Methodology in Language Learning: iTeacher

 

A teacher of international students will find over time that the countries of origin of students change, or their motivation to learn English as instrumental or integrative changes. Immigration patterns change— different age groups, different gender balance, different educational levels, and different countries of origin to name a few possibilities. Even when teaching English in the Expanding Circle, learners’ goals may change—from English being a required course of study to be endured, to strong motivation to use English on Facebook or other emerging technologies of communication. It is impossible for us to provide an understanding of all the contexts in which you might work. Some may not even exist yet. For example, teachers who were trained in the 1970s or 1980s had no notion that they would need to integrate information and communication technology (ICT) into their practise. Those of us who were trained in the audiolingual method, which required repetition of grammatical structures, had no idea we would be required to develop activities and materials for a more communicative approach. In recent research in Australia, one of us (Denise) found that teachers were disconcerted by the influx of refugees from Africa with minimal education and having experienced traumatic situations. Some of these refugees were born in refugee camps and had spent their lives there. While superficially these refugees may have seemed like some of those from Southeast Asia who came with similar traumatic experiences and lack of education in the 1970s, they brought very different cultural values, beliefs, behaviours, motivations, and approaches to learning.

Therefore, teachers need to develop skills in how to understand their context—from the broad cultural context in which they work, to the local context of their own classrooms. This context can be considered like an onion, with layer upon layer, with the learner embedded in the centre, then the classroom, the institution, the local community, the educational system, the country (and its economic, cultural, political systems), and finally the globe. However, this often-used metaphor is misleading because in reality, the layers themselves are cross-hatched, are influenced by and influence each other. The local community may have direct connections to a diaspora across the globe. The school may be part of an international chain and so on. Therefore it is better to conceive of the different aspects of the context in which teachers work as corners of a three-dimensional matrix.

The organizational structure of a school or other institution reveals how formal power is distributed, what expectations the school has for its various employees, and the organization’s culture. The structure should facilitate the flow of information and decision-making. “Within an English language education context, the structure needs to facilitate curriculum development, teaching and non-teaching staff discussion, services to students, and communication with all stakeholders, whether parents, recruiting agents, deans, or textbook suppliers”

Overall structures can be flat or hierarchical. In flat organizations, there is no fixed hierarchy in the school, individual teachers have a large degree of autonomy, and roles such as coordinating programs may rotate. In hierarchical organizations, the structure is pyramidal with each layer reporting to the next layer higher on the pyramid. Each person in the hierarchy has a specific role, with job descriptions delineated. Usually the curriculum is handed down, as are rules and regulations. Each structure has its own set of problems. It is quite difficult to maintain a flat structure in a very large organization without creating either anarchy or silos of different groups working on different areas of instruction. Communication then becomes difficult. Similarly, hierarchical structures have been found to be harder to change and are resistant to innovation.

Overall structures can be flat or hierarchical. In flat organizations, there is no fixed hierarchy in the school, individual teachers have a large degree of autonomy, and roles such as coordinating programs may rotate. In hierarchical organizations, the structure is pyramidal with each layer reporting to the next layer higher on the pyramid. Each person in the hierarchy has a specific role, with job descriptions delineated. Usually the curriculum is handed down, as are rules and regulations. Each structure has its own set of problems. It is quite difficult to maintain a flat structure in a very large organization without creating either anarchy or silos of different groups working on different areas of instruction. Communication then becomes difficult. Similarly, hierarchical structures have been found to be harder to change and are resistant to innovation. In addition to the formal structure of an organization, its prevailing culture impacts on both teachers and learners.

• Power or club culture. These cultures have strong leaders who select people to implement their own agendas.

• Role culture. In this type of organization, people’s positions/jobs are carefully described and the functions of the role are more important than the person who fills it.

• Task culture. This type of organization is project-driven. Groups come together to complete specific projects.

• Person culture. Stars dominate in person cultures. They achieve their star status because of their individual skills.

 

Many educators have conducted mini-ethnographies, with the students in their class as the ethnographers of their communities. Ethnography is a research methodology that was first used by anthropologists who examined exotic cultures (and sometimes languages) and attempted to “make the unfamiliar familiar.” Ethnographers usually focused on small groups or ones with clear boundaries within a larger society. Over time, it has been used by anthropologists, sociologists, and educators in their own settings.

Ethnographers also collect community artifacts and take extensive field notes of their observations, and conduct interviews (which may be audiotaped). Another characteristic of ethnography is triangulation, that is, the collection from multiple data sources that are used to compare and confirm patterns. So, for example, the researcher cross-checks artifacts against field notes of observations and transcripts of interviews. Key to ethnography is that researchers do not start with a hypothesis that they try to prove.

As a result of such mini-ethnographies, learners and teachers can uncover information about their local community(ies), information that impacts both language and learning. An even more reduced form of mini-ethnography is to have learners observe specific language use in their local community. They can observe which language is used, by whom, with whom, and for what purposes.

