References: Anthology, Chap. 3 and Kuma Chap. 13
Chapter 3 in Anthology refers to the process of lesson planning on the part of English language teacher; it discusses past and present models of lesson plans and how to implement them in the language classroom. According to Farrell, "Planning daily lessons is the end result of a complex planning process that includes the yearly, term and unit plans. A daily lesson is a written description of how students will move toward attaining specific objectives" (pg. 30). Daily lesson plans, in my opinion, are something that we as pre-service teachers groan about; they take a long time to put together and especially at the college level, it is hard to write lesson plans when we are not in our own classroom in a specific school district with their own specific standards. I see daily lesson planning more as guidelines for learning; it is really important to not have adhere to that lesson plan and the times set down on it, because that can hinder the learning process. "After they (pre-service teachers) graduate, many teachers give up writing lesson plans" (pg. 31), and I can see why. If the school is not going to require us to write them every day, we probably will not. I do not know of many teachers who still write detailed lesson plans; they have told me that they write a general outline with the times and they just go from there. I feel that a successful lesson does not mean it is perfectly and exactly like one you wrote; some learning can be put aside for more important matters, but of course that depends on the school, as well. If you are hired at a school that wants a lesson plan from you every day, then that is what you must do to keep your job, but I have not heard of this happening a lot after the first year of teaching. I think they should observe us as much as possible and give constructive criticism instead of going solely by our lesson plans. Yes I do know logistically it is difficult, but if a school wants good teachers, they have to put the effort into it.
The generic lesson plan layout on pg. 33, "perspective (opening), stimulation, instruction/participation, closure, follow-up" is something that we see very frequently in teaching. The third phase, instruction and participation, obviously should be the longest and the most influential on the lesson. This is where the learning takes place, and also closure should be something very focused on in the lesson, as well, because it is necessary to make sure students know what they got out of that day's lesson. The day has been counterproductive if they feel they have not learned anything. Additionally, something I have been taught and have noticed in my observations is the idea of having an end product, something concrete that they can take home from school or from the lesson. At least then they have something to think about, and they have something that they use for studying for a quiz or exam in the future. "No teacher's guide can anticipate what problems might occur during a lesson" (pg. 34) accurately describes what I was talking about earlier; we cannot have rigid lesson plans in which there is no room for change of pace or any sort of change at all. At the same time, it is a delicate balance because we cannot allow too much freedom for the students, either; we have to find a way to keep them engaged with their work but make them feel like they have some control over their learning.
I think having closure or follow-up questions like "What do you think the students actually learned?" or "What changes (if any) will you make in your teaching and why (or why not)?" (pg. 35) are important for a teacher's daily reflection on the lesson. We have been taught in our Curriculum and Instruction classes that reflection is the basis for learning how to improve and hone our teaching skills; we need to write down what worked, what did not work, what activities the students liked or did not like, among a plethora of other things. Daily reflection is difficult to do unless asked in school; I do not know a lot of teachers who have the time for it. I think more like a weekly reflection would be more manageable; doing it on a Friday after school for example. I do not know what works best for other people, but I am the kind of person who likes to take one time out for something like that, and it is not every day that I can do it which makes this plan better for myself, at least.
Kuma Chapter 13, "Monitoring Teaching Acts", deals with the practice of 'monitoring' oneself through classroom occurrences and therefore 'monitoring' how we teach. There are two types of observation models he describes: product-oriented and process-oriented. Product-oriented models of observation "are based on the assumption that a description of teacher behavior is necessary in order to build a classroom behavior profile of the teacher" and "use a finite set of preselected and predetermined categories for describing certain verbal behaviors" (pg. 287). On the other hand, process-oriented models of observation "are based on the assumption that an interpretation of classroom activities is necessary in order to understand classroom processes and practices" and "focus on classroom input as well as interaction" (pg. 288). While both models have limitations, I think they both have their merit in classroom observation. Which model works for what teacher greatly depends on the type of teacher they are and what they want to accomplish by their classroom observations. It also depends on the focus of that particular unit or lesson that they are teaching; if they are doing something more hands-on or something that includes debate or discussion, they would be more inclined to use a process-oriented model. If they are teaching a lesson or unit that is more grammar-based or lecture-based that includes a lot of busy work or homework, then a product-oriented would be more appropriate in that case. I would think it is good to have a healthy balance of both in classroom observation and not to adhere to one model in particular, and I think that is what Kuma is trying to say by pointing out their limitations. Just like teaching methodology, there is no one perfect or correct answer to the way of doing classroom observation.
Kuma instead suggests a observation tool that "offer[s] them open-ended possibilities and user-friendly procedures for self-observing, self-analyzing, and self-evaluating" (pg. 289), and I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment. I know that I had a harder time doing classroom observations for my college courses when they were too specific on what they wanted; I really much preferred my one professor's way; she merely had categories like "instruction" or "assessment" and focusing on broader types like that instead of discussing one specific formative assessment or something like that, because honestly, one never knows what they are going to see in a classroom. An observer may not see a quiz being administered that day or a grammar lesson being taught; we should have a system that is more open to what our opinions and feelings are instead of being too narrow and specific. Something important in our own self-evaluation is having the opinion of our students in the equation, as well. We are teaching them, after all; why should not they have an opinion in their own learning process? I feel like when I was a student I never got to choose anything about my education; it felt amazing my senior year when I could actually go to my guidance counselor and pick two elective courses I wanted to take. We do not get that feeling of independence until we are in college, and I think that high schoolers deserve that opportunity to choose. I know that that is something I am a huge advocate of for my classroom. I want my students to be able to have choices in what they do for projects. I know I am always going to be learning from them, and so should other teachers, no matter how long they have been teaching.
Kuma's "M&M procedure" (macrostrategies/mismatch) is an observational scheme that is set up in three stages which are accomplished in ten steps. In Step 1, the teacher recruits another teacher to observe a lesson or unit, which I think is a step in the right direction. It is important to have a colleague evaluate you because it is less nerve-wracking than an administrator. In Steps 2 and 3, the teacher clarifies any lesson objectives with the other observing teacher, which is a useful step. I feel like a lot of observers walk in feeling a bit blind and lost when they come in the class, especially if it is not their subject area; something that is beneficial is also having someone in your content area observe you, but I know this is difficult if you are the only ESL teacher in the school, for example. In Steps 4 and 5, the observer watches the lesson or unit and then the teacher watches their video and asks themselves questions like "Are there learner-learner exchange of ideas? What part of my instruction has been successful or unsuccessful?" etc (pg. 293). I am not exactly sure what the obsession with being videotaped is right now, because we have to be videotaped for our methods class. I suppose it is beneficial to see yourself teaching, but it is so self-conscious. I always feel like I am going to see things I do not like about myself, and that these are little quirks that I cannot change. In a way, I prefer to know how I can approve, but at the same time, it is intimidating to have a camera in the room. I feel like I could not be myself.
Steps 6, 7, and 8 are mainly about discussing the teacher and learner acts and what can be done to change or improve their learning strategies. I think it is an excellent idea to include the students in this observational process so that they feel like have a say in what is going on in their classroom. I think it would be cool for them to watch the video as well so that they can point out anything you or the observer may have missed along the way. More viewpoints are always better in this process. Steps 9 and 10 are merely the implementation of these new strategies, and I think something that Kuma should include is another step. I would suggest that the same observing teacher come in again in a few weeks and see how these measures or strategies are being implemented in the classroom, and if they are, are they improving the classroom environment or hindering it? I think that would be very interesting to see.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
11/10 Readings
References: Kuma, Chap. 12
Kuma, B. "Problematizing Cultural Stereotypes in TESOL"
Kuma's article on cultural stereotypes has a focus on how ESL teachers perceive their Asian students and either consciously or subconsciously place these stereotypes on them. As Kuma states in the article, "the TESOL profession is not free from cultural stereotypes that are particularly associated from Asia" (pg. 709-710). I always found it interesting that Korean, Japanese, and Chinese students are all lumped under the term Asian, because they are all very different cultures, but unfortunately racial stereotypes prevail in the situation because their external appearance defines what they will be called. "They a) are obedient to authority, (b) lack critical thinking skills, and (c) do not participate in classroom interaction" (pg. 710). It goes back to the idea of representation and cultural identity, and how students live up to this self-fulfilled prophecy of being the 'smart kids' in school, and this is perpetuated by the media as well which is something that is not always discussed. We as ESL teachers need to address that oftentimes media can affect views of different cultures. I know when I was in high school, I had a friend who was Korean, but was not a part of the honors crowd and never felt like he fit in with them because they were the 'smart kids' and he was not. It can really affect your social life in high school, and students of ESL backgrounds will have the same experience.
