Ensino e Aprendizagem de Inglês como Língua Estrangeira

Lesson 01
History of English in Brazil
While Brazil is now over 500 years old, we English teachers have about 200 years of teaching English in Brazil to celebrate.
Although the many reasons that brought about the current state of affairs are well documented, it is less known that many
of the same forces were at work in the beginning of the nineteenth century.
We know, for example, that widespread interest in the English language appeared only when England became a major
trading partner of Brazil in 1808. This was the year that brought Dom João VI to Brazil along with the entire royal entourage
in his flight from Napoleon. And England had long been a trading partner of Portugal´s.
It didn´t take long, therefore, for people to start being interested in learning English. We have this documented in the
newspapers of the era. As it still is today, newspaper ads for English teachers were common. One such ad appeared in
1809, and this is the first document that gives us a glimpse of English teaching outside the regular school system.
The first North Americans to come to Brazil were probably missionaries who arrived in the 1830s. But it was only in the
1860s that a moderate number of Americans emigrated to Brazil. Most of these were farmers fleeing from the destruction
of the South during the Civil War. Some of them were merchants or English teachers, as well as missionaries.
And things continued along these lines for almost a hundred years. But there were two moments in our history which
changed things irrevocably.
The first occurred in the 1930s when Brazil was viewed as a strategic point with regard to a possible war in Europe. With
the growth of the Nazi regime the United States and Great Britain scrambled to insure that Brazil aligned with them against
Germany.
Spreading the English language was seen by the governments of the U.S and Great Britain as a strategic necessity. So, the
first binational school appeared in 1935.
It was the result of a deal between a private English school called Escola Paulista de Letras Inglesas and the British
Consulate. The name was changed to Sociedade Brasileira de Cultura Inglesa which is still Cultura Inglesa today.
The success of this school was impressive and many others opened at the time. Today, there are many options available
and people are trouble choosing where to study. Teachers also give private classes nowadays, just like they did 200 years
ago.
In the chronicle by Rubem Braga we can see that methods work differently for each teacher because teaching is an
individual experience.
In addition to language teaching methodology there are other factors that may be taken into consideration: fostering
democracy, teaching children to work together, developing the individual´s thinking ability and creativity, promoting self-
study, and so on. These have more to do with the development of personality than with actual language learning, although
it may be felt that they are conducive to better learning.

Book suggestion: LIGHTBOWN, Patsy; SPADA, Nina. How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. 
It’s a mandatory read to understand how SLA occurs.

Video Lesson
Globalization
It is not the same thing for everyone. There are many attempts to define it. We live in a time of rapid changes and there are
many connections among countries and people. There is a lot of doubts wheatear it is good or not.
“Globalization” is a convenient and useful single word used to refer to a great number of things we can see taking place in
the world today and to suggest interconnected relationships among all those things.
Globalization has changed English language a lot. Globalization and the status of English as a world language are affecting
the teaching and learning of English worldwide.
How did English become a global language? Nowadays, English is more spoken as a 2 nd language than as a 1st language. It is
the common language in science, aviation, and many other areas. No other language has reached the dominance English
has. However, until 1600, English remained isolated in the island of United Kingdom. What happened afterwards? England
was an island and the only way it could have more territories was by navigating and finding new areas. They capitalized
their fleet and became one of the greatest empires in the world. Even when this empire started to fall, another English
speaking potency arose – the USA, a former colony of England. The superpower of USA was confirmed after its victory in
the cold war. The creation of the web also spread the language internationally.

New Medias
New media has impact on English language learning and teaching nowadays. There are advantages and disadvantages. In
brazil, for example, not every student or teacher has access to technologies.
At the same time, we know people are using internet and technology in a varied way when possible. When possible, it is a
helpful tool in the English lesson.
Internet sites to teach English can be classified in 3 types:
 Designed by teachers: exclusively to their lessons.
 Pedagogical sites: sometimes recommended by teachers.
 Information and Entertainment sites: used by native speakers and can be a tool to teaching.
Development of the English language
First, England became a great empire. Later, USA became a powerful country. These facts turned English into an important
language to know. Nowadays, with globalization, the language has spread and many countries have it as a 1 st or 2nd
language.
Nowadays, people learn languages for different reasons: instrumental and integrative orientations.
Instrumental orientation means we are learning language as a tool for something. It is the case of English to special
purposes.
Integrative orientations refer to learning to be part of a culture. It is not immediate. It is something broader.
In Brazil now there are policies to teach English with a more communicative approach.

The role of culture in learning

The culture concept is complex and multifaceted, and these facets and qualities need to be recognized and understood in
order to successfully develop elements of a pedagogy, approach or methodology for culture learning and teaching.
What does cultural competence mean for educators? It is creating a good environment for each and every kind of student.
It means showing and teaching respect towards different traditions and ways to see the world.

Myths about English language learning

1- Children learn second languages quickly and easily. – That not always true. Structures children use are simpler than the
ones adults use. We can apply some strategies as an adult which a child can’t do.
2- The younger the child, the more skilled in acquiring an L2. – Perhaps considering pronunciation it is true.
3- The more time students spend in a second language context, the quicker they learn the language. – It depends on the
environment the student is in.
4- Children have acquired an L2 since they can speak it. – Speaking is very important, but other skills are important too.
5- All children learn an L2 in the same way. – We tend to believe all children are similar, but we know it is not true. Some
students, for example, don’t like interacting a lot.
There are no researches that show children learn better than adults. The main difference between adult and child learning
is attitude. Children aren’t afraid to commit mistakes. They don’t have emotional baggage. People are never too old to
learn a language.

Lesson 02
At this lesson, we are going to deal with languages teaching approaches from the post-war period and explore their
theoretical foundations.
The period after the wars, starting from 1950 is seen as the period of development of theorizing about second language
learning from an adjunct to language pedagogy, to an autonomous field of research.

Nature of Second Language Learning 

If we are going to teach other people to understand and to speak a second or third language, we should start by asking
ourselves what language really is. 
We have all been speaking our native language since we were between the ages of one or two, but we have done so with
little or no conscious thought on our part. Many of us would find it difficult or even impossible to explain what we do when
we speak our language.
Fortunately, the last several decades have witnessed a tremendous upsurge of activity by scholars in this field.
Definitions of language and language descriptions abound. 
Every few years one finds new and often contradictory theories of ways of describing language. There have been numerous
books and articles about the advantages of describing language in traditional terms , in structural terms, in tagmemic
terms, in generative-transformational terms to name only a few.

What happened in the 1950’s and 1960’s?

In the 1950’s and early 1960’s, theorizing about second language learning was still very much an adjunct to the practical
business of language teaching. 
However, the idea that language teaching methods had to be justified in terms of an underlying learning theory was well
established, since the pedagogic reform movements of the late nineteenth century at least. 
The writings of language teaching experts in the 1950’s and 1960’s include serious considerations of learning theory, as
preliminaries to their practical recommendations. As far as linguistic content was concerned, ‘progressive’ 1950’s language
pedagogy drew on a version of structuralism developed by the British linguist Palmer in the 1920’s, and subsequently by
Fries and his Michigan colleagues in the 1940’s.
Howatt sums up this approach as follows:
1- The conviction that language systems consisted of a finite set of ‘patterns’ or ‘structures’ which acted as models for the
production of an infinite number of similarly constructed sentences; 
2- The belief that repetition and practice resulted in the formation of accurate and fluent foreign language habits; 
3- A methodology which set out to teach ‘the basics’ before encouraging learners to communicate their own thoughts and
ideas.
This shows that this approach referred to general the dominant
learning theory in mainstream psychology at the time, the
behaviorism. Behaviorism claims that language learning is the
result of a set of habits. In this theory, knowledge is seen as the
product of interaction with the environment through stimulus-
response conditioning.

The risky part of the theory is that all learning happens by means
of the same process, which is forming habits.
In 1957, psychologist B. F. Skinner produced a behaviorist account
on language acquisition in which linguistics utterances served as
stimulus with reinforcement and conditioned responses. When language learners’ responses are reinforced positively, they
acquire the language relatively easily.

Strengths of behaviorism
 Clear objectives
 Cueing responses to behavior allows learner to react in a predictable way under certain conditions

Weak points
 People wonder if a conditioned response account can explain the acquisition of a large and complex system of
knowledge like a language.

Chomsky’s criticism to behaviorism

Starting the 1950’s and continuing in the 1960’s, both the fields of linguistics and psychology witnessed major
developments. Linguistics saw a shift from structural linguistics, which was based on the description of the surface
structure of a large corpus of language, to generative linguistics which emphasized the rule-governed and creative nature
of human language. 
This shift had been initiated by the publication in 1957 of Syntactic Structures, the first of many influential books by Noam
Chomsky. In the field of psychology, the pre-eminent role for the environment which was argued by Skinner in shaping the
child’s learning and behavior was losing ground in favor of more developmentalist views of learning, such as Piaget’s
cognitive developmental theory, in which inner forces drive the child, in interaction with the environment.
The clash of views about the way in which we learn language came to a head at the end of 1950’s with two publications.
These were Skinner’s Verbal Behavior in 1957, which outlined in detail his behaviorist view of learning as applied to
language, and Chomsky’s view of Skinner’s book, published in 1959, which was a fierce critique of Skinner’s views.
Chomsky’s criticisms centered on a number of issues:
Creativity of language: Children do not learn and reproduce a large set of sentences, but they routinely create new
sentences that they have never learnt before.
This is only possible because they internalize rules rather than strings of words: extremely common examples of utterances
such as “it breaked” or “mummy goed” show clearly that children are not copying the language around them but applying
rules.  
Chomsky was incensed by the idea that you could compare the behavior of rats in a laboratory, learning to perform simple
tasks, to the behavior of children learning language without direct teaching, a fundamentally different task because of its
sheer complexity and abstractness.
Given the complexity and abstractness of linguistic rules: For example, the rules underlying the formation of questions in
many languages, or the rules underlying the use of reflexive pronouns in English.
It is amazing that children are able to master them so quickly and efficiently, especially given the limited input they receive.
This has been named “Plato’s problem”, and refers specifically to the fact that some of the structural properties of
language, given their complexity, could not possibly be expected to be learned on the basis of the samples of language
around them. 
Furthermore, children have been shown not to be usually corrected on the form of their utterances but rather on their
truth values.
When correction does take place, it seems to have very little effect on the development of language structure. For the
explained reasons,
Chomsky claimed that children have an innate faculty which guides them in their learning of language. Given a body of
speech, children are programmed to discover its rules, and are guided in doing that by an innate knowledge of what the
rules should look like.

What happened in the 1970’s?

