This is where it ends: I still can't play those pianos.

It's the last week! week 14

Ok, so this is the last workshop of the semester... I suppose it would be appropriate to reflect upon the whole TLISS experience I’ve had this semester, but where do I begin? Firstly, sitting on fake plastic chairs that don’t directly face the front of the room for three hours can be quite uncomfortable. I’ve learnt a few ways to overcome this by the 12^th week by contorting my body into all sorts of alternating positions and stretches. Too bad such skills will no longer be required. I should probably move onto more important issues raised in this lesson. After viewing the video conference recording presented by Stephen Krashen. I was left with some questions about our approach to teaching language in schools. Krashen bases his argument on the results of many studies that indicate a marked improvement in overall literacy skills in students who are given opportunities and encouraged to read in their own time. I have no arguments against the advantages of reading and encouraging reading for literacy development. However, when it come to the practical aspects of teaching literacy skills and running a classroom an over emphasis on reading is not practical. All efforts are already put into place to allow students to have sustained silent reading time, however, other forms of learning need to be put into place to meet assessments. While it would be nice and rather idealistic to offer students as much time as possible for them to read, other tasks need to be put in place. Skill building exercises are still required to gauge learning and at the end of the term, teachers are still required to meet assessment targets. For this reason, the idea of enabling more time for free reading during classroom hours does not work. It would be ideal, however, teachers struggle with too many external pressures. That being said, I acknowledge the merit of allowing more reading as a way to extend literacy skills. Personally, I enjoy reading, however, my enjoyment comes from the fact that I rarely find the time to read on leisurely basis. However, when I am given ample time, I seldom read more than a few articles. It would be safe to assume that not all students will enjoy reading even if they are given the means to do so. Students do need guidance and in an environment such as a library where so much freedom is given, it may be difficult for some students to use that time effectively.

One of the practices that I have witnessed on my practicum is ‘Look Cover Write Check’ LCWC. After hearing Krashens argument, I question the effectiveness of LCWC on students ability to learn new words and spelling. In this case, I can see where prolonged exposure and encouragement to read different texts would allow students to slowly learn new words over time. Much like verbal language, exposure and usuage usually means adoption. So does this mean there are better ways to teach spelling that LCWC? I would like to know if there is, simply because I would like to teach in an ESL environment and it seems as if LCWC is common practice in those classes.

I suppose at the end of the day we have to look at the whole idea of light reading. As Krashen puts it, “Light reading is not the answer, light reading is a bridge.”

The Fragmented Self

This week we went through a list of questions that got us thinking about the influences of a text on the reader and to a greater extent, the influences of society in forming personal identity. The question of identity and the true self is something that has always been argued. I have spent countless hours discussing the notions of identity in cultural studies and even now, the word “identity” makes me want plant my palm onto my face and sigh. That being said, I'd like to tackle this questions as it relates with so many of my other units and since I got into quite a heated debate with an unnamed student, the least I can do is vent my concepts in this post. What is true identity? Do people adopt different identities in different discourses or are these characteristics part of the same individual identity. Furthermore, how does this effect our teaching?

So my take on identity is that we are people who are made up of many characteristics from many different sources. It is through exposure and adoption of these subject matters that puts us into these known identities. I think the simplest example I can give would be the differentiation between male and female. When a child is born with a penis, biologically speaking, this child would be classified as a male. From this moment this child is interpolated into a subject position of male. He is made to wear blue instead of pink, pants instead of a skirt. His parents tell him that boys don't cry, boys play sport, boys hang out with other and can only date girls. This is whole point of identity. The male identity comes from external influences such as parents, friends, media and society. If comes as no surprise then, that this identity did not magically happen, There is no genetic or intrinsic component of our minds that make the boys want to wear pants and the girls we skirts. Hence, Identity is made up, and it is influenced from many sources. Furthermore, what we develop is nuances from the many different contexts and discourses we are immersed in. Within a certain group, I function a particular way, and within another group I will act another way. This is still part of my identity and hence my identity is fragmented. If is evolving and not static. Therefore, one cannot say that there is a true or untrue, or real or unreal, right or wrong identity. Much in the same way, the characteristics that have been adopted from the many discourses cannot be considered right or wrong. They either simply appropriate or inappropriate.

Putting identity into a teaching context.

So how does the effect me as a teacher? As an ESL teacher, I will come across students who have adopted Australia and the English language as their secondary discourse. Hence, there will be many characteristics that these students will have adopted form their primary discourse. It may seem easy to say that certain responses are wrong, or it may be even easier to misinterpret their responses. However, given the fact that their identity has been shaped from their primary discourse in the years prior to coming Australia, a dismissal of their first language or practices would be a wrong way to approach teaching. In a classroom where students may be speaking Vietnamese or Arabic within their own groups, to say that their language is wrong in Australia or in the classroom is to dismiss their identity. An example that is very relevant to teaching in Australia is the use of Aboriginal English in the classroom,

So lets look at Aboriginal English a little closer. To anyone who is unfamiliar with ABE the initial assumption may be that this is just a form of bad English. However, it is not. It is the adopted English of the Aboriginal people and thus is a part of their culture and identity. If we look at the first purpose of language, we can see that the establishment of identity relies heavily upon language. Without seeing someone, you can hear their voice and already establish their gender, age, ethnicity and even have hints to their physical build. So it is no wonder that language and identity go together so well.

In order to fulfil the function of effective cross cultural communication, the person must diminish the function of identity. Take this for example. If I were to address myself to an international audience as a speaker, then my language would be one that is purposed for effective communication by removing Australian-isms to ensure my audience can understand me. and therefore I would play down regional lexis and syntax and other features that would otherwise be used to identify me. Conversely, if I wanted to express my identity, then I would assume as much regional variation and lexis as possible to express who I am as person. So therefore, we can see implications for language when it comes to aboriginal children.

With that being said, how can we teach language to aboriginal students in a way that helps assimilate them to society for effective cross cultural communication, whilst at the same time, preserving their traditional identity that they so deserve to protect? That one of the major challenges that we face as teachers and especially language teachers who have to find the fine line between identity and communication.

Ok. So that was quite long but I felt like I needed to express my understanding in this area. The whole idea of identity and teaching seems quite complex and usually any awareness of it goes out the window when we teach but at least its good to know where we stand and how we can eventually adopt a better approach to distinguishing between primary and secondary discourses.

I are literate?

What are the roles of a literate person, how can we gauge literacy skills in a person and what model do we have to follow. This is what was discussed in this workshop and it was interesting to see the skills broken down into four distinct categories.

These four roles of a literate person are broken down into the following

1. Code Breaker
2. Meaning Maker
3. Text User
4. Text Analyst

The first role of code breaker is through the ability to be able to encode or decode tests by recognising the shape and structure and using the appropriate strategies to make meaning from the text. They know the grammar skills and the spelling sskills to be able to recognise the text. If I could put this into a context, then I think of situations where I am able to read a Japaese word sentence, however, I am not yet able to understand what it actually means until I have been told what the combination of letters and sounds make in meaning. This is often done on many levels and it occurs beyond the task of reading words. After all, letters are just images and thus, all images have the potential to carry meaning. The meanings that we make from such images require us to code break and use cultural informed meanings to interpret them. Therefore, this is the first step that leads us to the idea of the meaning maker.

Meaning makers can draw meanings from a text based on contextual understandings and are able to extrapolate meaning from the text. For example the next step in learning Japanese. I would be able to read a sentence and then understand the meaning that is attached to the sounds that are coming from my mouth. Furthermore, Other people are able to make meaning from the sounds that are coming from my mouth. This is where communication begins, as the idea of sharing meanings is what communication is all about.

The third role of literate person comes in the form of the text user. A text user is able to read or write a text appropriately. They can recognise the genre and conventions that go into creating that text. What separates a reflection form an academic essay? A text user knows the conventions that are appropriate to certain text types. Furthermore, a text user has the ability to transfer that information across different genres and mediums. For example, this can be done simply as paraphrasing or shortening an idea.

Finally, the last role is the text analyst. As a language teacher, my goal is to bring students to a level of proficiency where they can analyse texts and see beyond the immediate ideas presented before them. I want students to draw from their own experiences and draw from other sources of information to form their own critical analysis of a text. Rather than accepting a text for what it is, students should be able to see the purpose of a text and understand how it was constructed and the purpose for its construction.

There’s an episode of the Simpsons where Homer gets a crayon that was lodged in his brain removed, and this makes him smarter. I’d like to think of school and the development of critical literacy as the process of removing that crayon. Usually when a person becomes critically aware, they can never return. It’s a double edged sword. Sometimes I just want to enjoy my scary movies and not over analyse things…

Most of this information can be found here as well if my explanation did not make sense:

http://www.decs.sa.gov.au/thenetwork/files/pages/identity_web/LiteracyAsASocialPractice/Fouroles.pdf

"Grammaticality: Judgments...?)

