My Goals

Hello, Dr. Seloni.  We have worked together extensively in the past, but I wanted to remind you of my educational goals and background.  I am a senior Spanish Education major and TESOL minor.  I am comfortable teaching either Spanish or English and at any level.  I am flexible because I believe K-12 teachers need to be strong role models and teach life skills as much as they teach academics.  I am very excited to begin student teaching and my educational career in the Spring.

One day, I want to complete my doctorate in educational administration.  I want to change the educational system and level the playing field for those students living in poverty.  All students deserve excellent teachers and the opportunity to succeed.  Although I have lofty goals, I have a strong work ethic and am very determined to become a difference-making teacher. 

Blog 2: What is a Teacher?

          Teachers are not artists.  Teachers are not comedians.  Teachers are not scientists.  Teachers are teachers.  The role of a teacher is unique in society and should not be labeled as anything else.  I believe that teachers' roles include but are not limited to: being role models, facilitating critical thinking, teaching skills, and facilitating knowledge acquisition.  Chapter 1 in Kumar views teachers as coming from one of three different philosophies.  The most traditional view of teaching imagines teachers as passive technicians whose purpose is to simply pass on agreed upon knowledge.  Kumar argues that this view disempowers teachers because the classroom becomes less of a lived experience (Kumaravadivelu 9).  The second school of thought is that teachers are reflective practitioners.  This approach sees teachers as problem-solvers who take a holistic approach to encourage reflection and critical thinking amongst students.  Teachers never finish their educations and are constantly attempting to maximize their own learning and that of their students through constant reflection and evaluation.  The third view of teaching labels teachers as transformative intellectuals.  This view is based on the psychology of Freire (Kumaravadivelu 13).  Teachers are seen as social agents for change.  Both teachers and students need to question and challenge the social foundations of society and constantly evaluate their own educational processes. 

 

            Although there is a presidential election approaching, I am not trying to be political when I say that I believe that a combination of the schools of thought described above most accurately depicts the roles of teachers in modern society.  The reason teachers become relative experts in their academic disciplines is partly to pass on knowledge and information to their students.  However, with an abundance of online classes and the creation of the internet, many students no longer need teachers in order to acquire information.  For that reason, I believe teachers are more facilitators than academic experts.  Teachers use their expertise in order to best facilitate knowledge and critical thinking skills amongst students.  Part of this critical thinking should be about the social foundations of society and the educational system itself.  Students need to learn to think actively and independently and not just accept things because "that's how it's always been done." 

 

            I believe that both teachers and students need to be more empowered than they currently are.  Theorists do not have the authority to tell teachers how to teach because current teachers have just as much information as to what instructional methods work best.  The relationship between theorists and practitioners needs to be a 2-way-street and not dominated by theorists.  In addition, students have more information at young ages than ever before.  Students are more aware of their own interests and learning goals.  Students should be given the freedom to pursue their own academic interests rather than sit through the same basic set of classes that have been given to all students for years.  Perhaps, teachers' most important role is to help students find their interests and passions and then help students find out how they can give back to society.   

BLOG 1—Why Foreign Language Programs Must Be Comprehensive

          “Let’s agree to disagree,” is a great phrase to avoid further argument, further discussion, and also further work.  Prabu’s message states that the phrase “there is no best method for teaching language classes” prevents further research and advancement in the field.  Prabu investigates the three major reasons why people support the opinion that there are no best methods.  On page 161, he states why many people support this theory: different methods are best for different teaching contexts, all methods are partially true or valid, and that the notion of good and bad methods is itself misguided.  Prabu spends the rest of his article displaying how these rationales do not necessarily justify the statement that “there is no best method for teaching language classes.”  While I agree with the statement that different methods fit different contexts, I agree with Prabu’s assertion in the middle of page 163 about how some methods are clearly superior to others in certain situations.  For example, privately reprimanding a student’s behavior is more appropriate and a superior method to publicly humiliating that student in front of the whole class.  I also agree with Prabu that the claim all methods are partially valid does NOT justify the use of dozens of different strategies just because they all have “merit.”  Similar to Prabu’s point about context, some methods are used more commonly than others because they are generally considered superior. 

