differences are teachable and propose the use of model texts to make these features visible to students. Beyond the timeframe of secondary school education, learning to use evidence, particularly for the development of arguments, may provide a robust foundation for tertiary level writing tasks where students need to control degrees of context dependence.

Overview of the research problem and context:

In genre-based writing pedagogies where teachers write collaboratively with students, the class creates one communal, or ‘jointly constructed’ text. This is often one or more paragraphs of a genre common to schooling contexts, such as an explanation or two-sided argument. In the context of intensive English language instruction for university entrance, my PhD research found that such lessons may generate between 4500 – 8000 words of classroom discourse (Macnaught, 2015). Such volume of classroom talk occurs because the class not only proposes wording for their text (wording that gets scribed), but they also talk about language choices, as well as the process of writing it. In the words of David Rose, analysing such quantities of classroom discourse is like “trying to untangle a bowl of spaghetti” (Rose, personal communication, 2013). For me, a breakthrough came when taking up Rose’s suggestion of first identifying the tasks that students are doing, and then working out how teacher activity relates to those tasks.

This study reports on a four-year project to embed academic literacy within one core course of a Bachelor of Education program. It involves an interdisciplinary collaboration between learning advisors, as literacy specialists, and lecturers, as subject specialists. It examines their roles and responsibilities and lecturers’ perspectives when handing over the teaching of academic literacy to them. Data encompasses interviews with lecturers, meeting notes, and cohort statistics about assessment grades. Discourse analysis with theory from Systemic Functional Linguistics identifies the shifting contributions of the collaborators and how lecturers evaluate their experiences. Findings suggest that handover is smooth when it is done gradually and involves intensive prior collaboration. However, the contrasting views of the lecturers raise questions about what is optimal for students. Although limited, data indicates that reductions in resubmission rates and students achieving in the minimal passing range co-occur with the addition of mini videos about reading and writing critically.

The following report has been commissioned by the International Baccalaureate Organisation to investigate literature related to professional learning practices in language education. It comprises of a systematic review to highlight critical aspects and successful modelling of professional learning (PL) programs in elementary and early years settings. In this report ‘elementary and early years is defined as classroom teaching and learning with students between the approximate ages of 5 to 12.

The overarching research question for this report is:

What current research on teacher professional learning provides evidence of successful implementation of social-semiotically informed social- interactionist approaches to language learning in multi-, bi- and monolingual contexts in elementary and early years classrooms?

While we review literature from a range of theoretical perspectives, we focus on pedagogic practices and professional learning that are informed by socio-cultural orientations to literacy, and especially those underpinned and informed by the social-semiotic theories of systemic functional linguistics (SFL). The overall aim of this report is to identify, select, and synthesise the available literature relating to best practices in implementing social constructivist approaches in teacher professional learning. These findings then inform design principles for professional learning for IB’s diverse language learning contexts.

In teacher education, an underlying assumption is that engagement with theory will inform and improve students’ current and future practice. Accordingly, assessment tasks typically expect students to relate concrete events and experiences to concepts from lectures and course readings. Such connections are one way to reflect on and demonstrate understanding of theory, as often specified in learning outcomes and marking criteria. This chapter examines how the concept of semantic gravity – from the dimension of Semantics in Legitimation Code Theory – is used to make the expectations of writing academic reflections more visible to students. Examples of teaching practices are from the very first semester of a Bachelor of Education program. Analysis identifies reoccurring pedagogic strategies and relates these to the broad principle scaffolding, and specifically to teaching about academic writing prior to assignment submission. The pedagogic strategies identified in this chapter contribute to illuminating how concepts in LCT can be adapted and repurposed in classroom metalanguage for discipline-specific academic writing instruction. The findings are of particular relevance to practitioners responsible for, or contributing to, the planning and teaching of academic literacy development in tertiary contexts.

This chapter considers the scope of metalanguage during English language instruction undertaken directly before tertiary studies. While past studies of metalanguage have tended to privilege the analysis of spoken language in the classroom, with particular attention to linguistic terminology, this chapter explores both language and body language.  Methods of classroom discourse analysis focus on interaction between teachers and students during a collaborative writing lesson. Analysis draws on new developments in the theorisation of body language in Systemic Functional Linguistics theory. Findings illustrate how metalanguage may be expressed phonologically as spoken wording and also kinaesthetically as gestures. The gestures in this study, however, appear to initially be dependent on language for meaning, before gradually being used as an alternate and independent form of expression. These findings contribute to a broader conceptualisation of metalanguage that acknowledges a fuller range of semiotic resources used to share and develop knowledge about language in the classroom.

This chapter examines the development of teachers’ knowledge about language and metalanguage in an Australian secondary school serving students from low SES and indigenous backgrounds. The central research question addressed is whether a professional learning program to build teachers’ knowledge of the language and literacies of their curricular areas enables them to more effectively integrate language and literacy into discipline instruction and into feedback on students’ written texts. The metalanguage designed for this particular professional learning program draws on the Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) model of language, which informs the recently developed national curriculum for English in Australia. Using surveys, written feedback and examples from the KLA of Technology and Applied Sciences, the focus is on how resources within the discourse semantic stratum of SFL have been recontextualised to effectively integrate literacy instruction with what teachers recognise as core business content learning.

