UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Developing student awareness of knowledge structures : An exploratory teacher-action study Grant, Lynn M. 1995

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1995-0181.pdf [ 5.16MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078089.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078089-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078089-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078089-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078089-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078089-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078089-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078089-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078089.ris

Full Text

DEVELOPING STUDENT AWARENESS OF KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES: A N EXPLORATORY TEACHER - ACTION STUDY by LYNN M. GRANT B.G.S., Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, 1989 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Language Education We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 1995 © LYNN M . GRANT, 1995 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia/ I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or pub l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of LaMMLLa^€y JfdtLClf/fjnA ) The University df-^ritarsh Columbia Vancouver, Canada Dat Abstract This study examined Grade Six and Seven English as a Second Language (ESL) students' development and use of Knowledge Structures in the classroom. It was an exploratory, teacher- action research study which aimed at illumination, rather than causal analysis. The study was part of a larger initiative aimed at improving ESL learners' academic English language proficiency and content - area achievement, using the Knowledge Framework (Mohan, 1986). The Knowledge Framework is a systematic way of working with Knowledge Structures which underlie discourse, subject-area knowledge and Thinking Skills present throughout the curriculum, K-12. The objectives of this study were 1) to investigate if young ESL students can understand Knowledge Structures and use them in their class work, and 2) to identify if the Knowledge Framework can be made accessible to Grade Six and Seven ESL students, bearing in mind that the Knowledge Framework appears to provide a systematic way of working with Thinking Skills which are required across the curriculum, K-12. The results were positive, broadly speaking. However, for example, the students found it less difficult to recognize, understand, and apply the Thinking Skills of Knowledge Structures when they were accompanied by Key Visuals rather than text samples and the students found it less difficult to create Key Visuals for a text than to conversely, create text from Key Visuals. There were two broad implications from the study. 1) It appears that the development of student awareness and usage of Knowledge Structures can be a very worthwhile activity, which may provide benefits for both first and second language students at all grade levels. Teacher action research is an important way to investigate this and this study provides a stepping stone for further teacher action research in this area. 2) It appears that the Knowledge Framework model can be accessible to students and can provide a way to treat the development of discourse, Thinking Skills and graphic literacy in a systematic rather than ii fragmentary way. This points the way to further curriculum research, since it lends credibility to the Knowledge Framework as a model for curriculum integration and for ways in which teacher planning can be coordinated with learner reflection and learner development. iii T A B L E OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Table of Contents iv List of Figures viii Acknowledgement . ix I. Developing Student Awareness of Knowledge Structures: An Exploratory Teacher Action Research 1 A . The Questions 1 B. Background to the Questions 2 C. The Approach 3 D. Method 4 E. Focus Questions 4 F. Definition of Terms 6 II. Review of Selected Literature 7 A . Statement of the Problem 7 B. Second Language Acquisition Requires Long Term Support 8 C. Origins of E S L Difficulties in Content Classes 9 i . Many Mainstream Teachers are not Modifying Their Content 9 i i . ESL Texts Do Not Cover A Complete Range of Thinking Skills 10 i i i . Reception Class Tasks Vary Significantly From Tasks in Content Classes 10 D. The Development of Integrated Language and Content Teaching 11 i . Krashen's Monitor Model 12 iv ii Cummins' Language Proficiency Model 12 i iii The Language Socialization Perspective 13 E. Models For Integrating Language and Content Learning 14 i. Theme-Based Instruction 14 ii. Sheltered Content Instruction 15 iii. Adjunct Language Instruction 15 iv. The Cognitive Academic Language and Learning Approach (CALLA) 16 v. Tasks, Knowledge Structures, and the Knowledge Framework . 16 a. Tasks 17 b. Knowledge Structures 17 c. i The Knowledge Framework 18 F. Awareness of Knowledge Structures 21 G. Research Questions - Revisited 22 H. Summary 22 III. The Method , 24 A. A Qualitative and Quantitative Approach 24 B. The Questions 25 C. The Focus Questions 26 D. The Study Group 26 E. The Role of the Researcher 28 F. The Research Procedure 28 i. Curriculum Development 28 i ii. Implementation '. 29 iii. Evaluation ; 32 v IV. The Analysis 34 A. The Questions 34 B. Sources of Data 34 C. Focus Questions 35 D. Purpose and Findings of Focus Questions 37 E. Conclusions 51 V. Conclusion 58 A. The Questions B. Summary of Findings 58. i. Chapter Three - The Method 58 ii. Chapter Four - The Analysis 62 C. Implications For Research 66 i. Curriculum Development 68 a. Definitions 69 b. Knowledge Structures and Thinking Skills 69 c. Key Visuals 69 d. Language 70 e. Discourse 70 f. Transfer to Content Learning/Independent Usage 71 g. Post Tests 72 h. Implementation 72 D. A Final Word 73 VI. S E L E C T E D BIBLIOGRAPHY 74 vi V I I . A P P E N D I X A - K N O W L E D G E F R A M E W O R K P R E T E S T 78 A P P E N D I X B - K N O W L E D G E F R A M E W O R K U N I T F I N A L P O S T T E S T 84 A P P E N D I X C - C L A S S I F I C A T I O N A N D D E S C R I P T I O N U N I T P O S T T E S T .. 92 A P P E N D I X D - P R I N C I P L E S A N D S E Q U E N C E U N I T P O S T T E S T 94 A P P E N D I X E - E V A L U A T I O N A N D C H O I C E U N I T P O S T T E S T 97 A P P E N D I X F - C L A S S I F I C A T I O N S T U D Y G R A P H I C 101 A P P E N D I X G - D E S C R I P T I O N S T U D Y G R A P H I C 102 A P P E N D I X H - P R I N C I P L E S S T U D Y G R A P H I C 103 A P P E N D I X I - S E Q U E N C E S T U D Y G R A P H I C 104 A P P E N D I X J - C H O I C E S T U D Y G R A P H I C 105 A P P E N D I X K - E V A L U A T I O N S T U D Y G R A P H I C 106 A P P E N D I X L - C L A S S R O O M C O N T E N T S A M P L E S 107 A P P E N D I X M - S A M P L E U N I T P O S T T E S T A N A L Y S I S G R A P H I C 108 A P P E N D I X N - S A M P L E O B S E R V A T I O N S G R A P H I C 109 vii LIST OF FIGURES 2.0 The Knowledge Framework ' 18 2.1 Key Visuals That Relate to Each Box of the Knowledge Framework 20 3.0 Student Information 27 3.1 The Knowledge Structures of Mohan's Knowledge Framework ... 29 4.0 Correlation of Focus Questions and Data 37 4.1 Summary of Findings 38 viii Acknowledgemen t M a n y people have inf luenced m y understanding o f language and teaching, but I have been especial ly inspi red and supported by D r . Be rna rd M o h a n . H e encouraged the steady progress o f m y research through his w i s d o m , support, and patience. It is m y ambi t ion to one day be able to articulate m y s e l f as w e l l as D r . M o h a n . Recogn i t i on is g iven to two other educators for w h o m I h o l d tremendous respect and admirat ion: D r . Margaret E a r l y and H u g h Hooper . The i r input and guidance was invaluable and most appreciated. I w o u l d also l i ke to thank the V a n c o u v e r S c h o o l B o a r d w h i c h , w o r k i n g together wi th D r . M o h a n , D r . E a r l y , and H u g h Hooper , p rov ided funding and support for the E S L P i lo t Project. The Profess ional Deve lopment that m y colleagues and I rece ived through this project was except ional and very instrumental i n both a id ing m y understanding o f the K n o w l e d g e F r a m e w o r k and encouraging me to further m y studies. ix Chapter One D E V E L O P I N G S T U D E N T A W A R E N E S S O F K N O W L E D G E S T R U C T U R E S : A N E X P L O R A T O R Y T E A C H E R A C T I O N R E S E A R C H The Vancouver School Board (VS B) , in Vancouver, British Columbia , Canada, recently initiated an expansive research and curriculum project based on B . A . . Mohan's (1986) integrative language and content learning across the curriculum approach. This project was designed in response to a growing need for English as a Second Language (ESL) students to develop their academic English language proficiency and achievement. A primary focus of this large scale initiative is to investigate various means by which E S L learners can develop written and oral academic language, as well as fluency in social conversation. T H E Q U E S T I O N S A n integral part of this project was to introduce teachers to Mohan's Knowledge Framework (1986, 1991), an integrative tool for combining language and content learning and instruction. The teachers, through Professional Development sessions, became aware of Knowledge Structures and the skills and strategies within the Knowledge Framework that could assist them in adapting materials to better meet the needs of the changing populations within their classrooms. Students were implicitly exposed to Knowledge Structures and the Knowledge Framework through working with these adapted materials. This was one hypothesized means for increasing English language proficiency and academic achievement with the initial reports and findings being very positive (Dunn, 1992). There has been work in Language Awareness which has researched the role of learner consciousness of grammar (Stainton, 1992; Schmidt, 1993). We can expect future studies which wi l l examine students' knowledge of discourse elements, such as genres. In this 1 study, we raise the question of students' awareness of Knowledge Structures, which underlie discourse, are reflected in Visuals, are realized in lexico-grammar, and organized through the Knowledge Framework. Secondly, in addition to examining students' understanding of Knowledge Structures and the systematic organization of the Knowledge Framework, we wi l l examine the use of Knowledge Stuctures in classroom work. The two central questions of this research study are: 1) Can students understand Knowledge Structures and use them in class work? 2) Can the Knowledge Framework be made accessible to Grade Six and Seven E S L students, bearing in mind that the Knowledge Framework appears to provide a systematic way of working with Thinking Skills which are required across the curriculum, K-12? If students could become conscious of the Thinking Skills contained in their studies and learn to apply the Knowledge Framework's skills and strategies independently, this might help students to access important facts and concepts while studying, and greatly assist them in improving their academic achievement and language proficiency. B A C K G R O U N D T O T H E Q U E S T I O N The Vancouver School District has the largest E S L student enrollment in the province of British Columbia. V S B statistics indicate that 53.5 % of the student population speaks a primary language at home, other than English (B.C. Ministry of Education, Form 1701 Data Collections, September, 1993). E S L students are faced with many changes, demands, and difficulties when trying to handle the academic expectations of content classes because English is the primary medium of instruction and the students' competency in English is not adequate to address their needs. For many students, the English that was learned in the supportive E S L classroom, may not prepare them for the demands of the content class. Research in language acquisition considers age at arrival, 2 length of residence, and age at testing and has demonstrated that it takes between five and seven years, beyond the attentive instruction of the specialized E S L classroom, to achieve the degree of language proficiency necessary to succeed academically (Wong-Fillmore, 1989; Cummins, 1984). One of the four assumptions of the Vancouver School Board E S L Project (Early, Hooper and Mohan, 1988) maintains that, ...it is inefficient and ill-advised to teach language as a thing in itself separate from the school curriculum or conversely to submerge students in the language demands of school without structured support; E S L students require planned help with their real needs in coping with the language demands in the school context. Many researchers support Cummins (1989, 1990) suggestion that E S L students are in need of developing cognitive academic language proficiency ( C A L P ) in order to better cope with the learning requirements of school. T H E A P P R O A C H It is apparent that the student composition of classrooms is changing and that E S L students need assistance in coping with the demands of content. Another assumption supported by the V S B E S L Project is that: ...in order to help students bridge the gap between beginning social acquisition and full social academic linguistic competency in the mainstream classroom, a carefully articulated program which integrates the teaching of language and the the teaching of subject areas needs to be developed. Mohan's approach, the Knowledge Framework, takes this need into consideration and presents a systematic way of integrating language and content objectives, while working with Thinking Skills which are required across the curriculum, K-12 . Early, Thew, and Wakefield (1986) focused on thirty-eight core Thinking Skills that can be commonly found in school curricula and found "that E S L texts do not always address Thinking Skills such as: decision-making, drawing conclusions, evaluating, identifying 3 problems, inquiring, problem-solving, recognizing and understanding time and chronology " (p. 12-13). The Thinking Skills and objectives identified in their research could readily apply to the Knowledge Framework's six Knowledge Structures: Classification, Description, Principles, Sequence, Evaluation and Choice. This particular research study focuses on the Knowledge Framework as a model and examines students' awareness of Knowledge Structures, as well as the development and use of their inherent Thinking Skills, Key Visuals, and lexico-grammar within classroom work. The researcher observed six Grade Six and Seven E S L students for a period of fifteen weeks to explore what elements of the Knowledge Framework were understood and applied to various general interest and content assignments, as a means of linking language and content. M E T H O D It is important to state that this study is 1) exploratory in nature, 2) taking the form of teacher action research, and 3) seeks to increase our understanding of the relevant issues rather than to establish cause/effect relationships. The focus questions explored in this particular thesis study called for a combination of qualitative and quantitative research, as there were exploratory elements in examining categories of meaning, and numerical elements in examining test data. F O C U S Q U E S T I O N S Learning Background 1. Do students experience any difficulties with classroom and textbook learning that might be illuminated through explicit instruction of the Knowledge Framework, Key Visuals, and Language Awareness? Instruction A. Definitions 1. Are students able to define the Knowledge Framework? 4 2. Are students able to define Key Visuals and their usefulness? B . Knowledge Structures and Thinking Skills 1. Are students able to identify Knowledge Structures and corresponding Thinking Skills in a variety of learning situations? C. Key Visuals 1. Are students able to identify the Knowledge Structures of sample Key Visuals? 2. Are students able to create generic (personal interest) Key Visuals for each Knowledge Structure? D. Language 1. Are students able to list examples of language for each Knowledge Structure? E . Discourse 1. Are students able to label text examples for each Knowledge Structure? 2. Are students able to create Key Visuals from selected grade appropriate texts for each Knowledge Structure? 3. Are students able to write texts from Key Visuals for each Knowledge Structure? F. Transfer to Content Learning 1. Are students able to adapt texts from content classes into Key Visuals for study purposes? 2. Are students able to adapt Key Visuals from content classes into text for study purposes? G. Orders of Difficulty 1. What order of learning does this study suggest for learning the Knowledge Structures of the Knowledge Framework? 2. What order of lesson content does this study suggest for each Knowledge Structure? FL Independent Student Study Methods 1. What independent study methods are implemented by the students pre and post study? 5 Qualitative data was collected on an on-going basis through the use of audio tapes, anecdotal notes, lesson plans, and examining student progress levels reflected in the students' work portfolio of content samples. Quantitative data was collected through various test scores and the students' collection of content samples. The analysis of this research was based on the quantitative data and supported by the qualitative data. As we wi l l see, it appears that these Grade Six and Seven E S L students were able to understand and apply various cognitive, graphic, and linguistic features of the Knowledge Framework and were beginning to transfer many of these new skills to their content classroom assignments. The Knowledge Framework model has the potential for promoting content learning and the development of social and academic discourse across all grade levels and subject areas. D E F I N I T I O N O F T E R M S Knowledge Framework: ...a guide to the structure of knowledge across the curriculum (Mohan, 1986). It is composed of six Knowledge Structures: Classification, Description, Principles, Sequence, Evaluation, and Choice. The practical or action side of the Framework divides into Description, Sequence and Choice. The theoretical or background knowledge side of the Framework is Classification, Principles, and Evaluation. Knowledge Structures: ...organize information, underlie discourse, are reflected in graphics, and are realized in lexico-grammar. Key Visuals: ...are a visible framework of the shape of the content and reflect the Knowledge Structure or Knowledge Structures within text. Thinking Skills: ...cognitive operations - such as concept formation (Classification), problem-solving (Principles), and ordering (Sequencing), etc. 6 Chapter Two R E V I E W O F S E L E C T E D R E S E A R C H I N T R O D U C T I O N This review of literature outlines the academic language learning difficulties that English as a Second Language (ESL) students encounter in mainstream content classes and surveys the various responses that integrated language and content (ILC) researchers and educators have presented in striving to improve the social and academic language proficiency of second language (L2) learners. This paper discusses demographic changes in the student population and the resulting implications for education with respect to: - the utility of I L C as a method for addressing E S L student learning needs, - the relationship between L 2 acquisition models and I L C goals, - Knowledge Structures and how the Knowledge Framework (Mohan, 1986) can be used to integrate language and content across all grade levels and subject areas. The conclusion of this review wi l l address E S L learner awareness of Knowledge Structures and the researcher's particular interest in observing the degree to which E S L students are able to transfer to their content assignments, their understanding of the linguistic, graphic and cognitive relationships amongst the six Knowledge Structures of the Knowledge Framework. S T A T E M E N T O F T H E P R O B L E M Urban school districts are receiving growing numbers of ethnically diverse students each year. Changes in demographics in many countries have created school populations that are culturally and linguistically diverse (Crandall, 1993 ; Lara, 1994). Crandall writes 7 that "between 1980 and 1990, according to the U.S . Census, the Asian-American population more than doubled and the Hispanic-American population increased by more than 50%. Many major metropolitan school districts report a student population speaking more than 60 or 70 different languages...."