Anthology Chapter 33: Assessment

As I started to read chapter 33 about alternative assessments, I struck very early on by the third paragraph! The chapter goes over about how alternative assessment is different- obviously- but the part I was first struck by is when it says, "Alternative assessment is different from traditional testing in that it actually asks students to show what they can do. Students are evaluated on what they integrate and produce rather than on what they are able to recall and reproduce." It goes on to say that alternative assessment is more culturally aware, reflects the curriculum, shows strengths and weaknesses of students, and gauges progress. So then I got to thinking, isn't this what assessment should be in general? Why is there another term for something that measures what all 'good' assessments should be able to indicate? Can there not be valid, reliable, and objective testing in an alternative form?
I found while reading this section in-particular that alternative testing is incredibly valuable to student, teacher, and schools alike. Not only would alternative testing consider and include linguistically diverse learners, it would also lessen the pressure students feel towards the number score they receive. These types of assessments also seem to provide a more accurate picture of student progression over time. I like to compare this to any other academic assignment we do- especially in higher education. For example, when we write papers, it is not enough to just make a claim, you must have examples, from creditable sources. I think alternative assessment works in this way. When we assess our students, I do not believe providing a number is enough. Where is the evidence? Sure you might say, "student A answer 13 questions incorrectly...etc." but that does not provide any context, I want materials! This is where things like the nontraditional assessment such as portfolios come in. I would suggest that a teacher could provide indication of progress using the students work as evidence, and then further be able to challenge that student by using what exactly there personal progression or even digression needs. Furthermore, teachers can even use portfolios as a means of classroom management, to meet with students individually, to get to know, understand, and have a relationship with the students. Dialogue journals and etc. could also provide this type of knowledge.

The oral component of a primary school, discussed in chapter 35, is something that must be considered. However, I think this chapter lacks discussing the possibility of taking content tests in their first language which is something I would have been interested to read about in a TESOL text. I often wonder how many more schools would be meeting AYP requirements and how many more students would be considered at grade level at least in subjects like science, math, etc.

In conclusion, I think I'm an advocate for alternative and nontraditional testing. I also think that standardized testing, overall, provides some very reliable scores but I disagree with the amount of weight, we as the educational world put on these scores. I also think it would be interesting to study research done on students performance in their first language.    

Kuma Chapter 12

As I started reading chapter 12 I was reminded of a particular "cultural teaching" moment I have recently been challenged with. A good friend of mine from Spain is planning on visiting this summer and "seeing America". He has plans to drive to certain cities in the U.S with an American friend or two and then other buddies from Spain. He is always speaking of the "cultural experience and learning" he will be able to do so that he can finally understand Americans. I keep thinking to myself, "Ok he can drive from Chicago, to Denver, to Vegas, and whatever other one or two more cities he has planned, but he won't even be close to having a true cultural understanding of America." For example, I say to myself- I am from Chicago, right? So I am, technically, apart of this culture. However, consider all the other subtypes which Kuma mentions such as, the suburban lifestyle vs. the urban lifestyle, the African American culture vs. the typical white american culture. Or, you could simply think of the Northern vs. Southern cultural norms which includes discrepancies in dialect, food, and an overall way of life. Or from East to West, Native Americans, etc. The list is never ending within this one country!

So then, how can we ever truly include these multicultural cultures that exist within one culture? Now that's a lot of culture! As future educators, we are told over and over again how important it is to have our students connect, relate to, and to almost empathize with the content- in this case- the culture in which they are studying. I think Kuma makes a valid point, that this restricts the language learner into forming an almost subconscious  judgement of a culture because it lacks the the rich diversity  L2 learners bring with them. However, I think Kuma needs to take a little further and say that this not only ignores the diversity L2 learners bring with them, but also the multicultural variations within one culture. It may be expecting too much because it seems that this is almost never ending, not every person is the same even if they are from the same physical or linguistic environment, obviously.

I think the answer is that we must then create a critical cultural conscious awareness which he suggests. This, as Kuma states, can allow inherent culture and learned culture to blend and form some sort of negotiated meaning. I think it could be argued that this is being done on at least one level for every citizen of our world who has some sort of technological access such as T.V., internet, phones, etc. Our students, whether language learners or not, are constantly being faced with global issues that they must, at some point, take on a perspective. If this is true for mono lingual students, than it must be especially true for bilingual, or multilingual students. It is therefore, almost obligatory that our language learners are exposed to and aware of the multicultural varieties within one place. Knowing ones own culture and finding such an identity in our growing world is essential to the understanding of others.

