It's easy to point a finger, but much harder to point the way.
Duane Alan Hahn
Managing the classroom
This course has contributed to my teaching practice and personal life through clarifying and complementing concepts and ideas; it also has modified some perceptions regarding language learning and teaching. Thinking and reflecting about theory shape my way of thinking and even redefine my role as teacher. For instance, I noticed I was wrong or did not agree with some procedures because I had misunderstood their philosophy.
Throughout this course I have had the chance to identify and put in order my priorities as a teacher. When I began this process there were many thoughts and notions in my mind but I realized it is necessary to categorize them, to have a clear view of what we expect from my learners and my own performance and how I can find it. Defining my own profile and selecting specific principles make a frame to delimitate my specialty.
Learning and teaching are full of interesting discoveries but I am aware now that these findings are possible when teachers are in tune with all the variables that take place in a class. The more teachers observe the more they obtain answers and conclusions. However, identifying ups and downs is not enough if teachers are not receptive enough to make adjustments. For example, more than creating a nice environment in my classroom, I consider necessary to keep it, many teachers and students start their courses full of enthusiasm but when the lessons progress their interest decreases. Positive atmosphere requires the teacher and learners’ contribution. It is not a matter of teachers’ job exclusively; all of the group should do their best. Based on what the author Jeremy Harmer states about classroom management, I think teachers should be exceptional and careful observers to examine their learners’ needs and preferences in order to decide what behavior is the most appropriate to make them feel comfortable. It is essential to develop awareness to make right decisions regarding proximity, appropriacy, movement, tone of voice, methodology, didactics, etc.
It is surprising the numerous skills teachers should have and the elements involved in a learning language process. We deal with an incredible amount of components to consider, and it is amazing how skillful teachers become in order to apply everything they know and make their students learn and feel comfortable.
It is extremely useful to study and work simultaneously because I can put in practice what I find out. I try to take into account what I learn and try to transform the way I teach, the essential is to keep improving. I do not want to become a static teacher who is afraid of changes, advances, reflection, criticism, challenges, etc. I want to keep a positive attitude to implement effective methods, to accept different forms of teaching, to reflect on my work, (self assessment is indispensable), and over all I want to be humble enough to recognize and admit when I am wrong.
In the future I would like to continue teaching, I am sure as long as I keep updating my practice it will be easier and more efficient. Reading, reflecting, discussing with colleagues will be helpful (all the time) to find a balance.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Monday, November 21, 2011
Module 9 Formulating specific views on the communicative approach
Formulating specific views on the communicative approach
The communicative approach has many advantages when it is applied. I completely agree with the statement “students learn languages best when their minds are engaged in completing a task and focused on creating meaning, not structure or form”. Isolated structures, dialogues, or exercises do not make sense, even when these activities may be authentic students have a tendency to forget those pieces of knowledge, but when they have specific work or projects that imply following a process to generate new ideas, they truly come across the objectives for long time. Therefore it is necessary to keep a combination of systematic actions and creation of meaning to produce tangible and everlasting communicative results.
In my experience, I have discovered students learn a language best when they really need to use it, that’s why completing concrete tasks provide them real needs and pragmatic instructors give the tools to accomplish them, of course they should be wise to choose realistic and convincing activities that engage active and permanent work.
One of the disadvantages appears in this sense, the “sequence” or “order” of the lesson, teachers prefer to start making introductions or presenting topics and structures, when the sequence is broken as the task-based instruction suggests, unexpected situations might arise and the whole planning can be affected (some teachers do not like their prepared and “controlled” lessons do not work). I think when students are thrown into the “deep end of the pool” without appropriate preparation to complete the tasks, they may feel they are not doing well and some give up, this a very careful method, teachers should know how to guide their learners and give enough individual and group support, (as teachers, we all know when students feel comfortable and progressing they participate and contribute no matter their levels of ability).
I don´t agree with people who argue that task-based instruction sacrifices the necessary focus on language structure and form because that component does not disappear, the formal presentation is what is modified, but as long as teachers support their learners’ need of grammar, (could be individually or after they have finished their tasks) the language structure explanation can take place to solve doubts, and clarify misunderstandings; I think teachers should apply enough tasks to make sure the consolidation of students’ learning occurred.
