A quien - Marlon Fernandez (Audio HQ)

Towards an Alternative Pedagogy

                                                                                               Christykim
Current classroom pedagogy is the “transmission of knowledge” which is similar to the “banking method”. If the purpose of teaching is to involve all students in learning then transmission is not a good method because material is preplanned and outcomes predetermined. Too often transmission doesn’t work in the classroom because every plan has problem when executing them plus not every student is paying attention to the lecture. This emphasizes that not many students are involved in the learning process. This does not mean that there shouldn’t be material. So a new alternative method needs to be developed.

The main idea for an alternative method is based on the individual process of learning. If the material is interesting to the student, then the student will become actively involved in the learning process and remember the material better because it has meaning. In order to do this, teachers have to be trained to recognize individual processes and to position these at the center of his teaching: broad collective plans and decisions would be secondary to this central response. Teachers can start with the interests of the students as a starting point to take them to a destination the students never thought about.

There are 2 distinct alternative methods: child-centered progressivism which would focus on the child’s interest and allow the child to personally direct their learning. The problem with this is that it is over-dependent on what the students do themselves.

There are 2 problems to this. First, there can be many distractions since there is no control. Second, students will miss out on learning on interaction with peers and teachers.

The second pedagogy would also focus on the child’s individual interests with external challenges and collaboration and that would be at the center of the teacher’s actions.

A new alternative pedagogy would move the pedagogic focus from the pre-active situation (making and planning) where students are not involved to the interactive situation where students are involved. So by changing the focus learning becomes less mastering of material but actively constructing knowledge. This does not mean that teacher will not plan but will make sure the plans do not become the lesson, “the predictive becomes prescriptive.” This new alternative method would become ‘cooperative learning’ that is between student and teacher.

Cooperative learning might have 3 stages:

First stage: The student picks a subject and starts exploring it for something that catches his attention.

Second stage: Now the teacher gets together with the student to focus the student and to offer other ways to looking at it.

Third stage: The student is satisfied at the accomplishment of investigating a topic and bringing it under control. The student can support their work, make hypotheses confidently and improvise with knowledge.

Now the relationship has become stimulating for both and both have learned and the teacher has gotten interested it the student.

Shannon & Penny cook

                                                                                                    Christykim

Shannon1. How do the various orientations to a literacy curriculum imply different perspectives regarding the purpose of education?
By looking at the curriculum you can tell which perspective because if the perspective is traditional with some humanities classes without systematic measuring and testing then you can assume it is humanistic but if there is much measuring and testing then it is probably scientific management. If for example, the early literature is based on folktales and fable then probably it is child-centered.

What are some of these different views of the purpose of education?
Traditional – Ss were trained to reproduce the ideas and customs of the past.
Humanist – Still used traditional curriculum because they want to maintain the status quo and added math, geography, history, grammar, classical languages and literature and the arts. Basically they added humanities classes that cultured the Ss.
Child-centered – need to observe the interests of Ss and systematically help Ss progress through their natural stages of development.
Scientific management – used exact measurement to determine the most efficient and effective way for Ss to achieve goals.
Social reconstruction – schools as the primary institution to solve the social problems in America

2. What is the teacher’s duty according to each perspective?
Traditional – “intellectual overseers” and “drillmasters”. Suppress independent thought, it was not for Ss to think and communicate, but learned their position in the adult world.
Humanist – Prepare Ss for college even though most didn’t go to college. They believed preparing for college was preparing for life.
Child-centered – Didn’t suppress children’s interests but tried to understand them to help them through their natural stages.
Scientific management – guide Ss to move through pre-set levels by passing standardized tests
Social reconstruction – Ss should study social issues such as poverty, crime, political corruption, etc so they can have a more sophisticated understanding of the social issues in their community.

3. At what point in this reading does Shannon reveal a critical perspective regarding these orientations to curriculum? How does he do so?
His critical perspective is revealed in the section of ‘Story or History’. He says that even though Smith and Finkelstein are both historians, they both tell stories that have a subjective voice that influences the reader.

Pennycook

1. What are the two different senses in which Pennycook asserts that language teaching is inherently “political”?
First, he claims that all education is political therefore since language teaching is a part of education it must be political as well. He also reinforces his idea by expanding the notion of political to not only include governmental or administrative powers but all societal relationships of power.
Second, all knowledge is “interested”. In other words, all knowledge has someone’s interest or agenda in mind. (Everyone has a stake in education from the administrators who want their Ss to pass so they can seem competent, parents who demand results, publishers trying to sell their books that have a particular point of view)

2. Pennycook makes a rather rash sounding claim in saying that the very notion of “language” as conceived in linguistics, is a political concept. How does he believe this is so?
Since linguistics is forced to work with something that is already political in nature then the result is that linguistics is political too. It is a matter of simple deductive reasoning. A=B, B=C so A=C

3. On p.597 Pennycook connects the notion of “method” in language teaching with a Western enlightenment conception of scientism (via Descartes). According to Pennycook’s argument, how do methods in language teaching parallel the general scientific notion of discovery and discerning truth?
The parallel has to do with how the methods are tested and proven effective. Researchers want to get quantitative measures to show the effectiveness of a particular method. These quantitative tests are similar to how scientists discover and discern (recognize) the truth using experimental methods and by analyzing data..

It seems as though Pennycook is saying that researchers in language teaching are too focused on using scientific methods so their results seem objective and measurable therefore a particular method is proven. And by being obsessed with this way of research, the researchers miss other things that can be considered useful such as getting input from teachers and students and qualitative methods like narrative and case studies. This reminds me of the battle between cognitivists and socioculturalists and how cognitivists ignored SC because their methods were not quantitative.

4. Pennycook offers an historical perspective on teaching practices which opposes positivist and progressivist readings of history. These could be read as scientist versus a historicist reading of methods. What is his purpose for incorporating a historicist reading and why does he believe it is important to do so?
Pennycook thinks that scientist tend to not mention history too much so he wanted to state the facts as they truly are. He wanted to show how all the methods we know of know have actually been around for two thousand years and that nothing has changed. He wanted to show the cyclical nature of language learning and how it shifts from oral communication to grammar depending on the sociopolitical needs of the time. He wanted to offer a more objective view of the methods and what is proposed by positivists and progressivists.


For example, if there wasn’t a need to communicate then the focus was on grammar analysis but if communication was needed then the focus shifted to oral communication. This has happened a few times in history over last several hundred years. This is the case in many countries around the world. Some countries do not need to learn to speak so they just learn to read and analyze the grammar but the countries that need communication shifted their focus from grammar to speaking. This is what is happening in Korea now, we are shifting from grammar to communication.




5. How has the ‘methods boom’ empowered certain groups invested in language education?
The methods boom has empowered different groups because each group wants to promote its method as being the most effective. This in turn allows them to sell their program which funds their research.
Publishers – benefit from academic legitimation of methods to sell more books (trust)
Researchers – promote and prove a method is effective (get paid from publishers, peer respect)
Organizations – British Council and Berlitz – promoting their method



6. On p.598 onwards the author describes the socio-political conditions of various language learning contexts. Describe the Korean English learning context using Pennycook’s descriptions as a model. In other words, briefly summarize the socio-political context in Korean English education.
Latin – preserve the language so they analyzed the written text
French – focused on oral communication because of trade

Penny would say - Korea’s society is changing to a more globalized economy with extensive contact with foreigners and oral communication has become key therefore there is a shift from GMT to communicative methods.

In Korea, there has been a shift from GTM to communicative competence since the needs of the masses has changed. Before globalization and actually before that Koreans were not so worldly so GMT was fine to meet their needs. Now the environment has changed with globalization and communication is key since Koreans are doing business abroad, as well as traveling and studying abroad. International companies have branches in Korea with foreign staff so communication has become the focus. (has come to the forefront) Also, the government has tried to give all students equal access to opportunities by making more than 70% of the Korean SAT from EBS so it doesn’t matter so much if someone is rich or poor.


7. On p.600 there is a brief allusion to the notion of ‘traditional’ language teaching methods. What are traditional Korean teaching methods? How would Pennycook answer that same question?
Traditional Korean teaching methods would be that of “drill-master” type teachers. Teachers drill the S and the S are expected to learn without questioning.

Traditional language teaching he is referring to is the way in which lessons are taught. The tradition of teachers leading a class as overseers and drill-masters.

Scientists (progressivists/positivist) try to hide the fact that many methods are cyclical and have been a round a long time. For example, the ALM was not new but researchers want to act as if it is and support its effectiveness with scientific data since it promotes their agenda. They want to show a linear relationship among teaching methods when it is actually cyclical.

Ethnography in ESL

                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                  Christykim
Defining the Essentials states what ethnography is and what ethnography can do for us in ESL.  It states that ethnography is a type of research that is holistic and studies people’s behavior in a natural setting over a long period of time with a focus on the influence of culture on behavior.  Watson-Gegeo emphasizes long-term because she wants to separate it from some ethnographic research that is impressionistic with short periods of observations called “blitzkrieg ethnography”.  She states these are very superficial and not true ethnography.

Watson-Gegeo goes over some principles of ethnographic research.  First, ethnography focuses on people’s behavior in groups and on cultural patterns in that behavior.  However she also states that ethnography can focus on an individual and in that case the individual is treated as representative of a group.  Second, ethnography is holistic and so any aspect of culture or behavior has to be explained in relation to the whole system in which it is a part so we must look at every type of interaction such as during the lesson, the organization of the classroom and even the influence of society and much more.  Third, ethnographic data collection begins with a theoretical framework to direct the researcher.  Watson-Gegeo states the role of theory seems to be poorly understood outside of anthropology so sometimes the research is guided only by the observer’s “implicit ontology”.  But this doesn’t mean that ethnographic observation and interpretation are determined by the theory.

Watson-Gegeo also discusses the role of ethnography in ESL.  Ethnography can answer questions such as what is going on from moment to moment in ESL settings and how culture influences the behavior of the participants.  Ethnography offers a way to systematically document interactions to develop a theory based on the collected data.  Ethnographic studies can assist ESL teachers by informing them of the influence of the local culture and the expectations from that culture.

           After reading the paper by Watson-Gegeo I have to agree with her on two things.  First, ethnography is useful for ESL since ethnographic research creates theory based on observations in natural settings and takes into account the influence of culture on behavior.  As mentioned before, this information could greatly assist teachers who are teaching in a foreign culture especially here in Korea.  A teacher who teaches adults ESL at companies has stated to me that sometimes the students don’t get participate actively.  Later one of the students told the teacher that many of the students don’t actively participate because they are in the class with a person who has a higher position than them.  The student said if they speak too much then it may seem like they are showing off so they just stay quiet.  After learning that information, the teacher got the student of higher position more involved and therefore increased the activity of the rest of the students.  Now, if the teacher had received some cultural training from some ethnographic research then that situation may have never occurred.  I wonder how many other classes have the same problem and how many teachers still don’t know the reason why. 

           Second, I agree that ethnography needs to have some theoretical framework to direct the researcher.  As Watson-Gegeo stated, if observation is not guided by an explicit theoretical framework then it will be guided by the observer’s “implicit ontology” so this just leads to the observers own opinion.  I know the observer has a lot of knowledge to base the opinion on but in the end it is still just opinion.  Also, without a theoretical framework then it would be difficult to compare the results of one study with that of another.  I think it is important to be able to reproduce a study in several locations to see the variations in the results.  The results could give information whether something is just a local, regional or global phenomenon.  That kind of information could help future observers create new theory.

