pjk1458's blog

I did an analysis of Puntos de Partida 8. Because we answered almost all of the yes/no questions in class, I decided to only touch on that in a general sense and focus more on what is actually found in the book. I must admit that I went into the text-book analysis of Puntos de Partida 8 with preconceived bias because what book mainly focuses on (or what is taught in class) is the English/Spanish vocabulary lists and grammar instruction. There is a cultural section at the end of each chapter (that is usually never taught to the students) that focuses on one Spanish-speaking country and its culture but it really only takes up one page and the majority of the information in that section is dry encyclopedia-type stuff and the text doesn’t reinforce anything learned within that chapter. After each vocab and grammar section there are practice exercises and even the mid-chapter “cultural note” is written in English.

I did see a glimmer of hope, though. When I really analyzed the book for text-based learning, I found some great activities that could really be helpful to the students. In several chapters there is an exercise of an ad or a comic or something similar with comprehension questions. I feel this kind of activity helps students see and interpret texts they might find in everyday situations and might help them be more attentive to the language and texts that surround them in their everyday life.  Another interesting text-based activity is for example, paragraphs that talk about certain topic like tourism in a certain Spanish-speaking country and has the student fill in the correct form of the verb for example. They are getting a text that they may read if they were interested in traveling to that country (or any country for that matter) and having to determine the correct use of ser or estar. In my opinion, this activity allows the students to read a text that has the possibility of being more applicable to them in their lives, which may help in their intrinsic motivation

There is not much more I would like to add to the previous reflection that I wrote concerning technology… I guess one question I feel we should ask ourselves when we start to implement technology in the classroom is this: Will using this form of technology help me teach this material more effectively and/or efficiently? Will it make the lesson clearer and more understandable or could it save some time so we’ll have more time for something else that might be more helpful like practicing what the students have learned? I feel if the answer to these questions is “NO” than the use of that form of technology should probably be reconsidered.

The other topic on which I would like to reflect is the video about Team-Based Learning: Group Work that Works       http://magenta.cit.utexas.edu/largeclasses/#tbl

This video really spoke to me because I have always thought about this concept and form of group work which makes the learning environment more like real life in which you can consult and counsel with other people. This type of learning not only teaches people the material they are covering, but it teaches them how to collaborate with others in achieving a common goal. When I used to bring up this idea of a group test, people would often counter with the logistics and practicality of how a teacher could “measure” the students’ abilities in that way. Of course, that is a good question…what do we do if there is one or two slackers in the group and at the same time one or more “over-achievers” in the group? The over-achievers would do all the work and the under-achievers would not do very much and the two would be “measured” as the same. Some times because of the personalities involved, one person in the group will assume the role of the “leader” and the others will follow or two people in the group could have a “conflict” of who is the “leader”. How can teachers help in those kind of situations?

I really liked the idea forming the groups with as much diversity as possible so the group can have a wide variety of different perspectives and ideas. The other thing that I thought was really interesting was the fact that the group members give feedback to each of the other members of the group. As one of the professors said the feedback and how it is received is very different when it comes from the “authority” figure (the professor) or from the peers with whom one works with in a group. Another aspect of group work that really caught my attention was the system of the “scratch-off” answer sheet for the test. This makes the students keep going until they get the right answer and it still allows the teacher to see where the students are struggling by how many wrong answers they scratched off. I most cases when someone takes a test, he or she will look at the grade and probably not much else (right/wrong answers and why they are right/wrong). This method focuses more on finding the right answer in a collaborative way and the feedback and understanding is instantaneous. There is no delay from answering the question to knowing if they answered correctly. But again the question arises: What if one person in the group knows all the answers and one person doesn’t know anything? How can this be determined? How can teachers know if one student hasn’t learned the concepts that the other students have learned?

