ࡱ> q` ?bjbjqPqP .::~%fff84T6]22"TTTTTT\\\\\\\$^hda\$TT$$\TT\***$TT\*$\**Wl1\T& PjLqf',UY*Q\d]06]Yrb*rbT1\rb1\ TN *n ""TTT\\*XTTT6]$$$$ff RELC Title What constitutes good practice in teaching academic literacies? Abstract In the multicultural student body at English-medium tertiary institutions today, teachers find that they can no longer make assumptions about student preparedness for tertiary learning. Many students do not have the academic literacy skills in English to enable them to learn effectively Thus the teaching of these skills needs to be included in discipline programmes. But who is to teach them, subject teachers or language teachers? If subject teachers, then how can they be given the additional support they need to promote language development in their teaching? If language teachers, then how can they ensure that they teach the literacy skills that the particular subject requires? This paper focuses on the various models used at the Auckland University of Technology to cater for the English language needs of students in different faculties. It discusses structures and processes that support the teaching of academic literacy skills as central to developing students ability to master their discipline. It presents models of language teachers delivering courses in academic literacy skills alongside the subject classes (adjunct course) and of subject teachers including academic literacy skills in mainstream programmes (integrated course). It identifies examples of good practice and formal and informal academic development events that arise in the design of courses with a dual focus on discipline content and language. Introduction In the multicultural student body at English-medium tertiary institutions today, teachers find that, in regard to English language competence, they can no longer make assumptions about student preparedness for tertiary learning. Many students do not have the academic literacy skills in English to be able to learn effectively and to communicate their learning appropriately. Studies show that throughout the English speaking world large numbers of tertiary students entering university are not adequately prepared for the demands of academic discourse (ICAS, 2000; Bartlett & Chanock, 2003). Many enter their courses with little knowledge of the discipline-specific conventions of communication within their field of study and will therefore need support as they start their university studies (Bartlett & Chanock, 2003). One way of adjusting to these changing needs is for the discipline content and the skills to learn and communicate it to be taught together. The combined teaching of language and discipline skills "requires a cultural change that is difficult in many educational institutions" (Graddol, 2006, p.86): neither time nor opportunity for this area of academic development is available and courses tend to grow organically (Graddol, 2006). The teaching of academic literacy skills should not be regarded as a remedial activity on the margins of university study (Johns,1997), but central to university learning, taught along with discipline knowledge, addressing the needs of all students. Many of the teaching skills required are good teaching practice for all teachers. Good teaching practice may now be considered to be student-centred and to focus on "what the students are doing rather than what the teacher does" (Biggs, 1999, p.139). With this as a guiding principle, the needs of a linguistically diverse class are more likely to be met. Teaching a linguistically diverse class effectively does not always require specific literacy skills on the part of the teacher. It need not involve too much extra time, effort or expertise, as small but significant routines can bring substantial learner gains. One initial step is for all tertiary teachers to realise that they can endeavour to be more explicit with their learners (Leung, 2005) about the conventions of academic language. If teachers understand that content mastery is facilitated by improved literacy skills, then they can adapt their teaching to provide students with the tools to access knowledge more readily (Snow, 1997). An even more compelling argument is that these academic literacy skills may be the key to future employment (Jones and Sin, 2002; Baldauf, 1996). This paper takes as a given that disciplinary knowledge and discourse need to be taught within a discipline, as each has its specific conventions for communicating knowledge (Mullins, Quintrell and Hancock, 1995; Street, 2004; Baldauf, 