Short and Echevarria's article discusses the study of teachers of LEP students learning the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) model. In their project they created learning communities for the teachers so they are able to openly discuss their learning strategies and plans.
There are several distinctive features of this approach outlined in the article. The first one is the learning communities that are created. The teachers either went to reunion meetings or had an ongoing list serve that they all participated in. In these commuities they were able to openly discuss their approaches and find out what people thought of their plans and ways for improvement. I think the researchers found that this was a successful and useful tools for the teachers that they very much enjoyed. The next feature that I found interesting was the amount of preperation and self-evaluation the teachers did. They were being observed using the SIOP checklist, so they began to plan their lessons using this checklist. It took a lot of time and was extensive, but many of the teachers found it improved their lessons. They really strived for student centerd approaches I thought. They carefully observed student work and videos of students in the class and if they were not seeming to understand the teachers immideately changed. One last interesting feature is how the teachers combined langauge practice into content areas. To me this was especially interesting becuase this is something I have been taught to do in all of my classes. However, the teachers in the article seemed to have trouble getting used to it. Once they did, most teachers saw the point and really liked it, a few did not.
Some of the challenges was that it takes teachers a longer time to adjust and change than the researchers initially thought. Also, some teachers are language trained while some are content trained. Many of them were put into this position because of teacher shortages and were not adequatically prepaired. Some were starting from scratch. It was difficult for them, but this was very useful as well. I think the secondary teachers found it very hard to have time to incorporate all of these strategies and have time for the amount of planning it requires. Some are specifically trained in some areas rather than across all content areas that LEP student need to be taught. I'm sure that time constraints is the number one difficulty with this strategy.
I really enjoyed reading this article. It was very well written and easy to follow. However, I most enjoyed it because I found it very useful for my own professional growth. I learned many things from reading this and would like to try to use the SIOP model in my own classroom. I would also try to use some of the strategies outlined such as the learning communities/open communitation among teachers and the self-evaluation.
Correction...
I want to take some time to talk about corrections and correcting students. We have been reading and discussing this topic in class. It has led me to continually think about it outside of class because I really do think this is an interesting topic. As simple as it may seem, the way and number of times a student is corrected (especially a shy student) can really effect their progress and outcome. If they are corrected to much, they may become embarassed and stop talking. On the other hand, if they are never corrected, how will they learn the correct way of pronouncing a word or the correct structure of a sentence?
This is a tricky question because you don't want to over correct and make the student afraid to speak in class, but at the same time there are going to be times when you just have to correct something a student says or does because it will only hurt him/her to not be corrected and continue their mistake.
I think it is perfectally acceptable to correct student's written work. This is a good learning opportunity and it is not as confrentational as correcting as they speak. It gives them a chance to privately read and see how they wrote a word or a sentence and how it should be written correctly. Additionally, it is a good reference for them to keep and refer back to. If they find themselves coming across a similar situation in the future, they can look up the corrections on their papers or assignments.
In the other spectrum, verbal corrections, I think, should be minimal and not too obvious. There is something to be said for letting a student try and monitor and self-correct. This is actually helpful in the long run because it is a tool they will use very much in the world outside of the classroom. An ESL student is constantly surrounded by the new language, so it will eventaully become easy for them to self correct. I think a great way to correct a student when speaking to you or in class is to simply rephrase correctly what they said in a question. For example, if Juan says "Since were were childs I loved ice cream". I would say back "Since you were children you loved ice cream? Me too!". This way allows them to hear the correct way of saying the statement they just made in a non-intimidating way. It is also not telling them they are wrong either. Additionally, this aides in the idea of self monitoring and self correction. They hear is said the correct way, they can remember it and store it, and next time they will think that "childs" doesn't sound right and remember it is "children".
This is an important topic, one which should be discussed among teachers. In any way a teacher corrects a student, it shoudl benefit the child and promote continual growth.
This is a tricky question because you don't want to over correct and make the student afraid to speak in class, but at the same time there are going to be times when you just have to correct something a student says or does because it will only hurt him/her to not be corrected and continue their mistake.
I think it is perfectally acceptable to correct student's written work. This is a good learning opportunity and it is not as confrentational as correcting as they speak. It gives them a chance to privately read and see how they wrote a word or a sentence and how it should be written correctly. Additionally, it is a good reference for them to keep and refer back to. If they find themselves coming across a similar situation in the future, they can look up the corrections on their papers or assignments.
