View Content #27911

Stephanie Knight, CASLS Assistant Director

     Cognitive engagement and social engagement are interconnected and inextricable from one another (Yáñez Prieto, 2010; Williams et. al, 2013). As such, second language acquisiton researchers and instructors should be supremely concerned with attending to the intellectual needs and development of learners. Neglecting these needs begets cycles of self-reinforcing disengagement and handicaps learners’ abilities to both apply the knowledge and skills they acquire to real-world contexts and to transfer said skills across domains.

    Mixed-reality Complex Learning Scenarios (MRCLS) are an intervention that speaks to the intellectual and social needs of language learners in concert. As we have discussed in previous weeks, MRCLSs are immersive, play-based scenarios in which learners engage in multistep tasks to uncover and apply critical knowledge related to target language functions and their associated sociopragmatic norms. Learners engaging in these scenarios must use digital and analog artefacts to arrive at and verify hypotheses related to these pragmatic strategies in order to progress through the experience.

    Repeated engagement in thinking routines (see Ritchhart et. al, 2006) provides scaffolding for learners engaged in MRCLS environments. These routines, routines that support the development of a variety of thinking skills, typically engage learners in intentional progression from cognitively simple (e.g., observing or listing) to cognitively complex (e.g., hypothesizing or extending) tasks. Though it is not explicitly stated as such, Ishihara and Cohen (2010) provide a routine for the teaching and learning of pragmatics: Observe (gather and take inventory of L2 artefacts), Analyze (through analysis and comparison, discover L2 sociopragmatic norms at play), Extend (either practice the language function at hand, keeping sociopragmatic norms in mind, or engage in further investigation to acquire a deeper understanding of those norms).

    To understand how Observe, Analyze, Extend might apply in an MRCLS context, the example of using text messages to figure out target language suggestion strategies that we provided a few weeks ago is beneficial to consider. In this example, learners are charged with reading a series of text messages between a missing agent, Agent 23, and both her boss and her friends. In an observation phase, the learners will take note of what they can objectively discern from the messages (e.g., what suggestion phrases are used and the relationship between the interlocutors). In the analysis phase, they are required to compare and contrast the context in which each suggestion strategy is used in order to discern any emerging patterns that indicate the sociopragmatic norms at play. At the extend phase, they are required to create their own utterance that conveys a suggestion in a given context.

    While MRCLSs still need to be empirically validated, training learners in epistemic routines empowers them to tackle situations that require complex cognitive and social engagement. The potential for this empowerment to facilitate risk taking within and beyond the classroom is clear.

References

Ishihara, N. & Cohen, A. (2012). Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet. London and New York: Routledge.

Ritchhart, R., Palmer, P., Church, M., & Tishman, S. (2006). Thinking routines: Establishing patterns of thinking in the classroom. Prepared for AERA Conference. Retrieved from http://www.ronritchhart.com/Papers_files/AERA06ThinkingRoutinesV3.pdf.

Williams, L., Abraham, L., & Negueruela-Azarola. (2013). Using concept-based instruction in the L2 classroom: Perspectives form current and future language teachers. Language teaching research, 17(3), 363-381.

Yáñez Prieto, M. (2010). Authentic instruction in literary worlds: Learning the stylistics of concept-based grammar. Language and literature, 19(1), 59-75.