Kuma Chapter 9 & 10

While reading chapter 9 in Kuma, the first quote seemed almost too blatantly obvious- that language takes place in social contexts and these contexts make connections with realities. At first, I thought, “well duh!” How else would we be able to make connections with our world and understand nearly everything around us? As I read though, it made more sense. The idea that some language samples make absolutely no sense without their context but within the correct context, they just do! How can I as a future educator teacher these almost circumstantial like things to my students? How do I make sense of these things in my second language? The examples of the importance of the situational context are so interesting! As a second language learner the examples given in this chapter would be incredibly difficult to understand without some sort of supporting context. As I read them aloud to my friend, we both understood them in different ways- so what is the meaning? How can I portray these sort of things to my ELLs?

I really like Kumas “Travel Matters” micro strategy and how these presented actual lessons to situationalize contexts within the classroom. If I do this, then, how do I address the extra situational context or what is appropriate in different languages? Simple speech acts which make up everyday conversational patterns differ from culture to culture and could be the source of great misunderstandings. Even with these considerations and microstratgies in mind, I wonder how to account for these cultural differences especially in cultures where there are great disparities.

Finally, I’m disappointed to miss this conversation tomorrow in class because I would be interested to hear what my peers have to say about these two chapters and the challenges speech acts outside of any sort of context present for ELLs despite the understanding of native speakers. 

Anthology Section 7: Chapters 13, 14, & 15

            As I sit here and digest the chapters on grammar and it’s teaching, I simple don’t know where to begin. Throughout our course we have run into so many instances where grammar was such a focus in different activities despite attempts to focus on other language learning concepts. For example, the activities we talked about in small groups two weeks ago proved to be very common language learning activities but the main problem with them was this grammar learning based way of approaching teaching. To me, it is obvious that grammar must be taught in some form but I still haven’t decided what is best. There are so many considerations and potential problems teachers might face in teaching grammar that it’s difficult for me as a pre-service teacher to know where to begin and form certain opinions.

            In general, however, I think I will start at the beginning. Section 7 indicated that with too much focus on grammar other parts of language learning can be lost, and I agree. However, it says that “people now agree that grammar is too important to be ignored” (p. 145) and wonder if teaching English could ever go back to being overly grammar based again. It also stated that we, as teachers, need to question things like, “Which grammar items do learners need most?”, and etc. As I read this, I wondered if these sort of grammar itemized needs would change depending on the students first language. For example, would a Chinese speaking student have different grammatical needs for learning English than a Spanish, Arabic, or Croatian speaking student? I guess what I question is if the first language grammar structures directly effect what sort of grammar skills a language learner needs?

            I was also struck by the sentence, “we have students who may know a lot of grammar but who are unable to use their knowledge for any practical communicative purposes” (p. 146). Throughout my language learning career, I have always struggled with the grammatical aspect of language learning. To me, it is like the mathematics of language- and I don’t like math. I noticed, when taking a grammar course here at ISU, that although I was so bad at grammar, especially in comparison to my boyfriend (Ryan) who became my tutor about 10 minutes into the first class, I was still one of the only people in the class comfortable enough to talk with the teacher in that foreign language before or after class. Now, a few years later, I am much more proficient in communicative situations than Ryan who has a much better grasp on the grammatical components of the language. This has always puzzled me as a language learner. How can I be so much more proficient and comfortable speaking the language than Ryan who can tell me every irregular past tense subjunctive form of a verb?

            This brings me to Chapter the 13, the reasons for teaching grammar. Ryan learned simply to earn a minor in Spanish, while, on the other hand, I learned to be able to communicate with my future students (and to graduate!).  Our reasons for learning were different. The reasons for teaching should also fit the needs of the students. I really enjoyed chapter seven because I think if we listed all the reasons to teach grammar in class, all the “bad reasons” for teaching grammar would have been listed. The two good reasons made total sense to me. It reminded me of a Classroom Management strategy- three umbrella rules are better than 100 specific rules. The two good reasons are very broad, comprehensibility and acceptability. We saw in the example on page 149 that native speakers counted issues with comprehension as the most serious mistakes. In that case, it is essential that our students learn to build and use grammatical structures with the goal to communicate common meanings successfully. I also found acceptability to be an important umbrella term for grammar teaching. As it states in the chapter, “serious deviance from native-speaker norms can hinder integration and excite prejudice- a person who speaks ‘badly’ my not be taken seriously.” Throughout my pre-service teaching experiences I have found that many people take language learners to be less-intelligent, thoughtful, or profound in their thoughts due to their lack of ability to express themselves. I think this is one reason in particular why I think acceptability is such an important aspect to language learning- so that ELLs are considered to be just as intellectually capable as their English speaking peers despite their expression abilities.

