ELT Curriculum

The first article for today--chapter 3 of the Anthology--was about lesson planning. This chapter, to me, was very straight forward, since I spent all of last semester in a lesson planning class.  I really found the chapter 7 article on ELT curriculum to be very interesting.  Denise Finney describes how in today's research on some of the planning that is being done in language learning classrooms.  She proposes ideas of the major types of curriculum which include content (what is to be learned by/transmitted to the learner), objectives, and process (enable individuals to progress toward self-fulfillment).  But, as Finney points out that most classrooms tend to "be a blend of all three" (77).  I agree with Finney in a blending of all three of these approaches.  I can't image only going with one in a classroom setting, that would not seem beneficial for students.  Finney also states "there is a need for flexibility and openness to change and influences from the broader perspective of general education theory" (77).  I agree.  Students do not adhere to a cookie-cutter model, so why should we expect them to in our approaches?

Content Based Instruction

The article in Anthology, "Project Work: A Means to Promote Language and Content," was one I felt  to be very interesting.  It talks about Content Based Instruction (CBI) where the activities in the classroom are based on what it being taught.  I think this seems quite like common sense--activities should relate to what one is trying to teach in the classroom.  The article goes on to list how it helps to motivated students in their work.  CBI also brings about the idea of Project Work--which is just as it sounds, sometimes with group work, though.  I rather like the idea of CBI and Project work because there seems to be endless possibilities when it comes to classroom activities and projects that will help students to get excited and interested in the material being covered.

Week 5: Task Based Instruction. Tue. 9/20

Today's readings were comprised of two articles that highlight the basic ideas for task based learning, as Peter Skehan explains in his article on the subject that "naturalistic use (of a language) has to come first and is necessary to drive forward interlanguage" (1).  Task-based learning has students accomplish proficiency through exposure to real-life scenarios with the target language.  The article also brought up the idea of Focus-on-Form where "learners may be participating in interactions with meaning as primary, there is some concern on form" (2).    I think that task-based instruction is good because it gets students to deal with more real, practical context for language, but I think it would probably work best with some sort of combination with communicative language teaching in order to better reach proficiency.  I think using the two together would bring a more holistic view of learning for the students and help them to understand concepts more efficiently.

Hu's Article

In going with this week's theme of communicative language teaching (CLT), Guangwei Hu, in his article "Potential Cultural Resistance to Pedagogical Imports: The Case of Communicative Language Teaching in China, shows how CLT is used in China to teach English.  While it would seem like CLT would be a good choice for Chinese learners of English, Hu points out that CLT conflicts with traditional views on education in Chinese culture.  Hu states that since Chinese education is primarily based on Confucian thinking that education is seen as"a goal in itself [that] has been internalised throughout Chinese society, even by those who themselves have not received any schooling" (Hu 97) and that CLT conflicts with this way of thinking because it does not strive for necessarily the fully mastery of the language.  I find this very interesting, as it seems that CLT can be very helpful in learning another language, especially in the ever-expanding world of global business, but I can also understand why the Chinese would not want to over-turn hundreds of years worth of practice and philosophy of education because of something that would make learning easier.  It's interesting, to me, since we as Americans tend to forget how young we are in our thinking and want the quick and easy way to solve a problem or learn a concept, while so many other cultures have been cultivating ideas for centuries.

Response to Kuma. Chapt. 3

I thought Kuma's chapter on Maximizing Learning Opportunities raised some interesting points to consider.  I particularly like what he has to say about the limitations that teachers must realize they have in their classroom.  He outlines the limitations of agendas (lesson plans), materials, and syllabus specifications.  He says that "teachers know that they cannot become prisoners of their own agenda" (45), I find this to be very true.  How can one expect to teach and learn if one cannot be flexible with one's students?  He goes on to state "what is taught is different from what is available to learn" (45-46) and teachers have to be willing to be flexible for their students, the same with materials and the syllabus for the class.  We, as future educators, must adapt to our students' needs in order to better facilitate learning, and in turn become better teachers.

Response to Pennycook

Pennycook's article provided interesting views and ideas on critical approaches to TESOL, which include critical domain, transformative pedagogy, and self-reflective stance on critical theory.  Each is important in understanding how to approach the issue of teaching English to speakers of other languages when in the classroom.  I mostly enjoyed what he had to say about the different power relationships that one encounters in TESOL.  One quote particularly caught my attention was when he states that some researchers feel there is a "need to address the inequalities in the relationship between the constructs of the native speaker and the nonnative speaker" (333).  I found this interesting because got me to think about this relationship that we hear about often of the native speaker (NS) and the nonnative speaker (NNS).  There do seem to be quite a bit of inequalities--in placement and such--but to what extent can we help our students?  Is there even a right way?

Response to Kuma. Chapt. 1

In chapter one of Kumaravadivelu's book Beyond Methods, he asks readers to understand the most common types of teaching methods used and to look critically at each.  In the introduction to the chapter he writes that teaching "is basically a subjective activity carried out in an organized way" (5) meaning that no matter what the method, the implementation of the teaching/method is only as good as the teacher.  Kuma states that there are three main types of teaching practices, teachers as passive technicians (using behavioral psychology as a basis for method), teachers as reflective practioners (using reflection as a basis for method), and teachers as transformative  intellectuals ("believing that pedagogy...is embedded in relations of power and dominance, and is employed to create and sustain social inequalities" 13).  Kuma, after detailing each thought, adds that--in most teaching situations--each of these is interchangeable and can work with the other in order to get a somewhat decent method.  I can understand using these three approaches to teaching, but I also can see the danger in not looking out for other methods or trying out other ways in order to get students to learn.