1996; Bartlett and Chanock, 2003; Jones and Sin, 2002). It examines various models for teaching academic literacy skills on a discipline basis to cater for the English language needs of students in a range of faculties at the Auckland university fo technology. It discusses structures and processes designed to support and enhance the teaching of academic literacy skills as central to developing students ability to master their discipline. It also identifies examples of good practice, and explores the formal and informal ways that academic development takes place when programmes offer a dual focus on both discipline content and language. Throughout this paper I shall refer to learning advisors, and those concerned with staff development as academic developers and ESOL or language / literacy advisors as language experts. In cases where the roles are combined, I shall refer to academic developers. Discipline, subject or content experts will be referred to as discipline teachers. Curriculum development and class room delivery There appear to be two key stages for ensuring that academic literacy skills are included in programmes, curriculum development and classroom delivery. Both need to be in place for successful literacy outcomes. At the curriculum design stage, literacy skills need to be embedded into the learning outcomes and aligned with assessments, thus ensuring that they are explicitly included in the curriculum. But good programme design alone is not enough to ensure that academic literacy skills are taught effectively. Well-designed programmes need support at the implementation stage. They need to be taught by teachers who understand the principles of the design and are able to transfer the aims of the curriculum into deliberate acts of teaching. This requires an understanding of language development and discipline content, and it also requires the teaching skills to integrate language with content and to help learners communicate their learning My focus here is on the second stage, on the implementation of academic literacy goals which are crucial to meeting literacy outcomes. The decision about who is to teach these skills, discipline teachers or language teachers, determines the nature and degree of professional development required. If discipline teachers teach the course , then they may need additional support so that they learn to promote language development in their teaching. Academic literacy skills have been acquired by discipline experts in the course of their career development. Reflecting on and articulating their own learning processes may help them teach their skills to the next generation of students. If language teachers teach the course, then they may need to become familiar with the discipline and its specific literacy conventions. Language experts can use their understanding of how language works to acquire the discipline-specific discourse. Both language and discipline experts need time and professional development tailored to their particular needs. Many studies explore the application of language skills to content subjects (Holder, Jones, Robinson, and Krass, 1999; Barton and Neville-Barton, 2003) and the roles a language educator ( literacy specialist) or discipline teacher can take on in a content / language approach. The present discussion takes a range of successful language /content courses at one university as a starting point to present a picture of good practice in teaching academic literacy skills in English at tertiary institutions. What is good practice? There is a lack of specific criteria to establish good practice in teaching adjunct and integrated language / content courses at tertiary level. The criteria for distinguished teaching awards, Tertiary Teaching Excellence Awards 2006, Challenging Conceptions of Good Teaching, 1999, for example, are necessarily generic. I have used Yeatman's test of good practice, "does it work?" (Yeatman, 1996b, p.25) to determine what is included as good practice in academic literacies. However, one needs to ask, who does it work for? There are multiple stakeholders: teachers, students and colleagues. For the purposes of this study, evidence of whether it works is drawn largely from a report on teachers and students perceptions of academic literacy skills (Sanders, Newall, Kirkness and Daldy, 2004). The data has also been checked against the Annual Programme Surveys at AUT from 2002-2004 which rate students satisfaction with their courses over a range of items. Developing students' academic