            In conclusion, I also made many connections with chapter 14 and the acquisition process of the second language learning. I found that each component of the five stages is very important and can be applied to my own language learning. I also found it practical for teachings to implement this “stage knowledge” into grammar teaching, along with chapter 15s’ consciousness raising. 

Kuma Chapter 6

            As I read Chapter 6 in Kuma, my mind was starting to consider all the things we have been talking about the past few weeks and connect them with this idea of learner autonomy. All the strategies whether it’s simply a writing, reading, listening, or a speaking strategy work in cohesion with the overall learning strategies we spoke about today in class. These learning strategies can be further applied to learner autonomy and learners being successful in the greater world. The quote on the very first page of the chapter seemed to sum up the chapter said to me, “learners must no longer sit there and expect to be taught; teachers must no longer stand up there teaching all the time. Teachers have to learn to let go and learners have to learn to take hold.“ (Brian Page, 1992, p. 82). It has this sort of “grab life by its horns” mentality about it where learners must realize their role in their own learning through self-initiated processes. By doing this, it seems learners must take into account pathways of discovery through strategic learning experiences and training. Teachers can facilitate these routes, open new doors, and encourage learners to challenge themselves through sharing, encouraging open discussion, and creating comfortable learning environments for all students. Ideally, then, students would identify ‘what works for them’, collaborate with others, and reach for new opportunities. Notice, I said, “ideally”.

            In many aspects this sort of learning environment is truly awesome! However, this means that teacher and learners are constantly working together towards a similar goal with similar motivation, and this, is not always the case. I agree with the conclusion of the chapter that “this might call for a fundamental attitudinal change” on almost everyone’s part in order to work together. I also think, this means that learners have to make decisions about learning that they might really not be ready to make. I do, however, think goal setting and the activities suggested to get to those goals are something teachers can implement in the classroom to get students on the same level. Finally, using things like Figure 6.6 can really help both the teachers and students to see where they stand when it comes to learning how to learn, autonomy, and strategic influence.

            In conclusion, I found many important connections between chapter 6 and the recent topics we have been discussing in class. It seems this learner autonomy, which is something both students and teachers strive for even if it is subconscious, is made up of many different learner styles, strategies, and even backgrounds. Ultimately, an achieved sense of learner autonomy for all students would be ideal but as teachers, we must help to build that from the beginning. 

How do I support a students first language when I don't speak the language?

“How in the world can you speak ALL THOSE LANGUAGES?!” I am asked this over and over again when I describe my teaching responsibilities at the ELI. I often smile and say, “What? You don’t speak Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, Chinese, or Korean?” As an outsiders to the TESOL world, many of friends simply don’t understand how that works, nor do I expect them to. I think one of the main points I gained from this article is the importance of the SUPPORT (in all contexts) teachers must provide their students rather than the proficiency or fluency in the language.

I would like to focus my blog on the article we read for this week. I found this article extremely applicable to my future teaching career. I also found that Dolores is one teacher who practices what she preaches, which unfortunately, seems to be hard to find these days.

Throughout my education of learning to be a bilingual educator, it has been stated over and over again the importance of every single key idea mentioned in the beginning of this article. Dolores, as a teacher, does an impeccable job of including, consistently reinforcing, and encouraging students in regards to these main components in the article. For example, the first point states that it is important to establish a classroom community that celebrates diversity.  As a pre-service teacher I am always grateful to learn different ways teachers accomplish this community in their classrooms. Dolores does an incredible job of including almost all aspects of the diverse population and their lives directly into her classroom by inviting the primary language use, family members, and creating a cultural sensitivity & awareness in the classroom. I really enjoyed reading the creative ways in which she brings in first language, recognizes the importance of parental involvement, learns the new languages herself, and supports the primary language of each child. Just from reading such a brief article on her teaching techniques, it seems that she has applied many of the important aspects of bilingual education to her classroom.

I find this article to be extremely motivating to do the best for my students! I really enjoyed reading this article and seeing a practical application of bilingual methods in the classroom. I think Dolores classroom environment is a great role model for any learning bilingual teacher or TESOL candidate. 