In real life, we can consult with other people for answers to questions but we can also look in a book and touching again on technology, we can look it up on the internet. I wonder sometimes if the new information-highway technology is making us less smart or intellectually lazy. Here’s an example: before I had a cell phone, I would memorize phone numbers and I was pretty good at it (if I do say so myself). I could remember a lot of numbers and usually for a fairly long time. After I got a cell phone, phone number are inputted into the phone and now one doesn’t have to memorize numbers. My dad had a cell phone before I got mine and I memorized his number (and I still remember it from memory), but my mom got a cell phone after I had gotten mine and I input her number into my phone and if I ever lose my phone, I won’t be able to call my mom because I haven’t memorized her number. Even if I do memorize her number, I wouldn’t ever have to use it because the phone does it for me. Going beyond phone numbers, what about information. Will the same thing happen to people with internet on their phone? They won’t have to remember anything because if they want to know anything, they just have to look it up on their phone. And if they become dependent on their technology to “remember” information and think for them, what happens when the technology crashes or they lose their gadgets?

In the UT Austin module, Orlando R. Kelm who is Associate Professor of Spanish and Portuguese Linguistics in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese, discusses technology in language learning and teaching. This module has really made me ponder the use of technology in the classroom because it is something that is or will be inevitably present in every classroom. But how do we use it to improve language teaching/learning? In many ways, we are barely scratching the surface of using technology efficiently and effective in language teaching. Some teachers use the technology they have as a glorified overhead projector (or they avoid it altogether) or I’ve seen teacher overuse it and give PowerPoint lectures for every lesson (again, still a glorified overhead projector). But how do we use technology effectively and efficiently?

This led me to another thought I had that deals with the use of the language websites Dr. Kelm spoke about in the module. The students could have assignments outside of class to listen to the “real-world” dialogues, which would give them great, authentic input (and he spoke about the difference between input and intake [which I understand as comprehensible input]). But what about of output? Or negotiating meaning? I do believe comprehensible input is extremely important (as in following the model of first language acquisition where the child listens first and then produces). In real-world situations, the language learner must respond, react, negotiate meaning, and deal with extraneous noise. I thought was how one could set up a type of pen-pal system through Skype where students in other countries learning English (or even ESL students in the US) could connect and speak to each other (and even see each other on the screens) and help each other with their respective target languages. There are inventions (also called advancements in technology) that are improvements on existing inventions and there are others that actually improve life. A washer and dryer may allow people a lot of extra time because they don’t have to wash their laundry by hand, but what are people doing with all this extra time that these inventions of convenience are allowing them? An invention that changed and improved life was for example, the discovery and use of electricity (although it comes with its own set of problems). How can we use technology in language teaching and learning in ways that won’t just distract from real language learning? It can certainly save time in the classroom where we can throw up something on a Powerpoint slide instead of writing everything out on the board by hand. But what are we doing during class time that is helping the students? Things they get in class that they couldn’t get from a website or a Powerpoint presentation?

We know that technology in teaching and learning is really inevitable. An interesting point that Dr. Kelm brings up in the module was the situation with how his 15-year-old son works with his friends and finds solutions on the internet when he was playing a video game with his friends, but how he also had an assignment from school where he essentially had to color a picture and cut it out. Wow… I think we can see where this is going… What a good contrast that brings home the point that Sir Ken Robinson makes in Changing Education Paradigms. The point being that children have to sit through boring stuff at school and are being almost over stimulated at home playing video games. How can we unite the two in an effective manner? It seems that some times when kids catch on that something (even like a video game) is educational, they’ll resist “having” to do it. Does education have to be entertainment, too? How do we get students intrinsically motivated and  excited about education without having to “trick” them into learning?

I would like to reflect on the UT Austin module by Thomas Jesús Garza who is a University Distinguished Teaching Associate Professor in the Department of Slavic and Eurasian Studies and the Director of the Texas Language Center at the University of Texas at Austin. He teaches Russian language at all levels, applied linguistics and pedagogy, and courses on contemporary Russian culture. I thought this module was excellent and Dr. Garza was a very informative and energetic teacher who keeps the attention of the students (namely me…). It also generated a lot of important questions. Dr. Garza discusses the principal focus of our MODL class: culture in language and language teaching/learning. He (at one point in the module) explains that all communication is culturally embedded, but usually language is taught in isolation focusing on grammar and lexicon (which is a point that I brought up in a previous reflection). But once again we are confronted with a series of questions that sometimes guide what we teach:

