Áp dụng hướng tiếp cận chuyên sâu về ngoại ngữ và văn hóa trong giảng dạy tiếng Việt

Tiu ban 3: Đào to ti
ng Vit nh mt ngoi ng cho ngi n c ngoài 398 ÁP DỤNG HƯỚNG TIẾP CẬN CHUYÊN SÂU VỀ NGOẠI NGỮ VÀ VĂN HÓA TRONG GIẢNG DẠY TIẾNG VIỆT François Victor TOCHON, Isabelle C. Druc-Tochon Trường Đại học Wisconsin - Madison, Hoa Kỳ Tóm t t: Học tập chuyên sâu là một phương pháp bền vững và đòi hỏi một phong cách giảng dạy khác biệt. Một số nhà nghiên cứu đã tiến hành khảo sát việc chuyển đổi từ khái niệm chuyên sâu về học tập theo hướng tiếp cận chuyên sâu sang việc giảng dạy và học tập ngôn ngữ (Tochon & Hanson, 2003; Tochon, Ökten, Karaman & Druc, 2008; Tochon, 2014). Đào tạo chuyên sâu đòi hỏi phải duy trì việc tự học. Học tập có tính chất quan trọng đối với việc hiểu biết sâu sắc; hệ thống học tập chuyên sâu cần trải rộng xuyên suốt các lĩnh vực chuyên ngành; học tập chuyên sâu cung cấp năng lượng và không vắt kiệt sức lực của giáo viên, nó không gây hại cho môi trường; chất lượng của phương pháp này liên quan đến sự đa dạng nhiều hơn là các hình thức biểu đạt chuẩn; giảng dạy chuyên sâu tôn vinh quá khứ và phát triển trí tuệ cho tương lai. Những yếu tố này đóng vai trò quan trọng trong việc đạt được sự tham gia chủ động, nâng cao năng lực và trách nhiệm giải trình trong các cộng đồng học tập. Báo cáo này cung cấp kinh nghiệm trong việc xây dựng các nguồn lực trực tuyến theo hướng tiếp cận chuyên sâu đối với ngôn ngữ và văn hóa Thổ Nhĩ Kỳ; các quá trình có thể được sử dụng trong việc tạo ra các nguồn lực tương tự cho Việt Nam cũng sẽ được minh họa. Abstract: Deep learning is sustainable and requires a different style of teaching. Some researchers have started working on the transfer from a deep conception of learning towards a Deep Approach to language teaching and learning (Tochon & Hanson, 2003; Tochon, Ökten, Karaman & Druc, 2008; Tochon, 2014). Deep education requires self-sustainable learning. Learning has to matter for deep understanding to happen; the deep learning system must spread across disciplinary domains; deep learning is energizing and doesn’t burn out teachers, it doesn’t harm the environment; quality is linked to variety rather than standardized forms of expression; deep teaching honors the past and develops wisdom for the future. These elements are key to active participation, capacity building and accountability within learning communities. This article provides the storyline of an experience in the creation of online resources within a Deep Approach to Turkish language and culture; it illustrates processes that could be used to create similar resources for Vietnamese. HOW TO APPLY THE DEEP APPROACH OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES AND CULTURES TO TEACHING VIETNAMESE The challenge of creating a curriculum for a Deep Approach to the language What can depth in language teaching mean? Within the current academic structures, when asked what could be deeper in their teaching, language instructors express various clues such as extensive readings of short novels, work on video tele-novellas, field trips and video correspondence, but they do not have a solid framework that would legitimate new forms of deep practices. When we ask teachers what could be deeper, they recognize that slicing contents through grammar topics and exercises does not lead to a sense of deep learning and situated proficiency, and the communicative approach as well seems insufficient to stimulate deep learning. Teaching methods have been compelling in making teachers believe that they could apply certain methods to reach certain goals, and the Chi
n lc ngoi ng trong xu th
hi nhp Tháng 11/2014 399 framework was supposed to be neutral. Specifying goals for schools and for classroom learning implies value choices. Evaluating results is all about valuing certain tasks and devaluing others. Many teachers have become ‘instrumentalists’ in the sense that they never question the underlying framework for the methods they enact. They just have to apply the ‘right’ methods to reach the ‘right’ results, they are told. Nobody questions the philosophy behind assessments. However, restricting the motives of action to technical rationality is unrooted thinking, which may have problematic side-effects. Instruments, methods, strategies do not suffice to reach higher humane goals. Philosophy and theoretical wisdom must guide reflective practice, and only then should we start thinking about what instruments might be appropriate. Depth is not an absolute, it describes an orientation that contrasts with existing practices in the world language area. Often while visiting language classes one can witness a series of short slices of activities, for example sequenced on the principle of Overview-Prime-Drill-Check (Knopp, 1980), which keeps students