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.

Week 6 Response 2: Plans for Final Project

For the final project, I was hoping to create a website... before you said it was your least favorite option on the list.  Hopefully, I will be able to convince you otherwise.  I have created many websites before, so I am well-versed with the "how" of web design.  And while I do enjoy writing papers, my best work is usually a consequence of hands-on, artistic endeavors.

For the past year and a half, I have been teaching adult ESL classes for native Spanish speakers at Western Avenue Community Center.  The philosophy we use is "teach what the students want to learn" in what we call "Survival English" classes.  This is for immigrants who need basic linguistic knowledge for very specific purposes (e.g. making a doctor's appointment or applying for a job).  Therefore, my lesson planning has always been very minimal.  No textbooks are used and learner materials are scarce.

With that being said, let me outline my plans for this project.  My vision is to create an interactive website for future teachers (I am graduating at the end of this year, after all) and students/members of the community.  This website would compile relevant activities, reading materials, websites, articles, videos, and other resources in one place for a very specific audience.  This website is intended for Western Avenue's Hispanic Outreach Program, or programs similar to it.  Thus, materials will focus on learning the differences between a specific L1 (Spanish) and the target language (English), as well as the differences (style, motivation, investment) of adult immigrant learners.  Over the past couple years, I have saved websites and materials that I have found useful for my students.  This project would allow me to expand upon this knowledge base and almost augment it with research.

Since I am not going into the educational field--in the traditional sense of the word--but instead will be working as a social worker in a community setting, my classes are fundamentally different than the ones structured in the classroom.  I feel that this experience, and the final product that will result, will be far more beneficial to me and will also be a lasting resource for WACC long after I am gone.

Week 6 Response 1: Lesson Planning and Curriculum

On page 69, the authors raise a valid question, namely, can a language realistically be taught within the classroom setting?  This seems like an absurd question to pose to the reader, who obviously believes such a proposition to be true--to be the basis, or at least an element, of their profession.  Yet it's a question worth asking, because many people will argue that it is impossible to teach a language at all.  I think this directly relates to our teaching philosophy and value systems, as mentioned in this chapter (e.g. classical humanism, reconstructionalism, and integrated approach).  Overall, I think the goal of every teacher--content or language--should aim to maximize learning opportunities that focus on the process of learning, as opposed to the product-oriented curriculum.  This will serve our students far better than giving them prepackaged, cookie-cutter English dialogues.  Instead, they will be prepared to apply their linguistic knowledge (grammatical, semantic, and pragmatic) in a variety of settings and situations.

Planning such a lesson must take many things into consideration, and evaluating its effectiveness undoubtedly is a challenge.  On page 35, a list of criteria is offered to evaluate a teacher's lesson plan, which gives the following as evidence of a successful lesson, according to Ur:

(1) the class seemed to be learning the material well; (2) the learners were engaging with the foreign language throughout; (3) the learners were attentive all the time; (4) the learners enjoyed the lesson and were motivated; (5) the learners were active all the time; (6) the lesson went according to plan; (7) the language was used communicatively throughout.

In what perfect world does this ever happen?  This simply is not feasible most of the time.  I'm not saying that these things should not be objectives to strive towards, but I don't think a lesson must meet every one of these objectives for every lesson.  Nor should these be expected of every student on a regular basis.  There is simply too much variability among students.

Week 5 Response 2: Sheltered Instruction

ELL* students are often predetermined to be less capable of academic success on the micro (classroom-based) and macro (standardized tests) level (2).  Obviously, these assumptions and generalizations are going to impact the way we, as teachers, treat them as students and language learners.  In addition, things that we take for granted in the American school system--such as sitting in desks, raising our hands, taking standardized tests--are culturally determined (4).  Our students, coming from distinct countries and backgrounds, may not be accustomed to these practices.  Adjusting to these characteristics of the American school is another factor that will influence the student's amount of learning, compounded with their language learning goals.  This topic is further developed later in the article, which mentions "the explicit socialization of students to the often implicit cultural expectations of the classroom" (8).  Clearly there is more than just learning grammar or vocabulary that takes place in the ESL context.

I prefer this term over Poole's choice of LEP.  Labeling students as "Low English Proficiency" learners only focuses on what the student lacks as opposed to the various other skills they bring to the table, linguistic or otherwise.