Researchers such as Klima and Bellugi (1966), Dan Slobin (1970) or Roger Brown (1973) found striking similarities in the
language learning behavior of young children, whatever the language they were learning. 
It seems that children all over the world go through similar stages, use similar constructions in order to express similar
meanings, and make the same kind of errors. The stages can be summarized as follows:
 The stages showed that children acquire grammatical morphemes in a
fixed order and follow rigid states during the acquisition of a given area
of grammar. The research also showed that learning is rule-governed,
even if the rules do not correspond to the ones adults follow. ,
Children have their own pace of learning, which does not depend on
adult error correcting. This fact is well documented in the literature
about first language acquisition.
Characteristics which emerged from the 1970’s
 Children learn through their own stages;
 These stages are very similar across children for a given
language, although the rate at which individual children progress through them is highly variable;
 These stages are similar across languages;
 Child language is rule-governed and systematic, and the rules created by the child do not necessarily correspond
to adult ones;
 Children are resistant to correction;
 Children’s processing capacity limits the number of rules they can apply at any one time, and they will revert to
earlier hypotheses when two or more rules compete.

Second language learning: the birth of Error Analysis?

Teachers found out in the classroom that constructions that were different in pairs of languages were not necessarily
difficult, and that constructions that were similar in two languages were not necessarily easy either.
Moreover, difficulty sometimes occurred in one direction but not the other. For example, the placement of unstressed
object pronouns in English and French differs: whereas English says I like them, French says Je les aime (“I them like”).
Contrastive analysis would therefore predict that object pronoun placement would be difficult for both English learners of
French and French learners of English.
This is not the case, however; whereas English learners of French do have problems with this construction and produce
errors such as “J’aime les” in initial stages, French learners of English do not produce error of the type I them like, as would
be predicted by CA.
The task of comparing pairs of languages in order to design efficient language teaching programs now seemed
disproportionately huge in relation to its predictive powers: if it could not adequately predict areas of difficulty, then the
whole enterprise seemed to be pointless. 
These two factors combined - developments in first language acquisition and disillusionment with CA – meant that
researchers and teachers became increasingly interested in the language produced by learners, rather than the target
language or the mother tongue.
This was the origin of Error Analysis, the systematic investigation of second language learner’s errors. The language
produced by learners began to be seen as a linguistic system in its own right, worthy of description.
 In a review of studies looking at the proportion of error that can be traced back to the first language, Error Analysis showed
clearly that the majority of the errors made by second language learners do not come from their first language.
If so, where do such errors come from? They are not target-like, and they are not L-1 like; they must be learner-internal in
origin.
Researchers started trying to classify these errors in order to understand them, and to compare them with errors made by
children learning their mother tongue.
 This was happening at the same time as the developments in first language acquisition which we mentioned above,
whereby child language was now seen as an object of study of its own right, rather than an approximation of adult
language.
In second language learning research, coupled with the interest in understanding learner-internal errors, interest in the
overall character of the L2 system was also growing.
The term interlanguage was coined in 1972 by Selinker to refer to the language produced by learners, both as a system
which can be described at any one point as resulting from systematic rules, and as the series of interlocking systems that
characterize learner progression. 
Interlanguage studies moves one step beyond Error Analysis, by focusing on the learner system as a whole, rather than only
on what can go wrong with it.

Initial concepts
The most important findings in the period were the results of morpheme studies and Krashen’s Model Monitor. The basic
argument was that both children and adult learners developed accuracy in a number of grammatical morphemes in a set
order, no matter what the context of learning was.
The existence of this order suggested that learners are guided by internal principles which are independent from 1 st
language.
Studies in the 70’s showed that L2 learning is systematic, independent from L1 and presents similarities with L1 acquisition.

Krashen’s monitor model

Krashen’s theory evolved in the late 1970s as a result of the findings outlined above. The author thereafter refined and
expanded his ideas in the early 1980s in a series of books. He based his general theory on a set of five basic hypotheses:
1. The Acquisition-Learning distinction is the most fundamental of all the hypotheses in Krashen’s theory and the
most widely known among linguists and language practitioners.
2. According to Krashen, there are two independent systems of second language performance: “the acquired
system” and “the learned system”.
3. The “acquired system” or “acquisition” is the product of a subconscious process very similar to the process
children undergo when they acquire their first language.
4. It requires meaningful interaction in the target language - natural communication - in which speakers are
concentrated not in the form of their utterances, but in the communicative act.
5. The “learned system” or “learning” is the product of formal instruction and it comprises a conscious process which
results in conscious knowledge “about” the language, for example knowledge of grammar rules.

How does the monitor hypothesis work?

The monitor hypothesis explains the relationship between acquisition and learning and defines the influence of the latter
on the former.  The monitoring function is the practical result of the learned grammar. According to Krashen, the
acquisition system is the utterance initiator, while the learning system performs the role of the “monitor” or the “editor”.  
The “monitor” acts in a planning, editing and correcting function when three specific conditions are met: that is, the second
language learner has sufficient time at his/her disposal, he/she focuses on form or thinks about correctness, and he/she
knows the rule.
It appears that the role of conscious learning is somewhat limited in second language performance. According to Krashen,
the role of the monitor is - or should be - minor, being used only to correct deviations from “normal” speech and to give
speech a more “polished” appearance.  Krashen also suggests that there is individual variation among language learners
with regard to “monitor” use. He distinguishes those learners that use the “monitor” all the time (over-users); those
learners who have not learned or who prefer not to use their conscious knowledge (under-users); and those learners that
use the “monitor'” appropriately (optimal users).

Krashen’s hypothesis
 Acquisition-learning hypothesis
 Monitor Hypothesis
 The natural order hypothesis
 The input hypothesis
 The affective filter hypothesis

Vygotsky’s contribution to second language learning

Other theorists (Piaget, 1952; Vygotsky, 1962) viewed the development of language as a complex interaction between the
child and the environment, which is influenced by both social and cognitive development. 
Both Piaget and Vygotsky believed that as children develop language, they actively build a symbol system, which helps
them to understand the world. They differed in the way in which they viewed how language and thought interact with one
another. 
Piaget believed that cognitive development led to the growth of language whereas Vygotsky viewed language as
developing thought.
A child’s external speech is the first step in the development of thinking. Vygotsky’s theory stresses the importance of
communication with others as a major factor in the development of a child’s language, which stimulates the development
of thought.
Vygotsky’s theory views the important effect that an adult has on the development of language. His theory describes the
importance of the zone of proximal development, which is present in interactions children have with adults. 
This zone is described as the "distance between the child’s actual developmental level determined by independent problem
solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance”.
This adult guidance is referred to as scaffolding. In order for the scaffolding to be effective, it must match the child's
developmental level so the child is comfortable enough to use the guidance, which may present enough of a challenge to
reach the next level in a particular area. 
For example, an adult whose goal is to provide an appropriate amount of scaffolding may engage in a conversation with a
young child using various strategies. 
If the child asks a question about a particular topic, the adult may first ask a child, “Well, what do you think about that?”.  
Once the adult knows what the child thinks, he can decide which ideas to confirm and which ones to extend and determine
just how much information the child can assimilate during one conversation. 
Adults who do not typically provide scaffolding will not ask the child's thoughts on the matter, but will answer the question
directly. In doing this, they have not figured out exactly what the child is asking, nor do they know what the child already
knows about the particular topic. 
Even though the child in this situation may be satisfied with the answer, he has not had the opportunity to actively discuss
and manipulate ideas in order to construct knowledge. 
Sometimes adults can ask young children open-ended questions. The children's responses are often filled with information,
which adults in the scaffolding role can extend.

Video Lesson
English in Brazil
English is considered universal, in business, on the internet and in general. English is not official in Brazil, but we know it is
very important for development.
It is known that, in Brazil, knowing a foreign language increases the chance of a higher salary.
In the past years, the number of people learning languages increased. Brazil was in 70 th position in a research about fluency
in English. The total of countries studied was 78. Most Brazilian students are considered fluent just in basic levels. Brazil
clearly has a lower position in English learning.
It is bad for the country development. It is known that many companies chose to invest in other countries because the
conditions of the work force in Brazil were not good.
Some of the causes for that are failures in the educational system. Much of the money in Brazil is dedicated to minor issues,
as buildings for big events, for example. Money is usually spent only in fast training languages programs when it should be
invested in more lasting courses.
Another fact which prevents learners from studying English is lack of time and money from students. People are looking for
shorter courses, which cannot prepare students well. Courses which will lead to proficiency are much more expensive and
therefore avoided by most people.

Which strategies for second language learning can be applied in Brazil?

1. Start language education early. Brazil needs a national commitment to elementary school language teaching for all
children. The federal government can provide leadership in developing long-term policies for enhanced teacher
training, incentives for school districts to offer early language instruction, and a detailed research agenda. Learn
from others.
2. Conduct long-term research- Brazil can benefit greatly from the development of a long term research agenda that
incorporates longitudinal studies of a variety of language learning model of instructions.
3. Provide stronger leadership. A stronger and more coherent government-wide effort.
4. Identify how technology can improve language instruction. A major question remains about how successful
technology is in improving foreign language instruction
5. Improve teacher education. Brazil needs to conduct a more in-depth investigation into how some countries are
recruiting high-caliber students into teaching and providing top quality in-service and pre-service training.
6. Designate foreign language as a core subject. In districts and schools in Brazil where foreign language study is part
of the core curriculum, there is a more rigorous approach to curriculum development, professional development,
and assessment. Designating foreign language study as a core subject is essential for a successful program.

Behaviorism
It is a theory which is now criticized, but was very important. It was proposed by Watson, but more famous because of
Skinner.
It is a theory that believes all actions are learned by acquiring habits. People receive positive reinforcement for desired
behavior and then they repeat that until it becomes a habit.
According to behaviorists, language learning happened through memorization and positive reinforcement.
It had strengths and weaknesses.
By the end of the 70’s, it gave space to cognitive sciences.

Krashen’s monitor model

It was influenced by Chomsky. He described his model based on five hypotheses.
 Acquisition-learning hypothesis – Acquisition is internal and intuitive. It is better than learning, which is the
process in which learners figure out rules. Students should do more acquisition than learning. Each process is
exclusive. There is no interference between them.
 Monitor Hypothesis – it is a device to monitor the learner’s output and making corrections. It is found in learning
and in acquisition. According to Krashen, such explicit and intentional learning should be avoided because it may
hinder the acquisition process. Only once fluency established, monitoring and editing should be activated.
 The natural order hypothesis - is the idea that children learning their first language acquire grammatical structures
in a pre-determined, 'natural' order, and that some are acquired earlier than others.
 The input hypothesis - The Input hypothesis is only concerned with 'acquisition', not 'learning'. According to this
hypothesis, the learner improves and progresses along the 'natural order' when he/she receives second language
'input' that is one step beyond his/her current stage of linguistic competence.
 The affective filter hypothesis – claims that three variables influence the success in second language acquisition:
anxiety, motivation and self-confidence; these variables inhibit the learner from fully using input.
Krashen’s was very influential in language teaching, although his theory has been criticized. The affective filter hypothesis,
for example, was not very clear and not the same for every students. Krashen was usually very general and it is difficult to
apply his theory to teaching.
The natural-order is based on morpheme studies and it is not possible to know if it can be applied to languages.

