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.