Testing and Assessment/Classroom-based Assessment

Brown chapters 23 and 24 discusses testing and assessment. They give an overview of different aspects of tests and testing. Some examples of these are practicality, reliability, validity, authenticity, and washback. All of these factors must be taken into account when writing a test. In order to construct a good test, it must test what it is supposed to test, have an authentic purpose, and not result in negative washback. In chapter 24, Brown talks about classroom-based assessment. There are many different things to take into account for this topic as well. Specifically, there are many alternative assessment techniques that can be used besides tests. Some of these include portfolios, journals, presentations, papers, conferences, and observations. Some students do not achieve to their highest potential on regular achievement tests, and that is why teachers need to be aware and come up with different forms of assessment in the classroom. Every student should be provided with the ability to succeed.

One big debate in the teaching field revolves around standardized testing. There are many teachers who believe it should be completely taken out of the education system. Because of all of the negative washback effects, this makes sense. However, there are good reasons for testing as well. It gives the schools a good idea of the achievement level of all of their students. I do believe, however that traditional testing should not be used as widely as it is in the classroom setting. When I look back on my years of public schooling, I remember very little of what I was tested on. Many of the classroom tests I took, specifically in junior high and high school, were tests that I studied for, got a good grade, and then forgot the majority of the information. The subjects and topics that I remember the most are the ones by which I was informally or alternatively assessed. For example, presentations or journals or field trips taught me much more than the traditional test. While I understand that in some contexts, achievement tests cannot be avoided, I still think that they are not very useful. When I was homeschooled, my mom rarely administered official achievement test to me upon completion of a unit. Instead, she employed methods such as journaling and portfolios to assess how much I was learning. I remember so much of what my mom taught me during those elementary and early junior high years, and I believe that it’s because she used meaningful techniques in her teaching. As a future teacher, I plan to employ alternative assessment techniques in my classroom as much as I am able.

Is there a place for achievement tests and formal assessment at all? Or are they tools that should be employed on occasion? How do students learn best? 

Progress Report

     The blog posts this semester have been an amazing learning experience. Writing about what I read is very useful in terms of making the ideas concrete in my mind. After talking a little bit more about expectations for the blog, I came to understand it better. At first, I was just summarizing each chapter, instead of synthesizing. Now I get more out of the blogs through picking out main ideas and synthesizing them.
   
     Concerning the research project, I have started a little bit of research. Mostly I have simply been investigating my topic more, trying to learn more about its intricacies. The main question of my research paper is, "How should grammar be taught?" I want to explore the different ways, positive and negative, of teaching grammar. Explicit vs. implicit teaching, methods for grammar teaching, and how culture influences grammar are some of the subtopics that I hope to explore. I also plan to focus on high school ESL students in this realm.

     The first source that I found was a book called "Teaching Readers of English" by John Hedgcock and Dana Ferris. This text discusses the challenges faced by teachers who are teaching ELL's. It talks about different methods and approaches that can be used when teaching reading and grammar. It specifically focuses on theories for L2 teaching of reading and grammar.

     The second source was called, "Teacher's Perceptions about Grammar Teaching" by Tran Hoang Thu. This piece focuses on teacher's beliefs about grammar teaching in an ESL setting. It also talks a lot about the effects of implicit vs. explicit grammar teaching, something very controversial. Grammar correction is discussed as well, having to do with how much to correct students or not correct them.

     The third source is entitled, "The Grammar Correction Debate in L2 Writing" by Dana Ferris. This article discusses the pros and cons of Grammar correction in the classroom. There are some negative and some positive effects of this and there are many different ways to do it. The author also says that this is an issue we have hardly touched on in the language field, there is much left to research about it.

Standard English and Cultural Sensitivity

The discussion of English as a global language and culture in language are two of the main arguments that Kumar talks about in his chapters. There is a huge argument regarding what Standard English is. There are so many regional and international variations of English that it is hard to say what the most “correct” version really is. Many say that Midwestern American English, with no regional accent, and superior education is the most standard variety of English. But doesn’t that devalue all other forms of English spoken throughout the world? Just because other versions aren’t “correct” or “standard” should they be written off as incorrect or uneducated?