           

            I wholeheartedly agree that it is very difficult to define and measure a “best” method.  It does not make much sense to measure a subjective thing such as teaching methods with an objective test.  I think a more important way in determining the best teaching methods for particular teachers is to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of those respective teachers.  Facilitating class discussions is not the best strategy for a closed teacher that is considered a weak communicator. 

           

            Although learning about vocabulary terms and acronyms in the field was helpful, the most interesting part of the Brown reading was viewing how language teaching evolved based off of society’s goals.  The language-teaching methods being used reflected what was going on in the world at that time.  When most communication and schoolwork was done through reading and writing, the grammar translation method dominated the 19^th century.  When the United States went to war in the middle of the 20^th century, the army method reflected the United States’ desire to further communicate with both its allies and enemies.  This fascinates me.  Today we live in a society where reading, writing, listening, and speaking are all considered important skills.  Thankfully most of the foreign language programs that I have participated in have been comprehensive programs designed to increase all skills.  As someone interested in shaping foreign language policy for future students, I like the recent (relatively) changes to make language studies more comprehensive.  All elements of communication are essential in today’s world.   For example, an American man meets the woman of his dreams while vacationing in Spain.  They have a great conversation and then exchange e-mails.  If he can’t effectively respond to her e-mails, he is facing a life of loneliness.  Thankfully his comprehensive language programmed focused on written communication, and they lived happily ever after.   

              

Why What I've Learned IS NOT Enough

          I have learned a great deal from this class, but I learned my most important lesson in Dr. Seloni’s office last week.  I was excitedly talking about finalizing my research and drawing conclusions when Dr. Seloni reminded me that my research wasn’t over once I finished this paper.  In order to be an effective educator, my research must never cease.  Think about how many things change in the world each day, each week, and each year.  I cannot expect what I am learning now in college to carry me through the next thirty years of teaching.  Constant reading, discussion, and learning is required to keep improving as a teacher.  Despite how much I have learned from this class, I still have so much more to explore as I begin my teaching career. 

            This week’s readings really highlighted the important concepts that we studied this semester.  The majority of both readings talked about English learning in a global environment and from a world perspective.  In the McKay text, Suzuki argues in favor of teaching and promoting English throughout the world, specifically in Asia, but against including cultural values in these teachings.  He spoke about the worldwide dominance of Western culture as a form of unofficial imperialism.  Although this course has emphasized the implicit connections between language and culture, why can’t Japanese students learn English while maintaining their own language and cultural values?  Classes for teaching English could focus as much as possible on the language itself and conversation skills, while global studies classes can focus on teaching Western values and history.  Page 195 of the McKay text lists the principles for a socially sensitive EIL pedagogy, which are obviously important for us to follow as future educators.

            The Lin article had several features that interested me as well.  My favorite piece is the quote, “The world is not owned by English; English is owned by the world” (196).  This asserts that people control what languages they speak rather than having languages forced upon them.  Furthermore, people should incorporate different languages into their culture and not allow for one language to influence all other parts of culture.  This quote is consistent with having a world view of English.  However, although a global perspective is important, global views must be adapted to local perspectives (310).  Unfortunately the globalization movement has often pushed aside local values and traditions.  People are mimicking the language and behaviors that they see on television and the internet.  We often see media as a way of becoming “more cultured”, but we fail to realize that exchanging culture should be a dialogue.  Not only should we use new technology to learn about new cultures, but we can also use it to share our own and to keep our values and traditions alive. 

            If the message is received, isn’t communication successful?  Lin advocates that TESOL educators stop emphasizing differentiation between different speakers and start emphasizing the importance of practically communicating.  People should not have to change their accent or how they speak as long as their intended messages are understood.  Instead of criticizing people for pronouncing words with accents, perhaps we should reward them for successfully communicating new messages.  Both of the readings this week introduce many ideas and ways of thinking that would change the TESOL field.  One of the ideas is changing the TESOL acronym to TEGCOM—Teaching English for Globalized Communication.  Although this name change would help on the surface, all educators know that it will take more than a name to change to impact educational philosophies.  More so than any facts that I learned from this class, I will benefit in the future from a new, more complex way of thinking.  I have learned to see issues from all perspectives.  This will not only benefit me in the future as a teacher, but this will also make me a better person. 

