Kuma 3 and Brown 4 and 16

Brown's chapter 4 was about various language learning principles and how to teach toward/for these principles.  To organize these principles he used sub categories, cognitive, affective, and linguistic principles. Automaticity is one of the cognitive principles which claims that "both adults and children must sooner or later move away from processing language unit by unit, piece by piece, focusing closely on each, and 'graduate' to a form of high-seed, automatic processing in which language forms are only on the periphery of attention." For me as a language learner I would like to know at which point in language does this actually occur?  Is this an ongoing struggle for even beginning level learners or is this principle to be used only for reaching level learners?  The book mentions that focus on form is not harmful but especially helpful when there are adult language learners, which makes me think that teaching through a variety of principles may be a good alternative to method.  The section on automaticity also mentions the quality of a teacher you need to be when teaching automaticity which is patience (one of the things I had in the beginning of the year on my list of qualities of teachers of ELLs). 
Chapter 16 concentrates on teaching listening.  In this chapter it mentions the silent period that language learners go through, which is nothing new to me, however, I would really like to know how to tell when a student is in a silent period (so that I am not grading them on low participation) and how to encourage them to speak?  The interactive model of listening gives processes that I have noticed in my beginning level learners at the ELI go through.  Finding out their background knowledge is always important so that they can decode a question based on the background vocabulary they have.  Many times, I will ask a question and get an answer that is unanticipated.  Like if I asked "Who is in your family?" and they respond "My family is in Nigeria." I can tell that they knew it was a "wh" question and about family and decoding the wh question went wrong.  Speaking of asking questions, I liked how Kuma broke down different types of questions to ask language learners.  the question that I mentioned above was I think a display question, because it had predetermined answers.  Kuma states that "learners' responses to referential questions [not display] were propositionally longer and grammatically more complex than their responses to display questions."  But if my students are not able to produce correct answers to these types of questions that are provided in real life contexts shouldn't they be valued just as much as the display questions? 

Bax, Skehan, Hu

Bax decribes in his article the end of the CLT approach and compares it to a context approach.  He points out that context is not included in the Methodology of CLT and purely the teachers support for communication.  In comparing the two he points out that CLT is very narrow in its approach, "CLT is the complete answer, If we don't have CLT, then we can't learn a language, No other factors count in learning a language--only teaching methodology, If you don't have CLT, then you are backward."  Context is so important to having a classroom community, a community of learners.  This is an intuitive reaction of good teachers.  I think it is unnatural to not take into account the context in which you are teaching.  They give examples of CLT not working in foreign classrooms. 
Hu also gives this example with Chinese schools.  The context and tradition of the schooling does not quite fit with the principles of CLT.  With the ultimatums that Bax describes, that CLT is the only way to learn language, when actually it is a small portion of language learning.  I believe if CLT was used in a general way or a portion of what is used in a class it could work in other contexts.  But then again Bax finds that "good teachers naturally take account of the context in which they teach."  Is it safe to say that good Chinese teachers that grew up in the context where they are practicing will take context into consideration naturally?  Just as elementary teachers in the United States figure out ways to teach outside of the textbook, even though they are required to, language teachers will use a variety of methods.  Is there such a thing as a teacher teaching with one method?
For me, an English teacher in the US, it helps me know about the contexts the students I have from different countries had in their first country.  Going to Mexico and actually seeing the various types of elementary schools that Mexican students are coming from helped immensely with how I view and will teach my students that are from Mexico.  This was an opportunity that I will never have with other countries.  How do we understand the contexts of education in other countries so that we can incorporate that into our language teaching?

