"they never taught me this"

As I was skimming (admittedly) through the readings for this week (hey, we have a paper due next week and I have been working hard on that!) the thought that kept coming to mind was that it is simply not possible to learn classroom management from a textbook. I think it is something that has to be developed and learned through experience over time. No textbook chapter, no matter how much experience the author has or how well the book is written, can ever prepare us for all of the situations we will encounter as teachers and mentors. I learned this first-hand working with the Migrant students this summer. I felt like I could lead them through a guided reading lesson, make sure they did their math problems correctly, and help them write better transitions between paragraphs. But when it came to discipline, I sometimes found myself completely at a loss.

Much of discipline, I have learned, comes back to respect. No amount of punishment will be sufficient to change a student who does not respect me. And so as a teacher, I desire to develop mutual respect with my students: they as respectful of me as the teacher and authority in the classroom, and I as respectful of them as individuals with needs and desires that may, at times, clash with my own! These situations cannot be handled by following instructions out of a textbook.

There are some things, though, that affect behavior and that we, as teachers, can be proactive about. It is very important to understand those things. Lewis, in her chapter "Classroom Management" suggests motivation as one. Motivation significantly affects language learning. If we can somehow help students to be motivated, we will likely experience less behavior problems in our classroom.

I am sure there are many others. In fact, we have talked about quite a few in this class. But I still hold that the most important thing is respect. It is so fundamental, and yet sometimes so difficult to attain.

self-assessment

In Elena Shohamy's article, "Assessment", she discusses the necessity of and options for evaluating discourse, which she considers to be an important aspect of communicative competency. I wholeheartedly agree with Shohamy. I think that discourse is something that language learners are striving for; something that will make their learning seem worthwhile.

Her commentary on page 205 about the different types of discourses explains that a student's performance in one type of discourse, such as an interview, cannot predict a student's performance in another type of discourse, such as a role-play. She, therefore, suggests that students should be tested on different types of discourses, and it should not just be assumed that they have discourse competence if they can successfully participate in a debate, for example. I think this is true. However, her commentary seems to imply that students should be striving for mastery of all of these different types of discourses. I think it is important to keep in mind that even in a student's first language, they will have strengths and weaknesses in different discourses. Not everyone is good at role-play; not everyone is good at debate. Second language learners do not suddenly possess the ability to express themselves in all ways at all times simply because they are learning a second language. They will still be better at some things than at others. Perhaps sometimes we place too much pressure on second language learners to perform well in areas that give them trouble in their first language.

On page 211, Shohamy describes ways that discourse should be tested, as alternatives to traditional testing methods. She offers self-assessment, narratives, peer assessment, dialogue journals, oral debates, portfolios, and other assessment methods as viable alternatives to traditional testing. I have seen self-assessment come up more and more as a "good" alternative testing method, and I have to say that I disagree with this. Evaluation of oneself requires quite a bit of higher level thinking. Students' brains are not fully developed in high school, much less earlier than that in school. Thus, to offer self-assessment as an assessment method seems flawed. I think that it is important to guide students into evaluating their own work, but to use it as a reliable assessment tool at this stage does not seem like a wise idea. I believe that at this point in their learning, students are still looking for guidance and stability from teachers and other mentors. They are not looking for the academic freedom we seem to think that they need. Instead they are looking for direction in their education and are still learning how to learn. Higher level thinking, and consequently the ability to better evaluate one's own actions, thoughts, and needs, come later in life.

Shohamy has certainly given me something to think about, although I sometimes feel that we severely complicate things like this. The more we "unpack" things, I feel the less we accomplish. Assessing discourse maybe isn't quite as important as just giving students opportunities to practice it. I realize that what we assess is indirectly stating what we believe is most important in language learning, but sometimes I think that there is too much theory being thrown around about things like this. Theory rarely plays out in the classroom the same way that it does on paper.

jots and tittles

I found the "From the Good Kids to the Worst" article very interesting. The Kuma chapter was fine too, but it was kind of a repeat of what we've been talking about ever since 344. I think the article is the part of today's readings that really made me see some issues in a new light. Unfortunately, my brain is going several different directions at once, so this post may become a bit disjointed. However, these are a few of my thoughts, in no order in particular, about today's readings.

I would agree with Harklau's statement on page 36, where she writes, "Too little is known about how these English language learners take on the simultaneous challenges of managing high school content-area academics, learning a new language, and coming of age in US society". Because this statement encompasses so many factors, it would indeed be very difficult to tell what factors are affecting which students at any given time, and because each of them are in a different situation, it is difficult to generalize. I think that was a problem for the ESOL students described in this case study... they were generalized and homogenized incorrectly. I think at some level all teachers must, at some point, mentally "group" their students in order to have a more categorized idea of the general needs of the students in their class. Of course, a teacher cannot rely too heavily on this mental grouping - as one person states later in the article, "each time you think you sort of have a profile of what the family situation probably is based on a few indicators, I find out that its - I really can't make that assumption" (48). We need to be careful that we always think of our students as individuals and not as just a member of a group of students who are all alike - the "ESL kids", the "band kids", the "trailer park kids".

I think the biggest problem here, though, is not necessarily that the students were all being grouped as "ESL", but that students were categorized and were assigned characteristics that were not true of them. Thus, teachers who thought that they were catering to or meeting the needs of these students, actually were not doing so.

The author addressed the question as to why ESL students who performed wonderfully in their high school classes became complacent and poorly behaved in their community college classes. Harklau examined the interaction of classroom practices and social structure and the role that these concepts have in students' identity formation. She discussed the way that ESL students are typically viewed by their high school instructors. These high school instructors typically gave the students high praise for their writings about their experiences, and commented that although the students sometimes failed to correctly complete their homework assignments and perhaps weren't always on task, they were very motivated, hard-working, and had pleasant attitudes.

One part of her article that I found the most fascinating was the discussion of Aeyfer's paper that she wrote, in which she was sitting between the two flags and described her story of how she came to be where she was at, etc. The teacher thought Aeyfer had done wonderful work. As the author writes, "These stories carry at least the potential for students to essentialize themselves as a cultural 'other' in order to secure teachers' sympathy and support". As I read through this section, I had to think of the term "suck-up" as a somewhat adequate descriptor in some of these cases. It happened at the ELI and in the Migrant program too. I don't say that to be derogatory, but just to describe the situation. Students who can't genuinely perform well do often position themselves as "different" because in today's society, the one who is "different" is the one who gets attention.

Anyway, though, the author points out that Aeyfer had been given the same assignment in at least two other classes - and later in the article mentions that similar assignments appeared in these students' college classes as well! Furthermore, this assignment was not actually even relevant to all of the ESL students, as many of them, like Claudia, had been in the States for some time and actually considered "her country" to be the U.S. She was viewed as an American by all of her friends and family in the country she had come from.

The problem came when these students entered college and were placed in ESOL courses, limiting them to a level of performance and learning of material that was too easy for them and somewhat degrading, almost, it seemed. I actually don't think it is any surprise that their college experiences came as a frustration to these girls. In high school, they could succeed by being "different", as described above. They could succeed by telling about their past experiences. College classes, however, require that you go beyond your past experiences in order to be successful. And furthermore, you are plopped in with a whole pool of "different" people, so being "different" doesn't necessarily single you out anymore. From what I read, this created somewhat of an identity crisis in these girls. I actually think we all go through that at some level, so I'm not convinced its just a culture/language thing. We all have our "spot" among our friends and peers in high school, our "label"; our "comfort zone". College can be a shock in that way, because you've arrived at a new place where no one knows about you, your reputation, all your great accomplishments, or your family. For some that can be a good thing, but for other students who have relied on their past to create their identity, this can be difficult.

Harklau's discussion is similar to my own interpretation (or should I say, my interpretation is similar to Harklau's). She asks, "How is the ESOL student constructed and understood" and describes the "new positioning" of these students as explicit "ESOL" students in college. She talks about frames of reference in terms of "in my country", being "from" the U.S. etc. And she describes a very common circumstance in which "In daily, subtle ways, the curriculum and teacher talk in college ESOL classes denied these immigrants ownership of English" (58). Their status as a speaker of English was unrecognized, and their ability to speak the language undermined. This resulted in a resistance to the classroom that represented this language.

I feel like this post is very scrappy, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that all of these issues are interrelated but also experienced by native English speakers on some level. It is very important for us as teachers of English to recognize our students as speakers of English and also to give them opportunities to move beyond their position as an 'other'. Perhaps that is where they would like to stay, but it would seem that this position results in their education being somewhat repetitive and does not do much for their desire to be viewed as a speaker of English and as an American.

