11/29 Readings

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

9/27 Readings

References: Chapter 3: Lesson Planning and Chapter 7: The ELT Curriculum in "Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice"

Chapter 3 focused on the essential parts of a lesson plan in an English language classroom, and what the typical model of this lesson plan would be by giving examples. A daily lesson plan is described as "written description of how students will move toward attaining specific objectives" and "the teaching behavior that will result in student learning" (pg. 30). I know that as pre-service teachers here at ISU, lesson planning becomes the bane of our existence, so to speak. I know that when a professor assigns a unit plan, there is a collective internal groan from every student. Lesson plans, while they are not the most difficult thing to do, are merely time-consuming and require one's full attention, which at times is hard to give. When I am writing them, I have to keep reminding myself that there is a greater purpose in all this time I am putting into it, and that is to give my students a well thought out and well-conceived lesson that they can learn something from. The book describes lesson planning as having internal and external reasons; internal being that makes us "feel more confident, learn the subject matter better...and to anticipate problems before they happen" (pg. 31). The last one is probably the most important. As a pre-service teacher, I have no idea how to anticipate problems. I have not had much experience yet in front of a class, and I can honestly only hope to learn this while student teaching, which I have been assured will happen. I am not optimistic in the fact that every student is going to be a little angel and behave well every single day. Teachers have to think on their feet at all times; I know that it is something I have to work on because I tend to be cautious and calculating and I take a while to make a decision which helps me when I am writing lesson plans because I am meticulous. I know that most days it will not be a problem, but I do have to prepare myself for it. Reading about the specifics of a lesson plan is second nature to me at this point, but not necessarily in the ESL context so it was interesting to see if there were any glaring differences between the ones I have done and this type of lesson plan. Both start with "appropriate and clearly written objectives" (pg. 32), and in these objectives, we must set our goals for the day, and use action verbs to describe what they will be doing that class period. It is important that these objectives are not vague, because it can hinder the students and the teacher in the lesson process. There needs to be a result in mind, and I learned in my C&I 216 class that each lesson must have a concrete product attached to it, and that is generally homework, but I believe students should be able to go home with something they have done, because it is a confidence booster for them, especially when they are not in a mainstream English class and need all the emotional support they can get from a teacher.

Chapter 7 deals the ever-changing models in ELT (English language teaching) and what the author describes as a "flexible" model. A quote that stuck out is from Carl Rogers, "the goal of education, if we are to survive, is the facilitation of change and learning" (pg. 69). It is a pretty strong statement to make, and one with which I totally agree. Teaching has honestly got to be one of the most flexible careers I can think of; it is seemingly strict because of standards and all that red tape, but when a teacher is in the classroom, we run the show. We make the day-to-day decisions, and there generally is no one around to question it. We are on our own for the most part, even though we do have some support from administration or from a mentor when we are starting it. It is a scary thought, however; soon, I will be in front of my own class with my own lesson plans, not ones I have generated for a professor. Students depend on me to learn Spanish or English! It is a high-pressure situation and people do not give teachers enough credit for what they do every day, but I digress from the topic. Finney (the author of the chapter) goes on to describe the changing models of ELT, starting from classical humanism, which is presumably the oldest model and "content is knowledge which has been identified and agreed to be universal, unchanging, and absolute" (pg. 71). I know when I read this, I cringed. Nothing in education is absolute or unchanging. Education is a continuous process; we are learning new things every day, every hour, every minute and adding to our knowledge. True, some things will not change, like a math equation, but language is always changing. There is always new slang or new words generated by other people, that's what I love about it! Obviously, as Finney states, "these foundations are not longer acceptable" for the reasons of diverse learning styles (pg. 71). The newest or most current model is called progressivism, which is that "the purpose of education is...to enable the individual to progress towards self-fulfillment" (pg. 73) and is based in developmental psychology. While this may be the most modern, it is still subject to skepticism. I think if we are going off of Bloom's Taxonomy, the highest level being this level of fulfillment, this is a good way to look at it. I mean, when I was reading it, I was thinking...well, this kind of seems like a weak statement. I think the U.S. education system nowadays is trying to make students focus on their uniqueness, which is fine, but weren't students unique and diverse before? Yes, it seems intuitive to add that thinking to our teaching, but that does not mean it has to take over our lessons. The fact is we still have our content to teach and we cannot make each lesson perfect for every student. There will be some lessons that visual learners will not like, and there will be some that hands-on learners will not like, but everyone has each multiple intelligence and learning skill, and our job as teachers is to access these and show them that they cannot always lean on what works best for them.

9/22 Readings

References: Anthology, Sec. 5, Chap. 10
"Making Content Comprehensible for English Language Learners: The SIOP Model" - Echevarria, Vogt, and Short

These two articles focused on the implementation of Content-Based Instruction (CBI) and the SIOP (Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol) model for lesson planning in the context of an English as a Second Language classroom environment.
In Chapter 10 of Anthology, CBI is described as "presentation of coherent and meaningful information, characteristic of well-organized content-based curricula, leads to deeper processing and better learning" and it incorporates "explicit language instruction...thereby satisfying students' language and content learning needs in context" (pg. 108). Basically, CBI is incorporating their content from other academic disciplines (math, science, history) into the ESL classroom and therefore making it an easier transition for the ESL students to go into a regular, mainstreamed English class with native speakers. It also emphasizes more project work as opposed to individual work, because "it represents a natural extension of what is already taking place" (pg. 109). It does have an element of task-based instruction to it in the amount of activities being done in the classroom and that project work is the culmination of learning. The book also describes various types of projects, like structured: "organized by the teacher in terms of topic, methodology, and presentation"; unstructured: "defined largely by students" and semi-structured: "in part by the teacher and in part by the students" (pg. 110). These projects should have some link to "real-world concerns" or socially relevant topics to the students, or something similar that is going on in the mainstream English courses at the school (pg. 110). It is up to the ESL instructor to converse and cooperate with other academic disciplines and work out lesson plans in order to keep the kids up to speed with their native speaker counterparts. I think that this method is an excellent idea; it is just appalling that they did not consider it earlier. I do not see as many problems as I do with task-based instruction, because CBI is not entirely comprised of "tasks"; it is a supplement to the actual curriculum and follows the standards that every other teacher is following. I think that it is important for ESL teachers to give the impression to the kids that they are learning the same things as native speakers, and then the kids will not fall prey to the self-fulfilling prophecy of ELL's that drop out because their needs are not being met.

Echevarria & co's article did an excellent job of describing the previous and current situation of ESL education in schools in the United States. According to Echevarria, Vogt, and Short, "while the number of LEP students has grown exponentially across the United States, their level of academic achievement has lagged significantly behind that of their language majority peers" (pg. 2). I suppose as most of us being pre-service teachers, we are well aware of this issue. Schools have been trying a plethora of different methods on ELL's, and it has been a process of trial and error as the years have gone on, but the disturbing thing about this whole education system is that ELL's are being expected to be 'proficient' (I use this term subjectively) in English in too short of an amount of time. These schools are "calling for all student to meet high standards and are adjusting national and state assessments as well as state graduation requirements to reflect these new levels of achievement" (pg. 3). As a result of these new high standards in education (due to our dear friend No Child Left Behind), students are being expected to have an accelerated ESL program to make up for it, even though the article says that normal amount of time expected to be proficient is 4 to 10 years depending on their familial and educational background. Schools are not even giving them that much time, and in my opinion, the United States is trying so hard to catch up with China and Japan who are literally blowing us out of the water in math and science, among other things, and this is being pressed on our students. There are many, many things they could do to combat this advancement, but that is not the issue here. Another large issue in this education gap is the lack of qualified teachers; "to compensate, principals hire less qualified teachers, use substitutes...ask teachers to teach outside their field of preparation" and these teachers "have not had appropriate professional development" (pg. 4) to teach these kids, which is a complete injustice to them. I think that it is definitely our job as TESOL students to keep encouraging this minor and certification process to other undergraduate students here at ISU so that these kids have qualified and prepared teachers. Every child deserves that.

