First Day of TESOL-Masters Student Forum

Hello Linguists and Language Teachers! Especially language teachers because this post is for you. I made my way to the Masters Student Forum today where I got to hear from other students who are doing some really interesting work out there. One student in particular is Emily Durst at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies (formerly the Monterey Institute). She talked about action research in her classroom of adult English language learners. For those of us (future) teachers who do not have PhDs but ARE hiding a researcher deep down, action research is really key to our sanity. For those of you not familiar with the term, action research is a systematic approach for teachers to conduct quasi-experimental research in their own classrooms. As I read in Ellis’ book Language Teaching Research and Language Pedagogy (because my professor made us and I’m glad she did), action research “is simply a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own practices, their understanding of these practices, and the situations in which the practices are carried out.” (Carr & Kemmis, 1986).

Durst used this same definition in her presentation today, because it’s a really great, classic definition. It’s a way for us to bridge the gap between research and our own pedagogy–in a sense we are performing research on our own teaching practices. We might see a problem or wonder about a more effective way to teach something, and we tackle it through investigation and reflection. How is this different from our day-to-day reflections on our teaching? When we use action research to investigate a problem or question, we approach it methodically. Ellis proposes the following process for action research: 1)Identifying the issue, 2) Fact finding, 3) Working out a possible solution to the issue, 4) Trying out the solution, 5) Collecting data and 6) Revising if necessary and proceeding with steps 4 and 5 again. This process is context-specific, practical, cyclical, systematic and reflective (Ellis, 2012).

Durst was looking for ways to encourage speech production in her adult English class, and wanted to use specific activities to promote speaking, but needed to know if those activities were actually useful. She recorded 22 hours of class time and coded those hours diligently. In those 22 hours she found that while her perception of the class was that there was a general “cacophony” at times and perceived lack of focused student-to-student talk time, this student talk time was actually very productive and resulted in negotiating of meaning. Which is what we language teachers want! She also found, not surprisingly, that teacher talk occurred 3 times as much when no planned activity was being carried out. She also found three things that really matter: wait time (it may be uncomfortable for us, but it’s the student’s comfort in forming his or speech that should come first), rapport with students, and providing the opportunity for students to give more than one right answer to a prompt or question.

The original issue was that Durst was looking for ways to increase speech production among her students, and to see if the activities she used were effective in accomplishing this. But what I found most intriguing and the biggest takeaway was that often, what’s really going on in the classroom (data) does not necessarily match our perceptions of what is happening. Often times we are hypercritical of ourselves, especially those of us who are new to teaching. So when we think we’re only hearing noise, perhaps we are really hearing breakthroughs in language learning.

If you’ve ever done action research in your classroom, please tell us about it! See y’all tomorrow bright and early at TESOL!

 

 

AAAL2015 Wrap Up

Nerd alert: I LOVED my first AAAL experience. The talks, the people, the vibe: all of it was enlightening and exciting. And of course, exhausting. I’ve hunkered down in my hotel room, armed with room service and Netflix, trying to rest up before tackling TESOL in the morning, but I did want to capture my experience before passing out!

Over the last two days, I saw as many talks as I could, but I want to share the three I found to have resonated the most with me, and that I thought were pretty powerful.

1. Rivi Carmel and Miri Yochanna, Kibbutzim College of Education, Israel; “Attitudes, Perceptions and Identities of Jewish and Arab Students in Israel: Can English Provide a Potential Bridge?”

Yochanna & Carmel

Yochanna and Carmel presenting on English as a potential bridge

Sequestered away in a room on the first floor were two women who are trying to change the world through language. And this is not hyperbole. In their study, Carmel and Yochanna explored English as a bridge between Arab and Jewish students in Israel. The 24 participants (12 Arab, 12 Jewish) taught in primary schools opposite their group, in addition to having encounters with all participants in the program. The experience only lasted a few weeks, but Carmel and Yochanna felt that it was a positive one. While many programs in Israel may have intergroup encounters such as these, this study was unique in that it introduced a practical component: that of teaching English. In this situation, English was neutral territory in a country where tensions are high and trust is low between Arabs and Jews. While pre and post testing showed that were no significant changes in attitudes, social distance or interpersonal threat, the goal of using English as a bridge towards understanding between the two groups is not insignificant, in my opinion. I wish this talk had had more visibility. Work like this is so important, especially in such a high stakes environment. One of my favorite quotes from one of their participants was “basically, we are the same.” And this is true in any language.

2. Leketi Makalela, Witswatersrand University in South Africa

Makalela

Colloquium discussion. Makalela is fourth from right.

Makalela’s talk was part of the colloquium on “Bilingual and Multilingual Education in our Globalized World”. Like many of his colleagues that encourage translanguaging and multilingualism, he calls for educators to recognize and affirm multilingual identities. He also argues that bilingual education should not be a one-size-fits-all approach, and that we need contextual approaches to education. Yes! He provided a history of language colonization of sub-saharan Africa and talked about how Africans were enslaved in the spaces created by colonization–that while they were taught to have basic skills in English or French, for example, students could no longer express deeper thoughts or feelings. And while now, in South Africa, students have the right to choose to receive education in the official language of their choice for at least the first few years, the monolingual model is still a factor, and doesn’t address the very real multilingual identities of the people. Coining the phrase “ubuntu translanguaging” Makalela wants to reorient the educational lens to include multilingual spaces that do not focus solely on one language. “He calls for “ubuntu interdependence multilingualism”, where “Ubuntu” is the idea that “I am because you are”, so in this context, “one language is because another is.” (Makalela) I think it is beautiful AND possible, and I am going to resist the monolingual model as much as I can in the constraints I have been given as a student teacher. I will definitely be looking out for Makalela’s future work.

3. Amy Jo Minett and Sarah Dietrich, Salem State University, Massachusetts;  “Intergroup Conflict and Identity: English Language Teaching and the Context of Iraq”

First of all, what sensitivity towards the participants of their study. The authors have conducted interviews with participants in various English language aid programs in Iraq, and they were so careful not to reveal identifying details. Well, yes, that’s typical of most studies one would say, but the consequences of having one’s identity revealed in this situation could be fatal. The authors explored social identity in their study, and for the presentation they concentrated on one participant in particular. When I speak English, I don’t really think of the implications of speaking the language. When it comes to learners in Iraq, it could very well mean death. While English proved to be a medium for modernity and a means to bring education to a community, it could also mean association with the Western “enemy” (the enemy as described by ISIS or ISIL, etc.). People literally take a chance with their lives when learning English in Iraq presently, and English professors, all professors really, are possible targets by this group. I was humbled by this talk, because I take my abilities to express myself in any language I choose for granted, really. Minett and Dietrich reminded us that language learning can be a source of conflict. We tend to think about the conflict a learner goes through during the process of learning, but little do we think about what it means when that conflict is a very real, tangible thing that can be dangerous for an individual. While not the kernel of hope that Carmel and Yochanna presented, the study highlights the importance of looking at the impact of language teaching and its very real consequences.

IMG_5307A highlight of today was my chance to get to know applied linguistics pioneer, Andrew Cohen. His work on strategies has been so important in my shaping how I see myself as a language teacher, and I really enjoyed hearing him talk about the early beginnings of language immersion programs in this country. I had had the privilege to be part of a Skype session with him in one of my classes at Carnegie Mellon. If you ever get the chance to hear him give a talk, get a front row seat. you will not be disappointed.

I consider myself lucky that my husband is in dual-parent mode while I am learning about all of these wonderful things happening in the world of applied linguistics. (Don’t ask me to define it though! And for the record, neither can Matsuda!) Would that a pensieve really existed, and I could extract all of the knowledge from these great minds and just transfer it directly! But until then, that’s what AAAL is for. Je vous vois next year, y’all. Or at TESOL, mañana!

 

Inspiring First Day of AAAL2015

So, here I am, at my first language conference. How exciting it is to be an attendee, learning in the flesh from the researchers whose work I’ve been reading all year. I chose to be a student spy, so to speak, and I attended the colloquium “Innovations in Language Teacher Education” presented by Tammy Gregersen, Peter Macintyre, Elaine Horwitz, Tim Murphey, Andrew Cohen, Rebecca Oxford and Sarah Mercer.

I choose to focus on the discussion part of the presentations because that is what affected me the most as a language teacher-in-training. Mercer, as discussant, pointed out that Innovation (my capital) is like research-we notice a gap and then seek to investigate that gap. Innovating is a way to investigate a need in teaching. I feel like a researcher in my own right when I’m trying to innovate in my classes–but as Mercer reminded us, innovation never comes out of thin air. As educators we are building on an existing foundation. Gregersen also echoed this when she mentioned that we wiggle the innovation in at times–we couldn’t completely introduce something new because stakeholder buy in is so important. So we innovate the familiar.

What I especially appreciated was Murphey’s observation that he and his colleagues “were here because [they] want to be better teachers.” It is inspiring to see teachers that have been doing this for so many years still want to learn and improve upon how they reach students. The presenters also humbly recognized their need to provide language teacher trainees with both structure and a learner-centered space, putting into practice the learner-centeredness that many language teacher educators are always preaching. Not that I needed it, but it really reaffirmed my career choice, and it felt so inspiring to be part of such a field that really encourages a humanist approach to language learning.

Sk̲wx̱wú7mesh snichim Revitalization–Do-It-Yourself

Ethnologue lists Sk̲wx̱wú7mesh snichim (Squamish or Skwomesh in English) as nearly extinct, but a bottom-up movement led by activist Khelsilem has led to an experiment in immersion DIY style. Khelsilem asked for volunteers from the Skwomesh nation to join him in learning the language at Language House. Five percent of the nation’s members are language learners, and Khelsilem found two others willing to live together in the house in order to interact on a daily basis with the goal of learning Skwomesh. The trio has taken a very twenty-first century path to language revitalization: crowd-funding. Having received no government funds, the group raised money through crowd-funding to establish their immersion experiment. Faced with the threat of Skwomesh becoming extinct, the trio is not only helping to ensure that their ancestral language will continue to be spoken but that their rights as an Indigenous people are maintained. Want to learn more about Sk̲wx̱wú7mesh?  Check out Skwomesh Language Academy.

language-house-joshua-watts-khelsilem-jaymyn-la-valle

“From left, Joshua Watts, Khelsilem and Jaymyn La Valle often speak Skwomesh while preparing and eating meals together at Language House.” (CBC/Duncan McCue via http://cbc.ca)