Part 3: CCRA & CC in the Classroom
Lezione 1
Lezione 2
Lezione 3
(N.B., Questi video sono stati modificati per privacy, lunghezza e coesione tematica tra loro.)
In the third year of Italian middle school, students study the so-called “triangular trade” of the 16th–19th centuries (also known as the Atlantic slave trade).
Above are short videos of three teachers presenting their versions of a lesson on the triangular trade to three different groups of students. I encourage you to watch all three videos and note the differences between the lessons (note that the videos are in Italian).
First, however, let’s consider some questions in light the CCRA of both the teachers and the students:
If “the words we speak build the house in which we live” (Hafiz), what linguistic and/or communicative choices should we make when presenting this sensitive topic?
What aspects might prove challenging, and why?
Which linguistic and/or communicative aspects might benefit from a critical examination?
After watching the videos, I invite you to reflect more broadly on the topic using some ideas from this PowerPoint presentation:
On the previous page, we took a critical look at students’ communicative repertoire and how it is actively shaped by teachers (in terms of both “like” and “basically”).
On this page, we have seen how each teacher selects elements from her own communicative repertoire to recount a historical event.
-
We can draw a connection between the two cases by noting that, while on page 7 the teachers intervene in the students’ linguistic repertoire by labeling expressions such as “tipo” and “praticamente” as inappropriate or “useless,” on page 8 they themselves engage in a careful and “controlled” selection of their own linguistic resources. In both cases, therefore, a process of language regulation emerges: on the one hand directed toward the students, on the other internalized by the teachers themselves.
From the perspective of linguistic correctness, these practices may appear necessary for maintaining academic standards. However, a critical examination reveals that such choices reflect situated norms and expectations, which are also tied to specific contexts and audiences (for example, students’ diverse linguistic backgrounds). It follows that “correctness” is not a fixed principle, but a negotiated process that involves both students and teachers in the development of communicative competence.