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,
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)