I wonder... how do we honor and use past experiences and move into the present at the same time?

understanding

Do they understand? Although there was so much I could talk about in chapters 5 and 7 of Kuma, I think a theme that I recognized that connected the two lies in learner understanding.

In chapter 5, the part that interested me the most was on page 106, where Kuma discusses Interaction Hypothesis. After describing "teacher-talk" and "foreigner-talk", Kuma explains that this phenomena occurs quite often in the language classroom. Michael Long explains, in the Interaction Hypothesis, that "oral interaction in which communication problems are negotiated between participants promotes L2 comprehension and production, ultimately facilitating language development" (Kuma, 106). In essence, rather than looking for expected answers, we as teachers should negotiate with our students the meaning of what they are saying. Negotiation involves clarification strategies, rather than a simple "yes" or "no", wrong or right. Kuma explains that while clarification strategies do occur frequently in speech among native speakers, it happens most often between a NS and an NNS or some relationship of that nature. Clarification, comprehension, and confirmation questions such as "Do you understand me?", "Can you say that again?", and "Is this what you mean?" are important in order to avoid "break-downs" in conversation. The thought that occurred to me is that not only is this valuable in the classroom, but students will also need these comprehension and clarification strategies in real speech! What better way to practice them than in the classroom? These strategies and modifications aid understanding.

In chapter 7, Kuma talks about language awareness. I think what stood out to me here is that students need to be encouraged to ask "why?". The example given on page 159 is that of the English spelling system which is, as the author writes, somewhat "zany". But then, what spelling system isn't? They are all different, and that is why it is necessary to check for student comprehension and understanding and allow them to understand it at a deeper level, rather than just being content with, "well that's just the way that it is spelled".

Throughout all of this too, I was constantly reminded of my experiences at the ELI. We used comprehension checks all the time. And I was asked for explanations all the time! And I hate to admit it, but I wasn't always prepared to deliver those explanations and I wasn't always good at it and sometimes I had to say, "I don't know". But I think that we can still encourage our students to search for understanding and to think about the language they are learning - because even all together, we might learn something!

grammar

Grammar is SUCH a case-by-case subject. Its very difficult to define exactly how grammar should be taught, but I believe that as a general rule, like most language concepts, it needs to be contextualized. So I really liked how in chapter 15, Ellis raises the case for consciousness-raising. I especially like the "deductive" side of it in which a rule is given that can then be applied to a task. This is very similar to some of the ways that Richards gives in chapter 14 for how to address grammar within task work. I really like this way of teaching grammar.

It was encouraging to me to read this section, because just the other day I did something like this with the Spanish IV students at the school where I am doing my clinical hours for my methods class. It's not teaching English, but it is teaching a language, and so I think it is applicable here. In that lesson, I taught the students an explicit grammar structure. It was very procedural; something that needed to be followed step-by-step. Then, rather than giving the students a "subject" to discuss in groups, I gave them each a role in their group. The students, working together, had to create their own role-play that incorporated the structure we just used. To give them a few ideas, I had them draw several objects out of a box I had with toys, candy bars, etc. This allowed them to use a very limited grammar structure in a creative way. As Richards points out, one of the ways to address grammar within task work is to "pre-teach linguistic forms that can be used in a task". I can attest to the effectiveness of this technique.

Chapter 13 reminded me of a conversation I had at a conference this past weekend. I went to the ICTFL (Illinois Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) conference in Tinley Park, and one of the sessions I attended was all about proficiency. I can't say that I was a huge contributor to this conversation that I'm about to describe, but I was kind of listening in. Two older teachers were discussing the importance of students' grammar accuracy vs. their ability to get their point across. Ironically, these two textbook-adhering instructors were complaining that the textbooks, and also "younger teachers", focus too much on accuracy.

I asked them, "why do you have to stick so closely to the textbook?" I tried to be very polite about it; after all they have many more years of experience than I do. But their answers contradicted and I was confused. They seemed insistent that the textbook needed to be used (for some reason) but they didn't like it and really wanted to focus more on communicative competence.

Chapter 13 explicitly states that the fact that it is in the textbook is not a good reason to teach grammar. I agree. I think its important to teach it explicitly, at times, but I also think its important to recognize the textbook's inability to directly meet the needs of each individual student. This is where our autonomy as teachers is a good thing! That is, as long as we don't take our freedom too far and step out of our bounds. I think it would be more important to stick to the textbook in a "core" subject area class like Math, where the students are going to be responsible for the material on a standardized test. But as language teachers, we have the advantage in that our content isn't tested that way. In the case of English, it might be indirectly... but we have more freedom than core subject teachers. We just need to use it wisely, and I think grammar is a perfect example of a content area where we need to use discretion and a bit of autonomy.

there is truth

I have some serious misgivings about autonomy. In fact, in some ways, I think that it is downright wrong. Its not that I don't think its good, and valuable, for students to take responsibility for their own learning and to make their learning applicable to their lives. I think that's very important, and very necessary. It's something I've learned how to do only within the last few years and I have learned a good deal more in recent years than I ever did before.

No, my wariness of autonomy comes from the fact that I'm not sure promoters of autonomy as it is defined on page 131 have any idea what they are actually saying. I'm not sure that the world and society have any idea what they are asking for when they desire complete autonomy. And I'm not sure now long it will take some people to realize that there is truth and that every single person on the planet will be held responsible for that truth someday -whether they choose to believe in it right now or not. I guess this is a post that has been a long time in coming, but that stems from many factors, the sole most important factor being my faith in Jesus Christ. It is a post that combines my spiritual and educational views, because they cannot be separated. My faith in God demands my first and foremost in everything... and therefore penetrates everything I do and believe in. I hurt for those people who have no such stability in their lives. Chapters like this one from Kuma are the result of that. I am learning more and more how intimately related my faith and my educational philosophy are... and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Kuma writes, on page 131: "The concept of autonomy, in one form or another, has long engaged the minds of people everywhere. It is grounded in a human tendency to seek control over one's life. [...] In its most basic form, it represents a fundamental longing for freedom of thought and freedom of action in personal, economic, social, political, and other walks of life."

Do we realize what this is saying? People are looking for a life with no responsibility, no boundaries, no limits, no structure, no nothing. Is that really what we want?

How many broken families have resulted from parents' desire for freedom from the 'restriction' of marriage and responsibility?

How many hurting children are orphaned, abused, or even aborted because of their parents' lack of desire to take responsibility for their own actions?

How many children turn to crime and less-than-desirable ways of making a living because of their parents' lack of desire to take the responsibility to care for them?

Is that really what we want our society to look like?

How many wrong things - fornication (sex before marriage) and homosexuality, just to name a few - does our society condone or push for because of desire for freedom from responsibility, restrictions, or boundaries?

So when do we stop? What happens when people decide that according to themselves, stealing isn't wrong? What happens when they decide that according to themselves, killing isn't wrong? What happens when they decide that according to themselves, cheating isn't wrong? Who decides if those things are wrong or right? Who decides? Some may look at that first list and say "but there's nothing wrong with those things". They are wrong, because God says so. But I don't know anyone who would say that killing, stealing, and cheating aren't wrong. Where do we come up with that standard? How do we determine what is right and wrong?

I will tell you. God's standard is what determines right and wrong. And ultimately His standard is the only one that matters. People say there is no truth. There is truth. God is Truth.

It's a lot easier to do what we want when there isn't truth, isn't it? It's a lot easier to pretend like those things aren't wrong. It's a lot easier to forget that we have Someone to answer to. It's a lot easier to just do what we want, how we want it, what works best for us. Some would even say, it's a lot easier to be "free" when there isn't truth. I disagree.

Jesus says, in the book of John, chapter 8, verses 28 - 32: "When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. As he spake these words, many believed on him. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

It's a very radical idea, isn't it? The TRUTH will make us free. Jesus promises that, and so we know that it is true.

I could go on and on. In fact, in the first draft of this post, I did go on and on. But right now I want to explain how all of this relates to my educational philosophy.

There are currently trends in education for really individualized education. REALLY individualized. The 'Classroom of 1". Teaching students' native languages in an ESL classroom. (wait before protesting, please - explanation below!) Our "Burger King society" (have it your way!) has infiltrated the classroom with devastating effects.

By not setting rules, boundaries, or typical ways of doing things, we are hurting our children in more ways than we ever know. By accepting anything and everything, we allow them to be unfocused and cater to themselves.