I found it very interesting that the actual principles of Eastern culture are not as extreme as we perceive them to be; we as Westerners see them as being very conservative and very strict, and not a culture we perceive as being 'free', like we perceive ourselves to be. The Confucius saying described in the article sends a slightly different message, "the teacher does not always have to be more knowledgeable than the pupil; and the pupil is not necessarily always less learned than the teacher" (pg. 711). This seems like something we experience in Western culture and far more like our educational values; we learn from each other and not just the teacher as the source of knowledge. It seems like we should be more aware of these principles when teaching our students because then we will have insight into their culture, and therefore be able to relate with them more instead of feeling like we are very different. Something else that we seem to see incorrectly is their lack of critical thinking; I feel like we as American students pride ourselves in this aspect of our education, even though we have basically nothing to show for it. The entry from the New York 'Cyclopedia of Education' was basically appalling: "They have never invented anything. They have stumbled upon most of the useful practical appliances of life..." (pg. 712-713). Of course, this was a time when immigration was a fanatical issue; people from Korea, China, and Japan were coming here for a better life but American citizens were dealing with this and had an anti-Asian attitude, so that needs to be taken into account.
Kuma states, "Classroom behaviors of L2 learners are the result of a complex interface between several social, cultural, economic, educational, institutional, and individual factors" (pg. 714). True, there are a lot of individual factors to deal with any student, mainstream classroom or ESL classroom. It happens with African-American students all the time; there are stereotyped by Caucasian teachers and their language has to be altered to make themselves 'more white' as we discussed in class. I think students from all cultures face this when they come to the United States; they want to assimilate to the culture and want to talk like American students or people they see around them. We as their teachers have to understand their needs from the beginning and help them reach their goals, and ensure them that they can achieve them as we do with any student in general. We have to take into account all factors that go into their education and understand their cultural background and how they approach different issues. Obviously, this is an idealistic view, because we do not possibly have the time to do this with each individual student, but we can certainly try our best to address all issues in our classroom.
Kuma's Chapter 12, Raising Cultural Consciousness, has the same theme as his article: understanding culture and trying not to allow cultural stereotypes to permeate our judgment in the classroom. Culture "includes a wide variety of constructs such as the mental habits, personal prejudices, moral values, social customs, artistic achievements, and aesthetic preferences of particular societies" (pg. 267). Yes, in the past we have focused on what we call 'Big C' culture; the external appearances and stereotypes of other cultures. We did not perceive culture as values or internal beliefs. We have developed our L2 education to fit all the research that has been done in this area, and thankfully we have adapted and made our L2 education more relevant and practical for our students. Kuma states that "the overall objective of culture teaching...is to help L2 learners develop the ability to use the target language in culturally appropriate ways" (pg. 268). Unfortunately, this goal, in my opinion, has not yet been achieved in L2 education. We still have to lobby for better textbooks that include more relevant and practical material for our students; I know that when I was learning Spanish, these textbook activities were always boring or repetitive and did not teach us how to do anything communicative in the target language. With the advent of CLT in L2 education, I can only hope that these things are changing.
Robinson's theory of culture, the "Color Purple [which] is a productive, cognitive, perceptual and affective space that results from meaningful cross-cultural contact" (pg. 270), is something that I have never heard of before and seems like an intriguing concept, albeit a bit philosophical. I believe that we should get past our native speaker 'lens' as she calls it and be able to understand other cultures and their backgrounds and beliefs. I see myself as someone who is culturally aware, and I feel terrible when I have stereotypes about other cultures considering my line of work, but we are brought up and at first only know what our parents know, and all students feel the same way. They are brought up in a specific society with specific values and it is difficult to erase what we have been taught, but school is the best place to explore other people and their values. I know I learned more about my own culture from my international friends than I ever did from people from my own background; they saw things about me that I did not see and it was difficult to believe at first. When I took English 343 here, reading the list of American stereotypes was eye-opening. Some I already knew, but some were hard to accept; I remember thinking to myself, "No way, that is not me at all. Other people are like that, but not me", which is something that a lot of people feel. We just need to make sure our students understand that everyone is going through the same issues, even ourselves. Teachers being able to relate to their students can mean a great deal.
Kuma, B. "Problematizing Cultural Stereotypes in TESOL"
Kuma's article on cultural stereotypes has a focus on how ESL teachers perceive their Asian students and either consciously or subconsciously place these stereotypes on them. As Kuma states in the article, "the TESOL profession is not free from cultural stereotypes that are particularly associated from Asia" (pg. 709-710). I always found it interesting that Korean, Japanese, and Chinese students are all lumped under the term Asian, because they are all very different cultures, but unfortunately racial stereotypes prevail in the situation because their external appearance defines what they will be called. "They a) are obedient to authority, (b) lack critical thinking skills, and (c) do not participate in classroom interaction" (pg. 710). It goes back to the idea of representation and cultural identity, and how students live up to this self-fulfilled prophecy of being the 'smart kids' in school, and this is perpetuated by the media as well which is something that is not always discussed. We as ESL teachers need to address that oftentimes media can affect views of different cultures. I know when I was in high school, I had a friend who was Korean, but was not a part of the honors crowd and never felt like he fit in with them because they were the 'smart kids' and he was not. It can really affect your social life in high school, and students of ESL backgrounds will have the same experience.
I found it very interesting that the actual principles of Eastern culture are not as extreme as we perceive them to be; we as Westerners see them as being very conservative and very strict, and not a culture we perceive as being 'free', like we perceive ourselves to be. The Confucius saying described in the article sends a slightly different message, "the teacher does not always have to be more knowledgeable than the pupil; and the pupil is not necessarily always less learned than the teacher" (pg. 711). This seems like something we experience in Western culture and far more like our educational values; we learn from each other and not just the teacher as the source of knowledge. It seems like we should be more aware of these principles when teaching our students because then we will have insight into their culture, and therefore be able to relate with them more instead of feeling like we are very different. Something else that we seem to see incorrectly is their lack of critical thinking; I feel like we as American students pride ourselves in this aspect of our education, even though we have basically nothing to show for it. The entry from the New York 'Cyclopedia of Education' was basically appalling: "They have never invented anything. They have stumbled upon most of the useful practical appliances of life..." (pg. 712-713). Of course, this was a time when immigration was a fanatical issue; people from Korea, China, and Japan were coming here for a better life but American citizens were dealing with this and had an anti-Asian attitude, so that needs to be taken into account.
Kuma states, "Classroom behaviors of L2 learners are the result of a complex interface between several social, cultural, economic, educational, institutional, and individual factors" (pg. 714). True, there are a lot of individual factors to deal with any student, mainstream classroom or ESL classroom. It happens with African-American students all the time; there are stereotyped by Caucasian teachers and their language has to be altered to make themselves 'more white' as we discussed in class. I think students from all cultures face this when they come to the United States; they want to assimilate to the culture and want to talk like American students or people they see around them. We as their teachers have to understand their needs from the beginning and help them reach their goals, and ensure them that they can achieve them as we do with any student in general. We have to take into account all factors that go into their education and understand their cultural background and how they approach different issues. Obviously, this is an idealistic view, because we do not possibly have the time to do this with each individual student, but we can certainly try our best to address all issues in our classroom.