Freire ( oppressor & oppressed )

                                                                                                       Christy Kim

This question came from my real concern/experiences :

While I was preparing this, I really wondered if what I prepared was the banking method or not. I think using a ppt might lean toward a banking method and I wanted to avoid that. So, I was wondering how to do this so it is critical pedagogy and not banking. Also, what is the best way to handle a situation when the audience is quiet and not participative? How long should the presenter wait before speaking?

I was reading some headlines and thinking about the recent news and it made me wonder.

The Libyan uprising, Tunisia & Egyptian protests. Syria, Bahrain and so on. Who is the oppressor?

Gadafi, Mubarak. Then what about Bill Gates?

20% of the population (Americans) got over 89% of the wealth. The next 20% has little over 10% but the second-lowest 20 %& the bottom 20% is too small so they are not even on here!

If this situation exists too long, what will happen? What would Frerie say? P26

He might say as on page 26, “sooner or later being less human leads the oppressed to struggle against those who made them so”. (After being treated so badly for such as long time then eventually the oppressed will revolt, like what is happening now and what has happened in the past.)

Oppressor – Oppressed  p.26 What is oppression? P37. third paragraph starting with “Any situation…” “sooner or later being less human leads the oppressed to struggle against those who made them so”

What is oppression? P37. third paragraph starting with “Any situation in which “A” objectively exploits “B” or hinders his/her pursuit of self-affirmation.”

Can anyone give me some examples of this? North Korea, China, Myanmar…how about Samsung group or corporate America, like Wall Street or Microsoft? Why are they? Each in their own way, exploits people for their profit and in combination with other corporations enslave people to work for them blindly trying to make ends meet. This is slavery but in another form, they see people as objects and even label them things such as “labor” so they can be dehumanized.

Now lets think about how this might have happened? And this lead me to think about some great historical figures who were oppressed and became oppressors. One of my heroes- Che Guevarra who with Castro were oppressed and they overthrew the Cuban government which was ruled by the dictator- Baptist, Castro becamse leader but Che left to help others. So, what went wrong in Cuba under Castro after Che left? Just as Freire warned against, “The oppressed became oppressor.” Why did the oppressed become oppressors? There are lots of reasons. Oppressed follow oppressor as a model, fear freedom, or didn’t think critically. They just replaced one oppressor for another without thinking how to prevent that from happening and making something better, safe feeling of conformity….so their act of humanization lead to dehumanization. (Why he is an oppressor? No free enterprise, people cannot leave the country, abuse of people)

Just as Freire warned against, “The oppressed became oppressor.” Humanization leads to Dehumanization They just replaced one oppressor for another without thinking how to prevent that from happening and making something better, safe feeling of conformity….so their act of humanization lead to dehumanization. Why did the oppressed become oppressors? How can this be a bigger problem? P29..”Moreover…”

How can this be a bigger problem? P29..”Moreover…” even Hilary Clinton mentioned this about Libya the other day. She said, “we don’t know what kind of government will arise from this but it couldn’t be worse than this”. (This is the concern, that it could be worse than now). I mean like North Korea, Kim Il Sung once considered a great man with a great philosophy but he created something worse than what they had because maybe he was fearful of taking risks that might take away his power and create something that he didn’t expect.

Like Catherine wrote about Margret Thatcher and how women thought she would be a champion for women’s causes but she actually made it worse for women by marginalizing them.

On another note, what do you think about these headlines

1.Saudi King orders $93 billion dollars in handouts – he ignores calls for political reform, gives out money http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/saudi-arabia/110318/king-abdullah-political-reform-bahrain-yemen 2. Bill Gates, one of the richest men on Earth and the largest philanthropist. He donates billions every year.

**Saudi King orders $93 billion dollars in handouts**

 What would Freire say about this? “False charity” P26-27..the people are protesting for government reform but the king doesn’t want to have reforms so he gives away handouts such as new jobs and cheaper apartment to subdue the people and maintain the oppression.

