Understanding the impact of teaching systemic functional grammar in initial English language teacher education

The role of systemic functional grammar (SFG) is usually investigated in postgraduate courses and in-service programmes with experienced teachers. In contrast, this study examines the impact SFG on student-teachers’ professional development a pre-service second language teacher education programme Argentina. Framed research ecological perspectives, tutor examined perceptions group student-teachers during course an academic year mandatory module which favoured content integrated learning (CLIL) metalinguistic knowledge. Data were collected through evaluations, summaries discussions, coursework samples, whole class discussions as inherent parts dynamics. Student-teachers’ indicated that had positive effect knowledge pedagogical El papel de la gramática sistémico-funcional (GSF) es usualmente investigado en cursos posgrado y capacitaciones servicio con docentes experimentados. Sin embargo, este estudio se investiga el impacto GSF desarrollo profesional estudiantes un profesorado inglés como lengua extranjera Enmarcado investigación docente desde perspectivas ecológicas, formador examinó las percepciones grupo estudiantes/futuros sobre una asignatura obligatoria foco aprendizaje integrado contenido (AICLE) conocimiento metalingüístico durante año académico. Los datos fueron recolectados mediante evaluaciones los estudiantes, resúmenes discusiones grupales, trabajo clase, del estudiantado partes inherentes dinámicas asignatura. Las indicaron que tuvo efectivo positivo materia didáctico. programmes, applied linguistics can be incorporated different forms such reading material or modules examine education. A brief glance at map shows growing practice adhering to perspectives (De Oliveira & Smith, 2019; McCabe, 2017) not only English-speaking countries (e.g., Accurso Gebhard, 2020; Burns Knox, 2005; Chappell, Derewianka Jones, 2010) but also outside Anglophone settings Latin America Anglada, Vian et al., 2009). According Liu Nelson (2016), increasing adherence rests affordances allows by: (1) focusing meaning function without disregarding form; (2) strengthening ties between Notwithstanding, little known about explicit instruction area English research, aim aimed teaching system (Liu Nelson, 2016) initial (IELTE) southern Argentina, extent strengthen (CK) (PCK). To effect, I first ground work base level particular focus Second, outline questions, methodology, context, participants, data collection, analysis. Third, present findings around key themes. Finally, discuss under light proposed theoretical background put forward implications for further studies. This constructed two conceptual pillars: SFG; teachers’ interest sections below address each pillar understand overall experience. For purposes study, it will suffice explain SFG, understood semiotic paradigmatic choices making (Fontaine, 2013). Through view education, “the resource we use whenever produce (or understand) wordings language” (Macken-Horarik 2015, p. 146). use, texture, information structure, lexical (Bloor Bloor, 2004), sets out investigate what range relevant are, both kinds meanings might want express these meanings; match choices. (Thompson, 2014, 9) From perspective outlined above, generation configured meaning, constructed, shared, interpellated, transformed language. Thus, paramount importance teachers develop since language, spoken written, medium occur. educating appears particularly directed after graduation shape post-graduate studies master's 2020, Gebhard De Smith (2019) have confirmed tendency recent systematic overview addition, they identified several initiatives allow compare benefits traditional approaches. Hence, understanding beliefs (Watson, 2015) matters structures speakers’ linguistic functions all domains social practice, includes practices (Liviero, regardless subject teach (Mohan, 1986). approach its influence Once relationship explicated them, how areas base. Freeman (2020), should responsive field-driven change. needs provide resources direction linguistics, nature (English study), learners, pedagogy. Regarding latter, IELTE providing future adequate contextually-situated tools knowledges deal teaching, transition from being novice (Farrell, 2015). organised three main intertwined combine theoretically-informed situated pedagogy, self-inquiry, learners’ cognitions, emotions, goals (Johnson Golombek, 2020). König al. are: subject-matter (CK); (PCK); (3) general (GPK). authors note “language are required high awareness, intercultural competencies” (König 2016, 322). Johnson (2009, adds another include foundations educators’ lead may demand congruence educators preach do classroom. CK refers specific related teach” 321). case teachers, involves: system, their communicative competence English, proficiency (ELP) (Richards, IELTE, realised grammar, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, phonology among others. included textual aspects coherence cohesion It concurred plays critical (Banegas, 2020b). example, Norwegian relevance programme, Vold (2017) found participants