Kuma's Chapter 12, Raising Cultural Consciousness, has the same theme as his article: understanding culture and trying not to allow cultural stereotypes to permeate our judgment in the classroom. Culture "includes a wide variety of constructs such as the mental habits, personal prejudices, moral values, social customs, artistic achievements, and aesthetic preferences of particular societies" (pg. 267). Yes, in the past we have focused on what we call 'Big C' culture; the external appearances and stereotypes of other cultures. We did not perceive culture as values or internal beliefs. We have developed our L2 education to fit all the research that has been done in this area, and thankfully we have adapted and made our L2 education more relevant and practical for our students. Kuma states that "the overall objective of culture teaching...is to help L2 learners develop the ability to use the target language in culturally appropriate ways" (pg. 268). Unfortunately, this goal, in my opinion, has not yet been achieved in L2 education. We still have to lobby for better textbooks that include more relevant and practical material for our students; I know that when I was learning Spanish, these textbook activities were always boring or repetitive and did not teach us how to do anything communicative in the target language. With the advent of CLT in L2 education, I can only hope that these things are changing.
Robinson's theory of culture, the "Color Purple [which] is a productive, cognitive, perceptual and affective space that results from meaningful cross-cultural contact" (pg. 270), is something that I have never heard of before and seems like an intriguing concept, albeit a bit philosophical. I believe that we should get past our native speaker 'lens' as she calls it and be able to understand other cultures and their backgrounds and beliefs. I see myself as someone who is culturally aware, and I feel terrible when I have stereotypes about other cultures considering my line of work, but we are brought up and at first only know what our parents know, and all students feel the same way. They are brought up in a specific society with specific values and it is difficult to erase what we have been taught, but school is the best place to explore other people and their values. I know I learned more about my own culture from my international friends than I ever did from people from my own background; they saw things about me that I did not see and it was difficult to believe at first. When I took English 343 here, reading the list of American stereotypes was eye-opening. Some I already knew, but some were hard to accept; I remember thinking to myself, "No way, that is not me at all. Other people are like that, but not me", which is something that a lot of people feel. We just need to make sure our students understand that everyone is going through the same issues, even ourselves. Teachers being able to relate to their students can mean a great deal.
Friday, October 28, 2011
11/1 Readings
References: Kuma, Chap. 9 and 10
In Chapter 9, "Contextualizing Linguistic Input", Kuma describes 4 realities or contexts; "linguistic, extralinguistic, situational, and extrasituational" (pg. 205). Linguistic context is the "immediate linguistic environment that contains formal aspects of language required for the process of meaning-making" (pg. 205). He goes to use the word 'table' in 5 different contextualized sentences, in which table has a specific meaning each time. He starts with the most common use, as in the four-legged object that usually has chairs with it, but then goes on to make it slightly more difficult each time, ending with 'tabling' a motion in Congress, which has more of a specified meaning within the linguistic environment. I think that this method of describing a word in all of these sentences is a great activity for L2 learners; I wish that I had more of these types of linguistic activities when I was learning Spanish. I still struggle trying to find more than the most common use of a word in Spanish, like when it is used in phrasal verbs or something along those lines. I will definitely note that activity to use in my future classroom.
The second, extralinguistic context, refers to "the immediate environment that contains prosodic signals such as stress and intonation" (pg. 207). I feel like this would be extremely difficult to teach, since stress and intonation are what can distinguish a native speaker from an L2 speaker of any language. I know that I have had some teachers that were not from the United States and whose native language was not English, and while most of the time their syllabic stress was correct, they would falter and it was very noticeable. When learning Spanish, since it is "syllable timed, with each syllable receiving equal length, pitch, and volume", I actually found that easier than English, since every syllable is pronounced in the word, unlike English which has words like "through" where some letters are unnecessary (pg. 207). It is amazing how much intonation can matter in the English language, because if something is said with the wrong intonation (rising/falling), the whole sentence can be interpreted differently. However, this is something that is pretty similar in almost every language. People do not know if you are asking a question without the rising intonation on the last word. When you are a native speaker, you already know if you are going to ask a question so you already have the intonation in your head. That is difficult to teach! I think the best way to approach it would be to have sentences where the word is bolded or italicized for the student so that they know when to stress. I think that a fair amount of listening to English speakers in a TV show or movie would really help them understand intonation, as well.
Situational context is basically "context of culture", or "words and utterances can have different meanings and functions in different contexts" (pg. 209-210). Situational context is hard to learn in a classroom; this can really only be achieved by putting the students in different situations so that they know when to say (a) specific phrase(s). In the classroom, this works with role-play, like having students pretend they are in a restaurant and need to order food (this would be at the basic level), and then the teacher could gradually make it more difficult so that they have to use strategic competence, like if the waiter gave them the wrong food and they had to ask for it to be changed, etc. This is something that can easily be scaffolded through the learning experience. Finally, extrasituational context is "the problem of what is and what is not appropriate" (pg. 212). This should be taught in the classroom first because then they will know before doing it and risking being embarrassed at an inappropriate exchange. Kuma uses the example of a student from Zambia telling an American friend that she had put on weight, and the girl was very offended. The Zambian student was very confused at why the girl took offense to their statement, because according to Kuma, it was "linguistically well formed and situationally well framed" (pg. 212). Another friend told them that the cultural ideal in America is to thin but the student explained that in Zambia the cultural ideal is to be robust, because it means you are healthy and have had a good year. Obviously, students in ESL classes should be cultural norms and standards as well the situational context. They have to understand that what may be considered appropriate or a normal greeting in their country may not be the same here. I know that some students from Asian countries preface conversation with "Have you eaten yet?" and this can be very confusing to Americans. I have a friend from Malaysia who told me that he learned pretty quickly that this kind of greeting disarmed people and he observed what people were doing in the hallway, and just imitated their greetings. So, I think as an ESL teacher it would be beneficial to have students observe regular interactions in their high school or college setting, and report back what they see to their teacher.
As an ESL teacher, we have to consider what types of methods we would like to use to teach these communicative strategies. To me, it seems intuitive to use more CLT-type methods instead of grammar-oriented approaches, but there is a place for grammar. Students do need to know what grammar structures are in the utterance, but the instruction of that part of it should be minimal; the students just need to practice speaking and using it in the most practical context as possible. I think microstrategy 9.1 (Travel Matters, pg. 216) had a lot of good aspects to it; the scenario included describing unanticipated situations in their own travel experiences. The teacher then has them form groups and walk around, observing what the other students are saying and noting which structures they are having difficulty with; to me, this is an excellent way to encourage metalinguistic awareness in your students. It's a win-win situation. The students learn what they can or cannot do, and the teacher then knows what to focus on in the upcoming weeks. Project 9.2 (pg. 221) was a little disturbing to me; I really hope that an activity that includes such sensitive subject matter as sex and birth control is meant for a college audience and not for high school, because that would never pass any administrative personnel in the school. With college, that is perfectly fine, but the teacher must be aware that some students will feel extremely uncomfortable talking about that in front of peers and a teacher; in some cultures, sex is very private and is not discussed, so I would not suggest using that as an activity, honestly.
Chapter 10, "Integrating Language Skills" focuses on the integration of basic skills like listening, reading, speaking and writing in the classroom. One quote stuck out to me: "we rarely see teachers and learners in a reading class only read, or in a writing class only write, or in a speaking class only speak" (pg. 226). In my opinion, teachers should not have to stick to a certain subject matter like just reading or just writing. Teaching English is teaching all of the modes of communication in the classroom setting. All four of these skills are intertwined and it is extremely difficult to separate them and make any activity just about one of them. I would venture to say that it is probably impossible. Kuma states that in the past, we have tried to separate these and it was yielding less than satisfactory results, so the shift toward "productive (speaking and writing) and receptive (listening and reading)" occurred (pg. 227). It is also difficult on teachers to implement this integration of all four skills because textbooks do not allow it. I honestly do not think textbook creators have any idea what is actually happening in the classroom, and they create these textbooks thinking that they are innovative and current, and they are not. We reviewed French textbooks in my foreign language methods class, and for me, the activities were boring and cliche. I think as teachers, a textbook is a great resource for activities, but we should not adhere to it. We should alter the activities to make them more engaging and active for students, because that is the style of teaching they are accustomed to nowadays. I know I sound old when I say that, but things have changed since I was in high school; I learn that from my sister every day. There is just this need to be entertained, and this is basically a result of all the interactive media and technology we have. We should not be fighting this movement; we should follow it and adapt to students' needs. Also, the integration of all four skills into each lesson gives each student a chance to shine; if they prefer to read, there is a reading activity and if they prefer to present something, there can be a presentational aspect.
Kuma makes a great suggestion in that we should use other resources in our teaching, such as "newspapers, news magazines, and the Internet [because] they provide excellent materials" (pg. 230). Yes, we do need to be cautious with the Internet as we all know, but I do not think a teacher can wrong with newspaper articles or magazines because they are always appropriate and objective, and it would be helpful for students to see how they can present an effective argument or write an article. It is definitely a way to help them learn academic writing in the classroom, and having them write an article on something that interests them will at least capture their attention and they can get something out of it! In microstrategy 10.2 (A Matter of Reality and Falsehood, pg. 233), the students are discussing and researching reality TV. One part of the lesson is for them to Google search 'reality TV'. This made me cringe a little. Students are generally not going to find appropriate materials on a topic like that on Google, and I am sure the school will have a block on bad websites, but you never know what could happen. Students stumble on inappropriate or explicit websites all the time. I think that this activity, though, has a sufficient amount of speaking activities in groups or in pairs, and does include a presentational aspect to it. It fulfills the integration of all four modes of communication. I would definitely think about adapting it to my classroom needs, but I would probably be more likely to use a film or a specific TV show that on which I know they can find good materials.
In Chapter 9, "Contextualizing Linguistic Input", Kuma describes 4 realities or contexts; "linguistic, extralinguistic, situational, and extrasituational" (pg. 205). Linguistic context is the "immediate linguistic environment that contains formal aspects of language required for the process of meaning-making" (pg. 205). He goes to use the word 'table' in 5 different contextualized sentences, in which table has a specific meaning each time. He starts with the most common use, as in the four-legged object that usually has chairs with it, but then goes on to make it slightly more difficult each time, ending with 'tabling' a motion in Congress, which has more of a specified meaning within the linguistic environment. I think that this method of describing a word in all of these sentences is a great activity for L2 learners; I wish that I had more of these types of linguistic activities when I was learning Spanish. I still struggle trying to find more than the most common use of a word in Spanish, like when it is used in phrasal verbs or something along those lines. I will definitely note that activity to use in my future classroom.
The second, extralinguistic context, refers to "the immediate environment that contains prosodic signals such as stress and intonation" (pg. 207). I feel like this would be extremely difficult to teach, since stress and intonation are what can distinguish a native speaker from an L2 speaker of any language. I know that I have had some teachers that were not from the United States and whose native language was not English, and while most of the time their syllabic stress was correct, they would falter and it was very noticeable. When learning Spanish, since it is "syllable timed, with each syllable receiving equal length, pitch, and volume", I actually found that easier than English, since every syllable is pronounced in the word, unlike English which has words like "through" where some letters are unnecessary (pg. 207). It is amazing how much intonation can matter in the English language, because if something is said with the wrong intonation (rising/falling), the whole sentence can be interpreted differently. However, this is something that is pretty similar in almost every language. People do not know if you are asking a question without the rising intonation on the last word. When you are a native speaker, you already know if you are going to ask a question so you already have the intonation in your head. That is difficult to teach! I think the best way to approach it would be to have sentences where the word is bolded or italicized for the student so that they know when to stress. I think that a fair amount of listening to English speakers in a TV show or movie would really help them understand intonation, as well.
Situational context is basically "context of culture", or "words and utterances can have different meanings and functions in different contexts" (pg. 209-210). Situational context is hard to learn in a classroom; this can really only be achieved by putting the students in different situations so that they know when to say (a) specific phrase(s). In the classroom, this works with role-play, like having students pretend they are in a restaurant and need to order food (this would be at the basic level), and then the teacher could gradually make it more difficult so that they have to use strategic competence, like if the waiter gave them the wrong food and they had to ask for it to be changed, etc. This is something that can easily be scaffolded through the learning experience. Finally, extrasituational context is "the problem of what is and what is not appropriate" (pg. 212). This should be taught in the classroom first because then they will know before doing it and risking being embarrassed at an inappropriate exchange. Kuma uses the example of a student from Zambia telling an American friend that she had put on weight, and the girl was very offended. The Zambian student was very confused at why the girl took offense to their statement, because according to Kuma, it was "linguistically well formed and situationally well framed" (pg. 212). Another friend told them that the cultural ideal in America is to thin but the student explained that in Zambia the cultural ideal is to be robust, because it means you are healthy and have had a good year. Obviously, students in ESL classes should be cultural norms and standards as well the situational context. They have to understand that what may be considered appropriate or a normal greeting in their country may not be the same here. I know that some students from Asian countries preface conversation with "Have you eaten yet?" and this can be very confusing to Americans. I have a friend from Malaysia who told me that he learned pretty quickly that this kind of greeting disarmed people and he observed what people were doing in the hallway, and just imitated their greetings. So, I think as an ESL teacher it would be beneficial to have students observe regular interactions in their high school or college setting, and report back what they see to their teacher.
As an ESL teacher, we have to consider what types of methods we would like to use to teach these communicative strategies. To me, it seems intuitive to use more CLT-type methods instead of grammar-oriented approaches, but there is a place for grammar. Students do need to know what grammar structures are in the utterance, but the instruction of that part of it should be minimal; the students just need to practice speaking and using it in the most practical context as possible. I think microstrategy 9.1 (Travel Matters, pg. 216) had a lot of good aspects to it; the scenario included describing unanticipated situations in their own travel experiences. The teacher then has them form groups and walk around, observing what the other students are saying and noting which structures they are having difficulty with; to me, this is an excellent way to encourage metalinguistic awareness in your students. It's a win-win situation. The students learn what they can or cannot do, and the teacher then knows what to focus on in the upcoming weeks. Project 9.2 (pg. 221) was a little disturbing to me; I really hope that an activity that includes such sensitive subject matter as sex and birth control is meant for a college audience and not for high school, because that would never pass any administrative personnel in the school. With college, that is perfectly fine, but the teacher must be aware that some students will feel extremely uncomfortable talking about that in front of peers and a teacher; in some cultures, sex is very private and is not discussed, so I would not suggest using that as an activity, honestly.
Chapter 10, "Integrating Language Skills" focuses on the integration of basic skills like listening, reading, speaking and writing in the classroom. One quote stuck out to me: "we rarely see teachers and learners in a reading class only read, or in a writing class only write, or in a speaking class only speak" (pg. 226). In my opinion, teachers should not have to stick to a certain subject matter like just reading or just writing. Teaching English is teaching all of the modes of communication in the classroom setting. All four of these skills are intertwined and it is extremely difficult to separate them and make any activity just about one of them. I would venture to say that it is probably impossible. Kuma states that in the past, we have tried to separate these and it was yielding less than satisfactory results, so the shift toward "productive (speaking and writing) and receptive (listening and reading)" occurred (pg. 227). It is also difficult on teachers to implement this integration of all four skills because textbooks do not allow it. I honestly do not think textbook creators have any idea what is actually happening in the classroom, and they create these textbooks thinking that they are innovative and current, and they are not. We reviewed French textbooks in my foreign language methods class, and for me, the activities were boring and cliche. I think as teachers, a textbook is a great resource for activities, but we should not adhere to it. We should alter the activities to make them more engaging and active for students, because that is the style of teaching they are accustomed to nowadays. I know I sound old when I say that, but things have changed since I was in high school; I learn that from my sister every day. There is just this need to be entertained, and this is basically a result of all the interactive media and technology we have. We should not be fighting this movement; we should follow it and adapt to students' needs. Also, the integration of all four skills into each lesson gives each student a chance to shine; if they prefer to read, there is a reading activity and if they prefer to present something, there can be a presentational aspect.
Kuma makes a great suggestion in that we should use other resources in our teaching, such as "newspapers, news magazines, and the Internet [because] they provide excellent materials" (pg. 230). Yes, we do need to be cautious with the Internet as we all know, but I do not think a teacher can wrong with newspaper articles or magazines because they are always appropriate and objective, and it would be helpful for students to see how they can present an effective argument or write an article. It is definitely a way to help them learn academic writing in the classroom, and having them write an article on something that interests them will at least capture their attention and they can get something out of it! In microstrategy 10.2 (A Matter of Reality and Falsehood, pg. 233), the students are discussing and researching reality TV. One part of the lesson is for them to Google search 'reality TV'. This made me cringe a little. Students are generally not going to find appropriate materials on a topic like that on Google, and I am sure the school will have a block on bad websites, but you never know what could happen. Students stumble on inappropriate or explicit websites all the time. I think that this activity, though, has a sufficient amount of speaking activities in groups or in pairs, and does include a presentational aspect to it. It fulfills the integration of all four modes of communication. I would definitely think about adapting it to my classroom needs, but I would probably be more likely to use a film or a specific TV show that on which I know they can find good materials.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
10/25 Readings
References: Anthology Chapters 13, 14, 15
The focus of these three chapters of Anthology is the effects and alternatives to grammar teaching methods in the L2 classroom. Grammar is a tricky subject in a second language; more than likely, the grammar of English is going to be quite different from that of the L1 and thus harder to fully acquire. I know that when learning Spanish, I had to become accustomed to the setup of sentences; while it was not vastly different than English, it still required my full attention while doing practice sentences and eventually became like second nature, but the point of these chapters is summed up in these two questions from Chapter 15: "Should we teach grammar at all?" and "If we should teach grammar, how should we teach it?" (pg. 167)
In Chapter 13, Swan discusses reasons for teaching grammar; 7 he considers 'bad', and 2 he considers 'good'. Something that stuck out to me was the idea that grammar is testable. "Tests show (or appear to show) whether students are learning and whether teachers are teaching properly" (pg. 149). Like we talked about on Thursday, unfortunately schools are dependent on these standardized tests and classroom exams as a measurement of student progress; they want results and they want them fast. Grammar is definitely one of those concepts that is easily adapted to a test. When learning past tense for example, all the student needs to do on a test is do fill-in-the-blank exercises or verb charts to show that they know it. It is also easy to make a test for this; I know because I have helped my University High School cooperating teacher grade tests and she showed me how she set up her tests. Also when I worked on their homework to test their knowledge on subjunctive tense in Spanish, I found it difficult to use anything but verb charts and fill-in-the-blank. I felt terrible for doing it, and I knew it was repetitive, but I reverted back to how I learned and I am still working really hard to break myself out of that mode. Another bad reason that Swan states is that of the results of teaching grammar: "Students do not learn English...they know the main rules, can pass tests, and may have the illusion that they know the language well" (pg. 151). Powerful statement. From personal experience, communicative competence in a second language is nowhere near easy; when I went to Spain, I honestly felt like I talked like a child in Spanish. I knew I could make a little bit more than just declarative statements, but I did not know how to carry on a conversation. Yes, our methods may be a bit dated for teaching grammar and we should find something new and more engaging, but consciousness-raising methods have a long way to go in development (discussed in the last section).
In Chapter 14, Richards discusses the filling of the gap between current language teaching methods and those of the past. He suggests a transition from grammar-focused to task-focused instruction, meaning students are involved in "comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form" (pg. 154). This follows along the methods of communicative language teaching, and suggests a move from a focus on form to focus on meaning as we have talked about earlier. Honestly, focus on form is not without its merit; I think that is difficult to find the one method that works for every student. I think that eclecticism fits in this area as well. There should be some focus on form in learning grammar while combining it with a focus on meaning. Verb conjugation charts are merely focus on form and nothing else. They do not put them into context at all, and therefore should be done away with as homework. It is alright to do them in class while you have their attention, but to harp on them as most teachers do is ridiculous. I had a Spanish teacher in high school who made us do verb charts EVERY DAY. It was stifling. The only good experience I remember from that class was that we had to assume different responsibilities at a wedding and do an extended role-play. This suggests what really works and is memorable for students.
As I stated, grammar has been the bane of any language teachers' existence, so to speak. It is difficult to make it interesting or engaging for students, and some will get so frustrated with how monotonous it is that they will shut down. I had many friends in high school who quit taking Spanish primarily because they hated how much grammar and verb conjugations they had to do in class. They said they never did any hands-on or kinetic types of activities or even a simple game to get them up and moving. They felt like it was all just busy work to fill time, and it was all repeated exposure. As Ellis states in this chapter, practice aims "to transfer what they know from short-term to long-term memory" (pg. 168). Ellis basically debunks the theory of teaching grammar as 'practice' versus his ideal method of 'consciousness-raising' grammar work and that the main purpose of this method is to "develop explicit knowledge of grammar" (pg. 169) and that grammar is understood through "every day" classroom language (pg. 169). This method does not include this method of repetition and drilling that we generally tend to associate with learning grammar. While this does sound more ideal than our previous methods, it is not much different than the original method of 'practice' that we have been given. It does not take into account that some students may learn better through repetition; some Chinese students, for example, are used to drills and grammar exercises and would therefore be more accustomed to using this method than this implicitness that Ellis is proposing. We are socialized in the classroom that the teacher is the source of knowledge, and I know when I was first learning Spanish in junior high, we did workbook exercises until we were blue in the face to learn grammar structures, and when I learned it in high school, we did the same thing. To go from explicit teaching to merely noticing and more CLT methods would be very confusing and disorienting for students who are used to a different way of learning. Some students would not adapt easily to it. I know that I would feel a bit lost if someone was not telling me that I needed to learn this structure and how to set it up. I prefer much more visuals and practice writing sentences to see the structure in real time than just listening for it. Ellis says, "Consciousness-raising, then, is unlikely to result in immediate acquisition. More likely, it will have a delayed effect" (pg. 172). Unfortunately, administrators and parents do not want to hear that. We have to face the reality as teachers that schools and administrators and parents want immediate results; they want to see that the students are learning something, and the most common method is through written assessment. If the students are not learning it right away, the teacher will have nothing to show for it and the administration will feel frustrated. I suppose that if the teacher wanted to use this method, they would need to clear it with the school and tell them the results and research that they have seen and how they can implement it in the classroom. They will also need to explain that results will not be quick in this sort of measure, and the school would have to approve that. Researchers are not always realistic and again it shows how out of touch they are with the school system and what is plausible.
The focus of these three chapters of Anthology is the effects and alternatives to grammar teaching methods in the L2 classroom. Grammar is a tricky subject in a second language; more than likely, the grammar of English is going to be quite different from that of the L1 and thus harder to fully acquire. I know that when learning Spanish, I had to become accustomed to the setup of sentences; while it was not vastly different than English, it still required my full attention while doing practice sentences and eventually became like second nature, but the point of these chapters is summed up in these two questions from Chapter 15: "Should we teach grammar at all?" and "If we should teach grammar, how should we teach it?" (pg. 167)
In Chapter 13, Swan discusses reasons for teaching grammar; 7 he considers 'bad', and 2 he considers 'good'. Something that stuck out to me was the idea that grammar is testable. "Tests show (or appear to show) whether students are learning and whether teachers are teaching properly" (pg. 149). Like we talked about on Thursday, unfortunately schools are dependent on these standardized tests and classroom exams as a measurement of student progress; they want results and they want them fast. Grammar is definitely one of those concepts that is easily adapted to a test. When learning past tense for example, all the student needs to do on a test is do fill-in-the-blank exercises or verb charts to show that they know it. It is also easy to make a test for this; I know because I have helped my University High School cooperating teacher grade tests and she showed me how she set up her tests. Also when I worked on their homework to test their knowledge on subjunctive tense in Spanish, I found it difficult to use anything but verb charts and fill-in-the-blank. I felt terrible for doing it, and I knew it was repetitive, but I reverted back to how I learned and I am still working really hard to break myself out of that mode. Another bad reason that Swan states is that of the results of teaching grammar: "Students do not learn English...they know the main rules, can pass tests, and may have the illusion that they know the language well" (pg. 151). Powerful statement. From personal experience, communicative competence in a second language is nowhere near easy; when I went to Spain, I honestly felt like I talked like a child in Spanish. I knew I could make a little bit more than just declarative statements, but I did not know how to carry on a conversation. Yes, our methods may be a bit dated for teaching grammar and we should find something new and more engaging, but consciousness-raising methods have a long way to go in development (discussed in the last section).
