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!