(p.lll). In Vancouver, B . C . , Canada, 53.5% of the students speak a primary language at home other than English (British Columbia Ministry of Education's Form 1701 Data Collection; September 30, 1993). These demographic changes have profound implications for education. Early (1990) reports that E S L students have depressed scores on standardized tests and in subject-area achievement. Curriculum materials and strategies which were deemed appropriate for our predominantly English-speaking students in past years, are no longer ensuring academic success for our English as a Second Language population. S E C O N D L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N R E Q U I R E S L O N G T E R M S U P P O R T Research in language acquisition considers age on arrival, length of residence, and age at testing and has demonstrated that it takes between five and seven years, beyond the attentive instruction of the specialized E S L classroom, to achieve the degree of language proficiency necessary to succeed academically (Wong-Fillmore,1989; Cummins, 1984). Cummins (1981) reports the different rates of acquisition for basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and cognitive/academic language proficiency ( C A L P ) , and concluded that "it takes at least five years, on the average, for immigrant children who arrive in the host country after the age of six to approach grade norms in L 2 C A L P " (p. 148). He states that L 2 language assistance is often provided only for the first two years after a student's arrival. The research indicates that L 2 students enrolled in mainstream classrooms often require long term support. Collier (1987) suggests that it would take between four and eight years for E S L students to attain the 50th percentile on content area, standardized tests, 8 depending on the age of the student. She notes that E S L students' content learning should not be delayed until they acquire the academic language necessary for school success. Gunderson (1985) notes that undergraduate students voice clearly that their most pressing academic concern is to learn to read and understand various types of academic material. Consequently, considering the time periods necessary to acquire the various dimensions of a second language and the growing population of E S L students being mainstreamed into content classes, there appears to be a need for subject teachers, and skilled E S L specialists to work together in order to address the academic needs of these students. ORIGINS O F E S L D I F F I C U L T I E S I N C O N T E N T C L A S S E S i . Many Mainstream Teachers Are Not Modifying Their Instruction Gunderson (1985) surveyed content teachers in British Columbia, to determine the reading methods that were being used with E S L students and revealed that 88% of seventy-three secondary content teachers did not restructure their program or modify materials to assist their E S L students. In addition, the majority of these teachers felt that, "English ability should be a prerequisite for their classes" (p.49). The remaining 12% indicated that they restructured their instruction but did not list strategies that included teaching language skills related to their specific content area. Further evidence indicating lack of modified instruction is provided by Winningham (1990) who studied the activities of five E S L students in mainstream classrooms. The girls were asked to record their integration experiences in a journal, specifically those experiences which assisted their learning and understanding of content material. 9 Winningham discusses these journal entries, the accompanying follow-up interviews, and her direct observations of the teachers and notes that language skills were not specifically taught. She cited that "intuitive behaviors" such as talking slower, rewording and using gestures to emphasize a point, were utilized to assist student comprehension. Langer and Appleby (1987) state that content teachers do not want to promote writing activities unless they encourage increased comprehension of their own subject area. They indicated that they do not want to support the work of the English teacher, i f it is not supporting their specific content area. Additionally a study of grade 8 and 11 social studies, mathematics and English classes was conducted by Ratekin, Simpson, Alvermann, and Dishner (1985) and revealed that these teachers did not modify their programs to aid their E S L students. Course texts were used without any additional level-appropriate or graphic support. i i . E S L Texts D o Not Cover A Complete Range O f Thinking Skills Early, Thew and Wakefield (1986) focused on thirty-eight core Thinking Skills that can be commonly found in school curricula and found that " E S L texts do not always address Thinking Skills such as: analyzing, decision-making, drawing conclusions, evaluating, identifying problems, inquiring, problem-solving, recognizing, and understanding time and chronology " (p.12-13). i i i . Reception Class Tasks Vary Significantly From Tasks In Content Classes Shih (1992) outlines various difficulties L 2 students experience when they exit E S L reception classes and enter mainstream classrooms. The students are not able to complete reading and writing tasks as they have not learned the skills necessary to comprehend and summarize extensive readings and lectures. Shih states that the E S L classroom should 10 endeavor to foster reality by using actual content materials and assigning comparable tasks to those of the mainstream classroom. Winningham (1990) recommends that E S L and content teachers collaborate with the aim of having their programs becoming mutually supportive. Penfield (1987) conducted a survey of content teachers and states that teachers expressed a desire for training in ways to teach content to E S L students. The research demonstrates that one or two years in a reception class or withdrawal program is not sufficient to prepare E S L students to be independent and academically successful in the mainstreamed classroom. Language support needs to be available on a continuing basis. T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F I N T E G R A T E D L A N G U A G E A N D C O N T E N T T E A C H I N G In order to address the needs of diverse classroom populations, educators can focus on the integration of language and content (ILC). This approach is being researched and used in many countries where the primary medium of instruction is English: Canada (Mohan 1979; 1986; 1991, Early 1990, Early and Tang 1991), Australia (Ferguson 1990, Cleland and Evans 1984; 1987a; 1987b), and South Africa (MacDonald 1990, Rodseth 1978, Weideman 1991) to note a few countries where important work is being done" (Crandall, 1993, p.112). Mohan (1991) states that, ...the integration of language and content can be broadly defined as mutual support and cooperation between language teachers and content teachers for the educational benefit of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. Language development and content development are not regarded in isolation from each other and there is a focus on the intersection of language, content, and thinking skills, (p. 113) 11 This instructional approach reduces language barriers and strives for cognitive and academic language proficiency which can assist students in reaching their full academic potential. Three theoretical models of second language acquisition, Krashen's Monitor Model , Cummins' Language Proficiency Model and the Language Socialization Perspective should be regarded when considering the development of the integration of language and content teaching. i . Krashen's Monitor Model Krashen's Monitor Mode l includes the input hypothesis and his theory of second language acquisition has influenced the development of PLC. The input hypothesis centres on "comprehensible input" and stresses that a second language is most successfully acquired when conditions are similar to those known in the learner's first language (Krashen, 1985). The Krashen Monitor Model encourages focus on meaning and not form. Student dialogues would incorporate a meaningful situation that could be applied to their reality. Teachers responded to this model by incorporating authentic content into their lessons and placing less emphasis on isolated language drills (e.g., minimal pairs: slim, slam; bob, bop). However, Krashen's Monitor Mode l focuses only on the development of language, completely devaluing the input (content), other than as a language practice tool. i i . Cummins' Language Proficiency Model Cummins' Language Proficiency Model adds to this work by stating that learners develop two types of language proficiency, which differ depending on whether the context is embedded or reduced and on whether the communicative task is cognitively demanding or undemanding (see Cummins, et al., 1989; Cummins, 1990). According to this model, individuals learn social language and academic language depending on the type of 12 context and difficulty of the task. In referring to degrees of task difficulty regarding communication, Cummins designated two categories of language use, basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and cognitive/academic language proficiency ( C A L P ) . Rivera (1984) and Edelsky (1986) view this categorization as being too simplistic but it does contribute to the growth of language teaching methodology by emphasizing the role of context and cognition. In contrast to Krashen, Cummins has demonstrated that the complexity of acquiring a second language far exceeds the simplicity of Krashen's model by considering the rate of acquisition and type of language use. i i i . The Language Socialization Perspective The Language Socialization Perspective has not been developed by a singular scholar but is the on-going gathering of ideas by many scholars. Krashen and Cummins focus on language acquisition whereas "language socialization aims at the understanding of how persons become competent members of social groups and what role language plays in this process" (Mohan, 1991, p. 118). This approach encourages the use of language for authentic, relevant situations. This perspective does not look for causal explanation but derives from the very different "interpretive" approach, which examines how people assign meaning to their social world (Braybrooke, 1987). Language socialization involves learning language for language's sake, learning through language (academic meaning), and learning about language. "Language socialization means both socialization through language and socialization to use language" (Mohan, 1991, p.118). Schieffelin and Ochs (1986) believe that language is a vehicle for making meaning of our world and describe the Language Socialization Perspective as "devoted to understanding the interdependence of language and sociocultural structures and processes" (p. 163). This language acquisition perspective expands the work of Krashen, where language is the only goal, separate from a sociocultural purpose. 13 Krashen and Cummins focus on meaning and language separately but their models provide linguistic rationale for educators to consider integrating language and content in their teaching. The scholars who are contributing to the language socialization perspective advocate integrated learning of the two, thus enabling E S L students to gain communicative and academic competence. The linking of language and content instruction is one method of addressing the social and academic language needs of these students. M O D E L S F O R I N T E G R A T I N G L A N G U A G E A N D C O N T E N T L E A R N I N G Several researchers are advocating strategies for integrating language and content learning. They are responding to the challenge put forth by Leung and Franson (1991), We need to develop an approach that w i l l provide genuine language learning opportunities in the mainstream subject classroom, so that learners are engaged in content and language learning at the same time. For all intents and purposes, the subject syllabus is the language learning syllabus, (p. 121) Content based language teaching is advocated in much of the recent second language acquisition research (Mohan, 1990, 1986; Crandall & Tucker, 1989; Snow, Met & Genesee, 1989; Brinton Snow & Wesche (1989); Chamot & O 'Mal ley , 1987; Early, 1990, 1989). Brinton, Snow, and Weshe (1989) describe three models for linking language and content teaching: thematic, sheltered, and adjunct. These models are similar in that they assist students to "process the content materials" (p. 17) however, they differ in their primary purpose and instructional format. i . Theme-Based Language Instruction The thematic model is referred to as "theme-based language instruction" where the Language Arts lesson "is structured around topics or themes, with the topics forming the 14 backbone of the course curriculum" (p. 14). The primary purpose of this approach is to "help students develop L 2 competence within specific topic areas" (p. 18). The emphasis is on the integration of language and content learning and there is no segregation of E S L students. i i . Sheltered Content Instruction The second model is referred to as "sheltered content instruction" and "consists of content courses taught in the second language to a segregated group of learners by a content area specialist" (p. 15). The focus for this program is to "help students master content material"(p.l8). In the sheltered course the teacher is responsible for both language and content with the content portion usually being modified. i i i . Adjunct Language Instruction In the third model, the adjunct model, the content teacher is responsible for content and the E S L teacher is responsible for the language. Adjunct language instruction occurs when "students are enrolled in two linked courses, a language course and a content course - with the idea that two courses share the content base and complement each other in terms of mutually coordinated assignments" (p. 16). The writers describe two purposes of the adjunct model: " To help students master content material" and " To introduce students to L 2 academic discourse and develop transferable skills" (p. 19). Although both the sheltered and adjunct models are attempting to close the gap between language and content learning, they are highly specific to their role of support and are not attempting to integrate the two. As points on a continuum between language classes and mainstream classes, the theme-based model is closest to the language class and the adjunct model is closest to the 15 mainstream class. While the adjunct model's goals for language and content instruction are given equal importance, there exist two separate courses, a language course and a content course. Therefore, considering its current format, it falls short of addressing the need for integration of language and content learning, in a systematic manner, within the mainstream classroom. However, these are not the only existing methods; The Cognitive Academic Language and Learning Approach ( C A L L A ) and the Knowledge Framework are two other approaches that aim to integrate language and content learning. iv. The Cognitive Academic Language and Learning Approach ( C A L L A ) A n additional approach that is designed to bridge the gap between mainstream and E S L classes is C A L L A (Chamot & O'Mal ley , 1987). This method is influenced by the work of Cummins (1984) and supports E S L learners by incorporating language instruction, content instruction and learning strategies for students who are preparing to enter mainstream classrooms. The three primary components of C A L L A are: a curriculum which supports the mainstream content, language activities for academic learning and explicit instruction of learning activities. This approach appears to comprehensively work at its goal of "supplying added support for English language development among L E P (limited English proficient) students..." (p.245). This model is moving in the right direction and attempting to address mainstream issues, however, student learning strategies, e.g., note-taking, are the central focus. This model does not incorporate a functional linguistic perspective which truly links language and content. v. Tasks, Knowledge Structures, and the Knowledge Framework Mohan (1991) writes in his review of the literature that, ...the integration of language and content should relate language learning, content learning and the development of thinking, and should aim to find systematic connections among them. (p. 13) 16 He reports that the literature forwards two main possibilities for making systematic connections: student tasks and Knowledge Structures. a) Tasks Doyle and Carter (1984) define task as a school-based activity or assignment which a student must complete. They write that specific discourse is associated with tasks in the content classroom and that students can be instructed in task specific learning strategies which they could transfer to similar tasks in the future. Additional research on task identifies task as an important component of language curriculum (Prabhu, 1987; Breen & Candlin, 1980). Crookes and Long (1981) examined task-based syllabuses and identified "Task Based Language Learning" as a model that focuses on the need to establish target tasks that "are undertaken as part of an educational course or at