Lesson 03
Methodology in the teaching of Language
The English language teaching tradition has been subjected to a tremendous change, especially throughout the twentieth
century. Perhaps more than any other discipline, this tradition has been practiced, in various adaptations, in language
classrooms all round the world for centuries. In this lesson we are going to discuss the issues which involve the search for
the best method and the assumption that there is no best method.
Methodology is the study of the practices and procedures used in teaching, and the principles and beliefs that underlie
them. This way methodology includes:
 
 The study of the nature of language skills (eg. reading, writing, speaking, listening) and procedures for teaching
them;
 The study of the preparation of lesson plans, materials and textbooks for teaching language skills;
 The evaluation and comparison of language teaching methods (eg. the audiovisual method).

Approach, Method and Technique

Language teaching involves 3 aspects: approach, method and techniques.
Different theories about the nature of language and how languages are learned (the approach) imply different ways of
teaching language (the method), and different methods make use of different kinds of classroom activity (the technique).
In language teaching, method stands for a way of teaching a language which is based on systematic principles and
procedures, i.e., which is an application of views on how a language is best taught and learned.
 
Different methods of language teaching such as the direct method, the audiolingual method, the grammar translation
method, the silent way and communicative approach result from different views of:
 The nature of language and language learning;
 Objectives in teaching and type of syllabus to use;
 The role of teachers, learners and materials;
 The techniques and procedures to use.

Syllabus
Syllabus (also curriculum) stands for a description of the contents of a course of instruction and the order in which they are
to be taught. Language teaching syllabuses may be based on:
 Grammatical items (e.g. Structural syllabus)
 Different situations (e.g. situational method)
 Meaning and functions of language (e.g. notional syllabus)

What have teachers thought about the right method?

For much of its history, language teaching has been obsessed with a search for the ‘right’ method. It was felt that
somewhere or other there was a method which would work for all learners in all contexts. More recently, it has been
realized that there never was and probably never will be a method for all.
The focus in recent years has been on the development of classroom tasks and activities which are consonant with what we
know about processes of second language acquisition, and which are also in keeping with the dynamics of the classroom
itself.

Categories of Methods
I have chosen to assign methods to three categories: the psychological tradition, the humanistic tradition and the second
language acquisition tradition. Each grouping has similarities between its methods.

Psychological tradition
Audio-lingualism has probably had a greater impact on second and foreign language teaching than any other method.
It consists of highly coherent and well developed classroom pedagogy, with clear links between theory and practice. It was,
in fact, the first approach which could be said to have developed a ‘technology’ of teaching, developing in the 1940s and
1950s as a reaction against more traditional methods, and purporting to be based on ‘scientific’ principles.
In the case of audio-lingualism, a principal rationale was provided by behaviorists. 
Moulton (1963) suggests that behaviorism and structuralism provide us with five key characteristics which need to be taken
into consideration in designing language programs:
  Language is speech;
 A language is a set of habits;
 Teach the language, not about the language;
 A language is what native speakers say, not what someone thinks they ought to say;
 Languages are different.

 
Audio-lingualism suffered in the two-pronged attack on behaviorism and structural linguistics. Skinner was criticized by
Chomsky based on his own model of linguistics, transformational generative grammar.

Transformationalists
They demonstrated that some aspects of the child’s emerging linguistics system could not be accounted for in terms of
stimulus-response psychology.
Some of the forms which children used could not have been attained through imitation because they were simply never
used by adults.
Cognitive psychologists and transformationalists linguists argued that the child constructs his/her own rule on the
operation of language structures.
This theory undermined behaviorism and supported the transformational view that language acquisition was basically rule
governed.

Cognitive Learning
Transformational grammar and cognitive psychology gave rise to their own method–cognitive code learning, although this
never attained the prominence or pervasiveness of audio-lingualism. If the high priests of behaviorism and structural
linguistics were Skinner and Bloomfield, their transformational and cognitive counterparts were Chomsky and Ausubel.
The major departure of cognitive psychology from behaviorism was that cognitivism viewed the learning process as a two-
way process between the organism and its environment. The ability of the organism action the environment contrasts with
the behaviorist view that the organism is basically the passive recipient of outside stimuli. 
Linguists working within the framework provided by cognitive psychology were able to demonstrate that there were
aspects of a child´s emerging linguistic system which simply could not be accounted for in terms of the reaction of an
organism (the learner) to its environment.
Rather, it was believed that language development could be characterized by rule governed creativity. With a finite number
of grammatical rules and a limited vocabulary, we can create an infinite number of sentences, many of which may never
have been uttered before. 
This incidentally is another argument against behaviorism - it would take thousands of lifetimes to learn all the sentences of
a language through a process of stimulus-response. 
There are numerous points of contact between audio-lingualism and cognitivism. For example, the cognitivists are much
more sanguine about mistakes, rejecting the behavioristic notion that if learners make mistakes they will learn these
deviant forms which will have to be ‘unlearned’ later. Cognitivists believe that making mistakes is an important part of the
learning process, that such mistakes provide disconfirming instances which are important in learning a new concept or rule.

Humanistic Tradition
Proponents of these methods believe that if learners can be encouraged to adopt the right attitudes, interests and
motivation in the target language and culture, as well as in the learning environment in which they find themselves, then
successful learning will occur, and that if these affective factors are not right, then no set of techniques is likely to succeed,
regardless of how carefully they have been devised or how solidly based on the latest theory and research. As you read of
the classroom techniques proposed by methods derived from humanistic psychology, you might like to note just how
inhumane some of these appear to be.
 Perhaps the best known proponent of humanism in language learning is Earl Stevick who, while he has not developed his
own method, has been an enthusiastic champion and interpreter of humanistic methods in language teaching. Others
include Curran, who developed Community Language Learning, Gattegno who created the Silent Way, and Lozanov who
produced the approach known as Suggestopedia.

Stevik, who has taken up and extended the work of Curran, Gattegno and Lozanov, became interested in applying principles
of humanistic psychology to language learning and teaching after he became dissatisfied with both audio-lingual habit
theory and cognitive code learning. Why is it, he asked, that both of these methods were capable of working extremely well
(or extremely badly), when both were the logical antithesis of each other and therefore mutually incompatible?  
He came to the conclusion that success or failure in language teaching depends not so much on whether one adopts
inductive or deductive techniques for teaching grammar, nor whether one engages in meaningful practice rather than in
pattern drills. It does depend in the extent to which one caters to the learner´s affective domain. 
In other words, the actual classroom techniques, the bases on which we select materials, and the sorts of activities in which
we have our learners engage, matter less than certain other basic principles which could be used in audio-lingualism,
cognitive code learning, or any other number of approaches.
Perhaps the most important article of faith is that the learner´s emotional attitude towards the teacher, towards fellow
learners, and towards the target language and culture, is the single most important variable in language learning. It is
crucial, not only to take account of this factor, but to give it a central place in the selection of content, materials and
learning activities. The other principle shared by these diverse methods is that teaching should be made subservient to
learning. In this learner-centered view of language development, the emphasis at all times should be on the learners, not
the teacher.
In fact, the most extreme proponents of this view argue that it is not really possible to teach anybody anything, except in a
superficial sense- all that the teacher can do is to attempt to establish the optimal conditions whereby learning can come
about through the learner’s own efforts. Stevick points out that learner-centerdness does not imply that teachers should
abandon the classroom to the learners, that there are a number of legitimate teacher functions in learner- as well teacher-
centered classrooms.

5 functions of the teacher

 The cognitive function. The teacher possesses knowledge desired by the student about the target language and
culture. We, the teachers, have this knowledge, which the students expect us to impart to them;
 The classroom management function. Our students and the society in which we work expect us to take
responsibility for how the student´s time is used in class. The students rely on our training and experience with
materials, schedules and techniques;
 Practical goals. Here Stevick is referring to the goals which students and society have for language courses. The
teacher is expected to take these vaguely thought out or articulated goals and give them practical expression in
language teaching syllabuses;
 The personal or interpersonal function. As teachers with the desired skills, knowledge and expertise, we have a
great deal of power in the classroom and it is our responsibility to set the tone or interpersonal classroom climate.
The atmosphere we set will determine  whether the students’ non-linguistic emotional needs are met in the
classroom;
 The final function is closely related to the fourth, but is more subtle. It has to do with the warmth and enthusiasm
that the teacher radiates - the ‘vibes’ that he or she puts out. According to Stevick, this is the most important
function of all.

Community Language Learning, Silent Way and Suggestopedia

What are the main characteristics of the community language learning, the silent way and the suggestopedia? 
The primary aim of CLL is to create a genuinely warm and supportive ‘community’ among the learners and gradually to
move them from complete dependence on the teacher to complete autonomy. Community language learning has several
weaknesses which can trap the unwary or inexperienced teacher. 
In the first instance, the lesson can take unexpected and even dangerous directions. The method is pitched directly at the
emotions and attitudes of the learners, and can release negative as well as positive emotions. The approach may awaken
interpersonal hostilities that are difficult to control or channel into more positive directions. These may, in fact, destroy the
very cohesion and solidarity which the method is supposed to create.
There may also be difficulties in trying to use the approach with learners who, due to their previous learning experiences,
may be antagonistic towards the teacher for taking a low classroom profile, and may express the belief that the teacher is
not doing his/her job. If this method or any other were to be imposed on a group of unwilling learners, it would be highly
unlikely that a positive climate will emerge.
Another prominent humanistic method is the silent way. While the silent way differs significantly from community language
learning, it does share a belief in the importance of the inner state of the learner in the learning process. Suggestopedia is
one of the few methods whose claims have put to the empirical test. Wagner and Tilney set up an experiment to test the
claim that, through suggestopedia, students could learn huge amounts of vocabulary.

The Second Language Tradition

The third methodological tradition I have identified encompasses methods which draw directly on research and theory into
first and second language acquisition, and attempt to apply this theory and research to the second language classroom. 
While earlier methods such as audio-lingualism and cognitive code learning also relied heavily on what were seen as the
conditions underlying first language development, the more recent methods are different in that they claim to be based on
substantial empirical research into language development. 
The most persuasive advocate of the acquisitionist tradition is Krashen. 
Of the various principles set out by Krashen, the best known and most controversial is the suggestion that there are two
distinct mental processes operating in second language development. 
According to this author, several essential characteristics or conditions exist in first language acquisition.
 1) The first of these is the ‘here and now’ principle which suggests that whenever language is directed to the child it
is used to refer to some action, entity or event that is occurring in the immediate environment. The child is
enabled to comprehend the language through the non-verbal clues with which the language is associated.
2) Secondly, language directed to young children is simplified, carefully structured and contains many repetitions.
3) The third characteristic is that the focus of the language is firmly on meaning rather than form. The child acquires
the forms through subconscious acquisition. In addition, children comprehend new language forms long before
they produce them.

