Reading the article reminded me of a class I taught before I came to America. It was one of the required courses in English department of a Korean college and the title was "Practical English". I think most of non-native English speaking countries' colleges have a similar course. Honestly I still have no idea of what "practical English" is. Unlike the curricula in the article, what would be the practical in EFL setting? At a glance, the problem is that it is hard to testify or verify the "practicality" of what the students will learn in EFL settings. What I did in the class was just introducing how to settle down into American community as a foreigner, just like in the article - arrival at the airport, housing, getting a driver's license, buying a car, shopping, American holidays, etc., all of whose expressions are hardly used in Korea. I was deceiving the students by forcing them to take that English is real, authentic, useful, therefore practical.
According to the authors, students' roles outside the classroom should be taken into consideration of English teaching curriculum, but if students' roles outside the classroom in EFL settings is different from those in ESL settings, more specifically, if students' English usage outside the classroom is rare, then the consideration of the role should be taken into another aspect, for example, what they want to learn in English class in general.
Extremely speaking, a real practical English could be a business English, for example, if we suppose the practicality is about what students need in English learning.
The problem is, to what extent do we follow their needs as a teacher?
I don't know...
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The Native - Non-native English teachers inequality in reality
While I was reading articles on the absurdity of NS-NNS English teachers, I was happy to get to know that being a Non-native English speaker is not a shame but advantage which I can take. I agree to Dr. Paul Matsuda Key's idea that being proud of being a non-native English speaker but it would be hard for me to be proud of being a non-native English teacher in my country. The prevailing preference to westerners for an English teacher is so deep-rooted in the society that it seems impossible to change people's (mis)conception about native English teachers. Still we cannot stop being proud of ourselves as non-native English teachers, I believe. I don't think we have to fight the reality but need to invest more on ourselves, just to be a better non-native English teacher. Just as a good plumber knows how to unclog a sink easily.
Wny don't we have a look at the recruitment of native English teachers in Korea?
http://www.ybmedu.com/introduction/2_instructor1_01.asp?sCodeVal=31&pt_seq=17&pt_name=Speaking%5B%BF%DC%B1%B9%C0%CE%C8%B8%C8%AD%5D
Ask yourself here. "What if you are teaching their classes, in English, as a non-native English teacher? Are you 100% sure you're gonna confident and better than those natives?"
Wny don't we have a look at the recruitment of native English teachers in Korea?
http://www.ybmedu.com/introduction/2_instructor1_01.asp?sCodeVal=31&pt_seq=17&pt_name=Speaking%5B%BF%DC%B1%B9%C0%CE%C8%B8%C8%AD%5D
Ask yourself here. "What if you are teaching their classes, in English, as a non-native English teacher? Are you 100% sure you're gonna confident and better than those natives?"
Monday, September 21, 2009
Comment on Bonny Norton Pierce (1995) and TQ chapter 4
The notion “investment” rather than “motivation” reminds me of many happenings of mine as an L2 English speaker, when I read Bonny Norton Peirce(1995) and TQ chapter 4. Let me write down some of things going around in my mind;
1. Why do I sometimes speak English well and sometimes not?
2. What is the biggest obstacle to me? What is my biggest anxiety in conversing in English?
3. What would be their difference of investment between a poor, single, not-pretty Asian girl and a rich, single, handsome Arabic guy?
4. How could we trace back the beginning of the unstable, unfixed, ever-changing subjectivity/identity while we teach L2 learners? (the difficulty or problem of the real reason of the L2 learners’ investment is hard to detect or evaluate or quantify).
5. When we distinguish the L2 learning environment into two – in the class and outside the class, who and what factors decide the “authenticity of learning environment”?
Cf. evaporation of English when students come out of the class.
6. Every student has his/her own, specific, particularized reason of learning a foreign language. How can the teachers find a way of teaching when they have a multicultural, multiethnic class?
TQ chapter 4
1. To understand student’s sympathy and synchronize ourselves as teacher to their motivation(or investment), class size matters. What do you think the best size of an L2 class?
Cf. One-to-one teaching/learning would be best, but there’s no best or perfect number of students to teach. It just depends on how you teach.
2. Don’t be obsessed by cultural misconception, prejudice, or preconception. See who they are, what they want as they are.
3. Teachers should have flexibility in teaching to cope with all the sudden happenings and changes in class during the entire semester.
