Ch. 4 learning by doing part I

The first part of chapter 4 focuses on various theories of “learning by doing” from around the world. It also places these theories in the context in which they were formed in an attempt to enhance our understanding of them. First and foremost, the chapter asserts for learning to take place, students must “learn by doing”. It is not enough to simply study a language and it’s structures, but students must also engage in dialogue with L1 speakers, and actually speak the language they are attempting to learn to truly become proficient. I thought it was incredibly interesting that this idea of “learning by doing” was present in many different philosophies from various parts of the world.

            Wong explains the views of Marx, Mao, Freire, Dewey, and Bakhtinand while they each speak of learning by doing, they each have their own arguments for why. Mao’s thesis, for example, was that practice and knowledge reinforce each other because knowledge begins with experience. This clearly applies to language learning, as we have often discussed in class that to achieve maximum proficiency in a language, one must have experience utilizing it in realistic situations, whether that be in a study abroad experience or simply speaking with other speakers of the target language. Mao also believed in the social characteristics of school and moral education, and was critical of how knowledge was used, whether it was to empower the learners or to further oppress the lower classes.

            John Dewey also believed in the importance of learning by doing, however he was much more attached to Western science and philosophy. He believed in modeling education after the West, whereas Mao focused on social and political transformation through revolutionary struggle. I find it fascinating that both arrived at the idea of “learning by doing” and seemed to agree that it is central to education, though both arrived from very different starting points.

            I also thought the section on “claiming the right to speak” was important. In this section, Wong quotes a Bonny Norton article with which we are already familiar, and she brings up excellent points. It is extremely important when learning a language that students “learn by doing”. They must interact with the target language community so as to practice utilizing the target language and to increase their understanding of not only pragmatics, but the community in general. However, many factors can make this task much more difficult for the learner. If the learner is from a group that is considered more “vulnerable” or “powerless”, it can be more difficult for the learner to “claim the right to speak”. Wong used the example of Finnish students in Sweden and Australia. In Sweden, where they are discriminated against, the Finnish students tend to have less academic achievement than Finnish students in Australia who are seem as “good immigrants”. This is all despite the fact that Finnish is more similar to Swedish than it is to English. I find that fascinating, but also terrifying. It is awful to think that a student’s performance could be affected so severely by the dominant culture’s perception and treatment of the student’s cultural group. As educators we must be aware of how these kinds of factors can influence our students’ abilities not only in the classroom, but also their ability to claim their right to speak outside as well.

Alternative Assignment

Hiramoto, Mie. "Utterance Final Position and Projection of Femininity in Japanese."

Gender and Language 4.1 (2010): 99-124. Web.

Hiramoto found that higher vocal pitches and sentence-final particles are used to

highlight femininity in Japanese speech and this is a key feature of Japanese

women’s language (JWL). It is important to understand exactly which linguistic

features are associated with femininity and how they are utilized.

Hui-qing, L. I. "Study on Pragmatic Functions of Gender Terms in Japanese

            Conversation." Canadian Social Science 5.5 (2009): 48-54. Print.

            Hui-qing explores the pragmatics of gender terms in Japanese. Their use is both

flexible and an intentional strategy on the part of the speaker and is not

necessarily determined by the gender identity of the speaker. Understanding how

these gender terms can be used strategically could enable a more thorough understanding of how these concepts affect SLA.

Itakura, Hiroko. "Attitudes towards the Use of Masculine and Feminine Japanese among

            Foreign Professionals: What Can Learners Learn from Professionals?" Language,

Culture and Curriculum 22.1 (2009): 29-41. Print.

Itakura found that the gendered aspects of Japanese have posed problems for

learners of Japanese, specifically western female learners. The use of masculine

and feminine forms in Japanese demonstrates an expert linguistic and cultural

knowledge that is appreciated by native speakers, though it’s use by women

serves to reinforce their perceived subservient position. These findings have

implications not only for learners of Japanese, but also for anyone attempting to

learn gendered aspects of a language, as well as those attempting to teach these

aspects.

Nakamura, Momoko. "Masculinity and National Language: The Silent Construction of a

            Dominant Language Ideology." Gender and Language 2.1 (2008): 25-50. Print.

            Nakamura explores the history of masculinity in Japanese language. It stems from

the attempts in the late 19^th and 20^th centuries to build a Japanese nation-state with

a unified national language. It’s association with masculine speech, as well as the

asymmetrical relationship between “masculine” speech and “feminine” or

otherwise marginalized speech styles created the link between masculine speech

and national speech. Language are ever changing and evolving and it is important

to understand how historical events and power structures have helped shape

language.

Ch. 3 Problem Posing

            Chapter 3 focused on the concept of “problem posing” which I found extremely relevant to my stance as a future teacher. I have really enjoyed the dialogic approach but have always wondered exactly how my attempts to incorporate this into my future classroom will be and exactly how to go about doing this. “Problem posing” seems like a very effective way to encourage dialogue, participation, and active learning in students and my own experiences with this have been very encouraging.

