Week 7 A new PPP

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.

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).

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.

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,

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).

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.

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.

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Language Teaching

I was lost in the subject of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL).

My understanding of SFL is using text in a language so that language becomes functional. In other words, when language changes in its context, the function will be different in terms of culture and situation in the context. Text may also be analysed in terms of the range and nature of options.

Till now, I just realised that I had studied a paper called ‘Discourse Annalysis’ which investingates, amongst other social phenomena, the constrction of ideology in discourse. It emphasised on the context of situation and context of culture, such as “what is to be talked or written about and the long and short term goals of the text which is the field; the relationship between the speaker and hearer or, of course, writer and reader which is the Tenor; the kind of text that is being made which is the Mode” (Butt et al., 2000, p.5). I also remembered we did lots of insightful analysis of text and discourse form a social perspective.

However, the implications of teaching language is not only to teach vocabulary and grammar, but also to lean how to use the language in a way that makes sense to other people who speak the language (Butt, et al. 2000). Therefore, the SFL pedagogy should be understood and realized, and more research is needed by teacher educators. It’s a massive and complicated educational topic.


Reference:

Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks., S., & Yallop., C. (2000). Using functional grammar: An explorer’s guide (2nd ed). Sydney: NCELTR

Genre and language teaching

Genre based approach has become a major trend in English language teaching (ELT). It’s not new, English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and English for Academic Purposes (EAP) are early examples. In recent years, teaching and learning around text genres has developed into the mainstream of ELT that including primary school, secondary school, and university as well as English language learners.

According to Paltridge, “genre studies have taken place in different ways I different parts of the world” (2001, p.16). The rationale for adopting a genre-based framework is that it facilitates clear links to the students' purposes for writing beyond the writing classroom. Thus, the primary factors in curricular selection are ensuring a balance of text types, to enable students to perform a broad range of social purposes for writing in English in future, and selection of specific genres based on the students' most immediate academic needs.

Rossberry and Henrry (2007) suggest, for advanced language learners, lexical knowledge plays a greater role than grammar in the acquisition of native-like fluency. The present study was to test this view by examining the language errors of university entry-level students whose first academic language is not English and to determine with some precision what kinds of errors these students make, how these errors relate to specific parts of written genres and what guidelines may be followed to overcome such errors. To do this, an error analysis was undertaken, involving a short tourist information text written in English by 40 Malay-speaking students at the University of Brunei Darussalem. It was found that the majority of errors, as expected, were errors of usage, not grammar, and that there was a relationship between the types of errors and the move-strategy (way in which a genre move is realized in content). It is concluded that, at the academic level, raising students' awareness of usage types and patterns with relation to genre moves is far more crucial than instruction in grammar. Furthermore, it is proposed that instruction in usage must be undertaken in small-group or individual settings and must be relevant to the student's immediate language task.



Reference:

Henry, A. & Roseberry, L. R. (2007). Language Errors in the Genre-based Writing of Advanced Academic ESL Students. RELC Journal. 38(2), 171-198.

Paltridge, B (2001). Genre and The Language Learning Classroom. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

Chanjuan Du week 5(EAP)

The topic of writing was considered before in the ESP and genre part of this course. Whether ESP or EAP, the core issue is to set a respective format for learners to follow and for teachers to instruct easily.

Before the lecture, I took part in a KEYS course named "success to academic writing" conducted by AUT. The content was mainly about the writing process, the structure, topic sentence, how to write a paragraph, and so on. It sounds like cliches without any novel ideas, but undoubtedly that on the practice level, it is operable. After all, students are required to meet the assessment standards and teachers are supposed to assess students according to certain criteria. It is said that students should know what they want to know. But in most cases, students may ask "What am I supposed to know?". With a clear frame, things may be easier to manipulate.

While according to a research concerning writing in higher education conducted by Lea & Street (1998), things are more complicated than it appears. On the one hand, although academic staff can list the constitutes of a successful writing, they meet difficulties when trying to explicit a "well-developed arguement". On the other hand, for students, they meet more complexity when taking different subjects with diverse requirements. EAP involves not only the right structure but also the characteristics of specific disciplines.Humanities and scientific researches are different in writing. So, what does the meaning of "academic writing skills" lie in?

Each year, thousands of non-native English learners take IELTS, by which they can study in English country. Does the fixed format of IELTS writing help when they start academic learning? Question remains!