work" (Crookes, 1986:1). Mohan (1991) continues developing the importance of task in stating that tasks then form a common unit of analysis between language and content work, for student tasks are "the units of student work in both language and content classrooms" (p.113). b) Knowledge Structures How do students organize information in order to understand it? Cognitive psychologists state that knowledge is schematized and that schemas or Knowledge Structures assist "comprehension, memory and application" (Abelson & Black, 1986). In addition to the importance of identifying task, Mohan (1991, 1990, 1989, 1986) built on the research of anthropologist, B . Malinowski (1935), and cognitive psychology research and developed the idea of Knowledge Structures being "ways of organizing experience through which we, as human beings, give a coherent structure to experience" (Mohan, 1990, p . l 19). He suggests that all information can be categorized into at least six 17 common Knowledge Structures and defines them through the Knowledge Framework, a theoretical tool for integrating language and content (Mohan, 1986). c) The Knowledge Framework The Knowledge Framework is composed of a basic set of six Knowledge Structures, and is a useful tool for organizing information. The six Knowledge Structures are: Description, Sequence, and Choice which incorporate the action of an activity, e.g., recording the step-by-step Sequence of a story, and Classification, Principles and Evaluation which encompass the theoretical or background knowledge underlying an activity, e.g., the reasons or Principles behind the temporal sequencing of the story. The Knowledge Framework integrates language and content objectives by stressing recognition of background knowledge (prior L l schema) and the distinctive linguistic features, graphic representations and thinking processes of each Knowledge Structure. Figure 2.0 The Knowledge Framework General or Theoretical Knowledge Classification Principles Evaluation or Value Description Temporal Sequence Choice or Decision Making Specific or Particular Knowledge (Mohan 1986, 1991) Mohan identifies specific lists of language related to each box as the language of Description, the language of Sequence, etc. While analyzing Social Studies and 18 Science curricula, Early, Thew and Wakefield (1986) identified "Thinking Ski l l s" and objectives that could readily apply to the Knowledge Framework's six Knowledge Structures. Early (1990, 1989) and Early, Thew and Wakefield (1986) described Key Visuals that apply specifically to each of the six boxes. Key Visuals graphically represent Knowledge Structures. They are "a visible framework of the shape of the content" (1986, p.22). Key Visuals can organize and make content accessible, lowering the language barrier for E S L students. They help students comprehend how the content is organized. Carrell (1985) highlights the benefits of using graphics to facilitate reading. Concept mapping (Novak & Gowin, 1984) utilizes graphics in relating various concepts to increase comprehension of content material. Early (1990), Early, Mohan and Hooper (1989) and Tang (1989) found that implicit instruction of Knowledge Structures and their accompanying graphics, assisted students' comprehension and production of academic language. Mohan (1991) cites the importance of Key Visuals in I L C by reporting that, ...knowledge structure graphics can become the visible language, a common currency and a bridge between the language teacher and content teacher, a visible basis for integration and cooperation, (p. 131) 19 Figure 2.1 Key Visuals That Relate to Each Box of The Knowledge Framework Classification Principles Evaluation webs diagrams rating charts trees graphs grids tables tables marks book graphs cycles database Description Sequence Choice tables tables with numbered steps decision trees diagrams flowcharts flow charts pictures cycles plans/drawings timelines maps action strips (Early 1989, p.206) In practical terms, referring to the previous story writing task, two of the Knowledge Structures that would be represented are Principles and Sequence. The Thinking Skills of Sequence could include sequencing, narrating etc., the Thinking Skills of Principles might include explanation, hypothesizing, etc. The language of Sequence could involve the words, first, next, finally, etc., and for Principles, since, then, if, etc. The main information of the story could be represented in a Key Visual such as a timeline or action strip, with Principles being represented through a cause and effect chart. 20 The Knowledge Framework makes the interrelationship of language, content and cognition easily accessible to all teachers. It appears to be a well defined instrument that can be used at all grade levels and across all subject areas. It is an approach which uses graphics and organizes tasks to foster increased academic achievement. Tasks formulated through the language, Key Visuals and Thinking Processes inherent in the six Knowledge Structures of the Knowledge Framework form a systematic link between language and content. A W A R E N E S S O F K N O W L E D G E S T R U C T U R E S There has been work in Language Awareness that has researched the role of learner consciousness of grammar (Schmidt, 1993). Early, Mohan, and Hooper (1989) developed much of the foundation for the integrated language and content approach adopted in the Vancouver School Board E S L Pilot Project. This project involved extensive use of the Knowledge Framework and focused on the awareness of Knowledge Structures. In recognition of the growing number of E S L students and the need for instructional change in this district, four secondary and six elementary schools participated in a three year, six million dollar pilot endorsed by the Vancouver School Board Trustees. The schools involved in this pilot made a commitment to focus on instructional change and curriculum adaptation using the components of the Knowledge Framework. The focus of the pilot was on staff development, with goals to increase teacher awareness of Knowledge Structures, and their separate linguistic, cognitive and graphic features. The inservice taught teachers specific strategies for integrating language and content through utilizing the components of Knowledge Structures. 21 R E S E A R C H Q U E S T I O N S - R E V I S I T E D Students were implicitly exposed to Knowledge Structures through the units and individual lessons that teachers developed and students demonstrated increased academic success through their exposure to them (ESL Pilot Project Evaluation, 1992). Early (1990), Early, Mohan and Hooper (1989) and Tang (1989) found that implicit instruction of the Knowledge Structures and their corresponding graphics, assisted students' comprehension and production of academic language. The enthusiasm and student success that this pilot generated prompted the researcher to begin a study on the explicit instruction potential of the Knowledge Framework. The two central questions of this research study are: 1) Can students understand Knowledge Structures and use them in class work? 2) Can the Knowledge Framework be made accessible to Grade Six and Seven E S L students, bearing in mind that the Knowledge Framework appears to provide a systematic way of working with Thinking Skills which are required across the curriculum, K-12? S U M M A R Y The classrooms of many metropolitan area schools are increasingly composed of E S L students needing assistance to progress academically at the level of their age appropriate peers. One or two years of English reception class support provides students with insufficient skills to succeed in mainstream content classes since the Thinking Skills and tasks taught in traditional reception classes differ from those of the content classes. Integrated language and content instruction (ILC) is one suggested response to meet these needs. The Knowledge Framework is a theoretical tool that integrates language and content objectives and appears to assist all teachers, at all grade levels, in improving the social and academic language proficiency of second language learners. Students have 22 benefited academically through the implicit instruction of the cognitive, linguistic, and graphic features inherent in the six Knowledge Structures of the Knowledge Framework; the benefits of explicitly instructing these components as a subject are yet to be explored. 23 Chapter Three T H E M E T H O D A Q U A L I T A T I V E A N D Q U A N T I T A T I V E A P P R O A C H There are two main types of methods implemented to conduct research, quantitative and qualitative. As the reader knows, each method has a distinct set of criteria for collecting and analyzing data. The quantitative method is more scientifically oriented with measurable data playing the major role. This measurable data could be gathered using a variety of instruments, including statistics and standardized tests. One also knows that the qualitative method involves the researcher examining a process and context of an activity, rather than statistically analyzing certain variables. Information can be gathered using observation notes, tapes, video footage, etc. It is important to choose the appropriate method to match the nature of the question or problem being explored. It is important to state that this study is 1) exploratory in nature, 2) taking the form of teacher action research, and 3) seeks to increase our understanding of the relevant issues rather than to establish cause/effect relationships. The focus questions explored in this particular thesis study called for a combination of qualitative and quantitative research, as there were exploratory elements in examining categories of meaning, and numerical elements in examining test data. T H E Q U E S T I O N S In this study, we raise the question of students' awareness of Knowledge Structures, which underlie discourse, are reflected in Visuals, and are realized in lexico-grammar. Secondly, in addition to examining students' understanding of Knowledge Structures and 24 the systematic organization of the Knowledge Framework, we wi l l examine the use of Knowledge Stuctures in classroom work. The two central questions of this research study are: 1) Can students understand Knowledge Structures and use them in class work? 2) Can the Knowledge Framework be made accessible to Grade Six and Seven E S L students, bearing in mind that the Knowledge Framework appears to provide a systematic way of working with Thinking Skills which are required across the curriculum, K-12? The following specific focus questions were addressed: F O C U S Q U E S T I O N S Learning Background 1. D o students experience any difficulties with classroom and textbook learning that might be illuminated through explicit instruction of the Knowledge Framework, Key Visuals, and Language Awareness? Instruction A. Definitions 1. Are students able to define the Knowledge Framework? 2. Are students able to define Key Visuals and their usefulness? B . Knowledge Structures and Thinking Skills 1. Are students able to identify Knowledge Structures and corresponding Thinking Skills in a variety of learning situations? C. Key Visuals 1. Are students able to identify the Knowledge Structures of sample Key Visuals? 2. Are students able to create generic (personal interest) Key Visuals for each Knowledge Structure? D. Language 1. Are students able to list examples of language for each Knowledge Structure? 25 E. Discourse 1. Are students able to label text examples for each Knowledge Structure? 2. Are students able to create Key Visuals from selected grade appropriate texts for each Knowledge Structure? 3. Are students able to write texts from Key Visuals for each Knowledge Structure? F. Transfer to Content Learning 1. Are students able to adapt texts from content classes into Key Visuals for study purposes? 2. Are students able to adapt Key Visuals from content classes into text for study purposes? G. Orders of Difficulty 1. What order of learning does this study suggest for learning the Knowledge Structures of the Knowledge Framework? 2. What order of lesson content does this study suggest for each Knowledge Structure? H . Independent Student Study Methods 1. What independent study methods are implemented by the students pre and post study? T H E S T U D Y G R O U P Six English as a Second Language (ESL) students were observed in their school's English Language Centre (ELC) which provides language support to E S L students who have been fully integrated into mainstream academic classrooms. Five students, two males and three females, were enrolled in Grade Seven, and one male students was enrolled in Grade Six. It is the researcher's opinion, based on holistic judgment, that the students had intermediate or advanced levels of English proficiency, while one student was a Communications Class (Life Skills) candidate, with very basic first and second language skills. Figure 3.0 describes each student: 26 Figure 3.0 Student Information TITLE , GENDER AND GRADE IMMIGRATION HISTORY SCHOOL HISTORY ENGLISH INSTRUCTION HISTORY KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORK EXPERIENCE ANA FEMALE GR.7 ARRIVED FROM SHANGHAI, 1991 CHINA, AGE 3 CANADA, GR. 5 CHINA, 3 YRS CANADA, ESL CLASS, 14 MONTHS, ELC, 16 MONTHS IMPLICITLY IN CONTENT CLASSROOMS AND IN THE ELC JEAN FEMALE GR.7 ARRIVED FROM HONG KONG, 1991 HONG KONG, AGE 3, C A N A D A , GR. 5 CHINA, 3 YRS CANADA, ESL CLASS, 2 YRS ELC, 1 YR IMPLICITLY IN CONTENT CLASSES AND IN THE ELC HONG FEMALE GR.7 ARRIVED FROM VIETNAM, 1989 NO SCHOOL IN VIETNAM, OR IN REFUGEE CAMPS, CANADA, GR. 3 VIETNAM, 0 CANADA, ESL CLASS , 4 YRS, ELC, 6 MONTHS IMPLICITLY IN CONTENT CLASSES AND IN THE ELC SON MALE GR.7 ARRIVED FROM VIETNAM, 1991 SCHOOL FOR 1 YR IN VIETNAM CANADA, GR. 4 VIETNAM, 0 CANADA, ESL CLASS , 1 YR ELC, 2 YRS IMPLICITLY IN CONTENT CLASSES AND IN THE ELC SHERRY FEMALE GR.7 ARRIVED FROM MACAU, 1989 SCHOOL FOR 3 YRS IN MACAU, CANADA, GR. 1 MACAU, 0 CANADA, ESL CLASS, 2 YRS, ELC, 2 MONTHS NO PREVIOUS EXPOSURE TO THE KF QUANG MALE GR.6 ARRIVED FROM VIETNAM, 1985 NO SCHOOL IN VIETNAM, CANADA, KINDERGARTEN VIETNAM, 0 CANADA, ELC, 3 YRS IMPLICITLY IN CONTENT CLASSES AND IN THE ELC 27 The students participated in this study for a period of fifteen weeks with 2.5 weeks allotted to studying each of the six Knowledge Structures of the Knowledge Framework: Classification, Description, Principles, Sequence, Evaluation and Choice. The students were observed four times weekly, during their forty minute E L C lessons. T H E R O L E O F T H E R E S E A R C H E R The writer had the dual role of researcher and teacher. The researcher is meant to collect data through objective measures in quantitative research, and in qualitative research, the researcher is usually maintains distance from the subjects, with the subjective data collected and viewed with an critical perspective. In action research, there is the potential for the researcher to conflict with the teacher role, and possibly influence the subjects' responses. This should be kept in mind when in interpreting the findings of this research study. T H E R E S E A R C H P R O C E D U R E This research procedure involved on-going, informal curriculum development, implementation, and evaluation. i . Curriculum Development This study did not implement a prescribed curriculum. The writer was not aware of a curriculum which explicitly teaches the Knowledge Framework to elementary school students. The curriculum which was used in the E L C during this research was developed on a daily basis, from lesson - to - lesson, according to the observations made by the writer and the perceived needs of the students. The curriculum was a work in progress and endeavoured to clearly support a content-based approach to language learning, using the Knowledge Framework as the organizational tool for integrating language and 28 content. Therefore, the students were taught to understand and apply the language, discourse, Thinking Skills and Key Visuals of Classification, Description, Principles, Sequence, Evaluation and Choice using content material from their academic classes as a starting point or as support material. F I G U R E 3.1 C L A S S I F I C A T I O N P R I N C I P L E S E V A L U A T I O N D E S C R I P T I O N S E Q U E N C E C H O I C E T H E K N O W L E D G E S T R U C T U R E S O F M O H A N ' S K N O W L E D G E F R A M E W O R K This curriculum did not focus on one subject area but strove to find examples of usable materials, texts and Key Visuals from all of the content areas to use in teaching the strategies and skills of the Knowledge Framework and to relay its usefulness as a study tool. The writer structured the Scope and Sequence of the curriculum based on assumptions drawn through working with the Knowledge Framework and Key Visuals for the past three years and the daily progress within the E L C , throughout the study. i i . Implementation The students attended the E L C for forty-minutes, four times weekly, for fifteen weeks. Following a Knowledge Framework Pre Test (Appendix A ) written to ascertain the students' background knowledge, the students had 2.5 weeks of lessons per Knowledge Structure, following the sequence of Classification, Description, Principles, Sequence, Evaluation and Choice. A Unit Final Post Test (Appendix B) was written at the 29 culmination of the study to assess learning. The time frame of this specific research dictated this particular schedule. If conducting this study again, the writer would not begin instruction of a new Knowledge Structure in the middle of a week and would spend more time teaching each Knowledge Structure. This would provide time for proper closure of each Knowledge Structure Unit, as well as for further practice and reinforcement of the students' Knowledge Framework and Knowledge Structure learning's to date. There were ten lessons for each Knowledge Structure. The Knowledge Structure Units were taught in pairs, with each pair of Knowledge Structure Units, e.g., Classification and Description, culminating with a Post Test to evaluate the students' progress. Each Post Test was modified based on the Post Test before and its perceived weaknesses, e.g., tasks that were poorly designed. If this research were to be duplicated, the writer would include samples of text for a text - to - Key Visual activity in all of the Post Tests (this question was not included in the Classification-Description Post Test), as well as a Key Visual - to - text activity from a content area, which none of the Knowledge Structure Unit Post Tests or Unit Final Post Test included. This would allow for evaluation of all the skills that the students had been taught during the course of the lessons. Instructional strategies involved direct teaching along with cooperative learning activities. The composition and skills sequence of each Knowledge Structure Unit changed as the writer evaluated the progress of the students and discovered which lessons were valuable and those in need of change. The students' work was kept inside their E L C portfolios and photocopied weekly. At