Kumara's Article and Ch 3 of Brown

Chapter 3 of Brown goes more into detail about the different approaches language teachers take in comummunicative language teaching like learner-centered instruction, cooperative and collaborative learning, interactive learning, whole language education, content-based instruction and task-based instruction.  The book is directed towards already practicing teachers, and as a new tutorial teacher at the ELI I took it upon my self to analyze/start analyzing which aspects of these approaches I use in my classrooms.  I am not required to teach grammar, since I am meant to improve the communication skills of the students in the small 50 minute period that I have them.  But I will say that there are ways of making a communication class non-comunicative like Kumara's article suggests.  Researchers have found "so-called communicative classrooms they examined were anything but communicative" where "form was more prominent than function" (62).  It is hard especially with our culture and as a new teacher to allow for silence and thinking.  One of the things that I was warned before I went to my first class is that new teachers have a tendancy to speak too much, where the object is to get the students to speak.  Ofcourse in different contexts such as English as a Foreign Language, the teacher would have trouble making the students speak in the target language.  Even bilingual teachers will have difficulty having their students communicate in a way that is improving their language. 
Although CLT has been so widely acclaimed the fact that two teachers could be using the same method but for one teacher it is working and for the other teacher it is not working.  However for postmethod pedagogy Kuma says that "Any actual post method pedagogy has to be constructed by teachers themselves by taking into consideration linguistic, social, cultural, and political particularities" (69).  I feel as though the post method pedagogy is very adaptable to specific classes and teachers.

Kuma Ch. 1 and 2

Kuma starts off in chapter one describing the different roles of teachers.  The first are teachers as passive technicians which is when teachers are more concentrated on relaying the knowledge than actually teaching, using the knowledge that others have deemed worthy to transfer to generations of students.  He states that this "outlook inevitably leads to the dis empowerment of teachers whose classroom behavior is mostly confined to received knowledge rather than lived experience."  I feel as though this becomes a common trend in older "experienced" teachers.  Perhaps they started out with experimenting with theory and method, but eventually they become a drone of same-old same-old, tired and disempowered to change with changing times and changing classrooms.  The next role Kuma describes is the role of a reflective practitioner.  I find this to be an effective role in my teaching at the ELI.  We are supposed to write weekly reports reflecting on various aspects of the lesson, students, teaching.  I like how Kuma quotes that "anticipatory planning" is a role of a teacher.  He also says that "reflection-on-action can occur before and after a lesson."  I feel as though this is a helpful tool to go into the classroom with a changes you want to make to your teaching in advanced because that's when changes actually occur.  You cannot go into a classroom and just "wing it."  Somethings will work and some will not, and when they do not work analysis should be made on what caused that and which solutions to implement to avoid these in the future.  A couple characteristics of a reflective practitioner I really liked, they are aware of the "assumptions and values they bring to teaching" and are "attentive to the institutional and cultural contexts in which he or she teaches."  As much as good practice is important to understand, so is bad practice.  I think that it is human nature to use our past experience in our practice, whether it is good or bad experience or practice and that many teachers will teach as they have been taught, whether it was good practice or not.  Many of my education courses capitalize on this concept, asking students to recall things that occurred in our experiences as students to determine whether they were good or bad practices and whether to use them or not.  This is something that method neglects and postmethod recognizes.  Teachers have "tacit knowledge about teaching...by virtue of their lives as students."  When it comes to language learning, however, I feel as though I do not have that tacit knowledge as the postmethod suggests.  As much as I like to think that there is a relation between L2 learning among any age group, I never had the same experiences as a young ESL student trying to learn the common language of a country.  Although I have learned about the struggles of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse learners, and now am learning some of the best ways to teach them, will my not having a similar experiences as my students help or hinder their education? 

