Naturalistic Approach vs. Form Focused Instruction

     Brown's chapter 22 and Kuma chapter 7 seem to go hand in hand with the idea of when to explicitly bring attention to grammar (or other concepts in the classroom) and when not to. Sometimes it can be tricky as teachers to decide whether we want to spend time going over a grammar point in great detail, or do we wan the students to use inductive reasoning and recognize the patterns themselves. This concept also ties into the issue of over correcting students during class which in turn takes away from time that could be spent teaching/learning.
    A major struggle within this topic is the battle between naturalistic acquisition and form focused instruction. While most teachers strive to provide the most authentic and natural experience as possible, some students need the concepts written out explicitly in order to fully comprehend them. Many schools also require that teachers follow the textbook which can also interfere with naturalistic acquisition because textbooks are typically form focused. Sometimes grammar concepts are also very difficult for students to understand therefore teachers must spend much more time than predicted on these topics leaving little to no time for a natural learning process. I liked how Brown phrased the new views on grammar teaching on pg. 419, "Current views of second language classroom methodology are almost universally in agreement on the importance of some form focused instruction within the communicative framework, ranging from explicit treatment of rules to noticing and consciousness-raising techniques for structuring input to learners." I liked how he used the terms "noticing" and "conscious-raising" because I believe there is a way to present grammar concepts in a brief and simple way that satisfies the curiosity of the learners without getting off track. His quote suggests there must be a balance between the techniques to help students learn in different manners while still understanding grammar points on different levels.
     Grammar in a second language can be very difficult to master due to its new set of rules, exceptions, irregularities, and patterns. At a beginning level, students need much more explicit teaching, rather than inductive, because they have no or little previous knowledge of the grammar. They won't be able to analyze a sentence and understand why the verbs are conjugated differently because they simply don't have the knowledge. We must also keep in mind that introducing a new pattern accidentally may throw off students and take the class in another direction. Because of this, teachers must carefully plan out what texts they will use to keep students on track and use a "zoom lens" to help them focus on one grammar point at a time. For example, when teaching kids the future tense in Spanish you typically start out by using "ir + a + infinitive". You use this because IR is one of the first verbs they learn and it will be easy for them to construct this sentence. Later on they learn the actual future tense which has its own endings and irregulars. If you confuse them early on, they may lose motivation to try to understand the material later.
     At the end of Kuma chapter 7, he presents microstrategies for fostering language awareness which are to be utilized by the teacher in these instances. Some of the strategies I thought were helpful were: have students list useful terms, discuss in groups, compare/contrast their answers, lead a detailed discussion, help them reflect, anticipate possible student responses to better prepare how to lead discussion, think about difficulties they may face, etc. Every time a teacher plans out their lessons or week long plan, they should constantly be asking themselves questions from the student's perspective. How will they respond to this activity? Is it too difficult for them? It relates back to the three p's of post method pedagogy: particularity, possibility, practicality. By asking these questions, lessons will be better constructed to aid students' understanding.

    How can we create a balance between form based instruction and a more naturalistic approach? If we must sacrifice one and focus on the other, which is more important? Can we create a naturalistic learning environment at the beginner level? Will students be able to comprehend the material or will it be too overwhelming?

Hand in Hand: Teaching Reading and Writing

        By teaching our students the best reading and writing strategies, we help them increase their comprehension as well as lower their anxiety of interpreting new material. If we as teachers understand the benefits of both bottom up and top down approaches, using schemata, and a combination of other strategies, we get insight into what our students are feeling. For example, authentic texts are very important but on the contrary, we have to decide the readability. If a student feels overwhelmed and can't even begin to dissect what is in front of them, how successful will they be at understanding the main points? Or even understanding there are different uses for vocabulary in different genres and situations. Teaching students the proper lexicon for writing a letter is much different from how you would write an article is extremely useful to their growth. It would be helpful it teachers tried to provide students with as many different situations as possible so students can compare and contrast the items which helps them understand differences and form their own opinions and knowledge about each genre/topic.
      When teaching reading, it is crucial you think about how the reading is written and obstacles students might face. In chapter 20, Brown mentions seven characteristics of written language including complexity, vocabulary, and formality. These points can be easily talked about before analyzing an assignment to ease the students. Simply assessing how hard the article is will determine what you are looking for your students to obtain from this assignment. Will they be able to comprehend it? Do you want them to learn new vocabulary or read for comprehension? Will this tie into the current class topic? These simple questions will help us teachers quickly decide if this is the right reading for our class.
       A strategy Brown mentions on pg. 369 is "guess when you aren't certain." I feel like many teachers shy away from telling their students to guess because they fear their students won't really try to comprehend. On the other hand, your students could fall into the trap of getting caught up on every word they don't know and it takes them ten minutes to read a few sentences. By explaining to your students it is okay for them to skip over words they don't know and try to read between the lines for overall meaning, you are taking a lot of the anxiety out of learning a new language. Students get uncomfortable when they feel they don't know something because they feel lost and it seems like everyone else has the answers. It is something adolescents typically possess, imaginary audience, where they feel like everyone is watching them. When we explain to students it is okay not to know new words or be confused by certain grammar points, they understand the reading so much better. Though I do believe it is important, after everyone completes the reading, that you go over any new words or points in the reading that confused them. Then they are still learning new vocabulary but in a more timely manner. It also goes back to the age old saying of "If you have a question, then someone else probably has the same question too." We've heard teachers say this hundreds of times over the years but it's generally true.
     Writing is very similar to reading in that we must focus on the process rather than the outcome as a whole. In my 319 class (Teaching Principles of Foreign Language) we discussed this for quite sometime. We were trying to understand the best approach for helping L2 learners write effectively and without fear. A great idea we discussed was have them do dialogue journals either everyday or once a week and don't correct anything on it. Just let them write about something interesting to them and just collect it, read it, and hand it back. Knowing that they can try expressing themselves without the fear of making mistakes makes it much more easier for them to focus upon what they're saying rather than how many points they will get off if they can't conjugate a verb correctly.
      By learning these strategies, it provides us with the tools to really help our students thrive in the classroom. They help us rid our classrooms of anxiety and help students reach their full potential. Some of these points, like following the SQ3R sequence, should be hung up in our offices as reminders to always be thinking about the students perspective.

Interaction

                We all know as future teachers that interaction amongst student is important. There should be a valuable exchange of input between the teacher and students that give the students a comprehensive understanding of the material. But how do we facilitate that interaction and make it as meaningful as possible? Krashen gave us a good start into understanding the value of meaningful interaction due to his input hypothesis. He believes in providing comprehensible input and building, or scaffolding, the material through the i + 1 method. The curriculum should always have the next level incorporated into the current lesson. While comprehensible input is important, we also need to question how much authentic exposure the students are receiving. As well as the lack of participation and output required in his model. It is so important for ESL and EFL students to have negotiation of meaning present in their classrooms. You may have students from all over the world in your classroom and they will all understand English differently according to their cultural and personal experiences. This is referred to in Kuma where interaction is used as an ideational activity. Each student will bring in their “own ideas and emotions” to the classroom and this will most certainly affect their understanding. This also relates to the article dealing with supporting students’ first language when you yourself don’t speak it. The article gives the example of Dolores, an ESL teacher who successfully incorporates each student’s culture into the classroom. She creatively uses their native languages to help them understand English which is a resourceful way of developing their interlanguage as well. Through the use of humor, she helps her students understand a very cultural aspect of English while still respecting all of their cultures as well. I think the article discussing Dolores' situation really sums up what many teachers face in education regarding input and material. How do we use authentic relate able material that can spread cross culturally while ensuring meaningful interaction? I think really pursuing the students questions is one point that was hit upon that is truly valuable. If  a student brings in a situation from home that they are curious about and want an explanation, there is nothing wrong with taking time out of class to provide them with that. It will be much more meaningful to the child then simply avoiding their question and focusing on the importance of homophones. Providing them with culturally relevant material will only help develop their understanding and appreciation for English. The use of humor to relate culturally is genius because it even pointed out in the article that L2 learners even at the intermediate/advanced level sometimes have a gap in understanding comical situations. Even I have experienced this in Spanish, not being sure of what phrases are funny or puns in Spanish or having jokes in English not transfer over. That point alone proves the importance for simple conversations, meaningful interactions, and comprehensible output. The way she has parents volunteer to teach certain lessons to the class is another way to incorporate cultural sensitivity and interlanguage connections into the class. Obviously we will all have days where grammar lessons and writing prevail, but we should always be trying to make interactions between ourselves and our students as meaningful as possible. The more excited we are to teach them, the more curiosity they will have to learn and expand their knowledge. Since some of us are Spanish ed. majors, how can we use this culturally informed method in our SFL classrooms? How can we get parents involved in their children's language learning or learning in general?

Awareness

                I felt that this week's readings were all focused on awareness. In many forms, not simply upon ourselves as teachers, but awareness of our students, our teaching styles, how we communicate in our classroom, and  how we can observe these variables to better increase learning amongst our students. Kuma even states in the first line of chapter 3, "Our first and foremost duty as teachers is to maximize learning opportunities for our learners."(44) He even says that quote is "obvious" but it is the underlying truth behind being a teacher that many times I feel is forgotten. We go around in circles day after day discussing learning styles and methods and personalities and communication techniques but at the end of the day our job is to provide the best learning environment possible for our students. Kuma's chapter really hits upon issues teachers face when trying to maximize learning opportunities such as not being bound by teacher's agenda, not being bound by teaching materials, and not being bound by syllabus specifications (45). These three points are sometimes what teachers, new and old, get wrapped up in and can affect their diversity in lesson planning and teaching. I think teachers need to learn to rely upon their intuition and be resourceful in order to make lessons as successful as possible because they won't always go according to plan. Also, especially in ESL or any language learning environment, sometimes when students get off track it can be a good thing. It shows their curiosity in the subject and by giving them positive enforcement, they will continue to ask questions in the future. I also really liked the discussion of learner involvement on page 48 in Kuma. It really pushes you to think beyond simply learning a language and examine how students "are constantly organizing and reorganizing a sense of who they are and how they relate to the social world…an investment in the TL is also an investment in a learner's own identity." This quotes is especially relatable to ESL students because they are learning a language to use it in a real world context, to get around, and it will change their social and cultural identity. Learner involvement also gives students a voice and it helps them feel as if they are in control of their learning. All of the points Kuma hit in Chapter 3 really relate to the 12 principles Brown discusses. Kuma lays the parameters in which a teacher can maximize learning opportunities but the 12 principles Brown dissects allows us to look further into what is really going on in the relationship between the teacher and their students. Two of the principles that stood out to me were strategic investment and willingness to communicate. Both help you question if you are aware of your student's learning styles and preferences and their personalities. While knowing this, you should also help them become aware as well and help them push themselves to try new things and think outside the box. Reading these principles helped give me a more structured idea of the components of a successful teacher student relationship. My question, still, as it has always been is, how do we successfully mesh so many different methods and principles together to form a cohesive lesson? I think diversity in the classroom is wonderful but there has to be balance as well. Is there one underlying component, or maybe a few, that we can focus upon to help guide ourselves in the right direction? Another thought while reading the principles was that so many bullet points emphasized a very neutral stand point. Everything was always not too much but not too little. I think getting it right is part of the puzzle of education and these principles can help guide us but they can't teach us how to react once we're inside the classroom. 

Approach

     I just felt inclined to write a little after our classroom discussion on Monday. We keep talking in circles about method and approach and how it relates and shapes our teaching philosophy and values. While I agree that discussing approaches are important and help us form our curriculum and values, I think that as pre-service teachers it is so difficult to firmly understand which approach works for us. Now, as seniors in college, we have been in school since we were 5 which is why we can easily discuss and identify our learning style. But we have only been discussing teaching for 2 or 3 years. I think it is a little premature for us to argue with one another about which approach is better or how to blend the approaches or the best way to teach. As we have learned from learning styles, we all learn differently so in turn we will all probably teach differently. I just kept asking myself, how important is it to really define your approach before you even teach? While it is important to really understand the concepts of each approach, I think it is difficult to really know what you want and how you will teach until you are actually in front of a class doing it. A lot of teaching is trial and error. We can teach with these approaches in mind but many times we will rely on intuition and instinct when plans go awry. I may be the only one who feels this way but we went around and around talking about it on Monday I just felt the need to put it out there. 

Methods; forever changing

                     I remember the first day of class, professor Seloni said to us that this class wouldn't teach us how to teach in a TESOL classroom. It would simply provide us with an idea of the methods that make up the world of TESOL and help us structure our idea of curriculum and teaching. This coincides with Kumar's definition on page 24, "the term methods, as currently used in the literature on second land foreign language (L2) teaching, does not refer to what teachers actually do in the classroom; rather, it refers to established methods conceptualized and constructed by experts in the field." We study methods endlessly in the world of education but it is to help us structure our opinions on how to teach a classroom. Until two weeks ago, I had never heard of the method TPR. I think it is a really interesting way of presenting a language and could be very fun when teaching younger children. By learning methods, we have the freedom to construct our own views of how a classroom should be taught. Just because I learned TPR or community based learning doesn't mean that those are the methods I must follow. But Kumar does go on to discuss the "parameter of practicality and possibility". A method cannot be a generic set of principles vaguely guiding people into the world of teaching L2 acquisition. It must be a specific set of rules/ideas/principles etc. that is structured for a certain teacher as well as a certain target audience with a  specific set of goals. It must be detailed in order for it to be a successful and "practical" method.

                In chapter three of Brown, he discusses how we have entered the post-method era in terms of second language acquisition. This idea evolved from the fact that one method is not better than another. The methods can blend together and teachers can pull from many different methods and be successful. I believe this is very true in today's world because of how creative teachers have been forced to become. We have come a long way from the one room school house which taught grammar through repetition and rote memorization. Now we must be creative and all of these methods have something to offer. Also, as we break down different learning styles amongst students, we must be observant to how they learn best and what methods we can use to form curriculum to suit their needs. It also talked about task based teaching and how classrooms are learning centered. Task based learning is extremely useful in SLA because it helps the students interact with the material (language) in a way they find useful and relatable. Having a simulation where they have to go to the store or to the doctor is a very real situation for them and will help them process the material on a deeper level. What I think Brown means when discussing learning centered classrooms is how instead of teaching at students, we now teach with them. In some ways we get on their level and understand their strengths and weaknesses, their likes and dislikes, and help them learn based on those criteria. We create an environment where they can interact with the material rather than memorize it.

What's our role as teachers?

                I liked how the chapter initially starts off by picking apart the different ways to describe work. I think it is important to look at all the different meanings because "work" means something different to everyone. The definition of "vocation" is "goes well beyond sustenance and survival; it guarantees personal autonomy and personal significance" (Kumar, 6). It is important that teacher's view their line of work as a mix of vocation and profession. Teaching should be rewarding, your way of giving back to others. Too often, people get into teaching for the wrong reasons and they fail as teachers because it has no personal significance. They can't share a memory or a feeling of why they chose to become teachers.

                Also, on page 7, it states, "The teacher has been variously referred to as an artist and an architect; a scientist and a psychologist; a manager and a mentor…".  Many times I don't think people understand all the roles someone must assume when becoming a teacher. Kids spend eight hours, five days a week, inside the classroom; more time then they spend at home during the week. It is our job to be role models, mentors, people of authority, and people who respect them. Students may trust us with their secrets, troubles at home, problems at school, it's surprising what they will tell you when they feel respected and safe. In order to create a safe environment, we have to have patience and establish respect not only between ourselves and our students but amongst the students as well. Patience is a crucial element to being a good teacher. We all have to assume there will be days that are beyond frustrating and seem hopeless. Those are the days that really measure the difference between a good and bad teacher. A good teacher will remain calm and patient and think of a backup plan to get through the day. A bad teacher will give up and show their frustration. What are some methods we can use as teachers to push through bad days? The book also mentions the unification of theory and practice. Should we rely on theory to form our curriculum in the classroom?