I will give an example. The 'Classroom of 1" movement, as I understand it, is an educational technique that allows students to tune into the classroom via podcast, internet, etc. at whatever time is most convenient for them. It sounds great, doesn't it? It caters to their schedule, their learning style, their preferences, and their desires.

However, I beg you to consider...

What happens when they enter the working world and have to collaborate with others?

What happens when they decide to start a family and have to live according to someone else's time schedule?

What happens when they have to sacrifice themselves for children's needs?

What happens when they have to, perhaps, teach others - according to that other person's learning styles and preferences?

Do you see the downward spiral? Do you see where this could go? When there is no standard, when there is no expectation, when there is no responsibility, when there is no truth... people think only of themselves. And society cannot function when people think only of themselves. Because God designed people to function together.

How does this play out in the ESL classroom? I want to start by making a few "disclaimers", I suppose. I want to make sure the reader understands my position on several important points.

1. I believe that it is necessary to validate students' first languages.

2. I believe that it is necessary to value students.

3. I believe that it is necessary to cater to different learning styles in the classroom.

4. I believe that it is necessary to take student needs into account when designing lesson plans.

5. I believe that it is necessary to offer language support to those students with few literacy skills in their first language.

6. I believe that is is necessary to give students individualized attention when they are struggling.

7. I understand that the nature of English as a powerful and prominent language makes it different, in some ways, from other languages.

Recently in class, the idea was put forth: 'We should teach our children's native languages in the ESL classroom, because it will bring them together, help them to have something in common, and validate those languages'. The purpose of an ESL classroom is to teach English. I realize that this in itself can be problematic because English is a powerful language, and some students may be speakers of more marginalized languages, and they can feel as though the languages that they speak and all of the culture and heritage that comes with those languages is not important. However, when we begin to teach students' native languages, to the other students, in the classroom - not for the purpose of supporting the child's literacy in their first language but simply for the purpose of unification - we are missing the point entirely. The children already have something all in common - they are learning English. English can be a uniting language. English does not have to discriminate if we do not allow it to discriminate.

The problem with teaching students' native languages in an ESL classroom is... well, I don't know if I'll do a good job of explaining why this is a problem, because it looks pretty good. Its similar to Dolores' classroom in the article we read for last week. It looks pretty good and on the outside it maybe sometimes serves its purpose. However, I would argue that the problem is underlying.

This is wrong, or problematic as we prefer to call it these days, because it strays from the purpose. The message that this sends is, "even though this is the purpose, even though this is the "truth" of this classroom, anything goes". This is a disservice to the students, who are there to learn English. There has to be a standard; there has to be a focus. Look at all the problems I listed above that have resulted from us as a society straying from Biblical standards. I'm not saying here that English is the standard. I'm saying that in this classroom, where the purpose is to learn English, the focus or standard to which we are responsible is to learn English. I'm also not comparing the English classroom to the Bible. What I'm intending to do, and I'm not sure if I'm doing it well, is that we as a society have a problem with sticking to standards. We have a problem with expectations. We have a problem with responsibility. And it stems back to a desire to all do our own thing - to be free from expectations, schools of thinking, etc. - it stems back to autonomy.

And all of this - many classrooms - are a reflection of society. Society not only strays from the truth - it avoids it.

I just want to make sure everyone knows that there is TRUTH. And we are responsible for it.

28 to 1

Twenty-eight pages. That is how long my final project was last year for ENG 344. Somehow, Cary managed to present the exact same points I made in my paper in less than a paragraph! I could not get enough of his article, "How do I support a students' first language when I don't speak the language?". The writing style of this was what first caught my attention, but after that I was amazed and inspired by the classroom and teaching techniques described. I wanted to be there, wanted to be part of the learning that was so obviously taking place.

In my paper last semester, I wrote about identity, investment, and language. Cary wrote about many of the same things in his article. He explained that in Dolores' classroom, students' first languages were validated, their identities were valued, and learning took place at the students' pace. The following paragraph especially stood out to me:

"As a student language teacher, Nguyet saw her home language sanctioned and thus honored. Because Vietnamese was honored and because Nguyet and all of us have so much of our identity tied to what we speak and how we speak it, honoring Vietnamese honored and validated Nguyet, boosting her feelings of self-worth and empowering her to succeed academically. Carving out class time for learning phrase sets in languages other than English helped Dolores "institutionalize" bilingualism and multilingualism in the classroom. All languages and dialects were found worthy and merited the official seal of approval - at least in Room 2 at Armstrong School. Getting a similar seal of approval from the district, the state of California, and beyond would take a little more time" (Cary, 138).

Dolores' classroom is all about student-centered learning. With their best interests in mind, she teaches, includes volunteers, and uses her resources to help her help the students. This is a very important environment to create, because learning that is not student-centered is hardly learning at all.

In chapter 20 of the Anthology, Green, Christopher, and Lam talk about discussion skills in the ESL classroom. They explain that these skills are often underdeveloped in this setting. However, they admit that unless students have 'learner autonomy' and free choice of topic to be discussed, it may seem to them as though they have no reason to engage in class discussion (225). They will not see it as valuable to their education. In a classroom like Dolores', however, students guide the curriculum, and when one topic becomes worn out, Dolores uses the students' interests to help her select another. Students are investigating, looking for answers to questions, and above all, LEARNING. (Have I already mentioned how inspired I was by that article?!) Perhaps if every ESL classroom were like Dolores', other languages would be more valued.

I felt that chapter 18 of the Anthology was somewhat unrelated to the other two. However, I found it very informative. I see myself likely teaching English as a Foreign Language, and many of these were things I had never considered before. It presented the four competencies, which we have discussed at length in other classes, but also explicitly laid out how adult EFL learners are unique. It was so helpful! Of course, there is a need to focus on use of language, as in any EFL classroom. However, the authors also explained that "EFL learners need explicit instruction in speaking, which, like any language skill, generally has to be learned and practiced" (204). Of course, because they cannot hear the language around them, they would need to practice this skill more extensively, as they cannot develop it by imitation. However, I had never before thought of it that way. The book further emphasized the importance of speaking with a discussion on speaking interactions. Interaction is key, according to the book, as "the functions of spoken language are interactional and transactional. The primary intention of the former is to maintain social relationships, whereas that of the latter is to convey information and ideas" (208). On second glimpse, I think that this does relate to the other two readings in that it is also about the students. When developing adult EFL learner's speaking abilities, we need to focus on the interpersonal and the needs. Speakers want to be able to relate to others, to get around, and to make their voice heard. This results in a need for small talk and interactive activities in the adult EFL classroom.

In summary, who are students are guides what we do in the classroom. I think my post right before this was about almost the exact same thing, but it is still true! In chapter 18, I think the following quote really summarizes language learning as a whole,

"Language proficiency is not a unidimensional construct, but a multifaceted modality, consisting of various levels of abilities and domains" (206). In my own words, I would say that we as teachers need to remember the complex components that make up language. We need to remember that because it is impossible to convey all of them to students at the exact same level, we need to focus on their needs. And while we are doing that, we need to remember their underlying thoughts, feelings, ideas, and backgrounds. We need to remember and emphasize that their learning of English doesn't make their first language any less important. And above all, we need to make sure that they know that.

the power of choice

A common thread binding the readings for today seemed to be the complexity of language and our inability as teachers of writing to completely teach students how to capture such language on a piece of paper.

In each step of the writing process in chapter 29 of the Anthology, there were so many choices the teacher was required to make. Raimes writes that teachers need to recognize ideology and "recognize their perceptions of the relationship between the type of writing they teach and the roles they are preparing students for in academia and the wider world of work" (307). In other words, we must first establish that we do, actually, bring ideology about writing and students' needs into the classroom. After that, in the steps that follow, however, we must somehow recognize and organize the goals and constraints and the content we wish to convey (do they write about personal experience, social and cultural issues, literature?). And amidst all this, Raimes makes a very important point that there is no formula for writing - that it is messy and chaotic. This is painful to the organized teacher! However, that is how writing is. It requires lots of choices and lots of flexibility. I have often heard the phrase, "you cannot teach writing". I think it holds some truth.

Raimes does offer that of course there is the option of giving all that power of choice to a textbook. But when you look at it that way, choice is so freeing! There is a fine line between too many choices and not enough. She writes, "the easy way out of syllabus design, of course, is to simply choose a book, and build a day-by-day syllabus around it. But then we give all our power of choice to a textbook writer who does not know our students" (emphasis mine) (311). Is that really what we want? Students' writing should reflect them and our writing classes should be tailored to their needs. Raimes goes on to explain that in current writing classes, students' own writings have become the texts for the class. They are analyzed, edited, torn apart, revised, and created over and over again.

