Literacy in vocational programs in Denmark. Purpose of the study

Transcription

1 Literacy in vocational programs in Denmark Purpose of the study Danish governments have for years aimed for 95 % of every cohort should obtain a secondary education. Some attend The Danish Gymnasium 1, while others attend a variety of vocational programs (VP) with similar status (equivalent to Gymnasium ). Vocational programs, unfortunately, shows very high drop-out rates, which has been addressed in both small and large scale studies 2 (Peter Koudahl, 2004). Several of these studies show that the competences achieved from primary education is of importance, and literacy particularly so (Peter Koudahl, 2005; Regeringsoplæg, 2005a, 2005b) 3. PISA-Longitudinal identified a correlation between students reading score in PISA test and their statistical likelihood to finish secondary education (Andersen, 2005). Furthermore, teachers report that students find texts complicated and the teaching goals implicit and unclear. Paradoxically students have to be in charge of their own learning processes and establish their own learning landscape (EVA, 2004; Hedeboe, 2002; Juul, 2006) 4. Some teachers argue that the vocational programs have become too academic, which make it more difficult for exactly those students, that these programs were aimed for (Cort, 2008; Juul, 2006; Krogsdal & Andreasen, 2012). I hold that the literacy skills of these students are one among many reasons for the high drop-out rates, and that it is necessary to focus more on literacy teaching in primary education to meet the rapidly changing literacy requirements in the vocational training area (VP). The aim of this project is to describe some of these literacy skills, referred to as literacies in Discourses, and to suggest how a linguistically based literacy teaching in primary school can impart the literacy skills required in VP (Hedeboe, 2002; Martin, 1989; Tønnessen & Maagerø, 2009). Furthermore, the purpose of the study is to design and test an analytical tool based on Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) (e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004; Martin & Rose, 2003) and the Genre Theories (Martin, 2009; Martin & Rose, 2008). Theoretical framework I combine Gee s term Discourse (capital D) with the term domain from Barton and Hamilton and Hetmar s term way of culture (Barton, 2007; Barton & Hamilton, 2000; Gee, 2007; Hetmar, 2004). Discourse is a domain, which is characterized by the talking, using, acting and interpreting of language and literacy in different ways. The home ( primary Discourse according to Gee), work (Gee: secondary Discourse) and school are three different domains, that I refer to as everyday domain, specialized domains and school domain 5. Gee presumes that students have to learn the secondary Discourses through both acquisition and learning to develop a meta understanding of them and to become 1 The Danish Gymansium is somewhat similar to High School 2 According to Koudahl not all of these reports discuss the reasons for low retention correlation with student skills, and not all reports are valid (Peter Koudahl, 2004). 3 Regeringsoplæg is the Danish title (lit.: Government Paper) 4 According to Halliday and Matthisen [text is] any instance of language that make sense to someone who knows the language (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004: 3). Both written and spoken texts are considered. 5 The term school domain is translated from the Danish and Norwegian term skolsk domæne and is understood according to Hetmar as a term for the domain characterized as inside School (Hetmar, 2004, 2009).

2 literate. This will often involve what Gee calls mushfake Discourse 6 if happening in the school domain. Since literacy is a social practice (Barton & Hamilton, 2000: 7), in which one finds texts, literacy practices and literacy events (Barton, 2007: 36), teaching is social practice that takes place in the school domain 7. A study of literacies in VP is then a study of texts, literacy practices and literacy events in involved teaching. Language is an important part of text, literacy events and literacy practices in all domains, but must be seen in context (Gee, 2007: ix). Therefore, literacies in VP is studied in the theoretical frame of a social semiotic linguistics, where language is seen as a system of choices in context. In Systemic, Functional Linguistics (SFL) language produces meaning in several strata e.g. (situational) context, semantics and lexicogrammar (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004; Hedeboe & Polias, 2008; Hestbæk Andersen & Smedegaard, 2005; Holmberg & Karlsson, 2006) 8. Language has three meta-functions: the ideational used to express knowing and experience about the world, the interpersonal used to express the relation between those interacting and the textual that connects the two others and makes language useful (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004: 21). In Systemic, Functional meaning genre constitutes and defines domains and are more complex than the traditional interpretation of genre (Hedeboe & Polias, 2008; Martin & Rose, 2008). In functional linguistics terms what this means is that genres are defined as a recurrent configuration of meanings and that these recurrent configurations of meaning enact the social practices of a given culture (Martin & Rose, 2008: 9). Genre and domains are closely connected. Research Methodology The project falls in two parts. In this presentation, I will describe the first, an explorative study of literacy practises in VP 9. This first part of the study includes observations and collecting of texts from the lessons from three different vocational fields. The material is analyzed by means of an analytical framework based on SFL (Martin & Rose, 2003). Since literacies are seen in Discourses, my analyze is discursive and the analytical tool is used along with standard terms from SFL. The study concerns the ideational meta-function as the one to express experience and knowledge of the world, i.e. as choices of terms that define the domains mentioned above. I focus on the choice of entities and processes 10. Entities are categorized as pronouns, everyday domain or specialized domain nouns and nouns from the school domain. Every-day and specialized nouns are further categorized as either concrete, abstract or nominalized, inspired by, but not in the same way as, Martin and Rose and Hetmar (Hetmar, 2004: 47; Martin & Rose, 2003: 108): 6 Gee: [mushfake] meaning to make do with something less when the real thing is not available (Gee, 2007: 147). 7 Students carry (parts of) their primary and secondary discoursers into the school domain (Gee, 2007; Hetmar, 2004). 8 The terms can differ between different authors. I use the terms from Halliday s work on SFL. 9 The second part will be a formative and design experiment (Reinking & Bradley, 2008) has yet to be carried out 10 A term from SFL expressing the use and categorizing of verbs: relational, material, mental and verbal (Mulvad, 2009)

