Örebro University
Department of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences English
Imitation Pedagogy
Developing Argumentative Abilities in Swedish Upper-Secondary School
Author: Andreas Dahlberg Id no (19950210) Degree Project Essay
Spring Term 19 Supervisor: Dr. Claire Hogarth
Abstract
This essay presents an interventional field study that aims to refine practice in the English classroom in Swedish upper-secondary school by implementing imitation pedagogy. Imitation pedagogy is essentially learning to analyze and imitate texts’ internal structure for developing one’s own production. The focus on my first research question was on examining if imitation pedagogy with political mentor texts develop students’ language awareness, language control, and argumentative abilities in reading and writing. My second research question was focused on investigating if political mentor texts could be used to prepare students for future
participation in civic discussions and debates. My initial hypothesis was that mentor texts with political topics in imitation pedagogy could be used to develop students’ argumentative abilities; the learners could through this pedagogy be taught to recognize linguistic features in political texts that aim to persuade audiences, and the learners could learn to imitate these mentor texts to produce own successful argumentative writing. To answer my research questions and to see if my hypothesis was accurate, I conducted an interventional field study that followed a lesson study model. The findings from my study indicate that imitation pedagogy does develop and enhance learners’ language awareness, argumentative abilities, and ability to provide stronger contributions to discussions in different social and democratic contexts. Imitation pedagogy enhances the learners’ confidence and improve their writing capabilities, specifically the ability to compose stronger argumentations in writing in different situations varying from smaller everyday issues to larger societal and political issues.
Moreover, imitation pedagogy promotes the development of language control and critical language awareness. The learners practiced writing in new patterns, which forced the students to use their linguistic knowledge to produce sentences with language accuracy, fluency, and coherency. In addition, the students learned in this interventional study to recognize different linguistic and grammatical features that can add power to written compositions in different social and democratic contexts. By being able to recognize these features, the learners can be more aware of manipulative language in political texts and more effectively counter them.
Key words:
Imitation, mentor text, scaffolding, language awareness, language control, critical language awareness, democracy, text-types
List of Contents
Introduction………...1
Theoretical background………….……….………...2
Materials and method………9
Results………...10
Discussion/Analysis.……….19
Conclusion………24
Works Cited………...………...26
1
Introduction
This project degree essay will examine imitation pedagogy, which has its roots in the rhetorical tradition. The pedagogy promotes the development of students’ language awareness and enhances the communicative skills’ reception and production. Imitation pedagogy is essentially learning to analyze and imitate texts’ internal structure for developing one’s own production. Imitating texts can promote different abilities in the learner. For example, the student’s language awareness can be developed through analyzing internal structures and language use in texts that aim to persuade audiences. Receptive skills such as reading can be developed through reading authentic materials and using them as mentor texts (Dorfman and Cappelli 7). These mentor texts allow students to develop their production by functioning as a textual structure for learners to follow and practice writing. Imitation is concerned with practicing reading and writing in new patterns (Sellers 55).
This project is relevant to teachers of the English subject because the goal is to refine practice in the English subject by improving teaching approaches for when working with reception, production, and argumentative abilities that can enhance learners’ participatory democracy in upper-secondary school. My objective is to examine how imitation pedagogy can be put into practice, and to make other teachers see the potential of imitation pedagogy for developing these previously mentioned skills so that they can apply this teaching method in their own practice. The relevancy of my project for learners of the English subject is
promoting development of abilities that are useful when contributing and participating in different social and democratic contexts. This can be done by improving argumentative abilities and developing ability to recognize persuasive language in texts. This project aims to develop students’ argumentative abilities through analyzing and imitating a political text. Appropriate use of rhetoric referring specifically to the rhetorical appeals — ethos, pathos, and logos — is important for composing effective argumentations. Kim Flachmann and Michael Flachmann claim that through learning to adapt the use of these three rhetorical appeals to audience, the learner can compose more effective and powerful arguments in writing (416). Being able to adjust the use of the appeals is important because “argumentative writing requires [the writer] to present [his/her] views on an issue in a convincing way” (Flachmann and Flachmann 416). The rhetorical appeals need to be adapted to situation, purpose and audience to be persuasive, and are therefore crucial for persuasive argumentation.
2
The methodology consists of conducting a collaborative field study with an intervention in an upper-secondary school class while following a lesson study model. A lesson study is a collaborative research design that develops teachers’ practice by refining a pedagogical approach (Dudley 1). It involves pre-meeting with the in-service teacher, teaching in a sequence of three lessons and conducting qualitative interviews with both the teacher and the case-students during lessons. The in-service teacher plays an observational role, and the interventional lessons are conducted by the researcher. The lesson study model finishes of with post-lesson interview with the teacher to discuss overall findings. The benefits of this research method are refining practice and improving a pedagogical approach that can enhance the students learning and the teachers practice knowledge. The lesson study model allows the researcher to jointly plan lessons together with the in-service teacher, whom has contextual knowledge of his/her class. As Peter Dudley claims, contextual knowledge can enhance the students learning processes in core subjects, e.g. English (1). Refining a pedagogical approach through the lesson study model is beneficial for teacher of the English subject because it promotes the development of successful teaching techniques.
This project degree essay aims toward answering the following questions:
• Does imitation pedagogy with political mentor texts develop students’ language awareness, language control, and argumentative abilities in reading and writing? • Does imitating political texts prepare students to participate in civic discussions and
debates?
My hypothesis is that using mentor texts with political topics in imitation pedagogy can develop students’ argumentative abilities. The learners can through imitation pedagogy be taught to recognize linguistic features in political texts that aim to persuade audiences and the learners can imitate these mentor texts to produce own successful argumentative writing.
Theoretical background
Heather Sellers in her textbook The Practice of Creative Writing claims that all throughout our lives, we continuously observe and learn how to do certain things by copying other
people. Babies for example start by crawling, then by watching other people and trying to copy their movements they can learn how to walk. Alongside this process, parents hold their children’s hands and the babies support themselves by holding on to objects. This is the essence of imitation. Edward P.J. Corbett in his article The Theory and Practice of Imitation in Classical Rhetoric claims that the concept of imitation has a variety of meanings. In relation to reading and writing, it can refer to “copying, aping, simulating, [and] emulating
3
models” (243). This means that learners can use texts as models for imitation and for developing own production.