The natural approach and the total physical response

The natural approach is based on the conditions which Krashen argues underlie all successful language acquisition, whether
it is the acquisition, of a first or a second language. 
Asher, who developed the Total Physical Response, focuses in particular on two characteristics of first language acquisition.
The first of these is that the child gets a vast amount of comprehensible input before beginning to speak. Young children
comprehend language which is far in excess of their ability to produce. 
Secondly, there is a lot of physical manipulation and action language accompanying early input.

What does “best” mean?

We have no adequate notion of what ‘best’ might mean- or that the notion of good and bad needs to be reexamined and
clarified. A prevalent notion of the best method is that it is the method that yields the best results in terms of learning
outcomes. Since the aim of all teaching is to bring about as much learning as possible as quickly as possible, it seems self-
evident that teaching methods should be judged by the amounts of learning they can lead to, in a given period of time.
This appears to call for a comparison of methods and a quantification of learning outcomes, through well-designed,
controlled experiments in keeping with the spirit of objective, scientific enquiry.
It is true that such objective evaluation is so difficult to implement that all attempts as it in the past have resulted in a wider
agreement on the difficulties of doing an evaluation than on the resulting judgment on methods. It is also true that
arguments have been put forward for a possible alternative to the experimental design.
Nevertheless, we generally continue to assume, more or less consciously, that there is a method that is objectively the best,
that it in principle possible to demonstrate that fact, and that once demonstrated, the superiority of the best method will
lead to its widespread acceptance in the profession.
That is to say, we generally see ourselves as working to that ideal, on the tacit premise that what is unrealized in not
necessarily unrealizable and that all our professional endeavor is a form of progress toward it.
Alternatives such as trying to construct comprehensive descriptions of methods – as ‘illuminative’ evaluation – involve an
abandonment of that ideal, thus threatening to disorient our professional thought. We prefer to retain the ideal as the
basis of all our professional effort. Seen in this context, the statement that there is no best method is a questioning of the
current concept of the best method - an argument that the ideal of objective and conclusive demonstration is not only an
unrealized one.
But an inherently unrealizable one and that working with such an ideal is unproductive for the pedagogic profession.
Brumfit, for instance, has strongly questioned the notion that teaching methods, which are essentially concerned with
human interaction, can usefully be subjected to the process of objective testing and prediction, which are part of the
scientific method.
 He argues, in summary:
 That a teaching method in operation is necessarily an embodiment of certain general pedagogic principles into a
variety of specific contextual features (including participants’ psychological states;
 That predictive many testing of a method demands manipulation and control of the manifold contextual features;
 That many of the contextual features are either difficult or impossible to control;
 That any success actually achieved in controlling contextual features will have only the effect of disembodying the
method, as it were, of its actual, operational form, thus rendering the outcome of the testing inapplicable to the
operation of the method in any specific context.

To begin with, an important consideration for language teaching methods is the quality of learning to be promoted, as
distinct from the quantity. The question of quality has been a recurrent concern for the profession through the ages.
It’s conceptualized and verbalized variously as grammar in contrast to practice, knowledge in contrast to skill, explicit
knowledge in contrast to implicit knowledge, accuracy in contrast to fluency, learning in contrast to acquisition, ability to
display in contrast to ability to deploy etc. There may be disagreements about  the  different kinds of knowledge or ability
are related to each other.
But it is remarkable how, whenever a distinction is made between different forms of knowledge of a language, it is the less
conscious, less observable, and less quantifiable form that is seen to be of greater value or validity.
Objective evaluation of methods, however, necessarily relies on a quantification of learning outcomes, and therefore tends
to measure the more quantifiable form of knowledge. This means that the more objective the evaluation is, the less likely it
is to assess learning of the desired quality, and vice versa.
Second, a perception of language ability as an implicit form of knowledge is linked to a perception of its development as an
internal, unobservable process that is organic rather than additive, and continuous rather than itemisable.
Third, an objective evaluation of methods is not just an assessment of learner’s language attainments; it also involves an
objective attribution of the learning that has taken place to the teaching that has been done.
More generally, the notion behind an objective evaluation of methods is that there is something in a method that is by
itself - independent of anyone’s subjective perception of it- superior or inferior to what there is in another method.
If some method were shown by such evaluation to be superior to all others, then that method would be expected to
benefit all (or a large number of) classrooms, regardless of how it is subjectively perceived by the different teachers
involved.
A method, in this view, is a set of procedures that carries a prediction of results.
The fulfillment of the prediction depends only (or mainly) on an accurate replication of the procedures. Not on any
perceptions of those who do the replication - rather in the way the replication of a procedure in chemistry yields the
predicted result, regardless of the chemist’s thoughts or feelings about it.
No doubt the idea looks fairly absurd when put in this form: it reduces teaching to a faithful following of highly specified
routine- something of a pedagogic ritual.
I am, however, unable to see how a serious pursuit of objective method evaluation can be sustained without some such
idea. The only alternative to it is to maintain that the method that is shown to be objectively superior will somehow carry
with it the subjective perception that lay behind its development.
And equally, that the perception concerned will then replace the differing perceptions of all teachers who may be led to
adopt that method on the strength of the objective evaluation. This implies, among other things, that teachers’ pedagogic
perceptions are as easily replaceable as classrooms procedures, an idea that could hardly be less absurd.
A method is seen simply as a highly developed and highly articulated sense of plausibility, with a certain power to influence
other specialists or teachers’ perceptions. Perhaps the best method varies from one teacher to another, but only in the
sense that it is best for each teacher to operate with his or her own sense of plausibility at any given time. 
There may be some truth to each method, but only in so far as each method may operate as one or another teacher´s
sense of plausibility, promoting the most learning that can be promoted by that teacher. The search for an inherently best
method should perhaps give way to a search for ways in which teachers’ and specialists’ pedagogic perceptions can most
widely interact with one another, so that teaching can become most widely and maximally real.

Lesson 04
Beyond the Methods
Teaching is a complex process which can be conceptualized in a number of different ways. Traditionally, language teaching
has been described in terms of the actions and behaviors which teachers carry out in the classroom and the effects of these
on learners.
No matter what kind of class a teacher teaches, he or she is typically confronted with the following kinds of tasks:
 Selecting learning activities;
 Preparing students for new learning;
 Presenting learning activities;
 Asking questions;
 Conducting drills;
 Checking students’ understanding;
 Providing opportunities for practice of new items;
 Monitoring students’ learning;
 Giving feedback on student learning;
 Reviewing and re-teaching when necessary.

In trying to understand how teachers deal with the dimensions of teaching appointed in the Introduction, it is necessary to
examine the beliefs and thinking processes which underlie teachers’ classroom actions.
This view of teaching involves a cognitive, an effective, and a behavioral dimension.
It is based on the assumption that what teachers do is a reflection of what they know and believe, and that teacher
knowledge and ‘teacher thinking’ provide the underlying framework or schema which guides the teacher´s classroom
actions.

What is the source of teacher’s beliefs?

Teacher’s belief systems are founded on the goals, values, and beliefs teachers hold in relation to the content and process
of teaching, and their understanding of the systems in which they work and their roles within it.
These beliefs and values serve as the background to much of the teachers’ decision making and action, and hence
constitute what has been termed the ‘culture of teaching’.

How are teacher’s belief systems built up?

Teacher’s belief systems are built up gradually over time and consist of both subjective and objective dimensions. Some
may be fairly simple – for example, the opinion that grammar errors should be corrected immediately.
Others may be more complex – for example, the belief that learning is more effective when it involves collaboration rather
than competition. Research on teachers’ belief systems suggests that they are derived from a number of different sources:
  Their own experience as language learners - All teachers were once students, and their beliefs about teaching are
often a reflection of how they themselves were taught. For example, one teacher reports, “I remember when I was
a student and I wanted to learn new vocabulary, it always helped to write down the words”.
 Experience of what works best - For many teachers experience is the primary source of beliefs about teaching. A
teacher may have found that some teaching strategies work well and some do not. For example, a teacher
comments, “I find that when checking answers in a whole-class situation, students respond better if given the
opportunity to first review their answers with a partner”.
 Established practice - Within a school, an institution, or a school district, certain teaching styles and practices may
be preferred. A high school teacher reports, “In our school, we do a lot of small group learning. We’re encouraged
not to stand in front of the class and teach whenever it can be avoided”.
 Personality factors - Some teachers have a personal preference for a particular teaching pattern, arrangement, or
activity because it matches their personality. An extroverted teacher, for example, reports, “I love to do a lot of
drama in my conversation classes, because I’m an outgoing kind of person and it suits the way I teach”.
 Educationally based or research-based principles - Teachers may draw  on their understanding of a learning
principle in psychology, second language acquisition, or education and try to apply it in the classroom. A teacher in
a private language institute, for example, reports, “I took a course on cooperative learning recently. I really believe
in it and I’m trying to apply it to my teaching.” Another teacher at the same institute comments, “I believe that
second language acquisition research supports a task-based approach to language teaching”.
 Principles derived from an approach or method - Teachers may believe in the effectiveness of a particular
approach or method of teaching and consistently try to implement it in the classroom. For example, one teacher
comments, “I believe in communicative language teaching. I try to make communicative use of the language the
focus of every class I teach”. Another teacher reports, “I use the process approach in teaching writing and I make a
lot of use of peer feedback rather than teacher feedback in students’ writing”.

From now on we are going to discuss teacher’s beliefs concerning language, learning, teaching, the curriculum, and the
teaching profession are examined, as well as links between these beliefs and teachers’ classroom practices.

What beliefs do people have about English?

English represents different things to different people. People’s views on languages are influenced by contacts they have
had with the language and its speakers. It is instructive to examine the underlying beliefs teachers hold about English and
how these influence attitudes towards teaching it. These beliefs can be clarified by considering questions like:
1. Why do you think English is an important language?
2. Do you think English is more difficult to learn than other languages?
3. What do you think the most difficult aspects of learning English are (e.g., grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation)?
4. Which dialect of English do you think should be taught (e.g., British, American, other)?
5. Do you think it is important to speak English with native-like pronunciation?
6. How does English sound to you compared to other languages you know?
7. What attitudes do you think your learners associate with English?
8. Do you think English has any qualities that make it different from other languages?

How are beliefs about learning dealt with?

When learners and teachers meet for the first time, they may bring with them different expectations concerning not only
the learning process in general, but also concerning what will be learned in a particular course and how it will be learned.
The observation above draws our attention to the fact that both teachers and learners bring experience to the classroom
that influences their perceptions in subtle ways.
Teachers’ beliefs about learning may be based on their training, their teaching experience, or may go back to their own
experience as language learners.

These beliefs represent answers to questions such as these:

 How do you define learning?
 What are the best ways to learn a language?
 What kind of exposures to language best facilitates language learning?
 What kind of students do best in your classes?
 What kinds of learning styles and strategies do you encourage in learners?
 What kinds of learning styles and strategies do you discourage in learners?
 What roles are students expected to assume in your classroom?