Consider also this statement from Poole's article: "Research has shown that it may take students from 4 to 10 years of study, depending on the background factors described earlier, before they are proficient in academic English" (5).  The first thing I thought of was my own L2 experience and how depressed I would have been to hear the amount of time it might take for me to meet proficiency levels required by certain schools.  My next thought was about the amount of variability in that piece of data.  There's a big difference between 4 years and 10 years of language learning.  This just reiterates the learner diversity that we will encounter in the ESL classroom.  Can we ever appeal to all students at the same time?  Of course not, and we'd be fools to think such a goal could ever be reached.  We can, however, vary the way we present and evaluate material so that we at least attempt to satisfy the multiple and diverse needs of our students.  Similarly, the amount of time needed to reach proficiency can also be attributed to teacher instruction.  Learner preferences and instructional practices go hand in hand, ultimately working collectively to assist the student or competing against one another to the detriment of the learner.

As a result, many have advocated the use of SIOP when planning instruction.  After reading exactly what this was, I wasn't all that impressed.  The entire things seems like standard lesson planning to me, at least from what I experienced during my pre-teacher coursework here at ISU.  Furthermore, the SI model is based on the assumption that language learning increases through meaningful interaction (11).  It seems that this approach shares the main tenets of CLT, but there are important differences.  Unlike CLT, the SI model attempts to maximize language learning opportunities through instruction in the "core" subjects--math, science, language arts, and social studies.  CLT does not place this emphasis on these subjects but instead focuses entirely on the acquisition of the language through "real world" activities.  The role of the teacher in these two approaches is also distinct.  It seems to me that the SI model gives the teacher a far more dominant role in the classroom than does CLT, based on its reliance of visual aids, demonstrations, and "native language support" (11).

Week 5 Response 1: Task-Based Language Teaching

Even after discussing these topics, I still do not feel that I completely understand the definition of a task.  Loosely defined, a task is an activity that requires meaningful language use (Skehan 3).  However, I find that most activities in the language classroom are centered around meaningful language use, especially in light of CLT's dominance in the field.  On a different but related topic, I wonder what it means to be "meaningful" the context of language learning.  Certainly there are established notions of what this means, but I think it can be argued that, within the classroom setting, language use cannot be consider authentic the majority of the time.  What we create in the classroom is psedo-authentic situations that paralel--but do not encapsulate--"real world" realities.

One thing I am still trying to figure out about Task-Based Teaching is whether or not it is teacher-dominant.  In one section of the Skehan article, he references Long (1989) by stating "convergent tasks ... would produce more negotiation of meaning than divergent tasks" (4).  This struck me as a statement that emphasizes the role of the teacher over that of the students.  By forcing the students to come to an agreement, you are placing their conversation within boundaries and limiting their individual interpretations or conclusions from an activity.  This, then, directly relates to the nature of student interaction and discussion.  Later in the article, Skehan reviews another study by Van Lier and Matsuo (2000) that looks at interstudent relations and language learning through discussion.  I found this section to be very interesting, because it highlights the challenge proposed by discussion-based classrooms--especially language classrooms--of maintaining balance and authenticity.  As teachers, we want to ensure that every student finds their "voice" and invests themself into the classwork, but we also hope to create true discussions led by the students themself.  We also have to know when, or if, to intervene to provide feedback.  For example, another study concluded "a significant amount of teacher intervention was needed to wean learners away from simpler expressions" (7).  These are difficult and controversial topics that impact a teacher's planning and implementation of lessons.

Week 4 Response 3: The Global Context and Relevancy of CLT

Preservice teachers in the United States today seem to be immediately indoctrinated into the CLT framework and convinced of its underlying principles and resulting methodologies.  This is, after all, where research and progress has brought us, and thus anything that does not fit within this framework is rejected and denounced as "backward" (Bax 279).  The reality is that regardless of methodology or approaches to teaching a language, there will always be students who learn to be proficient and those that don't.  CLT isn't some miraculous method that guarantees language learning, although the way it is promoted makes it seem that way.  Stephen Bax's article attempts to downplay the importance of CLT and instead give emphasis to context--"understanding of individual students and their learning needs, wants, styles, and strategies... as well as the coursebook, local conditions, the classroom culture, school culture, [and] national culture" (285).