Imitation pedagogy is concerned with analyzing texts and imitating them. The material that is analyzed and imitated is called mentor text. Lynne R. Dorfman and Rose Cappelli explain that mentor texts “serve to show, not just tell, students how to write” (7). All literature that students can go back and look at can serve as a mentor text for young writers to develop and produce what they have not yet learned to do on their own. It is simply a matter of finding literature that inspires the learners to imitate the texts. The literature selected as a mentor text serves as framework for the students by functioning as a model for own written composition; the texts can allow the learners to continuously grow as writers. Much like Sellers claims that people learn by copying others, Dorfman and Cappelli claim that “copying” or imitating an author’s work with style, focus and/or textual structure is how students can learn how to write (7). Furthermore, mentor texts can “ignite the writer’s imagination and determination to create high-quality text that mirrors the mentor text in many ways” (7). Portraying ideas and words as if they were your own is plagiarism: imitative writing is using other people’s work as models and textual structure. Imitation is practicing reading and writing in new patterns (Sellers 55).
A strategy that can be used when working with mentor texts in imitation pedagogy is called scaffolding. Peter E. Langford in his textbook Vygotsky’s Developmental and Educational Psychology mentions that Vygotsky “advocates learning through scaffolding” (140). Scaffolding is giving gradual individual assistance to learners in their process of acquiring new knowledge. This technique and strategy can be applied if necessary and can come in different forms. Examples of scaffolding can be dialogues, feedback, or study guidelines that can assist the learner. Langford explains that scaffolding can push learners towards the zone of proximal development (ZPD) (188). ZPD is the zone between what the learner knows and what is yet to be learned. The zone where a learners’ abilities and
knowledge are limited within an area but can be developed with guidance from capable peers (189). Therefore, scaffolding learners can be useful for learners in e.g. language acquisition. If teachers apply scaffolding techniques in their classrooms, the students can come closer to the ZPD. Dorfman and Cappelli explain that scaffolding can be applied for developing writing and reading (150). Scaffolding can be used in form of framework that helps students to see possibilities in how to structure words, sentences and texts for creating creative and quality writing (150-151). According to Sellers there are two types of basic imitation, one is
4
scaffolding through writing between the lines and the other is scaffolding through filling-in-the-blanks (56). Writing between the lines in scaffolding means that the writer uses the original texts as inspiration and for textual structure for own production by copying syntax. For example, the original lines from the text is kept in the scaffold so that the learner more easily can see and copy the sentence level structures while writing own imitative work between those existing lines. Fill-in-the-blank type of scaffolding refers to using own words in between already existing lines. For example, the teacher creates blank lines mid-sentence in a text for the students to fill in with their own words. Larger parts of sentences that still allow the learner to apply own topic is kept (see appendix 5 for an example). Both types of imitation allow the students’ creativity to emerge.
Imitation pedagogy promotes the development of language awareness, which can improve abilities in reading and writing. According to Peter Garrett and Carl James in The Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning, language awareness is “explicit
knowledge about language and conscious perception and sensitivity in language learning, language teaching and language use” (330). In other words, language awareness is explicit knowledge of how certain language use functions in different social contexts and for different purposes. Furthermore, Leon Giang argues that imitation pedagogy can “enhance students’ language awareness because it requires [the students] to pay attention to how the author uses different linguistic features as well as stylistic and rhetorical devices to create power,
emphasis, rhythm, coherency, fluency, and persuasive arguments” (8). This allows students to practice their reading and acquire knowledge of how language is used for achieving specific rhetorical objectives. By acquiring awareness of the power of language in specific contexts, the students can also improve their own production, by for example, imitating political speeches and successful authors.
Imitation pedagogy can be taught in classrooms for facilitating students’ participation and contribution in democratic contexts by aiming to develop the learners’ critical language awareness (CLA). CLA is an extension of language awareness that mainly associates with a focus on expressions of power through language. According to Garrett and James, individuals whom do not possess language awareness are easily manipulated (331). Moreover, Ronald Carter claims that all texts reflect their contemporary times and always play a part in a wider social struggle (64). Since imitation pedagogy and mentor texts allow the students to study successful rhetoricians and tacticians, students can with CLA become more effective democratic citizens. This is because CLA enables the learner to “counter […] political manipulation through subtle use of and assumptions about language that target the unaware
5
mind”, which is why CLA is important for minimizing manipulation through certain language use in social and political contexts (Garrett and James 331). Giang explains that:
equipping students with the capacity to understand how compositions written in English can be used for a range of different functions and purposes and how to adapt their own compositions to rhetorical context enables [the learner] to work towards participatory democracy (Giang 5).
By analyzing and imitating argumentative texts with rhetorical appeals in mind, the learners own argumentative abilities can be enhanced. Flachmann and Flachmann claim that effective and successful argumentation contains ethos, pathos and logos. These are rhetorical appeals and strategies for persuasion (416). Ethos is the appeal to ethics and credibility. Pathos is the appeal to emotions to persuade the reader/listener. Logos refers to an appeal of logics, which is using reasoning, facts and intellect to make a point. The rhetorical appeals are a necessity to learn for creating effective arguments and being convincing. When analyzing and reading a text or speech, it is important to know how arguments work and to pay attention to the details. Successful rhetoric in texts and speeches adjust arguments for recipient and purpose. Therefore, it is important for learners when reading mentor texts to understand the author’s/speaker’s point of view and why certain arguments are selected. Through imitation pedagogy and mentor texts, learners analyze and imitate texts and speeches that can develop their argumentative abilities.
For mentor texts to be relevant for the learner’s own production, the text-type needs to match the tasks genre, e.g. an argumentative task could with advantage be matched with a political speech. Text-types differ from each other and can therefore serve different purposes. This means that there is a clear distinction in form, content, composition and presentation between different text-types. Karl Sornig and Silvia Haumann in The Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning claim that the text-type of argumentation for example can contain rhetorical appeals for expressions of power or persuasion through language (179). In contrast, narratives for example are instead concerned with descriptive language to paint a picture, and the aim is not to convey messages or to convince the reader, but to enchant and engage the reader to the story (179). Therefore, it is important to choose specific text-types to imitate for successful writing in specific genres, and for successful composition for specific domains.
A second language (L2) learning theory that can be compared to imitation pedagogy is text-based instruction (TBI). According to Jack C. Richards and Theodore S. Rodgers in Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, second language learning can be “facilitated
6
by explicit knowledge of language” (203). Teaching with different text-types allows students to study the linguistic and organizational features that they contain. Exposing students to different text-types can thereby give students conscious awareness of how different text-types work in different contexts. Richards and Rodgers mention that the student’s learning depend on the teacher’s scaffolding support and choice of text-type (203). TBI is mostly concerned with using authentic texts as example material and models for certain text-types. Scaffolded support has a sociocultural approach in which learning occurs through collaborative work between the learner and the teacher (whom is the expert). When scaffolding in TBI to create own production “the teacher first presents an example of the text-type, leads students through an analysis of the text to identify its distinguishing features, and then works with the students to jointly create a similar text or texts before the students create their own texts” (204). This TBI theory of L2 learning supports imitation pedagogy where similar procedures take place for detecting linguistic features in texts and understanding how they work in different contexts.
