May 1

May 1

                I found that the article made an interesting point when the writers discussed the othering effect the acronym TESOL implies.  Lin, Wang, Akamatsu, and Riazi state, “Both the name and discourses of TESOL assume that it is the ‘Other- language’ speakers who need to be subjected to ‘pedagogical treatment’ to enable them to make themselves intelligible to ‘native English speakers’”  I guess that I have never thought about how the acronym points to the fact that the learner is a speaker of a language OTHER than English.  It sends a blaring message now that it is brought to my attention. 

                They also mention that even the teacher and student in a TESOL classroom are put in a “self-other” situation.  The teacher is the self and the English Language learner is the other.  It is like the teacher is the keeper of the knowledge, imparting the key of English onto all his/her students. 

                The writers promote a paradigm shift from TESOL to TEGCOM.  This shift would create a classroom where English learners feel an ownership of the language they are learning.  They would be treated as legitimate readers, writers, speakers and listeners of English. The rethinking of TESOL would initiate sociocultural learning and open the doors to localized globalization of English. 

                 

April 24

Kubota writes extensively on  the discourse of kokusaika or internationalization.  The discourse of kokusaika was prominent during the education reform in the 80s The committee concluded that English acquisition helped Japanese students express their ideas and points of view to the world all along maintaining Japanese identity.  There are four points when talking about kokusaika: 1. Foreign language is English.  2.  The model for English should be standard North American or British varities. 3.  Learning English leads to international/intercultural understanding and 4.  National identity is fostered through the learning of English (p.19). 

English is the(most always) only language offered in high school for Japanese students.  Of all the students that are high school aged one percent learned a language other than English.  Preparing students for international conversation and business textbooks include chapters on English as a mode of international communication.  This elevates English to a high status.  One that all Japanese students are told they need to accomplish in order to be proficient in the world market.

I found it interesting that number 3 as stated above (Learning English leads to international/intercultural understanding) doesn’t always lead to a wide international meaning.  In fact this often has an opposite effect.  Students are learning English as based on the inner circle (white middle class varieties) often have a narrow view of internationalism and cultures.  It also sets up students for a very essentialized  view of inner circle cultures.  I find it interesting that a practice set up to foster diversity and understanding has the complete opposite effect.  Perhaps a way to combat that outcome is putting a compare and contrast curriculum in place.  Teachers could introduce many different types of Englishes.  Students could learn the differences and spend time comparing and contrasting each type of English they learn.  This practice may be a way to broaden the narrow view fostered by learning only inner circle English.

In the Matsuda article I find this quote interesting: “To prepare students adequately in the era of globalization, we as teachers need to fully embrace the complexity of English and facilitate the development of global literacy” (p.373)  I think that this would pertain to many teachers.  Through this class I have learned to become more sensitive to all student forms of language.  As a teacher I think that it is important to recognize student language as important.  I also think that it is imperative to teach what is deemed as “standard English”   I believe that there is an intricate balance between the two needed in the classroom.  Students can use their own English to help them understand and use formal English and each form needs to be welcome and respected by everyone in the room.  When this happens I believe that the most learning can and will take place.

April 17

I will start with what I thought was an interesting quote from Lippi-Green, “…a spoken standardized language can only be understood as an abstraction.” The quote goes on to state that this abstraction is useful constructed and reconstructed all the time because it serves a number of functions. I think that “standard” English is determined in the eye of the beholder. Depending on who you are talking to, each person is going to have a slightly different idea of what Standard English sounds like. For example “most of the announcers on BBC speak standard English” (p.54). I don’t think that BBC announcers sound standard at all. I think that quote just goes to show that the standard is really whoever’s point of view we are discussing.
I find the list of Standard English attributes on page 58 of Lippi-Green’s chapters interesting. This list is very narrow and probably encompasses a small percentage of the US population. The Midwest is seen as the crux of Standard English whereas other regional areas are seen as speaking sloppy or uneducated English. English with an accent falls under the category of sloppy English, but really, don’t we all have an accent? I’m not aware of my own accent but, when I lived in the south people knew of course that I wasn’t one of their own. My accent stuck out like a sore thumb. So, is a Midwestern accent the accent of choice? Should I have told them, I was the standard?
Accent is a topic of Lippi-Green’s chapter 2. In this chapter accent is explored. “L1 accent is then, the native variety of US English spoken: every native speaker of US English has an L1 accent no matter how unmarked the person’s language may seem to be.” This quote further supports the opinion I expressed above about how everyone has an accent. Each regional area has a set of words or rules with their language that everyone understands. It is not until an outsider comes into the conversation that you are made aware of the differences. The age old debate of pop or soda within the Midwest is just a small example of how this is applied to real life. Another example would be the vowel sound on the word bag for Chicagoans or Wisconsin dwellers.
I have been in situations with British friends when I have not understood a word of the conversation and I speak the same language. Between the accent and different vocabulary the message is lost in translation for me. I have to be a careful listener in order to pick up context clues and piece together the message. When I find myself in situations such as these being an active listener is exhausting.

April 10

Language ideologies vary from country to country. The US agrees that everyone should learn and be able to use Standard English for academics and business. I found it interesting that Farr and Song bring up the question of what is Standard English? There are so many different variations of English that what version is considered “standard” does the standard vary regionally? By Ethnic group?
Another point brought up by McKay and Bokhorst-Heng is that even though the United States has no national language there have been many movements and political debates concerning the English only movement. They name Samuel I. Hayakawa as the proposer of Senate Joint Resolution 72. The intent of the resolution was to make English the official language of the United States. He is quoted as saying “a common language unifies, multiple languages divide.” I’m not sure how I feel about this statement but I do know one thing to be true. The United States is built on diversity and freedom. I don’t know how constitutional it is to take away someone’s freedom of language choice by declaring that all citizens speak one language. I think that takes away a person’s freedom. In the United States we are proud to say we preserve our citizen’s freedoms. The English only campaign I think goes against the freedom we are supposed to have as Americans.
On the opposite side of the coin then is education. School is traditionally all in English. Since we only offer English schooling what message does that send? If a school has bilingual programs they are usually only in Spanish. The goal is to create monolingualism through bilingual education. So we are sending the message of an English only society. In other countries around the world bilingual education’s goal is to create bilingual students. I think that it would be interesting if the United States started to offer classes in either Spanish (or another language – I just picked Spanish because it is traditionally what bilingual education uses) or English for students. I know that this will probably never happen since English is a global language and most Americans have no immediate need to speak Spanish. However, I feel that if a choice was offered it would show acceptance of minority students.
There is a great quote on page 104 in the McKay and Bokhorst-Heng book. It says: “There is arrogance among some English speakers who question the need to learn foreign languages or to maintain the language resources that exist” I think that because of this arrogance the importance of bilingual education for the purpose of creating bilingual students will never be a priority for language policy makers. It is a sad, but true reality. The last sentence of the Farr and Song article eloquently states the truth and what should be the basis and starting point for language policy makers, “The reality, then, that the US is a multilingual, multicultural society that includes many people with multiple citizenships and identities should be the starting point for considering any language education policy.”

April 3

Kachru’s model of concentric circles was the outline for chapter 2. The chapter examined the way each of the circles addressed English Language Learners within their school systems. I found it interesting that the countries in the inner circle (United States and Britain) addressed ELLs in very different ways. One (Britain) uses a “push-in” or inclusion method and the other (United States) uses a “pull-out” system. Each country expressed the same ideas as to why each of their models were most effective for their ELLs which was “protecting equality of opportunity for language minority students”
Great Britain argues that if students are pulled out of the regular classroom to receive instruction it will create social barriers for them. The United States argues that pulling students out of the regular education classroom allows teachers to support their language development. So I guess the lingering question is who’s right? Which method is most favorable for student language development? My school prescribes to a pull-out program. I believe that it is a good way for a teacher to support them based on their individual needs. Yes, they do miss some of the regular instruction but I know teachers work very hard to have it be a time that is least disruptive to their education. Some would argue that with the ELLs being pulled out unnecessary attention is being placed on them and singling them out in front of their peers. That stigma is not as prevalent because students come and go all day long for many pull-out interventions. It is seen as common for some students to leave and come back at different times within each classroom.
Gee’s body of work points to the importance of learning the specific discourses of language. In pull-out programs students can work on role-play and discussion about appropriate social language. In inclusion or push-in programs these social situations may not occur naturally. Native speakers may not need a lesson on asking for lunch but an ELL may. Within the confines of a push-out program this need can be addressed privately and quickly.
I thought it was interesting to see that students in the expanding circle find learning English a waste of their time. The acronyms TENAR, TENOP, and TENOR were humorous to me, but they accurately portray the attitude of the students toward English. This lackadaisical attitude is not true of all expanding circle countries since the “Chinese Imperative” is so strong, or the motivation to score well on a test or exam because it is required of them. Motivation is the key within this circle. The book addresses that the answer to what motivates students is very complex. How can motivation to learn English vary so great within different countries within the expanding circle? For the countries that require English to be taught but their students are unmotivated to learn it, are they providing a disservice to their students?
Following the examination of why people are motivated to learn English authors Bokhorst-Heng and McKay speak of the interactional contexts that multilingual speakers develop. This is called selective functionality. The speakers of many languages will only learn a language to the extent that they use it. So as I understand it, if a person were to use Spanish for speaking to family and friends they would develop only the informal version of the language (L-Language) and if the same person is learning English to pursue a career they would become proficient in the formal discourse of the language (H-Language). Does partial learning of a language take less time to learn than an entire acquisition? This may be an unsophisticated question, but it was one that was circling my mind.

3-27

March 27, 2012

English is a language of power. This is evident in the reading assigned this week. Due to globalization, English has been learned widespread. This is due to the amount of media produced in English such as movies, advertising and music. People all around the globe learn English in order to be part of the global society.

Monoligualism is also discussed in this week’s reading with quite a brash quote (found in the third perspective) by Skutnabb-Kangas on page 22 and 23. In this quote it is made clear that monolinguals are incompetent to teach ESL. It goes on to say that the first thing ESL teachers need to do is eradicate monolingualism among themselves. I really was wide eyed while reading this quote because that is me, a monolingual. I really don’t agree with the quote. I feel that an educated and empathetic teacher can reach ELL students just as a bilingual teacher can.

I recognize that there are certain benefits to being a bilingual ELL teacher. I think that learning/knowing a second language would help me empathize with my ELL students on a completely different level. However, in my opinion, a monolingual teacher can be just as effective in teaching ELL students as a bilingual teacher. This quote is an extremist view, I understand, but it is important to know that this viewpoint exists.

Another idea that is explored is that monolingualism promotes complacency. This is because being a native speaker of English you can go pretty much anywhere and have signs in written in English and speakers of English nearby. Therefore, there isn’t an urgency to learn a second language. This has caused second language learning to decline in Universities in America, the UK, and Australia (p.23). This is the reason I have never become extremely motivated to learn a second language. I took 4 years of French and went through the motions to earn an A. However, I never mastered the language because there was no immediate need to do so. Now, when I visited Paris, I really wished I would have retained the language but other than my one trip to France I would probably never need to know French as a means of communication. Unlike non-native English speakers, I don’t need to learn a language to do business, watch a movie, listen to music, or surf the web. I believe that if I spoke French as my first language I would be more motivated to learn English so that I could take part of the global society.

March 20

The Rich and Troudi article was a reminder of how common place Islamophobia has become since post 9/11. It was interesting that it is just as a reality in the United Kingdom as in the United States. The definition of Islamophobia on page 617 of the article uses the words “irrational fear.” I know so many people who have an irrational fear against people who are Muslim. It comes through when they talk with one another, othering Muslims by saying, “Well, you know how they are,” and “Must be a terrorist.”

My sister was recently flying to Texas. She was sitting across the aisle from a Muslim man who was very nervous. He caught her eye because he was very unsettled and looked like he was going to be sick. In the midst of this happening a woman behind her leaned up and said “I’m thinking the same thing you are.” My sister being as calm as she could looked at the woman and said, I’m not sure what you’re thinking but I’m thinking he really just doesn’t like flying. “ This is a prime example of Islamophobia post 9/11. If this woman would have taken time to observe and take in the big picture she would have seen how uneasy he was about flying.

But how do people overcome something as powerful as 9/11? How do we train our minds not to go to the dark place when the media has ingrained so many Muslim/terrorist images before our eyes? I think that we have to be disciplined members of society, more observant than respondent. Being an observer is a difficult skill and one that many people have not attained. With self-discipline and commitment it can be practiced and applied to situations like the one I described above.

On another note, It has been quite common in my experience to hear a person begin a sentence with, “I don’t mean to be racist, but…” The use of “I don’t mean to” is used to be a deflection away from the person being racist or making a racist remark. This use of words can be categorized under a new racism, a category of racism where people know what their saying is racist but it doesn’t stop them. What makes it “okay” is the acknowledgement that you don’t mean to be racist in the first place. This thinking is just not right.

Finally, when I was reading the Karim and Ibrahim article I wrote a huge question mark beside BESL on page 349. What is this? I asked myself. I had never heard of this acronym before. BESL (Black English as a Second Language) made sense as I read and understood the information presented in the article. The students interviewed said they learned English mostly from TV. As African immigrants they are going to identify with people who look most like themselves. Therefore, they are going to be drawn to rap and hip hop TV and consequently Black English will be the model that these ESL learners are exposed to.

So, I wonder will the students have a hard time code switching between BESL and ESL? Some native English learners have a hard time with code switching between AAVE and Standard English. This was just a thought I had in the back of my mind.

March 6

I think that Taylor-Mendes calls attention to something that is very important regarding ESL/EFL textbooks. Since America, the UK, and Canada, as mentioned in the article, have experienced diverse immigration it is interesting that our textbooks do not show this through images. The question What does an American look like? Is answered through the illustrations in the studied textbooks as “white, wealthy, powerful, isolated with members of their own race, and free of problems.” This, I believe, is very sad since a walk down many American large towns and cities will reveal that Americans are very diverse and look very different from one another. This reality is what our nation was founded on and it is a very sad thing that these ideals are not shown through the images projected in textbooks targeted for students who are learning English.

I think that it is interesting that most of the participants (10) in the study were white themselves. Also, the participants came from two of the wealthiest social classes in Brazil (wealthiest 20% of the population). I wonder why the researcher did not try to illicit participation from a mixture of many different people with many types of racial and cultural backgrounds. I wonder how the emerging themes would have differed.

Out of the three themes discussed in the article, I find the third theme “race divided by continent” interesting. After reading some of the quotations from the study I have generalized that this theme means that the images in the textbooks show “aggressively traditional” images of people. Therefore, leading viewers to assume that if you are wearing a certain dress or participating in a certain ritual as described on page 76 of the article you are part of a different culture, from a different continent.

I wish that I could have these textbooks in my hand as I was reading this article. They were all published in the 80s and 90s, and I wonder how images have changed in more recent textbooks. I know that when we adopt new curriculum for our schools, one of the big things we look at are how people are represented in the textbooks. I think that companies as a whole have become more sensitive to this topic since school districts make it a necessity to review what types of racial stereotypes the books are sending. The textbook companies want to make money, so they need to be sensitive to silent messages their products are sending.

The textbook spoke at length about media representations of people of different countries. After I read the textbook, I started paying attention to news broadcasts and how people were represented in what was reported and what was not reported. I found it interesting when I stopped to think about it that all the images of terrorists are based on the first images that are reported to us by news broadcasts. If you asked any American to close their eyes and picture a terrorist they would most often picture an Arab man. (p.199) This is based off of the information coming to Americans through media outlets. No one immediately thinks of the American terrorists who have spread panic through mass bombings or planned attacks. Media has such power over us, it is scary. It makes it more important to teach young people how to think critically about the information they are presented with on a daily basis.

Feb. 28

I think that one of the most interesting things that came from the Baker article was that the Thai student, Nami makes a comment that when she speaks English she is not following native English speaker conventions. She also doesn’t feel as though she is following traditional Thai communication modes either. Rather she feels that she is drawing upon conventions of a “new generation” in Thailand. Similarly Por makes the conclusion that for her, there is no “real” American or Thai culture when she speaks English. She feels that cultural practices are mixed and hybrid much like Nami.

I have no personal experience to draw from on this topic since I am monolingual. However, it makes sense when I stop and think about it. For one, if a native Thai speaker is speaking English as a Lingua Franca I would see how the speaker feels detached from their native culture. In other words, the speaker would not feel connected to their Thai culture or really connected to the American, British, or Australian (English speaking) culture either. When speaking English it is almost as though a “third space” is created – an identity which is specific only when using of the Lingua Franca.

Since we are beginning to focus on gathering data with our next assignment I can see how Marra’s article proves useful. The LWP had to be very respectful of Maori culture and follow the seven culturally specific ideas (p. 309). The one idea that made me stop and say “oh yeah” was the one about face to face contact, (#2 Kanohi kitea). When writing about data collection the LWP made a point that they had to make an effort to follow up with the Maori participants by telephone over email and preferably face to face. This is due to their culturally specific ideals.

I can apply this idea to my own academic life. When I have to collect data or work with students and people I need to keep in mind the differences between their culture and mine. When I think email is an appropriate mode of communication it could be very insulting to someone else of a different culture. The preferred way of contact may be telephone or in person. I just have to ask questions and respect the wishes of the people I am interviewing. I found the first discussion question interesting (p.319) from this chapter. It is written below.

The final point I want to make is that of the “let it pass” unwritten rule in ELF talk. I thought it was interesting that if something didn’t cause a breakdown in understanding in ELF talk the “non-fatal” misunderstanding was allowed to pass. However, if this interaction resulted in breakdown of understanding when mutual meaning was essential the speakers would make a point to clear up the confusion.

This must be a principal that is understood to help keep ELF talk effective. Many people with many different cultural backgrounds interact with ELF daily. If they had to stop to explain every misunderstanding the conversation would not be fluid and meaningful.

Question:

Consider your own culture and another culture with which you are familiar.

What type of changes would you need to make in order to behave appropriately and ethically for this culture?

Feb. 21

This week’s readings focus on written work. There were three articles, one about a narrow-minded teacher, Barbara, who through her relationships with Carol and David, began to open the door to cultural understanding and move away from essentialist thinking and more into a critical analysis regarding her and her student’s stereotypical assumptions. She learned a lot over the course of the short article and she brings up an interesting point toward the end of the article. This point is: “…not all cultural or ethnic essentialisms are negative. Sometimes, essentialism is used strategically by the oppressed in order to contest oppression and empower themselves.” I find this interesting since I have not thought about essentialism in this way. Also, Barbara talks about becoming aware of how much of our cultural difference is politically implicated in order to overcome negative essentialism. I think that is something many people could benefit from. Watching the news and reading the newspaper from a critical standpoint could benefit everyone. I know too many people that take whatever they read or see on television at face value. This can be very dangerous especially when you consider cultural differences.

The second article I read focused on Japanese Culture constructed by Discourses. The article brings up a thought of extending knowledge and preserving knowledge as part of colonial construction of the other. The literature review from the article implies that Western culture is extending knowledge meaning that western cultures keep creating new knowledge and developing ideas through critical thinking whereas Asian cultures conserve knowledge from the past and are always behind the West. Thinking about this idea and after reading the rest of the article I know that you can point to many examples that are contrary to this colonial discourse.

One example is that of the American classrooms and my own experience is similar to what is discussed on page 18 of the article. Basically the point is that since the 80s American undergraduate students are not interested in thinking and just write down what their instructor tells them. I realize this is one extreme and that the “extending knowledge” idea is another extreme. I believe that Western culture is somewhere in the middle. I think that American educators wish to achieve this idea of extending knowledge and critical thinking but it is a process, not something that students automatically achieve. My principal is always checking and listening for student higher order thinking skills being exercised by teacher questioning. This is something we have to teach our students to do and practice every day. It isn’t automatic.

Going along with this, I have heard from people in education for many years that American students are behind Asian students. If we want our students to be able to compete for industry and jobs on a global scale our students needed to be pushed to achieve and think critically. On page 23 of the Kubota article it is stated that Japanese classrooms “promote self-expression in various subject areas through music, body movement, language, senses, and so on..” This description is a far cry from the colonial discourse of extending knowledge and preserving knowledge. From the description it sounds as though research has found that Japanese classrooms are set up for student success through exploration and creativity. Just what students need to become successful in today’s global job market. I think that this is what most US teachers strive to achieve too because it is just good teaching and benefits many students.

One of the important ideas from the third article by Connor I want to take away with me is to not be “discouraged by recent criticisms of contrastive rhetoric but to treat them with a balanced perspective.”

My question for this week is:

1. How do teachers use contrastive rhetoric in their classrooms when planning writing lessons? Do I use it as a basis for my planning unknowingly?

Week Five-Feb. 14

In Problematizing Cultural Stereotypes in TESOL I found it especially interesting that under the Obedience to Authority section the author discusses what Indian schools have been facing with their students. The article calls it a “perennial discipline problem”, students who are disruptive and disobedient. My initial reaction was “what?!? You’re kidding!”...I really did say that out loud. I think I was so surprised because of the typical assumption that all Asian students are obedient to authority. Then I began to think about the “perennial discipline problem” a little harder. I realized that kids are kids no matter where they are and teachers all over are faced with many of the same challenges, one of which is how to effectively manage a classroom. Further on, the author talks about historical accounts from Confucius which do not support the Asian stereotype of complete and unconditional obedience to authority. So where does this generalization come from?

I would also like to discuss the Example A2.1.1 from the Holliday book. When I read the excerpt about John and his encounters with the Smiths I sadly could relate. My grandparents have had a bunch of Mennonite men and women move into their community. They have horse and buggies, do not use electricity, and there are no phones in their homes. When I first saw these men and women I first thought they were Amish. My mother had been selling them houses and quickly set me straight on the fact that they were Mennonites. I had to research to find what the differences were between the two groups. I became confused though when I saw some of the men and women with cell phones. I didn’t know where they drew their line and what was acceptable to their culture and not. Just like John I was allowing the images from the internet and television help me form my conclusions about the families in my grandparent’s neighborhood. I also let the culture (culturism) become bigger than the men and women who were part of it. After reading section A2.1.1 I need to reexamine my thoughts regarding this group of people.

Week Four - Feb. 7

Week Four – Identity and Language Learning: Discourse, culture, and identity

The reading for this week focused on how a person’s identity affects their language learning. Beginning with Bonny Norton Peirce and her article Social Identity, Investment, and Language Learning readers meet several immigrant women and their struggles with investing in their cultural capital (as defined by Bourdieu and Passeron). The women in the article were from varying backgrounds but, Martina was of particular interest to me. She was a professional surveyor in Czechoslovakia and came to Canada for a “better life for children.” Her identity was one of caretaker and mother (among others) She found it hard to work with her young co-workers as they would laugh at her because of her English. Through Martina’s identity as a mother she decided to rearrange the power relations between herself and the young co-workers, resulting in the children (her young co-workers) not having any authority over her as a “parent”. Through this reclamation of power, Martina found her right to speak (communicative competence) and claimed the use and importance of her cultural capital.

When turning to the sections in Holliday, I get the strong message from Gee that culture is an ambiguous term. Since no one really knows the definition of culture, he prefers the term Discourse. Discourse and discourse systems refer to the many different “socially recognizable identities and activities” one prescribes to. Through these discourses people integrate language and non-language to communicate and identify identities. Another interesting idea in the reading is that “cultures do not talk to one another; individuals do ... all communication must be interpersonal communication and not intercultural communication (p.110). The Holliday sections also touch on what happens when an individual is forced to learn a new language. How does an individual reconstruct their identity while learning a second language?

The last reading, chapter 2, Language and Identity, the author explores research on language, culture, and identity. Our identity is shaped by the groups and communities to whom we belong. People also have agency to shape these groups and communities through their actions. The theory of structuration and habitus are explored as well as Interactional Sociolinguistics (IS). In this chapter some conclusions that are made include: Language is used as a social carrier of culture. Culture and language are never apart from one another. Personal identities are not stable but rather, emergent – each time we think or speak discourse is being reconstructed.

When I went through my reading master’s classes I studied Gee a little and the effect that discourse has on reading acquisition. I identify with the discourse idea and think that Gee has a point when he talks of the many discourses people ascribe to. The thought that it is through these discourses people frame their identity and language is something I can relate to and begin to understand.

Taking this idea further, I can see how it can work well for an ELL teacher. Tapping into student discourse would be an excellent way to begin English instruction. In October, we were blessed to have a Macedonian student begin our school. He had no English experience and spent the first week of school in tears and utter resistance to being part of our school. Over time we were able to make small gains by tapping into his discourse of being a soccer player. He was able to communicate with students through non-verbal soccer actions. This helped him become more at ease with other students and his teachers. After he was able to display his soccer discourse/identity, we were able to build language on top of that. He has built his identity at school as a soccer player, mathematician, and English language learner. Every day a new discourse may be shared or an established one may be used for a starting place (prior knowledge) for instruction.

One question I have is:

Isn’t culture and discourse really the same thing? Didn’t we say in class that culture is anything a person prescribes to? (Kind of like the activity we did in class where we wrote all the cultural groups we belonged to on paper?) So, if I say I belong to the culture of Elementary Teachers, isn’t that a discourse as well?

January 24, 2012

After reading this week’s article by Atkinson I take away many thoughts regarding the term culture. The one part that has stuck with me since I have read the article was in the conclusion section. Atkinson mentions that it is his belief that we can develop a “notion of culture in TESOL that takes into account the cultural in the individual, and the individual in the cultural.” However we talk about culture, whatever way we try to define the term, it is important to remember the individual. As teachers, we are dedicated to learning about each of our learners and putting together their cultural puzzle.

I am beginning to think that each person has their own culture. They draw upon cultures around them and pull ideas from many different cultures to develop their own cultural identity. I am an elementary teacher so bear with me, culture is like an “onion.” Each layer is a culture that an individual prescribes to and there are many different layers that make up one person.

Cultures vary from person to person, therefore it is important not to assume that since someone is a certain race, or hang out with a group of people, they take on all cultural traits of a particular group of people. Another exciting idea is that culture is always changing and growing. It is a living idea changing with people and society. Whenever people interact with each other they expose their culture. Anytime two or more cultures interact with each other they have the potential to influence each other. This is an interesting thing to think about, since I interact with so many people on a daily basis.

About Me

Fast Five:

1. I am a wife.

2. I am a fifth grade teacher.

3. I am a "parent" of a one and a half year old lab/weimaraner puppy. (Isn't she just the cutest?!?)

4. I challenge myself to be a life-long learner.

5. I am an aunt to four adorable nieces and nephews.