Anthology Section 13

Overall, while reading through Anthology Section 13, I constructed a general idea of what the writing process is for teachers and students. I was able to relate with many of the writing issues as both a student and teacher. For me, it was interesting to read that there was not too much difference between ESL writing and ‘mainstream’ student writing. Teachers, in general, seem to have the same role, to model the writing process at every stage and to teach specific writing strategies. It seems that ‘mainstream’ writers and ESL writers go through some of the same writer development such as planning, drafting, responding, revising, editing, evaluating, and post writing. What both teachers and students alike seem to face is the motivating factors to get each done, and done well.

However, I think these chapters lacked a little on what ESL writers bring to the classroom, despite all the similarities that have with ESL writers. (This may have been mentioned in the article but for some reason I can’t find Ferris in the Digital Reserve!) One of the most interesting aspects of ESL writing for me is the actual writing culture they bring to the classroom. From experience, (my cousin is a sports writer in the UK and we have many pieces of her work) I know that published and successful writers from Britain, write so incredibly different than writers do here in the states. We also experienced this in our class, when one of the articles we read was written in a different format than we are used to- the author was from a different English speaking country- and it received a lot of criticism during our class. It’s not only the manner in which the author of any piece of works writes, but also the format, the topic matter, the procedures to find inspiration, and much more. I almost wonder if I could ever truly understand where a diverse community of learners has gotten their ideas and expressed them on paper? What sort of things will inspire someone who is so different than me? How can I motivate and ultimately making meaningful lessons for students whose background in writing is something so different? I start to consider that a student with no writing background might be easier to teach and understand, like a blank slate, whether it’s a new language or not.

In general, my mind was spinning (literally because I have the worst headache ever, take your vitamin C J) while reading this article because of the connections I made between an ESL writers challenges, thought expression, and how those aspect link with almost every other part of their daily life struggling to become English proficient. 

Anthology Chapter 3 & 7

While reading these chapters from anthology I couldn’t help but relate (especially chapter three) to my teaching experiences at the ELI. One of the things I found most interesting while reading is the fact that teachers tend to deviated from the original plan. Although the chapter stated that most teachers are not well trained in lesson planning (which could pose a reason why they stray from the plan), I would have to beg to differ here at ISU & that even with this training, I still find myself deviating from the plan, especially with my ELLs. In all the environments in which I have taught, I have found myself trying to consider my students needs and often find myself taking another route to the information that I would have never considered taking on my own. I find this most often with my ELLs and I think a huge part of this is the responses I hear during the perspective or opening. Mostly, I think my implementation of the lesson plan changes depending on my students background knowledge, initial understanding, and overall proficiency in that area. I also find myself reflecting on the lesson plan as I leave the class. Normally, my plan follows some sort of structure I was specifically taught “would work best”. However, due to my students wants, needs, and understanding, the ways in which I have to customize each lesson for each class often makes me wonder if my students learned? I find myself asking my students if they learned something new? What more can I do? And did they enjoy themselves? Of course, how honestly will my students really answer? After briefly considering some of the aspects which surround lesson planning for me, I wonder if we can even call a lesson.. a plan? Maybe a better description would be a foundation. Each one of my three classes understands the same lesson so differently and is ultimately presented in a different manner as each classes understanding forms, so is there ever really such thing as a lesson plan if it’s always changing?

As I write, I am also considering the lesson plan in which I have to create for this week and how I personally go about planning, implementing, and reflecting on the plan. I hope that this week, my students can honestly say they learned something new and meaningful for them.

Briefly, one particular part that stuck out to me in Chapter seven was stated in the introduction, “But is it possible to teach a language within the four walls of a classroom? I think not- and so we also need to help our learners to learn how to learn and keep learning” (pg. 69). I think this is an interesting comment. I have always said, I learned more Spanish in my 8 months in Spain then in my 11 years of learning it in school and at home. I think this was an opportunity to learn how to learn and to keep learning that ultimately motivated me to learn more about language learners and learning. I have to agree with Finney that it is not possible to teach language in the four walls of a classroom but rather facilitate language learning and motivate students to immerse themselves in those languages and cultures. 

Sheltered Instruction

Throughout my time here at ISU I have spent many hours in many different classes discussing the SIOP model. This sheltered form of instruction, from my experience, has elicited mostly positive feedback. I think this is true for one reason, in general. The SIOP model is an instructional approach that considers as much diversity in learning, the learners themselves, and within the instruction while also promoting English. This approach, in my opinion, is the most well rounded examples of the consideration of such diverse learners.