9/20 Readings

References: Anthology, Chapter 9
Skehan, P. - "Task-based instruction" (2003)

The articles for this discussion were focused on task-based instruction, which "emphasises the need for learners to focus on meaning and to convey information to one another" through use of communicative activities in the classroom, although Skehan states that the word "task" is now almost synonymous with the term "communicative activity" (pg. 1). Skehan goes on to describe the different approaches to interaction in terms of the research that is out there today, which are psycholinguistic, social interactive, cognitive, and structure-focused. I definitely see the use of all of these approaches as being useful in different contexts within the classroom; there needs to be an element of eclecticism, because each approach cannot be applied to every situation, in my opinion, and it truly depends on the type of learners you have in your ESL classroom and the dynamic between them. For example, the sociocultural approach to interaction which is described as "how learners co-construct meaning while engaging in interaction" (pg. 5). While this sounds like an excellent idea, it is a rather vague term, it includes "no negotiation of meaning...it is assumed that the interest in a task to allow participants to shape it to their own ends and to build meanings collaboratively that are unpredictable and personal" (pg. 5). To me, this sounds good in theory, but in practice, you cannot have the students rely on each other entirely for negotiation of meaning. One student might have all of it completely wrong and may have a stronger personality than the others in their interactive group, so the other students take their lead on a topic and just go with what they are saying. Following that vein, it could problematic in low-level proficiency classroom where students cannot express their feelings written, let alone orally. The sociocultural approach would likely work best in a classroom with high-level proficiency students who can communicative their ideas effectively enough to get the task done.

Skehan addresses this sort of problem in the section on "individual variables" on page 7 of the article: "Few would argue that all learners respond to tasks in the same way - indeed a central factor with sociocultural theory is to enable the individual to interpret tasks in whatever way they think is appropriate." So, here lies the issue. The fact is, students in a regular mainstream classroom are going to interpret stories or topics very differently, let alone in the context of an ESL classroom where you have conflicting cultural viewpoints and you may have students that do not want to discuss some topics at all because they are completely taboo in their culture, like in Anthology Chapter 9 where the teacher gave them a list of topics including "marriage, marriage and the single mother, suicide, older men dating high school girls", etc (Anthology, pg. 100). These topics are tricky already in a regular classroom, and some students will not want to approach them already because it is uncomfortable. My suggestion would be to do a little more research about each of the cultures represented in the classroom and find topics that would be more neutral yet provocative so that students would not feel uncomfortable talking about them with peers, let alone doing an interview with others about it. Some of the topics they do list like the environment and the information society are much more appropriate topics culturally; everyone has an opinion about computers and can see both sides to that issue, as well as with the environment. Students will want to know how other cultures feel about it; I just have a feeling that any topic relating to sex or religion should be cut out at least at the lower levels, for sure. The advanced students may have a more cultural understanding of what is appropriate in the United States versus their society or may have been here much longer, and after that amount of time, they may have developed a more neutral attitude or at least know that these topics are not taboo in our schools. Overall, I thought the task described in Chapter 9 was well thought-out and well-planned for sure, but I did have to critique the topic choice list when I was reading it. I agree with Belgar and Hunt, the authors of the chapter, when they state that "curriculum and syllabus design involves a never-ending process of making adjustments" (pg. 102). This is completely true; we as teachers need to realize that every lesson plan is not going to go perfectly or have the results that we desire, and our job as a "good teacher" so to speak is to reflect on our lesson and see what we can change to make it more effective and engaging.

9/15 Readings

References: "Potential Cultural Resistance to Pedagogical Imports: The Case of CLT in China" - Hu (2002)
and "The end of CLT: a context approach to language teaching" - Bax (2003)