First post, wrong blog

Chapters one in the Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy was about an example of a lesson with second language learners and with a list of questions as to why the teacher chose certain things the way she did.  Chapter two was more about the history of language learning and went through definitions of methods, approach, curriculum and technique.  The method that I was most familiar with was Krashens, many of the other ones I have never heard of.  As the book and the article mentions it it not wise to just use one method in a classroom. 
I believe that since each learner has a different way of learning then each learner has a different method that works for them.  Not even one method, but I think that each learner may improve from a mix of many methods.  I have been so excited to share that I am working with the ELI this semester and when I tell people this, they are so confused to why I am getting paid to practically talk with ELLs for an hour.  Its a much more complex process than you would think.  As a native speaker it is so hard not to fill in the blanks and talk more than my students.  It baffles me that playing baroque music was essential to one of the language learning methods, even more specifically, "Baroque music, with its 60 beats per minute and its specific rhythm" (27).  Even the silent way, saying that there is no intimidation to speak however, the relation between sounds and language are so strong, I feel this may be a method better suited to a deaf education class.

Lin

Like I have said before the main reason that I wanted to be a bilingual educator was to get a job in this tough economy (especially in Illinois).  But once I got into my intro to bilingual education course I was exposed to various personal stories that strongly advocate for bilingual education and disproving the myths that I have been exposed to as a child.  I feel as though these personal collective stories truely do "emotionally [bind] people together" not only the ones that have had similar experiences, but those that have not had those experiences as well.  Its called empathy and a community of sincere empathy rather than misjudgement will create change in other communities.  Right now I feel as though I am an culturally cognizant (understanding of what a frustrating or pleasant it can be when clashes of culture or language occur) educator in a community of other TESOL/bilingual educators, our small community at ISU that other communities have influenced.  I know that like most of the country, TESOL was a judged and misunderstood practice that I would imagine ISU did not endorse.  With the personal stories of friends, researchers, and the researched I am aware and emotionally bound to those stories. 
The personal stories that Lin provides fill my heart with empathy (not the traditional empathy of remorse, but one of joy as well).  Wendy's want and need to become bilingual to connect to two cultures resonates in my personal endeavors, and Nobu's teacher Mr. Okuhara inspires me to be that confidant with a student trying to learn another language.  However, when the speakers transition to say that their original confidence and motivation in learning a language turns and becomes a confusion and frustration resonates with me and my struggles with Spanish.  That constant fear, though it is not prevalent in my English speaking skills has become a demon in my Spanish speaking skills.  More practice is essential for me and I try to keep pursuing my dreams of that bilingual understanding.  Their stories obviously turn out well. 

Gloabalization on teaching

Kubota's article talks about Japan and its kokusaiaka policy of education in the globalization era.  Like any policy, this has been developed over the history of Japan and has its problems as well as benefits.  The nationalist view that it promotes an essentialist Japan and not the multicultural country that it is.  The importance of English strongly influences the Japanese multiculturalism.  High schools are more likely to teach English as a second language than they are to teach other languages.  This is a question I would have liked to ask Misaki when she came to our classroom.  Were other languages spoken in her home?  What languages were offered in high school?  The demographic diversity that Japan has really surprised me.  I thought most of the colonized countries during the colonial era had the most diversity because of the new opportunities that they provided.  As they say in the article, there are so many factors of a country's diversity. 
Kubota states that the kokusaiaka does not really promote what it says it promotes, being heavily influenced by English.  This may be a disjunction with the policy but not necessarily a bad thing.  The mainstream languages are what they are for a reason, and even though it is sad that other languages are being neglected in schools, to spend money on teaching a language that the young citizens of the country will never use is impractical.  But then again, there is lots of different ethnicity, such as Korean, which could be even more useful because of the proximity of the countries.  What is seen as essential may be the impractical part of this kokusaiaka policy. 
The tie between language and culture is also another interesting point that Kubota makes.  I like Suzuki's thoughts on the Japanese international English system.  He suggests that, "learning English in order to express oneself and explain Japanese culture to the rest of the world, rather than learning about the cultures of Anglophone nations, which could be done more effectively in social studies" (Kubota, p.27).  In this way, English would be taught as a local context rather than an international context.  I believe that this would be a more effective way of teaching English.  But then again, in Spanish classes in the United States, teachers tend to teach cultures through that language.  Would it be appropriate to teach a localized Spanish rather than the Spanish of Spain?