Also, I consider relevant the balance of form-focused and meaning-focused activities, I also have heard “as long as people are communicating in the class, things are fine”, In my opinion teachers sometimes find difficult to monitor every student’s skills development during communicative activities, teachers may have clear the language structures that are needed to carry out the task but time is usually short to manage it. I believe the communicative approach is effective as long as the class components are balanced. Communication activities is not just a matter of fluency, they should include accuracy and grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary no matter the order in the lesson.
In addition, comfort sometimes has a negative effect on classroom management of a communicative classroom. The traditional organization changes, and it implies extra work, teachers should be versatile and adaptable to deal with several dynamics.
I consider teachers should plan classes bearing in mind the strict reality, pragmatic methodology, there is no better one, the communicative approach actually takes into account the steps to find the route of the authenticity, effectiveness, involvement and function.
The communicative approach has many advantages when it is applied. I completely agree with the statement “students learn languages best when their minds are engaged in completing a task and focused on creating meaning, not structure or form”. Isolated structures, dialogues, or exercises do not make sense, even when these activities may be authentic students have a tendency to forget those pieces of knowledge, but when they have specific work or projects that imply following a process to generate new ideas, they truly come across the objectives for long time. Therefore it is necessary to keep a combination of systematic actions and creation of meaning to produce tangible and everlasting communicative results.
In my experience, I have discovered students learn a language best when they really need to use it, that’s why completing concrete tasks provide them real needs and pragmatic instructors give the tools to accomplish them, of course they should be wise to choose realistic and convincing activities that engage active and permanent work.
One of the disadvantages appears in this sense, the “sequence” or “order” of the lesson, teachers prefer to start making introductions or presenting topics and structures, when the sequence is broken as the task-based instruction suggests, unexpected situations might arise and the whole planning can be affected (some teachers do not like their prepared and “controlled” lessons do not work). I think when students are thrown into the “deep end of the pool” without appropriate preparation to complete the tasks, they may feel they are not doing well and some give up, this a very careful method, teachers should know how to guide their learners and give enough individual and group support, (as teachers, we all know when students feel comfortable and progressing they participate and contribute no matter their levels of ability).
I don´t agree with people who argue that task-based instruction sacrifices the necessary focus on language structure and form because that component does not disappear, the formal presentation is what is modified, but as long as teachers support their learners’ need of grammar, (could be individually or after they have finished their tasks) the language structure explanation can take place to solve doubts, and clarify misunderstandings; I think teachers should apply enough tasks to make sure the consolidation of students’ learning occurred.
Also, I consider relevant the balance of form-focused and meaning-focused activities, I also have heard “as long as people are communicating in the class, things are fine”, In my opinion teachers sometimes find difficult to monitor every student’s skills development during communicative activities, teachers may have clear the language structures that are needed to carry out the task but time is usually short to manage it. I believe the communicative approach is effective as long as the class components are balanced. Communication activities is not just a matter of fluency, they should include accuracy and grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary no matter the order in the lesson.
In addition, comfort sometimes has a negative effect on classroom management of a communicative classroom. The traditional organization changes, and it implies extra work, teachers should be versatile and adaptable to deal with several dynamics.
I consider teachers should plan classes bearing in mind the strict reality, pragmatic methodology, there is no better one, the communicative approach actually takes into account the steps to find the route of the authenticity, effectiveness, involvement and function.
Adult Learning Module 1: MODULE 2: A BRIEF HISTORY OF LANGUAGE LEARNING THE...
Formulating specific views on the communicative approach
The communicative approach has many advantages when it is applied. I completely agree with the statement “students learn languages best when their minds are engaged in completing a task and focused on creating meaning, not structure or form”. Isolated structures, dialogues, or exercises do not make sense, even when these activities may be authentic students have a tendency to forget those pieces of knowledge, but when they have specific work or projects that imply following a process to generate new ideas, they truly come across the objectives for long time. Therefore it is necessary to keep a combination of systematic actions and creation of meaning to produce tangible and everlasting communicative results.