So this week we looked at grammaticality judgements. I tend to get into a lot of arguments over grammar. This often occurs on Internet forums where users may become lazy and not mind their spelling or grammar. In these cases, misinterpretation occurs and people get into heated fights. The idea of grammaticality judgements is quite subjective and often requires the context or knowledge of the context to be known in order for it to be understood. Our example on the workshop was the Joseph Anthony bespoke advertisement.

There were arguments over whether Joseph Anthony was a person or a company. Furthermore, some people did not know whether Bespoke was a name or simply a word for tailored suits. So more confusion came from that… At the end of the lesson, we agreed that the line used in the advertisement “London Court bespoke tailor Joseph Anthony, is proud to announce their arrival in Claremont.” Was acceptable simply because it still made sense. So language use is still acceptable if it makes sense. Now as teachers, we need to curb our grammaticality judgements, Rather than telling students that their writing or speaking wrong or right by a set of rules, we need to model appropriate language use within the appropriate contexts. So in situations where academic writing is required, a model of academic writing for students to dissect and copy stylistically is appropriate. Much in the same way, in conversation, we should not attack a student if they slip up grammatically in their speech.

So does this mean all language is acceptable even if it does not conform to the standard grammatical conventions? No… not quite. I believe students need to know the importance of being grammatically correct to avoid misinterpretation and misunderstanding. Finally, students need to acknowledge the fact that the English language does not always conform to a strict set of rules. The Language itself is complex and thus, there are just some instances where “bad grammar” is still accepted (like in this blog post), but at least we should give them a way to recognise the “bad grammar”.

If you get frustrated at spelling errors and bad grammar. Then this site will drive you crazy.

www.engrish.com

"Grammaticality: Judgements...?)=

So this week we looked at grammaticality judgements. I tend to get into a lot of arguments over grammar. This often occurs on Internet forums where users may become lazy and not mind their spelling or grammar. In these cases, misinterpretation occurs and people get into heated fights. The idea of grammaticality judgements is quite subjective and often requires the context or knowledge of the context to be known in order for it to be understood. Our example on the workshop was the Joseph Anthony bespoke advertisement. There were arguments over whether Joseph Anthony was a person or a company. Furthermore, some people did not know whether Bespoke was a name or simply a word for tailored suits. So more confusion came from that… At the end of the lesson, we agreed that the line used in the advertisement “London Court bespoke tailor Joseph Anthony, is proud to announce their arrival in Claremont.” Was acceptable simply because it still made sense. So language use is still acceptable if it makes sense. Now as teachers, we need to curb our grammaticality judgements, rather than telling students that their writing or speaking wrong or right by a set of rules, we need to model appropriate language use within the appropriate contexts. So in situations where academic writing is required, a model of academic writing for students to dissect and copy stylistically is appropriate. Much in the same way, in conversation, we should not attack a student if they slip up grammatically in their speech.

So does this mean all language is acceptable even if it does not conform to the standard grammatical conventions? No… not quite. I believe students need to know the importance of being grammatically correct to avoid misinterpretation and misunderstanding. Finally, students need to acknowledge the fact that the English language does not always conform to a strict set of rules. The Language itself is complex and thus, there are just some instances where “bad grammar” is still accepted (like in this blog post), but at least we should give them a way to recognise the “bad grammar”.

If you get frustrated at spelling errors and bad grammar. Then this site will drive you crazy.

www.engrish.com

My Microteaching Reflection

How effective were the teaching strategies?

I wanted to teach this topic from the bottom up, start with simple signs like a stop sign or a picture and show how they have meanings. Then move up to photos and how they have attached meanings. Finally students will make the connection and see that advertisements are constructed images with intended meanings. The students should be able to make the connection since the scaffolding was put in place. Teaching was done by the peers and facilitated by the teacher. Peers had an opportunity to teach each other and engage in discussion. I wanted this lesson to be full of examples of images and signs and the magazines that were produced for the student age group was relevant to their interests too.

Were the objectives achieved?

I believe the students walked away with critical literacy skills and a keen eye on interpreting signs. This was demonstrated in their presentation of the text. It will be further assessed as students construct their own advertisements and follow-up with an essay.

How appropriate was the content?

The content I provided to the students was very specific. I want it to be relevant to their popular culture and magazines and newspapers and mainly print advertising is something that they will be exposed to for the rest of their life. So I would therefore agree that the content was appropriate for this particular program.

What was done well?