Learner-centered view of learning

What assumptions would teachers who favor a learner-centered view of learning probably describe?
Teachers who favor a learner-centered view of learning, such as that which underlies many current methodologies in
language teaching, would probably describe their assumptions in terms such as the following:
1. Learning consists of acquiring organizing principles through encountering experience;
 2. The teacher is a resource person who provides language input for the learner to work on;
3. Language data is to be found everywhere – in the community and in the media as well as in textbooks;
4. It is the role of the teacher to assist learners to become self-directed by providing access to language data through
such activities as active listening, role play and interaction with native speakers;

For learners, learning a language consists of forming hypotheses about the language input to which they will be exposed,
these hypotheses being constantly modified in the direction of the target model.

How would learners express their assumptions about learning?

Learners, however, may express their assumptions about learning in quite different terms. Here are some examples:
 “I just want a program so I know what I have to learn. They’re the teachers. They know their job.”
 “I don’t want to clap and sing. I want to learn English.”
 “I want something I can take home and study. We do a lot of speaking but we never see it written down.”

How can the assumptions held by these learners be stated?

They can be stated as:
 Learning consists of acquiring a body of knowledge.
 The teacher has this knowledge and the learner does not;
 It is the role of the teacher to impart this knowledge to the learner through such activities as explanation, writing
and example. The learner will be given a program in advance.
 Learning a language consists of learning the structural rules of the language and the vocabulary through such
activities as memorization, reading and writing.

These differences between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs reinforce the importance of clarifying to learners the
assumptions underlying teachers’ classroom practices, or accommodating classroom practices to match them more closely
to students’ expectations. The consequences of not doing so are likely to be misunderstanding and mistrust on the part of
both teachers and learners.

What are the beliefs about teaching?

Teaching is a very personal activity, and it is not surprising that individual teachers bring to teaching very different beliefs
and assumptions about what constitutes effective teaching.
Richards et al (1991), in their study of teachers’ beliefs, found that Hong Kong teachers of English believed their primary
role in the classroom was to:
 Provide useful learning experiences;
 Provide a model of correct language use;
 Answer learner’s questions;
 Correct learners’ errors.

They believed their main role as an English teacher was to:

 Help students discover effective approaches to learning;
 Pass on knowledge and skills to their pupils;
 Adapt teaching approaches to match their students’ needs.

The kinds of learners they felt did best in their classes were:
 Those who were motivated;
 Those who were active and spoke out;
 Those who were not afraid of making mistakes;
 Those who could work individually without the teacher’s help.

Program and Curriculum

Any teaching program reflects both the culture of the institution, as well as collective decisions and beliefs of individual
teachers. Some programs may have a distinctive philosophy. Teachers themselves also have specific beliefs about the
programs they work in.
Within a program or school, teachers’ view on such things as lesson planning, the use of objectives and assessment may
lead to quite different classroom practices. Some teachers make significant use of the published textbooks. Others use
them as a hindrance to their creativity and prefer to make use of more authentic materials.
Some teachers may consequently become ‘deskilled’ through their overdependence on materials.

What happens during the process of teaching?

During the process of teaching, the teacher fills out and adapts the lesson outline based on how the students respond to
the lesson. While the teacher’s planning decisions provide a framework for approaching a lesson, in the course of teaching
the lesson that framework may be substantially revised as the teacher responds to students’ understanding and
participation and redirects the lesson in midstream.

How does this reshaping and redirection come about?

Teachers monitor instruction by looking for cues that the students are following the lesson satisfactorily. They teach using
well-established routines. These routines are the shared, scripted, virtually automated pieces of action that constitute so
much of our daily lives as teachers.
In classrooms, routines often allow students and teachers to devote their attention to other, perhaps more important
matters inherent in the lesson. In a study of how an opening homework review is conducted, an expert teacher was found
to be brief, taking about one-third less time than a novice.
She was able to pick up information about attendance, and about who did or did not do the homework, and identified who
was going to get help in the subsequent lesson. She was able to get all the homework corrected, and elicited mostly correct
answers throughout the activity. And she did so at a brisk pace and without ever losing control of the lesson.
Routines were used to record attendance, to handle choral responding during the homework checks, and for hand raising
to get attention. The expert used clear signals to start and finish lesson segments. Interviews with the expert revealed how
the goals for the lesson, the time constraints, and the curriculum itself were blended to direct the activity. The expert
appeared to have a script in mind throughout the lesson, and followed that script very closely. How can we describe the
decision-making models of teaching?
Focusing on teachers — their beliefs about teaching, learning, or classroom interaction — can help balance more top-down,
product-oriented conceptions of language teaching, with more nuanced, bottom-up, process-oriented descriptions of
specific language teaching events.
Studies of teachers, either undertaken by teachers themselves or in collaboration with researchers (Shulman, 1992), can
help illuminate the processes by which language teachers plan and make decisions about their teaching (Woods, 1996).
Central to these studies is the need to examine underlying teacher beliefs and teacher thinking.

1. Teacher cognition and beliefs

Traditional teacher education has largely ignored the substantial set of beliefs about teaching, learning, teacher-student
roles, and the like which teacher candidates bring to their program from their experiences as students and language
learners.
Teachers do not engage in mere implementation of routinized procedures but are constantly engaged in thinking, problem-
solving and decision-making. Content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge remain important underpinnings of
language education.
Also needed are opportunities for prospective teachers to become aware of their own beliefs about effective teaching and
learning, and they need opportunities to acquire the ways of thinking (General strategies, personal orientation, and habits
of mind) that characterize being a member of the language teaching community. Case studies and teacher narratives,
teaching videos, and teacher journals offer windows into that thinking (Kennedy, 1987; Richards and Lockhart, 1994;
Woods, 1996).
Studies of teachers and teaching reveal the number of decisions which teachers make, often with competing demands and
not much time to think back to principles or applications derived from teacher education programs (Burns, 1995; Freeman
and Richards, 1996; Kleinfield, 1992).
 Woods (1996), in the first major study of teacher cognition in language teaching, describes how teachers rely upon
experience and call into play their beliefs, assumptions, and knowledge in that decision-making. Richards (1991) identifies
eight maxims or principles derived from experience which teachers use to explain the decisions they make during teaching.
Often tacit, these maxims need to be made explicit if teachers are to consider new techniques or changes in practices.

2. The role of reflection

What is often missing from traditional language teacher education is recognition of the role that the teacher plays in
generating knowledge through teaching experience and reflection (conscious recollection and evaluation of that
experience; Bartlett, 1990; Freeman and Richards, 1993; Wallace, 1991).
As Bruner (1986; 1990) explains, universities have traditionally focused on scientific knowledge which is abstract,
decontextualized, and impersonal, but teachers also need access to narrative ways of knowing which relate theory to
specific practices in concrete, contextualized, and personal ways. In focusing on “how,” language teacher education has
ignored the important “what” and “why” questions which only be answered by teacher reflection and research.

3. Teacher narratives and case studies

Teacher narratives or “stories” that teachers tell about their classroom experiences, convey the daily experiences of
teachers and the ways in which they try to make sense of these experiences through talking or writing about them.
Teachers avoid abstract theoretical statements in talking with each other about their work because these lack connection
to classroom experience. Stories help teachers understand students; they address the dilemmas of teaching and the
competing roles that teachers carry out; and they provide professional development through reflection on practice.
Narratives represent a primary way in which teachers organize and understand the complexities of their profession,
involving competing demands, constraints, policies, and power relations. In working with case studies, prospective and
experienced teachers become actively involved in the kinds of decision-making they face in their language teaching
(Plaister, 1993). Case studies also offer a way to help teacher educators avoid the imposition of culturally inappropriate
teaching philosophies.

4. The role of practical experience

Some questions have led to a call for teacher preparation programs to create opportunities for prospective teachers to
access this knowledge and test theories and principles with actual practice:
 The growing respect for the situated knowledge of the teacher;
 The recognition of the teacher as central in the teaching and learning process;
 The crucial roles of the teacher as program and materials developer, needs analyst decision-maker, problem-
 solver, and researcher of his or her own classroom (Richards, 1990).
Observation of mentor teachers or peers and self-observation through video recordings, accompanied by reflective
activities such as journal writing and feedback or discussion sessions, are especially important for language teacher
preparation and continuing teacher development (Crandall, 1994; Fanselow, 1987). Unfortunately, because observation is
characteristically used in teacher supervision and evaluation, the self-knowledge it can provide has too often been ignored.
A number of observation schemes and instruments have been developed that enable teachers and researchers to focus
attention on specific aspects of classroom interaction, management, or instruction, and construct or reconstruct
understandings of language teaching and learning.

5. The role of research

Classroom research, research that is carried out in the second or foreign language classroom to answer questions about
teaching and learning, plays an increasingly important role in both initial teacher preparation and ongoing teacher
development.
This research can focus on:
 Teachers - e.g., questioning strategies, teacher decision-making, error correction, or teacher modifications;
 Learners - e.g., learning styles and strategies, learner interaction, affective variables, or language output from
specific tasks;
 The interaction between teachers and learners. (Burns, 1995; Nunan, 1989; Van Lier, 1988)

Research on language acquisition and learning was traditionally conducted by university researchers (sometimes in
collaboration with language teachers). It reflected their research traditions, using experimental, ethnographic, discourse, or
interactional analyses (Chaudron, 1988), often with a goal of identifying “best practices” in language teaching or learning.

Lesson 05
Reflective Teaching

Introduction
The international movement in teaching and teacher education that has developed under the banner of reflection can be
seen as a reaction against the view of teachers as technicians who narrowly construe the nature of the problems
confronting them and merely carry out what others, removed from the classroom, want them to do.
The move toward seeing teachers as reflective practitioners is also a rejection of top-down forms of educational reform
that involve teachers only as conduits for implementing programs and ideas formulated elsewhere. 
Proponents of reflective teaching maintain that for much too long, “teachers have been considered to be consumers of
curriculum knowledge, but are not assumed to have the requisite skills to create or critique that knowledge”. Viewing
teachers as reflective practitioners assumes that teachers can both pose and solve problems related to their educational
practice.

What is reflective teaching?