literacy skills in English in conjunction with their conceptual thinking about the discipline depends on expertise from both the area of English language and the target discipline. But there are no rules about bow this should be done and "diverse practices have evolved" (Graddol, 2006, p.86). Lee (1997) argues for a mutually beneficial relationship of "co-production" which she defines as the merging of two fields of knowledge in the production of a third(Lee, 1997, p.77). One example of this is team teaching. While it may be an ideal combination of expertise, it is normally considered too expensive to be a viable and realistic option. Other models include adjunct and integrated courses. In adjunct courses a language educator teaches language while a discipline teacher teaches content. In integrated courses the same teacher teaches both content and language - either a language teacher who develops the discipline teaching expertise or a discipline expert who develops language teaching expertise. Good practice in adjunct courses If language is taught in an adjunct course, experts in language usually teach a language course separately from the discipline course. The degree to which the language course relates to the discipline content and vice versa will depend on the individual teachers of each course. At its simplest, this servicing or cross- faculty teaching may be no more than an administrative link through ensuring that course timetables do not clash. Language expertise is brought in' to cover the gaps that the discipline experts can't cover or don't want to. This model may not add language teaching skills to content teaching skills for discipline teachers, but students can benefit from a full and balanced programme. The model makes minimal demands on the teachers' extending their understanding to another discipline. Ideally, however, both disciplines can see adjunct courses as a learning opportunity, through the sharing of different disciplinary knowledge and the commitment to a common goal for the course in question. It can exemplify co-production (Lee, 1997) at its best. Nevertheless, the success of collaboration between the teachers may depend on administrative rather than discipline factors. The host department needs to work effectively with service providers for successful outcomes (Lee, 1997) and this needs careful planning. It is essential that there is a clear agreement between the two departments so that the expectations of each are clarified and all aspects of the course are discussed in detail (see model appendix 1). Language providers may also need to ask questions such as: What is the language teachers responsibility for marking and awarding grades on the language in assignments? If the host school decides that the service should be adapted to better meet the students' needs, what is the recommended course of action? If the language service is no longer required, what is the protocol for discontinuing what may be the substantive employment of teachers in another school? As later difficulties can often be traced back to a lack of clarity in administrative procedures, a clear statement of responsibilities is a safeguard against the unexpected. It is also a step towards ensuring an enriching collaborative relationship. The vast majority of collaborative adjunct models at our university have been mutually enriching for both disciplines. Good practice has been learned by trial and error. Some examples are listed below: A contractual agreement is drawn up for both parties, with full details about the aims and implementation of the course (see appendix 1). A language expert engages with the discipline content and interviews teaching staff about their literacy practices in the discipline. S/he then summarises the findings for them, shapes a curriculum according to the discipline needs and offers it for comment by discipline teachers. . A language expert enrols in the course in the host discipline as a participant to become fully familiar with the relevant discipline discourse and terminology. Teachers of the respective host and servicing disciplines collaborate on the design, implementation and assessment of the course but deliver their individual discipline expertise separately. The teachers meet regularly so that they can deliberately reinforce the teaching outside their discipline.. Teachers of both host and servicing disciplines find a "buddy" in the other team so that each can refer questions to a specialist on an informal basis. This relationship can develop into