Work Placement Report in Rijksuniversiteit
Styliani Thomaidou S3262758
Ma Applied Linguistics 2017-2018 June 2018
Supervisor at the placement organization: Dr. Marjolijn Verspoor Placement supervising lecturer: Dr. Rasmus Steinkrauss
1. Introduction 1.1. Rijkuniversiteit (RUG)
During a period of five months (February-June 2018), and as a part of the Ma in Applied Linguistics program in Rijksuniversiteit (RUG), of which I was a student, I participated in a work placement project as an assistant instructor in the university. Focusing on the provision of working experience, RUG offered internship possibilities to its students, as an opportunity to apply the knowledge they had gained, over their previous studies at various educational programs. Most importantly, RUG assisted in equipping its interns with useful tools and experience to be later implemented in vocational sectors, related to their studies.
Ranked as one of the top 100 Universities internationally (Academic Ranking of World Universities, 2017), RUG provides several exceptional programs, mostly focusing on research and, based on this, on a combination of disciplines. Hence, the students of any degree are supported in building a solid basis for their future career, particularly in the academic field. The variety of programs in RUG and the option to be taught in multiple languages, renders this academic context widely multicultural and one in which any student, international or not, would feel encouraged to study and conduct her/his internship.
As a result of the above, and having attended the lectures given by placement providers, I decided to conduct my internship in RUG, since the work placements offered were directly related to my future career interests as a teacher of English as a foreign language. Moreover, considering the Ma program I was attending, I perceived the specific teaching internship as an opportunity to put in practice the knowledge I had gained from courses closely connected to it (e.g. “Theory of Second Language Acquisition” and “Teaching Methodology”). Finally, the fact
that the internship took place in an academic environment was another crucial factor to my choice, seeing that it could be an additional positive element in my résumé.
1.2. “European Languages and Cultures” Department
The work placement I participated in, was conducted in RUG‟s Ba program of “European Languages and Cultures” department, in which the study of modern languages, among which, English, is a fundamental component. In this department, the foreign language learning is combined with the cultural, sociopolitical and economical aspects of the countries and with their place in the current situation in Europe. Expanding into the program‟s objectives, students are asked to reflect critically on the fact that language is an integral part of a county‟s culture and on the implications of this reality, to its speakers.
Regarding the teaching of English at a B2-C1 level (following the CEFR-Common European Framework of References guidelines), which I was assigned, and because of the nature of this language as a lingua franca, the content of the course was extended beyond a sterile teaching of the foreign language. More specifically, the lessons aimed to equip students with information and knowledge on issues of minority languages in Europe, and with the linguistic tools to comment and formulate their opinion on those. As a teacher my role was to encourage this expression and to guide them on methods to render their speech argumentative and persuasive in essays appropriate for the academic context of their studies. Thus, the teaching of English in the department, rather than being a traditional language course, broadens its scope into an instrument of effective language use for self-expression. The latter, always related to the concept of “Minority languages in Europe and their speakers”, is developed and structured in a dialectic form, both in written and in spoken form.
Finally, the “English 1” course at this level, serves as a basis for the students to proceed to “English 2”, where they exploit and improve their research and language skills into various topics and more demanding tasks.
2. Assignments and projects during the internship in RUG (“European Languages and Cultures” Department)
The course of English I had been co-planning and co-teaching during the placement period, required the completion of a number of tasks in my part, which were constructed in such a way so as to gradually lead to my independence in teaching and assessing the students‟ progress and my development, as well. Namely, within the past five months, the competences to be acquired through practical assignments and projects referred to the pre-planning of the course and its corresponding Nestor platform, the planning of the teaching materials for the lessons of using English for Academic Purposes (EAP), observing lectures given by the main instructor, and later being responsible for both the teaching and the assessing of the groups.
The introductory involvement with the course was to learn how to set up the Nestor interface, meaning the platform where the learners would be informed on the course‟s updates and their grades. However, since “English 1-EAP” was a course already taught in previous years, my contribution was limited to sending emails and uploading materials and activities the students had to conduct for each lesson. Within this phase, I also created vocabulary and reading quizzes, along with the reading and discussion questions for the lessons, based on the articles about minority languages the students were required to study for the course.