It means looking at what you do in the classroom and giving it a meaning by a ttaching the why question to what you go
through. You also empower your students to ask these why questions to their classroom experiences. You start by
recognizing that you and your students are key persons in learning environment.
Your being in the classroom must make sense to you and your environment. Your relived/ recalled experiences as a teacher
and those of your students are explored and evaluated to let you fulfill your mission and vision in the teaching profession.
Richards (1990) argues that reflective teaching is a move beyond the ordinary to a higher level of awareness of how
teaching and take place. This demands that you and your students be involved in a process of self-observation and self-
evaluation.
Thus you and your students must gather information on your practices and experiences. This information is organized,
analyzed and interpreted to identify what beliefs, assumptions and values are attached to your practices and experiences.
You and your students end up recognizing, examining and ruminating what you do as a teacher and students, respectively.
Reflective teaching informs you that you are in charge of your teaching/ learning and that you have a major contribution to
make towards its success. This is why your behavior must not be taken for granted as it needs to be continuously evaluated
to let your practices and experiences be meaningful. 
To you the teacher, reflective teacher is a deliberate move to allow you thinking critically of your teaching practice so that
your students can maximize their learning. Thus, through a change oriented activity, you contribute highly to your
professional development.
Richards (1990) argues that experience alone is insufficient for professional growth, but experience coupled with reflection
is a powerful impetus for teacher development. Reflective teaching is a mark of a concerned teacher who is skilled enough
to examine his/her beliefs, values and assumptions behind the teaching practice. The insights derived from this exercise are
used to improve your practice. 
According to Bailey (1997), reflective teaching is about a skilled teaching of knowing what to do. You examine your work so
that you consider alternative ways of ascertaining that your students learn. This takes place through searching for deeper
understanding of your teaching. So, you are able to monitor, critique and defend that which you implement and how you
implement it.
 
Four lenses which favor critical reflective teaching
 Our autobiographies as learners and teachers (self-review) – it puts us in the role of others and let us see our
practice from the point of view of what our students experience.
 Our students’ eyes (student review) – it can lead us to many good and bad surprises; receiving feedback from
students can be challenging - we need to be prepared to listen to what they have to say.
 Our colleagues’ experiences (peer review) – critical conversation with colleagues can yield useful insight. It helps
us explore alternatives and open news ways of seeing our practice.
 Theoretical Literature (benchmarking) – it can equip us with an enlarged vocabulary to describe and understand
our practice. It offers different perspectives.

Can a reflective teacher become a researcher?

It is possible that reflective teaching may turn you to be a researcher because of its dimension of self-inquiry. 
Through self-inquiry, much of what is unknown becomes clear so that you end up improving your practice and planning.
Thus, your personal experiences are turned into stories which can be shared with your peers.
In this manner, reflective teaching is a professional alternative to action research. It is a personal means of conducting your
own ongoing professional life by solving problems in a systematic manner.

The significance of reflective teaching on professional development

Reflective teaching is seen as a process that can facilitate teaching, learning and understanding, and that plays a central
role in teacher professional development. The significance of reflective teaching is well expounded by many scholars.
Dewey was among the first to promote reflection as a means of professional development in teaching. 
He believes that “critical reflection” is the most important quality a teacher may have and adds that “when teachers
speculate, reason, and contemplate using open- mindedness, wholeheartedness, and responsibility, they will act with
foresight and planning rather than basing their actions on tradition, authority, or impulse.”
The significance of reflective teaching on professional development can be shown as follows.
First, reflective teaching increases the degree of “professionalism”. Teachers who are better informed as to the nature of
their teaching are able to evaluate their stage of professional growth and what aspects of their teaching they need to
change. Reflective practice offers practical options to address professional development issues. 
Secondly, it can help young teachers achieve a better understanding of their own assumptions about teaching as well as
their own teaching practices; it can lead to a richer conceptualization of teaching and a better understanding of teaching
and learning processes; it can serve as a basis of self-evaluation and is therefore an important component of professional
development.
Lastly, as young teachers gain experience in a community of professional educators, they feel the need to grow beyond the
initial stages of survival in the classroom to reconstructing their own particular theory from their practice.
Reflective teaching has the effects of making teachers more initiative and responsible in pursuing the practical rationality
through exploring teaching and learning activities, taking more informed actions and establishing a deeper understanding
of teaching, which ultimately contributes to their professional knowledge and competence. 
So a process of reflective teaching is a process of teacher professional development. 
Without systematically reflective teaching, teacher professional development becomes impossible, and at the same time
teacher professional development spurs teachers to do reflective thinking in their teaching.

Schön’s Reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action

Reflection-in-action helps us as we complete a task. It is that process that allows us to reshape what we are working on,
while we are working on it. It is that on-going experimentation that helps us find a viable solution. In this, we do not use a
“trial-and-error” method. Rather, our actions are much more reasoned and purposeful than that.
If something isn’t working correctly (doesn’t seem right, doesn’t seem to move you closer to the goal) then you “reflect” (a
conscious activity) in the action-present. 
Knowing-in-action is often that tacit information that we know about doing something — it is often left unexplained or
unmentioned when we describe what we do. It is revealed in skillful performance.
Reflecting-in-action is generally called forth when a surprise appears in the process of accomplishing the task. And that
surprise causes one to question how the surprise occurred given our usual thinking process.
Reflection-on-action in our design projects is provided by final reflection papers, portions of design documents titled
“lessons learned,” and also any time (written or otherwise) in which you evaluate your own process (this is actually a critical
part of the design process and should well be incorporated into your design documents).
“We reflect on action, thinking back on what we have done in order to discover how our knowing-in-action may have
contributed to an unexpected outcome (Schön, 1983, p. 26).”

Are there criticisms of Schön’s conception?

Although Schön had a great impact on efforts to develop reflective teaching practice throughout the world, his ideas have
been criticized on several grounds. First, Schön has been criticized for his lack of attention to the discursive or dialogical
dimension of teacher learning. Although he emphasizes the reflective conversations that teachers have with the situations
in which they practice, and the conversations of mentors and novice practitioners as the mentors attempt to coach the
novices.
Schön does not discuss how teachers and other professionals can and do reflect together on a regular basis about their
work. Apart from the context of mentoring, reflection is portrayed by Schön as largely a solitary process involving a teacher
and his or her situation, and not as a social process taking place within a learning community. Much recent work on
reflective teaching, on the other hand, stresses the idea of reflection as a social process and makes the argument that
without a social forum for the discussion of their ideas, teacher development is inhibited because our ideas become more
real and clearer to us when we can speak about them to others.

How can teachers develop a critical perspective?

Developing a critical perspective on our own behavior requires the dispositions of open-mindedness, responsibility, and
wholeheartedness that Dewey highlighted a long time ago. Implicit in the type of collaborative and cooperative
environment is the element of trust. Teaching, when approached in the reflective manner that Dewey recommended and
Schön described, can be an intensely personal and challenging endeavor. 
To be open to questioning long-held beliefs, to be willing to examine the consequences of our actions and, to be engaged
fully in the teaching endeavor is certainly a rewarding but also a very demanding effort. To be engaged in this sort of
examination with others requires that trust becomes a prominent feature of these conversations among practitioners.
Without those companions and without that trust, our reflection on our teaching will be severely limited.
Critics argue, and we would agree, that teachers should be encouraged to focus both internally on their own practices, and
externally on the social conditions of their practice, and that their action plans for change should involve efforts to improve
both individual practice and their situations. If teachers want to avoid the bureaucratic and technical conception of their
role that has historically been given to them, and if they are going to become reflective teachers and not technical teachers,
then they must seek to maintain a broad vision about their work and not just look inwardly at their own practices.

What are some of the basic concepts in Social-Cultural Theory?

One of the fundamental concepts of sociocultural theory, according to Lantolf (2000), is its claim that the human mind is
mediated. Lantolf claims that Vygotsky finds a significant role for what he calls “tools” in humans’ understanding of the
world and of themselves. According to him, Vygotsky advocates that humans do not act directly on the physical world
without the intermediary of tools. 
Whether symbolic or signs, tools according to Vygotsky are artifacts created by humans under specific cultural (culture
specific) and historical conditions, and as such they carry with them the characteristics of the culture in question.
They are used as aids in solving problems that cannot be solved in the same way in their absence. In turn, they also exert an
influence on the individuals who use them in that they give rise to previously unknown activities and previously unknown
ways of conceptualizing phenomena in the world.
Therefore, they are subject to modification as they are passed from one generation to the next, and each generation
reworks them in order to meet the needs and aspirations of its individuals and communities. Vygotsky advocates that the
role of a psychologist should be to understand how human social and mental activity is organized through culturally
constructed artifacts.

Has reflective teacher education supported genuine teacher development?

According to Handal and Lauvas, the first is question of the degree to which reflective teacher education has supported
genuine teacher development. Here, despite all of the rhetoric surrounding efforts to prepare teachers who are more
reflective and analytic about their work, in reality, reflective teacher education has done very little to foster genuine
teacher development and to enhance teachers' roles in educational reform.
Instead an illusion of teacher development has often been created which has maintained in more subtle ways the
subservient position of the teacher. There are several ways in which reflective teacher education has undermined the
frequently expressed emancipatory intent of teacher educators.
First, one of the most common uses of the concept of reflection has involved helping teachers reflect about their teaching
with the primary aim of better replicating a curriculum or teaching method that research has allegedly found to be effective
in raising students' standardized test scores.  reflection happens over if a method is followed or not. It’s not very
effective.
Here the question in the reflection is how well does my practice conform to what someone wants me to be doing?
Sometimes the creative intelligence of the teacher is permitted to intervene to determine the situational appropriateness
of employing particular teaching strategies and materials, but often it is not.
There are a number of things missing from this popular kind of reflection about teaching including any sense of how the
practical theories of teachers (their knowledge-in action in Schon's language) are to contribute to the process of teacher
development.
 Ironically, despite Schon’s (1983) very articulate rejection of this technical rationality in his book The reflective practitioner,
"theory" is still seen by those who use this approach to reside only within universities, and practice to reside only within
schools. The problem is framed as merely transferring or applying theories from the university to classroom practice (eg.
Zeichner, 1995).
The reality that theories are always produced through practices and that practices always reflect particular theoretical
commitments is ignored. There are still many instances of this technical rationality approach to reflective practice in
teacher education programs around the world today.
Closely related to this persistence of technical rationality under the banner of reflective teaching, is the limitation of the
reflective process to consideration of teaching skills and strategies (the means of instruction) and exclusion of reflection
upon the ends of education and the moral and ethical aspects of teaching from the teacher's purview.
Teachers are denied the opportunity to do anything but fine tune and adjust the means for accomplishing ends determined
by others. Teaching becomes merely a technical activity.
 A third aspect of the failure of reflective teacher education to promote genuine teacher development is the clear emphasis
on focusing teachers' reflections inwardly at their own teaching and students, to the neglect of consideration of the social
conditions of schooling that influence the teacher's work within the classroom.
This individualist bias makes it less likely that teachers will be able to confront and transform those structural aspects of
their work that undermine their accomplishment of their educational goals. The context of teachers' work is to be taken as
given.
While teachers' primary concerns understandably lie within the classroom and with their students, it is unwise to restrict
teachers' attention to these concerns alone.
As U.S. philosopher Israel Scheffler has argued: “Teachers cannot restrict their attention to the classroom alone, leaving the
larger setting and purposes of schooling to be determined by others. They must take active responsibility for the goals to
which they are committed and for the social setting in which these goals may prosper. If they are not to be mere agents of
the state, of the military, of the media, of the experts and bureaucrats, they need to determine their own agency through a
critical and continual evaluation of the purposes, the consequences, and the social context of their calling” (p. 11).
We must be careful here that teachers' involvement in matters beyond the boundaries of their classrooms does not make
excessive demands on their time, energy and expertise, diverting their attention from their core mission with students.
In some circumstances, creating more opportunities for teachers to participate in school-wide decisions about curriculum,
staffing, instruction and so on, can intensify their work beyond the bounds of reasonableness and make it more difficult for
them to accomplish their primary task of educating students. It does not have to be this way, but care needs to be taken
that teacher empowerment does not undermine teachers' capacities.
A fourth and closely related aspect of much of the work on reflective teaching is the focus on facilitating reflection by
individual teachers who are to think by themselves about their work. There is still very little emphasis on reflection as a
social practice that takes place within communities of teachers who support and sustain each other's growth.
 The challenge and support gained through social interaction is important in helping us clarify what we believe and in
gaining the courage to pursue our beliefs. More research in the last decade using a socio-cultural lens has focused on the
importance of communities of practice in teacher learning (eg. Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2001; Little, 2002;
McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006), but the emphasis is still on individual teacher reflection in many places.
One consequence of the focus on individual teacher reflection and the lack of attention by many to the social context of
teaching in teacher development has been that teachers come to see their problems as their own, unrelated to those of
other teachers or to the structures of schooling. Thus we saw the widespread use of such terms as "teacher burnout" which
directed the attention of teachers away from a critical analysis of schools and the structures of teachers' work to a
preoccupation with their own individual failures.
A group of activist teachers in the Boston area argued some time ago that:
Teachers must begin to turn the investigation of schools away from scapegoating individual teachers, students, parents,
and administrators, toward a system-wide approach. Teachers must recognize how the structure of schools controls their
work and deeply affects their relationships with their fellow teachers, their students, and their student' families… Only with
this knowledge can they grow into wisdom and help others to grow.
In summary, when we examine the ways in which the concept of reflection has been used in teacher education we find four
themes that undermine the potential for genuine teacher development:
 A focus on helping teachers to better replicate practices suggested by research conducted by others and a neglect
of preparing teachers to exercise their judgment with regard to the use of these practices;
 A means-end thinking which limits the substance of teachers' reflections to technical questions of teaching
techniques and ignores analysis of the ends toward which they are directed;
 An emphasis on facilitating teachers' reflections about their own teaching while ignoring the social and
institutional context in which teaching takes place;
  An emphasis on helping teachers' to reflect individually. All of these things create a situation where there is merely
the illusion of teacher development of teacher empowerment.