The power of choice is reflected in editing as well. In chapter 32 of the Anthology, Dana Ferris discusses how to teach students to self-edit. In conclusion, Ferris writes, "our goal should be to have our students become skillful, independent editors who can function beyond the ESL writing class" (334). Ferris' chapter and his article that we read explained the ineffectiveness and un-practical-ness of 100% error correction. He explained that even when teachers teach grammar, it will not necessarily result in a change in the students writing; those learning experiences don't always get carried over. In essence, he explained that we can only teach so much. Rather, we need to teach students strategies; empower them to do their own error correction, and CHOOSE to make their writing better.

I know first-hand that it is extremely difficult to teach writing. I saw it in action for the first time this summer during the Migrant Program and it made my head hurt. It does not come naturally to very many students! They don't want to write, and they don't want to make it better, and it is so hard to motivate them. I think that the power of choice is so important in writing, but especially in second-language writing. If students feel that through expressing themselves in writing, it will only result in error correction, they will become even more discouraged. As Ferris says in the Anthology chapter, "Although some teachers assume that all ESL students are obsessively concerned with grammar to the detriment of developing and presenting their ideas, I have found that many students have little interest in and pay limited attention to editing their work. They find editing tedious or unimportant or they have become overly dependent on teachers or tutors to correct their work for them. A crucial step in teaching students to become good editors is to convince them of the necessity of doing so" (329). Amen. It is ineffective to correct every error, but we can give students strategies to correct their own errors; this can lead to better understanding of the error and it may be less likely that the student will commit the error again. We can give our students autonomy. The power of choice.

final project

For my final project, I would like to write a research paper incorporating my experiences with the Migrant Program this summer and things I learned at the Migrant Conference that I attended. I'd like to focus also on things that we've learned in this class about literacy and the SIOP model.

beginning with the end in mind

Thomas S.C. Farrell, the author of chapter 3 in our anthology, defines a daily lesson plan as "a written description of how students will move toward attaining specific objectives" (31). I think its very hard, though, to define a lesson plan in a simple sentence! Farrell's article caused me to reflect upon my own lesson planning strategies, and because reflection is an important skill for a teacher, I decided to write about that here.

Farrell acknowledges in his article that all teachers plan differently, which I thought was important. He comments that "lesson plans of 'real' teachers don't usually focus on behavioral objectives, but rather, a sequencing of activities". The first lesson plans I ever created were for my tutorial classes at the ELI. I began teaching at the ELI when I was a sophomore - admittedly, long before I knew anything about teaching! :) My plans, if I had any written out at all, were usually just a list of activities, and maybe a few phrases to help me transition between the activities. I sometimes included specific vocabulary I wanted to introduce as well. These plans actually fit their purpose very well. They helped me remember what to do, and that is, perhaps, the most important part in the early stages of teaching.

However, lesson planning can be much more effective, and I learned that in my C&I 289.75 class. In that class, I learned how to create lesson plans according to behavioral objectives. I found that those helped my lesson plans to be much more effective, because they required me to think through the entire lesson and my END GOALS.

Now, in my current education classes, those end goals are being enforced more than ever before. Farrell describes Tyler's rational linear framework in the early part of his chapter. He describes the four steps as being 1) specify objectives, 2) select learning objectives, 3) organize learning activities, and 4) specify methods of evaluation. He puts the end goals at the end, which logically makes sense. You plan the lesson and then you decide how you are going to evaluate. However, I mentally began to question his method. Recently, I've been learning about 'backwards design' which despite its title I believe holds a lot of merit.

In backwards design, you plan your evaluation first. You design your assessment and what its going to test, so that you can plan the unit and the lessons such that the students will be taught material that will be very relevant for the test. So essentially, Tyler's steps are just out of order - step 4 should be first.

Farrell also introduces the "Generic lesson plan in 5 phases" and one thing I really like about this is that he has steps IV and V as "Closure" and then "Follow-up", respectively. I think sometimes its easy to mistakenly "close" a lesson and assume it is done. I think that follow-up is critical, however, to ensure student understanding and to push students to a higher level of achievement.

This brings me to Finney's article, chapter 7. He states that "learner- and learning-centered learning is the only possible model for education in a world that is changing faster than ever before". Both of the above methods of lesson planning are very learner-centered because they focus on the students' end needs and goals. And, they help the teacher see the end also, which makes lessons more effective.

Finney also discusses how syllabus design is critical to instruction and planning. He explains that one of the most widely used syllabus models is one that incorporates language as it is learned, acquired, and used - a variable focus on proportional model. He explains that Yalden describes the "advantages of this mixed-focus model [are that] it 'would seem to allow the syllabus designer the most freedom to respond to changing or newly perceived needs in the learners, and at the same time provides a framework for the teacher who may not be able or willing to 'go fully communicative'. I would add that it provides the experienced teacher with a framework that allows for choice in how to implement the syllabus, and with further development can create space for learner-teacher negotiation in 'real life' communication in the classroom" (76). In summary, such a model allows a teacher to accommodate for learner needs. Once again, this is a learner-centered approach.

I guess I am learning that all of our design should begin with the end in mind. And even more importantly, we should ALWAYS have the learner in mind. What are their needs? How will they respond? And are we teaching so that they can learn?

task-based instruction

I thought I had an idea of what task-based learning was in my head before I read this article. However, the two readings brought up many points that I had never even stopped to consider. What, exactly, is a task? It depends, really, on who is defining it, because teachers and researchers would likely want to know different things.

After reading the chapter and the article, I do have a more clear idea of what task-based learning looks like. I really liked the section in chapter 9 of the Anthology, where Beglar and Hunt present the communication strategies that can be obtained through the use of task-based instruction.

I wrote the following in my notebook.

communication strategies

(learners should be actively engaged in them)

- clarification

- confirmation

- comprehension checks

- requests

- repairing

- reacting

- turn taking

*modification and restructuring of interaction

As I looked through that list, I was amazed at how valuable it seemed. I'm still a little bit skeptical of the whole idea of task-based learning, just because I'm not certain that its well defined and I also think its a little bit idealistic. I like more structure than the current teaching trends, and the text explicitly stated that what task-based learning was NOT was structured. However, if task-based learning can produce that list above, then I think it would be extremely helpful. Every single item on that list is so necessary for effective communication. I think the words that stood out to me the most were the last three - repairing, reacting, and turn taking. These are very difficult concepts to teach! (which also makes me question the authenticity of task-based learning). However, students would really benefit if they could somehow acquire them through class activities or homework such as a questionnaire, described in this chapter.

However, all of that said, I think with any such language concept, full understanding of how to negotiate these tasks takes years of language study and immersion. I think we need to be careful that students do not become discouraged if they cannot understand these concepts immediately. They are difficult! We need to encourage them and motivate them, and equip them to use the language in the real world, but allow them room for growth, too.

humility

Steven Bax writes, "In my view, this displays an unfortunate attitude: a young and relatively experienced teacher comes to a new country of which he has almost no knowledge. Without any reference to the culture, the learning context, student needs and wishes, and other contextual factors, he immediately judges far more experienced teachers as failing. And what gives him a license to do so, as he sees it, is the fact that he is a native speaker and that he is armed with CLT" (Bax, 279).

That is an unfortunate attitude! I hurt for this teacher who has perhaps always been "right" in the past and has never had anyone who loves him or cares about him enough to suggest that he maybe doesn't have everything all figured out.

I was just talking to my cousin about this the other day. She's a Biology Teacher Education major at ISU, and doing PDS this fall. There have been some challenges for her, and she was lamenting to me the other day that she just felt like her lesson that day had completely failed. We talked about how it is a good reminder that we are not everything, that we don't have everything figured out, and that, in essence, we still have a lot to learn.

We've learned and discussed a lot about English as a lingua franca in both 344 and 345, and I agree very much that English is a powerful language in terms of global communication. Hu writes, "English is perceived as a key to promoting international exchange, acquiring scientific knowledge and technological expertise, fostering economic progress, and participating in international competition" (Hu, 93)

However, this gives native speakers no platform to think of ourselves as better or more intelligent simply because we happen to speak the language that much of the world wants or needs to know. Clearly, Hu's article argues for the ineffectiveness of the CLT method in the Chinese culture. Western ideas that seem "intuitive" to us, as Hu mentions, are very radical in the PRC and not effective. And I think that any teacher would agree that any "method" that is not helpful in the classroom is not an appropriate method at all.