4. As in the article and TQ chapter 4, we can enhance students’ subjectivity. How far can the subjectivity go? Particularly in a culture where the expected role of teacher is different from U.S.?
5. It is need to understand what is going on in students mind. E.g. Asian students usually rehearse the phrases or sentences when they have a talk with NS. This is one of the biggest obstacles of Asian L2 learners.
6. Pennycook’s claim that language education is political, reminds me of something which I experienced with a Singaporean guy, who said that he is a native English speaker. Who decides what is right English or desirable English?
7. To be a language teacher, we need to be a studying teacher. Because it takes a lot of time and effort to find out the nature of student resistance. It should be found through a close observation of cultural difference, personal backgrounds, attitudes, etc.
As a non-native English speaker, I still struggle with English every time I use it. What should be changed is language teachers, not me – Thank you, Bonny!
1. Why do I sometimes speak English well and sometimes not?
2. What is the biggest obstacle to me? What is my biggest anxiety in conversing in English?
3. What would be their difference of investment between a poor, single, not-pretty Asian girl and a rich, single, handsome Arabic guy?
4. How could we trace back the beginning of the unstable, unfixed, ever-changing subjectivity/identity while we teach L2 learners? (the difficulty or problem of the real reason of the L2 learners’ investment is hard to detect or evaluate or quantify).
5. When we distinguish the L2 learning environment into two – in the class and outside the class, who and what factors decide the “authenticity of learning environment”?
Cf. evaporation of English when students come out of the class.
6. Every student has his/her own, specific, particularized reason of learning a foreign language. How can the teachers find a way of teaching when they have a multicultural, multiethnic class?
TQ chapter 4
1. To understand student’s sympathy and synchronize ourselves as teacher to their motivation(or investment), class size matters. What do you think the best size of an L2 class?
Cf. One-to-one teaching/learning would be best, but there’s no best or perfect number of students to teach. It just depends on how you teach.
2. Don’t be obsessed by cultural misconception, prejudice, or preconception. See who they are, what they want as they are.
3. Teachers should have flexibility in teaching to cope with all the sudden happenings and changes in class during the entire semester.
4. As in the article and TQ chapter 4, we can enhance students’ subjectivity. How far can the subjectivity go? Particularly in a culture where the expected role of teacher is different from U.S.?
5. It is need to understand what is going on in students mind. E.g. Asian students usually rehearse the phrases or sentences when they have a talk with NS. This is one of the biggest obstacles of Asian L2 learners.
6. Pennycook’s claim that language education is political, reminds me of something which I experienced with a Singaporean guy, who said that he is a native English speaker. Who decides what is right English or desirable English?
7. To be a language teacher, we need to be a studying teacher. Because it takes a lot of time and effort to find out the nature of student resistance. It should be found through a close observation of cultural difference, personal backgrounds, attitudes, etc.
As a non-native English speaker, I still struggle with English every time I use it. What should be changed is language teachers, not me – Thank you, Bonny!
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Comment on Hall(2002), chapter 2
The impression of the chapter is like a "eye-opening" perspective on socio-cultural aspect of language. The argument is that language is a delivery tool of communicative meaning and the meaning is constructed through the process of societal, interactional, interpersonal and multidimensional human activity.
My understanding is that, there are two meanings; literal meaning and usage meaning. The former is history of the meaning, which has been cumulated and conventionalized to constitute a shared knowledge or information in a speech community. With this, communication is possible. The latter is meaning in practice - one negotiated by interlocutors on site on the assumption that they share a context or contexts.
In this chapter again, like in Pennycook(1989, 2003), Kumaravadivelu(2008), Canagarajah(2006), the bias toward cognitive or mentalist approaches on language research is criticized. Personally I've seen the tendancy of linguistic inquiry mainly focusing on devlopmental aspects of langauge acquisition, not socio-cultural involvement of language use.
It seems clear that it is time to tackle the assumed homogeniety, universality or equality of linguistic data in the application for a better language teaching.
The question is; how can I make myself understood the multidimensional aspects of language and its teaching/learning in multifaceted socio-cultural reality?
My understanding is that, there are two meanings; literal meaning and usage meaning. The former is history of the meaning, which has been cumulated and conventionalized to constitute a shared knowledge or information in a speech community. With this, communication is possible. The latter is meaning in practice - one negotiated by interlocutors on site on the assumption that they share a context or contexts.
