Teaching Speaking and Listening

             The four readings this week focused on using classroom conservations, both formal and informal, to facilitate learning.  The Cary article more specifically emphasized how teachers can support students’ first languages even if the teachers do not speak this language themselves.  An obvious answer is for teachers to establish classrooms that value and celebrate all languages.  English is often portrayed as superior to other languages and a teacher’s affirmation that all languages are valued equally is a great way to demonstrate support for students’ native languages (Cary 131).  Other suggestions include encouraging students to continue developing their skills in their native languages and for teachers to learn a few phrases or significant cultural items from students’ first languages.  However, in my opinion, Cary’s most interesting idea was his strong advocacy to include the parents of non-native speakers in classroom learning.  Cary emphasized offering primary language support by having bilingual parents and community members volunteer in the classroom to provide additional support to non-native speakers.  Cary’s research suggests that continued development of students’ first languages will ultimately lead to better English proficiency.    

             

           Chapter 18 of Brown described how to teach listening skills in the language classroom while chapter 19 emphasized developing students’ speaking skills.  In chapter 18, Brown advocates the explicit teaching of listening comprehension skills and strategies.  Although students don’t think about listening as consciously as they think about grammar, listening needs to be guided and develop as much as—if not more—any other language topic.  This listening needs to be meaningful though.  Students are not going to improve their listening skills from listening to the same pop music song every day; they need to practice listening (and speaking) in authentic contexts.  According to Brown, authentic language and real-world tasks enable students to see the relevance of classroom activity to their long-term communicative goals (Brown 311).  It is also important that listening comprehension is assessed in a variety of ways.  For example, listening can be tested by having learners physically respond to language, they can answer open-ended questions, or they can identify the important points of a listening passage.  

            In the next chapter, Brown also describes principles for teaching speaking skills.  One of his most interesting principles is to focus on both fluency and accuracy, depending on your objective (331).  In my opinion, in a comprehensive language class, both fluency and accuracy are of equal importance.  A student that is always grammatically correct and accurate but rarely if ever offers extended speech is not ideal.  Similarly, a student that speaks often but makes a large amount of errors cannot be labeled as an advanced speaker.  Teachers need to emphasize a balance between accuracy and proficiency.  Ways to do this include using language in meaningful contexts and also capitalizing on the natural link between speaking and listening (331).  Students need to practice their English in more contexts than simple greetings or social outings; they need to be able to use language to negotiate meaning or solve information gaps.  Kumar elaborates on how teachers can facilitate the negotiation of meaning amongst students.  

          Kumar calls for giving students a reasonable degree of control over their management of learning (Kumar 115).  If students have some options in regards to what they talk about and how they talk about it, their learning and interactions will be more meaningful.  One way students can do this is through topicalization, which is the “process by which learners take up something the teacher or another learner says and attempt to make it into next topic” (Kumar 119).  Kumar indicates techniques such as topicalization will result in more negotiation of meaning because students will have more interest and knowledge about the topics being discussed.  However, is this really the best approach to language learning?  What if I give my students the freedom to choose discussion topics and they consistently pick topics such as Miley Cyrus, Jersey Shore, and the Chicago Bears?  If topics do not involve language and scenarios that can help students become better communicators in authentic settings, then they may not be beneficial topics to use class time on.  I believe that the best approach is for teachers to identify a variety of topics or scenarios that can be discussed and allow students to select topics from this list.  Using this approach, students still get some say in their own learning, but the teacher also ensures that this learning will be meaningful.     

The Goal of all Good Teachers: Maximizing Student Learning

All of these readings focus on how teachers can maximize their students’ learning.  This topic is very practical and displays an abundance of strategies that we can use with our future English-learning students.  In his passage, Kumar establishes that teaching does not directly lead to learning (Kumar 44).  As described in other weeks, language education specialists no longer see teachers as “depositors of knowledge.”  Learning is seen as an interactive process between the teacher and the students, and also the students amongst each other.  Kumar repeatedly pointed out the benefits of answering individual questions in front of the whole class.  This is beneficial because in classes with students of similar proficiency levels, the answer to the question typically benefits more students than simply the individual who asked the question.  Kumar emphasized that these interactions are at the heart of language learning as opposed to rigid lesson plans.  Provocative teacher questioning and then interactive discourse is what maximizes learning opportunities.  