I thought that the naive comments that Bax listed from those teachers that didn't understand the presence of methods aside from CLT were fascinating. I picked out a few key words that together, seem to tell a story of pride and insistence upon our own correctness as native speakers and as professionals:

"it never occurred to her that there could be another way to learn English"

"assumed it was deficient"

"less good than 'we' are"

"'traditional' implies 'backward'"

"learning 'in spite of' methods"

Personal reflection is often emphasized in current language teacher education preparation programs, and I think it is very valuable. Perhaps this is a situation where we as teachers, professionals, and individuals need to take a step back and consider the impact of our views and assumptions on others. Perhaps we need to examine ourselves and our own attitudes before we criticize others. Perhaps we would learn something.

'miscellaneous'

Never miss a learning opportunity! This is the message that I took from Kuma's Chapter 3. I was really intrigued by all of the different examples that the author presented of ways that the teacher did and did not maximize learning opportunities in the classroom. I think the one that stood out to me the most was the example with the world 'miscellaneous'. After one student had some confusion, rather than explaining to the class what it meant, the teacher simply erased the word and replaced it with something else. I have to admit, I think I've done this before. When I taught at the ELI I think I did this to save time on the explanation and to avoid getting really off-topic. Furthermore, I think I mistakenly assumed in my head that the more advanced students would just understand that the replacement was a synonym and that the less competent students could just catch up later.

I was wrong.

The text makes a very good point here about utilizing every learning opportunity. The word that kept coming to mind was scaffolding, as each technique described in some way referred back to the teacher's responsibility to take students' mistakes and turn them into a way to learn.

And, all of this contributes to building students' communicative competence! When I started this blog post, I titled it 'miscellaneous' because I really thought that's what it would be! On the contrary, it is very clear that the techniques described in Kuma's Chapter 3 certainly contribute to students' ability to communicate better in the target language. In Communicative Language Teaching, as described by Larsen-Freeman, the teacher creates situations that will promote communication in the classroom and acts as a facilitator and co-communicator. The text emphasized role-playing, games, and information gap activities as a way of making this happen. Furthermore, the word 'authentic' jumped out at me a lot - authentic materials, authentic language, etc.

Finally, I completely agree with Larsen-Freeman when he states at the very beginning, "students may know the rules of linguistic usage, but be unable to use the language" (122). I could have been reading my own teaching philosophy! I think that teaching language use goes hand-in-hand with the rules. And I think that immersion in the language is one of the few ways to truly understand language use. Students need to feel free to talk and explore on in the language! Kuma writes, "it is only after a lengthy dialogue that she gave her own explanation" (53). He was referring to the teacher who allowed her students to discuss a certain issue before explaining her own interpretation. I think that is so valuable! The teacher obviously knows how to let her students explore the language, and then intervene when necessary. All of this, I think, is part of helping students to learn to be communicators in the target language.

from theory to practice

In his article "Introduction: Critical Approaches to TESOL", Alastair Pennycook lists one of the purposes of his article as "to understand the complex ways in which TESOL occurs". His article does indeed approach this... and much more. He describes the ways in which many, many issues of TESOL interact, but he also describes the interaction between theory and practice. I think this is what stood out to me the most.

He rarely outright mentioned this discrepancy, but it exists. We've all felt it in class discussions and seen it in real life: there seems to be a large gap between the possibilities and the real thing... between theory and practice. As Pennycook puts it, "the very nature of a journal like TESOL Quarterly and the requirements for inclusion inevitably tilt things away from accounts of what ordinary teachers are doing in ordinary classrooms around the world" (330). That said, he argues for the importance of theory and critical approaches to TESOL, and describes what he considers to be the three unifying themes that constitute critical approaches. One theme that seemed to be close to his heart was the idea of constantly questioning and problematizing. I'm not sure I completely agree with him, but I could (sort of) see where he was going with it. I just think that at some point we start re-inventing the wheel when it comes to theories. But I digress.

Back to what I'm really talking about, I appreciate Pennycook's attention to the "intricate patterning of power relationships involving language, gender, sexuality, race, class, ethnicity, popular culture, education, immigration, teaching practices, curriculum development, and other concerns". That is a long list, but in short, he wants to demonstrate to us that "critical" approaches to TESOL are just that - critical. They aren't simple, but rather involve a complex combination of relationships between any two or more of the above. I found particularly interesting his comment that relates to the power of English, a concept we discussed extensively in ENG 344 and one that I found fascinating. He writes, "The notion of native and nonnative speakers, furthermore, is interwoven with issues of race and ethnicity, as one's nativeness as a speaker of English is often assumed to correlate with the paleness of one's skin" (333). These types of assumptions and distinctions are what make the world of TESOL so very political and so very complicated.

I would argue that while this concept is complicated enough in theory, it is even more complicated in practice. Pennycook himself writes, "[critical pedagogy in some countries] has become little more than an academic discourse disconnected from everyday teaching practice". He argues for the "pedagogy of engagement" which uses the aspects mentioned above as the basis of curricular organization and pedagogy, rather than something that is adjusted for. He asks us if we are trying to a) give marginalized students access or b) transform the mainstream to be more inclusive. This definitely gave me something to think about. Amidst all of these complicated issues, how will they manifest themselves in my classroom? So many theories are swirling around in my head about "inclusion of power, inequality, discrimination, resistance, and struggle" in Pennycook's words. What do those things look like in the classroom?

In an attempt to tie all these loose ends together... I'm not sure what the implications his pedagogy of engagement are, as I don't completely understand it, but I do think that everyday teaching practice should hold much more weight than it does. Anyone can do research on TESOL. I know nothing about Biology, but I can do research on it and probably write a paper that sounds like I know what I'm talking about. (Actually, maybe not). However, that benefits no one. TESOL theory benefits very few if it is not useful or not put into practice. Pennycook is correct, theory does hold merit and we do need theory to help us grow, change, question, and better understand the "complex ways in which TESOL occurs". However, I believe that the real test of understanding occurs right inside the doors of an English classroom.

Could any given theorist walk into an ESL classroom and implement his idealized view of "how things are" or "how things should be" in a way that conveys meaning to students? There is a long road between theory and practice, and it is not always an easy one to travel. Pardon the very cliche statement, but how many theorists have actually "walked a mile" in the shoes of a teacher? TESOL does, after all, stand for TEACHING English to Speakers of Other Languages. So much preaching... so little practice.

the call to teach: my own metaphor

In his letter to the Ephesians, in chapter 4, the apostle Paul writes, "I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called."

This is something I have been contemplating a lot lately. I am so undeserving of the blessings God has bestowed on me, but because He has blessed me, I desire to walk worthy of the tasks and plans that God has given me. Here, Paul uses the word "vocation" to describe these God-given responsibilities. As a Christian, I am to follow what God has called me to do and do it with my whole heart.

In the beginning of chapter 1, on page 6, Kumaravadivelu defines the word "vocation" as a "summons or bidding to be of service". In his text, he describes teaching as a calling, as a vocation. As teachers, we are called to serve our students just as, as children of the King, we are called to serve Him.

with my whole heart.

This, to me, is my own metaphor of teaching. My service to my students should not equal my service to God, because only He is God, but it should echo it. Kuma presents several metaphors of teaching in this chapter - teachers as passive technicians, as reflective practitioners, as transformative intellectuals. He says that none of them completely capture teaching, but that teaching involves BOTH educational advancement AND personal transformation. Indeed, I have learend more about myself through teaching than I ever thought possible. To me, my metaphor of teaching that I described above, does completely capture it, at least for me.

So what does service to our students look like? How do I serve them - with what methods? What is method? That is the key question of Kuma's next chapter. He describes language-centered, learner-centered, and learning-centered methods, but goes on to say that "methods tend to drift wildly from one theoretical extreme to the other". I was waiting for someone to say this! My head is spinning from all these methods, ideas, theories, and techniques. I described in an earlier blog post that it is so free-ing to have the autonomy, as a teacher, to implement methods in the classroom that work for that context, for that group of students, and for that day, based on needs assessments and resources. It is impossible to successfully teach when one is required to subscribe to a specific method regardless of the needs of the students. However, in this chapter, Kuma presented a very key quote that really made me think. I think he is quoting another person here, but he writes, "It is quite common to hear teachers say that they do not subscribe to any particular approach or method in their teaching but are 'eclectic'. They thereby avoid commitment to any current fad [...] If by eclecticism is meant the random and expedient use of whatever techinque comes most readily to hand, then it has no merit whatsoever" (31). He describes the weakness of the eclectic position, and I completely agree with him.