Feedback from the students suggests the lesson went well in general. Discussions were interesting and peaked engagement. My interaction with the students was confident and vocal projection was clear. I allowed the students to provide the information and also backed up and expanded their answers. The instructions were also given out clearly as the lesson progressed.

What could have been done better?

Many things… Firstly, relying on technology is not always the best, there will be occasional annoyances. Perhaps I could have printed off the images for the students. I believe the worksheet was not detailed enough. In hindsight, the (uni) students were able to follow the worksheet fine, however, If I were to give this to a class I had on previous pracs, there will be raised hands. I also did not like the flow between the concepts of signs to photos to advertisements. While I did what I could to squeeze this into 20 minutes, I believe the introduction could have been dealt with a lot more in-depth to give students a solid foundation in understanding sign/signified/signified. Students also wondered what the lesson objectives were at first, and while I suppose the uni students keep an eye out for this as a part of the assessment criteria, the fact that they did see it clearly, means that real high-school students will not see the objectives upfront either. So I need to make the objectives explicit. “At the end of this lesson you will have done…”

I also need to watch my timing with

How effective were any follow-up activities?

I had planned for the follow-up to be an opportunity to create their advertisements and then lead into an essay. I would have loved to have seen this go through. So it is hard to engage the effectiveness in this case, but having done this lesson before, many students find this to be most fun part.

Any other comments on the lesson that you'd like to make?

Perhaps in future, rather than trying to squeeze a lesson into 20 minutes, I should focus on a lesson that is actually 20 minutes, and maybe look at only one objective for the 20 minutes. In the past, my lessons have never exceeded 3 objectives, so 20 minutes for one objective is realistic. I also realise that if I had a class of 20, then having 10 students present advertisements will become very time consuming. And analysis can not be done I groups larger than 3. Overall, I was please with how the lesson went, but in transfer to a real school environment, the lesson I would need to modify some aspects, like extending the time spend on specific concepts.

Micro Teaching ROCKS!

So this week, I’d like to reflect on the whole process of microteaching, I think as a part of the Education faculty staff, you would find this type of feedback useful.

Microteaching is most definitely one of my favourite activities! I’m speaking from my experiences at Curtin where microteaching has been the most enjoyable part of this course above all other activities and exercises that prepare us for the teaching world. Why? There are many reasons, but put simply; it’s fun and practical! Think about how much time we spend and university detached from the schools we all want to teach in. Granted, we are given a chance to engage in practicum, but often, that transition into prac can be quite overwhelming, not to mention the fact that we still have to deal with university assessments at the same time. Incorporating teaching into the internal course makes a lot of sense.

This is what I get from engaging in microteaching lessons.

1. The lessons are short and manageable, they help me to focus on a single or at most, two activities and prepare for them properly. Often when we are teaching, we tend to have a lot on our minds regarding future lessons and hence, our lesson plans and preparation for activities may not be as solid as these dedicated microteaching sessions. Twenty minutes is a perfect amount of time for us to trial a lesson or activity and once we get familiar with hour the students respond to that activity, we can transfer that into our school teaching; with some knowledge of how things will work out.

2. Another reason why I find microteaching to be helpful for my learning is through exposure of other peoples skills! At the end the two weeks we spent on microteaching, I was able to see around 8 potential lessons that I could teach and I picked up many new ideas and resources. So not only does the teacher in the micro-lessons benefit from the experience, but also the students are the ones who pick up on new skills.

3. Microteaching is filmed, while this is may seem like a necessity for assessment purposes, having a recording of the lesson as a reference to see your progression is quite useful. I could see my progression from my first year of teach until now.

4. Feedback is something that teachers always need. Microteaching offers feedback on specific tasks and strategies used. Furthermore, the feedback given comes from multiple viewers and therefore, responses can be gauged from a larger group. While we are on prac, we do receive feedback from our cooperating teachers, however, that feedback is only from one person, and thus the ideas and responses given to us tend to be limited in that regard. The process of giving feedback is also a good way to engage in a lesson and analyse teaching styles. If we are asked to provide feedback to other teachers, then we are able to look at the lessons and see what can be improved for our own benefit.

5. I believe microteaching is a great morale booster. In an environment where you are teaching to your peers, the response and engagement may be better than real world situations, however, that response is needed to boost your confidence as a teacher. At the end of the day, these microteaching lessons are only a bridge to the real world class and so practice in this setting prepares us for the real world.

I believe Curtin has done well by incorporating microteaching into the curriculum. I would like to see more microteaching sessions allowed for this course and perhaps a unit dedicated to learning from microteaching and feedback from peers.