Dear all,
The light at the end of the tunnel seems to get smaller and smaller as post method puts an end to the use of an established method as the be all and end all to second language teaching. As Kumaravadivelu (1994)points out it is a search for something other than another method; promoting teacher autonomy within constraints created by institutions, curricula and textbook materials; and a move from eclecticism to principled pragmatism.
It is the principled pragmatism which is interesting given it is preferred over eclecticism which is “the careful principled combination of sound ideas from sound sources into a harmonious whole that yields the best results” (Hammerly, 1991, as cited in Kumaravadivelu, 1994. Principled pragmatism is preferred because it is related to theory and practice that occurs and it does not exclude segments of existing theories or practices. Therefore, teachers need to have a sense of plausibility, this is their “subjective understanding of the teaching they do”(Prabhu, 1990 as cited in Kumaravadivelu, 1994), to be versed in principled pragmatism,. So where is this leading? To an exploratory pedagogical framework that is developed from classroom experience.
At last, the “coal face” is recognised as the arena for situation-specific and need-based contexts to generate methodological principles. However that is where the fun begins for Mike but confusion follows for others. Consequently, the frames presented in Ellis (2005), Richards (1996), Kumaravadivelu (1994) and Allwright (2005) reinforces practitioners’ self-awareness that there is no best method(s) for teaching and learning (and that there is a lot of ground to cover). It is the classroom practices which are important and central to the development of methodological principles, therefore the reflective and exploratory practices required of teachers, begin to emerge from the ongoing dynamic interactions that are situated in the classroom. As a result teachers need to explore their own language teaching approaches and methods to assess their strengths and weaknesses for further adaption of the complex interactions.
Kumaravadivelu’s (2006) proposes a three part postmethod framework: particularity, practicality, possibility. This involves dealing with the teaching of context sensitivity; encouraging the theorizing of what teachers practice; and macro-social factors that lead to identity and social transformations. Is this the new PPP?
L8tr
Albert
References
Allwright, D. (2005). From teaching to learning opportunities and beyond. TESOL Quarterly, 39 (1), 9-32
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning, System 33, p. 209-224.
Kumaravadivelu. B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kumaravadivelu. B. (1994). The post-method condition: (E)merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28: 27-48.
Richards, J. C. (1996). Teachers’ maxims in language teaching TESOL Quarterly, 30 (2), 281– 296.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Week 6 Critical Language Teaching
Dear all,
Following on from academic literacies where students should be empowered to question the need to mimic academic conventions, we now have to content with more questioning of our assumptions as a person as well as a teacher! To start, how can we not use our own culture as a starting point in our ability to teach, facilitate or coach? I believe it is dependent upon our experiences and dogma how we approach a lesson and the activities we share with the students. We are trained and taught according to our cultural background(s) and accumulate the “baggage” of the linguistic and cultural capital our background entails.
However critical language teaching has opened a black hole for the classroom where everything is “sucked in” to give meaning to the social context which students construct in the classroom rather than dictated due to say, power inequality arising from cultural or gender differences. Like Mike, I find it stimulating. Simply because, it allows us as teachers to be receptive as well, not just the students, to issues that arise in the classroom.
Street (2001) as cited in Canagarajah (2005) has conducted studies and notes how literacy pedagogical practices do not meet the students’ local usage and purpose. Further the students take what they want from the lessons and adapt it to their particular situation, it clearly suggests, whatever materials, or curriculum we are teaching require us to adapt to be relevant and appropriate to the needs of the learner. This is reinforced by addressing or at least thinking of the broader contexts and issues that exist in the world such as power and inequalities alongside the micro issues of connecting TESOL with the world it exist in (Pennycook,1999). Interestingly I can give many instances where the native speakers where I work take a position of power as they believe in their superiority over the non-native speaker, or more subtle the belief that the process approach to teaching is superior to product based approach without considering the students’ learning style or needs.
Therefore thinking about issues of race, class, gender, sexuality and violence assist in making our teaching role more engaging and enriching for all concerned. Although the experience we encounter from trial and error I believe are equally enriching. Mike has provided some fantastic experiences for any teacher’s memoirs. I have not experienced the need to have my soul saved but would try to learn from any such experience to understand differences that exist and sometimes implicitly ignored.
L8tr
Albert
References
Canagarajah, S. (2005). Critical pedagogy in L2 learning and teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.) Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.931-949). Mahwah:Lawerence Erlbaum.
Pennycook, A.(1999). Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 33(3).
