Week 15 Response

I used to be a Secondary Teacher Education major, so I've spent a good amount of time talking about lesson planning--everything from how to format it to how to implement it (and roll with the punches when it doesn't quite go as planned).  The C&I department at ISU also attempts to instill the value of self reflection in every teacher candidate.  Kuma's chapter reiterates this aspect of lesson planning and instruction and provides examples of how to effectively assess one's own methods and materials in the classroom.

There were three topics that really stuck out to me, namely a) teacher intention and learner interpretation (289); b) observational practices; and c) learning opportunities.  From my own teaching experience, I have seen the mismatch between what I want to transmit to the students--in terms of content, attitude, perspective, or instructions--and what they actually glean from it.  I find this to be one of the most frustrating aspects of teaching; misunderstanding is rampant in educational (and non-educational) settings.  As human beings, we are subjective and biased.  Sometimes we are trapped in our own mentalities and mindsets, and it is extremely difficult to separate these from those of our students.  This happens a lot in daily interaction, when we make illogical jumps in conversation--or at least 'illogical' to the listener, not to us, because it made sense to us when we said it.  I think the same thing often happens in the classroom but to a broader extent.

That's why it's important to be self-reflective and be observed by someone else.  The "team" approach, characterized by the M&M Model (292) in which coworkers observe fellow teachers, really appeals to me.  It reminds me of a tactic that would likely be used in the middle school setting, where interdisciplinary learning is emphasized and cooperation among "teams" of learners and teachers is prioritized.  There are many benefits to such observational practices, and I think they should be implemented by more educators.  Teachers can gain more insight into their own biases and instructional practices by having an outside perspective.  It helps them to be as objective as possible in regards to their own teaching.

These biases and mismatches between the teacher and the student can many times lead to missed learning opportunities (300).  As teachers, we often feel restricted by our own lesson plans and forget to capitalize on naturally occurring learning opportunities presented by the students themselves; we are distracted by our own learning objectives.  Observation helps us become more aware of these learning opportunities, and hopefully make use of them in the future, through discussion with a peer and with the students as well.  We like to believe, or we try to convince ourselves, that the classroom is the realm of the teacher and is perfectly under control.  In reality, we must recognize the cues of our students and adapt our instruction to best meet their needs and their curiosities--after all, isn't this what learning really is?

Week 13 Response

First of all, after exploring the topics of reliabilty and validity in great depth in ENG 346, I have a problem with Huerta-Macias' anecdotal remark that second language acquisition cannot be asessed in "a valid and reliable way" through traditional testing methods (338).  Although I'm not a personal fan of high-stakes, standardized testing, there are certain situations in which it is the best, indeed the most valid and reliable, measure of student's progress or proficiency in the L2.  Her argumentation (and claims of "all the problems found with such testing") leads to more misunderstanding about traditional testing--which believe me, I was very biased about it, too, before this semester of coursework--and creates a dichotomy between traditional testing and alternative assessment (339).  Some of the points she makes are flat out wrong, like saying alternative assessment is more free of bias (339).  Alternative assessment, such as observation, can be equally as biased as the traditional testing methods.  Also, alternative assessment can, in fact, take time out of the classroom, or take time outside of the classroom, in the form of student-teacher conferences or interviews.  The truth is that these methods are not in opposition but rather two sides of the same coin that must be used concurrently in order to make the most informed decisions about our student's ability in the L2 as well as our own teaching practices.

In chapter 34, Peñaflorida brings up some very valid and pertinent issues/"malpractices" in alternative assessment in terms of L2 writing (345).  She also recognizes the shortcomings of alternative assessment and provides a more balanced review of it compared to Huerta-Macias.  This chapter really highlights the tension between content (substance) evaluation and grammar (form) correction, which is a particular challenge for all English teachers, but especially ESL/EFL teachers.  Before continuing past the introduction section, I tried to brainstorm some solutions to this issue.  Could we assign papers with a different focus (e.g. grade one paper only for substance and the next only on forms)?  This seems problematic, as incorrect forms remain and may become fossilized in the writer's work or the student could write a grammatically flawless paper with little depth or insight.  As teachers, we want it all: substance and form.  So then I thought that maybe we could always grade for substance but grade for errors in form in a different way.  Instead of using the dreaded red ink pen, perhaps we could use highlighters to draw the learner's eyes to the form and then make suggestions or give tips that could lead them to the correct use of that form.  For example, the teacher could write "What time frame are we in?" if the student uses the wrong verb tense.  This was just an idea that came to me, but I still recognize problems with this method.  Personally, I think I'd rather receive a paper that is really marked up than receive one with little feedback or, sometimes even worse, inconsistent feedback.  If teachers make certain errors but not others, this is confusing and misleading to the L2 writer.