How is The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) described?

Lantolf (2002), Wertsch (1985) and Shayer (2002) claim that Vygotsky’s introduction of the notion of the ZPD was due to his
dissatisfaction with two practical issues in educational psychology: the first is the assessment of a child’s intellectual
abilities and the second is the evaluation of the instructional practices.
With respect to the first issue, Vygotsky believes that the established techniques of testing only determine the actual level
of development, but do not measure the potential ability of the child. In his view, Psychology should address the issue of
predicting a child’s future growth, “what he/she not yet is”.
Because of the value Vygotsky attached to the importance of predicting a child’s future capabilities, he formulated the
concept of ZPD which he defines as: “The distance between a child’s actual developmental level as determined by
independent problem solving, and the higher level of potential development as determined through problem solving under
adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers.”
According to him, ZPD helps in determining a child’s mental functions that have not yet matured but are in the process of
maturation, functions that are currently in an embryonic state, but will mature tomorrow.
Moreover, he claims that the study of ZPD is also important, because it is the dynamic region of sensitivity in which the
transition from interpsychological to intrapsychological functioning takes place.
Vygotsky’s ideas have been widely applied in the field of education. The implications of these ideas in the field of L2
teaching therefore, are well founded and can be summarized as follow: The traces of Vygotsky’s ideas can be seen in the
process approaches, which appeared as a reaction against the dominant product approaches in the 1960s and 1970s.
The product approaches are grounded on behaviorist principles and relate language teaching to linguistic form, discrete
linguistics skills and habit formation. They claim that language consists of parts, which should be learned and mastered
separately in a graded manner. The learner’s role is to receive and follow the teacher’s instructions; an example of these
approaches is the audio-lingual approach. However, process approaches came up with views emphasizing the cognitive
aspect of learning and acknowledge the contributions that the learner brings to the learning context.
According to these approaches, students should be taught what Horrowtiz (1986) terms as “systematic thinking skills”. As a
result, planning, setting goals, drafting and generating ideas became part of teaching strategies in L2 classroom, particularly
in the field of writing. This approach believes that language should be made accessible and accepted as a practical tool for
teachers to use in their teaching.
Therefore, the theoretical basis of Genre Approach (writing teaching approach) is firmly premised in the systemic functional
model that refers to the theory of genre as theory of language use, description of relationship between the context in
which language occurs and the actual language being used. Here, the emphasis is on social uses of language according to
context, which correspond to Vygotsky’s ideas of the role of language as a social tool for communication.

What’s the importance of meaning construction in the act of learning?

The importance of meaning construction in the act of learning (reflecting Vygotsky’s claims) is a hot topic in L2 classroom
interactions. The rise of approaches such as integrative teaching of reading and writing is nothing but a recognition of the
importance of meaningful interaction of L2 students with texts in classrooms.
Zimmerman (1997) argues that enhancing students’ competency in L2 should not be seen to be located in mastering skills.
Too much concentration on skills could deprive students from engaging with what he refers to as aspects of literacy such as
meaning construction, competency, fluency and flexibility with dealing with texts as readers and writers.
Marshall (1987) asserts that if these aspects are ignored, teachers will be inculcating in students what Kennedy (1997) and
Kubota (1998) term as fixed routines and dogmatic treatment of skills (what Vygotsky calls “fossilization”).They argue that
such skills make students develop one-way thinking that rejects whatever does not conform to the existing knowledge.
Students will develop a convergent type of thinking that will hinder their abilities to deal with tasks that require complex
thinking. This, in turn, could retard students‟ abilities to develop multiple skills required for their success in their academic
life” (Spack, 1988).
It is advocated that once the focus of teaching is on meaning construction, students would be able to assimilate, internalize
and integrate the new information with the information they already possess, and thus understand the new information
better and add personal values to it.
A clear application of sociocultural theory principles in L2 classroom is obvious in the task-based approach. This approach
emphasizes the importance of social and collaborative aspects of learning.
Ellis (2000) claims that sociocultural theory focuses on how the learner accomplishes a task and how the interaction
between learners can scaffold and assist in the L2 acquisition process.
Shayer (2002) postulated that collaboration and interaction among peers create a collective ZPD from which each learner
can draw from as a collective pool. Ellis advises teachers to give more attention to the properties of task that aim to
promote communicative efficiency as well as L2 acquisition.
Nunan assumes that task-based contexts “stimulate learners to mobilize all their linguistic resources and push their
linguistic knowledge to the limit” a point that Seedhouse seems to question. However, a more optimistic view comes from
Kumaravadivelu (1993b, cited Kumaravadivelu, 2006), who advocates that task-based activity is not linked to any particular
approach, and is therefore a useful method for the teaching of language-centered tasks, learner-centered tasks and
learning-centered tasks.
He recommends sequencing of tasks in a suitable manner to ensure that the demand on language is compatible with
learners‟ levels of proficiency.
The central focus of task-based approach is on the role of interaction and collaboration among peers and how learners
scaffold each other through interaction, a point that is essential in Vygotsky''s concept of learning.
The issue of internalization is crucial in Vygotsky''s theory as well as in L2 classrooms.
Vygotsky encourages teachers not to concentrate too much on teaching concrete facts but to also push their students into
an abstract world as a means to assisting them to develop multiple skills that will enable them to deal with complex
learning tasks.
Simister (2004) recognizes the importance of the student’s personal voice and claims that emphasis on the regurgitation of
facts and repetition of accepted ideas will only produce dull and uninspired students.
This implies that students should be taught how to create, adjust their strategies and assimilate learning activities into their
own personal world. As a result of the recognition of the role of abstract thinking in students‟ intellectual development,
nowadays there is a call for the introduction of literature in L2 classrooms.
The teaching of literature is believed to enrich students’ vocabularies and support the development of their critical
thinking, thus moving them away from the parrot-like types of learning, instead focusing on language structure into
abstract thinking, whereby students can have personal appreciation of the language, consequently developing a self-
motivated attitude to learning the language.
Lack of motivation experienced by some L2 students could be partly attributed to over-emphasis on teaching language
structure which is ineffective in setting to motion students’ intellectual abilities.

Lesson 06
Self-Monitoring and The Studies of the Self
Self-monitoring is a theory that deals with the phenomena of expressive controls. 
Human beings generally differ in substantial ways in their abilities and desires to engage in expressive controls.
People concerned with their expressive self-presentation tend to closely monitor their audience in order to ensure
appropriate or desired public appearances.
Self-monitors try to understand how individuals and groups will perceive their actions. Some personality types commonly
act spontaneously and others are more apt to purposely control and consciously adjust their behavior.
Self-monitoring is defined as a personality trait that refers to an ability to regulate behavior to accommodate social
situations.

How does this change occur in the teaching of a second language?

Change occurs in the field of education, particularly in the domain of English language teaching whenever a new curriculum
is framed or when new vision and mission statements are formulated in centers of learning or even when job profiles differ
exerting changes in students’ needs.
If teachers wish their learners to achieve higher proficiency in their subjects and desire job satisfaction, they need to
update their professional knowledge despite academic qualifications and pre-service training.
Developing professional knowledge involves indulging in self-reflection and evaluation, developing subject matter
knowledge and skills of teaching, expanding knowledge base about research, teaching theories and principles, taking
different roles and responsibilities like supervisor, mentor teacher, teacher researcher, or materials writer.

What’s the right label? Teacher development or training?

The research focus in second language teacher education for the last decade has undergone a shift from searching for
better ways to train teachers to trying to describe and understand the process of how teachers learn to teach through their
self-awareness or reflection.
In line with this recent shift of emphasis from the notion of training to that of development, the idea of teacher exploration
or an exploratory approach has often been discussed as a sort of “liberating tool” for teachers from the pressure of
identifying a best or better way of teaching.

What does teaching involve?

An increasing body of research in the field of teacher education and development over the past decade has challenged the
process-product notion of language teaching, in which teaching is seen as the exercise of specific ways of acting or a set of
behaviors that need to be taught directly.
Such a criticism on the process-product paradigm reflects the recognition that teaching involves both action and the
thinking that underlies it and especially the higher-level cognitive processes that are less amendable to direct instruction or
training than specific ways of behavioral techniques or skills.

What shifts have teacher education undergone?