Regarding the teaching section of the internship, it was anew gradually introduced to my assignments. In particular, in the initial stages as an intern, I was observing the lectures and seminars of the main instructor of the course on EAP. In this two-week period, I kept notes on the delivery of the content and on the classroom management the learners were exposed to. After this brief period, I continued observing one of the two groups, while I instructed the second. The
latter was in turn observed by the main instructor. Upon this period, with weekly meetings with the main instructor, I received feedback on my performance and reflected on my practices as a teacher. Later on (2nd block), I was given more independence, and thus more responsibility, in the process, by teaching both groups (8 hours/week). The guidance by the main instructor was sequentially reduced at that point, until her observations were unnecessary. As a teacher, my role was to teach the structure and the appropriate language for the students‟ arguments on the minority languages issues raised, as well as to encourage them to freely state their opinion in a justified manner. Regarding the class discussion on the issue, the teaching role was to facilitate and monitor the discourses/debates, based on questions related to the assigned articles. In turn, this implied that I would have to be well aware of the articles‟ content, and prepared to indirectly participate in the discussion to clarify any queries or to encourage a fruitful debate within the group.
Finally, in both blocks, I assessed the assignments of the groups that I had been teaching. In the first block (“English 1a”) the focus of the EAP teaching, and hence of their assessment, was on the structure and the development of an argument at paragraph level, in which the topic sentences were provided by the instructor. For the second block („English 1b”) this objective expanded to essay level, where the topic and part of the thesis statement were indicated, but in which the central subject to be analyzed, and the arguments were formed by the students. Using the rubrics corresponding to each course (Appendices A1 and A2, respectively) I was required to grade and give feedback to students‟ performance. For “English 1b”, the presentation of their argumentative essay was added as a component, where, again following the rubric (Appendix B), feedback and grading on their practices were provided. These processes (grading and feedback) were reviewed by the main instructor, who subsequently reviewed my evaluations.
3. Evaluation of the learning goals and accomplishments during the internship
The initial course-planning/Nestor set-up phase served as a basis for me to become familiar with the content and the objectives of the course in a practical level. I was then introduced more in-depth in the aims of the course and in the approaches to be followed, in order to deliver the focal points of each lesson to the students. Although my involvement in the on-line/Nestor component was limited, I learned how to design learning materials for an academic proficiency level, shifting away from the traditional, sterile approach of the Foreign Language Learning (FLL) I was until then practicing as a teacher.
The goal of the reading and vocabulary quizzes and the reading and discussion questions I overviewed and partly created, focused on the communicative aspect of the language, appropriate for the specific academic context, through which the students were asked to express their ideas on the articles‟ subject matter. Therefore, I was required to form materials targeting their critical thinking skills, such as debatable questions, where they could refer to their personal experiences as bilingual/minority language speakers, or questions from which they could extract the core meaning of the texts. However, the explicitly stated information of the articles were also catered for, in relevant questions, which I considered to be of great importance for the students‟ future academic writing skills when they would have to conduct and report on their research. Considering the above, I proposed additional materials, or changes on the existing ones, to the main instructor, which were discussed in weekly meetings. In collaboration with her, we decided on alterations made in the weekly course content. Examples of materials I designed can be found in Appendix C.
With regards to the lesson observations, they were crucial in my following teaching experience, by serving as an example I could follow in the consecutive instructing part. Since I
had no previous participation in academic teaching, they provided valuable instructions on the practical constituent of the class-management, and most importantly, on the delivery of the course content. After keeping notes on these two components, and before I taught the lessons, I discussed any doubts or clarifications I needed with the main instructor, who provided supplementary explanations. Although when teaching the group(s) I was responsible for, I sought to follow the teaching practices I had previously observed, this was not always the case. In discussions with the main instructor, I was encouraged to be independent and apply my personal teaching approaches during the lessons. Subsequently, in our weekly meetings, she also provided feedback on both strengths and weaknesses of my teaching. Thus, the aim of the observation step to introduce me into the whole range of the teaching experience was achieved. This experience and the independence provided addressed my personal development as a second language (L2) instructor.
The goal of the lessons was to combine the theoretical part of the EAP features analyzed in the lectures, with the practical one, on students‟ assignments, during the seminars. The class presentations were created with the purpose of explaining the elements of academic speech (written and oral), which during the seminars, the students indicated in their own and their peers‟ assignments and presentation practices. The points to be discussed in these feedback sessions concerned the language, structure and argumentation used, in relation to minority languages issues. As a teacher, I provided feedback, not only during the class, but also in their draft assignments, before they hand in their final version.
