Final Reading

I found Canagarajah's article to be really interesting. Prior to reading it, I had come to the conclusion that no one theory was the "right" one, but that all of the theories were/are "right" in part. I had through that what was needed was a combination (or as Canagaraja claims a synthesis). I realize now that this really isn't necessary. There really can't be a one-size-fits-all, culminating method. On page 28, Canagarajah claims "The field represents a supermarket of ideas and practices that we can choose from at will for our purposes." He adds that this is a more cynical look at the field, but I'd disagree. I think this makes the field better in that it provides options. If teachers jobs involve teaching the content in an understandable way, isn't it better to have more choices and strategies to pull from? When one isn't working, you can simply try the next. Especially considering the fact that each group of students is different, one strategy may not always work to teach a lesson. Teachers will need to consider their students when designing lessons and choosing strategies from the "supermarket" of the field.

On a separate note, I found myself annoyed at the inclusion of Allwright's research on pages 19 and 20. Canagarajah claims he "pointed out how teachers still control the curriculum of student-centered learning, reluctant to compromise their own teaching agendas" (19). What I think he is forgetting is the district and school curricula. I don't think that it's solely the teachers agenda that's the problem. Teachers have so much they must cover in order to keep their jobs. I really don't think it's fair to put all the blame on teachers for a lack of true student-centered learning.

On page 52-53, Lightbrown and Spada point out that at times more advanced learners need to be placed in less dominant roles when paired in activities with lower level learners. I understand that this will allow/force the lower level students a chance to work to learn the material, but this comment makes me wonder if the same is true for other non-language learning situations. I think that this kind of pairing might put the more advanced students in a more cheerleading/coaching role, rather than the "I know how to do this, so I'm going to do it all" role. I'm not sure if this would work or if the pairing would end up not doing anything. I think that it might encourage some students to really put some effort in at least attempting work that they might feel is too difficult.

The last pages of Lightbrown and Spada's chapter 6 reaffirmed a few of my beliefs. They point out the fact that instruction should include guided-form focused instruction and corrective feedback in certain circumstances. They also allude to the fact that the teacher needs to know when each one would be beneficial to use and when to shift between them. For me, this part demonstrates exactly how vital a teacher's role is. Toward the end they add the comment that most teachers don't think about how to improve their teaching strategie because it can be very difficult. "It is not always easy to step back from familiar practices and say, 'I wonder if this is really the most effective way to go about this'" (180). I find this to be a great point. I'm tempted to type it in large print and print it out. I think having this quote on a sign somewhere teachers would see somewhere every day. I'd be willing to bet that it might encourage some more reflective teachers.

Negotiated meaning...

One of the concepts that seemed to resonate fin both articles was the idea that all meaning must be negotiated. In Firth and Wagner's article, it's stated directly. On some level, I always knew this, but it didn't really sink in until I read Canagarajah's article. Between native speakers of any language the negotiation process is almost invisible, but it's there nonetheless. I think one of the main differences is that people may share similar connotations for certain words, and the process can be easier. For a native and a nonnative speaker, the process is complicated because the two don't share common background. (I find myself trying to think of the problem in terms other than deficits.... But it's strangely difficult.) If the two don't have a common background they must find other ways to negotiate for meaning. I think the Lingua Franca English community is a great example of this. Each person in the group knows that everyone else cones from a different background and must try to adapt their communication strategies to each interaction. I think that native speakers can sometimes take for granted the fact that not everyone has the same background as they do and/or they don't have to work (on a regular basis) to make themselves understand and be understood. This is extra work that can be thought of as a bother to some - especially in a culture where people try to do as little as possible sometimes.

Knowledge for Whom

Early in the chapter (page 164) there's a brief paragraph about "general education" teachers, and their hesitation to teach ESL students. Prior to starting this course, I would have also had hesitations and maybe for similar reasons. During my undergrad program, I didn't have a course on teaching English to speakers of other languages. I remember reading only one book, which I still have, on the subject, and if I remember correctly, it wasn't very helpful. After thinking about this, I began to think about our jobs as teachers. Isn't our job to teach every student? To provide every student with learning opportunities? If this is the case, and I believe it is, then teachers shouldn't be excluding some students because they speak other languages! It should be their job to provide any additional support these students need in their classrooms.

Later in the chapter, Wong discusses Chu Hsi's theory that we learn about the world by first learning what's in front of us. This reminded me of Piaget's stages and the shifts from learning and thinking about the concrete to the abstract. It also reminded me about a prior class and a discussion about babies learning about object permanence. We all learn very concretely (what's in front of us) as children. Children can be very ego-centric and focus only on their lives and existence. As they age, they're able to focus on the abstract and things they can't see. While I'm not sure if this is a perfect comparisons, there was definitely some overlap for me.

Lastly, I found Wong's brief paragraph about suggestopedia (Lozanov's method) interesting. This method, of creating a new identity for yourself as you learn a new language, was how I learned Spanish in high school. My teacher gave us all a list, and we were told to pick one from the list. He added the recommendation to choose one similar to our real names. I ended up choosing a name that was similar to mine, but not because he told us to. I chose it (Kristina) because my grandpa used to call me that. (I'm not sure of the story behind it...) I'm not sure if choosing a name similar to our name is a good way to create a new identity though. I had always felt that it was too much like my name to really reduce my inhibitions for learning and speaking Spanish. Of course, I'm not sure if choosing a totally new name would have been any different either. Either way, this provides me something to think about as I work on my project.