In the other spectrum, verbal corrections, I think, should be minimal and not too obvious. There is something to be said for letting a student try and monitor and self-correct. This is actually helpful in the long run because it is a tool they will use very much in the world outside of the classroom. An ESL student is constantly surrounded by the new language, so it will eventaully become easy for them to self correct. I think a great way to correct a student when speaking to you or in class is to simply rephrase correctly what they said in a question. For example, if Juan says "Since were were childs I loved ice cream". I would say back "Since you were children you loved ice cream? Me too!". This way allows them to hear the correct way of saying the statement they just made in a non-intimidating way. It is also not telling them they are wrong either. Additionally, this aides in the idea of self monitoring and self correction. They hear is said the correct way, they can remember it and store it, and next time they will think that "childs" doesn't sound right and remember it is "children".
This is an important topic, one which should be discussed among teachers. In any way a teacher corrects a student, it shoudl benefit the child and promote continual growth.
Sociocultural Strategies for a Dialogue of Cultures by Savignon & Sysoyev
This article focused on the fact that we really need to practice and explicitly teach sociocultural ways of communication. Besides learning a language to speak to people from other cultures, we also need to act as diplomats of our own cultural and have open minds and engage in a dialogue of cultures. Socio cultural strategies were defined in the article as "techniques used for establishing and maintaining international contact in the spirit of peace and dialogue of cultures. The article outlined 7 different strategies.
The term "dialogue of cultures" was defined by Bakhtin and Bibler. They state the dialogue is the very essence of humanity and mutual understanding. Culture is a "concentration of all other meanings of human existence. Culture can been seen as a special form or link of interaction between civilizations or epochs. Seen in this way, culture can only exist in the special relationships between past, present, and future in the history of mankind.
There was a study conducted in a Russian school of students of high level English. They were all explicitly taught the strategies and given surveys to fill out. They all found the strategies to be useful and could see themselves using these strategies. Because they all had different characteristics and personalities they rated the strategies very differently on the easiest and hardest and most useful.
This was a pretty long article and hard to follow at times, but in the end after reviewing my notes, I found it to be interesting. I think this is a really good point that along with language skills, diplomatic/sociocultural skill need to be taught as well. I think that having these strategies is just as important as having langauge skills. When going to another place you do need to have an open mind and be in the "spirit of peace". This will not only further you ability to communicate, it will also further your knowledge of the culture. I really agree with what Savignon and Sysoyev are trying to portray in the article. I like this idea and I think teachers in langauge classrooms sound really make an effort to teach these 7 different sociocultural strategies.
The term "dialogue of cultures" was defined by Bakhtin and Bibler. They state the dialogue is the very essence of humanity and mutual understanding. Culture is a "concentration of all other meanings of human existence. Culture can been seen as a special form or link of interaction between civilizations or epochs. Seen in this way, culture can only exist in the special relationships between past, present, and future in the history of mankind.
There was a study conducted in a Russian school of students of high level English. They were all explicitly taught the strategies and given surveys to fill out. They all found the strategies to be useful and could see themselves using these strategies. Because they all had different characteristics and personalities they rated the strategies very differently on the easiest and hardest and most useful.
This was a pretty long article and hard to follow at times, but in the end after reviewing my notes, I found it to be interesting. I think this is a really good point that along with language skills, diplomatic/sociocultural skill need to be taught as well. I think that having these strategies is just as important as having langauge skills. When going to another place you do need to have an open mind and be in the "spirit of peace". This will not only further you ability to communicate, it will also further your knowledge of the culture. I really agree with what Savignon and Sysoyev are trying to portray in the article. I like this idea and I think teachers in langauge classrooms sound really make an effort to teach these 7 different sociocultural strategies.
Pidgins and Creoles by Nessa Wolfson
I really found this article interesting. I found it interesting that there is no definition of a pidgeon and creole that all the scholars can agree on. For me to understand the meaning of them it was helpful to read that creoles are derived from pidgeons. A pidgin is not a native language and a creole can be. Therefore, you know pidgeons come first. A pidgin is no one's native langauge. It arises in situations of contact between speakers of mutually unintelligible languages and develop into relatively stable linguistic systems with their own syntax, lexicon, and phonology. Anyone who speakes a pidgin language is, by definition, bilingual. A creole language is whena pidgin gains native speakers it become a creole.