**What would Freire think about Bill Gates? Why does he still charge $200 per copy of ms windows, why not $100 or for free. Why not for free, a ’t have enough money, I heard he got 40 billion dollars, it means he could spend a million dollars a day and never go broke in his lifetime. Doesn’t his never satisfied desire prevent others from living a better life? (He takes $10 but donates

Korean Dr

/Prof. at Kaist Ahn Chul Soo, created anti-virus software and gave it away free for the good of the people. But Bill Gates doesn

 $1 – false charity, plus people, charities get dependent on him so it creates a vicious cycle of oppression) I don’t think he is a bad person but I think there needs to be a better distribution of wealth and a way to prevent one person from getting way too much so it hinders other people.

Activity : Let’s say - You’ve just had a successful revolution and now you’re wanting to establish a framework for a new society , what would you create that allows people to be human and at the same time doesn’t oppress anyone?

Options : Let’s divide into 2 groups.

Group A Just overthrew North Korean government, Group B Just overthrew U.S government.(70% are living in poverty), You have to make government reforms / policies, so what kinds of reforms/policies you are going to make?

So, who can free the oppressed? …… before we can liberate the oppressed, many obstacles must be overcome. Lets talk about some of the obstacles. What are the obstacles?

Who can free the oppressed? Can the oppressor do it? Can the oppressed do it? What are some obstacles of the oppressed? 1.     Fear of freedom – the prescribed behavior of the oppressor becomes their own behavior, they fear doing something else that they are not familiar with p29 2.     Duality of their innermost being – they are themselves but at the same time, the oppressor whose consciousness they have internalized. The conflict is being just themselves or being divided. P30 3.     Fatalistic attitudes – “What can I do? I’m only a peasant, a single person, a teacher.” (feel powerless to change anything) p43 4.     Self-depreciation – the oppressed believe that they are what the oppressor believes of them, ex. You are worthless, you are lazy, you are dumb…so you believe you truly are. P45 5.     Passivity – accepting their situation “fatalistically” p46 The oppressed are always yearning for freedom but just yearning is not enough. Freedom is acquired by conquest, not by gift. It must be pursued constantly and responsibly. P29.

We have to keep these things in mind because just as we learn history “ Not to repeat the same mistakes”, we must keep these in mind to prevent their repetition.

How do we make change? - A pedagogy must be made “with” the oppressed not “for” them. p49 Because someone else can’t do it for them ex, America cannot free Libyans without them being involved) - The oppressed must have reflective participation as they are not objects. They must see themselves as men and women in the fight to become more fully human. P47,48 - This is important because true reflection leads to action not just an armchair revolution. P48 - Have to trust in the oppressed and their ability to reason. P48 - Revolutionary leadership must have dialogue with the oppressed p49 (because, if not, then countries the same as N.K. or Libya will be formed again which could be more oppressive)

All these are needed because revolutionary leaders start off with good intentions in the beginning but once they get power they can easily become an oppressor.

In Conclusion: The only effective instrument is a humanizing pedagogy in which the revolutionary leadership establishes a permanent relationship of dialogue with the oppressed. In this way the presence of the oppressed will be what it should be: Committed Involvement. P50,51 In other words, leadership (teacher) must always have a dialogue with the oppressed (students). This way, the students will have true committed involvement.

Discourse and Power

                                                                                 Christy kim
Major aspects of power/language relationships

 1. power in discourse – concerned with discourse as a place where relations of power are

    actually exercised

                      a . face to face discourse

 b. cross-cultural discourse

 c. ‘hidden power’ of discourse

2. power behind discourse – orders of discourse like social order

Power in Discourse

1. face to face in unequal encounter

a. powerful participants control and constrain the speech of non-powerful participants

                        

 1) 3 types of constraint

                          a) contents – on what is said or done

                               ex. medical student must do examination following a learned routine

                          b) relations – social relations people enter into a discourse

                               ex. professional relationship to audience & subordinate relationship to head doctor

