Improving your teaching

Having the possibility to receive feedback on one’s teaching from different perspectives seems to me a wonderful way to improve one’s professional practice.  The model presented in chapter 13 seems very helpful since it provides teachers with opportunities to reflect on their practices by obtaining information from different sources (the observer, the students, him/herself, the video).  The information brought by each of these sources is invaluable for the reflective teacher since it allows him to understand his teaching as it is perceived by all those involved/interested in the classroom.

I was particularly interested in the way getting information from students (even though this was not discussed extensively in the chapter) can help us understand how the type of discourse we use in the classroom, the way we address our students, the way we give instructions, the learning opportunities that we acknowledge (or not) affect our pedagogy and the students’ learning process.  I have found that the distance between our pedagogical purposes and attitudes and how these are perceived by the students is too big.

Getting a better understanding of how our attitudes, activities, explanations, methods and classroom management strategies are interpreted by students can totally help us improve these and be more effective teachers. And who else can give us first-hand information on these if not the students.  Of course, one must be aware that the students, as direct participants in the classroom, may be biased in providing this feedback, but once we are aware of this, and also once we have set the right atmosphere for this to take place, this can give profound insights on how to improve our teaching.

Also, conferencing with observer colleagues can help gain an equally but differently informed view of the things we do in the classroom, but a reflective teacher, who may not have always access to this kind of feedback, will find it very valuable to videotape his/her classes. It is hard to know how much you can gain from this unless you do it. The first thing one will feel is probably embarrassment. But once one has overcome that stage and gets used to observe him/herself in the video, one will become aware of the ideologies one brings into the class and the decisions made. This is a critical way to approach your own teaching that could prove very successful to become a better teacher. 

Assessment and the washback effect

I will use this blog entry to discuss briefly one phenomenon in classroom evaluation practices that, even though is not explicitly mentioned in chapters 33, 34, 35, poses great challenges to language teachers in practically all educational settings: the washback effect.

The washback effect refers to the extent to which different forms of assessment (normally but not exclusively testing) affect processes of learning and teaching.  The simplest forms of the washback effect can be seen in students’ attitudes towards evaluation processes when they focus their efforts to ‘learn’ those things that they believe are going to be assessed by the teacher, or in the way teachers tailor their teaching to provide students with tools to do well in assessment procedures.

Probably one of the most easily recognizable and more detrimental forms of the washback effect can be seen in educational settings where standardized, universal testing is mandatory. Teachers, due to accountability and transparency issues (the need to demonstrate to educational authorities that students are actually learning according to institutionalized standards), adapt their teaching practices and curricula to respond to the challenges posed by these evaluations, even if they have nothing to do with the students’ realities. In these cases, actual learning blurs away and becomes learning to take tests, leaving aside the transformational nature of education. This way, we see how some teachers, in a desperate attempt to respond to these impositions, end up using their class time to ‘train’ students to succeed in these tests.

However, in cases where assessment is more contextually-centered and considers learners’ potential and necessities, there can be positive washback effects. If the goals of the learning units are sensible enough to respond to the learners’ needs, if students are aware of the nature of the learning goals and the relevance of these to their own life, having students practice the skills necessary to perform well in traditional and non-traditional forms of assessment can have positive effects in students’ learning.

In my opinion, two concepts are central to transform the negative effects of assessment into positive ones. The first one is the students’ awareness of the reasons why and how different forms of assessment are used in the classroom, and what and whose purposes it serves. The second is the nature of the tools of assessment. This is to say, whether these evaluation practices has been designed as a possibility for learning that is aligned with the learning outcomes of the class rather than as a gate-keeping process. 

Critical Language Awareness

One of the aspects that called my attention most from the reading was the exercise on doublespeak on page 167. Kume cites Lutz to say that doublespeak is ‘language that makes the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, the unpleasant appear attractive or at least tolerable.’ The reason why this sparked my interest is because one of the fields that I’m interested in is Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). CDA is a branch of studies in discourse analysis that looks at the way language is used as a tool of power for social, political and economic control. In my experience learning about CDA and doing my undergrad thesis using this approach, I always thought this was a great way to teach students about how the language works and how there are certain strategic choices language users make to promote or hide social representations. My first impression was that it was better-suited for first language learning since it seemed to be a very complex approach for second language teaching.

However, I found and tried ways to address this issue in the L2 classroom by using two simple grammatical concepts that are normally addressed from a LA perspective: these are the difference between the use of the passive and active voice and the processes that influence the word-choice decision-making progress. Just a couple of examples of how I’ve used this in the classroom (with not much success though):

Active voice: Protestors halt port causing shipping companies to lose millions.

Passive voice: Protestors tent encampment has been evacuated. Two protestors are injured.