Reference:

Lea, M. R. & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education; June 1998, 23(2)

Mike comments week five Critical EAP v pragmatism

I was initially rather ambivalent about week five's focus topic, perhaps because I'm not directly engaged as a teacher in the field, and so I tended to regard it as not entirely relevant to my needs and interests. Also, I was unable to draw upon my own experiences as a resource. Consequently, I felt rather distant from the debate, an outsider with no investment in it.

That feeling changed, however, after reading Teresa Lillis's (2003) paper arising from her experiences with students at the Open University in the UK. Her opening positional comment regarding the shift in the UK "from an elite to a mass higher education system where there is greater cultural, linguistic and social diversity" (p.192)struck a chord. It got me thinking about tertiary education in the New Zealand context, and particularly about the principles of adult education and lifelong learning and the institution I work for -- Te Wananga o Aotearoa (TWOA).

TWOA (now called "Open Wananga") was established in response to the bi-cultural context of New Zealand in which Maori (as first people of this Land) were subsumed under the educational norms and values of the non-Maori colonists who imposed their cultural values and ideas about education to the detriment of Maori development. TWOA arose as a response to the recognition by Maori intelligentia that the educational needs and aspirations of young Maori and others of polynesian heritage living in Aotearoa have not been met by the educational system. Although the Open Wananga's target population (or market to use a neo-liberal concept) is Maori, it is open to adults of all races (hence its offering of ESOL courses to migrants). However, it's not my intention to explore that here.

The Open Wananga's philosophy of education is uniquely Maori - that is, to use a Maori term Ako. Ako is like a two-way street. Indeed, it is dialogic. Teaching and learning is a mutually beneficial, interactive process in which teachers can sometimes play the role of learners and learners can also, on occasion, become teachers. Scaffolding is fundamental to Maori education and has been that way long before colonisation and long before Vygotsky was born.

Open Wananga's hilosophy is fundamentally that anyone can learn and has a right to advance their education regardless of whether they had encountered past difficulties with education - even "failure". Learning is open to all regardless of age or ability and is a regarded as a lifelong process. What's really key is motivation and commitment. The TWOA Open Wananga's adult education programmes incorporate Maori learning principles that have in more recent times been articulated as "adult learning principles" by various contemporary contributors such as Brookfield (1986), Draper (1992) Draves (1997), Grissom (1992, Knowles (1992), Vella (1994)and others. Some of the key principles are: 1) Courses designed for adult learners should involve the learners in planning and implementing learning activities, including assessment; 2) Such courses should draw upon learners' experiences as a resource; 3) Tutors should strive to cultivate self-direction in learners; 4) They should try at all times to create a climate that encourages and supports learning; 5) Tutors should foster a spirit of collaboration in the learning setting, consistent with Ako, or the idea that the roles of tutors and students can be interchangeable. 6)The use of small groups is a critical precept in adult education, having deep historical roots in Maoridom. Groups promote teamwork and encourage co-operation and collaboration among learners and support learning from peers,so adults learning in small groups should be embedded in adult education practice.

I believe most of these ideas would fit well within the critical EAP debate. Yet, interestingly, in all these papers I've been reading about EAP and critical EAP, the students are not cast as adults. Rather, they are projected as being in some twilight zone of half-formed, still-to-be-shaped entity caught between youth and adulthood. I suppose this arises at least partly from perceptions that they are, as non-native users of English, regarded as insufficiently literate and so deficient. In fact, they are not deficient. Actually, they just come from another discourse. The students that Lillis (2003) writes about in her paper "echo Batkin's emphasis on meaning making as the encounter between difference, on constructing meanings which keep such difference in play. They indicate that the bringing together of different discourses is something they desire in their making of new meanings in academia, and thus exemplify the potential creative forms of hybridity/hybrid texts which are, Bakhtin (1981, p36) says: 'pregnant with potential for new world views, with new 'internal forms' for perceiving the world in words'(p.205)."

On reflection, I see parallels here with the Open Wananga, the institution for which I work. Many Maori and Pacific Island young adults, but also many non-Maori adults, including the immigrant learners who are in my ESOL class who want to engage with lifelong learning often stand outside the dominant discourse of the monologic institutions. Nevertheless, they are intent on meaning making consistent with their own unique world views, which may be either culturally distinct or individually unique. So, The Open Wananga fills a void and opens up a new space. In doing so, who knows what potential it might give birth to.

Ka kite ano,

Mike

Bakhtin, M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In M. Holquist (ed). The Dialogic Imagination. Four Essays by M. Bakhtin (trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Brookfield, S. D. (1986). Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


Draper, J. A. (1992). The Dynamic Mandala of Adult Education. Convergence 23(6): 73-81.

Draves, W.A. (1997). How to Teach Adults. 2nd ed. Manhattan, KS: Learnining Resources Network.

Grissom, B. M. (1992. Fosteriing Adult Learning Principles for Your Staff: One Administrator's Perspective of teh Value of Conferences. Adult Learning 4, (1): 15-17.

Knowles, M.S. (1992). Aplying Principles of Adult Learning in Conference Presentations." Adult Learning 4, (2): 11-14.

Lillis, 2003. Student writing as 'Academic Literacies': Drawing on Bakhtin to Move from Critique to Design. Language and Education, 17,(3).


Vella, J. (1994). Learning to listen, learning to teach: the power of dialogue in educating adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ED 368 926

Systemic Functional Linguistics website

Hi



Found this site with some interesting articles.

http://www.isfla.org/Systemics/

Ecclectic ramblings of an English teacher

Hi

Thank you all for your patience.

I am slowly coming to the conclusion that I am not a teacher, like Mike who sees his role as a coach I see my role as a facilitator of the English language. In this role I believe there is a necessity to draw upon whatever resources we can and in my practical experience, the private schools I have worked in may not the resources readily available or willingly accept change. Regardless of this, currently, my viewpoint is the lexical approach, genre and SFL provide rich resources waiting to be exploited by us as we “facilitate” the students learning of the English language.

The problem and critique of the lexical approach is the lack of a detailed learning theory and the memorization of an abundant number of “chunks” (Thornbury, 1998). However given the theoretical basis of noticing is not clearly defined, input that becomes intake is likely to be enhanced by the lexical approach and I tend to agree “it is likely to be helpful to make learners explicitly aware of the lexical nature of language” (Lewis, 2000, p.161), and without focusing explicitly on the grammar. This was clearly illustrated in the idea of “a game” (Lewis, 2000) where the generalisations and analyses provide incomplete rules. However students want explanations and what can I do except use the standard grammar descriptions? Clearly the answer is more training but in what! SFL offers an approach to provide an explanation which is more complete than the traditional grammar approach and I view it as something we as teachers can draw upon to explain to students as required when they are being exposed to lexical chunks. Of course this is provided I know SFL which at present I find daunting!

The school I work in has prepared its own materials and has a set syllabus which I have taught and the focus is on form, vocabulary, listening, reading and communicative competency Assessments for students are based on the first four “skills” and the last is by the teacher being observed. There is little time to do anything else as there are tests based on this material every six weeks. Success in these tests results in the students moving up to the next level as they have demonstrated they have attained the necessary competency for that level. There is no writing assessment and clearly the grammar points, which they have “mastered” is ineffective when the students write a short essay. Writing is left for the IELTS and EAP classes.

My criticism is not directed at the approaches but the practical application in the classroom. In particular, the issues revolve around private language schools, which need to cater to the whims of the international student and they tend to take a factory mentality approach with teaching staff. Firstly, International students have preconceived ideas of what makes a good teacher, teaching methodology that is “radically different” to their expectations results in complaints, especially if they do not have a productive component in the lessons. For instance, “we do not have a chance to speak or use English”, “we want to speak more English” resulting in a focus on communicative competency. However there are other students who see this as unhelpful as they want to study a degree programme or go to a New Zealand university so they have specific English requirements such as doing an IELTS course or an EAP course. Here the benefits of having a repertoire of “approaches” that we as teachers can draw upon are invaluable. For instance “reaching in” to the genre approach and using moves for the different types of text from letters to more academic expositions I believe offers students more in terms of noticing and understanding the English language for their specific requirements.

Secondly, teachers do not have enough time to prepare materials especially when they are teaching at least 5 hours a day and have to supervise activities as required for pastoral care. However it does not mean that we should not try to learn more or get more training, it is getting the institution to recognise the teachers are an asset to be developed rather than be used.

To conclude the more I learn the less I know but I find it stimulating as we explore the approaches.

L8ter

Lewis, M. (2000). Teaching collocations: Further developments in the lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Thornbury, S. (1998).The Lexical Approach: A journey without maps? Modern English Teacher.