the commencement of each Knowledge Structure Unit, the students were given a graphic outlining the Thinking Skills, language, and Key Visuals of the specific 30 Knowledge Structure being studied (Appendices F - K ) . The students would have this overview of key information to study throughout the unit. The definition of the specific Knowledge Structure and its Thinking Skills were introduced at this time. Each Knowledge Structure Unit contained some initial activities which involved creating Key Visuals from general life situations, e.g., a web of their personal characteristics (Classification and Description), a labeled diagram of their bedroom (Description), a cause and effect chart outlining some possible actions and the consequences of those actions (Principles), timelines of the students' lives (Sequence), rating charts for subject areas (Evaluation) and decision flowcharts for possible career choices ( Choice). The next focus of the lessons was to have a variety of activities which added different types of Key Visuals to the students repertoire of recognized Key Visuals for that specific Knowledge Structure. The activities would encompass content information drawn from the students' academic classes and further tasks involving personal background information, to keep the students' interest high. Many oral activities stemmed from the creation of the Key Visuals and, through discussion, the students' developed vocabulary lists pertinent to each Knowledge Structure, e.g., divided, separated, grouped, categories, sections, etc. (Classification). Later, the focus of the lessons turned to writing texts from Key Visuals and conversely, creating Key Visuals from texts. These were considered to be advanced Knowledge Framework skills. Learning from previous sessions was constantly reviewed at the start of each new lesson. Throughout the length of each Knowledge Structure Unit, students were asked to collect material from their content classes which applied to that specific Knowledge Structure 31 currently being studied and to record their collections on their record-keeping Key Visual (Appendix L ) . It was important for the students to recognize that the Knowledge Structures taught in the E L C were also present everywhere in their content assignments and that the Knowledge Framework had some useful strategies in adapting this information for the purposes of studying and accessing this information more easily. i i i . E V A L U A T I O N This research study involved two types of evaluation, qualitative and quantitative. During the lessons, qualitative data gathered through the use of audio tapes, anecdotal notes, and examining the progress levels reflected in the student's work collections. The objective of having the audio tape record each lesson was to be able to refer back to a specific lesson i f the anecdotal notes were not satisfactorily informative concerning a given issue or learning event. The students' work collections allowed the writer to monitor the student's progress and to determine whether or not the students were understanding and applying the objectives of each lesson throughout the study. The qualitative evaluation assisted the writer in preparing the students for the quantitative evaluation (testing and content samples), determining the areas of strength and those needing further instruction. The quantitative evaluation involved the Pre and Post Unit Final Tests, the Knowledge Structure Unit Post Tests for Classification-Description, Principles-Sequence, and Evaluation-Choice, as well as the students' Content Samples collected from their academic classes. The tests were marked by the writer and all of the students' responses were recorded in a Classification and Description chart listing the names of the students and each question asked in the test (Appendix M ) . This chart contained a "Total" column to determine the 32 success of each individual against the test and also as a group. If the majority of the students had high totals, then this provided evidence that a particular skil l was possible to teach to Grade Six and Seven students. If the majority of the scores were low, then the skil l was possibly too difficult to comprehend at this level or the strategies used and/or time taken in instructing this skil l were insufficient or poorly designed. Also , a chart listing just the questions was developed (Appendix N) and, after reviewing the students' responses and totals, weaknesses were recorded. The Content Samples were evaluated on the basis of the record-keeping sheet kept by the student's for each Knowledge Structure (Appendix L ) . Section A of the record-keeping sheet asked the students to record what they found on the basis of subject, # of samples of Key Visuals, and # of samples of language. Section B of this assignment required the students to: 1. Create one Key Visual from a subject area that was specific to that Knowledge Structure and, 2. Write one piece of text from a content area Key Visual sample, specific to that Knowledge Structure. Section B of this assignment was considered more seriously in the evaluation process, as the record-keeping became quite laborious for the students and almost impossible given the short time frames and pace of each Knowledge Structure Unit. Section B of this assignment was more realistic in requiring the students to complete two tasks which served to determine: a. Whether the students recognized Knowledge Structures within their content work and could identify them correctly and, b. If they are able to apply Knowledge Framework strategies in order to identify key information for study purposes. 33 Chapter Four T H E A N A L Y S I S This particular research examines a Framework for Teaching and Learning developed by Dr. B . A . Mohan (Language and Content. 1986) known as the Knowledge Framework . This Framework outlines an approach and specific strategies that allow teachers to integrate language and content teaching and learning. The Framework views information as often belonging to one or more of six specific Knowledge Structures, with specific Thinking Skills, language/discourse, and graphic representations or Key Visuals inherent in each Knowledge Structure. T H E Q U E S T I O N S This study investigates students' awareness of Knowledge Structures and the systematic organization of the Knowledge Framework. The two central questions of this research study are: 1) Can students understand Knowledge Structures and use them in class work? 2) Can the Knowledge Framework be made accessible to Grade Six and Seven E S L students, bearing in mind that the Knowledge Framework appears to provide a systematic way of working with Thinking Skills which are required across the curriculum, K-12? M E T H O D There are three main types of data that address this research focus: 34 1. Pre and Post Test Results (Appendices A and B) A pre test was given to assess the background knowledge of the students. Post tests were written to compare students' prior knowledge of the Knowledge Framework and Key Visuals to their post-study knowledge. 2. Unit Post Tests (Appendices C, D , and E) Students studied pairs of Knowledge Structures, e.g., Classification and Description, for five weeks, 2.5 weeks per Knowledge Structure, 4 x 40 minutes per week; Knowledge Structure Unit Post Tests were given at the end of each unit to assess learning during that period. 3. Classroom Content Samples (Appendix L ) Students were asked to collect samples of classroom content material for a specific Knowledge Structure or Knowledge Structures during a unit of instruction; they were asked to take content texts and adapt them to Key Visuals, and to adapt content Key Visuals into text for study purposes. This exercise would possibly demonstrate the practical applications of this study within the content classroom. There are specific focus questions that are common to the three main types of data and that address the general research questions of this study: F O C U S Q U E S T I O N S Learning Background 1. D o students experience any difficulties with classroom and textbook learning that might be illuminated through explicit instruction of the Knowledge Framework, Key Visuals, and Language Awareness? Instruction A. Definitions 35 1. Are students able to define the Knowledge Framework? 2. Are students able to define Key Visuals and their usefulness? B . Knowledge Structures and Thinking Skills 1. Are students able to identify Knowledge Structures and corresponding Thinking Skills in a variety of learning situations? C. Key Visuals 1. Are students able to identify the Knowledge Structures of sample Key Visuals? 2. Are students able to create generic (personal interest) Key Visuals for each Knowledge Structure? D. Language 1. Are students able to list examples of language for each Knowledge Structure? E . Discourse 1. Are students able to label text examples for each Knowledge Structure? 2. Are students able to create Key Visuals from selected grade appropriate texts for each Knowledge Structure? 3. Are students able to write texts from Key Visuals for each Knowledge Structure? F. Transfer to Content Learning 1. Are students able to adapt texts from content classes into Key Visuals for study purposes? 2. Are students able to adapt Key Visuals from content classes into text for study purposes? G. Orders of Difficulty 1. What order of learning does this study suggest for learning the Knowledge Structures of the Knowledge Framework? 2. What order of lesson content does this study suggest for each Knowledge Structure? FL Independent Student Study Methods 1. What independent study methods are implemented by the students pre and post study? 36 P U R P O S E A N D F I N D I N G S O F F O C U S Q U E S T I O N S This research study addresses the explicit instruction of the Knowledge Framework and Key Visuals. Figure 4.0 correlates the research focus questions and data types and Figure 4.1 summarizes the findings for each focus question, specific to each source of data: Figure 4.0 Correlation of Focus Questions and Data Focus Pre Test Class and Principles Evaluation Unit Final Content Questions Reference Descrip Sequence Choice Reference Classroom Questions References References References Questions Samples L B 1 1 N / A N / A N / A 1 N / A I A 1 3 1 1 1 3 N / A I A 2 5,6 2 2 2 5,6 N / A I B 1 4,7-21 3 3,4 3,4 4,7-21 F O L D E R S I C 1 21 A - H 21 A - H N / A I C 2 20 4,5 5,6,7,8 5,6 20 N / A I D 1 8,10,12,14, 8 9 7 8,10,12,14, N / A 16,18 16,18 I E 1 19 N / A N / A N / A 19 F O L D E R S I E 2 N / A 10 8 22,23 N / A I E 3 N / A 4,5 7,8 5,6 N / A N / A IF1 N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A F O L D E R S I F 2 N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A F O L D E R S I H 1 2 N / A N / A N / A 2 N / A lb = learning background 1= instruction folders = E L C student folders 37 Figure 4.1 Summary of Findings Focus Questions Pre Test Knowledge Structure Post tests Unit Final Post Test Skills Transfer to Classroom Content LBI vocabulary N/A vocabulary N/A IA1 No Developing Yes N/A IA2 2 part answers Developing Yes N/A IB1 C-2,D-l,Ch-4 partial answers 50% struggle with P Yes Yes, when available IC1 No No Yes Yes IC2 No Yes Yes N/A ID1 No Yes, but c&c + P minimal Yes, but c&c + P minimal N/A IE1 No N/A Yes Yes,C,D,S but P,Ch, E weaker mi N/A Yes but P, E and Ch are weaker Yes, P,E and Ch slowly developing N/A IE3 N/A Yes, but P, E, and Ch are very weak Yes, but P, E, and Ch are very weak N/A IF1 N/A N/A N/A Yes, C,D,S; 2 students each P,Ch,E IF2 N/A N/A N/A yes, C,D,S,E no, P,Ch poor texts; no KVs IH1 Note-talcing Translation Memorizing; rote N/A 2 of the6(st#l,4) site grouping and KVS N/A L = Learning Background I = Instruction C=Classification D=Description P=Principles S = Sequence E =Evaluation Ch = Choice c&c =contrast and comparison (D) 38 Each question was researched for specific purposes which are outlined below. Learning Background Question L B 1: Do students experience any difficulties with classroom and textbook learning that might be illuminated through explicit instruction of the Knowledge Framework? Learning background is very important in developing new ideas and Question L B I , was asked in order to determine i f any learning obstacles existed. There would be no need to pursue alternate approaches to instruction and learning i f the majority of the students were succeeding with no major concerns. This question was asked during the Pre Test and again on the Unit Final Post Test. In both the Pre Test and Post Test, all of the students' responses indicated that vocabulary was their greatest challenge and obstacle to understanding their academic work. Quang writes, ...don't understand what the teacher is saying and he goes too fast. He gives too much information. I can't get down all the information. I struggle with the words sometimes, so I give up....I don't understand some of the words in the textbook. (Knowledge Framework Pretest) Instruction Questions IA1 and 2 : Are students able to define the Knowledge Framework?; Are students able define Key Visuals and their usefulness? These two questions focused on defining the Knowledge Framework and Key Visuals which formed the starting point for the lessons involved in this research. Students may not explicitly learn and apply that which they cannot define and explain. The Knowledge Framework and Key Visuals were introduced and explained at the start of the unit and 39 revisited each lesson to build upon their current understanding. It was hoped that, through this approach, students would build practical working definitions. The students were asked to define the Knowledge Framework and Key Visuals during the Pre Test, Knowledge Structure Post Tests and during the Unit Final Post Test. The students were not able to define either during the Pre Test. There were three Knowledge Structure Unit Post Tests, culminating the units on Classification and Description , Principles and Sequence, and Evaluation and Choice. The Post Test results for the unit on Classification and Description demonstrated that four of the six students were unable to form a definition of the Knowledge Framework. Two of the six (Ana and Quang) were beginning to form a very basic definition, e.g. "six boxes that organizes all knowledge" (Ana); "the Knowledge Framework is Classification, Description, Evaluation, Sequence, Principles and Choice" (Quang). Three of the six students (Ana, Son, and Quang) had a good beginning definition of Key Visuals. Following the completion of the unit on Principles and Sequence, all of the students, except Hong had basic definitions of the Knowledge Framework but only one (Quang) refers to language, Key Visuals and Thinking Skills in his definition. Again, in reference to Key Visuals, only Hong and Sherry are struggling with their definitions, e.g., " A Key Visual is a diagram and explaining how to put things into a Key Visual" (Sherry). Responses during the Evaluation & Choice Post Test shows that five of the six students have good definitions of the Knowledge Framework and that Hong has now developed part of a basic definition. Three of the six students (Ana, Jean, and Quang) had coherent definitions of Key Visuals, while three of the students were challenged. 40 The Unit Final Post Test found that all six students included references in their definitions pertaining to the Knowledge Framework organizing knowledge into six Knowledge Structures. The elements of the Knowledge Framework regarding specific language, Key Visuals and Thinking Skills for each Knowledge Structure was not mentioned in any of the students' definitions. A l l of the students had developed a practical definition for Key Visuals, stating that they organize key information in a way that makes their work easier to understand. Ana comments, ...a Key Visual is a diagram or chart which contains key information, and it's easy to understand....it has a easy-to-understand method to help me learn things. (Unit Final Post Test) Question IB1 : Are students able to identify Knowledge Structures and Corresponding Thinking Skills in a variety of learning situations? This question highlights the importance of students being able to identify Knowledge Structures and Thinking Skills in a variety of learning situations involving various materials and tasks. This research had a very specific goal of providing students with tools that they could effectively use to gain more success in their school assignments. If the students were asked to recognize and apply their understanding of Knowledge Structures and Thinking Skills in the same manner each lesson, the students would not gain the practical tools to succeed in a variety of learning situations. The students did not demonstrate a lot of prior knowledge concerning Knowledge Structures and Thinking Skills during the Pre Test. Two of the students (Son and Quang) wrote very basic definitions for Classification Thinking Skills, Jean recorded a basic response for Description, and Choice.was partially described by four of the six students (Jean, Hong, Son and Sherry). 41 The students were not asked to define Knowledge Structures during the Classification and Description Post Test. Following the Classification and Description Post Test, fifty percent of the students (Ana, Jean, and Son) defined Classification Thinking Skills. Quang misread the question. Unfortunately, a definition for Description was overlooked during the Description Post Test. Following the Principles and Sequence Post Test, four of the six students were able to define Principles Thinking Skills (Ana, Jean, Son and Sherry) and all were able to define Sequence Thinking Skills. Following the Evaluation and Choice Post Test, four students (Ana, Jean, Son and Quang) correctly defined Choice Thinking Skills and Ana, Jean, Hong, Son, and Quang were able to define Evaluation Thinking Skills. The Unit Final Post Test responses indicate that two of the students (Ana and Quang) refer to each Knowledge Structure as having its own language, Thinking Skills and Key Visuals. Quang writes, "...the knowledge structures are organize into ...launge, kv (Key Visuals) and thinking skills". It should be noted that the students did not receive a definition for Knowledge Structures in their study material for this unit. These two students remembered this definition by listening during class discussions. A l l of the students, except Hong were able to define Classification Thinking Skills. Hong defines Classification Thinking Skills as, "...mean they tell you the way". Description Thinking Skills were correctiy defined by all six of the students. Principles and Sequence Thinking Skills definitions were known by all, along with Evaluation and Choice Thinking Skills. Questions 7 - 2 1 require the students to know the correct Knowledge Structures and the corresponding Thinking Skills in order to answer the questions correctly. The students appeared to recognize the Knowledge Structures and their Thinking Skills well , with Evaluation and Choice occasionally being confused for each other. 