Both of these articles took a critical and problematizing approach to the nature of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in the classroom here in the United States and abroad in China, as in the case of Hu's article. While Hu mainly discussed why the CLT method does not work in China, Bax took a very critical (in fact, pretty sarcastic) approach to describing why CLT method does not work at all and he instead supplemented his own theory of the Context Approach. In my opinion, I do agree with Bax and Hu that CLT should not be considered the end-all-be-all method of language teaching, and Bax makes this quite explicit in his article with the examples of professors all across the world who "say with surprise that somehow many students still manage to learn to speak good English, and wonders how this could be" and "the idea that people could learn English well without CLT seems either to escape her, or to be a heresy too serious to admit" (pg. 279). While I personally feel that he is taking too strong and sarcastic an approach to this article, I see his point. To me, though, doesn't CLT have context included within activities in the language classroom? Yes, in the article we read for Tuesday by Larsen-Freeman I did not see evidence of context being involved in the activities, but I have had foreign language teachers that only ever included context in what we did in class, like role plays with real language and ways to promote strategic competence by circumlocution. If more teachers utilized a combination of CLT and the Context Approach, I think that would be quite effective. It is something that I feel is intuitive to language learning, and I am glad that Bax pointed out the glaring lack there, but I do think there are teachers out there that are doing this. It is not like they are non-existent. Bax suggests that the procedure for the Context Approach would be an "understanding of individual students and their learning needs, wants, styles, and strategies", and later that the "approach will probably be eclectic, in order to meet varied learner needs" (pg. 285). While the eclectic seems like a great idea to me, it intimidates me. As a pre-service teacher, I want to stick to methodologies I know. I do not think that it is realistic to expect first or second year teachers to use this approach, mainly because of external pressures from the school, parents, standards, etc. I think it is an ideal goal to have in mind, however, and I myself strive to achieve it at some point in my career.

I found Hu's article to be fascinating; I thought his approach to academic writing was really approachable and reader friendly to begin with, and I really enjoyed reading all about the Chinese education principles and their roots in Confucianism. The PRC (People's Republic of China) has traditionally, as Hu states, been a combination of "grammar-translation method and audiolingualism...systematic and detailed study of grammar and...painstaking effort to form good verbal habits, an emphasis on written language, and a preference for literary classics" (pg. 93). I think we as Americans have a view of Chinese society as being overall negative and oppressive, mostly because of the USA's disdain of the Communistic view. As a result of this stereotype, we view Chinese education as being too strict and old-fashioned, in a way. Hu describes this in his article about how he feels that the Chinese are being looked down upon for not utilizing CLT in their education system, and this is somehow a big tragedy. CLT pretty much describes everything that the Chinese education system is against: "centered on communicative functions", "effectiveness of communication is sought after rather than merely accuracy or fluency", and "that students should be negotiators, communicators, discoverers, and contributors of knowledge of information" (pg. 95). While these all sound ideal to those of the Western view, myself included, this is the exact opposite of way students are taught. Student in PRC are expected to be sponges, for lack of a better metaphor. They have "a deep reverence for education" (pg. 96), and they are expected to listen to absorb and repeat it back to the teacher and the teacher gives them explicit feedback and error correction. I know I cringed as I read it, and I could not help feeling like it sounded antiquated and reminded me of a classroom in the 1950's. I put my feelings aside and realized that this attitude towards education has produced impressive results. I know a few Chinese students personally, and they are so hard-working it is unbelievable. They learn English so fast! I feel like they are further ahead with their English skills than I am with Spanish in a shorter amount of time. Chinese students are used to a system that "discourages individuality, fulfillment of personal needs, and self-expression - issues that are given priority in the CLT classroom" (pg. 97). To an American, this is again quite cringe-worthy. We have grown up in a country that emphasizes uniqueness and a sort of feeling of superiority to other education systems, even though I would like to point out that we produce abysmal standardized test scores in comparison to Asian countries. Obviously, this feeling of community in the Chinese education system reflects the values of the Communistic society. I think it is important as a future Spanish/ESL to put aside our own feelings about other governments or societies and try to imagine where that student is coming from. They are going to come here and feel like a fish out of water already only to go into the classroom where they know they will excel, and be totally blindsided by the opposite values of education. I cannot imagine that feeling at all. I think we should be aware of this and do our absolute best to be sympathetic to their needs and offer them some semblance of what they are used to in order to help them assimilate better to the school environment.