In Chapter 14, Richards discusses the filling of the gap between current language teaching methods and those of the past. He suggests a transition from grammar-focused to task-focused instruction, meaning students are involved in "comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form" (pg. 154). This follows along the methods of communicative language teaching, and suggests a move from a focus on form to focus on meaning as we have talked about earlier. Honestly, focus on form is not without its merit; I think that is difficult to find the one method that works for every student. I think that eclecticism fits in this area as well. There should be some focus on form in learning grammar while combining it with a focus on meaning. Verb conjugation charts are merely focus on form and nothing else. They do not put them into context at all, and therefore should be done away with as homework. It is alright to do them in class while you have their attention, but to harp on them as most teachers do is ridiculous. I had a Spanish teacher in high school who made us do verb charts EVERY DAY. It was stifling. The only good experience I remember from that class was that we had to assume different responsibilities at a wedding and do an extended role-play. This suggests what really works and is memorable for students.
As I stated, grammar has been the bane of any language teachers' existence, so to speak. It is difficult to make it interesting or engaging for students, and some will get so frustrated with how monotonous it is that they will shut down. I had many friends in high school who quit taking Spanish primarily because they hated how much grammar and verb conjugations they had to do in class. They said they never did any hands-on or kinetic types of activities or even a simple game to get them up and moving. They felt like it was all just busy work to fill time, and it was all repeated exposure. As Ellis states in this chapter, practice aims "to transfer what they know from short-term to long-term memory" (pg. 168). Ellis basically debunks the theory of teaching grammar as 'practice' versus his ideal method of 'consciousness-raising' grammar work and that the main purpose of this method is to "develop explicit knowledge of grammar" (pg. 169) and that grammar is understood through "every day" classroom language (pg. 169). This method does not include this method of repetition and drilling that we generally tend to associate with learning grammar. While this does sound more ideal than our previous methods, it is not much different than the original method of 'practice' that we have been given. It does not take into account that some students may learn better through repetition; some Chinese students, for example, are used to drills and grammar exercises and would therefore be more accustomed to using this method than this implicitness that Ellis is proposing. We are socialized in the classroom that the teacher is the source of knowledge, and I know when I was first learning Spanish in junior high, we did workbook exercises until we were blue in the face to learn grammar structures, and when I learned it in high school, we did the same thing. To go from explicit teaching to merely noticing and more CLT methods would be very confusing and disorienting for students who are used to a different way of learning. Some students would not adapt easily to it. I know that I would feel a bit lost if someone was not telling me that I needed to learn this structure and how to set it up. I prefer much more visuals and practice writing sentences to see the structure in real time than just listening for it. Ellis says, "Consciousness-raising, then, is unlikely to result in immediate acquisition. More likely, it will have a delayed effect" (pg. 172). Unfortunately, administrators and parents do not want to hear that. We have to face the reality as teachers that schools and administrators and parents want immediate results; they want to see that the students are learning something, and the most common method is through written assessment. If the students are not learning it right away, the teacher will have nothing to show for it and the administration will feel frustrated. I suppose that if the teacher wanted to use this method, they would need to clear it with the school and tell them the results and research that they have seen and how they can implement it in the classroom. They will also need to explain that results will not be quick in this sort of measure, and the school would have to approve that. Researchers are not always realistic and again it shows how out of touch they are with the school system and what is plausible.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
10/18 Readings
References: Cary, S. "How do I build learning strategies?", Anthology Chapters 11 and 12
In Chapter 11, "Language Learning Strategies in a Nutshell: Update and ESL Suggestions", Oxford gives a detailed list of learning strategies to employ in any classroom but with an emphasis on ESL. I found it very interesting that language learners learn better from "affective and social strategies to control their emotions, to stay motivated, cooperate"; I was kind of surprised at this but I let it digest and realized that doing things like positive reinforcement in your head or self-reward is beneficial for ESL students because it will lower their affective filter and therefore allow for more speaking opportunities for that language (pg. 125). It is definitely an issue in all ESL classrooms, the issue of affective filter; students who are more naturally extroverted do better in speaking or presentational activities because they are less afraid already, but naturally shy students need these affective strategies to motivate themselves to get up and do it, even if that means when completing their homework, they say to themselves, "Well, I think I did a great job on that today. It took me less time than yesterday" or something along those lines to keep them motivated. It is also important for us as teachers to say these similar things to them so that their emotions are validated. It is a two-way street, to speak metaphorically. We as teachers need to support them if that learning strategy works for them. We must also work to make students aware of what learning styles and strategies are going to work best for them by being explicit in class and talking about many different strategies to use. "Learners are told overtly that a particular behavior or strategy is likely to be helpful, and they are taught how to use it and how to transfer it to new situations." (pg. 126). This according to Oxford is the most effective way to approach learning strategies with students. It is especially important that the teacher model this behavior too by employing different learning strategies themselves or employing their own metacognition about their own learning strategies they use when they approach different tasks, and then sharing that with students. We have to use the same kind of thinking that they will use!
An interesting section of this chapter was the suggestions for language learning strategy use, and I felt that a couple of them were the most important/effective of all that were given. One is the use of "strategy diaries" for the students (pg. 128). It is a win-win situation in this case; teachers get to see what their students are doing and how they are learning best, and the students get to use their metacognition and find out more about themselves and their own learning process. I think using this would be really beneficial, but the problem is that it could get time-consuming for students, and can be difficult for those who are behind in their metacognitive strategies. If that is a problem, then the teacher would have to address it. Another suggestion is to "be concerned about a wide range of strategies" and teach the students about all these different strategies (pg. 128). Well, this one is sort of a no-brainer, because students should be aware of the vast opportunities there are for learning strategies, and maybe they can find one that works even better than the one that they were previously using. It is also helpful, as I said before, for the teacher to talk about their own learning strategies and the situations to best apply them to in class. This goes along with the suggestion that we should "give explicit directions about strategy use and offer practice in transferring the strategies to new situations and tasks" (pg. 129).
I thought that Cary's article was really interesting and actually the most reader-friendly we have read so far in this course. I liked the personal element of describing the classroom and that it read more like a story than a journal article, which although they have a lot of intelligent and observant things to discuss, I much prefer to read an article that adds personal detail. After reading the article, I wanted to actually be there and observe Mrs. Chen's classroom so that I could see this taking place, because it is totally different than anything I have read about or observed during my time at ISU. Mrs. Chen's students were from four very different speaking groups, "Spanish, Cantonese, Punjabi, and Farsi" (pg. 115). I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to try to figure out the differences or similarities in all these languages and relate them to English, because I honestly do not even know where they speak Punjabi or what it sounds like. That is one of my worries of being an ESL teacher is that I have no knowledge of these other languages and that I will not be able to help my students understand the comparisons between their native language and English. It's a ton of work! What I really liked about Mrs. Chen's classroom was that she was scaffolding the students into understanding what their reading strategies were and recognizing them as they were doing them. It's a very metacognitive kind of strategy for teaching and that is something that I can only hope for when I teach. Teaching metacognition in a first language is hard enough as it is without adding the L2 element to it. Once she had described the activity, she then had them work in pairs "deciding which organizer to use" (pg. 118) and walked around, asking them to describe their learning process. She explicitly asked them what strategies they could use, like "visualization: 'this time, stop a couple times in the section and try to make a picture in your head about what you're reading.'" (pg. 119) which I know always worked for me as a student. And she asked follow-up questions about the images, what words they were stuck on and helped them by clarifying the images.
