Abstract
This report will discuss the development and implementation of a dialogic co-creation model for English language teaching in the Language Resource Centre at the Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany. The focus of this report will be on the impact of content co-creation and its impact on learner and teacher autonomy in English language learning and teaching. This collaborative, dialogic model draws primarily on principles of dialogism and exploratory talk (ET) and exemplifies a novel, learner-centered method for curriculum development and teaching in Higher Education. This learner-centered perspective advances an in-depth understanding of the relationship between language learner and teacher, content and language integrated learning (CLIL), language for specific purposes (LSP), their respective content boundaries, the role of content expert and the inhibition threshold. Three examples of teaching English to university professors and professional staff using this model will be discussed. The author proposes that such a model could be adapted and scaled into larger student groups, too.
References
Baker, Michael. 1994. A model for negotiation in teaching-learning dialogues. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 5(2). 199–254.Search in Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhaĭlovich. 2010. Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Search in Google Scholar
Barnes, Douglas. 2010. Why talk is important. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 9(2). 7–10.Search in Google Scholar
Belcher, Diane D. 2004. Trends in teaching English for specific purposes. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24. 165–186.10.1017/S026719050400008XSearch in Google Scholar
Breen, Michael P. & Andrew Littlejohn. 2000. Classroom decision-making: Negotiation and process syllabuses in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Holec, Henri. 1979. Autonomy and foreign language learning. Strasbourg: Council for Cultural Cooperation.Search in Google Scholar
Kalish, Michael L., Thomas L. Griffiths & Lewandowsky. Stephan. 2007. Iterated learning: Intergenerational knowledge transmission reveals inductive biases. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14(2). 288–294. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194066.Search in Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 1997. Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 18(2). 141–165. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.2.141.Search in Google Scholar
Little, David. 1995. Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System 23(2). 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251x(95)00006-6.Search in Google Scholar
Little, David, Leni Dam & Lienhard Legenhausen. 2017. Language learner autonomy: Theory, practice and research. Bristol: Channel View Publications.10.21832/9781783098606Search in Google Scholar
Moate, Josephine. 2010. The integrated nature of CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal 1(3). 30–37.Search in Google Scholar
Pica, Teresa. 1994. Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second‐language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language and learning 44(3). 493–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01115.x.Search in Google Scholar
Rapoport, Amnon. 1967. Dynamic programming models for multistage decision-making tasks. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 4(1). 48–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(67)90041-7.Search in Google Scholar
Sennett, Richard. 1998. The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company.Search in Google Scholar
Sudhoff, Julian. 2010. CLIL and intercultural communicative competence: Foundations and approaches towards a fusion. International CLIL Research Journal 1(3). 30–37.Search in Google Scholar
Swain, Merrill. 1997. Collaborative dialogue: Its contribution to second language learning. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses [Canarian Journal of English Studies] 34. 115–132.Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
