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.