alert on the principle that, if they are not constantly stimulated by frequent and careful feedback loops, they will lose the necessary focus. The whole system is based on extrinsic motivation. The motivation, needs, and learning reflections of students must be part of the learning process. This is a challenge for instructional designers because most designer models try to predict every learning step. Advanced learning—whether individualized or group project–based—cannot be really predicted by instructional materials; an open pedagogy model must be proposed. This is the key challenge that most instructional materials must face: the best structured materials may imprison learners’ autonomy and motivation. The instructional materials must be planned so that many pathways are open to diverging ways of using the materials in real classroom situations. We need to go from a performance orientation to one emphasizing situated competencies. The linguafolio logic is consistent with an open learning approach, as is the use of film. Film can be watched, reviewed, and reflected upon individually or in a group, at a distance or on-site. It can be accompanied by questions, or it can support project-based learning. This approach offers a valuable alternative to currently available language materials, which often seem deprived of creativity and do not make use of the potential for individualized learning. In the project described in this article, we worked on a framework that facilitates the former kind of deep learning and orientation; and tried our best to materialize it into instructional materials that would permit a totally new approach to language teaching and learning. Right from the start, it is important to distinguish the approach from the instructional materials. A teacher who cannot conceptualize a more meaningful “deep” approach to language learning, and who has not been trained in the Deep Approach may not use the instructional materials we propose in a way conducive to deep learning. A teacher who can conceptualize such a more meaningful “deep” approach to language learning, approaches teaching from a deep philosophical perspective focusing on the process rather than the outcome, and who has been trained in the Deep Approach may/will use the instructional materials we propose in a way conducive to deep learning. This article follows the four-year IRIS Title VI research and development of new ways of stimulating deep learning in a less-commonly- taught language and culture (Tochon, Ökten, Karaman, & Druc, 2012). It describes the creation, study, implementation and impacts, within the project, of instructional materials that take a “Deep Approach” to language acquisition. Ours is an immersive, learner-centered, technology-rich, and project-based approach designed for institutions of higher education in the U.S. and elsewhere that offer programs in language and culture, cultural studies, and international studies. Tiu ban 3: Đào to ti
ng Vit nh mt ngoi ng cho ngi n c ngoài 400 Overview of the Theory Behind The Deep Approach Deep understanding characterizes deep learning (Akbar Hessami & Sillitoe, 1990). The concept of a deep approach emerged from phenomenographic studies in higher education, to define a deeper way of reading texts for learning (Ramsden, 1992). Atherton (2005) contrasted deep and surface approaches in terms of meaningfulness. The deep approach is significantly related to an intention to understand deeply. The focus is on what is signified and the arguments proposed, with a linking process to prior information and to everyday experience (Morgan, 1993). Deep processing involves a reconceptualization of reality through a linking process with prior experience and a form of identity-building discussion with the self that is increased in a team (Bradford, 2001). In contrast, surface learning is task-oriented and based on extrinsic motivation. Deep learning defines a situation in which the teacher is not the only source of inspiration and knowledge (Rhem, 1995). Researchers have started working on the transfer from a deep conception of learning to a deep approach to teaching. One such transfer has been made under the label of sustainable education (Warburton, 2003). Sustainable development is transdisciplinary and requires a reflective approach that characterizes transformative education in contrast to transmissive education. Traditional transmissive education is instrumental; its linear, information- focused training is oriented to products and based on facts and skills. In contrast, transformative education is about concepts and capacity building; it is intrinsically motivated and constructive, and grounded in relevant knowledge for local ownership. Being process-oriented, it involves iterative and responsive