Imitation pedagogy promotes students’ development of several abilities that are mentioned in the curriculum for Swedish upper-secondary school. This pedagogical approach can be applied in classrooms by teachers of the English subject to reach many aims and goals with the education. As stated by The Swedish National Ministry of Education in the curriculum for upper-secondary school, one of the school’s main purposes is to create opportunity for the students to acquire new knowledge (6). Another goal is preparing students for active participation in society (6). Imitation pedagogy provides a strong foundation for working towards that purpose, because it can enhance students’ abilities and skills that are required for participating in societal and working life (e.g. communicative skills). Another general purpose of upper-secondary school, according to the Swedish Ministry of Education, is for students to think critically, to examine information and to see the consequences of their actions (7). If the teacher selects authentic material from successful rhetoricians and tacticians, the students can practice examining argumentations in those specific contexts and domains.
Moreover, several teaching points from the syllabus of the English subject in Swedish upper-secondary school are promoted through applying imitation pedagogy in the classroom. For example, in the curriculum for Swedish upper-secondary school and the syllabus for the English subject, the subject’s aim is to develop students’ all-round communicative abilities (53). This means not only comprehending various kinds of texts and speeches (reception), but also being able to compose written work with confidence and accuracy (production). Dorfman and Cappelli mention that mentor texts as teaching material (as is used in imitation pedagogy)
7
serves as a resource not only to develop the learner’s reception, but also to support the
learners to grow as writers (7). Scaffolding techniques that can be used in imitation pedagogy allow the learners to see how words, sentences and texts are structured, which promotes creativity and high-quality writing (150-151). Furthermore, according to the Swedish Ministry of Education, the students should develop language awareness, language control and language use to possess the ability to adapt language use after context and situation (53). Garrett and James argue that language awareness is concerned with how language use functions in
different social and political contexts (330). Imitation pedagogy requires the students to study a text’s style and form for achieving specific rhetorical objectives, which promotes the development of language awareness. Imitation pedagogy promotes these aims by providing mentor texts as models for students to practice using preferred language (with variation and complexity) in various situations and genres.
Imitation pedagogy can promote the development of independency and learner autonomy. The Swedish National Ministry of Education states in the syllabus for the English subject in upper-secondary school that students should learn strategies for communication when their linguistic knowledge is insufficient (53). According to Dorfman and Cappelli, scaffolding is a strategy that improves problem solving ability by giving gradual support to the learner, which can be a useful strategy when linguistic knowledge is insufficient (150). Moreover, Tricia Hedge argues that learner autonomy can be developed through teaching conscious strategies and techniques that allow the learner to become more self-reliant and take on more
responsibility (79). In other words, imitation pedagogy promotes and provides strategies for problem solving and learner autonomy. Imitation pedagogy can facilitate language learning by for example teaching how to scaffold a mentor text and how to imitate it for own
production.
Previous research in the field
Previous research in the field show that scaffolding techniques are successful for developing reading and writing abilities in learners of the English language. In their interventional study Using a Scaffolded Multi-Component Intervention to Support the
Reading and Writing Development of English Learners, Susan King Fullerton et al. show that scaffolding techniques develop both reading and writing abilities in first language learners in the United states (12). Their study was conducted for six weeks with 45-minute sessions twice a week. The intervention showed that low proficiency English learners did develop their writing and reading abilities, but they were still not able to perform at the same level as the English learners with medium and high proficiency. However, the study showed that low
8
proficiency English learners started to catch up to the medium and high performers. Furthermore, increased engagement from the learners were found when there was a consistency in the framework, careful scaffolding, clear connections between reading and writing components, and the teacher’s decision about when to guide and when to refrain from keeping control (13).
Ability to decode texts and to use them as model work can develop learners’ language awareness and language proficiency. In their article and interventional study Mentor Texts and the Coding of Academic Writing Structures: A Functional Approach, Alméciga Escobar et al. argue that the ability to identify (decode) underlying structures such as syntax and organization etcetera in written work, and the ability to use these written works as mentor texts have positive impact on L2 English learners own written production. Escobar et al. claim that high proficiency in learners with English as a foreign language (EFL) is a necessity for participating in the ever-evolving academic, cultural and political exchanges on a global level (95). Furthermore, all texts are culturally bound, which means that “written forms of language such as genre, style, syntax, collocations and so on […] are constructed, defined, shaped, and determined by the social use of the language” (96). This needs to be considered when the learners are decoding texts and determining whether they are appropriate to use as mentor texts for writing in specific genres. The methodology in the study consisted of lesson
interventions in a sequence of three lessons on university students, using in total 17 different mentor texts with consistency in topic and terminology. Escobar et al. concluded that text decoding and mentor texts when incorporated in EFL classroom showed positive outcomes. The learners showed significant improvements in decoding structures and writing when given guidance and feedback from instructor.
Imitation pedagogy has previously been studied in the field showing promise in developing proficiency in English for learners with English as a second language. Tat Heung and Ching Crystal Wong conducted an interventional study in Platform Nine and Three-Quarters’ and More: Scaffolding ESL Writing through Teacher Modelling and Creative Imitation on using imitation pedagogy for developing ESL learner’s ability to produce creative and effective narratives. The pedagogical intervention used a scaffolding approach in a grade nine class with English as a second language. The long-term goal with the study was for the learners to develop knowledge and skills that could enhance performance in high-stake exams. Heung and Wong concluded that imitation exercises with explicit writing instructions and support from teachers (giving necessary gradual support) proved successful in developing creative writing abilities (14).
9
Material and method
This project uses a lesson study design for conducting a collaborative study focused on refining practice. Lesson study is a form of action research where I in this case as a student researcher conducted an interventional study in upper-secondary school in an English 7 class. Peter Dudley in Lesson Study: A Handbook claims that following the lesson study model has several benefits for both teachers and students, because it aims to refine practice (1).
The lesson study consisted of initial meeting with the teacher of the lesson study group, in order to jointly plan lesson and gain insights to the learners’ previous knowledge in the topic of imitation, argumentation and text analysis. After that there was three lesson study cycles, each cycle followed the same structure: joint planning of research lesson, teaching/observing research lesson, interviews with three case-pupils, post lesson discussions, and then planning for next lesson together with the teacher. Post lesson thee there was also a discussion with the teacher where the final findings were established.