teaching conversations, sharing teaching strategies or discussing the needs of weak students. The programme leaders of both courses meet regularly to discuss student progress and to share information which is passed on to colleagues in each teaching team. In one course the prescribed text book integrates all skills. For teaching purposes, discipline and language experts each teach chapters relevant to their skills and synchronise their delivery. For example, the content of a curriculum vitae for the hospitality industry might be discussed in the discipline class, the writing of the curriculum vitae carried out in the language class and the formatting of it in the information technology class in the same week. Good practice in integrated courses The success of the integrated model depends largely on the discipline expertise and teaching skills of the individual teacher. A student- centred approach to teaching will encourage teachers to evaluate their communication from the point of view of the learner and be explicit to students about their expectations. Good teaching strategies can benefit all students (Biggs, 1999). For example, a lesson outline can be shown to students at the start of each class (Guskey, 1997), or a brief review of the last session can be conducted, linking it to the forthcoming one. New words can be introduced and explained. Teachers can be encouraged to highlight these words in their own text so that they ensure that time is allowed for them to be practised and used by everyone, not just the teacher. Teachers who understand that students may learn better with visual support for oral delivery use graphs, charts, power point handouts, board, wall displays, and posters as a routine part of teaching. Furthermore, text does not need to be dense and difficult for any students. Teachers can break it up with headings, prepare clear uncluttered teaching materials (power point or OHTs) and add key questions to readings to help students question what they read. If concepts are difficult, teachers can get students to discuss them with each other in buzz groups, identify the confusion and then clarify it with the teacher. The above strategies are basic teaching strategies, whatever the discipline. They lay the foundations for good learning in the support they provide for all students. Some examples of good practice are listed below: Time is set aside for a discipline teaching team to engage in reading, discussion and consultancies. The team members explore the academic literacy of their discipline together and they support each other in learning to teach it. Teachers initiate peer observation partnerships to encourage each other to develop greater language awareness in their delivery. A model with pertinent questions for discipline teachers to ask about their planning and delivery (see appendix 2) has been designed to guide them in this endeavour. Teachers invite a language expert to organise a language needs analysis for their students in order to find out their students' own perceptions of their language needs. Equally, they may request the language educator to carry out an objective language assessment of each student to build a profile of the literacy skills in a particular cohort. Teachers work collaboratively, with advice from a language expert as required, to enhance resources from a language perspective e.g. preparing reading guidelines. One teacher enlists expertise from a language expert and shares findings with the team, e.g. a discipline teacher asks a language educator about the number of new terms to teach in a given session or course and a method for teaching them. One case study of an integrated course If, by chance, teachers in a discipline also have language expertise or vice versa, they are ideally placed to draw on their knowledge of both fields for the benefit of the students. The School of Art and Design, AUT, is lucky enough to have a practising artist who also became a published expert in academic literacies. The paper he designed, Academic Literacies for Art and Design, integrates language and discipline teaching in every unit. More than just a subject discipline expert, the teacher takes responsibility for teaching students how to write essays and how to read texts. Skills in both content and language lead to insights that benefit the course. What does such a course look like in detail? A few examples from the student course book will elucidate how students are introduced to visual culture as well as academic literacies. Each artistic