                          c) subjects – the speakers social position(s) in a discourse

                               ex. aspiring doctor & student

Analysis

1.     what is happening is announced to the students including what they will do

2.     they way the S is explicitly told when to start talking & examining – “off you go” sounds like she is speaking to a kid

3.     equally explicit instructions to S for sequence of action

4.     the way S are evaluated – “very good” & “that’s right” again speaking to a subordinate

5.     S is ‘put on the spot’ – S is questioned followed by a pause which means S must answer while everyone is watching

6.     grammatical forms

a.     negative question (did we not, might we not) – the S should know they are wrong and the doctor is right (a way to make the S look stupid)

b.    reduced question (now what do we do? What is the next important thing?) – sounds abrupt and rude or brief

c.    declarative sentence instead of interrogative sentence with a question tag (don’t we?) – effect is like that of negative question

    

Directive speech acts (orders & questions) come from doctor

1.     seems doctor has right to give orders and ask questions

2.     seems like students can only follow orders and answer questions (follows subordinate position)

Discourse type (can indirectly control the discourse by choosing a certain discourse type)

*** note *** discourse type also self-constrains since everyone must now follow

 the discourse type

2. Power in cross-cultural encounters – unequal encounter – ‘gatekeeper encounters’

             a. socially dominant cultural group controls the encounter

                1) dominant group tend so to assume minority group is familiar with dominant groups ways so

interpretations of actions can be incorrect by the dominant group and cause miscommunication

2) native-like ability can even cause more miscommunication since it increases the chances the dominat group will assume things

3. Hidden power – in written language especially mass media (nature of power relationship is not clear)

             a. differences with face to face

                1) ‘one-sidedness’ – only the media communicates info

                2) no adaptation of language – face to face interactions adapt language type for the audience

                 all the time but media does not since it is for mass audiences

a)    media – uses language for an ideal audience (who is the ideal audience? – dominant

cultural group)

             b) what is the nature of power relations in media discourse?

                1) producers have sole producing rights over the consumer so they can determine the

 relationship

a)    ex. Headline – industrial disputes use “trouble” or “disruption” so side with employers

   2) in British media, power relations favor existing power-holders

     a) this becomes ‘hidden power’ since it is implicit in the practices of the media

Analysis

1. Stereotype ‘army wives’ and public figures - sexist

2. Shows Jenny is a ‘good wife’ without using the words directly

                       a) she expresses confidence in husband’s ability

                       b) she is concerned for his safety – she ‘prays’ he has ‘done enough’

                      c) she tries to act normally in front of the kids

                    3. photographs are not equal

                       a) eyes are looking straight ahead

                       b) serious expression

                       c) hint of a smile possibly cynical

       c. hidden power in face to face interactions

          1) close relationship between requests and power

                    a) direct – explicit power relationship

                                 1) imperatives – ex. types this for me by 5 oclock

                    b) indirect – implicit

                                 2) question form with different degrees of eloquence for effect

                                     ex. Can you type this letter.?

                                             Do you think you could type this letter…?

                                              Could I possible ask you to type this letter…?

Debate Critique

The debate was a cross-cultural encounter between peers which is an unequal encounter. The reason for this is because of the language used during the discussion. The discussion was primarily controlled but those whose native language is English. It seemed as though the dominant group assumed the minority group understood everything as they did.

-      Dominant group controlled the tempo and the flow of the debate.

-      Although there were 4 members, the discussion occurred between the two native members primarily and seldom asked input from non-natives. This easily shows the unequal power distribution between the natives and non-natives.

-      There was one male in the group and he took the lead and the females followed. It seems as natural gender roles of male dominance was as work.

-      Sometimes one member of the dominant group spoke about something irrelevant and then an exchange occurred between the two dominant members.

-      Over-talking occurred between members, specifically the native male over-talked a non-native female and made her stop speaking.