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.

Week 2

Book: So you’ve decided to be a language teacher!”

Me: well, yes, should I be scared?

Book: “you definitely choose a profession that will guarantee you more that your fair share of challenges, growth, joy, and fulfillment”.

The little conversation I had when I opened the book. It was also interesting because I have never seen a book with such opening.

I was glad to finally learn about the history of language teaching and how it came about. It was also interesting to learn the different types of methods that were used in the past. Methods such as the grammar translation, the direct method, the audio-lingual method, etc… Although for several of them I did not quite understand how people could see it as beneficial, for example The Silent Way. Like any other method, it has both pros and cons. But it was hard for me to wrap my head around the idea of learning a language through the use of (cusiniere) rods. The purpose of learning a language it to be able to communicate with others therefore, in my opinion, the use of rods just about defeats the purpose because there is no communication involved in the process. The quote by Marckwards “changing winds and shifting sands” essentially summarized how and why over the past decades there have been new methods.  Even in present day, the same pattern is repeated. A new theory or method is introduce, then the world ( educator, psychologist, etc.…) evaluate it, selecting the parts that produce the most positive outcome, methods starting with the classical method all the way down to the natural approach.

As educator we tend to be on a search for what is best for our students, what methods we can use to help them achieve.  So as new methods of learning language developed, they were used, analyzed, and criticized. The parts deemed most successful were kept in hopes that overtime a perfect method can be devised. But as Prabhu mentioned in her article just because we blend “what is true of each method does not mean that it has any more truth that any other methods” (167).  Just because we blend certain aspect of a method we see truth/ successful, it does mean we have created the perfect method. Before this week’s reading, I always believed that if I retrieve different components of different methods I deemed truth, then I would be getting closer to achieving the unrealistic task of created the perfect method for all learners. But that is not the case anymore. Combining different parts of different methods only creates another method that “shares some concepts with other methods” (168).   We often think that a good method is one that works and the bad one is one that does not, but reading this article helped me realized that is not the case.  It is not about good or bad, rather it is about if the method is “active, alive and operational to create a sense of involvement” for both parties (173). If we believe to have found the perfect method, we tend to stop evolving, renovating or even update our methods, and overtime we become robotic and the very perfect method we thought to have developed deteriorates. With time, the perfect method starts failing.

 Switching back to the beginning of the article, I completely agree with Prabhu, too often we use the term “there is no best method” to run away from a heated debate or to avoid confrontation.  Often, expressions like these are often praise because there are looked upon as going to the next level. But what is the purpose of going to the next level to just quickly end the discussion? And for too long and I agree with that. But on the other hand, it seems that if I was to engage in a discussion about learning strategies and methods, the conversation would be infinite because the learning strategies and methods are endless. So how do you end such conversation? Is there such think as ending a conversation that deals with language learning strategies?

To end my post, I would like to add this quote that I found very inspirational “the enemy of good teaching is not a bad method but overroutinisation”. As a pre-service teacher my biggest fear is that I will always choose the worst method for my students, but with this quote I get reassurances. The only way for me to fail as a teacher is if I become frozen in a routine.

 

Week 1: Hello

Hello everyone,

My name is Aurelie Kenfack I am a bilingual major and TESOL minor of course. The more I think about what I want to do the more I just want to focus on TESOL. When I first came to the USA, I had no knowledge of English so I was placed in an ESL class.  There I learned the language to communicate with my peers and others around me. That is the reason why I decided to be an educator. I want to help other achieve what I did and more. In my perfect world, I want to teach to in an elementary class filled with students from different backgrounds. Whenever I talk about my experience, I always mention the teachers that inspired me to become who I am today.  Being that I want to be an educator myself, my goal is to achieve that same goal, I want to inspire others. Knowing that there exists no perfect teacher, I still want to be the perfect teacher for my students; because the idea of being a perfect teacher entails that all my students will succeed. This is the unrealistic dream of all passionate educators. I hope at the end of the course I am able to, as the course objective says, “learn how to maximize language opportunities for diverse students”. As a future educator, I want to be able to provide my students with the necessary tools for them to be successful in not only acquiring but also mastering the language.