Following on from academic literacies where students should be empowered to question the need to mimic academic conventions, we now have to content with more questioning of our assumptions as a person as well as a teacher! To start, how can we not use our own culture as a starting point in our ability to teach, facilitate or coach? I believe it is dependent upon our experiences and dogma how we approach a lesson and the activities we share with the students. We are trained and taught according to our cultural background(s) and accumulate the “baggage” of the linguistic and cultural capital our background entails.
However critical language teaching has opened a black hole for the classroom where everything is “sucked in” to give meaning to the social context which students construct in the classroom rather than dictated due to say, power inequality arising from cultural or gender differences. Like Mike, I find it stimulating. Simply because, it allows us as teachers to be receptive as well, not just the students, to issues that arise in the classroom.
Street (2001) as cited in Canagarajah (2005) has conducted studies and notes how literacy pedagogical practices do not meet the students’ local usage and purpose. Further the students take what they want from the lessons and adapt it to their particular situation, it clearly suggests, whatever materials, or curriculum we are teaching require us to adapt to be relevant and appropriate to the needs of the learner. This is reinforced by addressing or at least thinking of the broader contexts and issues that exist in the world such as power and inequalities alongside the micro issues of connecting TESOL with the world it exist in (Pennycook,1999). Interestingly I can give many instances where the native speakers where I work take a position of power as they believe in their superiority over the non-native speaker, or more subtle the belief that the process approach to teaching is superior to product based approach without considering the students’ learning style or needs.
Therefore thinking about issues of race, class, gender, sexuality and violence assist in making our teaching role more engaging and enriching for all concerned. Although the experience we encounter from trial and error I believe are equally enriching. Mike has provided some fantastic experiences for any teacher’s memoirs. I have not experienced the need to have my soul saved but would try to learn from any such experience to understand differences that exist and sometimes implicitly ignored.
L8tr
Albert
References
Canagarajah, S. (2005). Critical pedagogy in L2 learning and teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.) Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.931-949). Mahwah:Lawerence Erlbaum.
Pennycook, A.(1999). Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 33(3).
Saturday, May 1, 2010
chanjuan du week7
From week 2 to week 6, we have been exposed to individual approaches one after another, which are inspiring and thought-provoking. When reflecting upon each approach, I kept thinking about applying it into my own teaching context. But one of the concerns during the course is that integration of the approach with other methods or ideas may be a better way. After this "post-method" session, I feel relieved to get the theoretical foundation.
Teaching and learning in the practical level is quite a complicated issue. According to Richard & Rogers (2001), a method refers to “a specific instructional design or system based on a particular theory of language and of language learning” (p.244), invloves three elements as approach, design and procedure. Just take design as an example, syllabus, objectives, roles of learner, teacher and teaching materials, should all be taken into consideration. There is no method that "one size fits all". Contingency should be a major concern in the process of class instruction.
One of the principles of instructed second language acquisition summarized by Ellis (2005) is that "instruction needs to ensure that learners develop both a rich repertoire of formulaic expressions and a rule-based competence". In my teaching context, which is half exam-oriented, both sides of the coin need emphasizing.
References:
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed second language acquisition. System, 33, 209-224
Richards, J. & Rogers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in language teaching, 2nd ed. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
Teaching and learning in the practical level is quite a complicated issue. According to Richard & Rogers (2001), a method refers to “a specific instructional design or system based on a particular theory of language and of language learning” (p.244), invloves three elements as approach, design and procedure. Just take design as an example, syllabus, objectives, roles of learner, teacher and teaching materials, should all be taken into consideration. There is no method that "one size fits all". Contingency should be a major concern in the process of class instruction.
One of the principles of instructed second language acquisition summarized by Ellis (2005) is that "instruction needs to ensure that learners develop both a rich repertoire of formulaic expressions and a rule-based competence". In my teaching context, which is half exam-oriented, both sides of the coin need emphasizing.
References:
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed second language acquisition. System, 33, 209-224
Richards, J. & Rogers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in language teaching, 2nd ed. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
Mike's last blog (No.6) week 7 post method
As if it wasn't enough being confronted over the past seven weeks with alternative approaches challenging the conventional, traditional approaches we've been working with, we are now confronted with the post-method era. Bring it on! So what if I'm experiencing a degree of bewilderment. After all, that's what learning about new ideas can do to you.