I think a key phrase here is "avoiding commitment". Do we really do things as we do them to serve others, in this case, our students, or do we do them just to avoid commitment? I think it is very possible to serve ourselves under the guise of serving others.

I could go on and on here and extend my metaphor, but my plane is getting ready to board. Sometimes its nice to have a need for closure. :) All this to say, I am called to serve! I am called to walk worthy of my vocation, in devotion to God, my husband, my family, my co-workers, my friends, my students.

I think that Paul, inspired by God, says it best:
"with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:2-3)

be flexible

This summer, I was a teacher's aide in a 4th-7th grade migrant summer school classroom. It was an incredible experience, and no two days were the same. We had diversity in every sense of the word; several different age groups, maturity levels, language ability levels, and behavior. It was such a good learning experience for me. More than anything else, I think I learned about discipline. I found it challenging to figure out if I was supposed to be their friend, their mentor, or just a disciplinarian in terms of how to approach them about their behavior. Obviously, it was really none of those three but rather a combination and something in between, depending on the situation, the student, the other happenings of the day, and so on... so many variables!

Now, this really has very little to do with the articles we read for class today except for that this is what came to mind when I was reading. In his state-of-the-art essay, following his description of trends in TESOL theory/pedagogy/etc., Kuma states, on pages 68-69:

"language learning and teaching needs, wants, and situations are unpredictably numerous, and therefore, we cannot prepare teachers to tackle so many unpredictable needs, wants, and situations, we can only help them develop a capacity to generate varied and situation-specific ideas within a general framework that makes sense in terms of current pedagogical and theoretical knowledge".

It's almost as if he resigns himself to the fact that, yes, we have all these methods - but ultimately the best teaching strategies develop over time and within a specific context. Kuma is, of course, referring to methods here, but the same concept applies to what I learned this summer: you cannot teach someone how to discipline. Never, in any of my C&I classes, has any instructor attempted to teach us specifically how to handle student misbehavior. They have offered suggestions and general principles, and through my teaching experiences I have learned a few things about how to approach student behavior, but no one has ever taught me "how to discipline". And I'm glad. Because discipline can't be taught. It's acquired through experience, learned through trial and error. I made a lot of errors this summer. But the longer it went on, the more I learned and some days were better than others!

In Marianne Celce-Murcia's article, "Language Teaching Approaches: An Overview", her thoughts parallel those of Kuma in this quotation. At the end of her article, she explains that despite the presence of all these methods, a teacher ultimately must assess student needs, examine instructional constraints, and determine what he/she will do with this combination of needs. And finally she presents the adage, "adapt, don't adopt". We must adapt to student needs rather than just pulling a method out of thin air and attempting to graft it into a classroom setting that rejects the method.

All that to say, both Kuma and Celce-Murcia have very interesting points. There is no way that any instructor can possibly impart to me/us the exact way to do everything with our students - whether in terms of discipline or methods. Some of it is left up to us. What will we do with it?

Aside from discipline, I learned to be flexible this summer. If I had a whole lesson plan that failed, I would try something new the next time. If I planned to do something with my students and the teacher wanted me to do something else, I had to do something else. If time constraints required us to cut out some things or teach them differently, then so be it. We are to be flexible, constantly adapting... and humble! I was very humbled this summer as I found myself trying, trying, and trying again, sometimes with success and sometimes not. I was so thankful to have a wonderful teacher to work with. But ultimately, no two days will be the same in a language classroom. I just need to be flexible!

tried & true

Mark Twain once said, "Prosperity is the best protector of principle". When a principle is effective for meeting the desired end, it is considered prosperous and in turn is valued and "protected". As I read through chapter 1 of the Anthology, this is the thought that came to mind. Methods come and go; some are too context-specific, others are too distinctive and don't interact and work together. Principles, though, are like overarching themes that allow the teacher autonomy to make decisions on how to act, or what technique to carry out, in order to meet a need that they have seen in their students. This is done under the basic limitations of the principle, which guides the teacher but does not require a specific method of instruction that is sometimes not appropriate for the situation. Thus, a principle can be applied to many situations, while some specific methods cannot.

I found this concept to be very intriguing. Methods have come and gone; principles have stood the test of time. Methods are limiting; principles are open-ended and adaptable. Methods discourage creativity; principles require it. I love the freedom that operating under "principles" afford teachers! We can use the best plan for our students, which may change yearly, monthly, weekly, or even daily, rather than conforming to a method that would be better applied in a different situation, or perhaps not even at all. I love that operating under a principle makes it a necessity for teachers to truly know their students.

Brown writes, "The interaction between one's approach and classroom practice is the key to dynamic teaching. The best teachers are able to take calculated risks in the classroom; as new student needs are perceived, innovative pedagogical techniques are attempted, and the follow-up assessment yields an observed judgment on their effectiveness. Initial inspiration for such innovation comes from the approach level, but the feedback that teachers gather from actual implementation then reshapes and modifies their overall understanding of what learning and teaching are - which, in turn, may give rise to a new insight and more innovative possibilities, and the cycle continues" (11). A cycle of innovation - it seems so exciting and refreshing. Our teaching techniques shape themselves around how our students learn and what their needs are.

Brown goes on to write, "As teachers and teacher trainees develop and carry out classroom techniques, they can benefit by grounding everything they do in well-established principles of language learning and teaching. In so doing, they will be less likely to bring a prepackaged - and possibly ineffective - method to bear, and more likely to be directly responsive to their students' purposes and goals" (17).

Some things in this world are considered timeless - they can be applied to any place, any time, and any person. Principles of teaching are like this - they can be applied and adapted. Like anything timeless, they are tried and true!

"love thy neighbor as thyself [...]"

Our readings for today can be summarized and synthesized by one word: change. In "New Demography of America's Schools", we read about the changing population in the United States and the population that is therefore present in public schools today. In "Who Speaks English Today?" we read about the "new" Englishes that are developing across the world, and the global impact of English in social and political terms. In the third article about culture, we read about the impact that the aforementioned changing population has on the United States, its schools, and its economy. Things - English, language, the world, the United States, American public schools, language instructional methods - are changing!

Rather than just looking ahead, I really appreciated Diaz-Rico and Weed's chapter that discussed the historical perspectives of language and culture in the United States and the potential impact that this has on the future. I think it is very valuable to look back rather to see what has been done in the past, what worked, and what needs to, once again, change.

The authors write: "In many cases, this exploitation continues to this day, as the underclass of the United States, whether white, brown, or black, is inadequately paid and under-educated, forced to live without health benefits or adequate housing. Temporary jobs without benefits are the hallmark of the crueler, harsher world of the 21st century as economic and political forces polarize society. The most difficult piece of the puzzle is the challenge of population growth. Creating jobs for a burgeoning population that will provide the financial means for the purchase of health care, education, housing, and adequate diet is the issue. The population in 2050 is projected to consist largely of developing nation's peoples. The challenge is evident. Wrongs from the past cannot be righted, but present and future citizens can avoid these wrongs by understanding exploitative measures and working for change" (222).

We have so much - but we aren't entitled to what we have! There is a often-forgotten underclass that has so little. We've been blessed with what we have. Mankind must be willing to forgive one another, to admit where we've been wrong and/or wronged others, and to be willing to change. Perhaps this means a lifestyle change, or an attitude change. Perhaps this means a change of heart. Perhaps it means a change of instructional methods so that students who usually remain on the outside can come in and learn.

How much do I love my neighbor? (St. Mark 12:31)

"and the whole earth was of one language [...]"

"And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth." (Genesis 11:1-9)

At this point in history, all the people of the Earth could communicate. They all spoke one language. This shared language made them very powerful, because much can be accomplished when everyone can communicate. The problem, though, was that they attempted to use this power to reach God in some human way; they built the tower of Babel, which they wanted to reach into heaven. God needed to show them that He cannot be reached through the works of man alone, and so he chose to "confound the language of all the earth", as we read above.

Not only does this teach me an important lesson about my service to God, it also goes to demonstrate how powerful language is. This is the passage that kept coming to mind as I read through Canagarajah's "TESOL at Forty" article yesterday. In the section that focuses on sociopolitical and geographical issues, he writes about the complex relationship between society and language today by describing four characteristics: 1) The economic and social relationships between communities are multilateral, 2) National boundaries have become porous as people, goods, and ideas flow easily across them, 3) Space and time have become compressed, enabling us to shuttle rapidly between communities and communicative contexts, in both virtual and physical space, and 4) Languages, communities, and cultures have become hybrid, shaped by the fluidity of social and economic relationships.

