Week 6: Brown and Kumar

This week’s reading had me thinking about my feature classroom. During this time I kept asking myself questions such as “what will I do? How will I conduct my classroom? How do I know which type of questions to ask? How will I be sure to maximize the learning opportunities for my students? How will I make sure I don’t let a learning opportunity slip away like the teacher from episode 3.2 in Kumar? How will I help my students to develop intrinsic motivation, become good learners and develop great strategies investment? All these questions bounced inside my head nonstop. I believe that in order to understand my teaching style/s I must understand the approach I am using. It is Task-Based, is it CLT, or is it Audiolingual, or it is a combination? Having knowledge on which perspective I am using will help me understand why I choose certain techniques over the other. It will also help me to better evaluate why certain techniques work and others do not. With this thinking in mind, I wondered which learning principle I can envision myself using in my classroom. Principle number 2, meaningful learning, stands out to me because I believe that if this can be establish students will be able to surpass other barriers. Meaningful learning makes a difference between your everyday rote memorization and actual uptake of the information in order to apply it to previous knowledge. The author mentioned this can be done by appealing to the students’ goal and interest which I completely agree with. This reminded me of a conversation I had with a co-worker about how her teacher wondered why she never performed as well as she could on the exams. My coworker explained to me that she simply was not interested in the class, in was not appealing to her. I always thought that if a student had the capability to perform great he/she should be able to do so no matter the circumstances. I believed appealing to students’ interested was used to facilitate the learning or even help those struggling in the classroom.  But now, as I am typing this, I am realizing that those students with capabilities but interest were most likely doing rote memorization instead of connecting the different ideas. I believe this principle goes well with the microstrategies that Kumar explains in his chapter because meaningful learning comes in different ways, shapes, and forms. I can make meaning learning happen in my classroom by connecting the learning with the outside world; make that connection between what my students are learning and what the outside world demands of them. This might be on a campus, local, or global community. If the students can see the connections, they are more likely to internalize the information.

Another principle I found interesting was principle number 7: language ego. Like the previous example, I believe that working on this principle can open other doors for the learners. When I was reading this principle, I began to think of “how can I lower the affective filter in my classroom? How can I lower students’ anxiety? This can and will be a challenge because this struggle applies to first language users and it is even worse for second language use whose linguistic abilities are limited. I remember a teacher’s story of his quest to lower anxiety in his classroom. He was often frustrated because no matter how hard he tried, his students were always afraid to make mistakes or take risks. The students’ driving force was the search for the right answer, the answer that the teacher wanted; this mentality blinded them to use logical reasoning. Many times students and teachers see errors as a sign of failure and inadequacy. How can I change that in my classroom? Do I show my students that even I make mistakes? (How do I do that? It is definitely by not making language errors intentionally.)  How do I show them the power of mistakes? This risk taking behavior is one of the reasons younger learners seem to acquire the language faster than adults. Also by lowering the affective filter of the learners, I can give my students opportunities to explore their learning experiences from within. I believe that when a student is truly immersed in his/her learning they are willing to see what works for them (of course with the help of the teacher) and are able to developed true intrinsic motivation which can go far. As research has shown, motivation is the second most important factor when in come to determining how successful one can be in acquiring a second language.

Week 4: Kumar’s Changing Tracks, Challenging Trends and Brown chapter 3

The article by Kumar summarizes the shift that has occur in the field of TESOL, the evolution of perspectives over the past 15 years. More specifically, it explores the shift from CLT to TBLT, from method-based pedagogy to postmethod pedagogy and from systemic discovery to critical discourse. In addition to focusing on the above changes, it also deals with the changes and challenges each perspective has to offer.

First shift: From CLT(sociolinguistically orientated)  to TBLT (psycholinguistically orientated)

The theoretical principles of communicative language teaching derived from a concept strongly rooted on language communication, in particular Austin’s speech act theory. Some perceive CLT as having the same concept as the audiolingual method and other recognize it as the answer to the unsuccessful audiolingual method. Either way, such theory explores the idea on how language uses perform certain speech act. The primary focus of such theory is the concept of “negotiation, interpretation and expression” (Kumar 61). The CLT aims to move classroom teaching from the typical structure curriculum and more them towards a classroom teaching that relied on meaningful actions that take place outside of the classroom. I believe the Brown’s chapter paints a clearer picture of the goal of the CLT. The goals include creating “real-life communication, facilitating lifelong learning, developing linguistic fluency, generating unrehearsed language performance” in the real world and seeing students as partners in the classroom (Brown 45-46). Despite the fact that it contains respectable aspects, there still exits certain flaws, the authenticity, the acceptability (not supported by evidence) and the adaptability (it works in once context but fails in another. “what is good for Europe is not good for KwaZulu” (Kumar 63)) of the CLT.  The discrepancy in the CLT paved the way for TBLT.