But, seriously; I love the freedom and criticality of this post-method space. It suits my radical nature to a T. When I was assembling the power point presentation to you guys for last Thursday's session about Agency and Contingency (Baynham, 2006) I kept thinking to myself "hey, I do this often in my ESOL classroom!" More than a few times I have found myself going with the flow and responding in a contingent manner to stuff that my adult students bring into the classroom from the outside world. And I have felt a certain spark in those moments, when the students seem to come alive and become enthusiastically engaged agents, drawing on all their resources to communicate with me and each other at the edge of their interlanguage +1Krashen, 1981). When they are dealing with real world stuff (authentic, comprehensible input) that they can relate to with feeling/emotion, even when it is just beyond their current level of ability, some really intereting communication takes place. I use these opportunities, then, to also explore the language. I might pick up on something someone has said and turn it into an opportunity to explore relevant lexical phrases that better express what they've been trying to say using their existing interlanguage. Or I'll jump onto the web on the spur of the moment to search for some item (e.g. a news report) of relevance. Or I'll go to the cobuild online concordancer to look at a phrase in authentic language which I can present to the students, or get them to work together in groups to do it themselves.
I've been integrating many of the ideas from the lexical approach, genre and even a dash of SFL lately too, and the students are responding postively. So, I'm drawing from an eclectic toolbox of resources to good effect. What I take from this is that we now have an open space in which to intelligently experiment and I am finding the level of interest and energy in the classroom rising to the occasion. In this regard I note Kumaravadivelu's (1994)suggestion that we allow ourselves to be guided by principled pragmatism that could help classroom practitioners become strategic teachers and even strategic action researchers.
Do my students take what they're learning out into the world to deal with the real issues there? I think so. In my class, students have to produce a powerpoint presentation on each fortnight's topic we've been exploring in class and are required to explore independently outside the class using any and all (authentic) resources available to them. I coined it the "project based approach to language learning". Note that I say learning and not teaching since I have totally accepted that the students don't necessarily learn what I teach them. I'm their coach, not their teacher and it's all about them doing their own, independent learning, coming back to the classroom and telling us all about it. I'm happy to say that the powerpoint presentations they've been presenting in class thus far have been absolutely amazing, both in terms of content/ideas and the language they're using.
And we're really having a lot of fun too! Thumbs up, then to the post-method approach.
It's been a blast!
Ciao, Mike
Baynham, M. (2006). Agency and contingency in the language learning of refugees and asylum seekers. Linguistics and Education 17, 24–39.
Krashen, S., 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Pergamon, Oxford.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The Post-method Condition: (E)merging Strategies for Second/Foreign Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1).Kumaravadivelu,
But, seriously; I love the freedom and criticality of this post-method space. It suits my radical nature to a T. When I was assembling the power point presentation to you guys for last Thursday's session about Agency and Contingency (Baynham, 2006) I kept thinking to myself "hey, I do this often in my ESOL classroom!" More than a few times I have found myself going with the flow and responding in a contingent manner to stuff that my adult students bring into the classroom from the outside world. And I have felt a certain spark in those moments, when the students seem to come alive and become enthusiastically engaged agents, drawing on all their resources to communicate with me and each other at the edge of their interlanguage +1Krashen, 1981). When they are dealing with real world stuff (authentic, comprehensible input) that they can relate to with feeling/emotion, even when it is just beyond their current level of ability, some really intereting communication takes place. I use these opportunities, then, to also explore the language. I might pick up on something someone has said and turn it into an opportunity to explore relevant lexical phrases that better express what they've been trying to say using their existing interlanguage. Or I'll jump onto the web on the spur of the moment to search for some item (e.g. a news report) of relevance. Or I'll go to the cobuild online concordancer to look at a phrase in authentic language which I can present to the students, or get them to work together in groups to do it themselves.
I've been integrating many of the ideas from the lexical approach, genre and even a dash of SFL lately too, and the students are responding postively. So, I'm drawing from an eclectic toolbox of resources to good effect. What I take from this is that we now have an open space in which to intelligently experiment and I am finding the level of interest and energy in the classroom rising to the occasion. In this regard I note Kumaravadivelu's (1994)suggestion that we allow ourselves to be guided by principled pragmatism that could help classroom practitioners become strategic teachers and even strategic action researchers.
Do my students take what they're learning out into the world to deal with the real issues there? I think so. In my class, students have to produce a powerpoint presentation on each fortnight's topic we've been exploring in class and are required to explore independently outside the class using any and all (authentic) resources available to them. I coined it the "project based approach to language learning". Note that I say learning and not teaching since I have totally accepted that the students don't necessarily learn what I teach them. I'm their coach, not their teacher and it's all about them doing their own, independent learning, coming back to the classroom and telling us all about it. I'm happy to say that the powerpoint presentations they've been presenting in class thus far have been absolutely amazing, both in terms of content/ideas and the language they're using.
