Managing Teaching Acts.

It was not really addressed in the Kuma chapter, but one of the things I find equally disturbing about evaluating a teacher's set performance are the surveys that students fill out in order to evaluate the teacher's ability in teaching throughout the semester. These such surveys ask irrelevant questions such as "Was the teacher well prepared for this course?" or "My grade will accurately reflect my performance on tests and quizzes given by the teacher." Truthfully, what does this have to do with how the teacher performs? It says nothing, just simply rehashes some idea that perhaps teaching is something that can be calculated mathematically through surveys and number ratings, rather than actual evaluation. Really, these surveys know nothing about the teacher or the course, because they are pieces of paper administered by organizations who have no connection to the teacher or course itself. Shouldn't real teacher evaluation be done by the students and the teachers themselves? It seems like a pressing matter, and something that is falling in the hands of robotic bureaucracy within the educational system. Those poor saps...

Assessment.

We talked about assessment on Tuesday, so I guess I'm just reiterating what others said before me. In regards to testing in second language learning proficiency, or to native speakers in general, I believe the discourse behind the testing must be relevant to what was being taught previously or learned previously. I think journaling is good, and open ended response questions. Learning to me comes the best with self-reflection and thinking. When conducting speaking proficiency tests, it's so hard to count what is proficient and what isn't proficient. We seem to have a bias for a foreigner when conducting proficiency tests on those for which English is not a "first" language. For example, my English is just as bad as the guy sitting in front of me on the bus, but we have both been born here. Yet when a second language learner is taking a proficiency test, we are likely to use our bias to represent speaking ability. The question is where is the line between what can be judged as proficient and not proficient? Again, it all goes back to the standards of the "standard."

Grammar

I think grammar is something that is important to teach, especially to second language students. But, I also believe there are wrong ways of teaching grammar. To me, a strict by the book grammar approach could discourage learners, and make them always want to focus on using correct forms with precision. However, I also believe grammar can be learned naturally through more communicative based activities. I do agree with the book that having a good grammar foundation allows for continual structure and improvement of the language. What I do find irritating about grammar is that many native English speakers even have problems communicating in what is deemed 'correct' grammar, or 'incorrect' grammar. It is merely a prescriptive issue rather than a descriptive one. Another thing I have noticed is that teachers of grammar throughout high schools continually do it wrong; they teach it because it is there and do not give reasons for why grammar should be learned. If this is a gap to native speakers, it is certainly a gap for second language learners of English.

Kuma and Autonomy.

I agree in the section "Broader View of Learner Autonomy" on page 141 that discusses Paulo Freire's view of liberatory autonomy. For one to be autonomous, I believe he or she must first be exposed and be aware of the sociopolitical factors that shape them. For example, I believe it should first be understood that there will always be outside forces shaping a person's freedom. Only with this comprehension, do I believe that autonomy is really relevant. And with learning a second language or being in the context of a language learning classroom, the language learner must be aware of the outside forces shaping his or her own drive to learn a language, such as why is the language being learned, what are the implications of learning this language, and the benefits of learning the language. Having knowledge of political and societal factors, and also the environment around oneself, I believe that language learning can be more meaningful to the learner. For example, English is the language of globalization, and one must understand the economic and institutional awareness shaping why it is being learned and why it is a dominant force in language. But, I also believe that complete autonomy is impossible, because no matter aware one could be, there are always those dominant and powerful forces shaping us from the outside, perhaps even unconsciously that can not escape us. But, awareness is one key to understanding the idea of autonomy.

Cary, S. (2008) How do I support student's first language when I don't speak the language? (131-146)

I was impressed when reading this article. For one thing, Dolores, the teacher made use of all the languages spoken in her classroom to show the value of diversity in language and culture. Having students teach the class; giving some words in the primary language, or telling stories and jokes in the primary language not only teaches the students of all language groups other language skills, but it also exposes them to the variety of culture present in one classroom in which English is not the first language. And, Dolores strengthened this by having several helpers who spoke each of the languages in her class if they had problems. What impressed me the most about this article, was Dolores made clear to her students that she was also a second language learner, practicing her Spanish whenever she could. Classrooms, to me, should be more reflective of this. Especially in an ESL setting, they should reflect diversity and learning through an optimistic and comfortable environment. No matter if they are learning English as a second language, they should also be exposed to the languages of their classmates and the varying backgrounds they come from.

My girlfriend and several of my friends are from China, and when they came to the US as exchange students, they had to take ESL classes in a community college setting. One of the things they told me was that their ESL teacher seemed to be discriminant of the Chinese students in her classroom. For example, she didn't call on them in the classroom, and seemed to provide more help to the Spanish or other language speakers in the classroom. If we make use of the classroom as Dolores has done in this article, we can put things such as political association and racial biases behind us to not only create a classroom that is friendly, but more importantly, mindful and respectful towards everyone.

Lesson Planning and the ELT Curriculum.

While reading the section concerned with lesson planning, one main question came to my mind. I'm just wondering whether teachers ever feel pressured or trapped by the syllabi they make?  I know the idea of a plan or a classroom syllabus is to prepare a mental picture of what the class will learn a certain day or throughout a semester, but do they ever feel like the planning and the syllabus making ever limits them from teaching the students what they actually want them to learn? Couldn't systematic planning and structuring also create room for faults?

While reading about the ELT curriculum, I was further reading about a continuation of evolving trends and methods in the field of second language teaching. This is something that is not new, and one curriculum could replace another making it more favorable and so and so forth. To me, this is never ending; we will always diagnose new methods and new theories to acheive a certain goal, in this case second language teaching. Again, this makes me wonder if there is ever entrapment in this? Because even making these theories and methods, with the aim of second language teaching, aren't we also bound by language? This is kind of ironic to me.

Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China.

I found it interesting to note the great differences among Western views of teaching and Chinese views of teaching. For example, the Chinese views of teaching are deeply grounded in Confucian ideals and are to reflect respect and diligence to the teacher and study. Whereas, in Western society, teaching can be more communicative and rooted in individuality and students rank at par with the teacher, as they too are learning alongside themselves.
I find that because one sort of teaching that works best for a certain place in the world, for instance, will not and does not necessarily work for another place, for example China. I believe this must be kept in mind, that places are different and have differing traditions and ways of looking at the world. A unified method of teaching implemented from one place to another may seem like a power aspect.
Also, I greatly enjoyed and understood the notion of the Chinese educational aspect that emphasized learning through the mental faculties rather than by outside sources. I for one learn better when I am engaged mentally on the subject and am able to constantly reflect on what I am learning. I learn better mentally rather than with someone else or with group work, because I have my mind to guide me and to provide me with benefits.