Learners’ experiences, beliefs, and attitudes all contribute to their English language learning, as do the experiences, beliefs, and attitudes of the school, the community, nation, and global village. In this chapter, we have provided you with some tools to explore these different aspects of your own context.

 

©

 

University of Oxford - post gradual studies 2009 'English Language Teaching'

 

Bibliography:

 

1.      Blundell, Lesley and Stokes, Jackie, Task listening, Cambridge University Press, 198r.

 

2.      Gore, Lesley, Listening to Maggie, Longman, 1979.

 

3.      McClintock, John and Stern, Borje, Let's listen, Heinemann Educational Books, 1974.

 

4.      Maley, Alan and Moulding, Sandra, Learning to listen, CambridgeUniversity Press, 198 I.

 

5.      Scott, Wendy, Are you listening?, Oxford University Press, 1980.

 

6.      Stokes, Jacqueline StClair, Elementary task listening, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1984.

 

7.      Underwood, Mary and Barr, Pauline, Listeners (series), Oxford University Press, 1980.

 

8.      Abbs, Brian and Jones, T., Cloudsongs, Longman, 1977.

 

9.      Abbs, Brian and York, N., Skyhigh, Longman, 1975

 

10.  Jones, Christopher, Back home, Longman, 1980.

 

11.  Kingsbury, Roy, and O'Shea, Patrick, Seasons and people and other songs,Oxford University Press, 1979.

 

12.  Wilson, Ken, Mister Monday and other songs for the teaching of English,Longman, 197r.

 

13.  Wilson, Ken and Morrow, Keith, Goodbye rainbow, Longman, 1974.

 

14.  Seidl, Jennifer and McMordie, W., English idioms and how to use them, Oxford University Press, 1978.

 

15.  Wilson, F. P. (ed. ), Oxford Dictionary of English Proverbs, Oxford University Press, 1970.

 

16.  Brown, Gillian, Listening to spoken English, Longman, 1977.

 

17.  Brown, Gillian, 'Understanding spoken language', TESOL Quarterly 12:2, 1978.

 

18.  Brown, Gillian and Yule, George, Teaching the spoken language, Cambridge University Press, 1983.

 

19.  Byrne, Donn, 'Listening comprehension', Teaching oral English, Longman, 1976.

 

20.  Crystal, David and Davy, Derek, Investigating English style, Longman, 1969:

 

21.  Curfs, Emile, 'Listening deserves better', Modern English Teacher 9:3, 1982.

 

22.  Geddes, Marion, 'Listening', inK. Johnson and K. Morrow (eds. ),

 

23.  Communication in the classroom, Longman, 1981. Geddes, Marion and White, Ron, 'The use of semi-scripted simulated authentic speech and listening comprehension', Audio-visual Language journal, 1978.

 

24.  Littlewood, William, Communicative language teaching, Cambridge University Press, 198I.

 

25.  Maley, Alan, 'The teaching of listening comprehension skills', Modern English Teacher, 1978.

 

26.  Porter, Don and Roberts, Jon, 'Authentic listening activities', English Language Teaching]ournal, 1981.

 

27.  Richards, Jack C., 'Listening comprehension', TESOL Quarterly, 1983

 

28.  Rivers, Wilga, 'Hearing and comprehending', Teaching foreign language skills (revised edn.), University of Chicago Press, 1980. Widdowson, Henry, Teaching language as communication, Oxford University Press, 1978. The teaching of listening comprehension, British Council, E.L. T. Documents Special, 1981

 

29.  Blom, J. P., & Gumperz, J. J. (1972). Social meaning in linguistic structures: Code-switching in Norway. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 407–434). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

 

30.  Cadman, K., & O’Regan, K. (Eds.). (2006). Tales out of school: Identity and English language teaching. Series “S”: Special Edition of TESOL in Context.

 

31.  Canagarajah, A. S. (2001). Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom: Ambiguities in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL. In C. N. Candlin & N. Mercer (Eds.), English language teaching in its social context (pp. 208–226). London: Routledge.

 

32.  Davison, C. (2001). ESL in Australian schools: From the margins to the mainstream. In B. Mohan, C. Leung & C. Davison (Eds.), English as a second language in the mainstream: Teaching, learning and identity (pp. 11–29). Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.

 

33.  Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

 

34.  Gollnick, D. M., & Chinn, P. C. (2006). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

 

35.  Nieto, S. (1992). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. New York: Longman. Norton, B. (199

 

36.  Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and educational change. Essex, England: Longman.

 

37.  Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand me. New York: Morrow.

 

38.  Toohey, K., Day, E., & Manyak, P. (2007). ESL learners in the early school years. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (Vol. II, pp. 626–638). New York: Springer.

 

39.  Wong, S.-L. C., & Grant, R. (2007). Academic achievement and social identity among bilingual students in the U.S. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (Vol. II, pp. 681–691). New York: Springer.