It’s also important to note that the article points out that within the already diverse ELL population exists an even greater source variability. Some students may have no formal schooling background, others may have some, others may have been born and raised in the American schools but speak a different home language, and finally some may simply be refugees looking to survive in a better place. Whatever the case, a class of ELLs is not simply a linguistically and culturally diverse population but also an experientially diverse population. While reading this particular article, three aspects of the SIOP model stuck out to me, which might offer some sort of learning experience for such an assorted population. The first, is it attempts to make content comprehensible by considering each individual students needs. For example, a teacher might use visual aids, adapted texts, or peer interaction, etc. It also tries to create a nonthreatening environment where students can feel comfortable taking risks. A teacher might do this by having many interactions between peers and teacher and allowing students to express themselves by giving them the tools to ‘negotiate meaning’.  Lastly, students are given multiple different ways to demonstrate their understanding and knowledge. The one example which I have worked with in the past is portfolio making. One interesting aspect about portfolio making for language learners is that it should not simply contain their best work, but rather, also include work that they need to practice or need help with. This allows for an extensive and well rounded portfolio by the end of the course so both learners and teachers can have a greater understanding of achievement. All of these things are included within a well-implemented sheltered instruction program. 

While reading, however, I started to consider the fact that I have only heard “good things” about this program. I wonder if it is another one of those TESOL fads where all the information looks so perfect on paper, but maybe not so much in the classroom. I was glad to see that the article included (pg. 10) how research has shown that there is a lot of variability in these courses even among experience teachers and schools.

Overall, I have really positive feelings towards sheltered instruction and it seems to be an effective approach. It’s important to note that all teaching, whether its mainstream or not has a lack of consistency within experienced teachers, same schools, and districts. 

Task-based Instruction (barely!) & Chapter 5

Despite reading the article by Skehan on tasked-based instruction, I still find myself a little confused on what exactly task based instruction is. While reading the article, I found myself getting lost in all the different approaches, perspectives, measurements, and critiques of task. It went from a rapid overview of history to some really research packed ideas based on many different aspects of TESOL which started to confuse me on what exactly the point was. Although the article does seem to present relevant, data supported, and well-formed arguments from different perspectives of task based instruction, I didn’t feel that my previous knowledge on task-based instruction was strong enough to totally follow this article. Unfortunately, I don’t feel I comprehended this article enough to write a well-organized blog with some of my own personalized thinking and I look forward to going over it in class.

Chapter 5, on the other hand, was an easy read which highlighted many important situations a teacher would most definitely find themselves faced with while trying to implement cooperative learning! I am glad to have read this chapter for many reasons. One, working at the ELI as a tutorial teacher requires me to used many cooperative learning strategies like group work (and all the problems we may face with that), noise levels, timing, attention, and etc. I found this chapter to be useful and easily relatable as we have all been in class before and been taught in many different ways. It also gave many different suggestions for one opportunity which I really liked!

CLT: to be or not to be?!

The end of CLT: a context approach to language teaching

Generally, this article argued that CLT has led to a neglect in context teaching. As I started reading I felt a sort of CLT vs. Context attitude and was further surprised by the seemingly harsh beliefs about communicative language teaching and their teachers. For example, “if you don’t have CLT, then you are backward, and can’t learn language” (p. 280), followed by the four “illustrations” that CLT implementers “believe”. Not so much so because I personally tend to like certain aspects of CLT but more so because the “CLT attitude” which was introduced here, was not (in this article) proven as a valid enough claim for me to agree with. I found that the article presented itself in an overpowering manner against CLT which is almost exactly what it criticizes CLT for (overpowering context). I felt that it went almost as far to say that teachers who have this “CLT attitude” believe that no one can learn a language without a CLT approach (p. 280). I have to disagree that any ‘good’ teacher (whatever that may be) would never make such an ignorant claim considering the overwhelming amount of people in the history of the world who have learned a language without CLT focus or with it.

I also found the articles claim, “communication approach is the way to do it, no mater where you are, no matter what the context” (p. 281) a little over exaggerated. I would have rather argued that maybe, CLT can work in a variety of contexts which could be why it is so popular overall. It then, almost immediately, goes to say that ‘to put context first then consider teaching’- which seems to have a, let’s say, “Context Attitude”?

I did, however, find that articles claim that CLT is too teaching based rather than learning based interesting and possibly valid.  I have to agree that the overall claim that CLT is not the ONLY way.  I don’t believe there is one way nor do I believe a well-educated teacher, even a supporter of CLT, would argue that.