era is the focus of study but also a vehicle for teaching academic literacy skills. In the context of historical approaches to art, genres are introduced (the letter, the review) along with a short reading task, library and information searching tasks. For example, the Renaissance is introduced as the subject of study along with the essay writing process. There is a diagram on essay planning, work on transition words and a table to show the differences between describing and analysing with appropriate verbs. Terms are defined as well as re-occurring concepts. The length and complexity of the articles for reading increases gradually as students develop their understanding of the discipline. A further period of art is a vehicle for teaching how to give oral presentations. Vocabulary discussion questions are set out so that they can be easily projected on OHP. Furthermore, students are taught how to organise a seminar linking ideas and marshalling an argument, e.g. on comparing Renaissance concepts with NZ art. Students are also taught how to ask questions, and participate in class so that they can learn tertiary educational conventions as they study the subject. Such a curriculum has a clear focus " on learning and the learners" (Guskey, 1997). The skills that would be allocated to the language expert in an adjunct course are taught by the discipline expert, thereby strengthening the message that the communication of learning is as valuable as the learning itself. No assumptions are made about students' understanding of tertiary learning. Teaching delivery is based on the premise that all students, both well -prepared and non-traditional, will benefit from an explicit teaching of academic ways of communicating. Policy underpinning practice The staff who teach todays students may be as varied in their backgrounds as the students themselves. They may come from different cultures of education, and they may have different levels of understanding about educational practice. Recognising the demographic changes in our teaching population as well as in the classroom, AUT has developed a policy on Academic Literacies that undertakes, among other things, to provide all staff with the support they may need to promote language development. In the Centre for Educational and Professional Development, a range of workshops and consultancies is offered addressing issues of language and culture. At a general level the workshops introduce discipline teachers across all faculties to the idea of including language outcomes in their programme and broadening their teaching strategies to enhance language development. There are also more specific workshops and consultancies on inducting students into the skills of reading, writing and critical thinking as well as vocabulary and language assessment. Underpinning the policy is a growing awareness that changing demographics in our society demand changing skills and capabilities. It is also becoming increasingly apparent that monolingual English-speaking teachers are often at a disadvantage as they lack the experience of many of their students from diverse backgrounds. They may have other ways of seeing the world. But how can they acquire other ways of understanding the world? Professional development can help increase a teachers ability to adopt a student-centred focus and can help change teachers practice so that student learning might be improved (Gibbs and Coffey, 2004). With this in mind, an option was offered for content teachers to complete a basic ESOL qualification, a Certificate in Language Teaching to Adults. One requirement on this certificate course is a commitment to learning another language, based on the principle that being in the learners shoes will benefit every language teacher. Another feature of the course is practical experience in communicating using English as an additional language learners at a basic level. This can be a salutary experience for many who have been able to travel the world with English as a lingua franca. In addition, participants learn about language acquisition and the time it takes to acquire academic language skills (Cummins, 1989), the way all four skills reinforce each other, and the fact that it is difficult to retain more than a few new words in one lesson. Mainstream tertiary teachers who have completed this course attest to the way it transformed their teaching (Kirkness, 2005). They become more aware of their own language use in their discipline and reflect on how they can induct their students into