What do students want to get out of the class? What are their goals? If they never visit a country where the TL is spoken, how do we really teach the culture? Will it be beneficial to them? If students do not have any intention of visiting a country where the language is spoken, how can they really learn the culture? I wonder if one of the reasons why people learn the language so well when they are immersed in the TL country is that they are engulfed in the culture… One time in our MODL class we were doing group work and discussing culture and Robert spoke about the possibility teaching culture in the classroom by focusing on Hispanic culture in the DFW area. I thought that was a revolutionary idea that would definitely make teaching culture more meaningful to students living in this area and taking classes at UTA. But what else can we do about the students that will never go to a TL speaking country? Those students who are merely fulfilling a requirement? Can we really teach culture without having the students actually come in contact with that culture? How beneficial will it be for them to learn about a culture and have knowledge of it without ever experiencing it?

Dr. Garza continues by discussing a common language learning/teaching fallacy: learning language is not linear, it’s cumulative (info, culture and understanding). The representation of the inverted pyramid of proficiency explains how much can you do and understand at certain levels. Dr. Garza brings up the fact that most people (and institutions) believe that four years of studying a language equals proficiency. He explains that years do not = proficiency. Why do we equate number of years of study with proficiency level, which are actually two very different things?

Dr. Garza discusses that we should measure proficiency by functional ability not by number of years… he gives the examples: can you order at a restaurant, can you fight a traffic ticket, explain to the dry-cleaners they ruined your coat? Then a student asks, “Is that culture?” Dr. Garza responds that his work is done… that’s the take home message.

He brings up an interesting point that it wasn’t until 1950’s that Americans started to think about really learning modern languages of the world. After WWII, Americans realized that all the Germans spoke German…and that it might be a good idea to learn other world languages…

What do you call a person who speaks three languages?       -Trilingual.

What do you call a person who speaks two languages?     – Bilingual.

What do you call a person who speaks one language?    -American.

Again, we are faced with the ongoing theme in language learning where we find a balance of linguistic ability and content knowledge, but in this case the content knowledge is cultural understanding.

Sometimes I wonder if we focus too much on the differences in culture and not enough on the similarities. My thought is that we are all human and generally want the same things in life (happiness, love, food, shelter, clothing, etc.). We just happen to do certain things differently. It is extremely important to understand not only the TL culture but all cultures…considering that the US is a melting pot of many cultures. We should enjoy and understand the diversity of culture.

I am going to start putting the reflection pieces as posts instead of as pages… I backed up a little and started with reflection VII and VIII (they are still on the pages).  So people can leave comments now…

Reflection VIII

Concerning the UT module, I would like to reflect on the speaking module by Carl Blyth who is Associate Professor of French Linguistics in the Department of French and Italian and the Director of the Texas Language Technology Center. I love the way he starts off in his introduction with this:

“You can’t teach people how to communicate without actually having them communicate.” I feel that language learning (and teaching) should be based on a communicative approach. After all, isn’t that the point of language? To communicate ideas, thoughts, and feeling with others? I do feel that focus in our language classrooms these days focus on grammar and vocabulary but not much else. My cousin graduated with a B.A. in Spanish from an accredited, four-year university, but she claims that she can’t speak Spanish at all. How did that happen? After being a GTA for a 1442 (2^nd level) Spanish class, I have started to see how that could happen. The students can memorize vocabulary and grammar forms and really only have to do a very short oral presentation twice during the semester. Even then, the oral presentation is not very communicative and lends itself to memorization. How is this learning? In my opinion, there is a big difference between “memorization” and “learning” and I feel the system that is in place allows for students to purely memorize and get through the system with learning very little (if anything at all). That’s why the “5-minute university” rings so true.

I like the fact that Dr. Blyth also addresses the difficulties and the reality of implementing communicative tasks in the classroom, which I feel makes it more practical. A few problems with doing this in the classroom are that it is more difficult for students because it is not rote memorization (which I think should be changed anyway) and for the teacher it is harder to manage because the students get off task and/or revert to their L1.