(Abstract - short version)
In Australia, a significant number of international students undertake intensive language instruction to prepare for higher education (Australia Education International 2014). Difficulties with academic writing pose a barrier to tertiary entrance. With much at stake, effective support for academic writing development is an on-going concern for researchers and educators.

A substantial body of research has analysed the linguistic demands of ‘academic’ texts. However fewer studies explore the negotiation of meanings, through classroom interaction. This study uses methods of qualitative phasal analysis (Malcolm 2010) and discourse semantics tools of Systemic Functional Linguistics (Martin 1992; Martin & White 2005; Martin and Rose 2007) to examine teacher-student talk, during five lessons of a collaborative writing step, known as joint construction (Rothery 1996; Rose & Martin 2012). It builds on previous studies to examine three main aspects of collaborative text creation: what students do; what teachers do to support student activity (without taking over); and how meanings are negotiated at the time of text creation.

Findings contribute to a better understand of how the ‘end product’ is created. They also provide insight into the semiotic resources that teachers and students use to talk about and negotiate academic language choices, at the time of writing.

Abstract for thesis submitted for examination June, 2015.

In Australia, a significant number of international students undertake intensive language instruction, immediately prior to tertiary studies (Australia Education International 2014). These courses aim to prepare students for a successful university experience. Difficulties with academic writing pose a barrier to tertiary entrance and also to the completion of future studies, with emotional and financial ramifications for all those involved. With much at stake, effective support for academic writing development is an on-going concern for researchers and educators in many sectors, including pre-tertiary teaching and learning contexts.

A substantial body of research has analysed the linguistic demands of texts that students are expected to write. However, fewer studies explore how the valued meanings of texts are negotiated through classroom interaction. In this study, I examine five lessons of a collaborative writing step, known as joint construction. In this kind of writing lesson the teacher takes a leading role, as the class co-creates one communal text (Callaghan & Rothery 1988; Rothery 1996; Rose & Martin 2012). Previous studies of joint construction, with advanced English language learners, have provided insight into the overall structure of lessons, the negotiation of social roles, and adaptations to online learning environments (Humphrey & Macnaught 2011 who draw on Hunt 1991, 1996; Dreyfus, Macnaught & Humphrey 2011; Dreyfus to appear). However, as yet, there is limited understanding of how meanings are negotiated to achieve the ‘end product’, i.e. the scribed text. There is also limited understanding of how language choices are related to each other as well as to future writing.

The study aims to better understand the process of co-constructing academic language. Classroom talk is analysed by using methods of qualitative phasal analysis (Gregory & Malcolm 1995, Malcolm 2010) and discourse semantics tools of Systemic Functional Linguistics (Martin 1992; Martin & White 2005; Martin and Rose 2007). The transcripts and video recordings of joint construction lessons focus on three main aspects of collaborative text creation: what students do; what teachers do to support student activity (without taking over); and how meanings are negotiated at the time of text creation (rather than through prospective or retrospective instruction). Findings illuminate re-occurring kinds of student activity, how classroom talk is structured to support the negotiation of meaning, and the scope of semiotic resources that teachers and students use to talk about language choices. Overall, findings provide insight into patterns of interaction that target the academic language development of students.

The importance of teacher-student collaboration in text production is well established in education literature (Cazden 1996; Green 1988; Mehan 1979). Teacher-student collaboration is a key feature of Sydney School Genre pedagogy, particularly in the Joint Construction stage of the Teaching Learning cycle. Joint Construction supports the literacy development of all students through dialogic exchanges that enable the co-creation of a target text (Rothery & Stenglin 1995).  While this stage of the Teaching Learning cycle has been widely used across primary, secondary and tertiary contexts, teacher-student dialogue in text production has only been analysed in detail at a primary school level (see Hunt 1991 & 1994).

This paper examines three Joint Construction lessons from the tertiary context. Using phasal analysis (Gregory 1985, 1988), it examines how different stages of Joint Construction achieve their goals. Using exchange structure analysis (Sinclair & Coulthard 1975; Berry 1981; Ventola 1987 & 1988; Martin 2007; Author 2007), which is located within the discourse semantic system of NEGOTIATION (Martin & Rose 2007), the paper provides a principled linguistic analysis of the conversational moves taking place.

This paper reports on the use of teacher-led collaborative writing to support tertiary students’ academic literacy. It draws on data from a pilot study of writing development within an MA of Applied Linguistics program at the University of Sydney during 2009. The process of collaborative writing, known as ‘Joint Construction’ in Sydney School genre pedagogy (Rothery & Stenglin, 1995), is analysed in order to reveal a sequence of supportive steps or ‘stages’ which the teacher and students move through. The authors argue for the value of maintaining pedagogic space for teacher-led joint construction of texts in order to effectively support tertiary students towards independent and creative control of genre.