![]() She has published many articles on topics related to her research interests, notably in Brno Studies in English, Topics in Linguistics, Current Developments in Foreign Studies in Philology, and Discourse and Interaction, which she co-edits with Renata Povolná. ![]() She is currently working on her book Analysing Genre: The Text-Colony of UNESCO Resolutions, in which she analyses the distinctive features of the colony text type as represented in the genre of resolutions. She specialises in discourse analysis, stylistics and pragmatics, focusing on cohesion and coherence strategies in political and academic discourse. Olga Dontcheva-Navratilova is Assistant Professor of English Linguistics at Masaryk University Brno, Czech Republic. This volume, which combines theoretical insights with practical analyses of different varieties of spoken and written English discourse, will be of interest to a wide range of researchers, scholars and students of English. The chapters of the book comprise essays by linguists working in the fields of pragmatics, discourse analysis and stylistics which explore features contributing to the perception of cohesion and coherence in spoken and written varieties of English, namely impromptu, academic and political discourse within the former variety, and media, academic and fictional discourse within the latter. Despite the variety of approaches the authors adopt, they share an understanding of language as a dynamic and heterogeneous system mediating interaction in social and cultural contexts and explain how coherence and cohesion are reflected in different contextually bound aspects of human communication. As outlined above, there are so many ‘pros’ to this method of classroom configuration that these easily outweigh this somewhat questionable ‘con’.Coherence and Cohesion in Spoken and Written Discourse provides new insights into the various ways coherence works in a wide spread of spoken and written text types and interactional situations, all of which point to the dynamics and subjectivity of its nature. In conclusion then, while it may sometimes be true that the weak students may ‘take it easy’ sometimes in groups, allowing others to work hard to compensate for their laziness, if the lesson materials are interesting and the teacher motivating, this is a rare occurrence. In business today, the ability to lead effectively and to support one’s peers is prized almost above all other skills. The same skills are being tested and developed – interpersonal skills and emotional intelligence, to mention just two. ![]() Group working in class represents basically the same concept. In a great variety of careers today, the employees are asked to, and are judged on their ability to work in teams. The teacher as the source of all wisdom standing at the front of the class, the ‘jug and mug’ model of education, is not only antiquated, but also ineffective.Ī further benefit of group-teaching is the preparation it provides for working in teams. Certainly, some classroom activities, like project work for example, are best conducted in small groups. Furthermore, most pedagogic approaches today concur that a lesson that is focused on the teacher at all times, is one from which the students are unlikely to benefit. Also, with regard to the stronger students, a perfect way to consolidate their learning is to transmit that knowledge to others. Weaker students are often less afraid of making mistakes and taking risks in front of their peers, than in close contact with their teacher or in front of the whole class. Many students (especially in large classes) can benefit from this approach. Moreover, in life today, team-working is a feature of every workplace and one of the roles of university education is to provide a preparation for students’ future careers.įirstly, peer teaching can contribute to effective learning in most classroom situations. In addition, lessons organised in this way become less teacher-centred. In groups there is the opportunity for peer teaching, which can often be invaluable. The idea that working in groups is a bad thing is fundamentally mistaken because, overall, the advantages of this way of configuring the class outweigh the potential disadvantages. “Working in groups is a bad idea because it encourages weak students to let the others do the work.” Discuss
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |