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.

Communicative Language Teaching

While I understand the purpose and the basis of communicative language teaching; to effectively promote communication in the target language, I am wondering actually how effective it is.
The article states several activities that promote communicative competence such as role playing, scrambled sentences, and language games. I know that in the classroom settings, this could perhaps be comfortable for the students, because they are all second language learners and the only person that has communicative competence is the teacher. Thus, the classroom setting could make communication more comfortable. But, I'm thinking about real world situations. Outside of the classroom, how effective could these games and activities for learners be? Because it is likely that in a controlled environment such as a classroom, the outcome would be great. However, outside of a controlled environment when virtually any such situation could arise, how effective would the controlled environment be?

Becoming Black: Rap and Hip-Hop, Race, Gender, Identity, and the Politics of ESL Learning

One of the most interesting things in this article was the discussion centering around the students "acceptance" into the black culture as prominently seen in the US. Ibrahim goes on to say that "continental African youths find themselves in a racially conscious society that, wittingly or unwittingly and through fused social mechanisms such as racisms and representations, asks them to racially fit somewhere." Therefore, whether consciously or  unconsciously, I tend to think of it as both, these Africans needed a culture to be a part of. Because, so much, White society gives increasingly negative aspects to African peoples or African cultures. The African kids can not relate to the marginalization of White values, and therefore turned to "blackness" as represented on TV; (MTV, hip hop, clothing, etc. etc.) This exposure was something not critiqued by White society as negative, the Africans became exposed to it and saw it as something positive that they could be a part of. That is why they became marginalized into "blackness" as seen in the USA.
Another note is the end of the article when it discusses how this sort of thing can be incorporated into the classroom. I agree with Ibrahim by saying that we need to borrow from cultural studies to couple with teaching ESL. I believe that there needs to be some sort of basis of understanding between the various cultures and realities that second language learners come from in order to teach effectively. And this leads me to the question of; how many teachers actually do this in regards to teaching ESL? How many people actually take into account the others culture and their language when teaching English to them?

TESOL, Power, and Inequality

The section in Pennycook's article entitled "TESOL, Power, and Inequality," is what stuck with me the most. Specifically, he makes reference to race with Ibrahim, centered around African students entering the USA and becoming "black" as seen in American society. This got me thinking. These African students from African countries do not see themselves as "black" as Americans do. They see themselves as equals. But yet, while they enter a country such as the USA, having a different skin color or skin tone suggests a person that is outside of "White" values and standards. Thus, Africans coming into the USA would be exposed to the white perception of blackness and would perhaps fall in the web of being discriminated and brought into the world of using skin color as a stereotype. Perhaps this sort of thing leads to racial differences especially among language and inequality. There is also a quote in the article that talks about being a native speaker is thought of as being white or Anglo-European. I think it's disturbing to label someone from somewhere else a non-native speaker just because of his or her cultural background. Once this happens, we might as well believe that we should be like everyone else, and that our perception of the "other" should be rationalized and marginalized into white society. This is as dystopia like as it gets.

Kuma, B. Chapter One: Beyond Methods

One of the most interesting things I found in this chapter was on page 13 when Kuma says; "Classroom reality is socially constructed and historically determined." What was interesting to me about this was the way in which students or teachers perceive their environments. What I think personally is that each classroom is sort of built on a role of fear. For example, the classroom itself is shaped in a hierarchical top and bottom, the top making up that of teachers, and professors, while the bottom is made up of students. So even at a conscious level, students will always perpetuate some source of fear at the dominance of teachers in the classroom. The same can be said of teachers. Teachers are dominated also, for above them lies the greater faculty and curriculum shaping them. After this, I think the outside upper political and social sphere governs. Therefore, reality would be shaped not in a way conceived by teachers and students, but by an outside source silently governing the outside world.

Also, Kuma lists the flaws of Reflective teaching and Passive teaching, but strays away from including the flaws of Intellectual teaching. Why is this? From this I get the sense that the book could be perhaps written in a biased manner? Who knows.....