The article, as a chapter from a book on ELL learners, had a lot to say on a new method they call SIOP (Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol). The layout of what they want to do to create greater learning environments for ELL's is an admirable one but, as they point out in their chapter, it is a difficult to make happen because so many teachers, whether a part of ESL or not, are not qualified to teach in this manner, or have not learned how to teach in this manner.
I suppose this explains then why we are learning these methods now, seeing as they are important to our future roles as teachers but there is another issue that was brought up which I see as the biggest obstacle in implementing any kind of method for helping ELL students. This obstacle is comprised of two things, overcrowding and underfunding of school programs for ESL students. This problem moves beyond what any teacher can do and moves to a state and federal level of how we fund the education in this country and how budget cuts and lack of funding can create lackluster or non existent programs for ESL students.This obstacle goes beyond what we can do as teachers and hands over the fate of these students to the politicians (which is a whole other issue entirely).
So although I find their method admirable, I see it as difficult to implement, not only with educating teachers on this method but also with the way our school systems are set up concerning funding and overcrowding.
Then there is the Anthology chapter, which I don't really have much to say on. It outlined the idea of project based learning, which I think can be useful in any classroom and can definitely be implemented in content based learning approaches. It is a good idea to be used sparingly depending on the class level and the students in the classroom.
peace & grace,
Kiersten
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Bax and Hu
Bax-
Just as a recap on what Bax sees many teachers doing in the field:
1 Assume and insist that CLT is the whole and complete solution to language learning;
2 Assume that no other method could be any good;
3 Ignore people’s own views of who they are and what they want;
4 Neglect and ignore all aspects of the local context as being irrelevant.
I feel this is a bit harsh as far as CLT because it creates another generalization about teachers of CLT and the way they view other methods. This issue does have some truth to it for some teachers, as shown in the examples but he is generalizing just the way CLT might in saying that a large group of teachers do this with CLT.
“The Communicative Approach is the way to do it, no matter where you are, no matter what the context.” (281) – this quote is taken from what he feels the CLT message is but I'm not sure I agree, though I have a strong opinion on the contextual importance of teaching, which I feel many teachers are aware of. I don't really agree with him because he is proposing a new method or approach that could be better implicated when teachers are learning to be teachers (have them learn all methods and then explain to them that it is important to consider the context they are teaching in before choosing any one method.)
*Bax seems to be entirely biased against CLT in a way that makes it look like the villain. This may be recent but in our classes we have given consideration to all methods, showing that each has there merit in the classroom in certain ways and this includes CLT. The entire article feels more like a very strong opinion and also seems overly favorable towards the context approach which is exactly what he argues against concerning CLT.
*This may have a valuable point concerning short training courses when there is not time to teach all methods and discuss them. In these cases CLT may be over emphasized no matter what the context thus leaving teachers fairly unable to teach to context without learning through trial and error.
*Then goes on to claim that he is not saying that context approach is entirely new and is backtracking to say that many good teachers and writers already use it. These statements seem fairly hypocritical of previous statements that many teachers are CLT based only. Seems like a minority to me as far as teachers who are so CLT based they cannot fathom using anything else.
*Goes on to note that context is still secondary and that he holds to the opinion that it needs to become the first thought before any methodology is chosen – an opinion which I agree with to an extent. I still feel that he fairly overzealous about this.
Thus his argument: (285)
a we are in the middle of a shift towards an emphasis on context in language teaching;
b this is an important step in the move to more effective teaching;
c this will only be fully effective if the CLT paradigm is broken down; and therefore
d the profession should adopt a Context Approach, or equivalent, for the sake of teachers, and ultimately of learners throughout the world.
*Sketching Out a Context Approach – why does it need to be an approach? I feel this could be taught in ‘tesol’ classrooms for Teachers as a general rule of thumb concerning all teachings and work just as well as creating an entirely new method just to cope with a few ignorant or CLT based fanatics. It has some merit but I feel that it takes the issues of CLT too far and uplifts contextual approach as the god send answer.