42 The content samples collected in the students' folders indicate that the students can correctly identify Knowledge Structures and the corresponding Thinking Skills within their content lesson material when the texts and Key Visuals are well-organized and clear. Question I C l : Are students able to identify the Knowledge Structures of sample Key Visuals? This question refers to the starting place for learning about Knowledge Structures and Key Visuals. If the students find identifying Knowledge Structures of sample Key Visuals difficult, then it would be very challenging for them to learn further and progress towards practical independent usage of the Knowledge Framework and Key Visuals. As students successfully identified and were confident with a Key Visual type specific to a particular Knowledge Structure, another Key Visual specific to that Knowledge Structure would be introduced, eventually providing students with three or more types of Key Visuals for each Knowledge Structure. Pre Test responses show that the students had no prior knowledge of Knowledge Structures and their corresponding Key Visuals. They could not identify the Knowledge Structures within sample Key Visuals. The Classification and Description, Principles and Sequence, and Evaluation and Choice Post Tests, unfortunately, did not include this task. The Unit Final Post Test responses indicate that identifying the Knowledge Structure of Principles and Evaluation Key Visuals is challenging. Three of the students (Hong, Son, 43 and Sherry) labeled the Evaluation Key Visual as Ch even though there was no decision or Choice component to the Key Visual . Students were able to identify the Knowledge Structures of sample Key Visuals found within their content work. They demonstrated this by correctly labeling the Key Visual with the pertinent Knowledge Structures or writing the information into text, using the language or discourse of that particular Knowledge Structure or Knowledge Structures. The students were able to find content samples of Key Visuals representing the Knowledge Structures of Classification, Description, and Evaluation, but samples of Principles, Evaluation and Choice Key Visuals seemed to be extremely rare. Question IC2 : Are students able to create generic Key Visuals for each Knowledge Structure? This question addresses a skill a step beyond that addressed in IC1 and also necessary in the progression towards independent usage of the strategies and skills inherent in the Knowledge Framework and Key Visuals. Students learned to create generic Key Visuals using the same steps implemented above. Pre Test responses show that the students had no prior knowledge of Knowledge Structures and the corresponding Key Visuals. The Post Test findings for Classification / Description and Principles / Sequence indicate that all of the students were able to identify and create generic Key Visuals representing these four Knowledge Structures. Unfortunately, this particular task was overlooked in the Evaluation and Choice Post Test as the researcher failed to include it. 44 During the Unit Final Post Test, the students showed no difficulty creating generic Key Visuals for all six Knowledge Structures, with some difficulty being experienced Hong and Son concerning the design of their Key Visual for Choice. They did not create a section within their graphic for indicating their decided choice or choices. Question ID 1 : Are students able to list examples of language for each Knowledge Structure? This question examines whether or not students are capable of developing vocabulary banks, strictly speaking, lexico-grammar, for each Knowledge Structure. Language lists drawn for each Knowledge Structure would provide the students with a variety of words to link content and express their ideas. If vocabulary helps the student to firstly identify Knowledge Structures and secondly, develop their writing and speaking skills, then the Framework becomes a very useful learning tool for that student. The Pre Test results indicated that the students had little, i f any prior knowledge of lexico-grammar pertaining to specific Knowledge Structures. The Classification and Description Post Test findings show that two students (Hong and Sherry) were unclear on language samples for both Knowledge Structures. The other students listed examples for each, with only Jean recording any Descriptive comparison and contrast language. The Principles and Sequence Post Test results indicate that five of the six students recorded vocabulary samples. Hong did not record any samples for either Knowledge Structure and Son had minimal lists for both. The Evaluation and Choice Post Test responses demonstrate that none of the students had difficulty creating vocabulary lists pertaining to these two Knowledge Structures. The vocabulary listed were words that the students had remembered from their lessons in the E L C and had reviewed in their 45 graphic summaries of each Knowledge Structures' Thinking Skills, language, and Key Visuals. The Unit Final Post Test results demonstrated that only Hong had difficulty listing Classification vocabulary. A l l of the students listed adjectives for Description with only Sherry including comparison and contrast language. A l l of the students listed vocabulary for Principles, although four of the six lists were minimal in length (3 - 5 words). Lists for Sequence were adequate, in that they contained between seven and fifteen words. Samples for Evaluation included a minimal list by Hong and a list of Evaluation Thinking Skills by Son. Three of the six students were confused when writing their Choice language samples: Hong wrote evaluative language; Son and Quang wrote Thinking Skills for Ch, e.g., evaluating, deciding, choosing. Question LEI: Are students able to label text examples for each K S ? This question is a natural extension of the skills addressed in question ID1. If a student has been able to develop a vocabulary bank for each Knowledge Structure, this should allow them to label texts for each Knowledge Structure. Ideally, when the language indicators of a Knowledge Structure are learned, and a student can identify types of text, the student w i l l be better prepared to organize the main content into a Key Visual , for the purposes of studying and understanding. Question LE2 explores this assumption. Concerning Question LEI , the students had little, i f any prior knowledge concerning Knowledge Structure identification within text samples. This question was not included in the Knowledge Structure Post Tests. 46 The Unit Final Post Test responses indicate that five of the six students were able to identify Knowledge Structures within text examples, in this case, a sample sentence. Sherry seemed confused in identifying Principles, Choice, and Classification. The student's classroom content samples demonstrated that they performed well in identifying the Knowledge Structures of Classification, Description, and Sequence within content texts, while identifying the Knowledge Structures of Principles, Evaluation, and Choice proved to be more of a challenge. It seems that students were able to find more examples of text for Classification, Description and Sequence, mostly from Reading, Language Arts, Science and Math. There were very few samples of text for Principles, Evaluation and Choice, as the students claim that they could not find a lot, i f any. The students did include a few examples of Social Studies and Science text that reflected Principles. Samples of Principles, Evaluation, and Choice seem to be more rare than those of Classification, Description and Sequence, and it appears that the students are not as skilled in identifying Principles, Evaluation and Choice within texts. Question IE2: Are students able to create Key Visuals from selected grade appropriate texts for each Knowledge Structure? This question was not addressed in the Pre Test or in the Classification and Description Post Test. The idea of providing a sample text for the students to convert to a Key Visual , was thought of as the study progressed. The Principles and Sequence Post Test responses show that three of the six students (Ana, Jean, and Son) were able to identify either Principles or Sequence within the sample Grade Seven Social Studies writing and created a Key Visual with all of the key information. Two students (Sherry and Quang) created appropriate Key Visual formats 47 but were confused in their placement of information. Hong did not record an answer for this question. The Evaluation and Choice Post Test results demonstrate that three of the six students (Ana, Sherry, and Quang) completed Key Visuals for the provided text, a movie review from a local paper (Evaluation) and an article offering choices from the Grade Seven Guidance program. The remaining three students (Jean, Hong and Son) received partial marks for excluding important elements of the Key Visual , e.g., a problem or decision box. During the Unit Post Test Final, the students were asked to create a Principles and Sequence Key Visual concerning the migration of whales and a comparison and contrast chart describing Toothed and Baleen whales. The Unit Final Post Test did not include a Evaluation and Choice component for this task, as the students had written their Evaluation and Choice Knowledge Structure Post Test just a few days previously. Four of the six students were able to identify the Sequence component within the given text and designed an appropriate Key Visual minus the information involving Principles (Ana, Jean and Sherry). Quang was able to identify both Principles and Sequence within the text and combined two Key Visual formats, a timeline and a cause and effect chart to outline the key information. Hong and Sherry were both confused. Text - to -Key Visual tasks involving Principles appear to be challenging for five of the six students. The majority of the students (Ana, Jean, Son, Sherry, and Quang) successfully created a contrast and comparison chart to describe Toothed and Baleen whales. Hong created a web with the inserted information being very random and disorganized. 48 Question IE3 : Are students able to write texts from Key Visuals for each Knowledge Structure? Students need to be able to express their ideas about the main content of a lesson. It is important to know the key information or the correct answers, but it is also necessary for a student to effectively communicate these facts in writing or in speech. This question was unfortunately not addressed in the Pre Test or Post Test, as the researcher did not think to include it. During the Classification and Description Post Test, half of the students (Ana, Jean and Sherry) were able to create a Classification Key Visual and write the key information into a coherent text. The other students gained partial marks because their Key Visual was appropriate but their writing was weak; The texts did not match their Key Visuals. In regards to Description, five of the six students were successful in creating a K e y Visual and writing a descriptive text to match. Sherry lost partial marks as her writing did not correspond with her graphic. The Principles and Sequence Post Test responses demonstrate that two of the six students (Ana and Sherry) were able to create a Key Visual with corresponding texts representing Principles and the other four students gained only partial marks, as they created a Key Visual but struggled with writing the text. It appears that it was difficult for students to correctly place information, being unsure of whether it was cause or effect. Five of the six students (Ana, Jean, Hong, Son, and Quang) created satisfactory Key Visuals and texts representing Sequence. Quang created a timeline but did not accompany it with writing. 49 The Evaluation and Choice Post Test answers indicate that four of the six students (Ana, Jean, Son, and Quang) developed a Key Visual and corresponding text representing Evaluation. Hong and Sherry received partial marks as their Key Visuals and text were developing but were missing elements or sections that contained pertinent information. A l l of the students were successful in creating a Key Visual and text representing Choice The students' classroom content samples contained Key Visual - text samples for all of the Knowledge Structures and seem to indicate that it was more challenging to produce these samples for Principles, Evaluation, and Choice, as it appears that the students found it very difficult to find examples of Key Visuals representing these Knowledge Structures within their present curriculum. The samples also indicate that these skills are developing but that further guidance and practice in creating texts from Key Visuals is needed for all of the Knowledge Structures. In order for a learning strategy or a Framework for learning to be helpful, the students should eventually be able to use it independently. If the strategies for adapting their academic work into manageable material is too difficult, then the strategies w i l l not be used, and regarded as too complicated to be useful. Ultimately, they should create less work for the student, not increase the burden of learning new material. Questions LF1: Are students able to adapt texts from content classes into Key Visuals for study purposes?. LF2: Are students able to adapt Key Visuals from content classes into text for study purposes?, and LH1: What independent study methods are implemented by students pre and post study? The content samples in the students' work folders demonstrate that the students are able to adapt text - to -Key Visuals and Key Visuals - to - text with varying degrees of competency, depending on the Knowledge Structure and the student considered. A l l of 50 the students need further practice with this task for all of the Knowledge Structures, but students appear to be quite comfortable with Classification, Description and Sequence. Students are beginning to develop these skills with Principles, Evaluation, and Choice but they appear to be addressed less often within the students' present curriculum. During the Pre Test and Unit Final Post Test, the students' were asked to identify the independent study methods that they use. In both cases, the students listed note-taking, translation, memorizing and rote learning. In the Post Test, two students (Ana and Quang) cited Key Visuals and grouping respectively. The four other students did not refer to any Knowledge Framework skills. Questions IG1 and IG2: What order of learning does this study suggest for learning the Knowledge Structures of the Knowledge Framework?; What order of lesson content does this study suggest for each Knowledge Structure? These questions consider the data from a practical, pedagogical perspective and seek a suggested order for the learning of Knowledge Structures and their inherent skills. This suggested order is discussed under "Orders of Difficulty" in the conclusions section of this chapter. C O N C L U S I O N S The three main types of data are congruent in their findings and together support the view that Grade Six and Seven E S L students can be explicitly taught about Knowledge Structures and the Knowledge Framework, with many positive outcomes: Learning Background 1. The students indicated through Pre and Post Test responses that vocabulary is the greatest obstacle in classroom and textbook learning. The Knowledge Framework and 51 Key Visuals work together to address language through content teaching. The key content vocabulary is presented within a visual context, absent of overwhelming texts. When vocabulary is addressed through the use of Key Visuals and combined with language and discourse instruction, the students told the writer that they are less confused and have a greater understanding of their assignments. Instruction A . Definitions 1. The students were eventually able to define the Knowledge Framework. The students began with learning simple definitions that were revisited during many lessons. In this way, their basic definitions were built upon as the study progressed. 2. Key Visuals and their usefulness were also defined. The students appeared to develop a practical working definition of Key Visuals rapidly due to their usability and hands-on nature. The students were utilizing Key Visuals during the majority of the lessons. B . Knowledge Structures and Thinking Skills 1. The students were able to identify Knowledge Structures and corresponding Thinking Skills in a variety of ways: - within generic (personal interest) Key Visuals created by the teacher (e.g., family trees, career choices) - within language samples - word lists for specific Knowledge Structures - within texts created from generic Key Visuals created by the teacher - within generic Key Visuals created by the student - within texts created from generic Key Visuals by the student - within content classes - specific Key Visuals created by the student - within content classes - specific texts created from content Key Visuals 52 The majority of students confused the Thinking Skills of Evaluation and Choice, as they were considered to be quite similar, e.g., To which Knowledge Structure does the TS of "deciding" belong? The Thinking Skills of Principles, beyond the cause and effect of "explaining", were quite difficult for the students to comprehend. C. Key Visuals 1. When the students were given generic Key Visuals from each of the six Knowledge Structures, all of the students were able to identify the specific Knowledge Structure of each Key Visuals. 2. Similarly, the students could easily represent each Knowledge Structure with one or several generic Key Visuals. D . Language 1. Language lists, specifically lexico-grammar, were developed for each Knowledge Structure, with the lists becoming lengthier as the study progressed. The vocabulary lists for Classification, Description, and Sequence were consistently lengthier than those for Principles, Evaluation, and Choice. The majority of the word lists for Principles were minimal in length, e.g., six items, but accurate. Note that the contrast and comparison language, e.g., but, while, same, etc., samples from most of the students descriptive lists were also minimal. E . Discourse 1. The majority of the students are able to label texts for each Knowledge Structure. Simple texts represented very few difficulties, but i f texts were composed of more than one Knowledge Structure, as most texts are, then the students would often identify only one Knowledge Structure. Most of the students would readily identify combinations of 53 Classification, Description and Sequence, but combinations involving Principles, Evaluation, and Choice were less often identified accurately. 