Sunday, September 27, 2009

Kumaravadivelu, Chapter 4

Kuma makes some good points throughout chapter 4. Section 4.2, "Causes of Stereotypes" draws on a important issue. A good potion of stereotypes are learned through our personal interactions. They are from our family, friends and community. We pass judgment on the same things our teachers have taught us. We, as individuals, need to differentiate between what is known and what is perceived, only then can stereotypes vanish.

But then again, as Kuma says, there are good stereotypes. Stereotypes can increase self-esteeme and create a sense of belonging. The question is, then, should we ignore the bad and only mention the good? I don't know.

I will say this about negative stereotypes. I was trying to find a parking place in Pittsburgh's South Side. With no luck on the main street, I opted for a "nice" looking side street. I found one. I also found a group of kids (I'll say kids because none of them were over 5 ft. They were pretty short), dressed in baggy pants and shirts. They all had hats on one side and bandanas under their hats. There was a mix of races, black white and hispanic. I opted not to park here because of the "gangster" stereotype I associated with these kids. Good thing too. During the evening, a group of people broke into 15 some cars and stole a bunch of stuff. I don't know if these kids were the vandals, but I am happy that I didn't park there. I know it's not good to stereotype but, in this case, I'm happy I did.

I'm not sure if I could imagine a world without stereotypes. I think it's become a subconscious habit that everyone has.

I generally enjoy reading about cultural stereotypes. It's important to recognize that they exist and that individuals still place emphasis on them. It's also important to understand how they became. As future educators, we have to teach our students to pay little attention to the stereotypes they use and that are placed upon them.

Monday, September 14, 2009

Week Three Post

After reading "Dialogues around 'Social identity, investment, and language learning,'" my idea that language learning is fueled by wanting to learn, rather than having to learn, is greatly enhanced.

The responses to utilizing the information in Peirce's article are experiences that, I'm sure, we'll all face as English as a second language teachers.

Sharkey's discussion of Ivan, the Russian student, and his unwillingness to participate in the Christmas activity, posed a question: How does one foster assimilation into American-English culture when there is clearly a lack of interest? I'm sure that Tom, Ivan's teacher, had dealt with students lackadaisical attitudes before. So why, then, did Tom automatically perceive Ivan as being an "unmotivated English language learner?" Is it because he didn't want to participate in an obviously childish activity? Is it because Ivan felt as though the activity was beneath him? I don't have an answer, but what I took away from Ivan's story is that he was uninterested in the activity because it didn't benefit him. As a student, I am less inclined to put forth all my effort for an activity if I feel that the reward is minimal. I can't help feeling that this was the same position that Ivan was in.

Moving on. Sharky comments on "Learner Identity" and mention's his fault with attempting to learn Chinese. He says that his "inability to retain important piece of [his] identity-sense of humor" was a struggle for his language learning. I can relate in my experiences with learning German. It's hard to express yourself when you're vocabulary is limited to conversational words and phrases. Expressing interest, dissatisfaction or sadness may be difficult when talking to a native speaker.

Sharky continues by saying "being aware of power issues does not guarantee access to power, but it can initiate a dialogue that, as Bonny says, helps us 'understand how feelings of inadequacy are frequently socially constructed, and find spaces for the enhancement of human possibility.'" Feeling powerful with a language, in my opinion, is the first step to really understanding a new language. You have to be comfortable with yourself and have enough courage to speak in a new language. Courage = power and power = courage. It's a double edged sword.

Sharky concludes by saying that a recurring theme is the "English language learner as a buffoon and English language teaching as a non-profession that any (native English speaker) can do." Further more, he says that "it is a manifestation of the unjust policies and practices that sustain the asymmetrical distribution of power." This statement has weight. In order for non-native speaking students to fully understand the target language, the theory and actual way of teaching may need some adjustments. As future teachers, we can't expect all of our students to learn in the same way. Teaching practices may need a few tweaks before learning can begin. Until teachers realize this, there will always be a barrier between student learning and teaching.

Ling Shi made a good point as well. Student's social identities will, inherently, guide their learning capabilities. It may "integrate the learner and the learning environment and explain the complex relationship between the two." Furthermore, "the conception of investment rather than motivation to capture the complex relationship of the language learners to the target language." Okay, so that's a little mumbled, but reading on further, Shi says "language is seen as a powerful tool that structures social relations as it offers or denies individuals access to social interactions... language learners, even when situated in the target language environment, could be deprived of opportunities to speak as a result of the power relationships in society and their unwillingness to invest their identity." Makes pretty good sense. It's pretty much impossible to learn a new language when the opportunities to speak are limited.

While studying abroad, I found that people were more inclined to speak English rather than wait for me to form a German sentence. At first, I felt annoyed and disappointed that I had wasted effort in learning the language, but then I had my "ah hah" moment; they're trying to learn English in the same way that I'm trying to learn German, by practicing with native speakers.