Basically, what we can do here with students is to discuss why they think the active or passive voice is used. Here we see, how the subject-agent distinction is problematized by the use of the passive voice. In the first example, it is very clear that it was the protestors who stopped operations and the port. Then we can see how a consequence is included right after to make it clear to the audience that the protestors have brought a problem to something that is considered very important for a society: its economy. In the second example, the subject-agent distinction of the sentence is unclear. We know what the grammatical subject of the sentence is, but we do not know who the agent of the action is. Additionally, we also have access to the consequence of the evacuation, but the agent of the action is ambiguous again and leaves room for speculation.

After discussing this, one then moves to introduce the grammatical aspect of it, explaining what morphosyntactic processes are embedded in the forming of the sentence, and how these choices affect the way the message is received by the audience. In my experience, this approach helps students understand the distinction more easily by increasing the saliency of the difference between the two forms. 

Developing learner autonomy

Learner Autonomy

In page 135, Kumaravadivelu states what to me are two indispensable aspects in the development of learner autonomy: the learners’ awareness of learning strategies, and (b) the teachers’ effectiveness of learner training.

Making students aware of the number of learning strategies that are available to them, of their own learning styles, of how these strategies have to combined for particular settings and of how strategies can change and be personalized as they move forward in the learning process depends on a number of factors that need to be looked at closely and that I will only mention here. Among these factors are the student’s previous home and school education, the type of learner he/she, student’s intrinsic/extrinsic motivation in learning the language, the student’s cultural background, and numerous socio-affective factors that influence the student’s involvement in his/her learning process, and many others.

Of course, it seems naive to believe that an individual teacher will be able to get to know all these factors in such a manner that he/she is able to offer each particular student what they require to learn and become willing to use a number of learning strategies which would eventually lead to different levels of autonomy. However, it is my belief that it is possible for the teacher to collaboratively find these strategies by engaging the students in the learning process. This is obviously no easy task. And I believe that one way to do this is by explicitly teaching learning strategies by pointing out their benefits and by modeling them in class session. I consider myself an advocate of this model and am willing to ‘neglect’ the teaching of content in order to make sure that students understand the importance of autonomous learning and mastery of learning strategies. I am convinced (this is something I would like to study through a comparative study by teaching two classes, one of them being a control group) that making students aware of the instructional goals as well as the ways strategies can be used to reach those goals is a much more effective way not only to obtain better pedagogical results, but to educate learner’s who will have more control over their language education and that will become lifelong learners.   

The biggest challenge in this, at least this what I can derive from my own experience, is to develop the rapport necessary for each student to open up and start looking at learning as an internal process rather than as something you get by someone else teaching in a class. This is probably the first step in transforming students’ minds and having them become willing to take over their own learning process. Put this way, this sounds simple enough but it is not, since it involves constant modeling, discussion, reflection and expertise.  This leads to the second aspect mentioned by Kumaravadivelu: the teachers’ effectiveness of learner training.

In my opinion, making teachers aware of the importance of these matters and, more importantly, having them become effective strategy ‘coaches’ is even harder than developing student’s autonomy. And here I’m taking about of teacher as a social force, not teachers at a particular school. I mean teachers across a country or in the case of the US, a state. Even if we sometimes go crazy with students because they don’t seem to care, because they want to be spoon-fed and not worry about how, why and what they learn, I have been able to meet teachers who work wonders on the most reluctant/indifferent/absent/uninterested/isolated students. No matter what their age is, I’m convinced that a person is always willing to learn if they realize we have something (interesting) to teach them (this is a quote from a Depeche Mode song). Of course, I reckon the idealism in this statement, but to me a teacher is (or should be) the eternal optimistic. Unfortunately, this seems to be the exception, not the rule. And this is to me the biggest challenge: to convince teachers as a whole that teaching is not only transferring knowledge, to make aware of the importance of the student’s agency and ability to control their own learning. This involves loosing what most teachers believe to be their source of authority: the belief that they are the proprietors of knowledge.

Transforming classroom practices require this paradigm shift, which is in itself a educational revolution. It requires changes at all levels in the educational system as well as a close examination of the type of education future teachers receive in college. It involves teaching becoming autonomous themselves so they are able to recognize the value of autonomy for learning. Probably, this requires a whole new generation of teachers to take place so we need to look carefully at how this autonomy is promoted amongst future teachers. 

On writing and standardized testing

Of all the readings, the one that called my attention most was the one by Ferris. It is to my a well-thought, easily understandable piece that resorts to practical issues that can be taken into the classroom and that explains how these activities respond to the research that has been done on the teaching and learning on writing. I have found it very useful both as a consultant at the Writing Program here at ISU and as learner of EFL learner myself.