In the second chapter of Kumar he goes into the question of culture and how that affects language learning and teaching. One of the most important parts of culture is the language that is associated with each specific culture. Kumar states, “One of the most important aims of culture teaching is to help the learner gain an understanding of the native speaker’s perspective” (268). To understand a culture, one must understand from where the native speakers are coming. Language learners must understand the culture and language about which they are learning. It is so intricate and delicate an issue, understanding culturally appropriate speech and native language culture. How can teachers begin to teach language and NOT bring culture into the classroom in conjunction? It is such an important piece and cannot be ignored.

Finally, Brown talks about socially responsible teaching in his chapter, which ties in with the idea of taking politics and culture into perspective when teaching a language. Teachers need to be agents of change, teaching their students about current events and issues that are going on in their respective countries. If a teacher ignores these issues, it is very difficult for them to teach affectively. Going along with this, they need to be sensitive to all kinds of diversity in the classroom. If they are not aware of this in their teaching, so many important things will be ignored. Teachers need to know their students in every way; otherwise they will not be able to teach them well. Obviously, it can be difficult to maintain a good balance between bringing up issues of diversity too much versus completely ignoring them. How does a good teacher attain this balance in a healthy way that develops their classroom positively? 

Integration of language domains

Integration of the four domains of language is imperative to proper learning. However, linguists and language teachers did not always view this to be true. Reading, writing, listening, and speaking used to be (and still are in many places) taught completely separately, sometimes having specific courses for different domains. “Such an artificial separation of language skills, however, is quite normal in most language schools”(Kumar 225). Research has shown that integrating these four domains is much for beneficial for learning outcomes. Obviously it is much easier to compartmentalize when teaching a language, but there are effective ways to carry out integrative teaching. Brown and Kumar both discuss these methods in their texts. Brown focuses on Content-Based Instruction, Task-based learning, theme-based instruction, and experimental learning, all of these being different ways to integrate language learning. Kumar, on the other hand, discusses more specific activities for promoting this idea. Interactive scenarios, problem-solving tasks, and content-based activities are a few that he mentions (Kumar 229). These tasks all involve students using integrated language skills while completing them. Kumar also discusses linguistic input in chapter 9, which is the idea that context is extremely important. There are four realities of the linguistic input; linguistic, extralinguistic, situational, and extrasituational.

                One of the approaches that stood out to me when I was reading Brown was experiential learning. Experiential learning is similar to content-based and task-based, but it has an added dimension (Brown 291). It focuses on real life, concrete experiences. Most of this learning is inductive; the teacher is not explicitly teaching their students the information. They give students situations to work with and then guide them from there. I love this approach because I think the student learns so much more when they are given control of their learning process. He talks about some of the techniques used in this approach, such as research projects, cross-cultural experiences, role plays, and field trips. All of these things are activities that give the student control. Ownership of the learning process is essential if students are ever going to learn. I personally experienced this type of learning growing up, although not necessarily through language learning specifically. I was homeschooled and my mom took this approach when teaching us. She guided our learning experiences but also provided a lot of free exploration time and activities that were out of the box. We went on a lot of field trips, did creative research projects, and learned about other cultures. This type of approach really encourages students to take ownership of their learning.

Teaching Grammar

In language teaching there is always an argument over naturalistic teaching and focus on form. There are pros and cons to both approaches and that is what Brown talks about in his chapter. Specifically, he discusses how to teach grammar. Grammar has long been a touchy subject when it comes to naturalistic acquisition due to its rote quality. However, it’s important to note that grammar can be taught in an exciting and positive way. After all, it is essential to learning language, whether the learner acquires it naturally or explicitly. There are some ways to make grammar accessible to students. The teacher should make sure that grammar is within the context of meaningful communication, that it contributes positively to communicative goals, that it promotes accuracy, that it doesn’t overwhelm students with the linguistic terminology, and that it is as intrinsically motivation as possible (Brown 421). This ties in with the idea that Kumar presents of general and critical language awareness. Teachers need to be aware of language when teaching it to their students. He talks about how they need to engage the students in language awareness, making things like grammar and syntax interesting and motivating. Even though explicit language and grammar instruction has been frowned upon, Kumar makes a point for it in this chapter. During class time, questions may arise that students want the answer to, and sometimes they deal directly with grammar or vocabulary. Self discovery is an important tool that students can use when learning grammar. Kumar states, “The logic of preferring reasoning over rules appears to be fairly simple” (178). This promotes the idea that grammar should definitely be taught, but not in a formalized lesson plan. Grammar and vocabulary points will come up in class and then the teacher can use those opportunities to teach about it. These instances are more beneficial due to context.

