Brown Chapters 6, 7, & 8 & Kumar Chapter 6

Upon reading chapter eight of Brown one thing that popped out to me was when authors stated how well over one-half of the one billion English speakers of the world learned English as a second language, and how most English language teachers across the globe are nonnative English speakers. This fact really shocked me-- not because I don't believe it, but just because I have never thought about this, nor have I heard about it. I remember in one of the first days of class we posed questions about if we should we able to teach students when we have no background in their native language. Also, the book asks the question of how important is it that a teacher of a language be a native speaker of the language instead of a nonnative speaker. I find it so interesting that the book demonstrated how nonnative speakers offer as many or even more advantages to students, and that no-- native speaking teachers are not always best for students to learn from. Being that I am an English teacher, and I originally would have said that yes, it is important that a teacher be a native speaker of the language to teacher students, now I am not so sure. I have never thought about the different legitimate and acceptable English dialects that nonnative speakers take on, nor any of the other difference between NEST and NNEST that can be seen as advantages when it comes to teaching language. This is very interesting and has given me much to think about.

Brown Chapters 4 & 16 & Kumar Chapter 3

Something while reading Kumar chapter three that I was so interested in, and really questioned was when he says, “One crucial way to ensure the accomplishment of lessons is for the teacher to show a willingness to utilize learning opportunities created by the learner, even if the learner talk, from the teacher’s point of view, is not highly relevant to the task at hand” (54). I do not really understand this. I completely understand the importance of learning opportunities that are made by the learner, and the importance of interaction, but should we always continue to let our students take advantage of these opportunities time after time when it takes us off task? I know that it is so important to not be a prisoner of my agenda, and it is important to make changes as class progresses for it to be most meaningful and effective, but what if we cannot let learners take advantage of these learning opportunities and bring it back full circle to relate to class? When do we stop taking advantage of these learner created opportunities to focus on the curriculum? Do we?  The textbook tells us that learning opportunities in the classroom are most effective when teachers and learners are engaged in a joint exploration of learning and teaching and I agree with this; I just do not know how to ensure that my students are learning what the curriculum and standards asks me to teach if many of our learner created discussions are not relevant to our task. 

Potential Cultural Resistance to Pedagogical Imports by Guangwei Hu

Task-based Instruction by Peter Skehan

The End of CLT: A Context Approach to Language Teacher by Stephen Bax

Upon reading the articles for class I could not stop thinking about the way I go about teaching both literature and writing to my students, and how much it is like the Context Approach instead of the CLT.

One aspect I loved about the Skehan article was that he brings up interaction and how “interaction, in itself, is not enough, and insinuation of a focus on form into interaction is very vital” (2). This reminds me so much of how I would go about teaching writing. In the teaching of writing both form and interaction with peers is so important to help a writer progress. Both form and interaction as well help the student to focus on meaning and to convey information to one another which is another aspect Skehan discusses. Like the article says feedback arises when meaning is problematic—this cannot be truer when it comes to reading students papers and making comments. My comments on students’ drafts are usually comprised of questions I have for them. Also I love that he brings up the issue of planning. Planning is another huge aspect of writing and the teaching of writing. Some of our best ideas and best writing comes from the prewriting or planning stage.

Looking at the Stephen Bax article though, when he talks about the differences between the CLT and the Context Apporach this is where our readings really grabbed the attention of my inner English teacher. The main components of the Context Approach as discussed by Bax are:

o   Consider the whole

o   Methodology is just one factor in language learning

o   Other factors may be more important

o   Other methods and approached may work

I feel like this is the mindset of English teachers. As an English teacher I am constantly considering the whole and the big picture. I look at things much more subjectively than teachers in other content areas.  These articles and the Context Approach really made sense to me and I could definitely see the issues with CLT.

Kumar Ch. 2, Brown Ch.3 & TESOL Methods

I love the way that our readings really focused on the word method and its complexity; like William Mackey states the word method really “means so little and so much,” or how our text says “the term method is a label without substance” (Kumaravivelu, 23 & 29). I can really agree with these two statements.  Sometimes when thinking of the word method not everything that goes into its meaning is thought about. For example our text reminds us that method does not refer to what teachers actually do in the classroom, but established methods by experts, and what appears to be a new method is more so an old method with new elements.

Something I have an issue with however, is how our text says that language learning is a linear process when speaking about language-centered methods. I think that much like writing, language learning is not a linear process. I feel like there is a lot of going back and forth with language learning, and in order to truly understand a new language our minds must be flexible. I like the section about learner-centered methods much more and can see how they work when trying to teach a learner another language. I feel like the focus of learner-centered methods really include what is important like being grammatically accurate and communicatively fluent.

Moving forward though, I like the idea of postmethod pedagogy and the use of particularity, practicality, and possibility. I feel like this model brings everything full circle and shows how the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. In language learning especially many components are interweaved with one another and must interact with one another in order to learn a new language efficiently.