Once we have decided on the preparatory matters (see my discussion of Focusing on Culture Part 2), we can implement the practice.
Glisan and Donato deconstruct the practice using the IMAGE model.
Once again, we need to note that this is simply the model that the authors have chosen to use. Other models of Focusing on Culture exist.
As the authors write,
“The lesson is developed around a series of cultural images that will lead students to make cultural observations and draw conclusions. Dialogic interaction in the target language is promoted by a series of carefully scaffolded teacher questions in two categories: Fact Questions and Thought Questions.” (Glisan and Donato 2017, p. 119)
Many of the elements of this model have been in use for decades. The model simply puts them together in a particular way.
Fact Questions, for example, ask students to describe what they see in an image. Teachers have been asking fact questions for centuries. [Often, these are the only kinds of questions teachers ask, although they regularly receive opinion replies.]
Thought Questions ask students to share their impressions, thoughts, opinions, and ideas about what they have seen. [While teaches have been asking these questions for centuries, they are often neglected in more modern school settings, so a renewed emphasis on them is good.]
I have asked both kinds of questions with texts, including images, for my entire teaching career. (Remember that the term “text” refers not just printed words but also images, sounds, film, and anything else that requires interpretation.)
BTW, it is always interesting to see how difficult it is for students to distinguish between observation and conclusion. For example, I might show a photograph of a person in a uniform and ask students what they see. Most often, the response is something like, “A soldier” – but that is a conclusion rather than an observation. This is an important distinction to teach.
The IMAGE model entails three major tasks that ask students to state what they see, what they think, and what they wonder about the image or cultural product, practice and perspective. This leaves the discussion open ended.
Glisan and Donato deconstruct the practice from two perspectives: planning the lesson and enacting the lesson in four stages.
Last time we looked at planning the lesson. This week we will look at enacting the four steps (expressed in five statements) of the model.
Step 1: Images and Making Observations.
The teacher presents the cultural product or practice through a set of images (usually 1-4) and asks Fact Questions (what, where, when, who). Activities such as a dramatization, pointing to parts of the image, signaling, manipulating realia, or guided worksheets can also assist understanding. The goal is for students to gain a clear understanding of the product or practice that they observe. (p. 126)
Step 2: Analyzing Additional Information.
The teacher provides additional information in the target language [a good way to provide more comprehensible input] through a short text, excerpts from an article, graphs or charts. The information provides an impetus for discussion and further hypothesizing about cultural perspectives (pp. 126-127)
Step 3: Generating Hypotheses about Cultural Perspectives.
In this step, the teacher prepares three to five Thought Questions in the target language. Discussion can take place either with the whole class or in small groups. Another option is to provide a list of three plausible perspectives in the target language and ask students to choose the one that best reflects their their thinking. However, this must not become a multiple-choice quiz with a single correct answer but a springboard for discussion. Students synthesize what they have seen and read, state their observations, and compare those observations. “… learners must use the language to investigate, explain, and reflect on the relationship of product and practices to cultural perspectives.” (pp. 127-128)
One caveat that Glisan and Donato fail to give is that this cultural exploration should not also be a time of introducing (significant amounts of) new vocabulary. The double task of processing new vocabulary along with examining new cultural products and practices will result in cognitive overload to the extent of interfering with processing ability.
Step 4: Exploring Perspectives and Reflecting Further.
The final step takes the lesson beyond the classroom. Students have the opportunity to “state what they may still wonder about, what questions remain, and what more they would like to learn about the topic.” (p. 128) The teacher can then design activities for students to do outside of class as they pursue greater understanding of the cultural practice(s), product(s), and perspective(s). There are many different kinds of activities that can be designed. (pp. 128-129)
I believe the IMAGE model provides a good framework for focusing on cultural products, practices, and perspectives.
It is, of course, not the only one and should not be over-used, but it does provide the teacher with a model for exploring target-language culture in the target language. It helps move students toward transcultural competence. It also helps develop critical thinking, and hopefully students will recognize that not all cultural practices and perspectives – even in their own native culture – are benign. This can lead to students’ becoming more compassionate as well as more aware of important issues of equity and justice in the world – a worthy goal indeed.
Despite some of the omissions in this chapter that I mentioned earlier, I find this particular teaching practice well presented, and I definitely like the IMAGE model much better than the PACE model from the previous chapter.
Next time we’ll start taking a look at the sixth and final High-Leverage Teaching Practice presented by Glisan and Donato: Providing Oral Corrective Feedback to Improve Learner Performance. (It promises to be interesting.)