It's hard to argue with his claims, yet I am left dissatisfied with the article as a whole.  How, exactly, do we modify CLT in order to take into account all these individual variables?  He states, "context will be the very first thing to be taken into account before any methodological or language system decisions are taken" (284).  This statement would be a lot more powerful and convincing if he actually followed it by giving explicit examples of ways to do this.  It's easy to philosophize and theorize, but in the end, it's all talk.  I think teachers can get trapped into thinking they are being sensitive to context when in reality they are still adhering to the tenets of CLT.  The Context Approach is never fully developed in this article, and it left me wondering what I could take from its content that would be of practical benefit to me.

Context, however we choose to define it, largely impacts the way we teach and how we are received in the classroom.  Hu's article raises the question of whether CLT can be transferred to any context and provides convincing arguments to the contrary.  He uses the example of China to demonstrate the contrasting views--or assumptions--of learning, teaching, and student-teacher interaction compared to those of CLT.  I particularly like the use of word 'assumption' because it brings to the forefront the issue of language and power relations.  When we make assumptions about teaching and learning, without considering the context in which they occur (or don't occur), we are at a severe disadvantage.

Hu is attempting to challenge our (i.e. the Western) way of thinking about education by examining a cultural context different from what we are accustomed to.  CLT, according to Hu, is unlikely to be adopted by China because it is in direct conflict with their educational assumptions.  I see the paradox in this argumentation, namely that it asks us to rethink our own assumptions about CLT but never asks Chinese pedagogues or theorists evaluate their own.  This automatically leads me to question whether or not we should challenge our assumptions, and to me the answer is obvious.  Without critically viewing ourselves as byproducts of the system we live in, we become complacent and content with these underlying assumptions, if we even recognize them as culturally-biased assumptions.  It is this type of thinking that led to Bax's article in the first place.  So how can we say that the Chinese educational system should not also analyze its own system of education?  I'm not advocating they ignore student and teacher preferences with the goal of implementing CLT.  Rather, I am arguing that a critical perspective be adopted, as it should by all educators.  After all, if we only ever did what was within our comfort zone, what numerous educational opportunities would be lost?

Week 4 Response 2: CLT and Learning Opportunities

As Kuma states in chapter 3, it should remain clear and obvious that a teacher's role--regardless of practice or theory or methodology--is to maximize learning opportunities.  However he also argues that "learning is primarily a personal construct controlled by the individual learner" (44).  Thus, to a large extent we determine what we want to learn and what we will remember from what has explicitly or implicitly been taught to us.  Does this negate the value of teaching as a profession?  Certainly not, as students will not likely seek out information on their own without having been raised to place importance on knowledge and awareness.  Teachers, therefore, become necessary proponents of education in a broader sense--the type of education that occurs outside of the classroom, especially in regards to a foreign or second language.  We must provide learning opportunities but also manipulate the situation in front of us to create more learning opportunities.  This, I think, is what determines the role of the teacher and helps us to understand the type of relationship needed in the language classroom.

In order to maximize learning opportunities, we must be acutely aware of our students' strengths and weaknesses as well as the unique characteristics and experiences that distinguish them from each other.  This is achieved through listening.  Teachers so often want to talk and be heard, but we must learn to be quiet and consider the "voices" of our students instead.  By doing so, we can form more meaningful questions or comments and, consequently, create a more authentic and meaningful environmental for language use and practice.  In esssence:

"the classroom teacher is only one of the participants--one with greater competence and authority, of course--but only a participant nonetheless, and as such s/he cannot afford to ignore any contributory discourse from other partners engaged in a joint venture to 'accomplish lessons'" (54)

The teacher is a facilitator and an adviser, but must perform these tasks only as needed, allowing greater freedom and creativity from the students themselves.  This is such a hard balance to achieve, compounded by the numerous demands placed upon us by the curriculum, achievement tests, and time restrictions.