                When it comes to teaching grammar, it is difficult to know how to approach the subject. Generally it is said that an inductive approach is much more beneficial to the students. Because it’s more naturalistic and communicative, most students learn very well with this approach. It helps them learn while they’re speaking instead of explicitly teaching rote mannerisms. However, I’m not sure I completely agree with this statement. I see the benefits of this, and I myself learn well with this method in certain contexts. But a deductive approach isn’t necessarily bad for all students. I believe that beginners should have some sort of structure given to them of the grammar of the language they are learning. This structure helps them begin to structure their own discourse and in turn become more fluent. I think that using inductive methods in intermediate or advanced stages is very beneficial because at that point students already have a clear understanding of what they are learning and inductive teaching is much better. If students are making clear mistakes when you are teaching them inductively, should you switch to a more explicit method? Although inductivity is seen as better, couldn’t there be some instances where deductive methods are better? How does a teacher know when to use each approach? 

Reading and Writing Strategies for ELL's

Chapters 20 and 21 of Brown’s book talked about reading comprehension and writing for ELL’s. One of the things that interested me was learning about how much goes into reading and writing in a second language. ELL’s have to remember and learn so much about genres of literature, cultural norms, and academic language. They also have to learn a different culture of academics and reading and writing if they are old enough to have attended school prior to coming to the US. Additionally, the academic nature of school is very different than the slang English they may hear other places. As teachers we need to teach them skills to help this transition easier. Such as skimming texts or reviewing their writing samples before turning them in. Then there is the question of authenticity. How authentic are the tasks we are giving our students? What types of writing tasks do ELL’s really need to know about? That is when real writing and display writing come into play. “Real writing […] is writing when the reader doesn’t know the answer and genuinely wants information […] Written exercises, short-answer essays, and other writing in test situations are instances of display writing” (Brown 395-396). I think that we should try and incorporate more of real writing into display writing tasks, for ELL and native speakers alike. We don’t get enough instruction on real life writing skills during high school. This is not to say that academic writing and research papers aren’t important, but shouldn’t we try and teach what is going to be employed?

The question is, how do we really teach the students these skills effectively? Ferris discusses this in his article. One of the simple things that he states is this, “Second language acquisition takes time” (Ferris 92). Although this truth seems trite, it is very true. We can’t expect our ELL’s to immediately flourish into amazing readers and writers of English when they’ve only been in the country a short amount of time. It takes a long time to perfect a language and we can’t get hung up on that. Some things that we can do to help them are very realistic, such as giving them more time to complete work, teaching them the importance of editing and revising, and teaching them to self-edit (Ferris 96). I personally believe that one of the best ways to become a good writer is to be a reader. Research has shown this in native speaking children. When they spend a lot of time reading books, their writing generally improves. I really believe that one of the ways we can improve overall literacy rates in ELL’s is by promoting reading. And we need to provide them with authentic and culturally relevant literature that they will enjoy. Brown discusses this in his chapter about reading. What are some other ways that we can improve literacy skills in ELL’s? How do we reach them where they are in reading/writing level? If we become discouraged about strategies not working, what do we turn to? 

