As a pre-service teacher, one of my biggest and main concerns is how the theories that I've learned in my methods classes will affect my teaching practices. The readings this week emphasize the importance of maximizing learning opportunities for the learners in our classrooms. As teachers, we need to create the best environment/conditions that are absolutely vital for learning to happen.
Brown discusses twelve principles of language learning: automaticity, meaningful learning, willingness to communicate, language-culture anticipation of reward, language ego, intrinsic motivation, strategic investment, autonomy, interlanguage, communicative competence. All these principles are important factors in getting students to learn. All these principles concentrate on the individualistic aspect of the learner. All these factors can mean the difference between great learning or not at all. That being said, I'm sure many of us (myself included), have been in classrooms where the structure is extremely rigid and solely based on the agenda of the teacher. In the past classrooms that I have been in a classroom where a teacher teaches based on their preferences and learning was very limited for me. There really was no room to learn the way I was comfortable with. Instead of adapting and being flexible, the teacher applied the same view of a student to all students. So of course, learning may occur for those who are on the same page as that teacher, but not all students will necessarily will benefit from the teacher's attitudes toward his/her students.
With these principles and my own personal experience, I ask myself: "How can I tailor my lessons to each student individually?" "Is there a way to accommodate every single student?" As much as I would like to reach every student, I wonder at the practicality and efficiency of actually being able to do this.
In regards to language learning, one of the principles that struck me was language ego. Many language learners are so focused on not making mistakes that they are often hindered in participating and going out on a limb to learn. As teachers, not only do we need to make students comfortable, but communicate to our students that it is perfectly okay to make mistakes; that mistakes help us learn. It also helps the teacher to understand where students are at and where the teacher need to put more focus on in the lesson.
Both the students and teacher has to work together to create the right conditions in which learning will be most effective and that students will be able to take what they learn in the classroom beyond to the world outside of academics.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Monday, September 17, 2012
P. Skehan, G. Hu, S. Bax
The argument that Skehan makes in his argument is that interaction is key in task-based instruction. He goes on to point out that input alone is not sufficient. Interaction is crucial, as well as the "opportunities is provides for learners to receive personalized, well-timed feedback for areas of interlanguage that are problematic"(4). The feedback that the learner receives is important because not only is the feedback from the teacher important, but the feedback from peers as well. It is also a great way for other learners to employ their knowledge and be able to find any mistakes and find an appropriate way to address the issue. Task-based is important because it can allow students to work together in various activities. While the teacher is more of an authority figure in the classroom, it's important for peers to work together so that individuals can contribute to the class.
Hu's article discusses the failure of CLT in the Chinese classroom context. Hu describes CLT and traditional Chinese culture to be "incongruent". CLT is drawn "extensively on developments in sociolinguistics, discourse theory, psycholinguistics, applied linguistics, and second-language research that have occurred largely in the West" (94). Hu explains that CLT doesn't work in the context of the Chinese classroom because between the two, there is a large cultural clash. The classrooms in China promotes an education in which learning is seen as an accumulation of knowledge. Students aren't taught (it probably isn't encouraged either) to challenge their teachers and ask thought provoking questions. Their simple duty in class is to learn and listen to what the teacher says. Education in China is seen as something that grants social mobility, power, and overall superiority. I can see how the CLT method failed to be successful in the context of the Chinese classroom.
Reading Hu's article gave a great lead-in to Bax's article. Bax discusses that teachers need to teach around context. As we see in Hu's article, CLT may be successful in the West, but doesn't work in countries like China. The context of the classroom in the West and China are vastly different. As teachers, we need to be more aware of the context of our classrooms. Two different sections of the same class may require different needs and methods based on the context of the class.
Hu's article discusses the failure of CLT in the Chinese classroom context. Hu describes CLT and traditional Chinese culture to be "incongruent". CLT is drawn "extensively on developments in sociolinguistics, discourse theory, psycholinguistics, applied linguistics, and second-language research that have occurred largely in the West" (94). Hu explains that CLT doesn't work in the context of the Chinese classroom because between the two, there is a large cultural clash. The classrooms in China promotes an education in which learning is seen as an accumulation of knowledge. Students aren't taught (it probably isn't encouraged either) to challenge their teachers and ask thought provoking questions. Their simple duty in class is to learn and listen to what the teacher says. Education in China is seen as something that grants social mobility, power, and overall superiority. I can see how the CLT method failed to be successful in the context of the Chinese classroom.