And we're really having a lot of fun too! Thumbs up, then to the post-method approach.
It's been a blast!
Ciao, Mike
Baynham, M. (2006). Agency and contingency in the language learning of refugees and asylum seekers. Linguistics and Education 17, 24–39.
Krashen, S., 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Pergamon, Oxford.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The Post-method Condition: (E)merging Strategies for Second/Foreign Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1).Kumaravadivelu,
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Mike's week 6 critical language teaching
In writing about critical approaches to TESOL, Pennycook (1999) talks about domains and the connections between the micro issues to do with TESOL and aspects of the ESOL classroom and macro issues out in the wider world -- race, religion, gender, sexuality, and wider concerns of power relations, enequality and inequities.
In my considerable efforts to make this connection to the critical issues of the wider world in my ESOL classroom of adult migrants I have found it can be something of a twin edged sword. Very careful consideration must go into it because of cultural, personal and religious sensitivities of students who may well take see things another way.
For example, in a unit of work on fashion, I suggested that people have very different ideas about what fashion is and how it can serve various intentions, including making polticial statements. So when I showed a TV3 Campbell live piece in which a woman was using topless beach fashion to make a point about women's rights, I got a reaction from a Korean woman in my class who was a devote Catholic. Apparently, women's breast are taboo in her mind. Prayer meetings were reportedly held at 4 am the next morning involving her and a couple of other religious fundamentalists in my class to save my immortal soul.
In another instance, bringing up issues of gender or homosexuality I can see visible reactions of the faces of some of the Korean fundamentalists.
Similarly, talking about women's issues to do with rights, equality and the like can result in indignant reactions from older Korean males. That's when I found out that one of my Korean male students had never even been in a supermarket, or cooked a meal. Such was women's work he exclaimed.
What I take from examples like this is that bringing the wider world in a critical sense into an ESOL classroom with such a wide range of personal and cultural baggage to contend with can lead to unexpected outcomes that the teacher should be sensitive to and give consideration to beforehand so as to be ready to contend with possible negative reactions.
Mind you, generally I have found that integrating a critical approach in my classroom has been quite stimulating and very conducive to getting students to communicate.
But, I now ensure that I carefully consider what I'm about to do in the classroom before launching into it.
Kia ora, Mike
Pennycook, A.(1999. Introduction: Critical Approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 33(3).
In my considerable efforts to make this connection to the critical issues of the wider world in my ESOL classroom of adult migrants I have found it can be something of a twin edged sword. Very careful consideration must go into it because of cultural, personal and religious sensitivities of students who may well take see things another way.
For example, in a unit of work on fashion, I suggested that people have very different ideas about what fashion is and how it can serve various intentions, including making polticial statements. So when I showed a TV3 Campbell live piece in which a woman was using topless beach fashion to make a point about women's rights, I got a reaction from a Korean woman in my class who was a devote Catholic. Apparently, women's breast are taboo in her mind. Prayer meetings were reportedly held at 4 am the next morning involving her and a couple of other religious fundamentalists in my class to save my immortal soul.
In another instance, bringing up issues of gender or homosexuality I can see visible reactions of the faces of some of the Korean fundamentalists.
Similarly, talking about women's issues to do with rights, equality and the like can result in indignant reactions from older Korean males. That's when I found out that one of my Korean male students had never even been in a supermarket, or cooked a meal. Such was women's work he exclaimed.
What I take from examples like this is that bringing the wider world in a critical sense into an ESOL classroom with such a wide range of personal and cultural baggage to contend with can lead to unexpected outcomes that the teacher should be sensitive to and give consideration to beforehand so as to be ready to contend with possible negative reactions.
Mind you, generally I have found that integrating a critical approach in my classroom has been quite stimulating and very conducive to getting students to communicate.
But, I now ensure that I carefully consider what I'm about to do in the classroom before launching into it.
Kia ora, Mike
Pennycook, A.(1999. Introduction: Critical Approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 33(3).
chanjuan Du week6
Overt banners of criticality, as Pennycook(2004) states, contribute to the emergence of topics like critical discourse analysis, critical literacy or critical pedagogy, and critical work and theory concerning gender, race, culture etc, respective aspects that Pennycook discusses and critiques under the theme of Critical Applied Linguistics (CAL).