Teaching by Doing

I found myself thoroughly interested with this chapter (4th) of Wong's book. The concept of learning by doing is nothing new to me, but I loved the way she explained how it related to dialogic pedagogy. With Wong quoting Mao, "Our chief method is to learn warfare through warfare" (128) and adding the comment about the pear (the only way to know what it tastes like is to actually taste it), I couldn't help by think of teaching. I found myself trying to relate this to other areas (Non-TESOL) of teaching as well. For example what would a regular English, history, or psychology class look like if this methodology was accepted. I could easily see the method working for teaching writing. (Learning how to write by writing.) That seems like common sense. I wonder though, what would a high school literature class look like? Learning literature by doing literature? I'd imagine it would go beyond character sketches and book reports, but I can't think of anything that would be considered "doing literature." Perhaps writing book reviews for a school or local news paper. The same types of problems come to me when thinking about history. How do you learn history by doing history? Writing news articles for current events? Perhaps this is simply my naivety about the different types of things people in these disciplines "do"... (although I am certified to teach in each area). Maybe this warrants more research on my part. What ideas can you think of?

I feel like this approach is similar to the "practice what you preach" mentality. If people are doing work in their discipline they'd be more prepared to help students do work in the discipline. As I read, I was thinking about some of my own learning experiences of learning by doing and the concept that practice reinforces knowledge. Prior to college, I attended beauty school. Beginning by taking classes and then slowly adding in hours on actual clients, I learned how to cut, color, style, perm, etc. The more hours I spent with clients, the more I wanted (and needed) to know. Even after I graduated and got my first job in a salon, other stylists told me that all beauty school teaches is the basics. After a few years of doing hair, I can say they were definitely right. I feel that I learned more by doing hair than by learning about doing hair. My experience with teaching is similar. I've taken countless classes on teaching during my undergrad, but nothing can prepare people better for teaching than by actually teaching. No class can really prepare people for parent-teacher conferences or managing the insane paper load of a high school English teacher. I think back on my own experiences and have to wonder how I can provide the same types of eye-opening, engaging learning experiences for my students.

Annotated Bibliography Preview

Rankin, Y. A., McNeal, M., Shute, M. W., & Gooch, B. (2008). User Centered Game Design: Evaluating Massive Multiplayer Online Role PLaying Games for Second Language Acquisition. 2008 ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Video Games (pp. 43-50). ACM.

This source explores the possibility of using massively multi-player online role playing games (MMORPG) as a tool for second language learning. The article suggests that these games, although unorthodox, show great potential for vocabulary development and demonstrate the importance of interaction.  For my project, I'm analyzing World of Warcraft and (possibly) the Rosetta Stone program. Though the article doesn't specifically address either pc software, it does use a MMORPG that's similar to World of Warcraft, making this article particularly relevant to my project.

Rankin, Y., Gold, R., & Gooch, B. (2006). 3D Role-Playing Games as Language Learning Tools. Eurographics.

            This article is actually a pilot study for the previously cited article. It also focuses on a MMORPG and measures its effects on second language interaction by determining how much of an increase there was in utterances/messages sent in-game throughout the study.

Steinkuehler, C. A. (2004). Learning in Massively Multiplayer Online Games. 6th International Conference on Learning Sciences (pp. 521-528). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

            This article also focuses on an MMORPG, but isn't targeted to SLA. This article seems primarily concerned with how learning takes place and how the identities players take on influence learning.  Because my goal is to analyze the potential for learning of MMORPGs, this article is relevant to my project.

Stevens, V. (2006). Second Life in Education and Language Learning. The Electronic Journal for Teaching as a Second Language.

            This article focuses on a different MMORPG, Second Life. This game is not as directed as other games because users create their own content, and it focuses more on the social interactions. There are no objectives, monsters to kill, or tasks to complete in Second Life. This game takes away much of the game-like content and immerses users in a truly role playing situation. The players become their avatars and interact with other avatars.  While this game isn’t completely like the one I’m studying, it is still relevant because of the interactions between individuals in a virtual space.

Wong Chapter 3

I found this chapter to be very interesting. One of the things I really liked was the discussion on standardized testing. I thought it was great that Wong didn't overlook something that is clearly a huge portion of classes in the middle and high school levels. I found her strategies to be really interesting as well, though some of it I'd heard before from other journals and readings (not for this course). Her "be aware of what's on the test" was kind of a "duh!" moment for me. I can't imagine anyone who would not make an attempt to at least know what's on the test. Teachers need to be able to (at a minimum) let students know what to expect.
I also found the "teach beyond the test" to be very interesting. I always though this would be how I would address the standardized testing issue in my classroom. In my opinion, any teacher effectively doing his/her job should be teaching enough that the tests are not a total surprise for the students. Teachers shouldn't have to "teach to the test" to be able to prepare students. Simply teaching the skills students need should (ideally) be sufficient. Wong's addition of be sure to point out to students that the skills they're learning are the same ones that they'll see on the test is a good one. This will help students realize that they do know how to do everything on the test and it'll be less intimidating for them as well.
Her last suggestion "pose the test as a problem" I've read somewhere else. Though now I can't remember where. (Possibly an edition of English Journal?)

Toward the end of the chapter, Wong discusses how many teachers have problems with posing problem based questions. I was honestly expecting a list of strategies teachers could use and was rather disappointed when there wasn't one. I guess each situation is different and no strategy would work the same way with each class. I still think it would have been nice. :)