1. Multimodal cooperation and Academic identification in French as an Academic Language (FAL) 28.9.2007| Fred Dervin & Marjut Johansson (freder@utu.fi) (marjut.johansson@utu.fi)freder@utu.fimarjut.johansson@utu.fi University of Turku, Department of French Studies Finland

2. Outline 1.Introduction 2.Context of the study 3.French as an Academic Language (FAL) and multimodal cooperation 4.Academic identification 5.Analysis

3. 1. Introduction  Languages for social cohesion  understanding of post/late modern individualized society  its complex and hybrid interactions  how learners in academic setting can become experts of their field?  what kind of teaching and learning in order to guarantee lifelong learning?

4. Language expertise  Linguistic and socio-cultural perspective to expertise (cf. Ericsson – Engeström)  Language expert is a social actor who is  capable of performing communicative activities  in the best appropriate manner with very different others  in various socio-cultural contexts and media (Johansson and Dervin forth.)

5. multi- and plurilingualism  multilingual communities  multilingual learning settings  individual plurilingualism as basis of future professional competences and performances (House & Rehbein 2002, Johansson & Pyykkö 2005) communities of practice

6. Research questions:  How do apprentice-expert students see themselves as learners in this process?  How do they focus on the dimensions of individual performance - collaboration?

7. 2. Context of the study  Academic setting:  Language students in Finnish-speaking University  Master in French Studies  Principal domains of study  Linguistics – applied linguistics  Intercultural communication (discursive and enunciative approaches)  Anthropology and sociology

8. Corpus  collected at the end of the academic year 2006-2007  semi-structured questionnaires  Developmental narratives

9. 3. FAL and multimodal cooperation  plurilingualism  Academic writing  Mediated writing  Course: over a year  Introduction to various fields  Academic writing  Defense

10. Working methods  face-to-face work:  classes  teacher-students  group discussions  teacher feedback and tutoring  internet-based writing  individual writing on weekly basis  peer comments

11.  The latter:  ”Disruptive innovation” (Christensen 1997)  Alienation + creation of a common space (Kramsch & Thorne, 2002)  > impact on academic identification

12. 4. Academic identification  Identification = a process  (re/de)construction  Teach the students some flexibility and adaptation to liquid/solid times (Bauman 2001)  >”self-programmed capabilities” (M. Castells 1996)  > PROTEOPHILIC COMPETENCE (Dervin 2006 & 2007)  Multiple acts of  role-taking  Role-switching/mixing  Cameleonisation

13.  According to Kelchtermans (1993: 449-450)  Professional self is molded through:  Self-image (describe themselves, emotions)  Self-esteem (evaluation of self, self + others)  Job-motivation  Task perception (define their jobs?)  Future perspective (expectations for the future?)  = our means of examining academic identification in our students

14. 5. Academic Identification I: dialogic assessment of Selves  About the process of writing the thesis (E4):  NEVER-ENDING PROCESS: In my own understanding of what has been achieved, the format and contents of my research have often changed during the trip, the end result was something very different from what I expected (E4).  ACCOMPANIED WITH STRESS AND UNCERTAINTY: a continuing process accompanied with stress (E4).  BUILDS UP SELF-CONFIDENCE: Writing my thesis was before all a process of gaining trust (E4)

15.  Current self vs. previous (E10)  FOUND APPRENTICE-EXPERT ”SELF”: One of the most important input was finding my own working habits. (E10)  AWARENESS OF EXPERTISE: Last year, I was still a bad writer in French who couldn’t handle academic writing in that language: now, I noticed how much more confident I have become as far as writing (and speaking) are concerned. (E10)  MOST IMPORTANT WORK IN STUDENT CAREER (EXPERTISE): My research was the most important piece of work in my study time (E10).

16. Future self…  Lifelong learning  In general, independent work. That was important. In my opinion, the type of work that the research involved can be applied to other professional contexts such as the Free-Lance model. (E4)  Challenges to solidity  I understood that it could never be absolutely finished; I always found mistakes regardless of my constant proofreading. (E10)  >> Consequences on future expertise?

17. 6. Academic identification II: selves and others  Others as mirrors  Self is like the Other  OTHER STUDENTS: It was important because I learnt to understand that although we all had different topics, the work allowed convergence between us (E4).  Work in the groups was quite good, I saw how others progressed and what sort of problems they had (E5)

18.  Others as ”consultants”  Self = seeks advise  FROM OTHER STUDENTS: The presence of pther students made it easy to get some help - I could check with them if I wasn’t sure about something (E6).  FROM STAFF: Choosing the research questions was very difficult at the beginning, I had no idea where it would lead to. My professor gave me then some very good advice on literature I could use, and from there it was much easier to find my questions. (E5)  FROM TUTORS: Their multiple comments were very useful, because they had fresh memories about this kind of work which they had done (E11)