In my experience, I have discovered students learn a language best when they really need to use it, that’s why completing concrete tasks provide them real needs and pragmatic instructors give the tools to accomplish them, of course they should be wise to choose realistic and convincing activities that engage active and permanent work.
One of the disadvantages appears in this sense, the “sequence” or “order” of the lesson, teachers prefer to start making introductions or presenting topics and structures, when the sequence is broken as the task-based instruction suggests, unexpected situations might arise and the whole planning can be affected (some teachers do not like their prepared and “controlled” lessons do not work). I think when students are thrown into the “deep end of the pool” without appropriate preparation to complete the tasks, they may feel they are not doing well and some give up, this a very careful method, teachers should know how to guide their learners and give enough individual and group support, (as teachers, we all know when students feel comfortable and progressing they participate and contribute no matter their levels of ability).
I don´t agree with people who argue that task-based instruction sacrifices the necessary focus on language structure and form because that component does not disappear, the formal presentation is what is modified, but as long as teachers support their learners’ need of grammar, (could be individually or after they have finished their tasks) the language structure explanation can take place to solve doubts, and clarify misunderstandings; I think teachers should apply enough tasks to make sure the consolidation of students’ learning occurred.
Also, I consider relevant the balance of form-focused and meaning-focused activities, I also have heard “as long as people are communicating in the class, things are fine”, In my opinion teachers sometimes find difficult to monitor every student’s skills development during communicative activities, teachers may have clear the language structures that are needed to carry out the task but time is usually short to manage it. I believe the communicative approach is effective as long as the class components are balanced. Communication activities is not just a matter of fluency, they should include accuracy and grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary no matter the order in the lesson.
In addition, comfort sometimes has a negative effect on classroom management of a communicative classroom. The traditional organization changes, and it implies extra work, teachers should be versatile and adaptable to deal with several dynamics.
I consider teachers should plan classes bearing in mind the strict reality, pragmatic methodology, there is no better one, the communicative approach actually takes into account the steps to find the route of the authenticity, effectiveness, involvement and function.
The communicative approach has many advantages when it is applied. I completely agree with the statement “students learn languages best when their minds are engaged in completing a task and focused on creating meaning, not structure or form”. Isolated structures, dialogues, or exercises do not make sense, even when these activities may be authentic students have a tendency to forget those pieces of knowledge, but when they have specific work or projects that imply following a process to generate new ideas, they truly come across the objectives for long time. Therefore it is necessary to keep a combination of systematic actions and creation of meaning to produce tangible and everlasting communicative results.
In my experience, I have discovered students learn a language best when they really need to use it, that’s why completing concrete tasks provide them real needs and pragmatic instructors give the tools to accomplish them, of course they should be wise to choose realistic and convincing activities that engage active and permanent work.
One of the disadvantages appears in this sense, the “sequence” or “order” of the lesson, teachers prefer to start making introductions or presenting topics and structures, when the sequence is broken as the task-based instruction suggests, unexpected situations might arise and the whole planning can be affected (some teachers do not like their prepared and “controlled” lessons do not work). I think when students are thrown into the “deep end of the pool” without appropriate preparation to complete the tasks, they may feel they are not doing well and some give up, this a very careful method, teachers should know how to guide their learners and give enough individual and group support, (as teachers, we all know when students feel comfortable and progressing they participate and contribute no matter their levels of ability).
I don´t agree with people who argue that task-based instruction sacrifices the necessary focus on language structure and form because that component does not disappear, the formal presentation is what is modified, but as long as teachers support their learners’ need of grammar, (could be individually or after they have finished their tasks) the language structure explanation can take place to solve doubts, and clarify misunderstandings; I think teachers should apply enough tasks to make sure the consolidation of students’ learning occurred.
Also, I consider relevant the balance of form-focused and meaning-focused activities, I also have heard “as long as people are communicating in the class, things are fine”, In my opinion teachers sometimes find difficult to monitor every student’s skills development during communicative activities, teachers may have clear the language structures that are needed to carry out the task but time is usually short to manage it. I believe the communicative approach is effective as long as the class components are balanced. Communication activities is not just a matter of fluency, they should include accuracy and grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary no matter the order in the lesson.