Data was collected from transcripts of recorded interviews after each research lesson together with three case-pupils (the same pupils all three lessons), and from pre- and post-lesson discussions together with the teacher. The interviews with the pupils were
semi-structured and conducted on volunteers. The in-service teacher and I selected three volunteers with the aim to get a variety in the students’ performance level. However, because of few volunteers, the three selected case-pupils were medium and high performers. Post-lesson discussions with teacher were semi-structured as well, containing questions on how the students responded to the teaching techniques and what developments that could be made to increase learning for next lesson. Data was also collected from students’ sample work of an imitation exercise in the last lesson. All data have been anonymized for ethical purposes. Therefore, the teacher is here on by referred to as T1, and the students as case-pupils or C1, C2, and C3. C1 and C2 were medium performers, and C3 was a high performer.
The material used when conducting this lesson study was all based on Nora Bacons textbook The Well-Crafted Sentence (A Writer’s Guide to Style), published in 2013. During the first lesson I first presented a consent form to the students (teacher signed consent form at initial meeting) that allowed me to collect data and to conduct my study. After that I gave a short presentation on linguistic features used in argumentative and persuasive texts for enhancing specific rhetorical objectives such as power. Examples of linguistic and grammatical features that were presented are coordinating and correlative conjunctions, parallel structure, repetition amongst other. These linguistic features became more relevant for
10
the learner when they in the second lesson did an analysis of the selected mentor text. In the end of the first lesson, I asked the class for the volunteers for the semi-structured interviews. See appendix 1 for lesson plan from first research lesson. The second lesson consisted of short repetition of the linguistic features that were introduced in the first research lesson, and then the students began analyzing by looking for these features in the three passages from Barack Obama’s speech “A More Perfect Union” from 2008 presented in Bacon (see appendix 2). The lesson finished off with a joint analysis of the passages to promote learning for all students in the class (199). The goal with the analysis was for the students to learn to notice and identify different internal structures and features in the speech. An extra focus was in the analysis on recognizing and identifying the newly learned linguistic and grammatical features. Lesson three consisted of imitation exercise 4G from Bacon’s textbook (see appendix 3). As help for the learners, an example imitation of Obama’s speech and scaffolding with fill-in-the-blank was provided (see appendix 4 and 5). Post lesson three there were final interviews with the volunteers and T1, and during these interviews there were discussions on overall findings from all the research lessons.
This lesson study was conducted at an upper-secondary school near the city centre in a medium-large city in late spring. The course was English 7, and the class consisted of 33 students in total, 15 males and 18 females. First complication was that many students were unaccounted for because of other curricular activities. This left the class with 14 students, 7 males and 7 females. Second complication was unforeseen and meant that the second and third research lesson had to continue with just the three case-pupils. All case-pupils had some background in linguistic features and text-analysis from English class. Although, they had never come across imitation assignments before. Even though all learners’ linguistic
knowledge were good, they were not all high achievers. Most students were able to produce well written work; however, it was a matter of motivation whether they worked or not. T1 had high proficiency in English and had worked as a teacher in the English subject for over twenty years.
Results
In this section I will present the findings from the lesson study. The results will be divided into subsections with interviews with teacher, interviews with case-pupils and the results from imitation exercise.
11
Prior to the intervention, T1 described the case-pupils as medium and high performers. The pupils were not necessarily high achievers, but competent and somewhat fluent in the English language. T1’s initial impression of imitation pedagogy and thoughts on how the students would respond was that the case-pupils would be well prepared. They had previously worked with stylistic devices such as repetition, metaphors, symbolism and idioms. The task was then to read and analyze Franz Kafka’s eight-page short story “A Hunger Artist”. The analytical focus was on figurative features, signs of the time and comparisons to modern literature. T1 also talked about successful teaching methods in his class and mentioned that implementing interactive elements had previously been effective. T1’s lessons had always been very interactive. For example, during lectures T1 would start talking and then invite people to comment and speculate on the topic. The lessons were interactive because T1 believed that usage is a key element in language development. In language development, T1 claimed that one must study theoretical parts such as grammar for example, and maybe look at structures and functions of certain language use. However, T1 argued that one does that by trying to use the language. Therefore, T1 made sure to always walk around and speak with the students whenever they were in the classroom, because it would enhance the students’ language learning in most situations.
In the discussions post lesson one, T1 explained that the students were not empty slates coming into this study. However, after the research lesson, T1 believed that their knowledge got deepened. T1 believed that the students got a grasp of the linguistic features that they were taught, and that they gained a better understanding of how certain language use could have different effects in certain situations. T1 saw the fact that the case-pupils were able to provide accurate example sentences containing the different linguistic features that they were taught as evidence of learning or comprehension. Although, T1 mentioned that since the students were not empty slates prior to the lesson study, one could never know if the students would have been able to produce the example sentences before the lecture started or not. T1 meant that establishing if the students learned something new or already possessed the knowledge was difficult to determine. A surprise from lesson one was that the students gave the impression that they were not familiar with the metalanguage concerning some of the grammatical features that were brought up, for example conjunctions. T1 was sure that the students knew what it was, which was why it came as a surprise. Nonetheless, T1 described the lecture on linguistic features and how language could be used to persuade an audience as successful. T1 thought that the students responded well to the teaching and that they listened intensely. It seemed as if they enjoyed the lesson and developed from what was taught.
12
According to T1, a common mistake that teachers make is to go deep and wide into a subject at the same time, because it takes too much time. However, this was not an issue for the first lesson. T1 thought that I had great terminology and great explanations of the terminology. Relevant key words for the analysis were thoroughly explained.
Post lesson two, T1 stated that the material used for the analysis was quite complex. However, this did not seem to be an issue for the case-pupils. T1 was sure that the students understood what they had been reading, and that the students learned how to notice and identify the different linguistic features they had been taught in Obama’s speech. However, T1 commented on the fact that two pupils missed to identify some of the features in the analysis that they were requested to identify on their own (those features they had been taught). Although, T1 argued that it was probably just sloppy work from the case-pupils. T1 explained that it was no surprise that C1 struggled to some extent to identify the different features. C2 was described by T1 as a talented person but somewhat of a slacker. However, T1 still thought that C2 got a deeper understanding of what had been taught than the other two. T1 also described C1 and C3 as more conscientious and ambitious than C2.
Moreover, T1 described the teaching technique in the second lesson as successful. T1 stated that based on his experience and intuition, the pupils responded well to my teaching. T1 thought that I seemed quite experienced in teaching and that it probably affected the outcome of the lessons in a positive way. The lesson was conducted in an excellent way and every part of the lesson was thoroughly planned and well delivered. Another thing T1 explained was the importance of being assertive and clear when teaching, because students respond to it and it could enhance the lesson’s outcome. Students are not always keen and motivated, but according to T1, this had been the case for the two first research lessons. T1 explained that managing to stimulate and motivate the students could enhance the students’ potential for learning. Another factor that could have increased the learning potential was that the case-pupils were already familiar with the teaching technique with interactive elements and analysis, because the students could then have better focus on the task at hand according to T1.
Furthermore, T1 mentioned the importance of being explicit when giving instructions or explanations. During the second lesson everything was thoroughly explained. However, T1 argued that one should not assume too much about the students’ knowledge. For example, words that are simple to some could be difficult to others. Therefore, if a text contains words that are not commonly used in everyday life, it is most often a good idea to provide
13
speech that the students analyzed. T1 stated that there was a lot of contextual terms in Obama’s speech that the students did not normally come across, especially in English. Therefore, T1 thought that it was good that I up front explained some of the more difficult words and conversed with the students during/after they had read the text to make sure that they understood everything. T1 explained that longer explanations of words should not be necessary, instead an option could be for the teacher to mention synonyms (in English) or ask students to check thesauruses. T1 said that teachers should promote students’ development to become self-reliant by providing strategies. If the teacher provided the translation of words every time a student asked for it, the student would most likely continue to ask instead of becoming more independent and finding the answer on his/her own. Then the students would probably have difficulties in learning how to correctly use these new words in sentences as well.
In the post lesson three discussions, T1 claimed that the students developed what was intended for them to develop during each lesson. All research lessons were well thought through and played out as they were planned. T1 said that the lesson plans were good, and the case-pupils enjoyed every lesson. T1 thought that the case-pupils not only learned how to use mentor texts, but also how to imitate them. The pupils learned how to do this because of the clear lesson design and the assignment instructions, according to T1. The case-pupils
responded to every lesson with motivation and keenness, which meant that when the students were asked to do something, they delivered. With the three research lessons in mind, T1 thought that the case-pupils argumentative abilities developed because they learned how to recognize persuasive language and how to compose persuasive production themselves. The development could be seen more clearly in C1 and C3, but it was obvious to T1 that all the case-pupils had developed their argumentative abilities. The development in C2 was more difficult to see because T1 described him as a “slacker”, but he had always been good at argumentative and creative writing.
T1 explained that the case-pupils are at a point in their life where they have just started to take an interest in societal matters and politics. Therefore, T1 thought that the case-pupils found the content interesting and that upper-secondary school would be perfect in time to introduce imitation exercises with political mentor texts. T1 believed that the case-pupils developed their capabilities to provide stronger contributions to societal and democratic contexts such as civic debates or other similar civic engagements, even though the case-pupils themselves could not see their improvements as clearly. T1 mentioned that it is difficult to see one’s own progress. However, as the case-pupils themselves had mentioned, they improved
14
their argumentative abilities, which T1 saw as key elements when participating in social and democratic contexts. According to T1, the case-pupils could probably approach
argumentations more effectively after the research lessons than they could before.
T1 saw many benefits from imitation pedagogy as a practice in Swedish upper-secondary school. T1 explained that the pedagogical approach awakened his interest and that there are innumerable variations of using imitations in practice. If one sees imitation pedagogy as beneficial, which T1 did, then one could incorporate imitation pedagogy to some degree in many other assignments and subjects as well. T1 mentioned that by introducing this to first year students, they would by the second year be completely familiar and confident with using model texts for developing their own writing. T1 argued that introducing imitation pedagogy early on would be beneficial for automatizing the use of mentor texts and imitation for the students so they could apply those strategies for developing reading and writing in other areas as well. Another thing T1 mentioned was that in his opinion, imitation pedagogy could
potentially help all students to develop, no matter their proficiency in English and/or talents in writing. T1 saw the transferability of imitation pedagogy to other situations and tasks as unexpected findings. T1 thought that being aware of how to use this pedagogy would be beneficial for both students and teachers, because of its potential for developing certain skills such as argumentative and creative writing, and that it is a brilliant way to approach teaching style. According to T1, ability to analyze and imitate texts is a useful skill that the students could have use of throughout their entire lives. For example, in other contexts it could be used for creating successful résumés for job employments or when preparing for important
presentations. Even though T1 had taught argumentative writing in his classes before, imitation pedagogy was a different approach to teaching style than he had previously come across.
Case-pupils
In the post lesson one interview with the case-pupils, the students were asked about what they enjoyed most with the lesson. All case-pupils responded with the same answer; they enjoyed the presentation. C1 and C3 mentioned that the Power-point presentation made it easier for them to understand what was being taught. C2 added that the reason why the presentation was easy to follow was because the examples of the linguistic and grammatical features in the presentation were thoroughly explained. The case-pupils also enjoyed learning how to use certain linguistic and grammatical features more effectively, for example
conjunctions, coordinate series, the echo effect with repetition and pairs, topic sentence and more. The case-pupils explained that they previously had struggled with using some of the
15
mentioned features, but after the first research lesson they got a better grasp of how to successfully do so. Furthermore, C3 mentioned that she thought all case-pupils learned how certain features could be used in written production for creating developed, well-balanced, and powerful sentences. When the case-pupils were asked about the teaching technique, C1 and C3 mentioned that it was good to have interactive parts in the lesson, and that they got to try their hands at writing sentences containing these different and previously mentioned features. C2 said that he learns better and faster if the lessons contain interactive parts. According to C2, interactive elements are good because it gives the students a break from being fed with information. If the same lesson was being taught to another group, the case-pupils would not change anything in the content. However, C1 argued that there should have been a longer presentation of the teacher. The argument was that it then would be easier for the students to share their thoughts and examples in front of the class, which in extent would help the teacher to see if the students fully comprehend what is being taught.
The case-pupils responded well to the second lesson. C1 expressed in the interview post the second lesson that it was good that they got to read the mentor text (Obama’s speech) on their own, and to individually try in find the linguistic and grammatical features. According to C3, by doing so the case-pupils got ideas of how they could use the structure and features in Obama’s speech in their own production. C2 said that the initial repetition of the linguistic and grammatical features made the second lesson better because it did not take too long to repeat, and it helped the students immensely when they were analyzing the passages. C3 agreed with the significance of the repetition and added that it was especially good since they did not remember every feature that they had been taught or their effect in sentences. Another thing the case-pupils mentioned were that the mentor text was appropriate in the level of difficulty. C3 appreciated that I provided the explanations of some difficult words in the text, because then she understood the passages better.