Chanjuan Du Week 4(SFL)

When I first read Chapter 1 of Using functional grammar: An explorer’s guide (2nd ed), I found it was practical and functional indeed. From our first introduced teaching method--lexical approach to genre, one theme is the focus: "real English" in the "real social world" expressed via communication. That's why terms like context of culture, context of situation sound quite familiar. It elaborates the definition of "field", "tenor", and "mode" concerning the context of situation. Meanwhile, the two linguistic levels as content level and expression level are shown by a figure clearly. (Butt, Fahey, Feez, Spinks,& Yallop, 2000).
However, I nearly forgot this is only the first introductory chapter of a book. Then when I started to deepen more, I got stunned. Just as Thompson (2004) states that students may be understandably daunted, not only by the abstruse explanations but simply by the amount of new terminology. It is true that I tried very hard to understand and distinguish between a Value and a Token, a Material Process and a Behavioural Process, a Range and a Goal. At the beginning it seemed clear but after a while it became confusing with each other again, which is quite disappointing.
According to Thompson (2004), "One important implication of the functional view of language is that context and language are interdependent."(p.9) Meanwhile, communication is bi-lateral, so we should The delicate analysis of grammar function is more theoretical. In practice, what we need to know is just to pay attention to what, whom and how to talk. After all, in social communication, the important thing is only to understand others and make ourselves understood better.
By the way, the concept "tenor" reminds one common question in listening comprehension test: What is the most probable relationship between the two speakers? Now I know why there is such question designed in a test.

References:

Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks., S., & Yallop., C. (2000). Using functional grammar: An explorer’s guide (2nd ed). Sydney: NCELTR

Thompson, G. (2004) . Introducing functional grammar (2nd edition), Oxford University Press, Inc, New York

Mike on SFL week 4

Darryl described the subject of SFL as 'dense'. Aptly put, but in my view perhaps even an understatement!

That said, I can certainly see the great value in SFL for the non-native immigrant learners that I work with. With its focus on the purposes and uses of language (Gerot and Wignell, 1994) and the context-text connection (Butt, et al., 2000), especially the recognition that all communication is culture- and situation-bound (Burns and Knox, 2005), SFL offers my students a powerful approach to grammar teaching, indeed potentially the fostering of language acquisition. Indeed, from what I'm aware of anecdotally, the use of SFL coupled with genre analysis in ESOL educational contexts in Australia, indeed in education more broadly in that country, has become widespread because of its positive results.

Alas, I am dubious/sceptical that SFL could be an approach that I could comprehensively employ with my students, that is to build a syllabus around, for reasons similar to those explored by Adam Kilburn (1999). At best, I might experiment with SFL, but not without considerable difficulties, including as Kilburn suggests difficulties that "arise from my own weaknesses when it comes to grammar knowledge" (p.35), and certainly with my complete lack of knowledge about SFL. Gaining such knowledge to the point where I felt that I had command of SFL sufficient to feel comfortable using it in the classroom will take me considerable time and effort, which I am prepared to invest in comining months (years!?). So I've taken out several books on the subject from the AUT library -- two of which I highly recommend to any of you (Gerot and Wignell, 1994; Gerot, 1995). Both are eminently fathomable -- literally, SFL for dummies (like me).

Apart from this, there are issues (again, explored by Kilburn, 1999) that compound my scepticism about the efficacy of SFL as a mainstream approach in my classroom. Kilburn (1999) talks about the problem of the "institutional culture" (p.34) from the point of view of the institutional demands that teachers should provide students (expllicitly or implicitly) with what the students think they want as opposed to what they actually need. Additionally, there is the problem of student perceptions and expectations about good teaching based on learners' past experiences of methods employed by previous English language tutors over the years. The explicit traditional grammar syllabus through which they have all been programmed in over the years back in their home countries is, as Kilburn describes it, conservative and limited. Teachers, he says, are reluctant to break the mold despite abundant research (e.g. Ellis, 1993) documenting the limitations of ttraditional ,explicitly taught grammar syllabuses.

I suspect it will take, as Kilburn suggests, a considerable push on both the learners and the educational institutions by convinced teachers before SFL really takes hold within New Zealand's ESOL circles. As a teacher, I can experiement with it in a kind of middling (or is that muddling?) way, working with my learners to become more familiar with top down ways of viewing language and get them more confident in dealing with language which is culture-determined Kilburn, 1999). Then, as I become more capable myself with SFL and discover course books and instructional materials providers that employ an SFL approach, or develop materials myself over time, I might expect eventually to see syllabus shift occurring.

However, in so far as the prospect of SFL really catching hold in New Zealand in years to come is concerned, it's going to take a big push by educational institutions (who are, unfortunately, market driven; i.e. 'give customers what they want') to convince NZ educators and education officials, expecially funders such as the Tertiary Education Commission and arbiters of qualifications such as NZQA to buy in to the virtues of SFL. Unfortunately, unlike Australia, the New Zealand government has dragged its feet over the years on developing a comprehensive national language policy upon which to build a progressive framework that will scaffold ESOL teaching advancement in this country.