In addition, comfort sometimes has a negative effect on classroom management of a communicative classroom. The traditional organization changes, and it implies extra work, teachers should be versatile and adaptable to deal with several dynamics.
I consider teachers should plan classes bearing in mind the strict reality, pragmatic methodology, there is no better one, the communicative approach actually takes into account the steps to find the route of the authenticity, effectiveness, involvement and function.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Pros and cons of assessing for learning skills
'If you can teach a student a lesson for a day; but if you can teach him to learn by creating curiosity, he will continue the learning process as long as he lives.' Chinese proverb
Pros and cons of assessing for learning skills
Understanding students’ learning styles can make easy the learning process but it does not guarantee less teacher’s work and 100% of success in learning. Keeping in mind individuals learn differently can facilitate the teachers’ selection of procedures but it demands special design and analysis; after identifying their learners’ preferences and ways to learn teachers need expertise to plan tasks according to them and take advantage of time, materials and resources. Through this journey of diversity learners can explore and discover more ways to become skilled at language learning; instructors cannot assume all of students know what their learning skills are, some even adults are not aware of their inclinations to learn, some require direction to do so. Although teachers are not able to make a complete and detailed revision of learning styles he/she can eventually illustrate or provide insights to help learners notice their strengthens and weaknesses.
In my opinion teachers should start any course by having an idea about whether learners distinguish their own tendencies to be taught, if not it is imperative to include short surveys or interviews to determine preferred learning styles, it does not mean teachers will apply singular exercises all the time but that data will be helpful to keep motivation and engage Ss in their learning process, especially with the ones with difficulties and low performance. If time does not help, teachers should use the class tasks themselves to establish that information and make sure students obtain it as feedback. When learners realize there are more “effective” ways to learn specific things, they apply these methods to improve the abilities they have already acknowledged and expand their learning skills with the new methods.
In short, I think teachers should be familiarized with students’ learning styles but considering there are factors that obstruct or even impede taking into account the variety of learning styles. It is difficult to identify every learner style and adjust every single activity according to students’ particular likes or abilities; sometimes the number of students in a group does not help, the time of lessons is not enough: time to create tasks, to evaluate data, to achieve every style, etc. In conclusion, teachers should know and respect learners’ learning styles and their decision-making throughout learning but it is a fact that is hard to personalize every lesson.
Pros and cons of assessing for learning skills
Understanding students’ learning styles can make easy the learning process but it does not guarantee less teacher’s work and 100% of success in learning. Keeping in mind individuals learn differently can facilitate the teachers’ selection of procedures but it demands special design and analysis; after identifying their learners’ preferences and ways to learn teachers need expertise to plan tasks according to them and take advantage of time, materials and resources. Through this journey of diversity learners can explore and discover more ways to become skilled at language learning; instructors cannot assume all of students know what their learning skills are, some even adults are not aware of their inclinations to learn, some require direction to do so. Although teachers are not able to make a complete and detailed revision of learning styles he/she can eventually illustrate or provide insights to help learners notice their strengthens and weaknesses.
In my opinion teachers should start any course by having an idea about whether learners distinguish their own tendencies to be taught, if not it is imperative to include short surveys or interviews to determine preferred learning styles, it does not mean teachers will apply singular exercises all the time but that data will be helpful to keep motivation and engage Ss in their learning process, especially with the ones with difficulties and low performance. If time does not help, teachers should use the class tasks themselves to establish that information and make sure students obtain it as feedback. When learners realize there are more “effective” ways to learn specific things, they apply these methods to improve the abilities they have already acknowledged and expand their learning skills with the new methods.
In short, I think teachers should be familiarized with students’ learning styles but considering there are factors that obstruct or even impede taking into account the variety of learning styles. It is difficult to identify every learner style and adjust every single activity according to students’ particular likes or abilities; sometimes the number of students in a group does not help, the time of lessons is not enough: time to create tasks, to evaluate data, to achieve every style, etc. In conclusion, teachers should know and respect learners’ learning styles and their decision-making throughout learning but it is a fact that is hard to personalize every lesson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)