When the case-pupils were asked about what they had learned during the lesson, C1 and C3 answered how to find the different linguistic and grammatical features in written texts, and that they had gotten ideas on how to compose more powerful and effective own productions. C2 also mentioned a deepened understanding of how different features from Obama’s speech could be used in own production to achieve certain rhetorical effects. C2 thought that the lesson design with reading and analyzing a text was a great for promoting the development of the case-pupils writing abilities. All case-pupils thought that the instructions they had been given and the choice of mentor text was good. The pupils perceived the passages as
case-16
pupil thought that it was smart that I in the first lesson provided examples on some of the linguistic features from Obama’s speech, because then the students were familiar with parts of the text in the second lesson when they were going to analyze the mentor text. C2 mentioned that since he recognized parts of the text from the start, he was able to more quickly identify the different features in the text.
Moreover, if the lesson was taught again to another group, the case-pupils would not change anything in the lesson design. The case-pupils would not change anything in terms of instructions, choice of mentor text, and structure of the lesson. However, C2 gave a didactic suggestion that instead of sending the PowerPoint presentation to the students, I could instead have provided the students with hand-outs that contain shorter explanations of the different linguistic and grammatical features to look for. According to C2, the difference would be that the analysis exercise could have been carried out faster because it would be easier for the students to get an overview of the different features they were asked to look for.
In the post lesson three interview, the students evaluated all research lessons. C1 said that the third lesson with the imitation assignment was fun because it was not like other
assignments she was used to. C1 also mentioned when talking about all three interventional lessons that she enjoyed analyzing and imitating a political text because she perceived the topic as interesting and useful for her future participation in society. C2 claimed to after the three lessons have gotten a better grasp of how imitation works. When asked what the case-pupils had learned during the past three research lessons, the case-case-pupils mentioned how to analyze and notice different linguistic features in a persuasive political text, and how to imitate them. Furthermore, C2 claimed that the past three lessons had improved his writing abilities in terms of argumentative skills and text composition. C3 also mentioned learning to create stronger arguments by more efficiently using the different linguistic and grammatical features she had been taught, and with paragraph cohesion. Another thing the case-pupils mentioned was that they could use similar processes in other assignments to improve their work, and that it would be easier to analyze and imitate mentor texts in the future now when they know how it is done.
In the final interview, the case-pupils also discussed their development of argumentative abilities. C3 said that she developed her ability to analyze and imitate texts that contain successful argumentative writing, which C3 thought could enhance her own argumentative productions. C2 had improved the way he argues and elaborated by mentioning that he had learned how to compose stronger and more structured arguments. C2 claimed that after the lesson study, it would most likely be easier to create better productions with better flow in his
17
writing. C1 agreed with the other case-pupils, there had been similar developments in
argumentative abilities as for the others. In further discussions, the case-pupils mentioned that they after the study are more confident and comfortable with contributing to discussions or different civic engagements in democratic contexts. C2 became more confident in
wording/phrasing and had developed the ability to convey his arguments more effectively. C3 also mentioned more confidence in her writing abilities and more confident to contribute to different kinds of debate. C1 said that she gained more confidence in not only contributing to civic debates, but also smaller issues in everyday life where argumentative abilities are useful. The case-pupils enjoyed all three research lessons. C1 and C3 said that they would not change anything if the same lesson was taught to another group. They thought that the lessons were well structured from beginning to end. The instructions were clear, and support was provided when needed. C2 appreciated the short recaps from previous lessons because they served as reminders of what they had been taught. In addition, C2 mentioned that the didactic decision to provide instructions both orally and on paper, together with individual work was a good idea because it made the case-pupil more independent.
Imitations: C1:
Most adolescents feel like their future has been taken away by their leaders because of the way that they’re handling climate change... So when they are told to not panic because they are too young to understand; when they are told not to act as if the house is on fire even though it is; when they’re told that everything will be okay and that they have a bright future ahead of them; even though we are heading to a point where there is no turning back yet our leaders are doing nothing, resentment will build over time.
The profound mistake that our leaders make is not that they haven’t done enough in the past. It’s that they’re still ignoring the problem as if the sea level isn’t rising 3,2 mm each year; as if we don’t have to increase our greenhouse gases by 45% by 2030 in order for nature to have the slightest chance of surviving; as if this world – a world that has made it possible for life to exist, all thanks to nature – is still irrevocably bound to a tragic end.
For we have a choice in this world. We can accept whatever is happening to nature and humans and animals… We can let our leaders continue to destroy our chance of having a future, just so they can live a comfortable life and only talk about everything they are doing wrong from this day, until it’s too late and the only question we will ask ourselves are
18
whether or not they did enough. We can pounce on some gaffe by the world leaders as
evidence that they in fact didn’t do enough, or we can sit around and wait until its too late. We can do that. But If we do, I can tell you that nothing will change. We’ll be sitting here talking about what that leader did wrong. And then what another one did. And then another one. And nothing will change. This is one option. Or, at this moment, in this time, we can come
together and say, “Not this time….”. C2:
Most low- and middle-income people don’t feel that they have been especially trusted by their landlords… So when they are told to believe what the landlords promises; when they have to put their trust in a second- or third-hand contract without guarantees; when they’re told that the landlord has their best interest in mind even when they have felt betrayed before, resentment builds over time.
The profound mistake of landlords is not that they think about the money first. It’s that they speak of the residents as if they are ice-cream shop customers; as if they didn’t build their life in the apartments; as if these second hand residents – residents that have made it possible for him to pay his rent and make a good profit and live a good life for many years – is still irrevocably bound to make his life harder.
For we have a choice in this debate. We can accept being wrongfully evicted and badly treated and having to pay too much in rent… We can play into the landlord’s hands, month after month, and talk about them in silence from now until we die and make the only question in this discussion whether or not we somehow believe or sympathize with the way the
landlords are treating us. We can pounce on some gaffe by a landlord as evidence that they will never listen to us tenants, or we can speculate on how many landlords would actually change without ever standing up and resisting against the landlords, regardless of how many of us that demands it. We can do that. But if we do, I can tell you that we will never get the just treatment we want, we’ll be talking about some other landlord treating us badly without changing. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change. This is one option. Or, at this moment, in this discussion we rise against, we can come together and say, ‘’Not this time….’’.
19
Most vegetarians in the world don’t feel that their choice of eating greens and protecting animals has been particularly appreciated by meat-eaters… so when they are told to eat meat for a better health; when they see all the meat shops and restaurants around them promoting meat with a cheaper price than most vegetables and fruits because of injustice that they themselves can’t change; when they’re told that they are stupid for not eating meat like a normal person, resentment builds over time.