Brown’s readings support Kumar’s points and also expand on how teachers can create more autonomous learners.  Chapter 4 describes the 12 principles that guide language teaching.   According to Brown, a teacher that follows these principles will have an “enlightened” teaching strategy, which is an approach that accurately connects theory and practice (Brown 63).  The 12 principles are divided into 3 categories: cognitive principles, socioaffective principles, and linguistic principles.  Many of these principles focus on making students more independent learners, particularly principle 6 (autonomy).  This chapter, particularly the part about creating autonomous learners, reminded me of the old proverb, “Give a man a fish and he has food for a day.  Teach a man to fish and he has food for a lifetime.”  I agree with this philosophy and believe that perhaps the best teachers are the ones that create the most independent learners.  Isn’t it ironic that perhaps the best teachers are the least needed amongst their students?  

In Chapter 16, Brown further elaborates on ways to encourage students to use sound language learning strategies.  Four ways to introduce students to these research-tested language learning strategies are: interactive techniques, compensatory techniques, administering strategy inventories, and impromptu teach-initiated advice.  I like the idea of administering a strategy inventory and having students select which strategies appeal to them and could be regularly used to further enhance their learning.   While I wholeheartedly believe that it is essential that students are exposed to as many strategies as possible, I do not believe the use of certain strategies should be required or even pushed.  Students should be exposed to a variety of helpful language learning strategies and then incorporate the strategies that best help them learn.  If we want to respect learners’ individual differences, can we really force all learners to use the same strategies?   

The Importance of Knowing Your Audience (in this case CONTEXT)

The readings this week offered an indirect comparison of three different approaches to language teaching: communicative language teaching, task-based instruction, and a context-based approach.  Each approach has its respective strengths and weaknesses that are analyzed in at least one of the articles.  Skehan’s article described the origins and foundations of task-based instruction.  This approach arose from the realization that input alone was not sufficient for language learning (Skehan 2).  In order to expand beyond input, proponents of this theory designed language learning based on accomplishing tasks, which are activities that require learners to use language, with an emphasis on meaning, to attain objectives (Skehan 3).  Although evaluation of task-based learning is authentic and guides students to become better language speakers, many questions still exists.  For example, how do task-based theorists account for different learners interpreting and therefore responding to tasks differently?  Task-based teaching should give students the flexibility to interpret tasks in ways that fit their learning needs.

The Hu article describes the communicative language approach, which emphasizes communicative competence rather than linguistic knowledge as the primary goal of language teaching and learning (Hu 95). Grammatical, discourse, functional, sociolinguistic, and strategic are the components of communicative competence that are emphasized during the CLT method.  Similar to task-based instruction, CLT is considered to be a pedagogically strong approach because of its focus on learners and authentic communication.  This is much more practical than linguistic and grammatical knowledge.  However, the foundations of Chinese education are based on teachers giving students this traditional knowledge (Hu 97).  CLT is a major change from the traditional Chinese culture, which is why CLT is less prevalent in China than other areas of the world Hu argues. 

The inability of language teachers to effectively integrate the CLT method into Chinese culture would support the major points of Bax’s article.  Bax’s thesis is that CLT (and any method) should be of secondary importance in the language classroom.  Bax advocates that all language teachers should evaluate the context and their individual learners before deciding on a method or language approach (Bax 281).  In my opinion, Bax’s argument is logical because not all cultures are compatible with the CLT method.  Hu’s article demonstrates that because of social and cultural reasons, the CLT method is not the best method for language instruction in China. 

After reading all three articles, one of the central themes is the importance of a teacher analyzing and then knowing his or her sociocultural context before making instructional decisions.  In fact, how can teachers decide on an approach without knowing the needs, strengths, and weaknesses of their students?  Obviously, teachers need to be knowledgeable of various methods and approaches, but Bax has merit in his advocacy that context is most important to language learning.        

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.