more about week 2

I found our in-class discussion about arguments regarding the inherent superiority of the English language both infuriating and very funny. When extolling the virtues of English, people really end up personifying the language: English comes out looking like an extremely precise and literate (huge lexicon), task-oriented and to-the point (linear structure of sentences and texts) guy (phallic and decisive, not frilly). Of course, as Doug pointed out, many of these claims could be viewed as contradictory (for example, doesn't the huge number of synonymous words in English seem at odds with the view that English is clear, efficient and matter-of-fact?). I'm not sure whether I would try to discuss these issues explicitly with my students; as Doug suggested, didacticism isn't always the most effective way to raise social justice issues in the classroom. However, I do think it might be an interesting exercise for students to imagine and describe languages as characters. Students could describe the personality quirks of English, as well as other languages they speak, either orally or in writing (or perhaps pictorially for students at a more beginner level in English). Then, we might be able to initiate a discussion about the ways others have personified English; I think it would become clear that ways of understanding particular languages depend very much on the perspective and background of the person doing the imagining. This exercise would link up well with material on the secondary English Language Arts curriculum: in poetry units, most teachers introduce the concept of personification. Also, it might offer the teacher some insight as to what aspects of English students find strange, bothersome, exciting or difficult and provide a focus for further curriculum planning. Finally, it would prioritize students' own language learning experiences and understandings and give them an opportunity to share their thoughts and feelings about the process.

When I read the Crookes and Chaudron article, I was a little frustrated at first with the taxonomizing approach to teaching methods. The long list of task types with their technical names was hard to read and remember, and the categorization seemed arbitrary. In my own classroom, I hope I would take a more integrated approach. However, after further reflection, I thought that the classification of tasks Crookes and Chaudron provide might make an excellent brainstorming device for lesson planning. If I were ever stumped as to how to present a certain topic, I could read through the various task types and try to imagine how each one could be used to generate an activity. Then, I could choose the ones that seemed the most effective and try to sequence them or combine them logically (I do recognize the value of presenting material in manageable and meaningful stages!).

My major problem with Crookes and Chaudron was that, although they seem to approve of student-centred learning approaches, they justify these approaches using research on learning outcomes that doesn't seem to take students' perspectives into account. In fact, it isn't entirely clear what criteria of successful learning outcomes are being used in the research they cite. While they briefly mention reflective teaching practice at the beginning of their article, they don't suggest that teachers should elicit students' input as to what approaches work best for them. I think this could be very important when it comes to feedback and correction, which can sometimes be quite emotional experiences.