The profound mistake of meat eaters was not about the ability to eat vegetables and greens in society. It’s that the meat eaters spoke as if eating meat didn’t affect the environment; as if no care and protection of animals is necessary; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for vegetarians to be able to practice their diets by providing everything they need for a healthy diet, young and old, female and male, rich and poor – is still irrevocably bound to a behaviour that is animal murdering.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a decision that breeds disrespect and conflicts and cynicism … we can listen to a meat eater’s arguments on every place, every day, and talk about them from now until the end of the time and make the only one question in this problem whether or not meat eaters think that vegetarians somehow believe or sympathize their arguments about not harming animals. We can pounce on some gaffe by vegetarians as evidence that they do harm animals in other ways, or we can speculate on whether vegetarians will accept the fact that everyone around the globe eat meat and harm animals in general, regardless of any consequences that could result in harming animals. We can do that. But if we do, I can tell that in the next debate, we will be talking about some other stupid reason to eat meat. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change. This is on option. Or, at this moment in this, debate, we can come together and say, “Not this time…”.
Discussion/Analysis
In this section, I will discuss and analyze the data collected from the lesson study to answer my research questions. Furthermore, I will establish whether my hypothesis was accurate or not. The findings from the lesson study will be discussed in two separate themes; theme one is on the development of students reading and writing abilities, and theme two concerns the use of political mentor texts and whether or not they can be used to enhance students’ contributions to democratic contexts. The research questions were:
• Does imitation pedagogy with political mentor texts develop students’ language awareness, language control, and argumentative ability in reading and writing?
20
• Does imitating political texts prepare students to participate in civic discussions and debates?
My hypothesis was that using mentor texts with political topics in imitation pedagogy develops students’ argumentative abilities; the learners can through imitation pedagogy be taught to recognize linguistic features in political texts that aim to persuade audiences, and the learners could imitate these mentor texts to produce own successful argumentative writing. Development of reading and writing abilities
The outcome from each lesson taught is largely affected by the teaching approach and instructions provided. T1 with over twenty years of experience in teaching claimed that poor teaching approach massively affects the lessons outcome. It is important for a teacher to be assertive and clear when giving instructions for enhancing learning, according to T1. Moreover, T1 mentioned that the research lessons were thoroughly planned and well delivered, and that “probably had a positive effect on the outcome of the lessons” (T1).
Furthermore, T1 thought the case-pupils responded to all research lessons with motivation and keenness, and the case-pupils specifically mentioned that the instructions they had been given were good. Therefore, the teaching approach and instructions given most likely had a positive impact on the lessons and their outcome.
There are evidence of the case-pupils learning and development of reading and writing abilities from all research lessons. Even though only three interventional lessons were conducted and the focus for each lesson differed, the case-pupils developed their writing and reading abilities. In the first lesson, the students listened to a presentation and had to provide example sentences of what was being taught. T1 argued that evidence of learning or
comprehension from the first lesson can be seen by the fact that the case-pupils were able to provide accurate example sentences containing different linguistic and grammatical features. Furthermore, C2 developed his knowledge of linguistic and grammatical features that led him to be able to “quickly identify the different features in the text” during the analysis in lesson two. Evidence of learning in the second lesson is that the case-pupils were able to identify different features in Obama’s speech. As C1 and C3 mentioned, they had learned “how to find the different linguistic and grammatical features in written texts”, and the case-pupils also learned how these features could be used in written compositions to achieve certain rhetorical effects. However, in lesson three where the focus was on the imitation, one can see some difficulties in learning. Dorfman and Cappelli argue that learners can through imitation learn to write and create written productions that are of high-quality, and that mirror the models in
21
many ways (7). Although, the case-pupils during lesson three struggled with imitating the mentor text and to write with parallel structure to the model. For example, C2 missed to imitate parts of sentences from the mentor text. The fact that the case-pupils were able to identify all the different features in the text during lesson two shows that the students knew what features to include in their own production. Therefore, an explanation could be either unclear instructions or insufficient scaffolding. Another explanation could also be that the case-pupils may have thought that they understood the imitation concept and therefore did not ask for the necessary help. Another reason could be that the students in fact learned to write with parallel structure but simply rushed through the exercise, which could have caused the student to miss to imitate parts of the mentor text. Another explanation of why the imitation exercise was difficult for the students could be because imitative work involves practicing reading and writing in new patterns (Sellers 55).
This interventional study with imitation pedagogy enhanced the case-pupils language awareness. As Garrett and James mention, language awareness is an awareness of the function certain language use can have in different social contexts (330). The pupils reading abilities and language awareness developed during the first and second research lesson, seeing as they had learned the effect that certain language use could have in societal and political contexts. Moreover, the pupils learned to recognize and notice certain language use in written text that aims to be persuasive. As the case-pupils explained, they got a better grasp of the different linguistic and grammatical features that could be used for developing sentences and creating more powerful arguments in writing. C1 explained that the second research lesson made the case-pupils think “about how they could use the linguistic features in own production”. Furthermore, C2 mentioned that it was easy during the analysis to identify the different features. Thus, the case-pupils developed their language awareness, which in extent also developed the pupils reading and writing abilities.
During the three research lessons, the case-pupils demonstrated good language control and creativity. As previously mentioned in this essay, imitation is concerned with reading and writing in new patterns (Sellers 55). Based on the imitation exercise from research lesson three, the case-pupils showed fluency, coherency and accuracy in their language use. Even though the case-pupils struggled to some extent with keeping parallel structure to the mentor text, the pupils’ productions contained the same key linguistic and grammatical features as in Obama’s speech. The fact that the pupils were able to produce accurate sentences, even though they were not always able to keep parallel structure, show that the case-pupils had
22
language control and creativity. The language control is promoted through imitation pedagogy because it forces the learner to write in new ways. The students are forced to use their
language control to produce sentences with the mentor text and the different linguistic and grammatical features in mind. therefore, practicing imitation does not only promote the students’ language control, but also creative writing. This can be seen in previous research as well, where for example Heung and Wong argued in their interventional study that imitation exercises develop the learners’ creative writing abilities (14).
Imitation pedagogy in practice can enhance the learners’ argumentative abilities.