Hu-
*Asks for an understanding of sociocultural differences and how this affects learning in the classroom (China specifically). Concerning CLT and why it doesn’t work with the classroom culture in China.
*Previous method was a cross of Grammar-Translation and Audiolingualism – yet did not create communicative competence for millions of Chinese learners of English.
“By the term 'Chinese culture of learning' is meant a whole set of expectations, attitudes, beliefs, values, perceptions, preferences, experiences, and behaviors that are characteristic of Chinese society with regard to teaching and learning.” (96)
*Similar to Bax article in saying that CLT is not for everyone except Hu uses a specific culture and examples as to why it doesn’t work based on Chinese culture and values.
I see Hu's article almost like an extension of Bax's article, giving a specific example as to why CLT doesn't work in all contexts, which I (overall) agree with. What I struggle with is creating an entirely 'new approach' (or not so new) just to show teachers that they should consider context when teaching with any given method. I feel that this kind of thing should be basic knowledge and should be taught in teacher classrooms as a rule of thumb making the need for an approach unnecessary since I consider this common knowledge for teachers (at least it should be)
Just as a recap on what Bax sees many teachers doing in the field:
1 Assume and insist that CLT is the whole and complete solution to language learning;
2 Assume that no other method could be any good;
3 Ignore people’s own views of who they are and what they want;
4 Neglect and ignore all aspects of the local context as being irrelevant.
I feel this is a bit harsh as far as CLT because it creates another generalization about teachers of CLT and the way they view other methods. This issue does have some truth to it for some teachers, as shown in the examples but he is generalizing just the way CLT might in saying that a large group of teachers do this with CLT.
“The Communicative Approach is the way to do it, no matter where you are, no matter what the context.” (281) – this quote is taken from what he feels the CLT message is but I'm not sure I agree, though I have a strong opinion on the contextual importance of teaching, which I feel many teachers are aware of. I don't really agree with him because he is proposing a new method or approach that could be better implicated when teachers are learning to be teachers (have them learn all methods and then explain to them that it is important to consider the context they are teaching in before choosing any one method.)
*Bax seems to be entirely biased against CLT in a way that makes it look like the villain. This may be recent but in our classes we have given consideration to all methods, showing that each has there merit in the classroom in certain ways and this includes CLT. The entire article feels more like a very strong opinion and also seems overly favorable towards the context approach which is exactly what he argues against concerning CLT.
*This may have a valuable point concerning short training courses when there is not time to teach all methods and discuss them. In these cases CLT may be over emphasized no matter what the context thus leaving teachers fairly unable to teach to context without learning through trial and error.
*Then goes on to claim that he is not saying that context approach is entirely new and is backtracking to say that many good teachers and writers already use it. These statements seem fairly hypocritical of previous statements that many teachers are CLT based only. Seems like a minority to me as far as teachers who are so CLT based they cannot fathom using anything else.
*Goes on to note that context is still secondary and that he holds to the opinion that it needs to become the first thought before any methodology is chosen – an opinion which I agree with to an extent. I still feel that he fairly overzealous about this.
Thus his argument: (285)
a we are in the middle of a shift towards an emphasis on context in language teaching;
b this is an important step in the move to more effective teaching;
c this will only be fully effective if the CLT paradigm is broken down; and therefore
d the profession should adopt a Context Approach, or equivalent, for the sake of teachers, and ultimately of learners throughout the world.
*Sketching Out a Context Approach – why does it need to be an approach? I feel this could be taught in ‘tesol’ classrooms for Teachers as a general rule of thumb concerning all teachings and work just as well as creating an entirely new method just to cope with a few ignorant or CLT based fanatics. It has some merit but I feel that it takes the issues of CLT too far and uplifts contextual approach as the god send answer.
Hu-
*Asks for an understanding of sociocultural differences and how this affects learning in the classroom (China specifically). Concerning CLT and why it doesn’t work with the classroom culture in China.
*Previous method was a cross of Grammar-Translation and Audiolingualism – yet did not create communicative competence for millions of Chinese learners of English.