Focusing on language teaching, or ESL specifically, which most of us are involved in, Pennycook(2001) states several issues in the course of teaching: the language, the materials, the methods, what the students do and say. From critical perspectives, all these issues are to be viewed as "social-political and cultural political" questions. It is said that there are cultural preferences in the whole course of language teaching, allthough consciously or unconsciously being overlooked.
Still, after reading the "monkeys passage" and its bombed reaction from the students, I got shocked and confused as well. As an English teacher, did I ever notice the teaching materials I chose, might cast positive or negative influence upon students? Most of my students are from rural areas. Then would a passage about millionaire or vogue cause their interest or aversion? I got confused too because if all aspects are to be taken into consideration, I really do not know what to teach and how to teach. I can not walk on the way of teaching. Therefore, being critical, and then being smart to choose a proper way to go on, should be our concern.
References:
Norton Peirce, B. & Stein, P. (1995). Why the "Monkey Passage" bombed: Tests, genres, and teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 65(1), 50-65
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pennycook, A. (2004). Critical applied linguistics. In A, Davis & C, Elder(Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford : Blackwell.
Focusing on language teaching, or ESL specifically, which most of us are involved in, Pennycook(2001) states several issues in the course of teaching: the language, the materials, the methods, what the students do and say. From critical perspectives, all these issues are to be viewed as "social-political and cultural political" questions. It is said that there are cultural preferences in the whole course of language teaching, allthough consciously or unconsciously being overlooked.
Still, after reading the "monkeys passage" and its bombed reaction from the students, I got shocked and confused as well. As an English teacher, did I ever notice the teaching materials I chose, might cast positive or negative influence upon students? Most of my students are from rural areas. Then would a passage about millionaire or vogue cause their interest or aversion? I got confused too because if all aspects are to be taken into consideration, I really do not know what to teach and how to teach. I can not walk on the way of teaching. Therefore, being critical, and then being smart to choose a proper way to go on, should be our concern.
References:
Norton Peirce, B. & Stein, P. (1995). Why the "Monkey Passage" bombed: Tests, genres, and teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 65(1), 50-65
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pennycook, A. (2004). Critical applied linguistics. In A, Davis & C, Elder(Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford : Blackwell.
Monday, April 12, 2010
EAP & Academic Literacy
The discussion between EAP and Academic literacy has drawn the attention among educationalists, tertiary students and some people from other academic domains. EAP, according to Hocking, “was predominantly located in the field of teaching academic writing to second language speakers of English”. It’s also a key course for students in high school or pre-university institutions before entering the university. Whereas academic literacy was focused on the more general field of writing in higher education”. The link between both is about academic writing.
As every tertiary student knows that most communication between students and lecturers are through writing at university. Students are often assessed by writing reports, essays, entries, wikis and so on. So to learn the fundamental academic writing techniques is crucial. The Critical EAP was one of valuable papers I took in my first year of BA study and taught me the principles of academic writing. I suppose it should be taught from high school so that the transition from pre-university stage to the university level is not going to have too much obstacle. Unfortunately, from my recent teaching experience, the crucial role of EAP is often treated in reductionism term as remedial, study skills, or adjunct in the literature. Many high students are having trouble to write a short (500-1000 words) essay.
I also found myself still have trouble to write essays and commentaries. The problem with me is not the structure of the writing, the foci, or approaches. I could sit here and write all day about the theories, the writing processes from different range of perspectives, orientations or approaches as based on Leki (1998). However, the struggle I’m having is to construct English language into writing, I mean to create a content which has accurate grammatical structures and the rhetorical patterns.
Reference:
Leki, I. 1998. Academic writing: Exploring Processes and Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
As every tertiary student knows that most communication between students and lecturers are through writing at university. Students are often assessed by writing reports, essays, entries, wikis and so on. So to learn the fundamental academic writing techniques is crucial. The Critical EAP was one of valuable papers I took in my first year of BA study and taught me the principles of academic writing. I suppose it should be taught from high school so that the transition from pre-university stage to the university level is not going to have too much obstacle. Unfortunately, from my recent teaching experience, the crucial role of EAP is often treated in reductionism term as remedial, study skills, or adjunct in the literature. Many high students are having trouble to write a short (500-1000 words) essay.
I also found myself still have trouble to write essays and commentaries. The problem with me is not the structure of the writing, the foci, or approaches. I could sit here and write all day about the theories, the writing processes from different range of perspectives, orientations or approaches as based on Leki (1998). However, the struggle I’m having is to construct English language into writing, I mean to create a content which has accurate grammatical structures and the rhetorical patterns.
Reference:
Leki, I. 1998. Academic writing: Exploring Processes and Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)