2. Key Visuals were created from selected grade appropriate texts for each Knowledge Structure. The format of the Key Visual was easily identified and produced, but the students found the task of inserting the key content information into the visual more challenging for the Knowledge Structures of Principles, Evaluation, and Choice. The language indicators do not appear to be clear to the students, e.g., The students were not sure i f some vocabulary items indicated cause or indicated effect, and therefore, didn't know where within their Key Visual to place the item. 3. The students are able to write texts from Key Visuals with varying degrees of success. It appears that adapting Key Visual - to - text tasks present more difficulties than tasks which involve adapting texts - to - Key Visuals. This may be due to the fact that in text -to - Key Visual tasks, the key information and Knowledge Structure is available to the student whereas, with Key Visual - to - text tasks, the key information and Knowledge Structure may be clear to the student, but the format for the text formation is not. Again, students had more challenges with these tasks when they involved Principles, Evaluation, and Choice. Descriptive comparison and contrast texts also required more guidance. It would appear that these skills, from reception to production are developmental and may require further sessions of guided learning, practice and discussion to obtain fluent success. F . Transfer to Content Learning 1. The students were able to adapt text from their academic classes into K e y Visuals when the text samples were well-written and focused on one or two Knowledge Structures. The math textbook is the only textbook that the students work from on a 54 consistent basis. The students found it difficult to find many text samples for all of the Knowledge Structures, with the exception of Sequence. Students #1 and #2 would, in their desire to show their abilities, create texts when they could not find an example. A l l of the students need further guidance and practice in converting texts to Key Visuals, but the students showed steady improvement and appreciation of the usefulness of these skills. 2. It was possible for students to adapt Key Visuals from their content classrooms into texts, however, it was very difficult to find Key Visuals representing Principles, Evaluation, and Choice within their content assignments. The single example for Evaluation was a rating chart from an oral reading class presentation. There were no Key Visual samples found for Choice. A l l text formations from all six Knowledge Structures require further practice. Principles, Evaluation, and Choice appear to be poorly represented in these content classes, especially regarding explicit instruction of language, writing skills, and visual representations. This task of collecting samples of texts and Key Visuals for each Knowledge Structure, from all subject areas, and labeling them or creating texts and Key Visuals, was an independent activity that the students did on their own time, when they were reminded, and usually when the samples were due. The purpose of this activity was to try to judge the level of transference that was taking place between what the students were learning in the E L C and application of this learning within their content classes. If this study were to be done again, the researcher would monitor this element of the study more thoroughly by having students bring samples each day, on an on-going basis, and incorporating them into the E L C lesson. 55 G . Orders of Difficulty 1. The observations of this study would suggest that when teaching Knowledge Structures, to begin with Sequence, followed by Classification, Description, Choice, Evaluation, and Principles. This order may capitalize on areas of student familiarity (Sequence, Classification, and Description) and hopefully builds upon the students' growing comprehension and abilities with what appear to be more challenging Knowledge Structures. It would appear that content instruction may frequently and explicitly involve Classification, Description, and Sequence, while Principles, Evaluation, and Choice are addressed less frequently and explicitiy. Therefore, the students' understanding and application of these Knowledge Structures could take longer to develop. 2. Listed below are tasks addressed in this study. They are ordered vertically according to lesson content order and horizontally according to level of difficulty, from easier to more difficult. -Definitions: students seemed to find it easier to begin with simple rather than detailed definitions; the definitions should be revisited and developed over time. -Knowledge Structures and Thinking Ski l l s : it appears that the students found it less difficult to recognize, understand and apply the Thinking Skills of each Knowledge Structure when they were accompanied by Key Visuals rather than text samples. -Key Visuals: it appears to be less difficult for students to create generic Key Visuals representing their own life experiences, than to create Key Visuals for content texts. 56 -Language Lists: the students seemed to create vocabulary lists for each Knowledge Structure more easily than a text for that Knowledge Structure. -Text: the students appeared to find it easier to create Key Visuals for a text than to conversely, create text from Key Visuals. It should be noted that the Knowledge Structures, Thinking Skills, Language, Discourse, and Key Visuals of Classification, Description and Sequence seemed better understood and applied than those of Principles, Evaluation and Choice. H . Student Study Methods I. The students indicated that they relied on note-taking, translation, memory, and practice as study skills used in preparing for assignments or tests. The students were not implementing Knowledge Framework and Key Visual strategies prior to this study; following this research, only two of the six students made reference to using Knowledge Framework and Key Visual strategies when studying, even though all of the students were successfully applying these strategies in the E L C . It would appear that independent use of these strategies is developmental and is preceded by: 1) recognition of Knowledge Structures and Key Visuals 2) successful application of Knowledge Framework and Key Visual skills within the content classroom 3) practice 57 Chapter Five C O N C L U S I O N T H E Q U E S T I O N S This study examined Grade Six and Seven English as a Second Language (ESL) students' development and use of Knowledge Structures in the classroom. The study was part of a larger initiative aimed at improving E S L learners' academic English language proficiency and content area achievement, using the Knowledge Framework (Mohan, 1986). The Knowledge Framework is a systematic way of working with Knowledge Structures which underlie discourse, subject-area knowledge, and Thinking Skills present throughout the curriculum ( Early, Thew, and Wakefield, 1986). The researcher wanted to explore i f students could identify and use the six common Knowledge Structures of the Knowledge Framework and their inherent Thinking Skills, language, and Key Visuals. If possible, the Knowledge Framework, used as integrative language and content tool, might assist students in more fully understanding academic materials from content classes. The two central questions of this research study are: • 1) Can students understand Knowledge Structures and use them in class work? 2) Can the Knowledge Framework be made accessible to Grade Six and Seven E S L students, bearing in mind that the Knowledge Framework appears to provide a systematic way of working with Thinking Skills which are required across the curriculum, K-12? S U M M A R Y O F F I N D I N G S i . Chapter Three - The Method 58 It is important to state that this study was 1) exploratory in nature, 2) took the form of teacher action research, and 3) sought to increase our understanding of the relevant issues rather than to establish cause/effect relationships. Fifteen specific focus questions addressed the general research questions of this study and the nature of these questions called for a combination of qualitative and quantitative research, as there were exploratory elements in examining categories of meaning and numerical elements in examining test data. The following specific focus questions were addressed: F O C U S Q U E S T I O N S Learning Background 1. Do students experience any difficulties with classroom and textbook learning that might be illuminated through explicit instruction of the Knowledge Framework, K e y Visuals, and Language Awareness? Instruction A. Definitions 1. Are students able to define the Knowledge Framework? 2. Are students able to define Key Visuals and their usefulness? B . Knowledge Structures and Thinking Skills 1. Are students able to identify Knowledge Structures and corresponding Thinking Skills in a variety of learning situations? C. Key Visuals 1. Are students able to identify the Knowledge Structures of sample Key Visuals? 2. Are students able to create generic (personal interest) Key Visuals for each Knowledge Structure? D. Language 1. Are students able to list examples of language for each Knowledge Structure? E. Discourse 1. Are students able to label text examples for each Knowledge Structure? 59 2. Are students able to create Key Visuals from selected grade appropriate texts for each Knowledge Structure? 3. Are students able to write texts from Key Visuals for each Knowledge Structure? F. Transfer to Content Learning 1. Are students able to adapt texts from content classes into Key Visuals for study purposes? 2. Are students able to adapt Key Visuals from content classes into text for study purposes? G. Orders of Difficulty 1. What order of learning does this study suggest for learning the Knowledge Structures of the Knowledge Framework? 2. What order of lesson content does this study suggest for each Knowledge Structure? H . Independent Student Study Methods 1. What independent study methods are implemented by the students pre and post study? The qualitative data of this study was drawn from anecdotal notes, lesson plans, audio tapes, and the students' content samples. The quantitative data was collected from the Pre and Post Unit Final Tests (Appendices A and B) , the Knowledge Structure Unit Final Tests (Appendices C, D , E) and Classroom Content Samples (Appendix L ) . The research involved on-going informal curriculum development, implementation, and evaluation with the writer having the dual role of researcher and teacher. Six English as a Second Language (ESL) students were observed in their school's English Language Centre (ELC) which provides language support to E S L students who have been fully integrated into mainstream academic classrooms. Five students, two males and three females, were enrolled in Grade Seven, and one male student was enrolled in Grade 60 Six. It is the researcher's opinion, based on holistic judgment, that the students had intermediate or advanced levels of English proficiency, while one student was a Communications Class (Life Skills) candidate, with very basic first and second language skills. The students attended the E L C for forty minutes, four times weekly. The Knowledge Structures of the Knowledge Framework were taught in pairs, e.g., Classification and Description, with 2.5 weeks of lessons per Knowledge Structure. A Knowledge Structure Post Test followed the completion of each Knowledge Structure Unit and a Unit Final Post Test was written following the culmination of the research. This study did not implement a prescribed curriculum for teaching the Knowledge Framework, as the writer is not aware of such a curriculum. The curriculum that was used in the E L C was developed on an on-going, daily basis according to the observations of the writer and the perceived needs of the student. This developing curriculum supported a content-based approach to language learning using Mohan's Knowledge Framework as the organizational tool for integrating language and content. Cummin's (1984) distinction between academic and communicative proficiency provides significant implications to language instruction and learning. It supports a content-based approach and emphasizes meaningful contexts. Content-based language pedagogy involves a communicative grammar and language related to specific Knowledge Structures (Mohan, 1986). The Knowledge Framework integrates these components to provide an educational setting for all E S L students that w i l l encourage academic as well as conversational proficiency. The six Knowledge Structures of Mohan's Knowledge Framework are named in Figure 3.1. 61 F I G U R E 3.1 C L A S S I F I C A T I O N P R I N C I P L E S E V A L U A T I O N D E S C R I P T I O N S E Q U E N C E C H O I C E T H E K N O W L E D G E S T R U C T U R E S O F M O H A N ' S K N O W L E D G E F R A M E W O R K i i . Chapter Four - The Analysis Figure 4.1 summarizes the students' overall progress specific to the focus questions: 62 Figure 4.1 Summary of Findings Focus Questions Pre Test Knowledge Structure Post tests Unit Final Post Test Skills Transfer to Classroom Content LB1 vocabulary N/A vocabulary N/A IA1 No Developing Yes N/A IA2 2 part answers Developing Yes N/A m i C-2, D-l,Ch-4 partial answers 50% struggle with P Yes Yes, when available IC1 No No Yes Yes IC2 No Yes Yes N/A ID1 No Yes, but c&c + P minimal Yes, but c&c + P minimal N/A IE1 No N/A Yes Yes,C,D,S but P,Ch, E weaker EE2 N/A Yes but P, E and Ch are weaker Yes, P, E and Ch slowly developing N/A ffi3 N/A Yes, but P, E, and Ch are very weak Yes, but P, E, and Ch are very weak N/A IF1 N/A N/A N/A Yes, C,D,S; 2 students each P,Ch,E IF2 N/A N/A N/A yes, C,D,S,E no, P.Ch poor texts; noKVs IH1 Note-taking Translation Memorizing; rote N/A 2 of the 6 (st# 1,4) site grouping and KVS N/A L = Learning Background I = Instruction C=Classification D=Description P=Principles S = Sequence E =Evaluation Ch = Choice c&c =contrast and comparison (D) 63 Through analyzing the responses to these questions, it appears quite clear that 1) students can understand Knowledge Structures and use them in class work and that, 2) the Knowledge Framework can be made accessible to Grade Six and Seven E S L students in order to provide a systematic way of working with Thinking Skills which are required across the curriculum, K-12. The results are positive, broadly speaking, however, areas of strength and those in need of further development are apparent. The task categories addressed in this study are described comparatively according to the level of difficulty experienced by the students. -Definitions: students seemed to find it easier to begin with simple rather than detailed definitions; the definitions should be revisited and developed over time. -Knowledge Structures and Thinking Ski l ls : it appears that the students found it less difficult to recognize, understand and apply the Thinking Skills of each Knowledge Structure when they were accompanied by Key Visuals rather than text samples. -Language Lists: the students seemed to create vocabulary lists for each Knowledge Structure more easily than a text for that Knowledge Structure. -Key Visuals: it appears to be less difficult for students to create generic K e y Visuals representing their own life experiences, than to create Key Visuals for content texts. -Text: the students appeared to find it easier to create Key Visuals for a text than to conversely, create text from Key Visuals. 64 Independent Usage: The students indicated that they relied on note-taking, translation, memory, and practice as study skills used in preparing for assignments or tests. The students were not implementing Knowledge Framework strategies prior to this study; following this research, only two of the six students made reference to using Knowledge Framework strategies when studying, even though all of the students were successfully applying these strategies in the E L C . It would appear that independent use of these strategies is developmental and is preceded by: 1) recognition of Knowledge Structures and Key Visuals 2) successful application of Knowledge Framework skills within the content classroom 3) practice It should be noted that the Knowledge Structures, Thinking Skills, Language, Discourse, and Key Visuals of Classification, Description and Sequence seemed better understood and applied than those of Principles, Evaluation and Choice. These conclusions are applicable only for this study and are not necessarily generizable to other teaching and learning contexts, however, the student learning that did occur during this study appears to set a useful reference point to examine related research issues. The findings of this research lend credibility to the theory of language and content and to the Knowledge Framework as a model for integrating language and content through working with Thinking Skills which are required throughout the curriculum, K-12 . The following comments taken from an informal post learning survey reflect how the students felt about their experiences during this study: 65 ...yes, I enjoyed learning about the Knowledge Framework, because I found that very useful in class. For example, it would be easier to study a K V (Key Visual) than a piece of text. In Reading, when the teacher ask us to make a K V , I 'll have more choices than other people because I know more K V s than my classmates....I learned how to make K V s from texts for Classification, Description, Principles, Sequence, Evaluation, and Choice. It's very helpful when I'm studying. A n d I can make K V s very easily when I have to.... and the language is also very helpful when I'm writing a piece of text, I have lots of word choices. (Ana) ...it was fun to learn the Knowledge Framework and it would help me in Science, Social Studies, math, etc. and I wanted to learn more things I learned that the K V and the language was helpful to my studies....it was very helpful to my test. (Jean) ...kowledge Framework, yes, because it help me to studies and understanding more.. . .KVs put in order and group because it help me more undersand...it have more picture. (Hong) ...it help me alot with my work and I enjoy learning about the Knowledge Framework, when I got stuck in work I use to think of the Framework and it help me...because of the Knowledge Stucter my English are better now. (Son) ...I enjoy learning about the Knowledge Framework because it helps me on my subject areas alot and on my studies....The Knowledge Framework helps me to orginize my work and to understand easier to my studies....I can do one of those Key Visuals. (Sherry) ...I enjoy learning about the Knowledge Framework because it was kind of fun and it help me in class when I do test and homework. (Quang) I M P L I C A T I O N S F O R R E S E A R C H There were two broad implications from the study: 1) It appears that the development of student awareness and usage of Knowledge Structures can be a very worthwhile activity, which may provide benefits for both first and second language students at all grade levels. Teacher action research is an important way to investigate this and this study provides a stepping stone for further teacher action research in this area. 2) It appears that the Knowledge Framework model can be accessible to young E S L students and can provide a way to treat the development of discourse, 66 Thinking Skills, and graphic literacy in a systematic rather than fragmentary way. This points the way to further curriculum research, since it lends credibility to the Knowledge Framework as a