In distinguishing Communication vs. practice (oral), Blyth gives a list of elements found in a communicative task, which I feel should be one of the goals of our language teaching shift:

Communicative Task

learner-controlled

real life, authentic

synthetic/holistic (many things at once)

open (no single answer)

focus on fluency

I would also like to reflect on the RSAnimation presentation of Sir Ken Robinson on changing education paradigms. There is almost too much to really pin a few concepts down but this video (and the other one from TED) really spoke to me. My parents always counseled me to go to college so I could get a good job. Although I didn’t really become serious about education until college, I quickly realized (as Robinson says in the video) that there are no guarantees. I loved what what he said about divergent thinking. Of course, there can be many possible answers to questions and many ways to interpret a question, but that is not what we learned in school. We learned that there is a right and a wrong answer and that being wrong is the worst thing that you could ever do. Later, I realized that it is mainly through our mistakes that we can learn which way is right. I think it was Edison that said he found 101 ways to not make a light bulb before he found the one that did. One thing that that is still making me think ( from TED video) was that our current system focuses on Math and Language as the core and the Arts are outcast because one can’t get a job with those skills. Although I wish it weren’t so, it seems with the current system, that is true. I, for example, am a musician and I would love to spend my time focusing on music, composing and playing and performing. But the reality in the current system does not allow for that and I do have to find a way to provide for the needs of me and my family (I also love to teach, which is why I want to be a teacher). If we put into practice what Ken Robinson is suggesting, the entire system will have to change as well.

Another thought I had was concerning the influence of Math and Language on the Arts. I thought about how music is a form of communication (which is like language) and there are mathematical aspects to music and in many other forms of the arts for that matter. In painting, there’s balance and composition and depth of field and in dance there is rhythm and timing (which also have to do with expressing oneself like language and timing and measurements like in math). In dealing with money and budgeting, one must be fairly comfortable with mat. Maybe that is one reason why math and language have become the focus of our school system…because they have an influence on many other fields…

I also know that there are many different “kinds” of intelligences (not just one standard) that many people may have or have a variety of. I know that our system of education is antiquated, but why are we still trying to make it fit in a world where it doesn’t? Why are we still using a system that doesn’t recognize the multi-intelligence way of thinking and we are still trying to fit those students into the one mold. This is one reason that I feel I wasn’t a serious student until I started college where I could learn about things that I was interested in or that were important to me. One of my best friends in high school who was extremely intelligent and very good at working with people (although he had a problem with authority) was diagnosed with ADHD. His parents told him he had to take Ritalin so he could concentrate. At that time, I questioned why does he have to conform to the system? Why can’t there be an education structure that caters to people like him? In my opinion, I find those personality altering drugs kind of scary. One time that friend of mine took Ritalin before a big test he had to take and afterwards, we hung out together. It felt like I was with a completely different person…he looked the same and had all the same memories, but it was like the body snatchers came and replaced him with an alien replica.

So why can’t we change the system to fulfill the needs of the people instead of changing the people to conform to an antiquated system?

Comment by Dr. Rings:

PJ,
You raise some excellent points. I’m so sorry your reflections are on pages instead of situated in the blog as posts, so that others can comment on them as well. Oh, well, maybe next time.

You raise many points that can make us depressed about education and L2 communication. It is why I was so hopefully impressed with Joe Cuseo who came to speak with us yesterday and talked about research in teaching and learning, and how to bring students to thinking deeply about ideas. I think we need that hope, so that we do not slip into despair at the huge problems we have in our educational systems today. People like you need to continue on, in areas of your interest, so that you can help us effect the change that is needed.

And I could not agree with you more about the following:
“You can’t teach people how to communicate without actually having them communicate.” I feel that language learning (and teaching) should be based on a communicated approach. After all, isn’t that the point of language? To communicate ideas, thoughts, and feeling with others? I do feel that focus in our language classrooms these days focus on grammar and vocabulary but not much else. My cousin graduated with a B.A. in Spanish from an accredited, four-year university, but she claims that she can’t speak Spanish at all. How did that happen? After being a GTA for a 1442 (2nd level) Spanish class, I have started to see how that could happen. The students can memorize vocabulary and grammar forms and really only have to do a very short oral presentation twice during the semester. Even then, the oral presentation is not very communicative and lends itself to memorization. How is this learning? In my opinion, there is a big difference between “memorization” and “learning” and I feel the system that is in place allows for students to purely memorize and get through the system with learning very little (if anything at all). That’s why the “5-minute university” rings so true.