acknowledged itself own English. Similarly, carried EFL Amez Dobboletta assessed decisive dimensions personal With foreign languages other than proficiency, central component whose dominant has been practices. New Zealand, Richards (2013) observed those higher L2 offered learners lessons varied strategies, more opportunities, instances natural effective These coincide showing seems determine professionalism On hand, “subject-specific purpose teaching” 321) students, didactics transform generated by society large into school knowledge, sometimes referred didactic transposition (Chevellard Bosch, 2014). Therefore, CK, know-what PCK, know-how before shapes shaped PCK taught learnt. share common territory one consistent feature L2, often object approached (Bale, 2016). adoption PCK-related modules. CLIL succinctly defined educational classes additional implies organic pedagogies facilitate integration across levels (Morton Llinares, 2017; Nikula 2016; Siqueira 2018). student-teachers, i.e., students who become presence received support various scholars. Dewerianka Jones (2010) encourage inclusion takes “beyond structure real-world applications supporting students’ literacy development” (p. 13). similar stance, Yasuda makes illuminate shared writing given dynamic notions choice, genre, meaning-making register. reviewed substantiate mutualism SFG. qualitative TESOL degree candidates, SFG-related metalanguage could literacy. concepts enabled analyse improve thematic drawing given/new theme/rheme (see Bloor 2004, pp. 64–80) make coherent. following shed PCK. Myhill lesson observations interviews (MLK) respond needs. authors, MLK dimensions: language; subject-specific terminology describe (metalanguage); when help meet They conclude grammatical substantive them guide development, writing. same metalanguage, Klingelhofer Schleppegrell (2016) scaffold US elementary school. descriptive-exploratory suggest goes beyond tool connect raise awareness potential has. above illustrate MA Nonetheless, there exists gap IELTE; thus, attempt narrow reporting small-scale Against backdrop, questions guided study: Configured within positioned (Burns Dikilitaş Mumford, 2019), experiences. An was adopted (Arcidiacono 2009; Stelma Fay, 2014) came my regular Grammar II Argentina instantiate dual CLIL. reported article prepares kindergarten, primary, secondary investigation II, follows I. While adopts descriptive word clause level, incorporates taking text context unit Tutors well others encouraged embrace 2020a) so holistically. two-term (March–November cohort Year 2 participated 80-minute week over 32 weeks. aims inform core contents syllabus were: Enrolled described tertiary institution 22 Spanish L1. took place 2018 2019: while progressed 3 2019. Based in-house exams Common European Framework Reference Languages (CEFR), B2–C1. Although six years experience primary schools. obtained leading module. All voluntarily signed consent form explained rights. Anonymity confidentiality ensured. As researcher, issues associated coercion discussed leader. agreed withdraw (not classes) leader if discomfort pressure. four sources: Thematic analysis (Clarke Braun, employed 66 seven discussion, transcription discussion end inductive iterative process open codes (Terry, data, analyst-driven, guidance produced later organised, axial coding, interrelated domains: topics, material, activities, (See Section 4). Two randomly selected colleague acted inter-raters transparency, confirmability, trustworthiness purposes. code book, cross-analysis, re-reading, until reached inter-rater agreement 87%, figure considered acceptable. Samples analysed identify improvements ELP. Following (Ruiz-Funes, 2015), syntactic complexity (length sentences number clauses sentence) accuracy (lexical errors) measured statistics (mean standard deviation). counted words sentence (parataxis hypotaxis). errors lexis grammar. measure paragraph questioned SFG-based indicative some proficiency. Instead, Ryshina-Pankova (2015) proposes meaning-based considers metaphors nominalisations indicators semantic richness. Despite reservation, utilised measures interested participant's ELP differences participants. My measuring terms rather meaning. sources signal PCK: most excerpts originally said/written 8, 9 14 Spanish, translated report. topics meaningful (Table 1). concern management components look like one. Such indicate expanding exploring texts working longer instead. When started analysing detail, life got complicated! too much process, many details. trouble identifying types processes everything thought wasn't useful me teacher. think learnt picture whatever inside clause. (Perla, Excerpt Table assessment readings frequency them. Some provided reason. Simple rules (5) Clear organisation (4) Easy self-study (16) Varied activities (14) Examples (6) explanations examples (22) (21) Challenging (12) Links (9) Instances reflection It's clear helpful examples. reflect lot meaningfully. We used forms, here see although still necessary, care mean achieve OK. (Marcos, E2) Hard manageable. read reread then (Lita, E3) Accessible, times. introductions (Romina, E4) way! relearn concepts. That bit unnerving, saw behind new categories, book very (Fabiana, E5) Parrot generally viewed least 10 choosing it. asked drawbacks title seemed have, 12 “difficult follow, even difficult.” reference completed, (frequency responses brackets) relevant: presentations topic (20); identifying-based dyslexia autism ELT (18); completing graphic organisers (Figure 1) (17); finding books (15). liked our presentations. helped others, harder myself! Giving us organise notes, depth, examples, PowerPoint, you remember better. (Maru, E6) because concentrated themes, changing themes always dyslexia, doing things time: new, theme rheme. (Stefi, E7) didn't topics. hard know vocabulary, lost concentration. E8) I'm NOT going parataxis hypotaxis, incomprehensible enough. Understanding vey difficult it's mathematics. don't helps me. (Pepa, E9) Further scrutiny Pepa's (E9) hypotaxis) relation imagined Pepa, she seem disregard no direct correlation materialisation curriculum words, her exposes tensions graduation. experiences categories: part practicum, helping speaking need give presentation submit assignment am aware now ideas myself me, pay attention writers imitate (Donna, E10) Learning variations essay I've copying beginning play order (Ema, E11) getting better exposure, we're changes would studying anyways. (Felpu, E12) Furthermore, examination (Ruiz Funes, samples work, yielded results 3) perception improved (E10–11). However, attributed English-medium together therefore, continuous exposure (E12). M: 14.02 SD: 2.24 21.06 1.68 1.62 0.34 2.46 1.06 0.08 0.33 0.06 0.72 0.64 0.48 0.32 practicum became notice certain structures. isolation, larger text, did II. worked short story made simple linkers. (Alicia, E13) excellent design entire text. linear progression it'd easier younger learners. And worked! (Daniel, E14) can't teaching. But people won't course, explicitly, I'll lies beneath teach. (Mauro, E15) tell rheme, guiding ways organising ideas, write coherent cohesive show clearly. E16) E15 E16 scaffolding writing, logical distance perceive appear noted Pepa (E9). Subject schools noteworthy reveals preparation exceed system. Overall, recognise majority noticed maximised improved, question concerned section problematises means network 2) condenses constituents module: itself, shown choice materials 2), control determined curriculum; (tutor's practices) approach. constituent, content, source motivation where markers, cohesion, perceived meaningfulness assigned anchored explored choices, clausal emphasis meaning-making. aided form, users steady expansion (Chappell, 2020) motivating contributes tutor's practices, motivation, reservations (E8), due framing (E7) CLIL-driven elements emerged motivation: activities. (2004) comments (E2 allowed concentrate covered contributed awareness. Concerning preferences (E6) collaboration, extension, socioconstructivist learning, visible therefore expectations rationale. confirm authors’ (Johnson, belief tutors’ vital construction biographies. major exercised presented, addressed below. CK. Figure shows, enhance includes: proficiency; development. that, 3). improvement exclusively reveal production Macken-Horarik (E10, E11, E12). aligned Yasuda's observation whole, provides “nexus point 578), One aspect surfaced enhancement users’ E13, E14), fact confirms Dobboletta's Nevertheless, ambivalent (E9, E15, E16). acknowledge trajectories, acquire (Gebhard Should follow al.’s MLK, concluded 2, “under construction” fully metalanguage. Knowledge embryonic stage bears correspondence link create (Klingelhofer Schleppegrell, line position, informed decisions experience: planning, materials, feedback. presenting (E13). supported concept (E14). contributions planning materials. Lessons, according account, text-driven, materialises relationships trajectories aligned. insights feedback parallel drawn ELP, predominantly 3), aid Alicia's excerpt (E16) illustrated almost everyone group: texts. proved level. regard, (E13, 16) way focused selection, strategies conclusions paper suggests does confined Albeit limitations small undergraduate symbiotic constituents: itself; Both operated motivational forces architecture above. More significantly, framed internal congruent sought lecturers teacher-educators. doing, remain circumscribed holistic position. entails sophisticated delivered 2015); profit macro-scheme becomes mediating making. responding transformation cognition (Sanchez Borg, 2014), conceptions developed enrichment biographies declarative exploration adopted, increase opportunities and, consequently, deepen Learners educated tradition receive appropriate phrase overlooking accuracy. Gleason (2014, 478) rightly reasons, emphasising meaning-oriented pedagogy extends “resources context.” orientation creates functions, identity, power convey negotiate meanings. Future probably based methodologies longitudinal frameworks, necessary traced oral written productions time face realities real classrooms 2015; Freeman, complex nominal groups metaphor (2015). peer review history available https://publons.com/publon/10.1111/ijal.12346. Research shared.