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.