Reflection VII

I would like to reflect on the UT module by Rafael Salaberry who is Professor of Spanish Applied Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition and the Director of the Language Program in the Department of Spanish and Portugueseat the University of Texas at Austin. In the module, Dr. Salaberry talks about teaching grammar in teaching a foreign language. My first response to this module was kind of a mixed one. I have taught grammar (and I actually really like grammar, teaching it and talking about it). I took a second-language acquisition class with Dr. Elliott during the summer of 2010 and he presented us with several studies that were conducted which actually show that teaching grammar may improve language learning but not necessarily improve language acquisition. There was a distinction where language learning is focused on rules and regulations of the language, which students can know but might not know how to apply and language acquisition is that actual acquisition of the language in which students don’t necessarily need to know the rules (similar to first language acquisition). I tend to agree with that because in my ESL teaching experience, I had met many Korean students who knew the grammar rules backward and foreword but could not speak well or fluently at all. Another on of my professors from the TESOL program at BYU discussed the key to language acquisition is 1) comprehensible input, 2) output, 3) noticing the gap between their speech and the target language. I feel that teaching grammar helps the student recognize the gap between their speech and the target language, but I have also seen that even when they notice their errors, they don’t always change to meet the target language. In an ESL class, I was teaching the past tense of the be verb and I had one student that would always say things like “We was at the park…” and no matter how much I corrected and even though she knew the rule, she would still say it incorrectly.

Another one of my professors in the TESOL program made an excellent analogy. He said, “You don’t have to be a mechanic to be able to drive a car.” He was referring to the fact that you don’t have to know all the ins and outs of the grammar of a language to be able to speak that language. When people learn their first language they are not taught the grammar, parts of speech, and verb conjugations before they can actually use the language.

I like the the continuum of deductive and inductive teaching and learning chart found in lesson 3. I feel there needs to be a balance of these two sides for adults learning a foreign language. It would be difficult for adults to take the same approach that children do when learning their first language because their cognitive skills can work to their advantage but too much focus on grammar can lead to the issue with the Korean students who know the grammar but can’t speak it.

Again we must ask ourselves as teachers: “What do we want our students to walk away with from our class?” What are the students goals? Do we want them to be language learners or language acquirers? or both? And how do we accomplish our goals as teachers to help our students and how do we help our students achieve their goals?

Comment by Dr. Rings:

PJ,

Reflection #7.

Excellent points: I tend to agree with that because in my ESL teaching experience, I had met many Korean students who knew the grammar rules backward and foreword but could not speak well or fluently at all.

Yes, it takes something different/more for students to actually internalize accurate morphology, syntax, etc.:
I feel that teaching grammar helps the student recognize the gap between their speech and the target language, but I have also seen that even when they notice their errors, they don’t always change to meet the target language.

Wonderful metaphor – I’ve never heard this one before:
Another one of my professors in the TESOL program made an excellent analogy. He said, “You don’t have to be a mechanic to be able to drive a car.” He was referring to the fact that you don’t have to know all the ins and outs of the grammar of a language to be able to speak that language. When people learn their first language they are not taught the grammar, parts of speech, and verb conjugations before they can actually use the language.

My goodness, you know I agree with this. In my – now – 30 plus years of teaching languages, I have always reminded myself of the “questions that won’t go away.” I think they keep us on track, keep us changing and growing as educators – that growth only ends when we quit teaching, and we never quit teaching someone. I think these questions can keep us humble, too, and humility will go a long way to balance our egos which – at least in this and other cultures – want to be on top, to be applauded, etc.:
Again we must ask ourselves as teachers: “What do we want our students to walk away with from our class?” What are the students goals? Do we want them to be language learners or language acquirers? or both? And how do we accomplish our goals as teachers to help our students and how do we help our students achieve their goals?