| Figures | ||
| 4.1 | Student preferences for DWCF, the grammar textbook, or both. | 70 |
| 6.1 | Snapshot of the course outline showing the learning space session in week 5 to teach students how to ‘define’ and extending on it through an evaluated task in week 5. | 102 |
| 6.2 | Activities progression mapped according to Cummins’ (1984) quadrants for adjusting language, content and cognition demands. | 103 |
| 6.3 | A template devised by the lecturer that explains the different parts a definition may have for CLIL students’ use. | 104 |
| 6.4 | Activity 1 is a task devised by the lecturer in which students use popular text on “quidditch” to identify definition realizers in Spanish (L1). | 105 |
| 6.5 | Activity 2 is a task devised by the lecturer in which students use popular text on “driving” in English (L2) to identify definition realizers. | 106 |
| 6.6 | Activity 3 is a task devised by the lecturer for students to extrapolate identifying definition realizers in popular text to academic text (from Young, 2015). | 107 |
| 6.7 | Activity 4 in which students rephrase their extractions to define “learning” in their own words with the help of language support materials. | 107 |
| 6.8 | A successful approach by a student (FE1-P17/44) to defining “learning” in response to an exam question. In the brackets the student wrote nested definitions of context-dependent learning and independent learning and referred to the role of teachers in the latter. | 109 |
| 6.9 | Another successful approach by a student (FE3-P10/23) to defining “learning” in response to an exam question. Where the brackets are seen the student briefly referred to Vygotsky and learning from a social constructivist view. | 109 |
| 6.10 | An unsuccessful approach by a student (FE3-P02/23) to defining “learning.” In the brackets, the student expanded on stimulus-response and positive and negative reinforcement. | 109 |
| 6.11 | An unsuccessful approach by a student (FE1-P26/44) to defining “learning.” Though there is some truth to what the student says, the student is clearly struggling with grammar and mechanics (including spelling). It is difficult to tell if the student does not know more or cannot convey her knowledge in English. | 109 |
| 7.1 | A sample task scenario (adapted from Kim & Taguchi, 2016). | 117 |
| Tables | ||
| 1.1 | Lam’s (2010) four-step procedure of peer review. | 18 |
| 1.2 | Structure of a writing conference (adapted from Anderson, 2000). | 22 |
| 4.1 | Overview of six DWCF studies. | 63 |
| 4.2 | Home languages of student participants. | 64 |
| 4.3 | Student survey response means and standard deviations. | 69 |
| 5.1 | The research informed syllabus: Summary of working mode and interaction patterns. | 83 |
| 5.2 | Summary of lexical items investigated during lexical detectives activity. | 85 |
| 6.1 | CDF types and their member verbs. | 96 |
| 6.2 | The linguistic realization of “defining” as found in the ConCLIL Corpus, reported in Dalton-Puffer (2016). | 98 |
| 6.3 | The linguistic realization of “defining” according to Trimble (1985). | 99 |
| 6.4 | Types of definition expansions according to Trimble (1985). | 100 |
| 7.1 | Request situations and their task categories. | 117 |
List of Figures and Tables
in Knowledge Mobilization in TESOL
Herausgeber:in:
Sardar Anwaruddin
Sardar Anwaruddin
Search for other papers by Sardar Anwaruddin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sardar Anwaruddin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed