‘synthesis’ of your contributions

‘synthesis’ of your contributions
Topics
1. Language, dialects and varieties
2. Pidgin and creole languages
3. Language and Gender
4. Choosing a code
5. Code switching
6. Language and culture
7. Ethnography and Ethnomethodology
8. Linguistics etiquette
9. Multilingualism and language planning
10. Language planning and policy

Please note that this assessment requires that you provide a ‘synthesis’ of your contributions to discussion forums over the weeks leading up to the assignment date.
One approach could be a quick look at the online Collins English Dictionary (2003):
Synthesis
1. The process of combining objects or ideas into a complex whole Compare analysis
2. The combination or whole produced by such a process

This means that you have to bring together all the contributions you made in the forums and submit one whole analysis/narrative which reflects your understanding/experiences of the concepts under review. Avoid simply submitting a ‘cut and paste’ of their contributions to the forums. It is important that you demonstrate your ability to synthesis your understanding in a continuous and cohesive narrative.
Some students email questions to me directly and I would to encourage this practice if you do not get appropriate feedback from your peers on the study desk. However, please check that the issues has not already been answered in the discussion forums or by the course examiner before sending in an email..
Wishing you the best of luck with the next assignment.

 
3. Discussion Board Journal

Description
Discussion Board Journal (1000 words)
In this assignment you are required to show your leadership and participation in the Study Desk discussion forum presentations. As evidence of this you are required to follow study desk lectures and engage in forum discussions on each topic every week while noting down your beliefs and assumptions about each topic in a journal. This will allow you to reflect upon your learning, how it relates to the way you teach or have taught, and the extent and ways in which your own theories/views on Sociolinguistics undergo a change or deepen.
Your postings on the study desk and journal entries therefore become a record of your experiences, feelings and reflections on the literature as you undertake this course. Your feelings may vary from topic to topic but continuous reflection will assist deeper understanding of the concepts and learning. You are required reflect on classroom experiences you may have had, or demonstrate a higher level of appreciation of some of your previous experiences with language learning.

For this assessment you will be required to:
• First, copy and paste into a Word document selected sections of the discussion interactions from your own Study Desk presentation that best demonstrate your leadership of your discussion and your contribution to other forum discussions.
• Using these extracts from the study desk contributions and in a continuous narrative, write about your learning journey throughout the semester, reflecting on topics or concepts (at least five minimum) that challenged your thinking mostly and outline how this will impact on your future practice. Do not include subheadings or dates of entries.
• Submit this assignment through EASE.`
• Use APA referencing style.
• The 1000-word limit (with an allowance of 10% under or over) will be strictly applied in this assignment.
• The 1000-word limit includes all the chosen texts (including the highlighted text), the five things you have learned and in-text references. References at the end of the assignment are not included in the word count

Samples of various types of discussion journals
Sample 1 of a Discussion Journal
I have been thinking about my language behaviour in the classroom, with specific regard to the function of questioning (Brown &Wragg, 1993). I have come to realise that I often seem to (mis)interpret students’ silence as their not having understood my question. I tend to either ‘fill the gap’ in the conversation or rephrase the question. In retrospect I believe at least some of the time if I would only wait, the students could produce an appropriate, if not correct, answer. They have so much to cope with in learning English as an L2 that they simply need more time to form a response. I must try to be more patient with them while they are thinking.

Sample 2 of a Discussion Journal
Hypotheses proposed by Krashen (1983) regarding L2 learning contain a mixture of valid theories and not so valid ideas. All together the theory seems valid and on the surface appears to answer some of the questions regarding Second Language Learning (SLL). However not all the five hypotheses are of equal status in terms of ‘provability’ or even credibility as explanations for certain aspects of language learning or acquisition. The notion of an ‘affective filter’ is an interesting one – although of course it is not unique. I’m certain that affective features play a big part in SLL. Whether it is motivation, self-esteem and confidence, racial/ethnic problems or whatever, the affective area must either limit or assist a learner to acquire or learn the new language. I’m not altogether convinced that there is in fact any real difference between second language learning and second language acquisition but that the distinction is an arbitrary one made to distinguish the mode or means of learning the language. Surely whether it is learned in the classroom or in the street or workplace, it is still second language learning and the problems in understanding usage etc. are going to be the same or similar.

Sample 3 of a Discussion Journal
Anyway after all the readings I’ve done on the subject of bilingualism and cognition I think the threshold theory (Cummins, 1976) makes quite a bit of sense – surely there is a need for a level of competence in L1 in literacy skills to be attained before the student in the second language learning situation can achieve success – not necessarily in the oral part but in the reading and writing of the second language – I guess it makes sense.