Finally, I found the article to be a little hypocritical. In general, it didn’t present relevant enough arguments against CLT to persuade me- even though I wouldn’t say I have definite idea of what I personally think works and doesn’t work. I remain open-minded to new approaches of learning and teaching. I think context is important but also communication. I have to say, I would need to know more about this context approach before making more valid arguments.

CLT in China

Very briefly, I found this article particularly interesting for personal reasons. As a new and beginning teacher at the ELI, I have found that my most intimidating student is from China and surprisingly, also my most proficient student. I have always considered that fact that his cultural beliefs on education may be a factor as to why his learning in my class sometimes scares me. I think it is best described in the article (no pg. #) “the Chinese view education as a goal in itself has been internalized throughout Chinese society, even by those who are have not received any schooling” they even have a saying that “everything is low but education is high”. I find this interesting as it relates to my own experience with my Chinese student. Often it seems, he would prefer a more traditional and industrialized approach to a class that solely requires almost any type of verbal communication. Maybe this is why some of my approaches to the class seem unimportant to him. I think it’s important that maybe I try to consider his educational ideals while still considering that CLT is probably helpful for him too in some aspects!

Communicative Language Teaching

While reading the article about communicative language teaching, I was glad to relate with and understand some of the articles main points from the beginning.  As the article explained, communication is more than just a linguistic competence, but also involves a communicative competence. More specifically, I think the article is referring to the almost intuitive like knowledge one needs to have in a language to know “when and how to say what to whom” (p. 121?). As a language learner myself, however, I would go as far to say that this could also include communicative body gestures, such as kisses, hugs, or bows. I think communicative language teaching can and should also include these sorts of things- seemingly extraneous and culturally varying ways of communication. In my opinion, these aspects of language learning (currently being discussed as much more than a linguistic competence) can actually be the most uncomfortable and difficult aspects of the communicative ways of a particular language.

With that in mind, as I delved into reading this article, I kept reflecting back on my own teaching and the ways in which I present the information and teach in general. I can’t help but say that I sometimes feel I have absolutely no idea what I am doing and most of those times, I’m probably right! However, I’m slowly becoming more confident in my teaching thanks to this class and articles like these that put sophisticated names and actual techniques behind what I sometimes feel like I’m ‘winging’. I think I can directly relate CLT to my teaching because my ultimate goal is for my students to communicate in the target language. Whether it is just barely saying hello or telling me about almost anything. I find myself often facilitating and providing gaps in the teaching so the students are constantly and actively engaging with one another. I found that many of the materials and techniques I bring to class actually fit right into the CLT way of teaching, such as, the scrambled sentences, language games, and role plays. Although I have found some supporting evidence that what I am doing in the classroom is not totally made up, I often wonder if all these techniques offered through CLT are as authentic as we as educators hope? Maybe this is one of the biggest challenges all educators in general face. Are these experiences authentic? Meaningful? And affective within a long-term time span? I have to ultimately say that I really do agree with and like the idea of CLT in the end. I think it is a form of teaching that I would and have enjoyed throughout my life. I think it also lends itself to be meaningful yet still allows for varying approaches which might accommodate for a diverse group of learners. I don’t know how much of this way of teaching I could argue. I do recognize, however, that just because I benefitted from and enjoy this approach doesn’t mean that it will be the same for every one else. That creating those meaningful experiences will include grabbing certain aspects of different teaching techniques and using them in a wholesome curriculum reinvented each year to fit students needs. Easy, right?! J

Critical Approaches to TESOL

Critical approaches to almost anything in life are usually taken as a positive method for people to learn and make well rounded educated decisions. However, what if those people are not asking the right questions or even considering certain aspects of the domain in which they want to learn? While reading this article, I was taken aback by the amount of ‘issues’ that can be linked in some way or another to TESOL. For example, throughout my studies, I have most definitely considered the power and politics of English. I, however, never considered to what depth these issues could actually lie in regards to TESOL.  More specifically, I have always noted issues of race and gender, class and an overall inequality in almost any classroom, but after reading this article, I would agree the domains within TESOL lie even deeper. Such as, sexuality, ethnicity, cultural identity, or any group that could be considered an “other”. So here I am, as a pre-service teacher, hoping to learn the most I can about TESOL and what is best for my students, but where is the information I am asked to study coming from? It is most likely handed out in a top-down manner, from well-educated, even native English speaking people. I then find myself wondering, do these authors approaches to teaching TESOL really grasp the entire picture of TESOL? Can I trust that I will gain a more critical view of the social and political relations TESOL teachers best well understand? Are the culturally diverse social relations too varying for me to understand and know without simply conforming to my norms? Will I have to change some of my core beliefs to work in the future?