As mentioned previously, I assessed the assignments of the groups I had been teaching, following the relative rubric and the concepts I had previously taught. In consultation with the main instructor for cases I needed guidance or an additional opinion I practiced assessing the
students‟ performance. Being responsible for the latter, I familiarized myself with the grading process of academic written and oral presentations, in general, learning about criteria related with not only the grammatical aspects of the language, but also the content and the delivery of the students‟ work. The procedure helped me provide constructive and efficient feedback on the assignments, aiming at the improvement of the students‟ academic skills.
Finally, the overall goal of managing the workload of an academic instructor, entailing all the above tasks and accomplishments, proved a significantly challenging, yet valuable element of the internship experience. Combining all these assignments in gradual steps, especially during the second block of the placement period, equipped me with tools to be later used in my prospective teaching career.
4. Reflecting on the learning outcomes
My general impression of the internship experience is undoubtedly positive, considering the significant knowledge I gained in the complete range of the teaching process and my personal realization about my future vocational ambitions. Being familiar with teaching English as a foreign language to young learners, the academic setting and the course of EAP was a challenge to overcome. After the completion of the placement and upon reflecting on the process, I have decided to slightly deviate from my previous experiences, and follow this type of English teaching. Thus, the placement has been a key element for my occupational plans.
In more detail, the fact that I was required to focus on the academic aspect of the language taught me the principles of this linguistic level and therefore, I found myself learning in this field, as well. The subsequent creation of learning materials propelled me further into this sector, and had a catalytic role in my teaching, since being the designer, I was well informed on the issues to be taught. Moreover, this involvement in the pre-planning helped me to deliver the content in a more comprehensive and holistic manner.
Likewise, the observation part functioned as guidance for me in presenting the content of the lessons. Noticing that the main instructor emphasized the students‟ interaction with her and most importantly, with their peers, I was introduced into a facilitating role of the teacher. Instead of teaching the rules of the language and monopolizing the class time, I was primarily required to encourage their opinion, critically formed and stated, through discussion. Hence, I gained knowledge on an alternative position of the teacher, regarding the classroom management. Linking this to the independence I was provided by the main instructor to apply my personal teaching style, I explored my teaching abilities, expanding my practices on these. Additionally,
the feedback I received from her was a tool to realize differences of a teacher‟s activities and methods in a cultural/educational setting completely different from the one in my home country.
Finally, the assessment part of the internship stimulated me to alter my corrective feedback to a constructive one, aiming at the advancement of the students‟ EAP skills. The feedback and grading, instead of being definitive for the students, were presented more as suggestions, which, in discussion with their peers and me, they had the option to apply or adjust to their assignments. Furthermore, I realized that the positive comments on the students‟ performance were more effective than the indication of their weaknesses, something which I have decided to adopt in future, similar situations.
In conclusion, this work placement was a significant part of my Ma studies, by giving me the chance to exploit all the challenges accompanying it, and turn them into benefits for my future teaching career. Emphasizing the communicative aspect of the language in an academic level, designing relevant learning materials and especially given the support to develop individually as an instructor, this work placement experience was a decisive step to the teaching path I intend to follow.
Appendix A1: Writing rubric for English 1a
English Proficiency 1a / 2017–18 semester 2a Assessment descriptors writing assignments GRADE 1 4 5.5 6 7 8 10 Insufficient - Sufficient Good +
Topic sentence Does not summarise the body paragraph. Summarises the body paragraph. Summarises the body paragraph, and is more elaborately phrased than the writing prompt.
Paragraph development Paragraph is poorly structured and/or does not have a conclusion. Paragraph has a basic structure (point-proof- significance) and a conclusion.
Paragraph has a well-organised structure (point-proof-significance) and a conclusion that shows the relevance of the supporting evidence to the argument.
Paragraph coherence Ideas within the paragraph are not or hardly connected to each other. Most ideas within the paragraph are connected to each other using transitional words or phrases, or other cohesive devices.
All ideas within the paragraph are connected to each other using transitional words or phrases, or other cohesive devices.
Argumentation Illogical and/or biased argumentation and/or missing and/or irrelevant evidence. Valid argument with appropriate evidence. Argumentation is valid and shows exceptional critical thinking; is supported by appropriate and convincing evidence.