Ka kite ano,
Mike





References:

Burns, A. and Knox, J. (2005) Realisation(s): Systemic-functional linguistics and the language classroom. In N. Bartels (ed), Applied linguistics and language teacher education, pp. 235-259. New York: Kluwer Academic.

Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., and.Yallop, C. (2000). Chapter 1 in Using Functional Grammar. An Explorer's Guide (2nd ed.). Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.

Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL quarterly, 27, 1: 91-113.

Gerot, L. (1995). Making Sense of Text. Cammeray, NSW: Antipodean Educational Enterprises

Gerot, L. and Wignell, P. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Cammeray, NSW: Antipodean Educational Enterprises.

Kilburn, A. (1999). Square holes and round pegs: ELICOS and Functional Grammar. Do they fit? Interchange 35: 31-35.

Chanjuan Du Week3(genre)

The teaching approach focusing on genre is another interesting point besides lexical approach. Additionally, comparing with the two approaches we've learned so far, I shall say that lexical approach is more suitable for teaching English speaking,while the genre, English writing. Bhatia.V.K(1993) made a survey about genre , most participant teachers revealed that genre is limited in teaching writing course. However, whether speaking or writing, both belong to or involve in communication. If students "are to feel encouraged and motivated, real meaning and communication must be part of classroom activity, even at low levels of linguistic ability. Nothing is more motivating than real communication." (Lewis, M. (2002) :P39)

According to Bhatia V.K(1993), the development of applied discourse analysis has gone through at least 4 levels of linguistic description, which are register analysis, grammatical-rhetorical analysis, interactional analysis and finally genre analysis, from surface to deep level. What discourse analysis needs is a modle rich in socio-cultural, institutional and organizational explanation. Genre analysis is just such a modle. What we were presented in class, like those genres concerning "good(bad) news letters and academic research papers, is really practical in socio-cultural contexts. Following creative genre teaching, students will feel at ease to accomplish what they are required.

This reminds me of two parts of my teaching scheme in China: Text-structure analysis and Writing. Students are required to write an article following the same structure. One of the most impressive patterns is the "Problem-Solution-Evaluation" pattern. The topics are in a wide range: environmental protection, traffic jam, internet, and so forth. With clear presentation and instruction of certain structure, students are usually very productive and high-efficient, but without much diversity of course. It is a kind of genre teaching.

Apparently, teaching with genre is very practical and gives students a road map to know where to go and how to go there. Therefore, nowadays many test takers just memorize so-called "universal writing modle" to prepare for the writing part of each exam, including TOEFL and IELTS. But at the same time, another interesting concerning it is that because of too many identical formats in all kinds of tests, examiners get bored and may give a low mark to a seemingly perfect "modle-follow" article. Is it really the case? I'm not sure but I really wanna know.

References:

Bhatia V.K.(1993) Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. Longman Group UK Limited

Lewis M. (2002) The Lexical Approach: the state of ELT and a way forward. Australia. : Thomson Heinle

Genre Analysis - How low can you go?

Kia ora colleagues,

The numerous papers I've been reading on genre analysis (GA) (and its close cousin discourse analysis) have generated many questions. Honing down the implications of GA as an Approach to language teaching and learning, I found myself thinking about how it might be applied in the ESOL class I teach (which I have described in last week's posting).

My first question centered around whether or not GA can be effective with lower level students; or perhaps put another way: to what extent it can be helpful in working at or below the intermediate ability level. I am sceptical about its efficacy for ESOL learners at these lower levels, but would like to understand it better. Assuming that my scepticism is perhaps misplaced, however, then my next question concerns whether, and to what extent, my taking a GA approach with my ESOL class of approximately intermediate level migrant ESOL students would impact on the course syllabus. Would it entail merely minor adjustments or complete rethinking/reformulation of the syllabus? Would I have to throw out all the materials I've developed or collected over the past year and a half and start anew, or could I just integrate or mesh the GA approach in some fashion with what I'm already working with?

My first question about the efficacy of using GA with lower level students is prompted by a claim by Michael McCarthy in his preface to Discourse Analyis for Language Teachers that discourse analysis (which I think is a closely related cousin of GA) is "not a method of teaching languages; it is a way of describing and understanding how language is used" (McCarthy 1991, p.2). McCarthy later amended his position, writing with Ronald Carter another book on the subject in 1994 in which they supported the idea of providing students with a metalanguage by which to analyse the language they were learning. Flowerdew (1993) also discusses a number of what he terms "metacommunication tasks" in which learners analyse and discuss a piece of discourse.