            Wong explains that “problem posing” should be used instead of one-way transmission. The teacher should not simply give students information and leave it at that. Meaning should be co-constructed among students with the teacher serving as a guide. Teachers should also be flexible and modify their lessons based on the needs of students. While using the same approach every year with every group of students may feel more comfortable, it will not be as effective as when lessons are modified to address the individual needs and interests of each unique group of students.

           

            This can be difficult when it comes to the issue of high-stakes testing. It is tempting and sometimes required that teachers teach to the test. I have encountered this in my own experiences as a student. Teachers will drop what they are doing and simply teach the material that is going to be on whatever standardized test is on the horizon. This was not only painfully boring for me, but I truly believe I never learned a thing. I don’t remember a single concept from the skill and drill activities we did to prepare for the ISAT. What I do remember is what I learned from class discussions and projects that involved interacting with my peers and actively seeking out knowledge.

            However, in today’s society high-stakes testing and the repercussions of achievement on said tests are all too real for students. We cannot simply ignore these tests or assume that our teaching will eventually address the necessary concepts. Wong explains that teachers should be teaching beyond the test and encouraging students to utilize progressively more complex language. When concepts arise that will be on the test, teachers can note this to the students and teach them the necessary jargon they will need to know for the test, though the test need not be the main focus.

           

            An approach I especially liked regarding high-stakes testing was to pose the test itself as a problem to the students. I believe that students should be aware of the nature of standardized test, not just how they’re used, but also the inequalities they often support. If students are motivated to do well on these tests, they will have more opportunities to make their voices heard regarding the unequal power structures they have encountered and hopefully encourage change—“using the master’s tools to destroy the master’s house.”

            I also felt that the notions in the section on Feminist Problem Posing were especially important. We must always be aware that a great many voices have been excluded from societal dialogue throughout history. We are also now beginning to recognize the plurality of experience. A person’s experience is shaped by many factors that cannot be separated from one another. I as a white woman have experienced oppression in a way that is different from a woman of color or a woman with a disability, etc. When we fail to recognize these different experiences, we fail to truly understand the individual and what s/he knows.  This is evident in the findings of Carol Gilligan. She found that the children, Jake and Amy, were actually responding to different questions in the study on moral development. However, Amy was categorized as less mature because her answer did not apply to the question she was assumed to be answering. If we evaluate students based on universal standards that reflect male, western, or upper-middle-class norms, we will be dismissing the knowledge, experience, and value of too many students. Everyone’s experience and way of knowing is unique and formed based on many factors, including gender, class, race, sexual orientation, and others. We must approach our students based on their own individual histories and backgrounds if we hope to truly understand them and give them the tools to succeed.

Learning in Community

In chapter 2 of Dialogic Approaches to TESOL, Wong discusses the benefits and challenges that come with learning in a community. She begins by discussing the Socratic and Confuscian views on learning and connects them to our views and approaches to learning and teaching today. Socrates would use guiding questions to help his students “give birth” to ideas without simply telling them the answers. Confuscious focused on “learning to be human” and both he and Socrates believed that it is absolutely necessary that learning take place in a group, through more dialogic interactions. I absolutely agree with this because through my own personal experience, I have learned more through discussion and social interaction than through skill drills. Whether is be discussing a metaphor in a novel I read for and English class, or simply engaging in conversation in my L2, the lessons I’ve learned through those activities have had more of an impact.

I was already familiar with many of the topics discussed in this chapter through my education classes. I liked the example of using students’ funds of knowledge in the classroom. As teachers, we often forget to take stock of what knowledge students bring to the classroom already. Unfortunately, this can be exacerbated when the student is also learning English. It is easy to think that a student is struggling with a math problem because they have not yet learned long division, when the problem is actually that they do not understand the language. The chapter focused not only on that type of knowledge, but also on the types of knowledge that families possess that may be different. Children from working class families enter the classroom with different funds of knowledge than children from affluent families. One type of knowledge is not better than the other, but the way we approach these children can send a very different message. It is possible to make students feel that their home culture/background/knowledge/etc is not valued in the same way as that of other families and they may feel that to be considered “American” or a part of the group, they must deny their family and their background. To avoid this we can incorporate students’ funds of knowledge into classroom activities as they did in the book. By doing this students can see that their knowledge is useful and important and should be considered with pride rather than shame.

I was also familiar with reading and writing workshops both through personal experience and other classes. When I was in elementary school, my favorite part of the day was writing workshop. It was where I found my place among my classmates, as “the writer”. I would invent elaborate stories that included all of my classmates and we would go on outlandish adventures to outer space or sometimes just a friend’s house. Because I was in a dual language program, sometimes I would write in English but I would also write in Spanish. My favorite type of writing was by far the narrative, but we wrote many different kinds of papers. To me writing workshop was not only a creative outlet, but was also where I, as a rather shy child, found my voice. In the stories I wrote, the boy in class who was always picked on became a lawyer and was always bailing us out of jail or defending us in court when our shenanigans inevitably led to run ins with the law. That was my way of imagining and creating a fair end to what I was too shy to vocally label an unfair situation. My point through all this is that by giving students a creative outlet, whether it be reading books of their choosing or writing stories, they can find their voice in their L1 and L2, which can be especially important for students who because of societal power structures often feel stripped of their power and voice.