Word choice
Diction is frequently informal and/or is not concise and/or frequently contains overly pretentious language, clichés or neologisms.
Diction is formal and is mostly concise. It generally does not contain overly pretentious language, clichés or neologisms.
Diction is formal and concise. It does not contain overly pretentious language, clichés or neologisms.
Language: Range Range is lower than B2. Range is B2 or B2/C1. Range is C1 or higher.
Language: Accuracy Accuracy is lower than B2. Accuracy is B2 or B2/C1. Accuracy is C1 or higher.
Appendix A2: Writing rubric for English 1b
English Proficiency 1a / 2017–18 semester 2a Assessment descriptors writing assignments GRADE 1 4 5.5 6 7 8 10 Insufficient - Sufficient Good +
Topic sentence Does not summarise the body paragraph. Summarises the body paragraph. Summarises the body paragraph, and is more elaborately phrased than the writing prompt.
Paragraph development Paragraph is poorly structured and/or does not have a conclusion. Paragraph has a basic structure (point-proof- significance) and a conclusion.
Paragraph has a well-organised structure (point-proof-significance) and a conclusion that shows the relevance of the supporting evidence to the argument.
Paragraph coherence Ideas within the paragraph are not or hardly connected to each other. Most ideas within the paragraph are connected to each other using transitional words or phrases, or other cohesive devices.
All ideas within the paragraph are connected to each other using transitional words or phrases, or other cohesive devices.
Argumentation Illogical and/or biased argumentation and/or missing and/or irrelevant evidence. Valid argument with appropriate evidence. Argumentation is valid and shows exceptional critical thinking; is supported by appropriate and convincing evidence.
Word choice
Diction is frequently informal and/or is not concise and/or frequently contains overly pretentious language, clichés or neologisms.
Diction is formal and is mostly concise. It generally does not contain overly pretentious language, clichés or neologisms.
Diction is formal and concise. It does not contain overly pretentious language, clichés or neologisms.
Language: Range Range is lower than B2. Range is B2 or B2/C1. Range is C1 or higher.
Language: Accuracy Accuracy is lower than B2. Accuracy is B2 or B2/C1. Accuracy is C1 or higher.
Appendix B: Formal presentation rubrics for 1b
English Proficiency 1b / 2017–18 semester 2b Assessment descriptors formal presentation
GRADE 1 4 5 6 7 8 10
Insufficient
- Sufficient
Good + Introduction Not structured from general to specific and/or does not provide sufficient contextualisation
and/or does not end with the thesis statement.
Structured from general to specific, provides sufficient contextualisation, and ends with the thesis statement.
Structured from general to specific; provides good contextualisation which organically leads to the thesis statement.
Thesis statement Does not express a clear opinion and/or is not debatable and/or does not include three supporting arguments.
Expresses a clear opinion, is debatable, and includes three supporting arguments.
Expresses a clear opinion, is debatable, and includes three supporting arguments which are each summarised in a word or short phrase.
Argument development The body of the presentation is poorly structured. The body of the presentation has a basic structure (point-proof-significance). The body of the presentation has a well- organised structure (point-proof-significance).
Coherence (signposting)
Ideas are not or hardly connected to each other and/or the relevance of the supporting arguments to the thesis statement is not or hardly shown.
Most ideas are connected to each other using transitional words or phrases, and the relevance of the supporting arguments to the thesis statement is generally shown.
All ideas are connected to each other using transitional words or phrases, or other cohesive devices, and the relevance of the supporting arguments to the thesis statement is always clearly shown.
Conclusion
Does not restate the thesis statement (point) and/or does not summarise the presentation’s main points (proof) and/or does not reaffirm the presentation’s general argument
(significance) and/or does not end with a broader concluding statement (presentation significance).
Starts with a restatement of the thesis statement (point), followed by a short summary of the presentation’s main points (proof), reaffirms the presentation’s general argument
(significance), and ends with a suggestion for further research.
Starts with a restatement of the thesis statement (point), followed by a short summary of the presentation’s main points (proof), reaffirms the presentation’s general argument
(significance), and ends with a broader concluding statement (presentation
significance) which includes a suggestion for further research.
Source use Sources are not used at the appropriate places and/or do not contribute to the argument. Sources are used at the appropriate places and contribute to the argument. Sources are used at the appropriate places and make an important contribution to the argument.