Now, working with metalanguage or metacommunication suggests to me firstly a fairly sophisticated level of cognitive abilities and secondly a reasonably fluent and accurate skill in the target language through which my students would be trying to communicate the rather complex ideas flowing from their mental ruminations. They're struggling enough to learn basic communication in the target language, let alone capture, store and retrieve some new metalanguage! And, would they even be motivated? What is more, Genre Analysis seems to me to be heavily concentrated on reading and writing communication (important, of course, but perhaps better suited to EAP/ESP?).

I don't doubt that, Discourse and Genre Analyses can indeed contribute appropriate subject matter for the advanced English learner. Additionally, and very importantly, such approaches can help them to critically examine the many, often quite distinctive cultural and
discourse-community assumptions associated with various types of communication in the target language (and in comparison with their native languages). So, I remain sceptical but open to what, in terms of real value, can such approaches offer students operating at the lower language levels.

Perhaps making GA work at these lower levels is simply a matter of scaling back the Approach and incorporating elements of it that might be useful without getting too entrenched in the metacognitive, analytical component. Paltridge (2001) examines conversation in light of the genre approach and its application in the language learning classroom, despite differing views in the literature as to whether conversation should be treated as a genre in language learning classroom at all (Swales,1990). Paltridge (2001) points out that focusing on conversation conventions such as openings and closings, internal structures, turn-taking, repair, etc. is as important as teaching grammar and vocabulary. He concludes that "focusing on them in the context of conversation as a genre provides both a context of use and a communicative setting that learners are already familiar with, even though they are not always sure of the different sets of rules for participating in their second language." (pp. 39-40)

Finally, to my second and related questions briefly... How much adjustment to the course syllabus might I need to make in order to incorporate a genre analysis approach? I think I can get by in the near term being opportunitist about applying GA in the context of my current syllabus (and assuming I can find appropriate elements of it to use in my intermediate level context). Over time, I could begin to critically examine components of the coure syllabus with an eye to aligning them more completely with genre analysis providing a substantially greater proportion of the pedagogical underpinnings, as appropriate.

Ka kite ano,

Mike

References:

Flowerdew, J. 1993. An educational, or process, approach to the teaching of professional genres. ELT Journal 47 (4): 305-16.

McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers, Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

McCarthy, M. (1994). Language as Discourse. Perspectives for Language Teaching. Essex: Longman Group.

Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the Language Learning Classroom. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cmbridge University Press.

The Lexical Approach

Hello team,

Here are some of my thoughts about the Lexical Approach and language teaching.

The Lexical approach is an essential subject in English language teaching. From being a second language learner to a language teacher, I experienced how difficult for English learners to learn lexis and put them into meaningful chucks. Although I am measured as a fluent English speaker, I still struggle with multi-words chucks sometimes. I often doubt myself in chucks like ‘one on one tutoring’ or ‘one to one tutoring’, ‘How’s going?’ or ‘How are you doing?’ etc. It would be great if someone could clarify what’s different between these chucks in a same context.

In the past, the lexical approach wasn’t considered as significant subject to introduce by language teachers. Even now, some language teachers don't use lexical approach in their classroom teaching. And also they don't teach students in a natural way, I mean the way how native speakers speak. For example, they teach students to speak like 19th century, such as “How are you?” “I am fine, thank you. How are you?”, “How old are you? “I am 20 years old. How old are you?” and so on. Unfortunely, these kind of the words which make them talk like robot and they don’t understand other words which used in everyday communication by native speakers. Last year, I was teaching intermediate level students in a language school. One day in the school, I saw a student and greeted to her “how’s going?” That student smiled at me and thought a while and replied, “I am going to classroom.” Another example, I was greeting to all students before starting the class one morning, “how are you this morning?” They replied “I am fine, thank you. How are you this morning?” The examples show that when students are taught in a mechanical way, they would struggle with the words which used by native speakers, and more problem is to affect their communication skills. However, in recent study shows that the lexical approach and language teaching has been drawn enormous attention by scholars. There are many journals and books about the lexical approach demonstrated how its magnificent role in language teaching.

Yet, “In implementing the lexical approach that what we actually do in the classroom may not change very much as a result of our own change in thinking about centrality of Lexis in the language and the language learning process. But we can bring about a gradual change in learner’s perception of the language and lead them towards greater autonomy in identifying multi-words chucks in language study (Michael Lewis as cited in Baigent, 1999).