“By the term 'Chinese culture of learning' is meant a whole set of expectations, attitudes, beliefs, values, perceptions, preferences, experiences, and behaviors that are characteristic of Chinese society with regard to teaching and learning.” (96)
*Similar to Bax article in saying that CLT is not for everyone except Hu uses a specific culture and examples as to why it doesn’t work based on Chinese culture and values.
I see Hu's article almost like an extension of Bax's article, giving a specific example as to why CLT doesn't work in all contexts, which I (overall) agree with. What I struggle with is creating an entirely 'new approach' (or not so new) just to show teachers that they should consider context when teaching with any given method. I feel that this kind of thing should be basic knowledge and should be taught in teacher classrooms as a rule of thumb making the need for an approach unnecessary since I consider this common knowledge for teachers (at least it should be)
Monday, September 12, 2011
Communicative Language Teaching
This is going to be fairly repetitive but this article sums up what we've been talking about for the past week or two so it seems fairly basic to me. It creates a classroom experience in which CLT is used successfully in most situations. It answers some basic questions about how CLT helps the students as far as accuracy and fluency are concerned.
I see CLT as a useful method to take into consideration but I also think that it has it's limits, as with every method we've studied. It may work in an American classroom with our culture and norms, or with students who have lived here for some time, but I think there are a lot of students from around the world who come from different backgrounds and social rules that would find this uncomfortable and unlearnable as far as a method. This could be because of the construction of their own educational systems but it is important to note that this method is quite like the others in that it will work for some and not work for others.
Though it may be difficult, we as teachers have to also consider our environment and how our students learn best. Thus teaching abroad may be a bit more of complicated matter (and the reason I bring this up is because that is what I want to do) and should be treated as such when coming from a culture such as ours. There is a need to get to know and learn about the culture before we assume we can use our own methods and gain the same results we may have in the United States.
That's what this article made me think of.
peace & grace.
I see CLT as a useful method to take into consideration but I also think that it has it's limits, as with every method we've studied. It may work in an American classroom with our culture and norms, or with students who have lived here for some time, but I think there are a lot of students from around the world who come from different backgrounds and social rules that would find this uncomfortable and unlearnable as far as a method. This could be because of the construction of their own educational systems but it is important to note that this method is quite like the others in that it will work for some and not work for others.
Though it may be difficult, we as teachers have to also consider our environment and how our students learn best. Thus teaching abroad may be a bit more of complicated matter (and the reason I bring this up is because that is what I want to do) and should be treated as such when coming from a culture such as ours. There is a need to get to know and learn about the culture before we assume we can use our own methods and gain the same results we may have in the United States.
That's what this article made me think of.
peace & grace.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Pennycook
To start Pennycook describes the critical approaches to tesol and the questions that go along with that. According to Pennycook there are 3:
1.the domain or area of interest. to what extent do particular domains define a critical approach?
2.a transformative pedagogy. how does the particular approach to education hope to change things?
3.a self-reflexive stance on critical theory. to what extent does the work constantly question common assumptions, including it's own?
In this particular article there is a lot of discussion on how to connect the classroom, students, and teachers to the outside world; to social, political, and racial issues which also include sexuality and ethnicity. This is what Pennycook calls critical domain.
Penneycook notes that it not only has to do with political and social aspects but how these aspects affect power relations in the life of the teachers, students, parents, and community. All these factors play a role in how a student learns in the classroom.
A quote that stood out to me is as follows:
"It is not enough to connect TESOL to the world - it must connect to struggles of power, inequality, discrimination, resistance, and struggle." (5)
Generally I think these ideas of connecting, not only to the students, but to the power struggles they endure everyday, has been discussed many times in our TESOL classes and in the articles we've read, what Pennycook brought up which came across as somewhat new to me, is the idea of violence towards 'otherness' and how this violence affects the learning environment. We see, everyday, in the media and on the streets the outcome of hatred towards 'otherness' and how it affects the world but, as a future teacher, I had yet to consider how such factors, how such violence and struggle in the world, may change the way a classroom environment is created and used. Students may find themselves uncomfortable or afraid to speak out due to outside sources of what they see and hear everyday which changes the way they learn in the class, if they are able to learn at all.