English from a Global Perspective

           Why must globalization be homogenous?  This is perhaps the most interesting question to me after reading the article.  With the technology to share ideas, music, movies, and culture, why are cultures becoming more homogenous rather than diverse?  The Kubota articles describes the heavy influence that American culture and the English language has on Japanese society, and more specifically education in Japan.  Although Western culture can have positive impacts, the growing presence of American culture throughout the world can be seen as an unofficial form of imperialism.  Japanese values are not shared with Americans so that ideas are reciprocated; this sharing of values is one-sided. 

            Resistance to Western influences has resulted in an increased sense of nationalism.  Nationalism refers to a citizens’ pride for his country or promotion of his country’s ideals or superiority.  In my opinion, this is not a positive development.  In school settings, nationalistic attitudes can lead to fights, discrimination, and the development of racist attitudes.  Outside of the educational realm, the effects of increased nationalism can be even more dangerous.  Nationalism and emphasizing the differences between nations is what has led to two world wars and a variety of other conflicts.  As teachers, I feel it is necessary to promote diversity but to ensure that we are not highlighting differences in a confrontational manner.

            The discourse of Kokusaika or internationalization refers to educating Japanese students about world cultures, languages, and viewpoints.  The concept of producing students that are competent in international contexts is a great educational aim.  However, Kokusaika views English as the international language of the world and is said to be extremely biased toward western culture and values.  Learning English does not make one internationally competent though (6).  Neither does having a broad knowledge of Western culture. 

            The most interesting point of the World Englishes article was the contention that second-language users should be held to the same English writing standards as native speakers.  As noted on page 371, this controversy could provide a moral dilemma for teachers.  Second language English users are not punished for having accents or using incorrect idiomatic expressions when speaking; however, many teachers expect them to be perfect writers.  I do not believe that L2 speakers should be held to this higher standard in writing.  Although errors should be identified through corrective feedback, they should not be downgraded for not using perfect “Standard English” when writing.  Many ESL students are incapable of using “Standard English” because they never learned this standard; they most likely learned a World English.  This is not a lower class of English, simply a different variety spoken in different regions around the world.  Page 373 discusses the idea of discourse negotiation and the appropriate use of different variations of English based on the context.  Appropriate English for a job interview and for a pick-up basketball game are completely different.  It is important that as teachers that we do not value the so-called “Standard” variety more than World Englishes though.  If our opinions reflect this bias, then our students will likely develop these attitudes our well.  The way we teach will impact how our students view language and culture. 

The Complexity of the Standard English Issue

           Myths and mystification are two central concepts to this week’s readings.  The readings do not tell fairy tales, but they include myths such as the commonly held belief that there is no accent in Standard English.  Chapter 2 of Lippie-Green states that all language speakers do have an accent.  From my experiences traveling throughout Europe and other parts of the United States, I know this to be true.  What sounds normal to me may sound strange or foreign to English speakers from other regions.  The reading goes on to talk about accents, which can be defined in a variety of ways.  To simplify, I will define accent as a reference to phonological differences in speech between two speakers of the same language.  Among L1 speakers, different accents are normally separated by geographical barriers.  These accents are typically much less noticeable than the accents of L2 speakers.  L2 speakers often have much more phonological differences than native speakers because their native phonologies do not produce certain sounds common in the target language.  Although most accents are portrayed in a negative light or to be signs of inferiority, the truth is that there is no ideal way of speaking a language. 

            Chapters 3 and 4 of the Lippie-Green reading reveal why there are negative connotations associated with certain accents and dialects.  The use and dominance of Standard English is a social and political construct designed by the upper class.  Page 58 lists the characteristics common to speakers of Standard English: those who reside in the Midwest, above average educations, and those in the media and education.  People who speak with a Southern accent and are in the lower class are perhaps the two biggest targets of language discrimination.  Since racial and economic discrimination are largely illegal, language discrimination is used as a way of maintaining the social hierarchy by the upper class.  Page 64 elaborates on this theory with the concept of gatekeeping.  A different accent is a way of recognizing someone as not belonging to the elite social class.  It prevents them from entering into the upper class even if they meet all other requirements.  This discrimination and portrayal in the media eventually has an effect on how people see and view themselves.  The concept of Standard English is mystified and glorified so that those who do not belong can only seek to obtain it.    