model for curriculum integration and for ways in which teacher planning can be coordinated with learner reflection and learner development. If the Knowledge Framework is accessible to young E S L students, and awareness of Knowledge Structures is developed, than it is quite possible that complex and abstract academic information can be further understood by these students in order to increase their English proficiency and academic achievement. The students indicated at the start of the research that vocabulary was a large obstacle to understanding their textbook and classroom learning. In this study, students learned to identify Knowledge Structures and their inherent Thinking Skills, language, discourse and Key Visuals. The students began to develop skills using these Knowledge Structure elements to access and understand academic information more fully. Materials which at first appeared complex and abstract, became more accessible to these young E S L students. Certain skills were more easily acquired than others. Further research might explore the areas of greater difficulty and attempt to determine the conditions that wi l l encourage greater success, therefore endeavouring to provide an educational setting for all E S L students that wi l l have conversational and academic English proficiency as its goal. Future research studies could possibly examine the same research questions within different pedagogical settings. It would be helpful to realize other benefits gained through the explicit instruction of Knowledge Structures and the Knowledge Framework when working with other grade levels and other student compositions. Traditionally, English Language Centre (ELC) teachers withdraw E S L students from their content classes in 67 order to teach them language. Even when E L C teachers are teaching content it is not necessarily the same content the student is missing in his/her absence. Ideally, students would learn language and content within their content class. In a future study, the writer (an E L C teacher) would like to join with a content teacher and explicitly teach the Knowledge Framework, through a variety of content subjects, e.g., Social Studies , Spelling and Science. In this way, rather than teaching a few students who were withdrawn from their class, the E L C and content teacher would work cooperatively with the entire class on language issues related to a variety of academic content. Possibly, some Knowledge Framework skills that posed some difficulties for students in this particular study, e.g. text - to - Key Visual tasks, would be alleviated to some degree by being more directly connected to current content within the content class. This specific unit of research both in preparation and execution examined many questions and provided a rich source of data from which related issues arose. In reference to future studies, the writer would like to discuss these issues that are related to instruction. i . Curriculum Development The curriculum which was used in the E L C during this research was developed on a daily basis, lesson - to -lesson, according to the observations made by the writer and the perceived needs of the students. Many of the activities within this study, therefore, were developed in subsequent Knowledge Structure Units and thus, not included in all of the Knowledge Structure units. It appears that there are a core of valuable topics or concept focuses to be considered. In future research, the following topics and their corresponding lessons and tasks might be included consistently throughout the study in order to provide more accurate information concerning importance and student progress. 68 a. Definitions Defining the Knowledge Framework and Key Visuals seems to be an important activity, building from basic definitions to more complex definitions, as the level of student understanding increases. Working definitions gave the students a focal point to their learning and it is clear from the data that this understanding did not develop quickly, but rather, over the course of the study. Therefore, a regular review of pertinent definitions should be considered in future research. b. Knowledge Structures and Thinking Skills It appears that students tend to understand the concept of Knowledge Structures and their corresponding Thinking Skills when they are introduced first, within generic activities involving personal life experiences; activities that consider a students' background knowledge, e.g., introducing the Knowledge Structure of Sequence through timelines of the students' lives to date. The students seemed to find less difficulty in initially recognizing, understanding and applying the Thinking Skills of a Knowledge Structure when they were accompanied by a Key Visual rather than a text sample. A future research question could explore the validity and reasoning for this observation. Also , the Thinking Skills of the Knowledge Structures Choice and Evaluation were considered to be quite similar and sometimes confused. The Thinking Skills of the Knowledge Structure Principles beyond the cause and effect of "explaining" were quite difficult for the students to understand. A future study might consider the reasons for this and appropriate research measures to be taken within future Knowledge Framework instruction, in order to help alleviate this perceived difficulty. c. Key Visuals It appears that students easily acquire an understanding of generic Key Visual types, e.g. a web can represent Classification and Description, a cycle can represent Sequence. It seems that students experienced less difficulty creating generic Key Visuals representing 69 their own experiences, than to create content texts. A separate study could examine Key Visual instruction techniques exclusively and explore possible avenues for more readily identifying Knowledge Structures within content texts, therefore making it easier for students to set to the task of creating Key Visuals and inserting the key information of the texts. d. Language The data shows that when the students understood what specific Knowledge Structures and Thinking Skills represented, and recognized a Key Visual or Key Visuals for that specific Knowledge Structure, generation of specific lexico-grammar began to take place, with language lists pertaining to each Knowledge Structure developing as the research unit progressed. The Knowledge Structures of Classification, Description, and Sequence generated lengthier lists than those of Principles, Choice and Evaluation. The students' descriptive language samples concerning comparison and contrast was also minimal in length and forgotten in most descriptive text writing. Also, students seemed to create vocabulary lists for each Knowledge Structure more easily than a text for that Knowledge Structure. One might research language learning in reference to the Knowledge Structures as a specific focus and collect more information regarding why the language of certain Knowledge Structures appears to be understood and applied more quickly than others. e. Discourse The students responses indicated that identifying Knowledge Structures with simple texts usually does not pose a difficulty but identifying combinations of Knowledge Structures within complex texts is more difficult. Combinations of Classification, Description, and Sequence were more readily identified than those of Principles, Evaluation, and Choice. When creating Key Visuals for texts involving Principles, Evaluation and Choice, the 70 students found the inserting the key information into the correct areas more challenging as the language indicators were possibly less familiar than those of the other Knowledge Structures. Why do texts involving Principles, Evaluation, and Choice present more challenges for students in regards to recognizing the Knowledge Structures within the text and being able to create Key Visuals of the main points? It should also be noted that the students seemed to find it less difficult to create a Key Visual for a text than to conversely, create a text from a Key Visual . Is it possible that text - to - Key Visual tasks are less difficult than Key Visual - to - Text tasks, as the former task has all the information or language available to the student? f. Transfer to Content Learning / Independent Usage Students collected samples of Key Visuals and texts for each of the Knowledge Structures and kept these collections within their work folders. It seems that it was challenging to find these samples for most of the Knowledge Structures, especially Principles, Evaluation, and Choice. The students' did not appear to have difficulty creating Key Visuals for the text samples that they could find, but the all of the text samples for each of the Knowledge Structure Key Visuals indicated that the students are developing Key Visual - to - text skills, but that this area requires more guidance and practice, especially for the Knowledge Structures of Principles, Evaluation, and Choice. Collecting these materials was an independent activity that appeared to receive more attention at the last minute when collections were due. The researcher would like to place a greater degree of emphasis on this component of the research in a future study, providing daily time allotments for collections and collation. What data would surface i f the students had scheduled time to gather their collections and complete their tasks involving their collections? A more thorough exploration could reveal which Knowledge Structures are more prevalent in the separate content areas and which content areas of the curriculum are implementing Key Visuals in a meaningful manner, e.g., involving the 71 Key Visuals in writing and speaking tasks, in order to for the student to develop greater understanding of the content. Further guidance and instruction with these activities could encourage more independent use of these skills in homework / study situations. g. Post Tests The writer feels that it is important, now that some initial research has been completed, to consistently include key components, e.g., all tasks included in the Unit Final Post Test, plus Key Visual - text activities, on all of the Post Tests involved in a study of this nature. A s this particular research, according the writer's understanding, has not been conducted before, it is important to take what has been learned in this study and apply it to future research studies. Considering Post Tests, it may be valuable to include the fore-mentioned key components consistently on all Post Tests, as to have access to more information. A n example drawn from this study, was the decision to include sample texts in some of the Post Tests in order to evaluate the students' skills involving text - to -Key Visual tasks. The value of this activity was discovered as the study progressed, but the writer now knows that she would include a text and Key Visual sample in all of the tests involved in research of this type, so as to monitor progress more fully from beginning to end. Subsequent research wi l l possibly identify further key components or discover it necessary to eliminate some as unnecessary, but the writer believes that consistency in Post Test questioning is a worthy goal. h. Implementation This study was conducted over a fifteen week period. In a future study, the researcher would explore each component of this particular research over a greater period of time, so as to provide more time for learning and reinforcement of learning to take place. 72 A F I N A L W O R D The major focus of this research unit was to examine students' awareness of Knowledge Structures which underlie discourse, are reflected in Key Visuals, and are realized in lexico-grammar. Secondly, this study examined Grade Six and Seven E S L students' understanding of Knowledge Structures and the systematic organization of the Knowledge Framework. The study's findings are positive, broadly speaking, and lend credibility to the theory of language and content, and the Knowledge Framework model. It appears to be an effective integrative tool that systematically works with Thinking Skills which are required across the curriculum., K-12. Explici t instruction of Knowledge Structures and the Knowledge Framework appears to be a beneficial goal and has the potential to provide both first and second language students with strategies and skills to access and understand abstract and complex academic information from their content texts and classes. The Knowledge Framework model is an approach that seemingly sets to provide an educational setting for all students which establishes academic and conversational English proficiency as its goal. It is the writer's hope that this study wi l l contribute to a growing body of research which is committed to exploring ways to improve cognitive academic language proficiency and academic achievement for native and non-native speakers of English. 73 S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G R A P H Y Abelson, R., & Black J., (1986). Introduction. In J. Galambos, R. Abelson & J. Black (Eds.), Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, N J : Lawrence Erlbaum. Braybrooke, D . (1987). Philosophy of social science. Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-Hal l . Breen, M . P., & Candlin, C. (1980). The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics. 1 (2), 89-112. Brinton, D . M . , Snow, M . A . , & Wesche, M . B . (1989). Content-based second language instruction. New York: Newbury House. Carrell, P. (1985). Facilitating E S L reading by teaching text structure. T E S O L Quarterly. 19 (4), 727-754. Chamot, A . U . , & O'Malley, J . M . (1987). The cognitive academic learning approach. T E S O L Quarterly. 21 (2\ 227-249. Cleland, W . & Evans, R. (1984). Learning English through General Science. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. Cleland, W . & Evans, R. (1987a.). Learning English through topics about Australia. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. Cleland, W . & Evans, R. (1987b.-). Learning English through topics about Asia . Melbourne: Longman and Cheshire. Collier, V . (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. T E S O L Quarterly. 21 617-641. Crandall, J., & Tucker, G.R. (1989, Apri l ) . Content-based language instruction in second and foreign languages. Paper presented at the R E L C Regional Seminar on Language Teaching Methodology for the Nineties, Singapore. Crandall, J. (1993). Content-Centered Learning in the United States. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13 111-126. Crookes, G . V . (1986). Task Classification: a cross-disciplinary review. (Tech. Rep. #4). Honolulu: University of Hawai i Social Science Research Institute, Centre for Second Language Classroom Research. Crookes, G . V . , and Long, M . H . (1987). Task-based second language teaching: a brief report. Modern English Teacher [Tokyo], 24 (5), 26-28; and (6), 20-23. Cummins, J. (1981). Age on Arr ival and Immigrant Second Language Learning in Canada: A reassessment. Applied Linguistics. 11 (2). 132-149. Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. 74 Doyle, W . & Carter, K . (1984). Academic TasKnowledge Structure in Classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry . 14_ (2), 129-149. Dunn, E . (1992). Evaluation of the English-As-A-Second-Language Pilot Project:Vancouver School Board. Vancouver, British Columbia. Early, M . (1989). Using Key Visuals to aid E S L students' comprehension of content classroom texts. Reading Canada Lecture. 7 (4). 202-212. Early, M . (1990). Enabling first and second language learners in the classroom. Language Arts. 67. 567-575. Early, M . , Hoper, Hugh R. and Mohan, Bernard. (June, 1988). The E S L Funds for Excellence Project Overview. Report to the Vancouver School Board Trustees, Vancouver, B . C . Early, M . , Mohan, B . A . , and Hooper, H . (1989). The Vancouver school board language and content project. In J.H.Esling (Ed.), Multicultural education and policy: E S L in the 1990's (pp 107-124). Toronto: O.I.S.E. Press. Early, M . and G . M . Tang. (1991). Helping E S L students cope with content-based texts. T E S L Canada Journal. _8_ (2), 3 4 - 4 4 . Early, M . , Thew, C. & Wakefield, P. (1986). English as a second language. K-12: Resource book. Vol .1 . Victoria, B C : Ministry of Education, British Columbia. Edelsky, C. (1986). Writing in a bilingual program Habia una vez. Norwood. N J : Ablex Publishing Corporation. Ferguson, T. (Ed.) (1990). E S L and the mainstream. [Special Issue of T E S O L in Context, 1(1)]. Gunderson, L . (1985). A survey of L 2 reading instruction in British Columbia. The Canadian Modern Language Review. 42 44 - 55. Krashen, S.D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis. New York: Longman. Langer, J., & Applebee, A . (1987). How writing shapes thinking. Urbana, II: National Council of Teachers of English. Leung C. & Franson, C. (1991). English as a Second Language in the National Curriculum. In P. Meara & A . Ryan (Ed.), Language and Nation. British Studies in Applied Linguistics, 6, 117-123. MacDonald, C. A . (1990). Crossing the threshold into standard three: The consolidation main report of the threshold project. Pretoria: Human Research Council. Malinowski , B . (1935). Coral gardens and their magic. London: Al len & Unwin . Mohan, B . A . (1979). Relating language teaching and content teaching. T E S O L Quarterly. 13. 171 - 182. Mohan, B . A . (1986). Language and Content. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. 75 Mohan, B . A . (1991). Proceedings of the first research symposium on limited English proficient students' issues. Carmen Simich-Dudgeon (Ed.) Washington D . C . ; Office of Bil ingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs. Novak, J. D . & Gowin, G . B . (1984). Concept mapping for meaningful learning. Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Penfield, J. (1987). E S L : The regular classroom teacher's perspective. T E S O L Quarterly. 21 (1). 21-39. Prabhu, N . S. (1987). Second language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ratekin, N . , Simpson, M . L . , Alvermann, D . E . , Dishner, E . K . (1985). Why teachers resist content reading instruction. The Journal of Reading. 28 (5), 432-437. Rivera, C. (Ed.) (1984). Language proficiency and academic achievement. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Rodseth, J. V . (1978). The Molteno Project report. Grahamstown: Rhodes University. Schieffelin, B . B . , & Ochs, E . (1986). Introduction. In B . Schieffelin (Ed.), Language socialization across cultures ("pp. 1-13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shih, M . (1992). Beyond comprehension exercises in the E S L academic reading class. T E S O L Quarterly. 26 (2). 289-318. Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 13. 206-226. Snow, M . , Met, M . & Genesee, F . (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. T E S O L Quarterly. 23 (2). 201-217. Stainton, Caroline. (1992). Language Awareness: Genre Awareness - A focused review of the literature. Language Awareness. 