"Besides English proficiency, academic competence demands lavish amounts of declarative knowledge - the what of learning...and procedural knowledge - the how of learning - all the operations and processes, the higher-order thinking..." (pg. 121). It is important for us as ESL teachers to remember that these skills are necessary in L1 classrooms and even more so in L2 classrooms because the way that students use declarative or procedural knowledge may have been taught differently in their native country, which is something we have to face in any scenario. Every student is unique in the way that they learn best, and it is important for us to help them realize their potential and use their skills to their best advantage. In the end, that will boost their confidence and hopefully this confidence in perhaps listening or reading strategies will then spill over into speaking strategies, because that is the hardest to accomplish in any L2 classroom.
In Chapter 11, "Language Learning Strategies in a Nutshell: Update and ESL Suggestions", Oxford gives a detailed list of learning strategies to employ in any classroom but with an emphasis on ESL. I found it very interesting that language learners learn better from "affective and social strategies to control their emotions, to stay motivated, cooperate"; I was kind of surprised at this but I let it digest and realized that doing things like positive reinforcement in your head or self-reward is beneficial for ESL students because it will lower their affective filter and therefore allow for more speaking opportunities for that language (pg. 125). It is definitely an issue in all ESL classrooms, the issue of affective filter; students who are more naturally extroverted do better in speaking or presentational activities because they are less afraid already, but naturally shy students need these affective strategies to motivate themselves to get up and do it, even if that means when completing their homework, they say to themselves, "Well, I think I did a great job on that today. It took me less time than yesterday" or something along those lines to keep them motivated. It is also important for us as teachers to say these similar things to them so that their emotions are validated. It is a two-way street, to speak metaphorically. We as teachers need to support them if that learning strategy works for them. We must also work to make students aware of what learning styles and strategies are going to work best for them by being explicit in class and talking about many different strategies to use. "Learners are told overtly that a particular behavior or strategy is likely to be helpful, and they are taught how to use it and how to transfer it to new situations." (pg. 126). This according to Oxford is the most effective way to approach learning strategies with students. It is especially important that the teacher model this behavior too by employing different learning strategies themselves or employing their own metacognition about their own learning strategies they use when they approach different tasks, and then sharing that with students. We have to use the same kind of thinking that they will use!
An interesting section of this chapter was the suggestions for language learning strategy use, and I felt that a couple of them were the most important/effective of all that were given. One is the use of "strategy diaries" for the students (pg. 128). It is a win-win situation in this case; teachers get to see what their students are doing and how they are learning best, and the students get to use their metacognition and find out more about themselves and their own learning process. I think using this would be really beneficial, but the problem is that it could get time-consuming for students, and can be difficult for those who are behind in their metacognitive strategies. If that is a problem, then the teacher would have to address it. Another suggestion is to "be concerned about a wide range of strategies" and teach the students about all these different strategies (pg. 128). Well, this one is sort of a no-brainer, because students should be aware of the vast opportunities there are for learning strategies, and maybe they can find one that works even better than the one that they were previously using. It is also helpful, as I said before, for the teacher to talk about their own learning strategies and the situations to best apply them to in class. This goes along with the suggestion that we should "give explicit directions about strategy use and offer practice in transferring the strategies to new situations and tasks" (pg. 129).
I thought that Cary's article was really interesting and actually the most reader-friendly we have read so far in this course. I liked the personal element of describing the classroom and that it read more like a story than a journal article, which although they have a lot of intelligent and observant things to discuss, I much prefer to read an article that adds personal detail. After reading the article, I wanted to actually be there and observe Mrs. Chen's classroom so that I could see this taking place, because it is totally different than anything I have read about or observed during my time at ISU. Mrs. Chen's students were from four very different speaking groups, "Spanish, Cantonese, Punjabi, and Farsi" (pg. 115). I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to try to figure out the differences or similarities in all these languages and relate them to English, because I honestly do not even know where they speak Punjabi or what it sounds like. That is one of my worries of being an ESL teacher is that I have no knowledge of these other languages and that I will not be able to help my students understand the comparisons between their native language and English. It's a ton of work! What I really liked about Mrs. Chen's classroom was that she was scaffolding the students into understanding what their reading strategies were and recognizing them as they were doing them. It's a very metacognitive kind of strategy for teaching and that is something that I can only hope for when I teach. Teaching metacognition in a first language is hard enough as it is without adding the L2 element to it. Once she had described the activity, she then had them work in pairs "deciding which organizer to use" (pg. 118) and walked around, asking them to describe their learning process. She explicitly asked them what strategies they could use, like "visualization: 'this time, stop a couple times in the section and try to make a picture in your head about what you're reading.'" (pg. 119) which I know always worked for me as a student. And she asked follow-up questions about the images, what words they were stuck on and helped them by clarifying the images.
"Besides English proficiency, academic competence demands lavish amounts of declarative knowledge - the what of learning...and procedural knowledge - the how of learning - all the operations and processes, the higher-order thinking..." (pg. 121). It is important for us as ESL teachers to remember that these skills are necessary in L1 classrooms and even more so in L2 classrooms because the way that students use declarative or procedural knowledge may have been taught differently in their native country, which is something we have to face in any scenario. Every student is unique in the way that they learn best, and it is important for us to help them realize their potential and use their skills to their best advantage. In the end, that will boost their confidence and hopefully this confidence in perhaps listening or reading strategies will then spill over into speaking strategies, because that is the hardest to accomplish in any L2 classroom.
Friday, October 7, 2011
10/11 Readings
References: Anthology, Chaps 18 and 20 and
"How do I support student's first language when I don't speak the first language?" - Cary, S. (2008)
Cary's article and Chapters 18 and 20 in Anthology focused on learning strategies in order to facilitate speaking skills and discussion among ESL students.
In Chapter 18 of Anthology, it discusses the reasons for why adult EFL students' speaking abilities need much more scaffolding in order to reach full potential. "EFL learners need explicit instruction in speaking" (pg. 204), and even more so at the adult level. Adult EFL learners usually have completely different reasons for learning a language than a child, such as that they might need to to learn it to advance in their career, have met someone and are in a relationship with someone whose family may speak that language, or they have just moved to the United States and want to communicate with people in order to actually get a job. There are many time constraints working against them, such as the fact that according to Krashen's theory, "age is one of the most commonly cited determinant factors of success or failure in L2 or foreign language learning" (pg. 205) because generally progress at the adult level tends to fall off at a certain level, the process known as fossilization. As we get older, the ability to speak with native-like proficiency diminishes, and almost drops off at the point of puberty, which is why it basically makes no sense to be learning a second language as late as we do in the United States. Another big hindrance in SLA in adult learners is the affective factors that they often face, such as "self-esteem, empathy, anxiety, attitude or motivation" (pg. 206). Children pretty much have no shame when learning language; they are not as afraid to make mistakes and have a very low affective filter. However, as we get older, this affective filter rises and we are much more conscious of making mistakes and will go to any length not to make one. I know when I was learning Spanish in junior high and high school, I would not speak unless I was confident that my answer was right. I spent a lot of time thinking it through in my head so that it did not come out grammatically incorrect. Of course, right now, I do not have this issue as much as I used to, but sometimes I hesitate to speak because I am afraid of being rejected in my language production or my ideas. Mainly now it is my ideas that I am more worried about than my grammatical accuracy because I am in college and that is the point of my classes, but adult EFL learners are learning this language to survive in the United States, so they worry a lot about being understood and not sounding like a foreigner, because in the US there is such a push to conform to one language and to conform to society as a whole. I do not blame them for being concerned about perceived this way.