Last Post

I can honestly say that I was one of those people who walked in the advisor’s office and said I want all the minors available so I can get a job. I just wanted to add a minor that will make me stand out and spice up my resume. As an ESL student I had some amount of passion towards this field, but not as much as what I have developed over the semester.  Now I clearly see why this class in required for those wanting a TESOL minor. I can say that I have grown intellectually, and culturally 100%. This class was a wonderful experience, and has thought me so much. It thought things that although seem common sense, must of us do not bother to take time and think about it and impact it has on students (for example the writing differnces), for that I am very thankful for taking this class. To close the semester I would like to talk about the last chapter in McKay and Bokhorst-Heng’s book. I found this chapter a nice way to end the semester. It took the concepts that we have talked about and gave us, pre-service and current teachers, advices on how to prepare our learning environment for all English learners whether natives or non-natives. A few of my favorite implications or the ones I found very important were “EIL curricula should include examples of the diversity of English varieties used today, full recognition needs to be given to the other language spoken by English speakers and EIL should be taught in a way that respects the local culture of the learning”. I believe that a lot of the problems that we see today in all circles(inner, outer, or expanding) is lack of understand or knowledge of the diversity that exits in the English language. People are not aware of the complexity of the learning process. As I mentioned in my previous blog, it is very important that students are exposed to the varieties of Englishes that exits in today’s world. Exposure to such varieties allows the students to be knowledgeable about the language, and also give them a wide repertoire of which variety to use in a certain context.  I believe such exposure can also eliminate the negative views we have about certain varieties. What ties perfectly to the concept of teaching different varieties, is the idea that educators must teach it in a way promotes and respect the other cultures. There are many struggles that exist with the concept of learning English, not only we must fight to include the different varieties but we also must fight to include those varieties in a way that does not promote inferiority. This reminds me of Taylor-Mendes’s article on cultural representation, the issues that were explored within the article. I believe there is no importance of introducing or teaching a culture if it’s only looked in a negative way. It just pushes to students to me more discriminatory towards that culture and furthermore reinforces the concept of othering. These and many other factors must be taken when teaching English. I agree with the chapter that “effective pedagogical decisions and practice cannot be made without giving special attention to the many varied social context in which English is taught and learned” and even go further and “promote bilingualism for learners of all background”(197). I think that all of us wish for an environment like that but often do not know how to create such environment or have the willingness to do so. Just like the chapter says “most learners make it clear that monolingualsim is not their preferred goal” (181), but due to a combinations of reasons most educators do not strive to accomplish this goal. But my biggest dream is to create a classroom that reflects the diversities that exits in the world both culturally and language wise.

Matsuda and Kubota

I found this week’s reading a perfect way to close the semester, giving teachers implications. While I rejoiced over the article by Matsuda, the article by Kubota brought unwanted feelings. I will start with Matsuda’s World English. There were several teachers suggestions on how to accept and teach the different standards and varieties of Englishes. I agree with the suggestions, we as pre-service teachers/teachers must give the students all the information available to us so that they can make a language choice. For example, students need to understand both the dominant and the non-dominant language form, what works and what does not, and the risk associated with using a particular form. Giving students this type of information allows them to grow language wise and also gives them a choice to which form to use depending on the context. Although teaching the different forms or varieties is important, I believe the real work is manifested in how the teaching is carried out, the method one uses. We must teach them without “valorizing the privileged varieties” I believe this was a good point to be made. I believe we must try to instill a sense that all forms and varieties are the equal. We must teach without making one variety appear better than the other.  Reading this made me think about the video we watched in class of the teacher who taught his students about the different varieties through a game. I believe this is a great example of how the different forms can be taught without giving more power to one. I strongly agreed with the teachers implication that the author mentioned in the article, I believe we must present students with a wide variety of information so that they can have the option of which form to use.

The article by Kubota on the other hand brought some disturbing feelings.  It was shocking to me to find out the term “foreign language” essentially means English (at least in Japan). The world has been swallow by the power , and benefits ( whether true or not) that is associated with learning English that they go as far as dismissing other language and overtly publicize that English is better.  For example the article mentions the different treatments that two individual students receive base on the language they are learning, with the students learning English receiving more praises and attention while the other student is left alone.  There is also a false idea/plan that advertises that other languages are being offered when in reality it is false.  For example, in the Course of Study for high school that advertises foreign language as being different language but nevertheless there is only one foreign language offered, English. This just goes to support the idea that foreign language is English. Another issue that is brought up in this article is the discrimination that exits between the different English countries and ethnicities. Because English is so closely linked with American and British English other countries tend to suffer some discrimination or biases, this is another piece of information that I found to be discouraging especially for those are not white. ALTs from other countries are often giving a hard time although they speak native English just like the rest. For example the Australian ALT who is asked to speak with an American accent, as if that is effetely done, or the African American ATL is asked to speak Standard English. These bias ideas revolve around the idea of English having one correct form. Although the article states that we have grown in our school of thoughts, I believe we still have a great way to go.