3 Pronouns Entities from everyday domains Entities from specialized domains Entities from school domain concrete abstract nominalizations concrete abstract nominalizations This classification allows us to distinguish vocabulary used in the everyday domain, the specialized domains and the school domain. I distinguish between concrete and abstract language, nominalizations are seen as the most abstract (Edling, 2006; Halliday & Martin, 1993). Results and Conclusions Since my study is still in progress, my conclusions are preliminary: VP teachers use different genres, e.g. recounts (Martin & Rose, 2008), to drag the specialized domain into the school domain. In this way they try to hold on to what these educations are supposed to be, i.e. based on practical training in specialized domains. In this way they do not use Gee s mushfake rather they use Martin and Roses genre to make students literate and accepted in the specialized domain. The written VP texts are, primarily, lexically very dense, and dominated by specialized entities (nouns) that belongs to the concrete category, although some of them are also abstract. Processes are predominantly relational and material due to the genres in use. In their teaching VP teachers try to connect the specialized domains with the everyday domain using a language with expressions from both domains, whereas students tend to use a more everyday domain vocabulary. My study also shows that the analytical tool based on SFL as adapted to analyze text and literacy events was useful for distinguishing between vocabulary from different domains. Educational Importance My study shows that teaching supposed to connect the specialized domains with the everyday domain in a school domain should use language from both domains. Mushfake is not necessary in the vocational area since the specialized domains are already a part of the students experiences, but the choices of genres (as recounts) can be used to transfer the experiences from the specialized domain into the school domain to acknowledge the students experiences. Interest to the audience This study concerns literacy in an area which is rarely considered a literate area, but rather as a practical area. My interpretation of literacies as constituting domains shows that literacies is also important in this area and that it merits further study to determine how primary education can support these advanced literacies.

4 References Andersen, D. (2005). 4 år efter grundskolen: 19-årige om valg og veje i ungdomsuddannelserne, from Barton, D. (2007). Literacy: an introduction to the ecology of written language. Oxford: Blackwell. Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy Practices. In D. H. Barton, Mary; Ivanic, R. (Ed.), Situated literacies. Reading and Writing in Context (pp. 7-15). N.Y.: Routhledge. Cort, P. (2008). Vidensamfund. Klasseløse elever falder igennem. Information, 2008( ). Edling, A. (2006). Abstraction and authority in textbooks: the textual paths towards specialized language. Uppsala: University Library. EVA. (2004). Undervisningsdifferentiering i folkeskolen. In O. Kyed (Ed.), EVA-rapport. Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut. Gee, J. P. (2007). Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses. London: Routledge. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: The Falmer Press. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Hodder Education. Hedeboe, B. (2002). Når vejret læser kalenderen: en systemisk funktionel genreanalyse af skrivepædagogiske forløb. Odense. Hedeboe, B., & Polias, J. (2008). Genrebyrån: en språkpedagogisk funktionell grammatik i kontext. Stockholm: Hallgren & Fallgren. Hestbæk Andersen, T., & Smedegaard, F. (2005). Hvad er meningen? Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag. Hetmar, V. (2004). Klasserummet som kulturelt felt. In A.-L. Østern & R. Heilä-Ylikallio (Eds.), Språk som kultur - brytningar i tid och rum (11 ed., Vol. 1, pp ). Vasa, Finland: Pedagigiska Fakulteten. Hetmar, V. (2009). Faglig læsning og skrivning i skolen - Diskurser, positioneringer og rekontekstualiseringer. In S. V. Knudsen, D. Skjelbred & b. Aamotsbakken (Eds.), Lys på Lesing. Oslo: NOVUS Forlag. Holmberg, P., & Karlsson, A.-M. (2006). Grammatik med betydelse: en introduktion till funktionell grammatik. Uppsala: Hallgren & Fallgren. Juul, I. (2006). Kompetencebegrebet anskuet ud fra et erhvervspædagogisk perspektiv. Cursiv(1), Koudahl, P. (2004). Den gode erhvervsuddannelse?: en analyse af relationerne mellem uddannelsespolitisk tænkning og elever i erhvervsuddannelserne: Ph.d.-afhandling. [Roskilde]: Roskilde Universitetscenter, Forskerskolen i Livslang Læring. Koudahl, P. (2005). Frafald i erhvervsuddannelserne årsager og forklaringer. Undervisningsministeriets temahæfteserie (Vol. 1, pp. 70). Denmark. Krogsdal, E. T., & Andreasen, E. M. (2012). Fem grunde til frafald. [Debatindlæg]. Politiken, 1. Martin, J. R. (1989). Factual writing: exploring and challenging social reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20(1), doi: /j.linged Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: mapping culture. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd. Mulvad, R. (2009). Sprog i skole: læseudviklende undervisning i alle fag: funktionel lingvistik. Kbh.: Alinea. Regeringsoplæg. (2005a). Erhvervsuddannelser i verdensklasse. Regeringens debatoplæg til møde i Globaliseringsrådet 25. og 26. august Retrieved from Danmark i den globale økonomi website:

5 Regeringsoplæg. (2005b). Verdens bedste folkeskole vision og strategi. Regeringens debatoplæg til møde i Globaliseringsrådet 18. og 19. august Retrieved from Danmark i den globale økonomi website: Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. A. (2008). Formative and Design Experiments. Approaches to language and literacy research. USA: Teachers Press, Columbia University. Tønnessen, E. S., & Maagerø, E. (2009). At læse i alle fag. Århus: Klim.