To me, this describes a return to Babel. United under one language, all the nations and people of the world can become very powerful. This can be beneficial; communication can allow for the spread of many wonderful ideas. Just this weekend, my husband and I bought almost an entire kitchen off of craigslist, and he commented about how great it was that we could somehow find out when an older, retired couple wanted to sell their entire stainless steel kitchen for really cheap! :) We all benefit from being able to exchange ideas and information. However, because language is so powerful, I think we have to be so careful about how we use it - whether it is to say "hello" on the street or to conduct business transactions. Language has the power to unite us, but just as equal, if not stronger, is its power to destroy us. Abused language can have severe consequences. Language has enabling characteristics because of its ability to cross nationl and international boundaries described above, but it will never make us more powerful than our Maker.

learning our own lessons

I think it's safe to say that most teachers want their classrooms to be places where students feel as though they can make mistakes and still feel valued. Further, we want our classrooms to be places where students actually learn - not just sit, repeat, and aim for the A with no noticeable acquisition of knowledge, but actually LEARN. I think that's why the 'Get it right in the end' method really stood out to me in this chapter.

"Proponents of 'Get it right in the end' argue that what learners focus on can eventually lead to changes in their interlanguage systems, not just to an appearance of change. However, the supporters of this proposal do not claim that focusing on particular language points will prevent learners from making errors or that they will begin using a form as soon as it is taught. Rather, they suggest that the focused instruction will allow learners to notice the target features in subsequent input and interaction. Form-focused instruction as it is understood in this position does not always involve metalinguistic explanations, nor are learners expected to be able to explain why something is right or wrong. They claim simply that the learners need to notice how their language use differs from that of a more proficient speaker" (Lightbrown and Spada, 166).

My dad often instructed my siblings and I in this way, not on a language level, but just in life. If my siblings and I mistreated one another, "sorry" alone wasn't enough. He wanted it to be a sincere apology, paired with a recognition of what we had done wrong and how we could do it differently next time. I'd like to say we always learned our lesson. We didn't. But it was an effective way to teach! Rather than just letting us make our mistakes over and over again, he wanted each child themselves to recognize where our behavior was failing and how we could be more kind to one another. Perhaps a better example is in decision-making. Whenever my siblings and I were faced with a "tough" decision (such as, should I spend $5 on this or not) my dad would often tell us what he thought, but allow us to do it anyway if we persisted. Later in life, I often realized how many times I made decisions I regretted - not life-altering decisions, but just decisions. However, I learned from each one and having learned things myself, I wanted to change them the next time. No one was MAKING me learn; rather, I felt I was taking responsibility for my own learning. And that made me want to be successful and want to honor my parents' advice.

The more I type, the more I realize this maybe isn't a very good comparison, but it really made sense to me when I was reading through this chapter. The whole point of 'Get it right in the end' is for students to recognize their OWN mistakes and strive to fix them themselves. Teaching can become very ineffective if we attempt to fix everything for the students. This does come back to motivation, but they do have to, at some point, choose to invest in their own learning and WANT to correct their own mistakes. We cannot help students' knowledge change and increase if they do not want to change. If we can help them desire to produce correctly, they will. And then, they will be able to call it their own. That, to me, is teaching.

what does "native-like" mean?

I have to admit that I found this week's readings somewhat confusing. I gathered that they were in opposition to what we've been reading, and that they were suggesting a new, more theoretical and methodological balance, but I quite honestly don't understand what that means in practice. However, what I did draw from the readings, especially from the first reading, was very interesting to me. I felt like the researchers were saying, "we are studying second language learners, starting with the assumption that none of them are/will be successful." It was a somewhat discouraging thought! I realized they had a point - it was almost like they were saying, "we need to give second langauge learners the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they are actually successful, or well on their way to success, and we are discounting the value of their language skills simply because they are a second language learner". I can see where terms such as "interlanguage" are perhaps oversimplified in an attempt to describe the language of all learners, when in reality, language is something that is different for every learner and probably cannot be easily generalized. While I understand their point, I can see why research has, perhaps unintentionally, begun from the standpoint that second language learners are inferior. The researchers we have studied HAVE elevated native speakers over non-native speakers in terms of mastery of the language, and perhaps with good reason: non-native speakers are, after all, attempting to acquire a language differently than they acquired a language as a child and that in itself brings up all kinds of questions about the nature of second language acquistion. I finally decided that perhaps the way the article makes the most sense to me is that we're not really sure who qualifies as a native speaker. Because language is so relative, so individual, it is hard to define "native speaker". Or, better put, it is hard to define "native-like" speech. To whom are comparing second language learners to determine the "nativeness" of their speaking? Perhaps this is not where the article is going at all, but that is what it made me think of. What does "native-like" mean? I would like to think I know, but I don't think I do.

decolonizing english

"Our goal as teachers is to provide students with access to English and all the personal and professional possibilities that come with the ability to speak English, and to decolonize the teaching of English." (Wong, 165)

I love this idea of decolonizing English. I think it's so important that every student views themselves as worthy of knowing and speaking English. We've been discussing how English is such a power language - and a language that is respected and seen as "for the elite" by nearly the entire world. This places such a large responsibility on teachers of English to ensure that our teaching methods and mannerisms do not in any way reinforce this stereotype. Someone made the comment in one of my TESOL classes last week (I can't remember if it was 343 or 344) that she would not be hurt if, in a Spanish or French class, the teacher request that she only use the target language, because she is already confident that her first language (English) is useful and important, and her ability to speak it is valued. However, this is not the case with speakers of all languages. Although we might be teaching English to students, we also, in some cases, have the ability to value or de-value their first language, and along with that, their identity. English is so strongly viewed as a "valuable" language that speakers of other languages might view their own language skills as inferior and unimportant. If they are denied permission to speak their native language in class and asked to speak English only, this may reinforce the stereotype that English is more important, more valuable, and more useful than their native language. This will either discourage their learning of English or discourage their motivation to build upon their first language, and their language skills in general will suffer. It is so important that as teachers, we understand the social and political implications of language and take those into account when determining procedures and methods for our classrooms.

As we've discussed also, language and identity are very closely tied together. Therefore, in order to decolonize English as it is related to identity, we have to make sure that all students view themselves as "worthy" speakers of English. Because English is seen as a language for the elite and powerful, some students will feel that they are not worthy to learn English or will see English speakers as more learned, more knowledgeable, and more valuable than themselves. I observed this during my summer in Mexico. The people there highly respect English speakers and even have a tendency to trust Americans more than their own fellow Mexicans. This puts a tremendous amount of responsibility on teachers of English to 1) help ELLs view themselves as both valuable contributors to humanity as a speaker of their first language and worthy to learn English and 2) reinforce that English is not more important than any other language, just more prevalent.

This post has gotten long and wordy, but this is something I've spent a lot of time reflecting on. I've spent three semesters teaching ELLs who have no problem with identity and their native language, but this summer I'll be teaching the children of migrant workers, many of whom are members of the "1.5 generation" that we've discussed in class. These students likely 1) lack confidence and/or ability in their Spanish (first language) skills, 2) are being told by their parents (and possibly ESL teachers and just society in general) that learning English is more important, and 3) are under oppression from society because their families are poor and uneducated. This scenario, for me, presents a very challenging twist on the question, "Knowledge for whom?" My job will not be just to teach English. My job will be to help the students see themselves as worthy to speak English, but as valuable to society because of their ability to speak their native language. My job will be to help them form an identity that includes their past language experience as a valuable resource for their future. My job will be to help the students gain knowledge that is not just for one individual or group of people, but "for the masses" as Mao Zedong puts it. My job is to decolonize English. My job is to reach out to a generation of students who don't know their first or their second language and to give them what they need to move forward from where they are. My job is to make students feel worthy. I think that is what decolonizing English means to me.

summary of today's postings

Below you will find three postings from today. The most recent is my annotated bibliography. The next one is my post for the reading that is due next week - Wong, chapter 4. And the initial post is my post for what we read for this week - Wong, chapter 3.

the (very rough) beginnings of my annotated bibliography

Giles, Howard, and Clair Robert N. Saint. Language and Social Psychology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1979. Print.
In the introduction alone, Giles offers a brief overview of what the book discusses and presents many of the ideas that I want to learn more about! He explains psychology in the context of language and talks about several language variables, including accent, speech rate, pitch variety, etc. All of these variables are extremely important to applying language to social context, where focus is placed on how individuals use language. He also mentions judgments that are passed, cultural differences, and how this affects the decoding process – a process that is not “built into” word choice or language itself; rather, it must be “added on to” the language. This decoding process affects how people communicate with one another and has strong implications in the context of second language acquisition.