These two readings also made me think about the cooperation-competition dichotomy and how this impacts student motivation, participation, and overall learning.  How does CLT or Critical Pedagogy affect these differently?  I believe CLT places more emphasis on competition than CP does, simply because the goals of these two frameworks are different.  Surely, they both aim to promote language learning and proficiency, but CP has the added objective of transforming society, which tends to overshadow its language goals.  How will students react to either of these styles of teaching?  I think each will be met with some level of resistance by the students, because they do advocate for collective achievement.  This can lead to stifled motivation, lack of participation, and less learning in general.  Why is this so?  I believe such results are a consequence of the educational system and its objectives as they are defined by the society we live in.  We constantly strive to be the best in every aspect of the word, and this transfers to our educational philosophies as teachers and students alike.  If we began teaching our children to think collectively from an early age, perhaps this resistance would not be so strong by the time they began learning a second or foreign language.

Week 4 Response 1: Investment, Oppression, and Critical Pedagogy in the ESL Classroom

Popular Research and Social Transformation: A Community-Based Approach to Critical Pedagogy
by Klaudia M. Rivera


One interesting aspect included in the article, although not stately explicitly, was the particpants' investment in the program.  Many of the women involved were required to attend the ESL class to keep their public assistance, used to raise their families and maintain their homes.  Although it may seem harsh, we can bring out the best in a person (or in a community) through the worst situations.  I believe that because they had financial investment in the class, they were more committed to achieving the curriculum goals.  There is a similar problem that I face at Western Avenue Community Center, where I teach adult ESL classes to native Spanish speakers.  The classes are offered for free, and yet we see minimal attendance and little longevity in our roster of students.  My boss and I have discussed, at length, the various reasons why this could be.  Yet one of the most enduring arguments he made was that people aren't coming because the classes are free.  What?  This seemed counterintuitive to me, and the thought of charging people to learn English seemed awful to me.  The more I think about it, the more I see reason behind his claim.  Perhaps with a small monetary contribution, we would have more students in our ESL classes--but with each decision, we must compromise with our values and ideals.
relation to WACC

Reading this article and seeing how the curriculum was implemented, I wondered, can bottom-up processes ever be inspired by those "outside" of the target group?  This, to me, is a very relevant and worrisome question.  My goal in life is to work alongside both the Spanish-speaking and English-speaking population at a community center setting, creating positive change through educational and spiritual programming.  This is especially important for the Spanish-speaking clientele who are often marginalized in English dominant communities.  As a middle class caucasian woman, will I be deterred from achieving my goals?  Will I be rejected by the community I hope to help?  This is something that particularly interests me and which I would like to study further, reading any scholarly work that deals with this issue as exposed in Paolo Freire's theories of rebellion against the oppressor.  Am I the oppressor?  From my experience working with Spanish-speaking families and individuals in Bloomington-Normal, I have to believe there is truth in both perspectives.  I have seen the walls of race and ethnicity break down as a consequence, yet there may also be evidence of the contrary that I simply do not see.

Week 3 Response 2: Being Critical of Critical Pedagogies

The article begins by reiterating the concerns we discussed in class, namely that of theory v. practice.  Many have come to the concensus that theorists are too distanced and removed from the real world contexts in which teaching occurs.  Why, then, do we rely so heavily upon these sources?  Pennycook also raises the issue of politics within the publishing realm by reminding us of the heavy-handed influence of English in the TESOL and applied linguistic arena and beyond (330).  I think these two points are interesting introductions to what Pennycook later goes on to explain: critical pedagogy.  This notion of critical awareness is not only applicable to our teaching practices, but also important to us as consumers of published scholarly work.  As I have stated in precious posts, we must always be challenging and analyzing the sources of our information--whether it is personal bias or results of our research or education.

Later in the article, Pennycook argues that "critical approaches to TESOL are fundamentally political" and "must necessarily take up certain positions and stances" (334).  He also raises the concern that 'politics' is synonymous with 'leftist' and how this may stigmatize the framework or pin teachers against one another.  I believe this is a key concept to the "transformative intellectual" philosophy and presents a controversial dilemma in thought: how do we define 'leftist' ideals, and are they always best as the basis for educational practice?  Many times, the issues involved are polemic, and the subject becomes murky as we attempt to prescribe what is worth learning in our curricula and what is not.  On a related note, Pennycook asserts that critical thinking should not be confused with critical approaches to TESOL.  However, I personally do not see the difference.  He claims that "[c]ritical thinking is generally an apolitical approach" (334), but I disagree.  How can critical thinking be apolitical?  On what do we base our questioning if not on political matters?  How can we critically analyze a text without being political?  Critical thinking involves considering all sides to an issue and stepping outside of the box--so wouldn't we automatically begin thinking about 'political' topics.  To me, everything is political.  That's just the way I see the world.