Reading Hu's article gave a great lead-in to Bax's article. Bax discusses that teachers need to teach around context. As we see in Hu's article, CLT may be successful in the West, but doesn't work in countries like China. The context of the classroom in the West and China are vastly different. As teachers, we need to be more aware of the context of our classrooms. Two different sections of the same class may require different needs and methods based on the context of the class.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Blog Post #2
Chapter 1 & 2 in Kumar's Beyond the Methods discussed teacher acts and the concept of method. What I liked about chapter 1 was that it talked about the role of teacher. I think a lot of textbooks dive right into suggested methods and things of that nature, but I haven't read a lot of textbooks that define the different roles teachers take as well as defining what jobs, vocation, work, careers, and profession are. It's important to know what these terms mean before I can delve into what the book is trying to tell me. It's interesting to see how Kumar has divided teachers roles into three distinct groups: passive technicians, reflective practitioners, and transformative intellectuals.
Teachers as passive technicians are primarily focused on content knowledge. These teachers are given the content knowledge to pass onto to a privileged group of students. Teachers are viewed as "apprentices whose success is measured in terms of how closely they adhere to the professional knowledge base , and how effectively they transmit that knowledge base to students" (Kumar 8). Viewing teachers as passive technicians is a more traditional view and is still a view that is held in different parts of the world.
Teachers as reflective practitioners are not seen as "passive transmitters of received knowledge but as problem-solvers possessing 'the ability to look back critically and imaginatively, to do cause-effect thinking, to derive explanatory principles, to do task analysis, also to look forward, and to do anticipatory planning" (Kumar 10). Instead of the passive teaching, this role of the teachers demands that teachers think and be problem-solvers in their profession. Teachers use reflection-on-action that can occur before and after a lesson, so that teachers can plan their lesson and evaluate the effectiveness of their teaching acts afterward. Reflection-in-action is also used and this occurs during the lesson, when teachers monitor their teaching acts. They identify any problems that arise and make adjustments on the spot.
Lastly, we have teachers as transformative intellectuals. By requiring teacher to be sociopolitically conscious and assertive in acting upon their sociopolitical consciousness, their roles as a teacher go beyond the borders of the classroom. These teachers not only strive for educational advancement, but personal transformation as well. For educational advancement, they form a community of educators "dedicated to the creation and implementation of forms of knowledge that are relevant to their specific contexts and to construct curricula and syllabi around their own and their students' needs, wants, and situations" (Kumar 14). These teachers form a group to work together to become better teacher for their students. And to achieve personal transformation, these teachers try to "educate themselves and their students about various forms of inequality and injustice in the wider society to address and redress them in purposeful and peaceful ways" (14). I think that personal growth in students is just as important as educational advancement for students.
Overall, I think that these three categories that Kumar has sort of divided teachers into is very interesting. I feel as though teachers shouldn't be confined to each of these roles, but they should exhibit a little bit from each role and find a way to be a more effective teacher.
Teachers as passive technicians are primarily focused on content knowledge. These teachers are given the content knowledge to pass onto to a privileged group of students. Teachers are viewed as "apprentices whose success is measured in terms of how closely they adhere to the professional knowledge base , and how effectively they transmit that knowledge base to students" (Kumar 8). Viewing teachers as passive technicians is a more traditional view and is still a view that is held in different parts of the world.
Teachers as reflective practitioners are not seen as "passive transmitters of received knowledge but as problem-solvers possessing 'the ability to look back critically and imaginatively, to do cause-effect thinking, to derive explanatory principles, to do task analysis, also to look forward, and to do anticipatory planning" (Kumar 10). Instead of the passive teaching, this role of the teachers demands that teachers think and be problem-solvers in their profession. Teachers use reflection-on-action that can occur before and after a lesson, so that teachers can plan their lesson and evaluate the effectiveness of their teaching acts afterward. Reflection-in-action is also used and this occurs during the lesson, when teachers monitor their teaching acts. They identify any problems that arise and make adjustments on the spot.
Lastly, we have teachers as transformative intellectuals. By requiring teacher to be sociopolitically conscious and assertive in acting upon their sociopolitical consciousness, their roles as a teacher go beyond the borders of the classroom. These teachers not only strive for educational advancement, but personal transformation as well. For educational advancement, they form a community of educators "dedicated to the creation and implementation of forms of knowledge that are relevant to their specific contexts and to construct curricula and syllabi around their own and their students' needs, wants, and situations" (Kumar 14). These teachers form a group to work together to become better teacher for their students. And to achieve personal transformation, these teachers try to "educate themselves and their students about various forms of inequality and injustice in the wider society to address and redress them in purposeful and peaceful ways" (14). I think that personal growth in students is just as important as educational advancement for students.
Overall, I think that these three categories that Kumar has sort of divided teachers into is very interesting. I feel as though teachers shouldn't be confined to each of these roles, but they should exhibit a little bit from each role and find a way to be a more effective teacher.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)