According to Flachmann and Flachmann, both audience and purpose needs to be considered when composing argumentative writing (420). The background information on Obama’s speech provided the case-pupils with the contexts and circumstances of the speech. The pupils were for the imitation exercise asked to come up with similarly momentous topic as to the mentor text in order to match their production to Obama’s speech in terms of recipient and purpose. By trying to match the recipients and purpose of Obama’s speech to the case-pupils own imitative work, the students gained opportunity to create own strong and persuasive argumentative production. Moreover, all case-pupils perceived development of their argumentative abilities. For example, C3 was after the study able to “create stronger
arguments”, and C2 had learned how to “compose stronger and more structured arguments”. Moreover, T1 whom had been the pupils’ teacher for three years also claimed to have seen development in the students’ argumentative abilities. T1 mentioned that it was seen more clearly in C1 and C3, but T1 was sure that all the case-pupils had developed. Thus, according to T1 and the case-pupils, imitation pedagogy with political mentor texts can develop
argumentative abilities in both medium (C1 and C2) and high performers (C3). Political mentor texts and ability to participate in democratic contexts
Mentor texts with political topic promote the case-pupils’ development in ability to deliver more effective argumentations and enhance the learners’ contributions to different civic debates and discussions. As Dorfman and Cappelli argue, mentor texts show students how to write, and can serve as a resource and support for writers to produce what they have not yet learned to do on their own (7). The learners can grow as writers and develop their creativity by attempting to imitate style, focus, and/or organization of different mentor texts. A mentor text with political topic allows the learners to analyze and imitate the text’s structure for developing own argumentative abilities. Garrett and James argue that critical language awareness is important in the context of participating in different civic and democratic
23
engagements (331). Critical language awareness can be developed through dealing with different argumentative and persuasive texts, and by analyzing the internal structures and features in those text that makes them persuasive. Imitation pedagogy with political mentor texts allow the learner to do just that. Moreover, Ronald Carter claims that all texts reflect their contemporary time and always play a part in wider social struggles (64). Furthermore, Garrett and James mention that expressions of power through language and political manipulation can be countered by being critical and aware of certain language use (331). Therefore, a teacher can through selecting political mentor texts in imitation pedagogy work towards preparing students for democratic participation, because the pedagogy promotes abilities and skills that are necessary when participating in different social and political contexts. For example, the learners develop CLA which is important for avoiding social and political manipulation, and the learners develop their argumentative abilities which are necessary when making a point or convincing oppositions.
Furthermore, the pedagogy promotes the development of abilities that enhance learners’ contribution and participation in civic discussions and debates, and that also can enhance the learners’ self-confidence in writing. For example, C2 claimed to after the three research lessons have become more “confident in wording/phrasing and had developed the ability to convey his arguments more effectively”. C3 mentioned “more confidence in her writing abilities and more confident to contribute to different kind of debates”. In addition to confidence and improved quality in writing, C1 talked about enhanced confidence in
contributing to both civic debates and smaller everyday issues where argumentative abilities could be valuable. T1 explained that it is difficult to see one’s own progress; however, T1 saw improved argumentative abilities in the pupils. Furthermore, T1 stated that the case-pupils probably could “approach argumentations more effectively than they could before”, and he argued that argumentative abilities are key elements when participating in different social and democratic contexts. Thus, imitation pedagogy enhances learners’ contribution to debates, discussions or forums in different social and democratic contexts.
Upper-secondary school is suitable for introducing imitation pedagogy with political mentor texts. T1 explained that “the case-pupils are at a point in their life where they have just started to take an interest in societal matters and politics”. Meaning that the case-pupils found the content of the lessons interesting, which “motivated them to read and analyze more thoroughly”. Another reason to introduce political mentor texts and imitation pedagogy in upper-secondary school is for learners to keep up with the ever-evolving academic, cultural
24
and political exchanges on a global level (Escobar et al. 95). Even though the case-pupils might not be entirely aware at the time of their developments in relation to enhanced contributions to different debates or discussions in democratic contexts. A third reason that speaks for implementing imitation pedagogy is that the pedagogy promotes development of abilities which can be connected to stated goals with the education in upper-secondary school in the Swedish national curriculum. For example, The Swedish National Ministry of
Education mentions that a goal with the education is to prepare students for active participation in society (6). Imitation pedagogy promotes that purpose by enhancing communicative abilities, which are required for participating in societal and working life. Unexpected findings
The first unexpected finding was that imitation pedagogy facilitates learner autonomy. During the research lessons, the learners were taught how to scaffold a mentor text and how to imitate written work. These are strategies that can facilitate learning and learner autonomy. Teaching conscious strategies and techniques allow the learners to become more self-reliant and take on more responsibility (Hedge 79). Looking at the result from interviews, the case-pupils appreciated that they were provided with instructions and then got to try the different strategies themselves. As mentioned by the case-pupil, C2 became more independent and reliant. According to T1, “teachers should promote students’ development to becoming self-reliant by providing strategies”. Thus, imitation pedagogy facilitates learner autonomy. The second unexpected finding was the teacher’s perception of imitation pedagogy and its transferability to other subjects and situations. The pedagogical approach seemed to have awakened an interest with the teacher. T1 explained in the interviews that “there are
innumerable variations of using this type of idea” and that it could be incorporated to some degree in other subjects and assignments as well. Meaning that the idea with imitation and mentor texts could be applied to other subjects, with mentor texts that are relevant for that subject and assignment topic specifically. Imitation pedagogy could in that sense be beneficial in many ways, because it “could help all students to develop”, no matter proficiency or talents in writing according to T1.
Conclusion
In conclusion, imitation pedagogy develops and enhances the case-pupils’ language awareness, argumentative abilities, and ability to provide stronger contributions to civic debates and discussions. The development occurred first through learning different linguistic
25
and grammatical features that could be used to add power to arguments in written
compositions. Then development occurred through practicing to notice and identify these features by analyzing the mentor text. In the third lesson the case-pupils developed their writing abilities through practicing to write in new patterns with the different features in their own productions (the imitation exercise). The case-pupils developed their communicative skills reading and writing, which are skills that according to T1 is a necessity for when participating in societal and working life. Moreover, imitation pedagogy enhances the learners’ confidence and improve their writing capabilities, meaning the ability to compose stronger argumentations in writing in different situations varying from smaller everyday issues to larger societal/political issues. Therefore, imitation pedagogy promotes and enhances contributions to different social and democratic contexts.
Furthermore, imitation pedagogy promotes language control and critical language
awareness. The case-pupils displayed and worked with language control during the imitation exercise where they managed to carry out the exercise with language accuracy, fluency, and coherency. The students developed critical language awareness through acquiring knowledge of different linguistic and grammatical features that can add power to written compositions in different social and democratic contexts. Furthermore, the students learned how to recognize these features that make the text persuasive in the political mentor text used in this study. By learning how to recognize these features, the learners can become more aware of manipulative language in political texts and more effectively counter them.
Further research
Firstly, this study was conducted on medium to high performers in an English 7 class in upper-secondary school. An interesting idea for further research could be to conduct the same study with political topic in secondary school and compare the outcomes. Secondly, as the text-type of the mentor text can determine which abilities that will be promoted, it would be interesting to see the effects of switching from an argumentative text-type and political topic to promote other abilities. Thirdly, an idea for further research is to conduct the same
interventional study with the same lesson plans to see if the outcome from imitation pedagogy differs between low, medium and high performers.