I found it very easy to relate to this article given the experience I have had working closely with standards and the professional development of teachers of English as a Foreign Language. One of the things that has puzzled me throughout my career has been the distance that exists between what the research on the field of EFL writing (and in general) and the policies made by government institutions. It seems to me that it is a (as we say in Spanish) ‘diálogo de sordos’. This idiomatic expression (which can be offensive to some, for which I apologize but dare to include for the purpose of clarity) basically means that the dialogue is between two people that can’t hear. On the one hand, research shows us that the learning of writing (or any other skill in a second language) takes place under conditions that are totally different to those present at most educational contexts. On the other hand, policy-makers seem to blatantly ignore this fact and continue pushing teachers and students towards failure.  This seems to be the case of standardized testing here in the US (and probably everywhere).

In order to understand this one must look at the bigger picture and consider all the stakeholders involved in the decision-making processes. I will not discuss this further but my whole point is that it is probably necessary that the academia should start thinking about the ways to make their voices heard at the government level. It is my deep belief that whatever research or study scholars do should have as its ultimate and central goal the improvement of society, or at least, a very small portion of it. This is particularly true of education. I see no point in conducting studies will be stock in a library and will be read by new students year after year, without any pragmatic implication for those outside academic communities.

I do understand however that this is no easy task. Having their voice heard by policy-makers can be a nightmare for anyone. But, if scholars do not commit to social change, who will do? The answer to that is simple: companies. And companies will very rarely try to bring benefit to someone but themselves. Behind standardized testing and benchmarks are the biggest multinationals in the world and it is working pretty well for them. I guess what I’m saying here is that there’s a need to think of something like ‘scholar activism’. In Ferris article we see the gap between academia and the processes of standardized testing. Her suggestions on the teaching of writing are very interesting, but unfortunately very difficult to implement in k-12 settings due to the constraints imposed by all the stakeholders in the educational system. In other words, if the trajectory of our best research studies, of our best ideas on the teaching of ESL/EFL writing don’t reach the policy-making level I believe we are throwing our effort in (to continue with the Spanish idioms) ‘saco roto’ (which basically means to store your thing in a bottomless bag).

P.S.This is probably way out of line for our discussion, I recognize that.

Application project

For my application paper I would like to do a book/lit review (haven't decided yet) on the teaching of English as an International Language. In particular, I would lilke to look at two things:

1. What has been written on the nature of EIL, what it looks like, what it sounds like, whether there are descriptive studies on the shapes English takes in countries in the outer circle.
2. The ways different varieties of English are visible in teacher development/education programs particularly in the case of Non Native English Teachers (NNET'S) interact.

Lesson and curriculum planning

Lesson and curriculum planning              

I found both chapters very informative. I liked chapter 3 in the sense that it presents a very brief overview of the reasons why one should plan, a couple of models for lesson planning and some practical information on the steps to plan a lesson. It is always good to go over these topics and remind ourselves of the different aspects that should play a role in our planning. From my experience, I have learned that even though all these steps seem to be pretty obvious, the success of one’s class is very dependent on how aware and systematic one becomes when applying these strategies. It provides the teacher, and the students, with structure and a felt sense of what the class’ purpose and routines are. It also helps everyone keep track of their learning and teaching process and gives all a sense of direction.

In this section, my attention was particularly drawn to the ways lessons can be evaluated. However, I would have liked to find more information on this. To me, this is probably one of the most critical aspects of lesson planning. Many teachers think their job is done once the lesson has been ‘delivered’. Evaluating our classes and lesson plans is the only way to improve them. Whether this evaluation takes the form of a mental, individual process or a written form depends on the administrative environment and/or the teacher’s  personality. However, it is important that this evaluation actually takes place and that the information derived from it be used in future lesson planning and shared with other teachers. This is a form of professional development that is simple, accessible and probably one of the most valuable tools in becoming a better teacher.

Chapter 7 also gives us a good overview on the models of curriculum design that have been more prevalent in the last decades.  All three models play a role in today’s curriculum planning and I don’t believe they are exclusive in any manner. However, even though the proposal made by the author seems very comprehensive and well-thought, I still see some gaps that need to be filled.  Mainly, I see it is still problematic to determine what role the policy dimension needs to play in curriculum design. This is, how one can bring together the policy and the pragmatic dimensions without disregarding the other. Government agencies are generally the ones responsible for determining what is ‘desirable to achieve’. This is based on decisions made by ‘society’, or at least those elected by society to rule their destiny, but many times these expectations are not aligned with the pragmatic dimension, this is, the reality of the schools where the policy is implemented.  The author proposes the participants to solve this issue, to reconcile both levels. Unfortunately, this is not a clear-cut task. There are many stakeholders interacting with these participants, and with those in charge of the policy dimension, whose interests are many times totally different. This is one issue that needs to be studied, and that is crucial in developing curricula that is achievable, but that yet helps move the society forward.