9/13 Readings

References: Kuma, Chapter 3: Maximizing Learning Opportunities
Larsen-Freeman, Communicative Language Teaching

In Chapter of Kuma's book, he states the purpose of maximizing learning opportunities is that "creation and utilization of learning opportunities in the classroom are ultimately in the hands of teachers and learners who are engaged in a joint exploration of learning and teaching" (pg. 47). I found this to be a pretty powerful statement. He also states that the process should "effectively minimize the role of teachers' prepared agenda, the textbook, and the syllabus" (pg. 47) in relation to then maximizing the role of the learners and their learning opportunities. It is difficult as a pre-service teacher to just say, eh, I'll just throw the syllabus and agenda away and focus on communication and games. To most teachers, that's pretty unimaginable in their first few years of teaching. While it is innovative and intriguing for sure, I am one of those people that absolutely needs a lesson plan to gather and organize my thoughts and make sure I am accomplishing everything I planned on in that class period. I know that as a teacher, sometimes you won't get to activities that you really wanted to do, and sometimes activities come out shorter or longer than they were planned on being; that's part of the profession to adapt to every situation. I do not think Kuma is suggesting throwing away lesson plans completely, but it caught me off-guard when I was reading it. The general theme of both of these articles was focusing the communicative aspect of language teaching and therefore maximizing the learning potential of the students in the class, which I fully support. I know that personally I prefer communicative activities to 'busy work' and worksheets and lectures, but sometimes it is impossible, or at least really difficult, to work in all communicative activities necessary for language development in a single class. When I was at University High School for my clinical hours in a Spanish classroom, I found it difficult to vary up the activities more than doing games and interactive assignments along with a PowerPoint lecture for the 3 days. I wanted to, but it was hard to come up with ideas! My teacher did tell me that at first we are going to teach how we learn best, and then adapt as the year goes on depending on the classroom environment, and that really stuck with me. It definitely opened my eyes to the situation I was facing, and now I am striving to be more creative and varied in my lesson planning.

I also loved the idea of having the students fill out surveys about the lesson that they had (i.e. the McDonald's reading/discussion), because that is something that I believe teachers need to do and should want to do for finding ways to improve. No teacher is perfect all the time; they need the feedback from the students to see how they are doing. Otherwise, how are they going to know that they are reaching their students? I definitely see a humanistic approach to teaching in my future, and for me at least my classroom is centered around my students learning and understanding my content. I want to know whether the lesson was effective for them or not, and whether or not they learned the concepts during the lesson and achieved my learning objectives for the day. If they did not, then obviously I would have to work harder the next day to catch up and make sure that everyone is on the same page. No one should have to fall behind.

Larsen-Freeman's article defines Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) as "apply[ing] the theoretical perspective of the Communicative Approach by making communicative competence the goal of language teaching and by acknowledging the interdependence of language and communication" (pg. 1). I completely agree with this method and I see its value, yet I did see some flaw in the plan, per se. Communication is a huge part of language, yes, but at the same time, if all we are doing is focusing on the oral communication aspect of language, then we are easily going to neglect the grammar and reading aspect. Oral communication inherently involves listening comprehension, which works well in its favor, because you do have to comprehend what the other person is saying to form your response. On the other hand, if the activity has no reading component, then reading comprehension will not be involved at all, and neither will grammar. I learned English grammar by reading constantly as a child, and so then I knew the structure internally and subconsciously. Some people may not be like me, I understand that, but I am a firm believer that each lesson needs to include all modes of communication and those need to be intertwined seamlessly, or the lesson will be unsuccessful. Students need all aspects of the language for a complete picture, and that is where CLT has a bit of a downfall. I liked the idea of the predictive picture story where the students had to predict what was going to happen next; I thought it was a nice combination of listening comprehension, oral communication, and included a good aspect of reading comprehension on all parts, so in this case, I could see the value in it. Some other lessons that were described did not really allow for this aspect, so that needs to be worked on in the future.

