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.