Week 12 Response

My own culture awareness began to take form during my Spanish coursework in high school, where we would talk about ancient civilizations of Latin America or present-day celebrations practiced in Mexico or Peru.  From there, I started to understand that there was another world, very different from my own, and I was fascinated by its 'otherness'.  Since high school, my mindset has changed a great deal.  Through my TESOL coursework and various literature and "culture" courses through my major and LALS (Latin American and Latino/a Studies) minor, I'd like to believe that this sense of 'otherness' has been diluded, although I doubt it can ever entirely be erased.  As Robinson (1991) claims, we can learn to see the world through a lens (red) different from our own (blue), but to expect that we can ever negate our ideological upbringing, to me, seems unreasonable (Kuma 270).  We can simply expand and build upon what already exists, creating a new way of looking at the world that combines aspects of our own "culture" and that of anyone else.

But still I have a hard time using these terms, because I feel that the world "culture" inherently creates an Other.  In attempting to homogenize a group of people, it automatically stigmatizes another as different or dissimilar.  At the same time, I cannot deny that differences--political, social, historical, linguistic--exist between certain populations.  Thus, a person could be considered ignorant if they fall on either end of the spectrum of trying to negate culture or overemphasizing it (e.g. stereotypes).  This is what I feel often happens when we talk about "culture", is that we simply refer to stereotypical notions of people magnified to a much grander scale.  Each person is so complex and multidimensional that it seems impossible to group sets of people together and label them.  So yes, I believe we can attempt to categorize people based on similarities and differences--as this is the tendency of the human brain--but this should never be taken as the absolute truth nor should it be used to make sweeping generalizations about any group of people.

If every person is so complex, I think the first step any educator should make in raising cultural awareness is to cultivate a sense of self-critique and reflection in each student (271).  How can we ever hope to "understand" (or at least empathize with) anyone else if we don't first comprehend the hidden ideologies, values, and biases within ourselves?  This is a powerful realization for the student, and a necessary one in language learning (and all learning).

After reading the two pieces by Kuma, I am still skeptical as to how culture can effectively be taught.  Even as I wrote that sentence, I wondered, what does effectively teaching culture even mean?  He presents a list of microstrategies at the end of chapter 12, but they all seemed fairly superficial to me.  Can culture ever be taught in a way that's not superficial?  Perhaps only when the student experiences it--whatever "it" may be--in the native context, such as a study abroad experience.  Otherwise, I think culture must be treated differently within the classroom, and what is typically regarded as Culture can be analyzed, based on the self-reflective cultural knowledge, to determine underlying beliefs or assumptions.  This oftentimes happens in literature classes, and I think much can be learned through historical exploration through current events.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that maybe culture shouldn't be as explicit in the classroom as Kuma presents it, but rather explored through the products of the culture itself.

Week 11 Response

While reading chapter 9 in Beyond Methods, I began to think of how difficult it is to teach elements of language such as cohesion in discourse and stress/intonation patterns (especially in English).  When you also consider the situational context that may be necessary for language to make meaning, the waters get even murkier.  That's a lot to ask of a teacher, and may even be near impossible in the EFL context.  I started to think of ways in which a teacher could feasibly cover all these topics, which I believe are essential to mastery of the language.  I kept hitting this wall in which I thought, "Yeah, all that stuff is important and necessary, but you need to learn the basics first before you can begin to cover topics such as cohesion or cultural implications and interpretations."  As if he were reading my mind, Kuma introduced the three classes of drills, from mechanical, to meaningful, to communicative (214).  Of course, he went on later to criticize this model, but to me, it still makes sense.  I think a student must be taught the the basics before they can understand simplified language and the cultural context.  I have seen this many times while tutoring Spanish, but the same ideas can be applied to English as well.

For example, if we're discussing direct and indirect objects and their pronouns, you must scaffold the learner by breaking this knowledge and simplification process into steps.

1: Did you give the report to Jonathon?
2:a: Yes, I gave the report to Jonathon.
   b:Yes, I gave it to Jonathon.
   c: Yes, I gave it to him.

There are many transformations taking place in this example, and I think the best way to have the student understand them is to take it one step at a time.  Only then can they apply it in their speech as an instantaneous process.

I also liked some of the microstrategies presented near the end of the chapter.  I thought the timeline activity, in particular, could be used for comprehensive learning and culmination of previously learned concepts such as the past tense, future tense, and any vocabulary that was presented in and outside of the class.  Normally, I disregard anything that has "Cloze" in the title, but the activity Kuma shows on page 219 was adapted to test only grammatically categories, and thus, I think it can form part of the "mechanical" step of learning grammar.