            The issue of Standard English again arises during Chapter 5 of the McKay book.  The most interesting concept to me was the issue of intelligibility (140).  This debate centers on the ability of speakers that use different dialects of English to understand each other both now and in the future.  One of the major advantages of Standard English claim the movement’s proponents is that Standard English ensures mutual intelligibility worldwide and will maintain this intelligibility in the future.  Without a universal way of speaking English, it is feared that separate languages may emerge or that the differences will simply become too great to enable mutual understanding.  From this perspective, the idea of a Universal English to communicate across borders and cultures is appealing.  Certain rules to regulate the use of English in international contexts could prevent conflicts and ensure understanding and efficiency.  However, the challenge is to make sure that this dialect of language is not considered superior to all other versions.  If there is going to be a universal way of speaking or writing English, it needs to be for business, educational, and communication purposes—not as a social construct.  Some Spanish speakers from different countries cannot understand each other due to such differences in the language.  I do not think English speakers would benefit from the language becoming so diverse and mutually unintelligible across cultures similar to how Spanish has.      

Can flawed thinking in the past prevent a more productive future?

The topic of this week’s readings was language planning and policy.  The Farr & Song online article was very similar to chapter 4 in the McKay book.  Both selections focused on the connections between societal ideologies, politics and policy, and language.  The McKay reading distinguishes early on the important difference between language policy and language planning.  Deumert describes language policy as more general and states that linguistic, political, and social goals underlie the language planning process (89).  Haugen defines language planning as “all conscious efforts that aim at changing the linguistic behavior of a speech community” (89).  So it can be said that language planning carries out language policy.     Unfortunately, as described in the Farr & Song article, language policy is based on cultural beliefs and politics, not pedagogical strategies or scientific research.  The motives behind the United States’ language education policies are political; quite frankly, old, racist political ideologies are holding back United States advancement in language learning. 

            One of the tenets of some United States lawmakers misguided view on language learning is that language standardization and monolingualism are desired societal outcomes.  The language ideology of conservative lawmakers can be best be summarized by the following quote from the McKay text, “A common language unifies, multiple languages divide” (99).  Although this quote is from the 1980s, educators promoting English-only use in schools refer back to similar quotations from President Reagan and other politicians from that time.  In the modern era, this narrow view on language makes even less sense.  English-only legislation would place harmful restrictions on a society growing more plurilinguistic each day. 

            English language ideologies in other countries center on the idea that learning Standard English will lead students to academic and eventually economic growth.  Although learning some form of English is definitely beneficial, research has demonstrated that English-language learners rarely speak Standard English.  Internationally, citizens of respective countries typically form their own dialect of English (Singapore English, Australian English, etc.).  Standard English throughout the globe may be the ideal, but many different variations of English across the world is the current reality.  These different dialects are often filled with code-switching—the use of two distinct languages within a sentence or conversation.  According to the Farr & Song article, code-switching is not random, but it is a strategic communicative move by bilingual speakers (656).  Bilingual speakers typically use the language that will best communicate their point; if that requires using multiple languages within a paragraph, then they will do so.  Another interesting thing I learned from the Farr & Song article is that ideologies are more persistent than policies (654).  This may seem obvious, but it worries me that people in society are more willing to change laws than incorporate new ideas into their beliefs.  Although laws and language policies change constantly, it seems that many racist values continue to persist.  As a future educator, hopefully I can ensure that these ideas are not still in practice when the next generation reaches adulthood. 

            On page 660 of the Farr & Song article, it describes teachers’ roles in regards to language ideology and policy.  Although teachers do not design the policies or create the laws, they are in charge of implementing the chosen policies on the front line—directly with students.  The article brings up the idea of teachers being empowered in this sense.  However, I disagree.  Individual teachers do not really have the power to dictate language use in classrooms; these policies are created by administrative, state, and even federal leaders.  The use of multiple languages in education is an important national issue and does not fall under the umbrella of a teacher’s classroom management.  Individual teachers could face serious consequences for undermining a district’s or state’s view on language learning and use in schools.  This is one of the reasons that I will eventually pursue higher education in the field of educational leadership; I want a role in which I can ensure that students can freely learn in a multicultural and multilingual environment.