An example of when a pidgin and creole language came into being was the European Colonialism in the 18th and 19th centuries. This is when people dominated by other cultures were frequently transported and shipped to other places for cheap or free labor. For example, when slaves were brought to America there were people from many different linguistic backgrounds forced into on place to work together and they clearly needed a common form of communication. Therefore, it could be said that a pidgin was created. However, it is also said that no bilingual situation gives rise to a pidgin.
There are several theories on how pidgins originated.
1. Baby talk or foreigner talk theory - masters accomidating speech to make it intelligible to workers.
2. Independent Parallel Development Theory or the theory of Polygenesis - sonce pidgins arose in seperate situations, each must be considered to have developed indepenedntly.
3. Pidgins arose from the nautical jargon used by sailors during the period of extensive exploration which began in 15th century.
4. Monogenesis - all pidgins began from a language called Sabir.
The article then points out that it is difficult to pinpoint the historical origin of pidgins and creoles that maybe it would be the most beneficial to find a "common" origin. Also, Bickerton argues that the origin of creoles and the way children aquire their first langauge are similar in the way that they make a cognitive map like the one Chompsky proposed. Thus, he argues that syntatic differences can be explained by recognizing that there are universal cognitive strategies at work in the development of creole langauges.
I also think than langauge Esperanto is really interesting. This is the langauge the UN made up. It was created so that no nation has the upper hand by choosing to speak thier language. Leaders can speak Esperanto when meeting to maintain their feeling of power. I really found this interesting, especially since it seems that this idea really isn't working. I see the purpose and I can see it being a good idea. I don't remember which countries actually have learned Esperanto and use it, but it not many. Perhaps to many world leaders would feel weak or defeated or are just too stubborn.
An example of when a pidgin and creole language came into being was the European Colonialism in the 18th and 19th centuries. This is when people dominated by other cultures were frequently transported and shipped to other places for cheap or free labor. For example, when slaves were brought to America there were people from many different linguistic backgrounds forced into on place to work together and they clearly needed a common form of communication. Therefore, it could be said that a pidgin was created. However, it is also said that no bilingual situation gives rise to a pidgin.
There are several theories on how pidgins originated.
1. Baby talk or foreigner talk theory - masters accomidating speech to make it intelligible to workers.
2. Independent Parallel Development Theory or the theory of Polygenesis - sonce pidgins arose in seperate situations, each must be considered to have developed indepenedntly.
3. Pidgins arose from the nautical jargon used by sailors during the period of extensive exploration which began in 15th century.
4. Monogenesis - all pidgins began from a language called Sabir.
The article then points out that it is difficult to pinpoint the historical origin of pidgins and creoles that maybe it would be the most beneficial to find a "common" origin. Also, Bickerton argues that the origin of creoles and the way children aquire their first langauge are similar in the way that they make a cognitive map like the one Chompsky proposed. Thus, he argues that syntatic differences can be explained by recognizing that there are universal cognitive strategies at work in the development of creole langauges.
I also think than langauge Esperanto is really interesting. This is the langauge the UN made up. It was created so that no nation has the upper hand by choosing to speak thier language. Leaders can speak Esperanto when meeting to maintain their feeling of power. I really found this interesting, especially since it seems that this idea really isn't working. I see the purpose and I can see it being a good idea. I don't remember which countries actually have learned Esperanto and use it, but it not many. Perhaps to many world leaders would feel weak or defeated or are just too stubborn.
Implications of Connectionism for Thinking about Rules - Carl Bereiter
The first thing I need to establish is that AI is artificial intelligence, not AL like the name.
Connetionsim is a pretty difficult concept to grasp. Bereiter wrote this article in hopes of simplifying it and help readers to understand. He used the idea of many frisbees in a room all connected by rubber band like strings. When you move one you move all. I am very appreciative of the author's attempts to simplify this concept,; however, I feel like he failed in his attempts. I think if he could have done in a few pages what he did in many. He needed to cut down on all of the wordy explanations and examples and focus on total simplicity. I think he just had way to much information in the article for the reader to grasp.
Towards the end you think you are starting to maybe understand the concept of connectivism, and then he throws Rousseau in the mix. In my opinion, the section about Rousseau should have been left out of this article. The only thing is did for me and others was further confuse us just when we thought we might be understanding it. In general, in order the better the article and further the understanding for the reader Bereiter should have cut out a lot of the fluff and gotten down to the basics.