world-view reframing (Sterling, 2001). It promotes group work on real- life situations and real-world problems. Existing online instructional resources for most less-commonly taught languages, while providing some interactive exercises and limited authentic linguistic contexts, often lack coherence and the kind of fully interactive approach that facilitates mediation of learners’ language construction. This was the attempt here. Among the technologies used are streaming videos and multimedia, PowerPoints, and the integration of current technologies into instructional modules, such as glogs, blogs, chats, forum, etc. The article is the story of the integration of authentic Internet-based materials into less-commonly taught language courses, on the basis of experimentations associated with a forum among instructors, Skype conversations and interviews, and classroom experiences. The online resources proposed to the students were scaffolds to help them create their own projects. Heilman and Stout (2005) indicate possible stages that can help language instructors get a sense of structure and stimulate the creation of educative projects among their students: (a) Generate ideas together and outline a project – what groups will be formed, what will be the role of each one? Teachers should not accept projects’ duplication. (b) Groups need to visualize their anticipated projects and prepare possible scenarios. (c) Internet search, multimedia exploration and strategic skimming of data; inquiry and summary writing. For interviews: practice among peers contact, warming up, interviewing and closing, before the actual experience. (c) Refining projects for the report phase; preparing and rehearsing presentations. (e) Presenting the individual, peer or group projects, which can be done using various media; self- and peer-assessment as preps for instructional assessment. (f) Post-active reflection on the work done; students should reflect on what they learned, the amount of use of the target language, and the strategies that could have improved their action. In-depth projects should have a focus, a pivot or a major inquiry question. The end concept should be clarified through negotiation, with a critical discussion on the possibilities and the best Chi
n lc ngoi ng trong xu th
hi nhp Tháng 11/2014 401 strategies for the optimal result. It requires listening skills and clear communication of the perceptions related to the project, its contents, and the way it will be publicized. The rationale for action should be clear to everyone before starting. Quality is the goal. Students are curriculum- builders: they have choice, decision-making, and voice. Projects lead to creation, action, and experience: there is thus a transdisciplinary principle. Project-based apprenticeship enhances the quality of student learning compared to other approaches; it affects positively problem solving and decision-making capacities (Thomas, 2000). Projects tend to reduce learners’ anxiety and emulate positive attitudes toward the discipline. Principles Adopted to Create "Deep" Instructional Material Trying to create instructional materials based on the principle that the student is the curriculum builder and determines his or her own progression (or Zone of Proximal Development) may sound like a catch-22 situation. How can we anticipate what cannot be anticipated? Then came the idea of templates: providing templates to students, and list of themes, with possible tasks that they could gather into projects like a Lego game. Obviously the analogy was much too structuralist, yet there was an innovative concept here: that we could inspire students through some organizational patterns that they could quickly assimilate, which would allow them to be relatively free in the assembly mode, if the resources were multimodal, authentic and varied enough, allowing a maximum of flexibility. It took quite a while for this concept to be understood by teachers who were not accustomed to such curricular freedom: the Deep Approach was not a matter of applying the material provided on PDF, multimedia, video films, internet links etc from A to Z. We were providing food for thought, such that students could quickly transcend the material and create their own stuff. There could be banks of modules to which students and teachers would contribute. The idea was not to use them all. The idea was to go very deeply into a few modules that were chosen because of the right fit with the student’s interest and intrinsic motivation. Thus the apparent paradox is that we created materials that serve as thresholds, examples or models for students to go beyond and to be inspired to do more or do something different, as soon as they understood the principle. The superstructural principle framing the curriculum