Some researchers see TBLT as a perspective within the framework of CLT while others, like Kumar, argue that is significantly different. Before the theory of TBLT is discussed, the author attempts to define the word task, because it is at the center for language teaching. Task is “a range of work plans that aims at facilitating the language learning” (kumar 64).  Essentially, the TBLT approach specifies what it is that the learner will do with the language. Depending on the researcher, numerous approaches can be given. Skekan presents two approaches to TBLT. There are structured-oriented (which place more emphasis form) and communicative oriented (which places importance on meaning). Long and Crookes offer three different approach, language centered task (giving attention to linguistic form), learner-centered task ( “direct the learner attention to formal and functional properties”) and learning-centered ( aims to engage the learner in certain speech act without explicit focus on form). In chapter three, Brown also talks about the different types of tasks, target tasks (which students must complete outside of the classroom context) and pedagogical tasks (which form the center of the class).  Target tasks are more detailed and closely tied to the classroom. Pedagogical tasks focus on the techniques use to guide the students in performing the target tasks. In other words, target task is a subset of pedagogical task.

Second shift: From method-based pedagogy to postmethod pedagogy

It seen that, we, should distance ourselves from the method-based pedagogy because it place to much emphasis that there exists a method suitable for all learners. The concept of method-based pedagogy put limitations on language learning and teaching. The idea that there is no need for “an alternative method rather an alternative to method” is what cause the shift from method-based pedagogy to postmethod pedagogy (Kumar 67). Among the numerous approaches that are used to explain the concept of post method pedagogy, the author discusses three, Stern’s three-dimensional framework, Allwright’s exploratory practice framework, and his own macrostrategic framework. Sterm framework contains strategies and techniques. The three dimensions are “the L1-L2 connection, the code-communication dilemma, and the explicit-implicit option. On the other hand, Allwright’s EP is rooted in three important doctrines; the quality of life in the classroom, the understanding the quality of the classroom life, and understanding the quality of life is a social matter. From these tenets, Allwright created seven principle of language that can be found on page 68 of the article. But the main purpose of the seven tenets are to have the learner identify the problem, reflect on it, pay close attention to it, take action against it, determine whether there is adequate information to move one, moving on, and last going public with the information. Although it involves many steps, the “central focus to EP is local practice”. Kumar’s perspective is based on three principles, the principle of particularity, practicality and possibility. I believe the book provides an easily understandable definition. The principle of particularity, means paying attention to the context. Every teacher, student, classroom and even English is different.  Practicality deals with removing the division and/or closing the gap between teachers and theorists. Possibility taps into what the student has to offer. The perspectives above give insight on how one can adapt post method pedagogy, but ultimately it is the teacher that constructs his/her own postmethod pedagogy.

Third shift: From systemic discovery to critical discourse

Critical discourse aims to connect the word with the world, to expand the educational journey to many aspects such as social, cultural and political language use. It deals with creating the cultural form and knowledge that give purpose to the experiences of the learners and teachers.

Week 3: Critical Approaches to TESOL and Kumar chapter 1&2

Throughout my years as an education major student, I always wondered why I was constantly bombarded with theories and methods left and right. I strongly believed that it was impossible for someone to teach me how I will teach my future students. Therefore for the majority of the times I never made effort to memorize theories or pushed myself to follow a certain theory. I always believed that, one cannot be taught on how to teach, rather you teach base on personality, beliefs, culture, and also how you were raised or educated. I cannot say that I had a strong stand in this belief of mine. At times, I wondered whether this was the best way to educate my future students, but for the most part I was confident that I was not heading down the wrong path. I believe this week’s reading has strengthened that believe of mine.  On page 2, kumar states that classroom practice is directly base on some theory, theories gained through “professional education, personal experience, robust commonsense”. I agree with this because theory is not just what the “theorist” have coined, rather theory is a combination of many factors that come to make up how you conduct your classroom. Those factors are influenced by by different circumstances.

Between the chapters and the article, one theme always seemed to be reoccurring, the tension between theorist and practitioner. It seems that for many years and still now, the two are looked upon as two separated entities, having no relation. One is seen as the power dominant (theorists) and the other the none dominant ( teachers).  But I believe the aim of this week’s reading is to reveal to us that the two are not and should not be seen as separate, rather the two should work hand in hand. Although I believe that teaching should be based on “personalities, beliefs, cultures, and also how you were raised or educated” the article by Pennycook reminded me that it should not be my only source.  Theory and experience should not constitute an argument against one another, “rather than turning our backs on theory and taking refuge in experience alone, we should think in terms of transforming both the social relations of knowledge production and the type of knowledge produced” (342).  We need to start seeing the two not as one, or completely opposite but rather seeing them as depending on each other. In a sense, the argument between theorist and practitioner reminds me of the check and balances system we have in the USA, each branch work together to ensure the stability of our government. The same logic should apply the theorists and practitioners, the two should work hand in hand to ensure that students receive the best education there is to offer.

One thing I really enjoyed from the readings was the concept that theories should not only left to theorists, the concept of professional theory and personal theory. Educators should also become theorists because they are constantly in the classroom, experiencing the action first hand. The readings talked about different theorists and methods, different ways of conducting a class. They each had their short comings but the most important message I took from this aligns with last week reading, it is not a debate of which theory or method is better rather it is about understand your teaching techniques  and constantly being in that transformative stage.