One of the most resounding quotes from the article was the following: "A critical approach to TESOL is more than arranging the chairs in a circle and discussing social issues" (338).  How often do we do just that and call it collaborative learning?  I doubt that I'm the only guilty one.  A professor of mine once told me that most "discussion" in the classroom is actually just the teacher prodding the students with predetermined questions to gain a prefabricated response.  I find this largely to be true, but also am curious to know exactly how we can promote true, bottom-up discussion in our classrooms?  The article does a great job at pointing out the problem, but I find it does little to offer a solution or practical suggestions for teachers wanting to take that next step.  What can we do as instructors, and what role does "teacher intervention" play in the critical approach to TESOL?  Personally, I am a big fan of Paolo Freire's work and the critical pedagogy framework, but by attempting to avoid methodology, fails to give teachers concrete examples of how to achieve its transformative goals.

Week 3 Response 1: Teaching Philosophies and the 'Method' Mentality

One statement in the first chapter that seems incongruent with effective instruction is the notion that a teacher's common sense is synonymous with their theory (18).  This may be true for certain individuals, but I strongly oppose the acceptance of such logic.  Teacher's common sense should not constitute their teaching philosophy.  People's common sense is based upon their personal experiences, mostly formed by their own time as a student.  Yet what works best for them may not be what works best for their students.  Therefore, I believe a teacher's philosophy should constantly be challenged by those within the profession but also, and perhaps more importantly, by those outside of the traditional educational system.  What do community activists, parents, international scholars, and marginalized individuals of society have to say about how or what students should be taught?  Gathering these different opinions will drastically change the way a teacher functions within his or her classroom.

The more we study the accepted methods in TESOL, the clearer it becomes that "[m]ethods are based on idealized concepts geared toward idealized contexts" (28). Like Kumaravadivelu, I see postmethods as more of a framework as opposed to methods, which attempt to act as a rigid template for learning and instruction.  The postmethod theory gives the teacher much more flexibility--by providing guiding principles or developmental objectives of learners that may be fulfilled according to the classroom environment, subject material, resources available, and teacher personality (39).

This reiterates the importance of recognizing one's own teaching philosophy and, in turn, his or her vision of what it means to learn.  In chapter 1, it proposes that building a repertoire of critical thinking skills is much more valuable than broadly exploring various content areas (20).  This reminded me of Paolo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed, in which he argues that critical thinking skills are what is being demanded of future generations.  I whole heartedly agree.  Never did I buy into the logic that memorization of specific knowledge would do me any good in life.  Instead, I see far more value in learning how to analyze different situations and pieces of information, because that is what we will face in the "real world" beyond the classroom.  Students are not "empty vessels" that need to be filled with our expertise but rather individuals within a critical dialogue (Freire).  This is how I hope to conduct any classroom, thereby creating an environment of meaningful discussion as the basis for learning English (or any other language).

Week 2 Response 2: The Evolution of TESOL

As Celce Murcia relates in her article, most teachers are unaware of the history behind TESOL and the varying methods that have been practiced for hundreds of years--myself included.  Sure, I had heard of the audiolingual method and known about translation-based classrooms, but I never knew why the focus was on each technique and how the context helped shape these different approaches.

These separate ways of teaching a foreign/second language again trace back to the teacher's philosophy on language learning and what they view to be the purpose of instruction.  How does the teacher define acquisition?  What are the reasons for learning the language?  These are all valuable questions to ask oneself before creating lesson plans or stepping in front of a class.  In the past, I have always placed importance on the ability to actually use the language in meaningful, real-life contexts (Communicative Language Teaching).  I believed this was the best (and maybe only) way to effectively teach a language.  However, as Kumaravadivelu states, "Even teachers who are committed to CLT can fail to create opportunities for genuine interaction in their classroom" (62).  He also mentioned the arguments against CLT in many different countries.  This got me thinking, challenging myself and my own methodology.  Was I really fostering student growth and meaningful production of the language?  How could I be sure?  Was this the "best" methodology I could be implementing in my classroom?  Is there such a thing as the "best" methodology?