and the series of templates is that projects connect disciplinary knowledge to interdisciplinary themes through transdisciplinary action (Tochon, 2013). This interconnectedness explains that what was proposed was not a “textbook,” but a whole hyper-textbook with a high level of connectivity through links that are conceptual, strategic, and interpersonal as well as transpersonal to reach depth in action. To sum up, the instructional material we created for one specific less-commonly-taught language, which was Turkish was based on principles of relativity, connectivity, agency and complex systems dynamics, such that it was not a goal in itself but material to be transcended to become effective in its ability to stimulate deep learning. Getting rid of the model even, at some point, was among the demands of its successful accomplishment. Therefore guidance is paradoxically needed for instructors who might think that we created this material for it to be applied, as is. Any material has its limitations. Instructors need guidance on how not to guide. When the wise man designates the moon, only the naïve contemplate the finger. The instructional material in this analogy is the finger, it is pointed toward something else: deep learning, which requires autonomy for the learner. We are just at the beginning of this adventure for language learning. It is a revolution in the fields of Second Language Acquisition and World Language Education. What seems ‘natural’ now will easily be seen - with a little open-minded reflection - to be the contrary; whereas the Deep Approach emerges easily from what students already know and respond to. Tiu ban 3: Đào to ti
ng Vit nh mt ngoi ng cho ngi n c ngoài 402 Deep Pedagogy: Teachers as Coaches and Resource Persons One of the major problems that language instructors face who have been used to controlled approaches is that they need to develop some receptivity to bottom-up impulses coming from their students. There should be time and space for discussion, and a real curriculum negotiation. Often language instructors are afraid of not succeeding with such an open approach. They fear that they might not be able to “do” their semester curriculum. The problem emerges from the perception that only controlled environments could succeed. This wrong perception has created a tradition of surface learning in K-12 and collegiate teaching. In contrast, deep teachers favor depth over coverage (Paul & Elder, 2009). Course Description And Classroom Procedures This section clarifies what the language instructor and the deep learner do using the instructional material we have created. RATIONALE. The Deep Approach is based on self-directed projects, which link together various disciplinary contents within a self-actualizing, empowering perspective and small group achievement that target global issues and social action (Tochon, 2009). Thus the disciplinary Communication contents and Comparison tasks are integrated into interdisciplinary Connections within a broader transdisciplinary, Cultural and Community framework. At the same time, the Deep Approach supports the 5Cs standards of the American Council for Teaching Foreign Languages. TOPICAL MODULES. Instructional modules are proposed for various possible projects. Students pick those of interest. They are not meant to be ALL realized in the course of a semester. Students must see how projects are created with a balanced number of tasks in each task domains. LIFE GOALS. Students are invited to discuss their interests in life, and verify which topics would best match their life goals. This is the condition for intrinsic motivation to energize self- directed learning. If none of the project topics are a nice fit, students can adapt the structures of existing projects or create their own; then they articulate and list the tasks for each task domain themselves. SCHEDULE. The instructor may decide to devote a number of in-class hours per week to projects. Projects should be the main meal piece, NOT the side dish (Markham, Larmer & Ravitz, 2003). In addition, part of the work can be done as outside-of-class group tasks or individual homework. Students choose a topic and map their project. ASSESSMENT. The online instructional modules propose evaluation formats. The project map can help create a rubric of student’s anticipated achievement in all task domains. In the rubric, the tasks can be associated with deadlines and it then constitutes their instructional agreement or contract. Students can collaborate in creating project-related tasks for their tests and examinations, which should focus on proficiency. FLEXIBILITY. Since the Deep Approach emphasizes the learning process over specific outcomes, rubrics and instructional agreement can be re-negotiated as the project evolve