Lutz, Catherine, and Lila Abu-Lughod. Language and the Politics of Emotion. Cambridge [England: Cambridge UP, 1990. Print
For this book, the title caught my eye first. So much of language is related to emotion! And lack of desire to learn language is sometimes related to over-active emotions (fear, inferiority, etc.) Because I want to interview ELLs in the U.S. about their experiences and what extra-linguistic factors hinder their language learning, I felt this book might be exactly what I needed. The introductory chapter I found to be particularly pertinent to my topic. ‘Discourse’ is discussed extensively as a means through which emotion is communicated. The authors go on to discuss how discourse is informed by emotion, culture, and the like – all things that relate to my topic.

Kramarae, Cheris, Muriel Schulz, and William M. O'Barr. Language and Power. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1984. Print
As the title implies, this book discusses the relationship between language and power. When we discussed sociolinguistics in class, we focused quite a bit on the subjects’ interactions with “power figures” in their lives and how it affected their language and ability to communicate. In this book, differences are discussed between high language and low language. Although that is not the situation exactly with many ELLs, that is often how it is treated in society – that English is “superior”. This book talks about how this affects society and social interactions.

Brown, Richard Harvey. Society as Text: Essays on Rhetoric, Reason and Reality. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1987. Print.
In the first chapter of this book, Brown discusses “sociolinguistics, language communities, and the mobilization of low-income groups”. This does not directly pertain to my topic, but indirectly it does have some valuable information that at least connects and will give me a start for my research. It talks about class and social distinctions, which is relevant to the idea of inferiority that my paper will focus heavily on. It also contains a section on structure of language and the social implications of that, which is not addressed extensively in the other resources I have so far. I might not use this book, but it is a possibility.

learning by doing

I love the idea of learning by doing! What better way to teach than to apply it to real life. In all of my teaching classes, this has been encouraged - to bring the real world into the classroom, to approach learning as a necessary thing to solve real problems. Just yesterday, I participated in a microteaching experience with some classmates, where we practice-taught one another our lesson plans. One of my classmates was teaching a lesson on bacteria and stuff like that. Pretty boring! But she opened up the class with a scenario in the ER - and that drew some attention. When students can see themselves using the materials they are learning, it is so much more motivating to them.

I want to focus on just one idea presented in this chapter - using "real" L2 materials. I have learned Spanish out of a textbook since I was in 7th grade, but there was nothing more satisfying that going to Mexico and actually seeing it used on billboards, on menus, in books, etc. Prior to seeing the language in action, in essence, it was easy to be convinced that the language actually did not exist elsewhere! Obviously ELLs within the United States will see the language all around them, but it is necessary for us as teachers to draw attention to it and provide opportunities for students to study it. Text is all around us; the internet makes it beyond accessible. ELLs should have plenty of exposure to these forms of language - and like Wong mentions in chapter 4, they don't need background information first! Many times the meaning of a word or the use of a phrase can be implied from an advertisement or something of the like. Students can actually scaffold their own learning, in theory, because they are constantly building a little bit more on what they know, trying to figure out the world around them.

Just the other day in my ESL class at the ELI, I brought in some AAA books for my students to look at. We were talking about travel and I wanted them to see an authentic text that English speakers can use to plan trips. They were very interested in this particular item! It aided their learning, and it helped them to apply what we had just learned. I was thrilled that they found it helpful.

"Real" L2 materials are not hard to come by - they are all around us. It is up to us as teachers to figure out how to help students learn by doing - planning activities and real experiences for the students to better understand the language community they find themselves to be a part of.

teaching like paul

At the very beginning of chapter 3, Wong begs the question, "How do we enable our students to be full participants in more than on speech community and to walk in multiple worlds?" In a way, my husband and I were just discussing this question the other day from a missionary perspective. The most effective method for reaching out to others and spreading the Gospel is to become like them. In his first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 9, verse 19 - 24, the apostle Paul writes:

"For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you. Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain."

Essentially, he explains that although he had the freedom to do whatever he wanted to, he chose to become like the people he was teaching so that he could relate to them and more effectively teach them.

As teachers, our job depends on our ability to relate to our students! We might not be able to become exactly like them, but we may have walked in their shoes or learned another language like they are doing. Freire's "Problem Posing" strategy, to me, was very similar to Paul's approach to spreading the Word of God. On page 85, Wong writes, "As teachers, we can be seduced by the promises of the permanent. If I use the same syllabus as last year or the same text, then I can predict what will happen. At the same time, I might not reach all students with this. In fact, I might only reach the docile students, the ones who are already privileged within the system. If I can use a problem-posing approach, in which I as a teacher do not know the answers but am willing to work with my students to find them out, then I am working within a "dynamic present". I may not be able to predict the future - what and how my students will learn, but they will be learning." Essentially, in problem posing, teachers and students participate in dialogue, rather than constant teacher transmission.

But what caught me about problem posing is that it is "dynamic", as Wong puts it. In Teacher Ed. classes, we refer to this as "autonomy" - the teacher's freedom to present the material in a way that they choose, that best reaches their students.

So back to the original question - how DO we prepare students to "walk in multiple worlds"? It seems that they must learn to be dynamic - to be willing to change, based on their surroundings. In his teachings, Paul "to the weak [...] became weak." It is about talking, relating, sharing, and being autonomous. Teachers must be willing to search out the best methods for the students, who will respond better to a lesson specifically adapted for them. As Wong explains, problem posing defies permanence and encourages an ever-changing approach to teaching languages to meet the needs of an ever-changing world.

sharing words

Language is a beautiful thing that has the potential to be a unifying factor, in my opinion. It allows people to discuss, relate, express themselves, and learn about others. In the article we read this week by Toohey, however, words seemed to be a source of contention; an "item" only to be borrowed with limitations, if at all; something possessed by only an elect group of people.

The first grade classroom described by Toohey in the article was problematic in many regards, but her quote that interested me most was found on page 20. She writes, "Learners of English in this classroom, as they were discouraged from explicit appropriation of others' words, were taught that words, like things, were individually owned and not community resources". Indeed, many of the actions of Ms. Jones, the teacher, point to this as true. The teacher creates an environment in which education is extremely individualized. The students sit at their own desks, use their own supplies, do their own work, and seem to produce and exchange information only in very structured settings. Ms. Jones operates her classroom in this manner under the explanation, or excuse perhaps, that it is necessary for classroom management. However, her seating-assignment techniques and her conversations and classroom operations seem to suggest that perhaps she has some personal reasons for this as well. She seems to, perhaps unknowingly, discourage inter-cultural interaction. It almost seemed to me as though children began borrowing and sharing things from one another in search of either 1) power/"reflecting social allegiance", 2) social acceptance, or 3) interaction. One student borrowed Luke's ruler and then lied to him and told him he got it from the store. That's power. Another student, Surjeet, repeated the phrase "a million" after another student when asked a question by the teacher. That's searching for social acceptance. Amy allows others to borrow her items freely and roams often to chat with or borrow things from other students. That's a desire for interaction. Unfortunately, Ms. Jones seems to assume that when students borrow things from one another, or use one another's ideas, or learn together, or work collaboratively, that they are only doing so with ulterior motives - with intentions to hurt another student or to "copy" or to decrease his/her own work load. She does not seem to consider the fact that working together and sharing words and ideas can be a valuable educational and language-related skill that she is denying these students by sentencing them to their desks in every regard. The effects of her limited view are realized and expressed best in the short example given about Julie: "Indeed, Julie was very quiet in the classroom that year, although, as in kindergarten, she continued to appear lively, socially active, and verbal on the playground". The children in this first grade classroom are being suppressed by being denied the opportunity to share, exchange, and use language together.

On an unrelated topic, I also found the following quote in the Wong textbook very fascinating: "Adopted children from Korea and China may feel put on the spot if a teacher assumes from their appearance that they are knowledgeable about the countries in which they were born (particularly if assumptions are made that these students can serve as translators for ESL children). Dialogic pedagogy looks at the insider/outsider question in terms of community, recognizing that membership in a community is both forged and fluid. It has more to do with lived experiences, commitment, and involvement than racial appearance."

I know several families have adopted in the recent past, or are currently in the process of adopting, children from Ethiopia. I see this as being a parenting challenge in their future, and it has given me an interesting perspective on education and raising children who are not your own. In an educational environment that needs to be designed, structured, and fulfilled like a community, there is no place for assumptions or personal prejudices. Dialogue is necessary and sharing words is not optional. When we can share words, we can form this community that is so sought-after by current educators.