Week of October 8

Interaction hypothesis by Kumar is the idea that you can learn language entirely through the “process of interaction”. As he states in the text, “Oral interaction in which communication problems are negotiated between participants promotes L2 comprehension and production ultimately facilitating language development” (106). I like this idea but I don’t think it’s necessarily revolutionary or original. It really relates very closely to the method of CLT. It’s all about communication and learning the language through speaking it. Brown touches on this subject as well in his chapters about listening and speaking. He says that although communication as a whole is important, perfecting our skills of listening comprehension and speaking are possibly even more important. “Much of our language-teaching energy is devoted to instruction in mastering English conversation. However, numerous other forms of spoken language are also important to incorporate into a language course, especially in teaching listening comprehension” (Brown 303). This is the opposite of the class in Cary’s article. Although the teacher employs conversation as a tool for learning, she adds other things to enrich the conversation, she gives it direction. Although the interaction hypothesis is valid, I believe that we can’t teach students English through conversation alone. There needs to be more things to cater to all students. Some students need more than speaking to learn. They need activities or visual aids or hands on projects. Even if that theory sounds good, we need to make sure that we are aware of all of the students in our classrooms and we are doing what is best for all of them.

I loved the article entitled, “How do I support a student’s first language when I don’t speak the language?”. I thought that the teacher portrayed was such an awesome role model and had so many great ideas that I would love to employ in my classroom. One thing that really stood out to me was the idea of language diversity. Giving the students a chance to teach their native language to the whole class was so unique and fosters a sense of cultural pride while still benefitting the entire class. It was also really neat because as stated, “[it] gave native English-speaking kids a taste of what their second language learner classmates experienced daily” (Cary 139).  I love this because it gives the native speaking children such a perspective on what their peers have to go through every day. The argument to for English only education is definitely a growing one in the United States. I wonder how the legislators or adults who are for full immersion programs would feel if they were put in this situation. Would they still be an advocate of English only? Or would they realize that it makes sense to foster a child’s native language alongside their acquisition of the L2?

How do we become good language learners?

As language researchers began to move away from the idea of methodology into the post method era, a few different ideas came about. Teaching by way of principles and strategies seem to be the new lens that researchers and teachers are using to look at language. Teachers want to teach students how to take ownership of their own learning through these new principles and strategies. Instead of teaching them by a specific method, it is better to have a set of beliefs upon which you base your lessons, and then teach the students certain strategies so they can continue their language learning independently. In chapter four of Brown, he talks about Cognitive, Socioaffective, and Linguistic principles to language learning. All of these principles encompass different approaches to language learning. In chapter 16 of Brown, he ties that in by talking about strategies based instruction, the idea of teaching students how to learn language on their own. There are certain ways that they can learn more effectively. Kumar goes along with similar ideas, talking about how teachers can help learners become more involved in our classrooms. He says, “Recognizing the learner’s voice also means recognizing their attempt to create learning opportunities for themselves and for other participants in the class” (Kumar 49). Kumar also stresses student involvement in the learning process.      

In chapter sixteen of Brown’s book, he talks about what makes a good language learner. The comprehensive list that he puts forth may sound trite at first, but it really is true! I have noticed that some of my best teachers over the years have encouraged me to employ many of the techniques and tricks listed. One of the things that caught my eye the most was this; “learn to live with uncertainty by not getting flustered and by continuing to talk or listen without understanding every word” (Brown 259). This stood out to me because it’s something that I personally have struggled with over the years. I don’t like being wrong and making mistakes, and that’s something that I have had to grow in a lot. I always wanted to understand everything perfectly and make no mistakes. However, once I started to let go of little mistakes and realize that they can help me learn, I improved so much. I think that this is something I want to emphasize with my students in the future. If I can make them feel comfortable in the classroom and with me, then it will be easier for them to open up and learn, even if they are making mistakes. I want them to become life-long learners of language. That’s something that I struggle with: how do we teach students to become successful language learners? How do we teach them autonomy and ownership of their language learning?

