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?