Chapter 10 deals with the integration of traditionally 'isolated' language skills (e.g. speaking, listening, writing, reading).  However, from our class discussions regarding strategies, as well as from ENG 346 and assessment techniques, I think we have come to realize they are rarely separate.  However, I think most people would still hold tight to the active-passive separation, because it seems so inherent to us (227).  The truth is that, by modeling strategies and techniques, teachers can attempt to break this assumption.  For instance, while performing a "passive" activity such as reading, the students can also perform "Think Alouds" and share their immediate thoughts with a partner, and then discuss the passage.  Thus, the activity because "active" and multiple modalities are engaged simultaneously.

Week 9 Response

Can I just say how excited I was to read this section?  Since I began working as a Spanish tutor at the Visor Center here on campus, I have constantly been reminded of the importance of learning strategies in the foreign (or second) language classroom.  When reading extended passages or writing compositions, I always begin by asking my tutees what strategies or tools they use to complete the task.  Oftentimes I am left with blank stares.  Strategies were something so engrained into my learning experience that it was easy to forget some students never acquired them.  Tutoring made me more aware of the lack of learning strategy use, especially in the language classroom.  Without a solid foundation in L1 learning strategies, how can our students hope to transfer such knowledge to their L2?  This personal control over one's learning (122) can be tied to last week's article about the importance of utilizing and supporting the native language of our students.  So first, we must provide an atmosphere where the native language is embraced.  Then we must explicitly instruct (126) and model to our students language learning strategies (122) so that they may be internalized and utilized independently by the learner (125).

One quote I found particularly interesting was, "Investigators have found a statistical link between students' L2 learning strategies and their underlying learning styles.  These styles are often directly related to culturally inculcated values" (127).  Undoubtedly, these are important issues to confront in the ESL classroom.  As with most things that are worthwhile in teaching and learning, learning strategy instruction will likely be met with resistance at first--or at least, discomfort.  Students--especially students from a wide variety of cultures and countries--bring particular preferences and attitudes about learning to the ESL classroom.  The truth of the matter, though, is that language learning requires both analytic and more holistic approaches to learning; many times students will gravitate toward one aspect over the other.  Thus, it is our job to start incorporating both types of learning strategies into our instruction consistently and from an early age.

As I stated earlier, my experience at the Visor Center has repeatedly made me think about learning strategies.  In fact, I am currently trying to create a Language Learning Skills Workship series that will be offered to ISU students.  The chapters gave me a lot of ideas for the content and presentation of this material.  You could imagine, then, how disappointed I was to see the warning,"do not separate it as a minicourse on language learning strategies" (128).  Why not?  I understand the benefit or integration into classroom instruction, but isn't some external instruction better than nothing at all?  Can't there will special circumstances in which a minicourse would be acceptable?  This was the most disappointing aspect of the readings for me, but I still hope to continue on with my research and hopefully pilot the series in the spring.

Week 8 Reponse

Listening comprehension is often underestimated in L2 learning, and I have seen the effects of such a mentality in my own experiences as a student, teacher, and tutor.  Most recently, one of my students at the ELI expressed to me her concerns about her listening comprehension; chapter 21 really made me ponder what this ability entails.  She explained how she often got the gist or idea of what was being said, but did not know every word that was spoken.  Many times this happens to me in English, my first language... but for different reasons.  So then, I thought, is that entirely bad?  She is using context and previous knowledge to formulate a notion of what the speaker is saying (239).  This reflects the dichotomy we often create of bottom-up or top-down listening processes.

I like that the authors offer strategies to help students listen better--the foundation for the production of speech itself.  Chapter 23 explores this topic more by teaching students to recognize native speaker's devices within their own speech: pause fillers, transitions, and "stock phrases" that are all readibly at their disposal (249).  It's important for listeners to be aware of these items and, furthermore, to incorporate them in their own speech.  This also helps the students realize that speaking is improvised (for the most part) and thus, contains errors and imperfect structure or argumentation.  As the book states, it is not the same as the written language, but we often create or use activities that are more akin to the language found in writing samples (250).

Lastly, another aspect of the reading I found enlightening was its demand for authentic materials for listening activities.  We must not "water down" language or overstructure it thinking such tactics will help the learner transition and improve their listening comprehension.  Instead, the book proposes an exposure to native speech samples from the onset of language learning accompanied by the student's prior knowledge that they will not understand everything (244).  I think this is important, because this is what happens in the real world for L2 learners at different stages of proficiency.

Week 7

No blog responses this week due to group presentation.