Downsides of CLT

Communicative Language Learning is a method that although once very popular, is slowly losing its high ranking among methodologies for various reasons. In Hu’s article, he discusses why CLT is losing whatever popularity it did have in China. In the article “The end of CLT: a context approach to language teaching” by Stephen Bax, he talks about all of the reasons that CLT is no longer effective and why we should shift our thinking. The third article by Peter Skehan discusses the multifaceted aspects of Task-based instruction, a method rooted in CLT. Specifically in the first two articles, they discuss much of why CLT is becoming less useful and/or popular. Hu lays out some reasons why CLT hasn’t taken off in the PRC. Many of the reasons have to do with a fundamental difference between the educational values of the Chinese and the underlying principles which CLT represents. CLT as a method values an egalitarian relationship between teachers and learners, something which contrasts the Chinese educational philosophy. In general, the teacher is the authority in the classroom and they are ultimately responsible for whether or not a student fully grasps the subject matter. This is an excellent example of CLT’s lack of focus on context. Although CLT is a great method that can be very useful in many classrooms, it is not always beneficial in every situation. In Bax’s article he talks about how many modern thinking teachers believe that CLT is the end all be all. It is the ultimate method to use and “a country without CLT is somehow backward” (Bax 279). However, he argues that these teachers are putting way too much stock in the method of CLT and not considering other factors that could inhibit this method being used effectively. For example, in the Chinese culture, “learning is equated with reading books” (Hu 98). Classrooms in China believe that books are the best way to gain knowledge, it is a concept deeply rooted in their culture. CLT is a method that does not highly value textbooks; rather it values the students’ input and contribution to classroom discussion. If one were to consider the effect of cultural context, they would realize that it would be very difficult to incorporate CLT into a traditional Chinese classroom. The method of Task-based instruction would also be a very difficult one to use in any context. One of the tenets of TBL is Negotiation of meaning which “concerns the way learners encounter communicational difficulties while completing tasks, and how they do something about those difficulties” (Skehan 3). This concept would also be a very difficult one to work into a Chinese system. Although they may be open to the idea of negotiation of meaning, because of their education philosophies, it could be substantially hard to break through those walls and begin real world problem solving activities.

                When reading the Hu’s article about Chinese educational culture, there were several tenets of their philosophies that I found actually very similar to the American ideals of education. “It is a firm belief in the Confucian tradition that through education, even a person of obscure origin can achieve upward social mobility” (Hu 97). Although this is listed as a Chinese value, this very much echoes the American dream. With an education, you can do anything, you can rise above your origins. Another quote from Hu is this, “education can bring along social recognition and material rewards” (97). These values caught my eye because even thought the author was discussing another culture, it very much reminded me of some American values. Are we a society that welcomes CLT as well? Do we take education too seriously to be able to participate in some of the more lighthearted activities involved with CLT?

In Bax’s article, he talks of an “obsession” with CLT. Many teachers today believe that CLT is the ultimate method. If a teacher is not using that method there is something wrong. He gives examples of teachers who are shocked and amazed that despite the absence of CLT, “many students still manage to learn to speak good English” (279). I believe that there a few different reasons for this. Methodology isn’t the only factor in learning a language. The teachers themselves have a profound impact on how well a student learns. Even though we have been talking in class about different methods and what the best method could be, isn’t that a very small part of learning a language? Granted, it is important, but there are so many other factors! Context, environment, teacher attitude and skill level, culture, student background, the list goes on and on. Even if we just focus on the teacher, that’s a huge factor. These teachers who were amazed that students could learn without CLT probably weren’t considering other factors. Some teachers can make any method fun and get the point across to the students. Grammar translation method, although dry and traditional, can be taught very well by an outstanding teacher. Furthermore, different students learn in various ways. Personally, I learn very well using traditional methods such as GTM and Direct Method. It’s possible that although these methods are older, some students grasp concepts better through them than CLT.

 Which ultimately has more effect on a student’s learning, the teacher and their personality, or the method employed? Would you still “demote CLT to second place” as Bax states, or do you think that despite the ignorance of context, it can be a useful method? 

Postmethodology

The three readings discussed postmethod pedagogy. In Brown’s work, he focused on several different methods that were used during the postmethod era, which focused on advancing the language teaching methods that had been used previously. Some of the specific methods that the texts talked about were Communicative Language Teaching, Task-Based Language learning, Learner-Centered Instruction, Cooperative learning, Interactive learning, whole language education, and content-based instruction. These were some of the newer methods introduced during the postmethod era. One of the previously used methods that is contrasted with these new ideas is the Audiolingual Method, a very interesting method that was highly popular at one time. However, there are some downsides in comparison with newer ideas. For example, when compared with the Communicative Language approach, the audiolingual method has some downfalls. One of the huge differences is that in audiolingual, reading and writing in the TL are not permitted until speech is mastered, while in Communicative Language Teaching, reading and writing can be introduced at the beginning along with speech (Brown 49). This flexibility of methodology is more helpful. Another method that Brown discusses is Cooperative Learning. In cooperative learning, “students work together in pairs and groups, they share information and come to each other’s aid” (Brown 53). This method focuses on team work, instead of competition, a common thread in the postmethod era.