Reference:

Baigent, M. (1999). Teaching in Chunks: integrating a lexical approach. Modern English Teacher, 8(2), 51-54.

Greetings,

It seems we've covered a lot of ground in a short space of time. I thought I'd begin by describing my teaching context and how it relates to what we've been discussing and reading about before commenting on points that I regard as significant found two of the texts from last week's readings.

I teach a CESOL (Certificate in ESOL) course for Open Wananga (Te Wananga o Aotearoa). It's designated as Level 4, which means I have students who've been studying with us now at least 3 semesters and might be described as being within the intermediate range (pre to upper). It's a full time course (20 hours a week) comprised of immigrants, mostly of 'Asian' thnicity, primarily Korean and Chinese (including Taiwanese), with relatively fewer southeast Asian, and Indian adult learners (almost all over forty). However, there are also some Eastern Europeans and Russians. Many of them have lived in New Zealand for many years (e.g. 15 years), and began their studiens of the Enlgish language in intermediate and secondary levels of schooling back in their countries of origin. Yet most often you wouldn't believe it to hear them speak.

Their motivations are varied. Many enjoy the socialising. Many of them live in ethnic ghettos and get by just fine never speaking English on a day to day basis, but their children go to NZ schools and are being 'kiwi-ised. As parents, they're eager to better understand what their kids are up to in school and their social lives. If any of my students have a job (most do not), then they are exposed to, indeed immersed in, the English language on a daily basis and they are highly motivated to improve their English language skills abilities.

The course itself is built around themes or topics and strongly content-based. The first four themes are explored over the first eight weeks: Memories, Education, Fashion, and fourthly Animals. Sounds a bit corny, perhaps, but I work hard to make it meaningful, stimulating (in terms of discussion) and thoughtful, and I take a critical approach. For example, with animals we take a deeper look at the importance of biodiversity to the survival of our planet and, indeed, humanity and so critically examine the threats that are unravelling the delicate balance of life on Earth which could even lead to our (or our civilisation's) demise. Later in the course, we explore 1) Teamwork (students work in teams to complete a project, 2) Problem Solving, 3) Conflict Resolution and finally 4) Te Ao Maori and Intercultural Communication. Bascially, the course is about using the English language to explore, critically examine and discuss ideas, drawing conclusions from what we've leaned (not about the language necessarily, but about the ideas we've explored). It goes well beyond a "task-based approach" to teaching ESOL. And the students are really challenged.

I've gotten a lot of positive feedback from students Ive taught during the past two semesters. However, that's subjective feedback. The objective feedback comes through assessment -- i.e., the students successfully complete the tasks assigned to them over the 18 weeks, producing the required outcomes and meeting the various performance criteria. However, I have observed that although the topics and what they must do to complete the associated tasks generate a lot of fluency, the students' accuracy falls well short of anything "native-like" in most cases (there are a few exceptions, of course, with a few students who have reached post-intermediate stage).

I suspect part of the problem with accuracy lies with the pedagogical approaches used back in their homeland schools (e.g. probably grammar translations and/or notional functional), along with intense fossilisation and coupled with the fact that they have generally failed to immerse themselves in the English speaking environment here (among other things).

Focus-on-form(s) (on the infrequent occasions I do it that way), error correction, feedback on errors seem to fall on deaf ears generally, and students carry on as before. My experience is that I have very little control over what my students actually learn and reproduce in their spontaneous language use. What to do?

By way of response, the readings from Lewis (2000) and Hoey (2005) have been inspirational to me. Lewis's (and others') writings on the Lexical Approach that I've read highlight the importance of and appropriate means to "acquire" the language. The learner through noticing comprehensible input should be able to produce the language in a more natural and accurate (i.e, native-like) manner. The methodology allows learners to experience language (items or natural langauge phrases) as they arise in natural contexts and to learn from their experience. This meshes well with the course syllabus I'm currently working to. My students are continually confronted by authentic materials that embody real, relevant language, which they must notice, interpret, exchange with others and use in performing the requisite tasks.

Lewis did throw me a couple of curve balls: the idea that teaching does not cause learning raised the question for me of "then what the heck am I doing in the classroom everyday?". After some reflection, I came to the conclusion that I'm not a 'teacher'; I'm a coach. The students are responsible for their learning. My job is to help my students explore the language through creating the correct environment and by providing them with high-quality, authentic input. Iprovide training so as to enable them to notice relevant aspects of that input, and compare those features with their own intra-language so that they might be able to notice the gap -- on their own (i.e. independently; not through my telling them what's wrong with what they've said or written; or explaining all over again the rules of grammar that they know full well already).