19.  Others as relievers  Self = builds up confidence  TUTORS: The ”private lessons” with the tutors were one the components of the course which made it easier for the students, I could ask them all sorts of silly questions which I wouldn’t have dared to ask to anybody else (E4)  OTHER STUDENTS: The feedback provided by the group (wm and during lessons) was useful. I received good comments from the very beginning, which allowed me not to go to the wrong direction in my research. (E6)

20.  Complemental others  Self is reinforced  The guidance was absolutely sufficient and the best part of it was that it was provided by many different people. The manifold perspectives fed in by them allowed enriching comments. (E8)

21.  Others as ”intruders”  Self ”refuses” others  OTHER STUDENTS: I would have appreciated if we hadn’t spent less time going through other students’ work during the lessons but concentrated on our own work (E12)

22.  GUIDES: There was a lot of guidance. On the one hand, it was good, on the other, sometimes it felt a bit too much… but better too much than too little. (E4)  The lessons in the IT room were good because the lecturer gave us some feedback on our work but, I believe that writing the thesis would work much better for me at home (where I can use”poor French” when I start writing, without being afraid that somebody sees my text) (E5)  I don’t actually understand why the Finnish tutors were also asked to correct the language (E11)

23.  Conflicting Others  Self is confused  The tutors helped us with French, but the French tutors’ advice was a bit contradictory. You would think that they are able to correct mistakes, but once they had to discuss among themselves the right answer to one my questions and it turned out that I was right. After that, I felt unsure about who I could trust (E7)  I recieved good comments from the tutors on my work. I also got some contradictory comments, which made it difficult to choose between alternatives (for instance in the choice of some words to use in the thesis) (E9)

24. 7. Conclusion  Academic identification:  Unstable/in progress  Compare various selves  Role of others in the construction of it  ”mobilizing a complex of occasional identities in response to shifting contexts” (Stronach et al, 2002: 117)  Contributes to the development of proteophilic competence?

25. References  Bauman, Z. 2001. Liquid Modernity. Polity.  Castells, M. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society (The Informational Age I). Massachusetts: Blackwell.  Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues (CECR) (2001), Traduction S. Lieutaud. Division des langues vivantes, Strasbourg, Conseil de l’Europe, Editions Didier, Paris,/http://culture2.coe.int/portfolio/documents/cadrecommun.pdfhttp://culture2.coe.int/portfolio/documents/cadrecommun.pdf  Christensen, C.M. 1997. The innovator’s dilemma. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.  Dervin, F., Johansson, M. & M. Mutta A paraître. Écriture académique: collaboration multimodale et « co-constructions identitaires » en FLA. In: Synergies 4.  Dervin, F. 2006. Quality in Intercultural Education: the Development of Proteophilic Competence. EU-Bildung 2010, Regionalveranstaltung für Wien, Niederosterreich und Burgenland. BM: BWK, Stadtschulrat fur Wien. 75–87.  Dervin, F. 2007. Evaluer l’interculturel: problématiques et pistes de travail. In : Dervin, F. & E. Suomela-Salmi (éds.). Evaluer les compétences langagières et interculturelles. Publication du département d’études françaises. Université de Turku. 96-123.  Engeström, Y. & D. Middleton 1996. « Introduction: Studying work as mindful practice », Cognition and Communication at Work, Engeström, Y. & D. Middleton (eds.), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 1-14.

26.  Ericsson, K. A. & & A.C. Lehmann, 1996. « Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of Maximal Adaptation to Task Constraints », Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 47, p. 273-305.  House, Juliane & Jochen Rehbein 2004. What is ‘multilingual communication’? In: House, Juliane & Jochen Rehbein (eds.) Multilingual Communication, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 1-18.  Johansson, Marjut & Fred Dervin A paraître. Choix en matière de curriculum à l’université finlandaise et expertise à l’oral.  Johansson, M. & R. Pyykkö 2005. Johdanto: Monikielisyys ja kielipolitiikka. [Introduction: multilingualism and language policies] In: Johansson, M. & R. Pyykkö (eds.) Monikielinen Eurooppa – kielipolitiikkaa ja käytäntöä. [Multilingualism in Europe. Language policies and practices]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus,9-26.  Kelchtermans, G. 1993. Getting the stort, understanding the lives: from career stories to teachers’ professional development. In: Teaching and teacher education. 9 (5/6). 443-456.  Kramsch, C. & S. Thorne. 2002. Foreign language learning as global communicative practice. In D. Cameron & D. Block (eds.). Globalization and language teaching. New York: Routledge. 83- 100.  Stronach, I., Corbin, B., McNamara, O., Stark, S. & T. Warne. 2002. Towards an uncertain politics of professionalism: teacher and nurse identities in flux. In: Journal of Education Policy. 17 (1). 109-138.