I wonder these sorts of things after reading the article because it gave so many real examples of times when a TESOL educator might need to know and understand certain aspects of other cultures. One example from the text that best sticks out in my mind is the African student who learns English in France, moves to the U.S., and doesn’t notice his “blackness” until then (p. 332). Why does this culture cause such a change in his own personal identity? What do I need to understand about my own culture in comparison to others to be able to genuinely change?

Then again, I find myself wondering if that is ever truly possible? The article points out on pg. 343 that a critical approach which claims to “emancipate people through a greater awareness of their own conditions is both arrogant and doomed to failure.” I think that, for now, I will stick by a semi-safe argument and say that educators, especially those of diverse populations, should be constantly reflecting on their work, themselves, and the society in which they live. They should also have a good understanding of their own presence within the classroom. Since the current global power is English, it effects almost all of the most crucial educational, cultural, and political issues of our time (pg. 346). Therefore, we, as TESOL educators c should develop promising critical approaches to our teaching.

Kuma Chapters 1 & 2

As I read through chapters one and two I was pleasantly surprised by the text and the way it was written. More importantly, as I read, I found myself asking many questions starting with my own personal decision to teach. As chapter one points out in the very first paragraph, there are people who believe teaching cannot be considered a discipline. I found it interesting that it went as far as defining a job, a career, work, etc. in comparison to a vocation. For me, when I think vocation, I picture a bunch of nuns praying in a chapel- fulfilling their vocational duties. In a way, I feel that as a pre service teacher, I can relate. Many religious figures claim to be “called” to do as they are and in many aspects, I feel the same. I have always “just known” teaching was something I wanted to do- so this all this vocational name calling, actually makes sense to me! I was glad to read this in the beginning of the text as it got my mind spinning for the rest. Although there were many interesting questions that sparked my thinking like does teaching actually cause learning to occur? Learning can occur without teaching-- right? Which are two questions I’m not sure I would re-consider asking if ever speaking with an experienced teacher. I was interested to read about the roles of teachers. The three roles that were described in the chapter, I think, were really spot on. As I read them, I tried to consider which type of teacher I most relate to at this point in my pre service career. After reading through them, I felt I most identified with teachers as transformative individuals but found that certain aspects of the other two roles also pertained to me. I think I most identify with this because I believe that personal transformation is extremely important for teachers, especially those of diverse learners. The third paragraph on pg. 14 does an excellent job of almost capturing how I seem to feel about teaching. The following list I find to be very important and seem to relate to. Two of the most prominent examples from the list for me are, the improvisation that takes place in a classroom and a sensitivity to pluralism. In general, I think that maybe I like the idea of this kind of teacher because it seems to strive for students academic and social knowledge/achievement while also requiring a sort of personal transformation. I think this mix could be a very powerful component in a classroom because everyone can then grow together- including the teacher.

Briefly, chapter two discussed the meaning of method and referred to three separate types of methods. The one that I seemed to most relate to was the learner-center method. While reading, I was wondering what the authors would say about this being an effective method or not. In the end, however, the authors seemed to agree that there is not any one right method.  Finally, I enjoyed reading about the dissatisfaction with the method. It was interesting to me that so many teachers can claim to follow one method but in reality not have a true understand of that method, nor follow it at all! 

History and its Approaches

As I start to digest both Kuma and Celce-Murcias articles, a few things come to mind. First, I am surprised by the amount of change in language teaching approaches and how early in our history it started. Although it is obvious to me that throughout history there have been numerous languages geographically surrounding each other and that, at some point, these communities of people had to interact. I never really though to consider the extent to which our historical teaching of languages went (such as Jan Comenius dating back to the 1600s, mentioned in Celce-Murcias article p. 60) and what affect they have on our perspectives today. For example the approaches used throughout history are numerous, varying, and contradictory, however, early teachers ultimately have the same general goal as present day teachers- to learn language. All these approaches throughout history and presently represent a challenge, which all teachers in all areas are faced with on a daily basis. What is the best way for my learners? This is a nearly impossible question to answer as almost every individual requires certain and specific attention whether that is in language learning or any context. With that in mind I wanted to compare and contrast my teaching at the ELI with these approaches listed in Celce-Murcias article to try and see some sort of parallel that maybe I do actually have an approach. Therefore I could research and see if my natural instinct to teach a certain way is actually reliable. I, however, found that I have not have enough experience to say I even seem to have one approach which causes me to think two things. One, I am glad that I haven’t developed a certain comfort in one specific approach before studying them, that way I can be open minded in my teaching as the semester goes on. Two, that having one approach might be detrimental and that having a basic knowledge of many would probably be best for a diverse set of learners.