The other idea that Lewis brought through, which is one that I baulked at, was his claim that classroom interaction does not support language acquisition. "You cannot acquire a language by producing it." (Lewis 2000, p. 159). Nor, he says, does the normal practice by students of what is noticed contribute to acquisition. While this may be the case, surely acquisition is just one of various other purposes or aims that a teacher (or the student) may have in the LL classroom which interaction supports. Most students want to practice their speaking, if only as a confidence booster. Another purpose for production is that of assessment. How does a teacher (or the student for that matter) determine whether progress is being in the absence of any production?

How is a student to notice the difference between what is communicatively effective in their interlanguge and what is formally 'correct' and thereby have reason to modify their current intergrammer if they do not engage in communicative production? Indeed, in what appears to me to be a contradiction, Lewis (2000), in discussing his OHE model in which E stands for 'experiment', says that "Experiment involves using the language on the basis of the learner's current intergrammar (that is, his or her current best hypothesis), thereby stimulating new input at the appropriate level to provide examples, which confirm or contradict some part of the learner's current hypothesis. Mastery happens -- if ever -- when new input serves only to conform the learner's intergrammar" (p.178).

Finally, to a point made by Hoey (2005) in his writing about what he called "lexical priming" with respect to collocations: a point he made that caught my attention got me thinking about the fluency vs. accuracy dichotomy if referred to in the beginning of this blog (they are rather fluent, but significantly inaccurate in speaking). My hunch is that so many of my students are quite seriously fossilised to the extent that I might hypothesise that they have some quite strong, but inaccurate lexical primings of their own stored away in their mental lexicons, in the same way that native speakers have correctly stored and can retrieve their own, correct lexical phrases that are primed. As Hoey defines them, primings (of words) nest and combine and in quite certain contexts. Hoey makes the point that lexical primings may crack, and one of the causes is education. So if a word is primed for someone to collocate with a particular other word and a teacher tells the person that it is incorrectly primed (e.g. you and was) the result is a potential crack in the priming. Could this form the basis of an approach, or at least a tool, for cracking wrong primings in my learners in order to crack open the fossilised forms and replace them with correct forms?

I think this may tend to support and idea for some action research I want to put into effect in my classroom at some point his semester (apart from fuller intergration of the Lexical Approach into my class work). I plan to make audio recordings of my students' discussions about the news, which we do everyday at the beginning of class for about 15 minutes -- talk about a news item they saw, heard or read about in the news media the night before. These records would provide a compendium of error types which I would then categorise, backed up by authentic interlanguage examples. I could then use selected examples in class as part of a lesson in which students are exposed to (listen to) the audio recorded errors and then engage in a whole class discussion (under my coaching) to search for lexical chunks/phrases that a native speaker might use instead to say the same thing. That's an action research plan that's in the development stage at the moment.

Ka kite ano, Mike

Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: a new theory of words and language. London: Routledge


Lewis, M. (2000). In Lewis, M. (ed.), Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications

Chanjuan Du Week2

Being born at the very end of 1970's in a rural area of China, I feel lucky as well as unexpected to have access to higher education and then be an English teacher myself.

Traditional English"grammar-translation" method prevailed in China in 1990's (and still now as well), especially in rural areas, with few resources concerning real English communication. The process was usually: vocabulary-sentences-text-grammar-exercises, which sounds pretty boring. But believe it or not, via the traditional way, I got a systematic picture of English grammar rules and I can apply them to using.

Lightbown, P.,& Spada, N.(1999) state that "most of us teach as we were taught or in a way that reflects our ideas and preference about learning". Looking back on my own learning and teaching experiences, I suppose it is the case, to some extent at least. After being exposed to the lexical approach, I start to retrospect what I did to my students. I may be constrained too much by coursebooks and national standard syllabus.

However, according to Lewis, M.,(2002), "one can change syllabus without changing method, or change method without changing syllabus". Meanwhile, I still think that traditional grammar-based method has its own advantage in teaching in a systematic way. Therefore, effectively combining the two may be a right orientation.

References:

Lewis, M. (2002) The Lexical Approach: the State of ELT and a WAY Forward, Australia. : Thomson Heinle

Lightbown, P.,& Spada, N.(1999) How Languages are learned, Oxford : Oxford University Press

Focus Group 1

This is where you'll begin blogging about the contemporary and alternative language teaching issues that are introduced in the Focus lectures.