this discourse. They also become aware of their own gaps in literacy learning and have the opportunity to up-skill (Skillen & Mahony, 1997). But such structured professional development is not the only way to influence the teaching of academic literacy skills. Collaborative work between language experts and discipline teachers, whether formal or informal, can provide a rich source of professional development. Not to be underestimated are the "networks of sympathetic colleagues" (Knapper, 2000, p.) interested in the academic literacy of their discipline and willing to join a reading or research group. Project work of this nature can be specific, limited in time and cross-disciplinary. In this paper I have put forward some suggestions for good practice in teaching academic literacies and outlined some forms of professional development that teachers may be helpful in teaching them. Whether adjunct or integrated courses are selected and whatever their professional development implications might be , all teachers, in my view, need to promote language and literacy development. Tertiary teachers in the 21st century need to engage with holistic teaching (Biggs, 1999; Ramsden, 2003) and acknowledge the key role that language plays in learning and communicating discipline knowledge. Bibliography Baldauf, R. (1996). Tertiary Language Literacy and Communication Policies: Needs and Practice. Proceedings of Tertiary Literacy Conference, Victoria University of Technology, Melbourne 1996. 1-32. Bartlett, A and Chanock, K. (2003). The Missing Part of the Student Profile Jigsaw: Academic Skills Advising for Australian Tertiary Students form Non-English Speaking Backgrounds. Canberra: Academic Skills and Learning Centre. Barton, B. and Neville-Barton, P., (2003). Language issues in undergraduate mathematics: A report of two studies. New Zealand Journal of Mathematics 3, 19-28. Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Challenging Conceptions of Good Teaching: Some prompts for good practice. HERDSA. Retrieved March 9, 2006 from http://www.csd.uwa.edu.au/HERDSA/conceptions.htm Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering Minority Students. Sacramento, California: California Association for Bilingual Education. Gee, J. P. (1990). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Falmer Press. Gibbs, G., and Coffey, M. (2004).The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. active learning in higher education 5 (1), 87-100.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Graddol, D. (2006). English Next. England : British Council. Guskey, T. (1997). Research Needs to Link Professional Development and Student Learning. Journal Of Staff Development18, 2 36-40. Hattie, J. (2005). What is the nature of evidence that makes a difference to learning? ACER Conference proceedings 2005, Using data to support learning. Melbourne 11-21. Holder, G., J. Jones, Robinson, R.A., and Krass, I. (1999). Academic Literacy Skills and Progression Rates Amongst Pharmacy Students. Higher Education Research and Development 18 (1), 19-30. Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates of the California Community Colleges, the California State University and the University of California (ICAS). (2002). Academic Literacy: A Statement of Competencies Expected of Students Entering California's Public Colleges and Universities. Sacramento, California: ICAS. Johns, A. (1997). Text, Role, and Context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jones, A and Sin, S. (2002). Perceptions and priorities of diverse groups of 1st year accounting students with regard to generic skills / accounting skills. Retrieved January 25, 2006, from http://www.ecu.edu.au/conferences/herdsa/main//papers/nonref/pdf/Alan Jones.pdf Kirkness, A. (2005). Raising intercultural and linguistic awareness: Reflections on a pilot study in language teacher education for content teachers. In G. Wigglesworth, Refereed Proceedings of the Marking our Difference Conference 2003, Melbourne, 116-129 Knapper, C. (2000). The politics of academic development. The International Journal for Academic Development , 1 (10), 1-5. Lee, A. (1997). Working Together? Academic Literacies , Co-production and Professional Partnerships. Literacy and Numeracy Studies, 7 (2), 65-82. Leung, C. (2005). English as an additional language policy: Issues of inclusive access and language learning in the mainstream. Prospect 20 (1),.95-113. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education, 2nd Edition. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Skillen, J., and Mahony, M. (1997). Learning and Literacy development in Higher Education: An issue of institutional change. Paper presented at the 1997 Australian Association for Research in Education, Brisbane. Retrieved March 9, 2006, from http://www.aare.edu.au/97pap/skilj487.htm Snow, M. (1997). Teaching academic literacy skills: Discipline faculty take responsibility . In M. Snow and D. Brinton (Eds.), The Content-Based Classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content. New York: Longman, 290-304. Tertiary Teaching Excellence Awards 2006. Retrieved March 9, 2006 from http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/for-providers/awards/ttea/ttea.html Yeatman, A. (1996b). Building Effective University-School Partnerships: Issues and possibilities. In A. Lee. (1997). Working Together? Academic Literacies, Co-production and Professional Partnerships. Literacy and Numeracy Studies, 7 (2), 65-82. Appendix 1 A model for quality service teaching A servicing agreement needs to be drawn up so that there are clear lines of responsibility between host and servicing Schools. Both schools need to develop the paper in the first occurrence, discuss the course prescriptor, content and learning outcomes. Any changes need to be approved by the co-ordinator of the host school and their Board of Studies Progamme co-ordinators of both host and servicing school meet regularly or at least before and after the semester to liaise on content and delivery of programme. Servicing co-ordinator attends the host programme, Board of Studies and Exam Board meetings. Unforeseen changes to delivery of course need to be clearly communicated in writing from one programme leader to the other in advance to avoid timetable clashes. Timetables with room bookings, dates and times are provided by the programme administrator of the host school. The servicing school also makes bookings with the host school so that data-shows fare provided as required especially for the assessment of oral presentations. Regular dissemination of information re standardised requirements e.g. pre-assessment and post-assessment moderations, exam regulations, handbook contents etc. A Lecturers Corner can be set up online to make all general information accessible. Assessment dates and times are discussed and agreed upon with the host department to avoid periods of extreme workload. The servicing school decides on their own assessment weightings and writes their own assessment questions, in liaison with the host school. 8. The host schools programme administrator provides a template for exam results to be entered by the servicing school. 9. Student orientation events include teachers on the guest schools programme. 10. The host programme leader communicates the name of the student representative in the first weeks of the semester. The student representative needs to communicate any complaints to the relevant teacher, or if necessary to the course coordinator. 11. Differences between schools in opinion or philosophy need to be openly acknowledged. 12. Both schools need a clear understanding about the allocation of funds. Appendix 2: A model for including language development in content lesson planning Learning Outcomes Content and language outcomes : How do I want students to discuss, report, read or write about this topic? What new vocabulary will students need for this topic, for the texts? How will I provide new vocabulary e.g. glossary, definitions, explanation and examples? What language elements are important for talking / writing about this topic e.g. use of passive voice? Cultural knowledge : What educational processes do I need to ex plain to students e.g. group work? What background knowledge do I need to provide about the topic e.g. conventions for business meetings in NZ.? Teaching Strategies What teaching strategies can I use to ensure that students are developing their language skills i.e. incorporating all four skills listening, speaking, reading and writing e.g. pyramid, buzz group jigsaw reading, information gap activity? Assessment What aspects of language will I want feedback on to check that learners have met the learning outcomes e.g. oral use of new specialist terminology? How will I check on these features e.g. listen informally, conduct a quick quiz? Resources What resources will I need for this session to enhance the language development of the participants? Written support for oral delivery. e.g. session outline, power point handout Visual support for explanations. e.g. charts, graph , artefacts (e.g. newspaper and phone book to explain the difference between skimming and scanning). Readings available (on line?) in advance of session with key questions to guide the reading process Learner dictionary available in classroom?      