 I was also surprised to read, in Kumas article, about what he calls the period of awareness and period of awakening. I think that yes, our present day knowledge of learning and language learning is probably much more devolved than it was years ago but I do have to argue, that to an extent, the language teaching of the past must have worked in some capacity as people did learn! I do understand, however, that could be due to what type of motivation was impelling the learner. For example, survival or pleasure? I have to say, I understand where Kuma is coming from by naming these two time periods but I don’t really know if educators can ever really make it to, let’s say, a total awakeness. I don’t think Kuma implied such an idea in his article but I do think it is important to note that as educators we are always learning and therefore always opening our minds to new ideas such as approaches to TESOL. In a sense, we are stuck in this period of awakening forever.

Finally, I am glad to have a little more clarity on the specific approaches, where the originated, and what the mean but still hope to clarify in class. 

Anthology Chapter 1 and 2: Theories of teaching in language teaching

As I read chapter one, I was glad to see a distinction between methods, approaches, and techniques. These terms are so often used interchangeably that I am often confused with what context to use them. Although there is no totally agreed upon definition, the terms did help to set up the rest of the chapter.

Chapter one and two, were both very applicable to my personal experiences with language learning and teaching. Having just started working at the ELI, I am teaching, for the first time, adult language learners and trying to use my own language learning as a stepping stone to "treat" my students. This chapter offered twelve principles which, I believe, language learners need to experience, in varying ways and techniques to best enhance their learning. From personal experience, I would say all 12 of these examples are right on the money. These 12 principles, intertwined with one another seem to set up almost any learner up for success. However, most of my understanding of language learning has come in hindsight to my own language learning in general, along with an education based on language learning. I wonder, how an education in language learning, such as this course, may have affected my L2 in the long run? I often feel I may have been more successful in knowing why I did certain tasks or was asked to take seemingly ridiculous assessments if I knew such things. I do keep in mind though that with aspirations to teach young children, these principles are very well comprised and easily relatable.

I also really enjoyed to 10 strategies of involvement in the classroom because they gave specific examples of which I can apply to my present day classes.

Finally, I enjoyed chapter two because it offered four separate conceptions about teaching that all have some very valid points and specific examples. In the end though, I would have to argue that a teachers concept probably changes over time depending on experience. Personally, I seem to be really attracted to the art-craft conception but I don't think I could properly apply that without many years of experience and a well rounded understanding of the other conceptions.

In general, I would also have to argue, for almost every teaching concept, that a variety of techniques, approaches, and methods is probably best to account for a diverse classroom. What seems most difficult is learning to teach in ways you personally do not learn. Challenging myself to present information in ways which I may have never considered, may be exactly what my students might need.

Who Speaks English Today? By Jennifer Jerkins

            Some times I go to the loo and have shrapnel in my wallet. While reading Jennifer Jerkins article Who Speaks English Today, I was surprised to be personally struck by McArthurs six provisions which diffuse the three commonly heard titles in TESOL; ENL, ESL, EFL. First McArthur argues that there is not a single variety of English, which I have always deemed to be true. How can we place a language standard when we have such diversity within one language? The limited examples of such diversity that used to come to mind are Ebonics or a southern twang. However, what most interested me was the ENL speakers whom I have never really considered despite them being in my own family. For example, my grandmother is from Bermuda, spent half her life in England; where the bathroom is often called the ‘loo’; followed by many years in New Orleans surrounded by a Creole speaking community. I have never considered her variety of English as anything but “standard” as that is all I know from her, however, in retrospect, her English is very distinct from mine, and again her own sister who lives in Australia; where change (as in coins) is call ‘shrapnel’. It hit me how interesting it is that in one family there is at least three distinct forms of English. This caused to me to consider my uncle in Kauai, Hawaii and his families unique English use. This small, but significant part of the article really got me thinking. If seemingly native English speaking family can have such distinctions, which had gone unnoticed to me for so many years, who really does speak legitimate English today? How has my English use been affected by my families English, which I have always thought to be “normal”? All of these ideas that first sparked my thinking flowed perfectly with the rest of the article and the so-called “English Maps” including the certain inner/outer circles of English speaking populations and the abundance of variety. I was pleasantly surprised to be able to relate the very first article and blog post to my personal life and interested to read about defining a “new English” now that I’m not really sure what my English is considered to be?