1 (2), 109-119. Tang, G . (1989). Graphic representation of Knowledge Structures in E S L learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B C . Weideman, A . (1991). Starting English. Bloemfontein: English Language Materials and Programmes, Urban Foundation. Winningham, B . (1990). Silent Voices: How language minority students learn in the content areas. The Quarterly of the National Writing Project and the Center for the Study of Writing. 12 (I). 4-9. Wong, Fillmore, L . (1989). Teaching English through content: Instructional reform in programs for language minority students. In J. Esling (Ed.), Multicultural education and policy: E S L in the 1990s. Toronto: OISE Press. 76 Wong, Fillmore, L . (1989). Teaching English through content: Instructional reform in programs for language minority students. In J. Esling (Ed.), Multicultural education and policy: E S L in the 1990s. Toronto: OISE Press. 77 page 1 of 6 APPENDIX A The Knowledge Framework PreTest Name . . • Grade Division, Date A N S W E R T H E F O L L O W I N G Q U E S T I O N S T O T H E B E S T O F Y O U R A B I L I T Y . l.What difficulties do you experience when learning? Classroom: From A Textbook: 2. How do you organize your learning? What methods do you use to help yourself learn new information for tests and projects? 3. What is T h e Knowledge Framework? 78 4. What is a Knowledge Structure? 5. What is a Key Visual? 6. How does a Key Visual help you in your learning? 7. What does Classification mean to you? 8. List some words that are associated with Classification? 9. What Does Description mean to you? 79 10. List some words that are associated with Description? 11. What does Principles mean to you? 12. List some words that are associated with Principles? 13. What does Sequence mean to you? 14. Lis t some words that are associated with Sequence? 15. What does Evaluation mean to you? 80 page 4 of 6 16. Lis t some words that are associated with Evaluation? 17. What does Choice mean to you? 18. Lis t some words that are associated with Choice? 19. I D E N T I F Y T H E T Y P E S O F WRITING B Y LISTING T H E K N O W L E D G E S T R U C T U R E BESIDE T H E S E N T E N C E S . The young girl refused to take her medicine so she did not get well. I think that television shows contain too much violence. We went to the beach and then we went to a restaurant to eat. Food can be divided into many different types. The dog is shaggy and has blue eyes. I have decided to go to university. The student is intelligent and athletic. If it rains then the flowers wi l l grow. 81 page 5 of 6 20. CREATE ONE OR MORE KEY VISUALS FOR EACH OF THE SIX KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES. Choose one Key Visual from each group and write it into text (paragraphs/ sentences). Classification: Description: Principles: Sequence: Evaluation: Choice: 82 vo o (U CX Q CD I z w X H Q Z co -J CO a O co fa PH H i s H Z fa CO fa OH W a X H H = O -J -J o fa fa H fa H Z fa" H O H CO fa O Q fa -J O z Vi 3 '-3 8 co v ^ E £ o CO o CO *•> O =3 Q. O > CO > CO CO a; > (TJ c <u ro 00 > CO > CO GO r» 1—1 CN 00 CN VO CC) o CN r~ CN H CN OS VO 00 in CN co o r- CN CO S CN VO CO CN o CO GO -1 00 CN CN av CN c o £ o — a) o •a a. > CO <u "53 > 3 o 03 CO + CO O "a, c o Vi OH + CO 13 13 J3 &o co CD -a '> p CD co TD C 3 J O < CD •a s CD <u 00 00 o co .<D 05 CD co UH > CO > do o c o P-l « 3 3 o 3 o U <U CD 3 8.2P 0043 CD 43 13 3 O 2 O c3 >,\ CO 00 S- 3 a l 3 -a o Vi 60 3 &o CD Vi § e3 ^ 8 3 CD 83 page 1 of 8 A P P E N D I X B The Knowledge Framework Unit Final Post Test Name Grade Division Date ANSWER T H E FOLLOWING QUESTIONS TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY. l.What difficulties do you experience when learning? Classroom: From A Textbook: 2. How do you organize your learning? What methods do you use to help yourself learn new information for tests and projects? 3. What is The Knowledge Framework? 84 page 2 of 8 4. What is a Knowledge Structure? 5. What is a Key Visual? 6. How does a Key Visual help you in your learning? 7. What does Classification mean to you? 8. List some words that are associated with Classification? 9. What Does Description mean to you? 85 10. List some words that are associated with Description? 11. What does Principles mean to you? 12. Lis t some words that are associated with Principles? 13. What does Sequence mean to you? 14. Lis t some words that are associated with Sequence? 15. What does Evaluation mean to you? 86 16. List some words that are associated with Evaluation? page 4 of 8 17. What does Choice mean to you? 18. List some words that are associated with Choice? 19. I D E N T I F Y T H E T Y P E S O F W R I T I N G B Y L I S T I N G T H E K N O W L E D G E S T R U C T U R E B E S I D E T H E S E N T E N C E S . The young girl refused to take her medicine so she did not get well. I think that television shows contain too much violence. We went to the beach and then we went to a restaurant to eat. Food can be divided into many different types. The dog is shaggy and has blue eyes. I have decided to go to university. The student is intelligent and athletic. If it rains then the flowers will grow. 87 20. C R E A T E O N E OR M O R E K E Y VISUALS F O R E A C H O F T H E SIX K N O W L E D G E S T R U C T U R E S . Classification: Description: Principles: Sequence: Evaluation: Choice: 88 0 0 o CD 0 0 03 OH CD Q CD i z Ed X H Q Z co H Z Ed CO Ed OH a >-a H H H O t o ' 05; Ed O cc Ed OH >-H o J o Et-Ed K H H U tt H CO Ed O Q Ed O 9a H Z Ed so c o "•£3 g Q CO CD E . Q o '</) u (/) +-J o 3 Q . o > CO > CO CO > CO c a • M co c o '%£ o o T3 a. > ai 3 > + CD O "a, c o cn & 8 S CD "53 so SO '> O so <D 8 E-1 c CD T3 2 CD O so CD 0 0 0 0 O ,o is ,CD on <D CD CD 0 0 > CO > CO oo r- 1—i CN 00 CN U, co o CN ("-• CN JS H >o CN C7\ \o CN. rr 00 >o CN cr. o rr CN co 2 CN vo cn CN o co GO 1 - 1 00 CN CN o\ CN > CO > co o C Q c CD O so C o T3 § CD O c s & 8.2P 0 0 J = CD -a PQ CD so S 2 CD O e •c T3 O co oo 3 so CN CD so 3 O s 03 89 CD 81 7 of 8 * Directions: create a Key Visual for this text on a separate piece of paper. Migration Many whales migrate from their cold homes to warmer areas to mate and give birth to their babies. For example, each year California whales migrate from the Arctic down to Mexican waters. The Humpback 8c gray whales spend the summer in the Arctic, swimming in the Bering and Chukchi Seas along the coast of Alaska and Russia. When the weather begins to get chilly, they start down the Pacific coast. Late in December, the whales arrive off Baja California where they give birth to their babies. When spring arrives, they head back north with their calves. This is a long journey. It is more than 5,000 miles from the Arctic to the warm waters of Mexico, the gray whale swims along at about 6 miles per hour. It takes them about 3 months to travel each way. 90 developed by: evans/dempsey/rothstein Voyage of The Mimi Cunningham Elementary School pde graphics™ 4960 Marine Drive, West Vancouver, B.C. Canada V7W 2P4 (604)-926-1710 10 8 of 8 * Directions: create a Key Visual for this text on a separate piece of paper. Toothed or baleen? Whales are divided into two groups by the way they catch their food. They are baleen whales and toothed whales. These whales have many things in common but they also have many differences. Baleen whales have special plates growing from their upper jaws. These plates are made of a material like your finger nails. The plates are in strips hanging down from the whale's mouth- like a tooth brush, The baleen strains food out of the water, Plankton is the food most often eaten by baleen whales, Plankton are very small plants and animals that live in the sea. A huge whale might eat several thousand pounds of plankton in a day. Toothed whales must chase and catch their food. They catch their food one piece at a time, usually eating fish, squid, or shellfish. Their sharp teeth are not used for chewing up food, The teeth grip the food while the whale tears its food apart. Sometimes toothed whales swallow their food whole, The different toothed whales have teeth to fit their own needs, For example, the killer whale has large alternating teeth in its upper and lower jaws, When the killer whale closes its mouth, the teeth form a trap holding its prey securely. developed by: evans/dempsey/rothstein Voyage of The Mimi Cunningham Elementary School pde graphics™ 4960 Marine Drive, West Vancouver, B.C. Canada V7W 2P4 (604)-926-1710 II page 1 of 2 A P P E N D I X C Name: Date: THE KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORK CLASSIFICATION & DESCRIPTION POST TEST 1. WHAT IS THE KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORK? 2. WHAT IS A KEY VISUAL? 3. WHICH THINKING SKILLS ARE INVOLVED IN CLASSIFICATION? ON A SEPARATE PIECE OF PAPER: 4. CREATE A CLASSIFICATION KEY VISUAL AND USE IT TO WRITE PARAGRAPHS. A SIMPLE EXAMPLE IS FINE. 92 page 2 of 2 ' 5. CREATE A DESCRIPTIVE KEY VISUAL AND USE IT TO WRITE PARAGRAPHS. A SIMPLE EXAMPLE IS FINE. 6. DRAW EXAMPLES OF OTHER CLASSIFICATION KEY VISUALS THAT YOU KNOW. 7. DRAW EXAMPLES OF OTHER DESCRIPTIVE KEY VISUALS THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF. 8. CREATE TWO COLUMNS AND LIST AS MANY CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION WORDS AS YOU CAN. 93 APPENDIX D Name: Date: THE KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORK PRINCIPLES & SEQUENCE POST TEST 1. WHAT IS T H E KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORK? 2. WHAT IS A K E Y VISUAL? 3. WHICH THINKING SKILLS ARE INVOLVED IN PRINCIPLES? ON A SEPARATE PIECE OF PAPER: 4. WHICH THINKING SKILLS ARE INVOLVED IN SEQUENCE? page 2 of 3 5. C R E A T E SOME KEY VISUALS FOR PRINCIPLES AND L A B E L T H E M . 6. C R E A T E SOME K E Y VISUALS FOR SEQUENCE AND L A B E L T H E M . 7. C R E A T E A KEY VISUAL FOR PRINCIPLES AND USE IT TO WRITE A FEW CAUSE AND E F F E C T SENTENCES. 8. C R E A T E A K E Y VISUAL FOR SEQUENCE AND USE IT TO WRITE A SEQUENCE PARAGRAPH. 9. C R E A T E TWO COLUMNS AND LIST AS MANY EXAMPLES OF PRINCIPLES AND SEQUENCE LANGUAGE AS POSSIBLE. 10.REFER TO T H E PHOTOCOPIED EXAMPLE OF SOCIALS TEXT AND P L A C E T H E MAIN IDEAS INTO A KEY VISUAL OF YOUR CHOICE. 95 page 3 of 3 SUMMARY The Maya people began a civilization in Central America by learning how to grow food crops in the rain forest. They learned how to make pottery, jewellry and other fine crafts. As their population increased, Maya society reorganized. Some of their villages became important centres, with the temples and palaces built around open plazas. Here they worshipped and celebrated solemn occasions. At its height, Maya civilization flourished in many large centres, especially in the lowlands. Their cities were centres of religion government and business. Maya government was held by a few powerful families, who ruled over independent states. Priests were also very powerful, and skilled at writing and counting. The Maya people relied on them to predict the future and direct their worship to various gods. The Maya civilization ended after a period during which the people were ruled by warlike Mexican people named Toltecs. From the Toltecs the Maya learned new habits. They often made human sacrifices and developed a military. After the Toltecs, there were no leaders who could hold society together. Next came the Spanish explorers and soldiers, conquering all of Central America and Mexico, killing people and destroying many old Maya books. The Maya today have kept few of their ancient traditions. pg. 214 Other Places, Other Times. Gage Educational Publishing Company 96 page 1 of 4 A P P E N D I X E Name: Date: THE KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORK EVALUATION & CHOICE POST TEST 1. WHAT IS T H E KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORK? 2. WHAT IS A K E Y VISUAL? 3. WHICH THINKING SKILLS ARE INVOLVED IN EVALUATION? ON A SEPARATE PIECE OF PAPER: 4. WHICH THINKING SKILLS ARE INVOLVED IN CHOICE? 97 5. CREATE A KEY VISUAL FOR EVALUATION AND WRITE INTO SENTENCES OR PARAGRAPHS. page 2 of 4 6. CREATE A KEY VISUAL FOR CHOICE AND USE IT TO WRITE SENTENCES OR PARAGRAPHS. THIS KEY VISUAL MAY INCLUDE EVALUATION. 7. CREATE TWO COLUMNS AND LIST AS MANY EXAMPLES OF EVALUATION AND CHOICE LANGUAGE AS POSSIBLE. 8. REFER TO THE PHOTOCOPIED EXAMPLE OF TEXT AND PLACE THE MAIN IDEAS INTO A KEY VISUAL OF YOUR CHOICE. 9 8 Page 3 of 4 DIRECTIONS: CREATE A KEY VISUAL FOR THIS ARTICLE Movie Review: Ace Ventura. Pet Detective Ace Ventura, Pet Detective, is about a detective who finds pets and returns them to their owners for a reward. The Miami Dolphins football team hires Ace, played by Jim Carrey, to find their mascot, a dolphin named Snowflake, after she is mysteriously kidnapped. Ace's efforts to find Snowflake leads him into all kinds of problems. At one point, he thinks he has found the dolphin in a tank and tries to lure her to the surface with a fish. To his horror up pops a shark- it looks just like Jaws- which tries to eat him. Later he finds a clue in Snowflake's tank, a small orange stone which he figures came from a championship ring won by one of the Miami Dolphin football players. He tries to see which player is missing a stone in his ring which leads him into all kinds of funny situations. At one point, he gets a player to punch him in the face so he can see whether the ring impression on his cheek shows whether a stone is missing. Ace is a very funny guy. He wears his hair in a big wave, makes all kinds of facial expressions (like Jim Verney in the Ernest movies) and acts cool, even though he's causing trouble all around him. The plot moves quickly and there's non-stop laughter. I would recommend it for ages 11 and up. The Vancouver Sun Tuesday, February 22, 1994. 99 Page 4 of 4 DIRECTIONS: CREATE A KEY VISUAL FOR THIS ARTICLE Elise is in sixth grade. Patty has been her best friend since third grade. Lately, another girl in their class, Carol, has asked Elise to do things with her and her group of friends-going shopping, to the movies, and slumber parties. Carol has not asked Patty to join in these activities. Carol and her friends are the most popular girls in the sixth grade. They seem to be older than the other girls in her class, especially Patty, who still occasionally throws tantrums when she doesn't get her way. Elise has noticed that lately Carol has started wearing a little makeup and has a crush on a seventh-grade boy. Elise thinks that Carol and her friends are fun to be with and she wants to be part of their group. But, she still wants to be friends with Patty. Elise also isn't sure it she is ready to have romantic relationships with boys or wear makeup. What would you do if you were Elise? Gr. 7 Decisions Curriculum B.C. Ministry of Education 100 A P P E N D I X F CLASSIFICATION T H I N K I N G S K I L L S K E Y VISUALS L A N G U A G E grouping defining understanding * grouping is done in all subject areas * defining is part of Classification because you need to know the meaning of the word before you can... * understand it and group it properly. trees webs N O U N S V E R B S groups put sections have categories organize(d) methods group(ed) ways split columns divide(d) types separate(d) classes sort(ed) divisions section(ed) sets categoriz(ed) forms Classify(ed) kinds charts graphs 5 Vi VI Q U A L I F I E R S few many several plenty 101 L. Grant 1994 Peter Evans- CAD Graphics A P P E N D I X G D E S C R I P T I O N T H I N K I N G S K I L L S K E Y V I S U A L S L A N G U A G E describing labelling comparing contrasting * describing tells us details. * labelling shows us the parts. * comparing tells us what is the same between two or more objects. * contrasting tells us what is different between two or more objects. trees webs s a m e d i f ferent charts graphs m a p * all words used in labelling diagrams, pictures and maps. * Adjectives: seven hours beautiful women slow cows Comparing -same as -similar to -and -both -alike Contrasting -different -not the same as -but -while -however 102 L. Grant 1994 Peter Evans- CAD Graphics A P P E N D I X H PRINCIPLES T H I N K I N G S K I L L S K E Y VISUALS L A N G U A G E explaining hypothesizing predicting * (cause & effect) cause effec t Causal because since as being that seeing that when if by due to the fact cause effect Effect so then therefore consequently thus as a result * -also any appropriate sequence key visuals 103 L. Grant 1994 Peter Evans- CAD Graphics A P P E N D I X I S E Q U E N C E THINKING SKILLS KEY VISUALS LANGUAGE ordering sequencing following directions narrating I I I I I Timelines < Action Strips (ie., comics) 1. 2. 3. 4. Step-by-step Directions reporting Sun Mon Tue Wed Thr Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 * all of these terms involve step-by-step action. Calendar Beginning Initially First To begin In the beginning To start F i rs t ly Simultaneous meanwhile while as right then at the same time Continuation to continue afterwards next after previously during just then just as later then prior to this before to go on Conclusion finally Lastly to summarize to finish to conclude to end Cycles Flowchart 104 L. Grant 1994 Peter Evans- CAD Graphics A P P E N D I X J CHOICE THINKING SKILLS KEY VISUALS LANGUAGE CHOOSING DECIDING PROBLEM-SOLVING Action Results + Grid D E C I S I O N OR C H O I C E Decision Flow Chart Choices Options Outcomes Choice | M y decision is I have decided I chose I have chosen I prefer I wi l l select I have selected My Choice CONDITIONS EFFECTS EVALUATION DECISION Abundant trees Few trees Decision Chart 105 L. Grant 1994 Peter Evans- CAD Graphics A P P E N D I X K E V A L U A T I O N THINKING SKILLS KEY VISUALS LANGUAGE EVALUATING ANALYZING RANKING JUDGING DECIDING Action Results + Grid choices * Evaluate: To Subject Good Satisfactory Poor judge the worth, quality or importance of Rating Chart John A C+ B A Anne B A C+ C Quang A A B B Rick C+ C+ C C Jasbir B B A C+ Marks Book VERBS e v a l u a t e j u d g e u n d e r s t a n d a n a l y z e v a l u e NOUNS o p i n i o n goa l p o l i c y ADJECTIVES g o o d - bad r i g h t - w r o n g p r o p e r - i m p r o p e r s t r o n g - w e a k OPINION l ike - d i s l i k e p r e f e r - d i s a p p r o v e v a l u e - d o n ' t v a l u e a p p r e c i a t e - d o n ' t a p p r e c i a t e l o v e - h a t e 106 L. Grant 1994 Peter Evans- CAD Graphics A P P E N D I X L THE USE OF CLASSIFICATION IN THE CLASSROOM DIRECTIONS: LOOK THROUGH ALL OF YOUR WORK AND TEXTBOOK MATERIAL ONE SUBJECT AT A TIME. A) PULL-OUT ANDY PAGES OF WORK THAT YOU CAN FIND CLASSIFICATION BEING USED. PUT PIECES OF PAPER TO MARK ANY PLACES IN YOUR TEXTBOOK WHERE CLASSIFICATION CAN BE FOUND. THIS CAN BE IN EITHER THE FORM OF READING MATERIAL OR A KEY VISUAL. RECORD THE NUMBER OF SAMPLES ON YOUR PAPER. B) i) CREATE ONE CLASSIFICATION KEY VISUAL FROM IN SUBJECT AREA THAT WOULD HELP YOU WITH YOUR STUDIES, ii) WRITE ONE PIECE OF TEXT FROM A KEY VISUAL SAMPLE THAT YOU FOUND IN ONE SUBJECT AREA. SUBJECT # OF SAMPLES OF KEY VISUALS 3 OF SAMPLES OF LANGUAGE 107 a on s Z SB P S ST «^ <£ OS 3 3 » = o r o o » <• « Icra ,» "3" ? B o s - ft» 108 109 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078089/manifest

Comment

Related Items