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.