Zer dakite DBHko ikasleek gramatikaz? Subjektua eta Nor/Nork eztabaidan. Kasu azterketa
This paper describes a case study carried out in a Model D (Basque immersion) secondary classroom where students are working on a teaching sequence about grammar. The article explores the way in which the students reflect on the use of the grammatical subject in Basque. Evidence from their written responses and discourse reveals the different routes they try and the difficulties they encounter during this reflection. Amongst the most relevant findings is the students’ need to know certain grammatical terminology in order to carry out this meta-linguistic reflection. Thus the study calls into question the relevance of the terminology used nowadays in teaching certain grammatical functions in Basque (nor/nork).
Contrastive metalinguistic representations: The case of ‘Very French’ learners of English
The paper is based on experimental research. It deals with some of the linguistic and metalinguistic transfers that arise when French students learn comprehension and production in English. It analyses how part of the metalinguistic (more or less adequate) knowledge they have of French (imparfait, passe compose, passe simple) is transferred into the metalinguistic knowledge of English they are building, especially concerning simple preterite vs preterite + be + ing. These transfers do not play the same role in L2 comprehension and production. The paper analyses what kind of L1 and L2 ‘grammar’ is taught, the role of L1 as a linguistic and metalinguistic structuring filter, the nature of learners’ different metalinguistic activities, the degrees of awareness they reveal, their transferability, their fossilisation. The inefficient and often nonsensical language activity represented by the learners’ actual use of memorised metalinguistic cliches should be replaced by an accurate and comprehensible contrastiv...
Gender Differences in Predicting Productivity of Faculty
Since the 1960s, the overall proportion of female faculty in higher education has increased significantly, from 20 percent in 1969 to 27 percent in 1984, although this improvement is not reflected in all disciplines (Ransom, 1990). In journalism, the percentage of women faculty rose from 10 percent in 1969 to 30 percent in 1984.' Despite these gains, the recent literature demonstrates that female faculty must still face a number of inequity issues (Hensel, 1990; Maitland, 1990; Moore & Sagaria, 1991). In the journalism and mass communication field, several studies have pointed out that female faculty members are less likely to be tenured (Fedler, Counts, & Smith, 1984; Grunig, 1987) and earn less than their male counterparts, controlling for such intervening variables as rank, years of teaching experience, and educational level (Stuart & Dickey, 1986; Weaver & Wilhoit, 1988; see also Fedler et al., 1984; Kelly, 1989; Stuart & Dickey, 1991). One should add, though, that this salary differential tends to be small after controls. Provided that some job inequalities persist between male and female faculty in schools and departments of journalism and mass communications, the next question we need to address is why? Research on academic women in U.S. universities has suggested that such a differential treatment occurs because female faculty tend to publish less than their male colleagues ( e g , Centra, 1974; Chamberlain, 1988; Fulton, 1975; Seeborg, 1990; Simeone, 1987). Some discipline-specific studies have also reported that male faculty members are significantly more productive than their female counterparts in education (e.g., Lipman-Blumen, Stivers, Tickamyer, & Brainard, 1975) and psychology (e.g., Bronstein, Black, Pfennig, & White, 1986; Guyer & Fidell, 1973). But again these differences are often small or tend to disappear when such controls as rank and academic experience are introduced. In journalism and mass communications, however, there is some evidence that female faculty are closing the publication gap. A growing number of content analyses have revealed a continuous increase in female authorship since the 1960s (Cooper, Stewart, & Friedley, 1985, 1990; Dupagne, Potter, Cooper, & Dashiell, 1991; Sharp, Turk, Einsiedel, Schamber, & Hollenback, 1985) . More recently, Dupagne, Potter, and Cooper (in press) have investigated authorship patterns by gender in eight leading communication journals from 1965 to 1989. They found