An important part of this chapter I noted was that they declared interaction as "the key to improving EFL Learners' Speaking Abilities", which is that the "functions of spoken language are interactional and transactional" (pg. 208). Providing the learners with as many opportunities to interact as possible is only going to help them learn the language better and lower the affective filter. Adding onto this issue is the idea of making these speaking opportunities "meaningful". They should have some reason for negotiating meaning in the conversation, whether it is through an information gap activity or jigsaw, there has to be something they need to get out of the conversation. It can be easy as talking about what they did that weekend, because odds are they did not see each other and do not know any of the information that the classmate is going to tell them. There must be an element of surprise to the conversation, and also it has to encourage the use of small talk, or "how well a person can engage in brief, casual conversation with others" (pg. 208). In the United States especially we have a propensity towards being short with people unless they are someone we really trust and with whom we want to engage in actual conversation. It stuck out to me in the video we watched Thursday with the student from Colombia who remarked that Americans seemed rude to him because they would say 'How are you?' and then just walk away. I obviously did not notice because it is a part of our daily routine. I only stop and talk to people that I feel like talking to, and that is the reality of it. Another part of it is that Americans are generally always in a rush and do not have time for conversation because we adhere very strictly to timeliness for our classes.
I was really excited to read Cary's article about the teacher not speaking their students' first language because that has been one of my biggest fears about teaching ESL in the future. I only know Spanish as a second language which is always a good start since that is the highest minority population in the United States, but I don't know languages like Farsi or Vietnamese, as described in the article. I worried about how I make comparisons between languages when I do not even know the structure of that native language. I feel like I would be doing my students a disservice in that case. However, upon reading the article, it gave me so many awesome ideas to incorporate in my future classroom. I LOVED the idea of the teacher (Dolores) having her students present their culture and language in front of the class and teaching them the three-set phrase (hello, please, thank you) and then putting it up on the walls so that students could look at them. "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" (pg. 138). It is such a great idea to incorporate that native language and make them proud of their heritage instead of focusing on English-only programs. I also thought the class newspaper idea was really cool and innovative; I've heard of this sort of project in mainstream classroom settings in elementary schools, but never before in an ESL classroom. I think it really brings home the idea that ESL students can do whatever mainstream students do if we just give them the opportunity to do it! The other teacher called Dolores' classroom "loosey-goosey" because it did not follow strict rules or regulations, but to me, if it works for the class, then it works. Every teacher is different, just like the students. If the students respond to rules and a strict schedule, then great; if they do not, then we have to work with them to find out what is going to work best in the classroom. I would rather my students learn than be bored, which I am pretty sure everyone else feels about teaching.
"Students who develop a strong foundation in their primary language in multiyeared bilingual programs consistently outperform second language learners in all English programs" and have an "economic advantage: proficient bilinguals were the 'prize hires' in an increasingly competitive global market" (pg. 137-138). I think this statement sums up everything that I try to advocate about bilingual and ESL education to everyone I talk to. The whole Prop. 227 in California issue and English-only programs get me so angry because people who run them are being ignorant; if they would just see what schools are doing and look at the research, maybe they would stop focusing on wanting to be the language majority and being superior to seeing that language brings people together and facilitates international cooperation. It can only help us, not hinder us.
"How do I support student's first language when I don't speak the first language?" - Cary, S. (2008)
Cary's article and Chapters 18 and 20 in Anthology focused on learning strategies in order to facilitate speaking skills and discussion among ESL students.
In Chapter 18 of Anthology, it discusses the reasons for why adult EFL students' speaking abilities need much more scaffolding in order to reach full potential. "EFL learners need explicit instruction in speaking" (pg. 204), and even more so at the adult level. Adult EFL learners usually have completely different reasons for learning a language than a child, such as that they might need to to learn it to advance in their career, have met someone and are in a relationship with someone whose family may speak that language, or they have just moved to the United States and want to communicate with people in order to actually get a job. There are many time constraints working against them, such as the fact that according to Krashen's theory, "age is one of the most commonly cited determinant factors of success or failure in L2 or foreign language learning" (pg. 205) because generally progress at the adult level tends to fall off at a certain level, the process known as fossilization. As we get older, the ability to speak with native-like proficiency diminishes, and almost drops off at the point of puberty, which is why it basically makes no sense to be learning a second language as late as we do in the United States. Another big hindrance in SLA in adult learners is the affective factors that they often face, such as "self-esteem, empathy, anxiety, attitude or motivation" (pg. 206). Children pretty much have no shame when learning language; they are not as afraid to make mistakes and have a very low affective filter. However, as we get older, this affective filter rises and we are much more conscious of making mistakes and will go to any length not to make one. I know when I was learning Spanish in junior high and high school, I would not speak unless I was confident that my answer was right. I spent a lot of time thinking it through in my head so that it did not come out grammatically incorrect. Of course, right now, I do not have this issue as much as I used to, but sometimes I hesitate to speak because I am afraid of being rejected in my language production or my ideas. Mainly now it is my ideas that I am more worried about than my grammatical accuracy because I am in college and that is the point of my classes, but adult EFL learners are learning this language to survive in the United States, so they worry a lot about being understood and not sounding like a foreigner, because in the US there is such a push to conform to one language and to conform to society as a whole. I do not blame them for being concerned about perceived this way.
An important part of this chapter I noted was that they declared interaction as "the key to improving EFL Learners' Speaking Abilities", which is that the "functions of spoken language are interactional and transactional" (pg. 208). Providing the learners with as many opportunities to interact as possible is only going to help them learn the language better and lower the affective filter. Adding onto this issue is the idea of making these speaking opportunities "meaningful". They should have some reason for negotiating meaning in the conversation, whether it is through an information gap activity or jigsaw, there has to be something they need to get out of the conversation. It can be easy as talking about what they did that weekend, because odds are they did not see each other and do not know any of the information that the classmate is going to tell them. There must be an element of surprise to the conversation, and also it has to encourage the use of small talk, or "how well a person can engage in brief, casual conversation with others" (pg. 208). In the United States especially we have a propensity towards being short with people unless they are someone we really trust and with whom we want to engage in actual conversation. It stuck out to me in the video we watched Thursday with the student from Colombia who remarked that Americans seemed rude to him because they would say 'How are you?' and then just walk away. I obviously did not notice because it is a part of our daily routine. I only stop and talk to people that I feel like talking to, and that is the reality of it. Another part of it is that Americans are generally always in a rush and do not have time for conversation because we adhere very strictly to timeliness for our classes.
I was really excited to read Cary's article about the teacher not speaking their students' first language because that has been one of my biggest fears about teaching ESL in the future. I only know Spanish as a second language which is always a good start since that is the highest minority population in the United States, but I don't know languages like Farsi or Vietnamese, as described in the article. I worried about how I make comparisons between languages when I do not even know the structure of that native language. I feel like I would be doing my students a disservice in that case. However, upon reading the article, it gave me so many awesome ideas to incorporate in my future classroom. I LOVED the idea of the teacher (Dolores) having her students present their culture and language in front of the class and teaching them the three-set phrase (hello, please, thank you) and then putting it up on the walls so that students could look at them. "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" (pg. 138). It is such a great idea to incorporate that native language and make them proud of their heritage instead of focusing on English-only programs. I also thought the class newspaper idea was really cool and innovative; I've heard of this sort of project in mainstream classroom settings in elementary schools, but never before in an ESL classroom. I think it really brings home the idea that ESL students can do whatever mainstream students do if we just give them the opportunity to do it! The other teacher called Dolores' classroom "loosey-goosey" because it did not follow strict rules or regulations, but to me, if it works for the class, then it works. Every teacher is different, just like the students. If the students respond to rules and a strict schedule, then great; if they do not, then we have to work with them to find out what is going to work best in the classroom. I would rather my students learn than be bored, which I am pretty sure everyone else feels about teaching.
"Students who develop a strong foundation in their primary language in multiyeared bilingual programs consistently outperform second language learners in all English programs" and have an "economic advantage: proficient bilinguals were the 'prize hires' in an increasingly competitive global market" (pg. 137-138). I think this statement sums up everything that I try to advocate about bilingual and ESL education to everyone I talk to. The whole Prop. 227 in California issue and English-only programs get me so angry because people who run them are being ignorant; if they would just see what schools are doing and look at the research, maybe they would stop focusing on wanting to be the language majority and being superior to seeing that language brings people together and facilitates international cooperation. It can only help us, not hinder us.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Final Paper Project
I will be doing a research paper on the impact of Content-Based Instruction in the ESL context and include a small sub-section on the use of the SIOP model and how CBI is used within that model, as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)