9/8 Reading

Reference: Critical Approaches to TESOL, Pennycook

While Pennycook's article was quite dense, it was nonetheless very informative and actually a great detailed summary of what is going on in language teaching today. Pennycook discusses yet again the concept of Paulo Freire and the idea of the teacher as a transformative pedagogist. He punctuates this with the question: "How does this particular approach to education hope to change things?" (pg. 330) I think that, while the idea of the teacher being a transformative intellectual is really a revolutionary concept because it is not exactly what is expected from a teacher, it is rather limited in its applications in the real world. It sounds like this amazing idea that all teachers can do, but like we discussed in class, it is an intimidating role. A teacher cannot necessarily just change the minds of all students in their classroom. It just is not going to happen. Students, especially those in the middle school/high school age, are already beginning to get set in their ways about their belief systems. We as teachers do not want to interfere with their individualism, especially as teenagers. Plus, parents are not going to appreciate someone who does not live in their home teaching them their values. Again, this depends entirely on the political/social/religious factors in the town where one is teaching. It may be a very liberal community in San Francisco or a very conservative town in Mississippi; teaching for sure is context-dependent. I want to be a role model to my students, but I do not think it is a smart idea to impose my ideas on them at such an impressionable age.

Another thing I found interesting was the focus on the inequalities in the teaching environment in this article. A quote I found eye-opening from Pennycook was this: "This process of becoming Black is intimately tied with the forms of English and popular culture with which these students start to identify" (pg. 332). I found it amazing that Ibrahim's article that was found in this issue where the article was published was about how African students began to "act black" so to speak and fit in with the "racialized world of North America" (pg. 332). It is a rather strong statement to make. Sometimes our ESL students will be from countries that have no access to American history, and even if they do, they will never completely understand the racial tensions that exist here. Our generation only knows because of textbooks and possibly parental examples; my parents grew up during the Civil Rights Movement, so they know what it was like here, and that's at least what I have to go off of when I am talking about it. It was not surprising to me that these African students would want to find a cultural identity similar to their own, and they have to adapt to survive here, but it was still strange to just see it in print. It is another thing I do not think I could ever discuss with my students; it is something they should know if they plan to stay here, but at the same time, it is not politically correct to do so. It is such a Catch-22, it's hard to really decide what is correct to do and what is not.

9/6 Reading

References: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching, Chap. 1 and 2, Kuma

What I found interesting about Chapter 1 is the role of the teacher section. When I read Paulo Freire's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" last year, he referenced this shift from being the passive educator to an active one, which to me seemed like a no-brainer. Kuma is correct when he says that it "has been a perennial topic of discussion in the field of general education as well as language education" (pg. 7). Being an education major, I have to constantly think about my teacher personality and teaching style, and what type of educator I am going to be. I really do not want to think of myself as being passive in any way; education is an active process, at least that is what I have always perceived it to be. I feel like I want my classroom to be interactive and communicative, because I am a huge proponent of teaching a language through interpersonal and presentational communication strategies, like role-play, skits, and real-life simulations. The main focus for the students learning the language is to fit in with their new country and the social aspects that come along with it. I have talked to people who teach at the ELI, and all students have wanted to know so far is how to go to the doctor, how to ask for things at the grocery store, practical applications for the language, basically. I think that the same goes for high school students learning Spanish in my classroom. Motivated students want to get across an idea to a native speaker and be understood. Language is essential to maintaining social relationships and an overall language community.

I feel like this quote from Zeichner and Liston on pg. 11 makes an excellent point, "learning to teach does not end with obtaining a diploma or a degree in teacher education but is an ongoing process throughout one's teaching career". This is undeniably true. Teaching is a continuous process, and we must be very open to adaptation and change, no matter when or where we are; in the classroom or outside of it. The education world is constantly changing and creating new ideas for how to become the best teacher, but yet again, I still do not feel like there is a concrete answer or theory to becoming the "best". To me, being the best teacher I can be is adapting to the dynamic of my students, and teaching them what they want and what they need to know while making it useful for them in their daily life.

Finally, in Chapter 2, Kuma talks about the "postmethod condition", and I feel like these quotes sum it up best for me, "the postmethod condition empowers practitioners to construct personal theories of practice" and "signifies teacher autonomy" (pg. 33). While I do not entirely understand what the postmethod condition actually is and what its implications are, I have to say that he poses a good argument. I feel like for too long, there have not been enough studies that include teacher-made practices. We talked in class about the inequalities between the female teachers and male theorists in the education world, and it still rings true. To get a real and honest perspective on education, why not ask the teachers themselves? Seems rather intuitive from my end. Teachers are the link between theory and practice. Why not include them in the research?