In Kumaravadivelu’s article and in his book, he talks about the switch from method-based to postmethodology, as well as the different perspectives that one can take on methods. For example, some of the different types of methods are language-centered, learner-centered, and learning-centered. First of all, language-centered are concerned with linguistic forms, or the grammatical makeup of the language (Kumaravadivelu 25). Although these focus very well on rules and structure, they don’t always lead to proficiency as well as other methods. Learner-centered methods “are those that are principally concerned with language use and learner needs” (Kumaravadivelu 26). This method has components of the academic and linguistic side of language learning, in addition to the communicative and realistic functional needs of the learner. Lastly, learning-centered methods are focused on the learning process, or the method being used to teach. An example of this would be the Natural Approach (Kumaravadivelu 26).

The task based language teaching method is one that I had not explicitly heard of before, although I’m sure that it has been loosely used in some of my classrooms over the years. When I first started reading through the description of this method, it didn’t sound very revolutionary or interesting to me. However, after delving deeper into what they’re really talking about, I started to understand it more.  The idea is that the students are doing small tasks throughout the class that relate to language learning, although it may not seem direct at first. Usually they have a string of small tasks that are relatable and then end in an all-encompassing task that brings the big picture together. I really like this method because it seems effective, and very simple for the students to follow. I believe that having students complete small tasks that have a larger goal is a really good idea, because it breaks down the goal into several small steps. Then at the end, the students have learned a lot without even realizing it. This quote from the reading caught my eye, “Be careful that you do not look at task-based teaching as a hodgepodge of useful little things that the learner should be able to do, all thrown together haphazardly into the classroom” (Brown 51). As Brown states, these tasks aren’t useless; they all play a part in the overall goals of the class. Is this a method that students would learn well from? Or do you think that because they aren’t aware of the goal of the tasks, they wouldn’t do well? Is task-based language teaching an effective way of exposing students to real-world situations, or is it superficial? 

Teacher Roles

In Kumar’s chapter 1, he discusses the different roles that teachers inhabit. Particularly, how they view their work and what they will get out of it depending on their viewpoint. The relationship between the teacher and how they use their theories of teaching to become better at their jobs is also discussed.

One of the key factors when it comes to teacher motivation is how they view their job. Kumar provides several different examples of ways that teachers can think about this including: job, vocation, work, career, occupation, and profession (6). All of these titles have different meanings that come from what the teacher thinks about what they do. For example, Kumar states, “a job is an activity that provides sustenance or survival. It comprises highly repetitive tasks that are not defined and developed by those performing them” (6). Clearly, “a job” is not a highly fulfilling way to thing about teaching. The teacher goes to school every day and repeats the activities of the previous day, without much thought or care. On the other hand, the author defines vocation as this; “Vocation goes well beyond sustenance and survival; it guarantees personal autonomy and personal significance” (Kumaravadivelu 6). A vocation gives the teacher a sense of calling and importance. A teacher will be much more excited about getting up in the morning for their vocation than they will for their job.

There are a few different titles that the author gives teachers when it comes to their roles. These go along with the idea of job title, although it goes a bit deeper. He gives the examples of Teachers as Passive Technicians, Teachers as Reflective Practitioners, and Teachers as Transformative Intellectuals. Teacher as Passive Technicians are viewed as a middle man between the experts and the children. They rely heavily on the research and knowledge of others before them who provided them with the knowledge that they need to teach. They don’t generally think outside the box nor have unique ideas (Kumaravadivelu 8). Teachers as Reflective Practitioners go a little bit deeper into teaching theory than the Passive Technicians. “Teachers are not seen as passive transmitters of received knowledge but as problem-solvers” (Kumaravadivelu 10). The idea is that teachers know what they are doing in the classroom. They do not need to rely on outside “experts” who are writing books on educational theories. They are the ones in the classroom, and they can think critically in every situation (10). Finally, Teachers as Transformative Intellectuals focus on “a pedagogy that empowers teachers and learners” (13). They are in the classroom as a person to influence the students to change their worlds, to change the social makeup of their towns and cities. They focus on problem solving and creative thinking over cookie cutter ideas (16). All of these methods of teaching have come about through the different theories in which these teachers believe. Theory is a very important aspect of teaching, and teachers need to be grounded in their theory in order to do well in their classrooms.