Bonny Norton Peirce comments on theory and classroom practices. She says that "access to resources is crucial for access to power." I couldn't agree more. In order for students to become proficient in a language, they need to have adequate resources for learning, including interaction with target language speakers and accessibility to easy-to-read texts in the target language, just to name a few. Without these tools, it is impossible to become comfortable with a new language; there is no power behind the language learned.

Peirce also mentions that "if theory suggests that such learners may have high affective filters, a sympathetic discussion with these learners may suggest that those filters are social constructions rather than invariant personality traits." Non-native speaking students, submersed in the target language culture, may throw up personal protective barriers. These barriers may be the result of the target language's cultural perception of the non-native speaker.

We've all been there. Being looked down upon because of our differences within a new culture is uncomfortable. As humans, it is natural to feel out of place when nothing around you is native. How one copes with the differences is what will make or break their assimilation into a new culture.

So, what does it all mean? Does it mean that in order for non-native students to learn, method and practice need to be rethought? Should non-native speaking students be spoon fed the new language or should we watch them sink in the face of new language?

I understand that in order for non-native speakers to learn, they need to feel like it's worth their time. They need to feel that the time spent learning will be time well spent. They need to feel comfortable within the new language barriers and powerful when speaking. This may be the key to successful language learning.

Monday, September 7, 2009

Q's On Discourse, Communication and (Some) Fundamental Concepts in SLA Research

Hope everyone had a good holiday. Nice to see that I read and posted about the wrong article the first time…

Firth and Wagner wrote on second language acquisition and the problems non-native speakers have with communicating in new languages. Easy enough to understand since we’ve all (I’m pretty sure) have been in this boat.

Hymes and Long (pg. 287) both have theories involving language learning as a form of social interaction. Farther down the paragraph, Gass and Varonis have a similar idea stating, “active involvement is a necessary aspect of acquisition, since it is through involvement that the input becomes charged and penetrates deeply.”

After I read this, I thought, “Is this a new concept that just came about in the last couple of years?” I sure hope not. I find it hard to believe that one can become fluent in a language without ever practicing it outside an academic setting.

Is this possible? I don’t think so. From first hand experience, conversations within the classroom are much more structured and forced than outside conversations.

I feel that if all you ever do is practice with a book open and someone instructing you, you’ll never learn how to really communicate with the locals.

Also is it possible to learn a language without ever visiting the language’s home country?

Firth and Wagner mention, a few times, about native speakers “dumb down” their speech for non-native speakers to understand them. These simplified conversations, in my opinion, are a double-edged sword. They can help the non-native speaker get better acquainted with the language. However, they can inhibit conversational and vocabulary growth. So my question is, how do you find a happy medium when speaking with a non-native?

Friday, September 4, 2009

Q's TESOL at Forty: What are the issues?

Alright, so this wasn't too bad of an article to read. Hopefully the others are as good.

My first question deals with Brown's third main theme "Focus on Method," page 19. From my understanding, his method centers learning on student based needs and wants within language learning. That's all fine and dandy, and I agree that classroom material should be centered on what students want to learn, but how can you determine when you're students are being lazy?

For instance, I know some of my fellow classmates have taught, how did you guys handle information that you students wanted to learn as opposed to information they needed to learn? I'm sure we've all been in class when our professors have thrown out the lesson plan for the day to discuss and teach things of more interest. Again, that's cool and definitely more interesting, but what happens if your class is unwilling to learn if you say no?

You can't just fail the whole class, can you?


My second question comes from the "Focus on Sociopolitical and Geographical Issues" section. I would like to assume that everyone has had a brain slip or two when dealing with non-native language speakers. I know I've had an "Um..." moment in a German grocery store line, but that's what helps you learn. Canagarajah says that structured English immersion (SEI) doesn't work because it "reduces flexibility and severly limits the amount of time learners are given ESL instruction before being fully mainstreamed into regular classes."

I get it. It's hard to learn a different language. I'm sure it's just as hard to learn Japanese or Chinese as it is to learn English. Different mouth movements, sounds you've never used before, it's hard.

So how long should a person be taught another language before they're thrown to the masses? Two weeks, three weeks, a year? Everyone learns at different paces. Maybe it isn't such a bad thing to be throw into class before your ready. In order to really learn a language, in my opinion, you have to emerse yourself into the culture and language before you can really understand it. You're going to have those times where you have no idea what to say and that's okay. That's how you learn.

I realize that with classrooms it's a little different. You only have an hour a day, five days a week to teach a student language. They're going to be behind in the class because they don't understand, but at the same time, it'll force them to understand and think a little harder.

I'm not sure. Just things I thought of while reading...

I hope I'm not the first one to post my questions...

Hope everyone has a good holiday weekend. See you next monday.

-ashley

Tuesday, September 1, 2009