Source integration Sources are not integrated. Sources are integrated. Sources are seamlessly integrated.
Word choice Diction is frequently informal. Diction is formal. Diction is formal and academic.
Pace & Use of voice Pace is too slow or too fast; speaks in low volume and/or monotonous tone.
Pace is pleasant; speaks with sufficient variation of volume and inflection to emphasise key points.
Pace is pleasant; speaks with good variation of volume and inflection to emphasise key points.
Eye contact Minimal to no eye contact with the audience and/or heavily reliant on notes. Sufficient use of eye contact with the audience, but sometimes reliant on notes. Consistent use of eye contact with the audience, and not reliant on notes. Posture Restless and/or visibly not at ease; does not use gestures to emphasise key points. Looks at ease; uses gestures to emphasise key points. Looks confident; uses gestures in a natural way to emphasise key points.
Visual aids
Incorrect use of source referencing; not all quotations used are also on the slides; slides are too elaborate or cluttered; slides distract from the presentation.
Correct use of source referencing; all quotations used are also on the slides; slides are mostly concise and summarise the main points; slides do not distract from the presentation.
Correct use of source referencing; all quotations used are also on the slides; slides are concise and summarise the main points; slides support the presentation.
Appendix C: Examples of learning materials designed for the internship
1. Week 1 Vocabulary Quiz
“Ethnicity and language tensions in Latvia”
Carol Schmid
Fill in the missing letters from the words in the text. The excerpt is taken from the article you have read in preparation for this class.
i) Latvian society is char_____________ by a fairly large degree of intermarriage. In 2000, 24% of ethnic Russian citizens had ethnic Latvian spouses. In contrast 11% of ethnic Latvians had Russian spouses. However, despite the significant degree of intermixing (in the work environment 90% of non-citizens and 96% of citizens have Latvian colleagues) the language of inter-ethnic communication in most cases is still Russian (Baltic In________ of Social Sciences 2001). In order to pro_________ its language and identity, the Latvian government rest_________ citizenship and fost_________ a language policy to promote the interests of ethnic Latvians. The major arena of con__________ has been between the Latvian government and the organized Russian interest groups rather than the masses of the two com_____________.
ii) In order to understand language relations in Latvia it is necessary to appreciate the legacy of Soviet language po_________. More than 50 years of Soviet occupation, policies of linguistic Russification and the precarious dem____________ situation has inte____________ the de______ over language relations. Allard‟s (1984) theory states that a minority is deter___________ by the feelings of language speakers as having a sub__________ status to those of another language. If this theory is emp________, Latvian speakers were certainly a language mi_________ during the half-century of Soviet domination. They continuously lost status through growing mig________ and official language policy, though nomi__________ they were a maj_________ language in Latvia (see Schmid et al. 2004). Ozolins (1999: 10) observed that the inf_______ of monolingual Russian speakers who expected to work and be
served in Russian created a situation in which locals were obliged to learn Russian. As a result ethnic Latvians became bi________, while most Russian speakers continued to be monolingual.
2.
Reading Questions for article 1: Schmid (2008).
“Ethnicity and Language Tensions in Latvia”(The questions I have proposed and were included in the reading questions for the assigned article are marked in yellow)
1. Look at the title. Try to paraphrase it to understand exactly what the article will be about. 2. Look at the dates given above the abstract. Why do you think there was such a gap
between the stages? What stages were there in the process of getting this article published?
3. Read the abstract. What does this abstract do? How is that different from other abstracts you have read? Why do you think it has been done like this?
4. Look at the order in which the points/statements are made. Do they occur in the same order as in the abstract? If so, why?
5. Look at the next section. From the sub header, what do you expect it to be about? What do you expect the overview to contain?
6. What are the four main issues discussed in the section? Where do you find information summarizing this?
7. What reasons are given in the following section for the survival of Latvian language throughout and following the Soviet era?
8. What is meant by asymmetrical bilingualism?
9. Why is Quebec mentioned and compared to the Latvian situation? What are some similarities and differences between the two places?
10. What were the ongoing problems in relation to EU accessions and what impact did eventual membership have on language law?
11. Before you read the section on education, think what problems there might be in the Latvian situation and how these could have been resolved.
12. What is the 60/40 system for bilingual education, what was its aim and why was it so controversial?
13. Why has the author included the survey on attitudes section and what are the main features of this?
