References: Methodology in Language Teaching, Richards and Renandya (2011)
Chapters 1 and 2 of this textbook summarize teaching practices in the "post-method" era. Putting into consideration that 'methods' is not exactly the proper term anymore according to the authors, I take this term to mean effective teaching practices.
The first chapter describes the use of diagnosis, treatment, and assessment. To me, these seem like terms in a psychologist's office, not a classroom. It evokes the imagery of something sterile. While the terms seem a little disjointed from the classroom environment, they are nonetheless valid points. When I read this chapter, it made me truly consider what type of ESL teacher I would like to be. Would I be scientific, theoretical? Would I have a humanistic approach to language teaching? I have to consider these things as well for my career as a Spanish teacher. I like to think I would be on the humanistic side, and encourage my students to learn the language as practically as humanly possible. I felt that I did not receive enough feedback on my language skills in high school to be more fluent than I already am, and I did not get enough practical interaction using the language. The activities are always somewhat disjointed, yet again, and sadly juvenile. ESL and Spanish students want to know what to say in a doctor's office, at the grocery store, and more importantly, to achieve communicative and strategic competence, the most elusive of all, to account for communication breakdowns to me is the hardest thing to achieve when speaking a second language.
It also made me think about, along with my teaching style/personality, what I would do to achieve this personal goal. Controlled activities like drills and dialogues are necessary, but so utterly boring and repetitive. Having a teacher that does these ad nauseum can turn someone off to a language so fast it would make your head spin. I have had so many friends in high school learning Spanish that did so many verb conjugation charts and vocabulary drills that they just wanted to quit altogether. I have been through this myself, but I guess I loved the language enough to continue. My junior/senior year high school Spanish teacher saved my love of Spanish by having us do skits and having more practical application of the language. It was fun and exciting, and so unlike the classes I had before. It made me think, why didn't we do this in junior high when it would have been more beneficial to us? I suppose that also brings up the point of the Critical Period Hypothesis, but that's another story.
Richards said that "it is possible to view these conceptions [scientific, theory/philosophy, values-based, and art-craft] as forming a continuum" (pg. 25). I really liked this idea of a teacher starting out in one conception of teaching, because it really is a subjective profession. I feel like I base my idea of teaching on what I have seen this was effective/ineffective in the past for myself and for others. I find myself during observations saying, 'I would absolutely NEVER do this to my student' or 'what a great idea, I would love using this in my classroom and putting my own spin on it'. It's all about adaptation, as well. Teachers have to adapt to their students' needs and base their curriculum around a mix of state standards and student goals. I liked the idea of students setting personal goals for their classroom and sharing this with the teacher. It really gives them a good idea of where the student stands and how to plan to give them the best experience they possibly can.
-Kelsey
No comments:
Post a Comment