This is a very interesting concept and the article does bring up some interesting points. The frisbee analogy was interesting and did help to further my understanding. I would be very interested to read a very simplified article about connectionism ao that I can better my understanding.
Connetionsim is a pretty difficult concept to grasp. Bereiter wrote this article in hopes of simplifying it and help readers to understand. He used the idea of many frisbees in a room all connected by rubber band like strings. When you move one you move all. I am very appreciative of the author's attempts to simplify this concept,; however, I feel like he failed in his attempts. I think if he could have done in a few pages what he did in many. He needed to cut down on all of the wordy explanations and examples and focus on total simplicity. I think he just had way to much information in the article for the reader to grasp.
Towards the end you think you are starting to maybe understand the concept of connectivism, and then he throws Rousseau in the mix. In my opinion, the section about Rousseau should have been left out of this article. The only thing is did for me and others was further confuse us just when we thought we might be understanding it. In general, in order the better the article and further the understanding for the reader Bereiter should have cut out a lot of the fluff and gotten down to the basics.
This is a very interesting concept and the article does bring up some interesting points. The frisbee analogy was interesting and did help to further my understanding. I would be very interested to read a very simplified article about connectionism ao that I can better my understanding.
Critical Period Hypothesis Article by Wang and Kuhl
I am interested in the critical period hypothesis, so I was thinking this article would be interesting to read. It is titled Evaluating the"Critical Period" Hypothesis: Perceptual Learning of Mandarin Tones in American Adults and American Children 6, 10, and 14 Years of Age by Yue Wang and Patricia K. Kuhl. I felt it was well laid out by introducing you to the experiment, method, results, and conclusions. The article was testing the critical period hypothesis. They were testing to see if adults could recognize the difference in Mandarin tones. By seeing if they could make these recognitions it would show evidence for or against the critical period hypothesis.
There was a trainee group and a control group. Basically what happened was they gave the participants an introduction and pretest - they taught them anything to see where they were starting off. The testing consisted of sitting at a computer with head phones on to listen to the tones. Then, they gave them training on the Mandarin tones. This was followed by a post-test. The procedure for the children and adults was identical.
The results found significant improvement of identification of Mandarin tones. Also, the test found no abrupt decrease in the degree of improvement. The increase was comparable across all four age groups. The study did not support that there is a critical cut off period.
I thought this study/article was just OK. It didn't really show any new evidence or anything that hasn't already been said. A problem I found with it was the ages they selected for "adults". The age for the adults they tested were 19 years old. I guess they are technically adults and are past the cutoff age of the critical period hypothesis. However, when I think of adults in terms of learning a language I think of someone a little older, at least out of school. I would have more confidence in this study or would have found it more interesting had they used a wider range of adult ages like they did for children. (They use 6, 10, and 14 years for children and only 19 years for adults.) I personally do not think there is a cut off period with language learning. I believe anyone can learn a language regardless of age. I just think as you age you begin to think differently and take on different characteristics which may mean that you learn a language a different way than you would if you were a child. I also have to wonder how well a six year old would do on a test on the computer. Could they sit and pay attention long enough for these results not to be flawed?
There was a trainee group and a control group. Basically what happened was they gave the participants an introduction and pretest - they taught them anything to see where they were starting off. The testing consisted of sitting at a computer with head phones on to listen to the tones. Then, they gave them training on the Mandarin tones. This was followed by a post-test. The procedure for the children and adults was identical.
The results found significant improvement of identification of Mandarin tones. Also, the test found no abrupt decrease in the degree of improvement. The increase was comparable across all four age groups. The study did not support that there is a critical cut off period.
I thought this study/article was just OK. It didn't really show any new evidence or anything that hasn't already been said. A problem I found with it was the ages they selected for "adults". The age for the adults they tested were 19 years old. I guess they are technically adults and are past the cutoff age of the critical period hypothesis. However, when I think of adults in terms of learning a language I think of someone a little older, at least out of school. I would have more confidence in this study or would have found it more interesting had they used a wider range of adult ages like they did for children. (They use 6, 10, and 14 years for children and only 19 years for adults.) I personally do not think there is a cut off period with language learning. I believe anyone can learn a language regardless of age. I just think as you age you begin to think differently and take on different characteristics which may mean that you learn a language a different way than you would if you were a child. I also have to wonder how well a six year old would do on a test on the computer. Could they sit and pay attention long enough for these results not to be flawed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)