PAGE  PAGE 8 NOX UVW>YUVhi7g!!!!!"#S$$4%5%%%%%%/'F' +/@/?@EE^KKLLNNUUV[[]]]̲̬̲h>CJ^J h>^Jh>B*\mH phsH h>B*mH phsH h>\mH sH h>5B*\mH phsH h>5mH sH h>mH sH h>5\mH sH @ NOXY >?>ij78g!!4%5%.'/'$a$>/'F' + +//@/p3 888d9:!;M<g= >??@EE`FHGpHIpJ_K & F & F & F_K`KKN NSUUU[[IaJatcuceeeeefg,h $h7$8$H$]^h` $h]^h`h^h]]IaJabbuceeeeeeAfff[gg%h,h>hihpiiii#jjk_kmkkֺvvvj[j[j[jh>6CJ]aJmH sH h>CJaJmH sH h>CJmH sH h>CJmH nH sH tH h>6CJ]mH sH h>6CJmH sH h>CJ]mH sH h>6CJ] h>CJ]h>5mH sH h>B*mH phsH h>mH sH h>B*\mH phsH h>\mH sH h>5\mH sH ,hh\ii>jKkk llwmn,o:p;qqIrrCs`tJuuvvv 9#h^h` $h]^h` h^h` h^h`kkll lelll>mgmhmkmnnnno:pOpp&quqqqrCJ]aJmH sH h>6CJH*]^Jh>6CJ]^Jh>6CJ]h>6CJ\] h>CJ\ h>CJ]h>6CJ^Jh>CJ^Jh>6CJ]aJmH sH h>CJaJmH sH h>CJmH sH h>mH sH h>6CJ]mH sH h>B*CJaJmH phsH %sst`tttt,uu/v:vvvvvvvvvzwwwxx\x{Ƹޭޡ|nbUbQbnh>h>CJOJQJ\^Jh>CJOJQJ^Jh>CJOJQJ^JaJ h>5h>mH sH h>CJmH sH h>B*CJmH phsH h>B*CJ]phh>CJ]mHsHh>CJmH nH sH tH h>6CJmH nH sH tH h>6CJ] h>CJ]h>6CJ]aJmH sH h>CJaJmH sH vvvvvzw\x]yz{|}}}~1}~$If h^h`h^h ^` & F & F$a${|}}~~1|}^s12F689D-./9⵨{n{n{nnbnbnbnb^h>h>CJOJQJaJh>6CJOJQJaJh>56CJOJQJaJh>5CJOJQJaJh>5OJQJh>mH sH h>5CJOJQJ^Jh>CJOJQJ^J"h>CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH h>5CJOJQJ^JaJh>CJOJQJ^JaJh>CJOJQJ\^JaJ"S^s012[gkd$$Ifl J! t0644 la@ $If^@ ` & F @$If @@ $If^@ ` & F @$If 2F789Dڃ-.gkd|$$Ifl J! t0644 la & F $If$If./9pppp & F TT$If^T` & F $If$Ifgkd$$Ifl J! t0644 la!"$%./0;<h]h&`#$gkdt$$Ifl J! t0644 la "#%&,-.01789:;?hq/0JmHnHu h>0Jjh>0JUh>jh>U<=>?,1h. A!"#$% z$$If!vh5J!#vJ!:V l t065J!z$$If!vh5J!#vJ!:V l t065J!z$$If!vh5J!#vJ!:V l t065J!z$$If!vh5J!#vJ!:V l t065J!@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH V@V Heading 2$$@&a$5CJOJQJaJmH sH DA@D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k@(No List 6U@6 Hyperlink >*B*ph4@4 Header  9r >>  Footnote TextCJaJ@&!@ Footnote ReferenceH*4 @24 Footer  9r .)@A. Page NumberXC@RX Body Text Indent^` mH sH tH ?~ NOXY  > ? > ij78g45./F # #''@'p+ 000d12!3M4g5 6778==`>H?p@ApB_C`CCF FKMMMSSIYJYt[u[]]]]]^_,``\aa>bKcc ddwef,g:h;iiIjjCk`lJmmnnnnnnnzo\p]qrstuuuv1w}w~wwwwwwxSxxx^ysyy0z1z2zFz7{8{9{D{{-|.|/|9|||}}~~~~~~~~!~"~$~%~.~/~0~;~<~=~@~00000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0@0I00@0I00@0I00@0I00@0@0@0@0@0@0I00 $$$']ks{?DIKLNS/'_K,hv2.<?EGHJMOPQRT>F  '!!6y՟y<՟yӟyԟy<ԟy|ԟyԟy|՟yӟy<ӟy|ӟy؟yҟy|ҟy<ҟyџyџy|џy<џyПyПy|Пy<Пyϟyϟy|ϟy<ϟyΟyΟy|Οy<Οy͟y͟y<۟yܟyܟy<ݟy<ܟy|ܟy۟y<ٟy<ڟyڟy|۟yڟy|ٟy۟y|ڟy؟yٟyٟy<yy88BDBDLDn^w^^^^^^]_]___aaaa&b&bmcmcdddeeeeeeeflfyfyfffffgggg*k*kll.m.m}}@~     ! "#%$&(')*,+-./012345@@HDODODv^^^^^^^e_e_ ` `aaaa,b,btctcdddeeeeefffvfffffff gg#g#g0k0kll6m6m}}@~ ! "#%$&(')*,+-./012345B'*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region=2*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName=3*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType91*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState96*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace85*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity  -656321326565656'5161656'656232336321623651562365656165AKHO. 5 U \ X_"+MTipLN !!!A"G"V"["9$@$99<<DDDDFFKK>OHO0Y7Y:Y@YZZ[[Z]a]]]^^b b.b4bKcRcccd dddfg0h9hhh;iBiii2kAkCkJkTkZk8m?mmm/n9n]ngnoo\pdppp~~~~~~~~~!~"~$~%~-~0~:~=~@~]@^A^^^^dd#e*ewefff:hNh;iNiOitiiiiiii[jjjjj)k*kBklll-mm.n/n:nTnno#oqqss"t}tttcumuw-w"x*xxxyy+z/z||T|\|||| }}}}~~~~~~~~~!~"~$~%~=~@~33333333333333333333333333333333333333aaddiiIj[jjj~~~~~~~~~!~"~$~%~=~@~~~~~~~~~!~"~$~%~=~@~VzN\ x4:o$`4"f+d2k3|7:BlMQ %q/nw1z2z8{9{.|/|~~@~@`lJm`l`l?~`@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z ArialCFComic Sans MSO& k9?Lucida Sans Unicode?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"1hbǍGk@Gk@!4d}} 2aHX?q/2^Addign languageawareness to teachignskills: issues for languageeductors of mainstream teachersAlan Kirkness AlisonT             Oh+'0 $0D T`    `Addign languageawareness to teachignskills: issues for languageeductors of mainstream teachersAlan Kirkness  Normal.dotAlison3Microsoft Office Word@G@ho>@|TE@LqGk՜.+,0\ hp  ;University of Auckland@} _Addign languageawareness to teachignskills: issues for languageeductors of mainstream teachers Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUWXYZ[\]_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry FPLqData V1Table^bWordDocument.SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q