This plays into the idea of English and how the language itself is a global power and can have a profoundly negative affect on how students view their own native language on top of how they may learn English in the classroom and how they use it in a public context. All of these issues have a profound affect on the students ability to learn and our own theories on teaching and teaching methods cannot always accommodate such a wide diversity in a classroom.
This leaves us with the question, once again nagging, is there a point to finding a 'one method fits all' ideal when there is such diversity that it may not be possible?
Either way there is an importance to our theorizing TESOL because it can open our eyes to new issues which come up in the world outside of the classroom, giving us a chance, as teachers, to address them with our students in the best method possible for each class or each student.
peace & grace
1.the domain or area of interest. to what extent do particular domains define a critical approach?
2.a transformative pedagogy. how does the particular approach to education hope to change things?
3.a self-reflexive stance on critical theory. to what extent does the work constantly question common assumptions, including it's own?
In this particular article there is a lot of discussion on how to connect the classroom, students, and teachers to the outside world; to social, political, and racial issues which also include sexuality and ethnicity. This is what Pennycook calls critical domain.
Penneycook notes that it not only has to do with political and social aspects but how these aspects affect power relations in the life of the teachers, students, parents, and community. All these factors play a role in how a student learns in the classroom.
A quote that stood out to me is as follows:
"It is not enough to connect TESOL to the world - it must connect to struggles of power, inequality, discrimination, resistance, and struggle." (5)
Generally I think these ideas of connecting, not only to the students, but to the power struggles they endure everyday, has been discussed many times in our TESOL classes and in the articles we've read, what Pennycook brought up which came across as somewhat new to me, is the idea of violence towards 'otherness' and how this violence affects the learning environment. We see, everyday, in the media and on the streets the outcome of hatred towards 'otherness' and how it affects the world but, as a future teacher, I had yet to consider how such factors, how such violence and struggle in the world, may change the way a classroom environment is created and used. Students may find themselves uncomfortable or afraid to speak out due to outside sources of what they see and hear everyday which changes the way they learn in the class, if they are able to learn at all.
This plays into the idea of English and how the language itself is a global power and can have a profoundly negative affect on how students view their own native language on top of how they may learn English in the classroom and how they use it in a public context. All of these issues have a profound affect on the students ability to learn and our own theories on teaching and teaching methods cannot always accommodate such a wide diversity in a classroom.
This leaves us with the question, once again nagging, is there a point to finding a 'one method fits all' ideal when there is such diversity that it may not be possible?
Either way there is an importance to our theorizing TESOL because it can open our eyes to new issues which come up in the world outside of the classroom, giving us a chance, as teachers, to address them with our students in the best method possible for each class or each student.
peace & grace
Monday, September 5, 2011
Kuma Chapters 1 + 2
Kuma's first chapter, I think, was important in learning about the different ways we categorize ourselves as teachers and how that plays a role in our teaching ability. It's interesting to look how theory differs from practice and how we, as teachers, come to recognize this in our own teaching. What I focused on further was the Table 1.1, which was a chart summarizing the different roles of a teacher and comparing their different approaches to decide which may be better as far as what's needed in the classroom. The outcome is fairly obvious but I still think this chart holds valuable information on what is important in teaching and how each role is used when teaching.
The second chapter for Kuma discussed the transition to post method pedagogy, which goes back to the article we read about a week ago which Kuma also wrote about the three transitions concerning this idea. What Kuma delves into here is the ways in which we can create a post method pedagogy that will benefit students and teachers in the classroom. Kuma gives us a valuable tool to start creating a more rounded and useful way of teaching which will further help a more diverse group of students and teachers.
The second chapter for Kuma discussed the transition to post method pedagogy, which goes back to the article we read about a week ago which Kuma also wrote about the three transitions concerning this idea. What Kuma delves into here is the ways in which we can create a post method pedagogy that will benefit students and teachers in the classroom. Kuma gives us a valuable tool to start creating a more rounded and useful way of teaching which will further help a more diverse group of students and teachers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)