One of the things that caught my eye in the reading was something that Kumar said about the Reflective Practitioner Teacher. He says that this teacher “is aware of and questions the assumptions and values he or she brings to teaching” (11). I like that he brings in the factor of the teacher’s personal life. So often, it seems that a teacher’s professional and personal life are kept separate. Whether it is the teacher’s choice, or the administrators’, it is often the case. Teachers should be thinking about their values when they go into school to teach every day. Even though teachers represent the school, they also represent themselves. As individuals, they have values that are important to them, and culture backgrounds that influence their teaching. Those are very important to keep in mind while teaching sensitive students. Some teachers need to learn the value of being more culturally aware, especially when teaching ESL students. ESL teachers need to be especially aware of the attitude that they bring into their classrooms every day. On the flip side of that question, should teachers be allowed to express their values in the classroom? Or do they need to act as a neutral individual as they are representing the school? 

The Grammar Translation Method - effective?

The readings discuss various points of view on methodology that have emerged over time. There is a spectrum of very structured and traditional, to new and open-minded ways of thinking. The most structured method is The Grammar Translation Method. On the other hand, there are many other methods that are more liberal and free in nature. Some of these include the Direct Method, the Audiolingual Method, Suggestopedia, and the Silent Way. All of these methods focus on aspects of language learning that are less than traditional. For example, Suggestopedia uses Baroque music and relaxation to teach language more effectively. In the Silent Way, the teacher is not very involved, they are there to encourage the students, but not directly tell them what to do. The students are to use each other and the objects around them to help the learning process. All of the methods have different pros and cons attached to them, none of them are absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Teachers should utilize all of the above methods and more to find the right fit for them and their classrooms.

There have been various ways of teaching language over the years, the most prominent and popular being the Grammar Translation Method. This is also known as the Classical Method. It is described this way in the textbook: “Classical Method: focus on grammatical rules, memorization of vocabulary and of various declensions and conjugations, translations of texts, written exercises” (Brown 19). This method does not focus so much on oral communication as much as scholarly knowledge. Generally, grammar, vocabulary, and theory are the focus of this method. Very little attention is paid to pronunciation and useful communication skills in the target language. Although this has been the most common way to learn language over the past centuries, it is now looked upon as an older, not very productive method.

In the textbook, Brown points out, “It’s ironic that this method has until very recently been so stalwart among many competing models. It does virtually nothing to enhance a student’s communicative ability in the language” (Brown 19). For the past one hundred years or more, this method of language teaching has been successful. Many students have learned language fluently through this method. It’s not as if the human race just started to really learn language as new methodology emerged. Although there are many downsides to this method there is this question to consider: What aspects of this method were helpful? What types of students did this method reach best? Perhaps there are positive aspects to this method that are being overlooked. 

My name is Breanna Norton. My loves are Jesus, my family, books, music, and languages. I am majoring in Spanish Teacher-Education and minoring in TESOL. I love language. The only language besides English that I've actually learned is Spanish, but I love learning small phrases and greetings in other languages for fun. 

The first time I that language sparked my interest was on my first trip to Mazatlan, Mexico in 2006. It was a mission trip with my church and we were providing food and spending time with the people in the villages there. After that trip, my interest in learning Spanish grew and I began to pursue it more seriously. My senior year of high school, I decided to major in Spanish Teacher-Education at ISU, and I'm glad that I did! I have enjoyed learning more about Spanish studying in depth about culture and literature. 

In the past few years, I have also come to appreciate the field of linguistics. Linguistics is so interesting to me, and it's something that I would love to pursue more. Although my major is Spanish, I would really enjoy teaching ESL in the public schools after I graduate. After taking several classes in the ESL field, I've fallen in love with it. However, whatever the field, I hope to be an encouraging and uplifting teacher to my future students.