In this chapter again, like in Pennycook(1989, 2003), Kumaravadivelu(2008), Canagarajah(2006), the bias toward cognitive or mentalist approaches on language research is criticized. Personally I've seen the tendancy of linguistic inquiry mainly focusing on devlopmental aspects of langauge acquisition, not socio-cultural involvement of language use.
It seems clear that it is time to tackle the assumed homogeniety, universality or equality of linguistic data in the application for a better language teaching.
The question is; how can I make myself understood the multidimensional aspects of language and its teaching/learning in multifaceted socio-cultural reality?
Comment on Kumaravadivelu(2008), chapter 2
The chapter was short and easy-read. One personal concern is that, when I was reading the page on "U-shaped cultural behavior of multi-cultural child", I thought to myself that I would have to give a lot of caution to care of my baby. She would face this heterogeniety of life if she grows up in America, as her ethnic identity is Asian.
Another thing in my mind is, everything is relative - my culture can be viewed through the lens of other culture, and vice versa. Let me tell you a wisdom phrase in Korea - 他山之石- the meaning is "let another's shipwreck be your seamark".
This chapter is also about "reality". I look forward to what is ahead of us during the journey of Introduction of TESOL. I'd like to know the "reality".
Another thing in my mind is, everything is relative - my culture can be viewed through the lens of other culture, and vice versa. Let me tell you a wisdom phrase in Korea - 他山之石- the meaning is "let another's shipwreck be your seamark".
This chapter is also about "reality". I look forward to what is ahead of us during the journey of Introduction of TESOL. I'd like to know the "reality".
Comment on Pennycook(1989)
The term "interest" in the title of the article didn't come to me easy until I finished the reading. My understanding of the term is "gain and loss". Second/foreign language teaching starts from someone's or some group's purpose to gain any intentional achievement, and in the way of the achievement, some part of the world should lose something.
This article is mainly about the tension between theory (or academic knowledge) and (teaching) practice in SLA and the political nature of language teaching. The tension between theory and practice has long been discussed and has brought lots of controvercies but neither can be discarded as they are fundamentals of language teaching. "Practice" means reality - in SLA, the real happenings in classrooms, most of which are beyond the control of theoretical explanation. The tension begins from this gap. Pennycook, like in Canagarajah(2006), criticizes the imbalance of researching foci in SLA between theory and practice. Speaking of practice, he wants us to dig into the reality as an aspect of practice. The reality shows a huge but hidden, and uncomfortable political issues in classroom.
The article is very informative to me in that a brief history of second/foreign langauge teaching is offered and it changed my misconception of histoty of teaching English.
When he mentions linguistic tools applied and used in teaching language at U.S. Defense Department, I recalled a news article on foreign language training of U.S. army in Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center. They teach U.S. soldiers 40 foreign languages. After 911, 5 langauges are taught intensively - Arabic, Russian, Chinese, Korean, and Spanish. This is a typical example of political language teaching.
One criticism of mine is that, there is a criticism only about heavily biased research tradition which has neglected sociocultural, context-dependent aspect of language education. He doesn't suggest a clear idea of what a desirable language education would be.
(However, I've come to know that he wrote the article when he was a graduate student when I was reading TQ chapter 2. This is a nicely-written article by a graduate student!)
I wish I could write an argumentative article like him:)
This article is mainly about the tension between theory (or academic knowledge) and (teaching) practice in SLA and the political nature of language teaching. The tension between theory and practice has long been discussed and has brought lots of controvercies but neither can be discarded as they are fundamentals of language teaching. "Practice" means reality - in SLA, the real happenings in classrooms, most of which are beyond the control of theoretical explanation. The tension begins from this gap. Pennycook, like in Canagarajah(2006), criticizes the imbalance of researching foci in SLA between theory and practice. Speaking of practice, he wants us to dig into the reality as an aspect of practice. The reality shows a huge but hidden, and uncomfortable political issues in classroom.
The article is very informative to me in that a brief history of second/foreign langauge teaching is offered and it changed my misconception of histoty of teaching English.
When he mentions linguistic tools applied and used in teaching language at U.S. Defense Department, I recalled a news article on foreign language training of U.S. army in Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center. They teach U.S. soldiers 40 foreign languages. After 911, 5 langauges are taught intensively - Arabic, Russian, Chinese, Korean, and Spanish. This is a typical example of political language teaching.
