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.