Reading this article also helped me to classify my philosophy within the Affective-Humanistic Approach, which sees each individual as unique and fosters a respectful, interactive, and goal-oriented classroom environment.  The goal, however, is not the end-all-be-all but rather what the group collectively must word towards and help each other obtain.  This also goes along with my Values-Based teaching philosophy.  Thinking about my definitions of teaching and learning has been both comforting and challenging.  As a teacher, you want your students to succeed, and you want everything you do to aid them in that process.  So where do we go from here?  There may never be conclusive scientific research that spells out what works and what doesn't.  Are we doomed to trial and error approaches in the field of TESOL?

Week 2 Response 1: Understanding Teaching and Assessment

Any teacher knows that there's no such things as "one size fits all" when it comes to instructional techniques or assessment methods.  Sure, it would make life a lot easier if there were, but the fact remains that we are constantly changing as human beings--teachers and students alike.  Day to day, our environment also evolves to accommodate our mood, our thoughts, and our preoccupations.  Individuals know that they can be a completely different person from one day to the next... so why do we expect our students to remain the same?  This is unrealistic and detrimental to overall student success.  And isn't that ultimately what our jobs come down to?

I really appreciated the book looking at assessment and teaching from the very start: our theoretical and philosophical perceptions of education.  The way in which we conceptualize teaching heavily influences the approaches we take in the classroom--from involvement and interaction with the students to the evaluations we use to measure their success, however that may be defined (19).  Despite having taken numerous education coursework, it was by these readings that I determined what my educational philosophy really is: values-based.  The importance of learning as a tool to improve society at large is evident in my lessons and my attitude towards students.  It was interesting to read the other varying philosophies and how they might work together or contradict one another.  For me, it seemed unfair that the book criticize the values-based approach to teaching as "not subject to accountability" (24).  In the end, it is my belief that we all must hold one another accountable for our actions and our attempts to love and help each other reach their full potential.


Another issue I had with the readings was the apparent contradiction in regards to teaching philosophy and the manifestation of such within the classroom--via instructional techniques and assessment methods or materials.  It clearly states, "commitment to a single method of teaching may impede the teacher's full potential" while then going on to say that "eclecticism is not an option" (23).  How can both of these statements be true?  While there may seem to be distinctions between, say, a science-research teaching philosophy and that of art-craft, it does not mean that a teacher is confined to their respective methodologies.  This type of thinking stifles creativity in the classroom and hinders students from experiencing varied types of reasoning and thinking about things.  As an educator, I choose to pull resources and inspiration from all different places in the hopes that each eclectic piece stimulates the mind of a different student, responding to their intellectual and emotional needs as language learners.

Week 1 Response 1: Who Speaks English Today?

There are over 6 billion people on this planet, and only 350 million of them speak a variety of English as their native tongue (Jenkins 15).  More startling is the fact that soon, if not already, there will be more non-native (ESL/EFL) speakers of English than native speakers of this language.  Negating the concept of “power in numbers,” McArthur raises the point that non-native speakers are almost always considered subpar to ENL speakers (16), further supported by Kachru’s argument that the “standards [are] set by native speakers in the Inner Circle” (20).

Yet the concept of the Inner Circle must be questioned as well, because no longer do we live in isolation from the rest of the world.  Immigration, the spread of world markets, and the rise of international media and marketing have completely altered population demographics.  For example, the U.S. may be an English dominant society, but in certain pockets of our nation, there is great diversity in language and culture.  Even here in Bloomington-Normal, there is a large Spanish-speaking sector that does not know English or is currently taking ESL coursework.  I know this because I work with these people, and every day my assumptions about the world and about our country change.  The inevitable fate of the English language is that it will adapt and evolve as it—and every human language—always has, alongside the changing society that speaks it.

Thus, many questions begin to form: How do we determine what is ‘standard’ and what do we teach to our students?  What linguistic and social environment will we be teaching in?  Will our students learn English in a natural setting or as a foreign language?  How will this impact their level of proficiency and our instructional methods?  I think these are valuable questions to ponder as a future language teacher, and I hope to gain more insight into these issues through our coursework this semester.