One criticism of mine is that, there is a criticism only about heavily biased research tradition which has neglected sociocultural, context-dependent aspect of language education. He doesn't suggest a clear idea of what a desirable language education would be.
(However, I've come to know that he wrote the article when he was a graduate student when I was reading TQ chapter 2. This is a nicely-written article by a graduate student!)
I wish I could write an argumentative article like him:)
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Comment on Firth & Wagner(1997)
The first impression of the article is that, the authors seem to complain the imbalance in SLA studies between cognitive and mentalistic approaches and sociocultural approaches. I've found more than 5 times the 'imbalance' in the article. As I read the article after I had read Canagarajah (2006), it seems to me that the authors try to describe diachronic comparison between the two approaches within linguistic domains. The arguments of Canagarajah (2006) and Firth and Wagner (1997) are not much different but it is interesting to see that the criticism on the imbalance of SLA research in favor of cognitive approach is still vigoroursly and progressively brought on public even a decade later.
One thing we should not miss or misunderstand is that both of the approaches are needed as fundamentals of SLA research. The article criticizes the imbalnce of SLA research between cognitive and sociocultural approaches, not insists abandonment of exsiting cognitive approaches.
When I was reading a part of the article that it was natural only a couple of decades ago, to see nonnative speakers are deficient, imperfect, and faulty, I recognized again that the world is really changing. A lie in the past is true at present, valueless in the past is now valuable. I asked to myself, why they didn't (or couldn't?) think that language learning is dialectal and interactional at that time?
And I recalled a joke about the criticism of transformational grammar in the middle of last century. When transformational grammarians analyzed sentences, it started with 'S(entence)'. No one doubted what consitutes the sentences or what would come before a sentence is composed. The joke is a parody of the first sentence of the Bible - In the beginning God created sentences. Linguistic research started from a given sentence and no suspicion of its origin was allowed. Until microanalytic linguistics emerged in Chomskyan syntax, sentences had been taken for granted, they were just given. Sentences are just a part of human communication, which consists of facial expressions, gesture, eye-movement, and tone, as well and humans learn a language by all the constituents of communication mentioned above, not by a mere verbal delivery of sentential expressions.
I think I understand the argument in the article: (1) the imbalance between research on individual cognition and research on social interaction in SLA needs to be balanced, (2) non-native speakers are not deficient or incompetent, but they are employing and designing purposive strategies in L2 communication, (3) look at L2 learners through a lens of success not through of failure as they are on the way to mastery of their intended language.
The questions are: do we have to believe that every discourse of L2 learners is taken successful, as long as their messages are exchanged communicatively? To what extent the meaning of understanding is expandable? Do L2 teachers teach communicative strategies, not linguistic rules?
One thing we should not miss or misunderstand is that both of the approaches are needed as fundamentals of SLA research. The article criticizes the imbalnce of SLA research between cognitive and sociocultural approaches, not insists abandonment of exsiting cognitive approaches.
When I was reading a part of the article that it was natural only a couple of decades ago, to see nonnative speakers are deficient, imperfect, and faulty, I recognized again that the world is really changing. A lie in the past is true at present, valueless in the past is now valuable. I asked to myself, why they didn't (or couldn't?) think that language learning is dialectal and interactional at that time?
And I recalled a joke about the criticism of transformational grammar in the middle of last century. When transformational grammarians analyzed sentences, it started with 'S(entence)'. No one doubted what consitutes the sentences or what would come before a sentence is composed. The joke is a parody of the first sentence of the Bible - In the beginning God created sentences. Linguistic research started from a given sentence and no suspicion of its origin was allowed. Until microanalytic linguistics emerged in Chomskyan syntax, sentences had been taken for granted, they were just given. Sentences are just a part of human communication, which consists of facial expressions, gesture, eye-movement, and tone, as well and humans learn a language by all the constituents of communication mentioned above, not by a mere verbal delivery of sentential expressions.
I think I understand the argument in the article: (1) the imbalance between research on individual cognition and research on social interaction in SLA needs to be balanced, (2) non-native speakers are not deficient or incompetent, but they are employing and designing purposive strategies in L2 communication, (3) look at L2 learners through a lens of success not through of failure as they are on the way to mastery of their intended language.
The questions are: do we have to believe that every discourse of L2 learners is taken successful, as long as their messages are exchanged communicatively? To what extent the meaning of understanding is expandable? Do L2 teachers teach communicative strategies, not linguistic rules?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