The research focus in teacher education or development has undergone a shift from searching for better ways to train
teachers to trying to describe and understand the process of how teachers learn to teach through their self-awareness or
reflection.
When our classroom practice is viewed as a manifestation of our interactive decision making, the process of how teachers
learn to make such decisions needs to be examined in relation to what factors or influences underlie their classroom
actions.
We can discover much by exploring simply to explore, not just to solve a problem and small changes can have big
consequences.
In other words, when we try new things (something we have never tried before) or try the opposite of what we usually do,
we can compare them with what we usually do, and based on this comparison we can see our teaching differently,
including our beliefs about teaching and learning.
The idea is that through exploration, we can learn and discover a lot about our own teaching by changing the way we
teach, making small changes to our teaching, or trying new behaviors, just to see what might happen.
So in line with the recent shift of emphasis in the field of second language education from the notion of training to that of
development, the idea of teacher exploration can be viewed as a sort of “liberating tool” for teachers from the pressure of
identifying a best or better way of teaching.
We can free ourselves to explore alternative possibilities for change.

What is teacher development and how is it different from teacher training?

The essential difference between teacher training and development is whether the element of personal growth is involved
or not in the teacher learning processes.
Some of the defining characteristics of both concepts can be identified in reference to Wallace’s (1991) three models of
teacher learning: the applied science, craft and reflective models.
 Applied science model: The applied science model suggests that teachers learn to be teachers by drawing on
research-based theories and applying that knowledge into their practice. This knowledge is thought to be
generalizable.
 Craft model: The craft model refers to learning to teach in the way apprentices learn crafts: by modeling and
imitating an expert teacher and following directions without questioning why they need to do so.
 Reflective Model: The reflective model means teachers learn by reflecting on their own experience. They then
apply what they have learned through reflection into their practice with the aim of further refining their
professional abilities.

The notion of teacher training seems to correspond to Wallace’s first and second models, while teacher development can
be categorized into the third model.

Is a prescriptive view of teaching efficient?

Although some aspects of teaching can be delivered to teachers in preparation as techniques to be mastered, such a
prescriptive view of teaching, though sometimes efficient in terms of the time and effort required of teacher educators,
does not necessarily lead to effective teaching . 
When teaching is seen more as a dynamic process characterized by constant change, teachers also need to acknowledge
the fact that “there is no best way to behave” and to learn to make decisions that are fit for the constant changes of the
language classroom.
But how can teachers learn to make such “interactive decisions” without some kind of help? In order for us to learn to do
so, we first need to become aware of our experiences as teachers.
Otherwise many of the moments-to-moment decisions we make while we teach would be lost and left into total oblivion.
Our conscious awareness of what we do in the classroom, thus, needs to be cultivated along with our assumptions and
beliefs that underlie our actual teaching practice.

What can make teachers change?

Reflective efforts can provide a lot of opportunities for us to change.
However, the notion of change in “training” is quite different from the on in a “development” approach.
In the later one, changes are not only behavioral, but also changes in the levels of attitude and awareness that lead to
deeper understanding of our teaching practice. Indeed, a critical stance toward ourselves as individuals may pose a
challenge to our identity in the sense that changing the way we have gotten used to and valued involves uncertainty or the
feeling of loss.
But if we initiate our reflective efforts in our own ways and take responsibility for our own professional growth as language
teachers, the initial fear of exposing ourselves to critical reflection can result in feelings of excitement and empowerment.
There we can construct our own knowledge base to act upon and also escape from being afraid of others’ prescriptive
judgments that would hamper our autonomous learning.
“Helpful prescriptions” can be more of a hindrance than a real help in developing teacher-learners’ exploration and also can
lead to “learned helplessness” or what Fanselow has called “ours is not to wonder syndrome.”
That is, teacher-learners, if deprived of their self-initiated developmental opportunities to construct their personalized
knowledge, may change on the surface level by following what others say to them, but such “superficial” behavioral
changes alone do not lead to “empowerment”, which would facilitate further development as professional language
teachers.
What is the underlying principle of the collaborative model of teacher development?
The underlying principle of this collaborative model of teacher development is that “the learner needs to own responsibility
for the learning processes and outcomes.
This learning principle further suggests that voices of both teacher and teacher learners, reflected in their different learning
styles and beliefs, also need to be acknowledged as resources or assets for each other.
Although our professional development is essentially personal in nature based on self-awareness of our beliefs,
assumptions, and values that underlie our practice, such self-awareness processes can be more enhanced when we
collaborate with trusted others including teacher educators.
Edge (1992) describes the need of others in order for us to look closely into ourselves. As she says:
 
“I need someone to work with, but I don’t need someone who wants to change me and make me more like the way they
think I ought to be. I need someone who will help me see myself clearly.”
This suggests that our simple, often egocentric subjectivity can be redefined through collaboration, in which our existing
constructions of reality or meaning are challenged and reconstructed through negotiations of multiple voices of others.
That is the essence of change not necessarily in our behaviors but in our perspectives.

What is teacher exploration in relation to teacher

development?
Gebhard & Oprandy (1999) further expanded the
developmental approach to teacher education by
proposing an exploratory approach as a liberating tool
for teachers from the pressure of finding a better way
of teaching.
In other words, the goals of the developmental
approach emphasize the concept of seeking better or
more effective and improved teaching, while the
central aim of an exploratory approach can be seen as
simply gaining awareness of teachers’ beliefs and
practices. Explore for the exploration sake
Certainly such a process of problem solving does make
sense and is worth doing as it involves much of our
reflective awareness. 
However, there are many other ways of exploring our teaching, such as seeing what happens by trying the opposite or
random teaching behaviors, contrasting what we do with what we think we do, considering our beliefs or assumptions that
underlie what we do, or inquiring how we feel about what we do in relation to what we value as a teacher, a learner, or as
a person.
The last point of exploring the emotional side of ourselves, often neglected as an area of inquiry in the literature on teacher
development, can raise our further awareness of how our personal beliefs, assumptions, and values are reflected in our
teaching behaviors, as illustrated in such connecting questions: How does language teaching fit into my vision of who I am
(becoming) and how I’d like the world to be?” and “Am I real in and out of school?”.
If we become more aware of ourselves in terms of our preconceived ideas that guide our ways of seeing the world around
us and then challenge such value-laden world views, we would become more open-minded, reminding ourselves of the
need to go back to the “beginner’s mind”  and to “start from a base of ignorance”.

What are specific activities of observation?

Traditional views of observation often emphasize how to do things, that is, the mastery of specific types of teaching
behaviors or techniques that experienced teachers employ, so that novice teachers can apply them in their own teaching.
It should be noted, however, that such a prescriptive approach does not take into account the fact that those techniques or
strategies that would appear to be quite effective in one context cannot always be so in another context.
That is because the same classroom event or behavior can be seen differently when observers hold different views of
teaching.
In contrast to the technical view of classroom observation, there is a “nonjudgmental description of classroom events that
can be analyzed and given interpretation”. 
According to Gebhard, the central aim of classroom observation is to develop our self-awareness by seeing ourselves in
others’ teaching. 
The shift of focus from identifying techniques or skills employed by other teachers to describing and interpreting the
complex meanings that underlie the observable behaviors can provide more opportunities for us to explore how and why
we teach the way we do.
We can collect and analyze the teaching we observe through the use of different observation instruments, such as
checklists, tally sheets, pictures, sketches, coding (e.g. Colt by Allen, Frohlich, & Spada, 1984 or Focus by Fanselow, 1987),
videotaping or audiotaping. 
In the participant observation, the observer sometimes takes the role of “ethnographer” in which he/she needs to
understand and describe the classroom community from the perspective of its members (i.e., students).
Teaching journals
One of the strengths that teaching journals inherently possess is that they involve the act of writing in which reflection
comes naturally.
According to Bartlett (1990, p. 209), although we can record our practice by using audio-visual instruments, “the best
means would seem to involve some form of writing”.
According to Bailey, Curtis, and Nunan (2001), a teaching journal can provide:
a) A place for us to articulate our concerns or problems encountered during our teaching as well as “the everyday
working experience that might otherwise be lost”;
b) A safe environment in which we can explore our doubts or frustrations that might potentially lead to the loss of
face when shared with others in public;
c) Helpful distancing, which is similar to Van Lier’s (1988, p. 33) idea of “estrangement device,” that allows us to see
our teaching from a more detached or objective viewpoint;
d) An introspective case that reveals hidden aspects of language teaching normally unknown to an outside observer;
e) A place for us to uncover our own assumptions and beliefs, shaped by our previous experiences both as a learner
and teacher, or what Kennedy (1990) has called “apprenticeship of observation” that guides our teaching
practices;
f) A data collection device in conducting action research or as the data base for a diary study.

Although keeping a private, unanalyzed teaching journal can still be very informative, when analyzed, looking for patterns
over time it turns into a diary study. 
Furthermore, when collaborative elements are added (e.g., coupled with written peer responses and group discussions),
our journal writings would create a professional discourse community in which our opportunities to explore are multiplied
through the effects of “triangulation” (Dong, 1997; Brinton, Holten, & Goodwin, 1993).
As Ho and Richards clearly point out (1993), “the mere fact of writing about teaching does not necessarily involve critical
reflection” (p. 162), if we focus only on describing trivial details.
Thus, we need to go beyond mere description into a more reflective mode of writing, so that our awareness of why we
teach the way we do in the classroom and what consequences our actions have on students can be further cultivated.

Action Research
As Cohen and Manion (1985) point out, action research is “a small-scale intervention in the functioning of the real world
and a close examination of the effects of such intervention” (p. 174)
In other words, action research involves teachers systematically changing some aspect of their teaching practice in
response to some issue or concern that would pose as a problem to be addressed, collecting relevant data on the effects of
changed practice, and interpreting and analyzing the findings in order to determine whether another intervention would be
necessary (Bailey, Curtis, & Nunan, 2001, p. 134).
According to Nunan (1992) and Burns (1996), such processes of action research can be better understood as critical self-
reflection or inquiry carried out by teachers themselves with the aims of enhancing their understanding of the assumptions,
values, or theories that underlie their teaching practice as well as improving their practice by solving problems.
Crookes (1993) further notes that action research can serve as a means of critical reflection not only on the immediate
context of teaching but also on the sociopolitical contexts that go beyond the classroom.
One distinguishing characteristic between action research and other more conventional or traditional types of research is
that action research has its primary focus on “individual or small-group professional practice” (Wallace, 1998, p. 18), not on
“the generalizability of the findings to other contexts” (p. 18).

Reflection ‘in’ and ‘on’ practice

Dewey (1933) was among the first to identify reflection as a specialized form of thinking.  
He considered reflection to stem from doubt, hesitation or perplexity related to a directly experienced situation. For him,
this prompted purposeful inquiry and problem resolution (Sinclair, 1998).
Dewey also argued that reflective thinking moved people away from routine thinking/action (guided by tradition or
external authority) towards reflective action (involving careful, critical consideration of taken-for-granted knowledge).
This way of conceptualizing reflection crucially starts with experience and stresses how we learn from ‘doing’, i.e. practice.
Specifically Dewey argued that we ‘think the problem out’ towards formulating hypotheses in trial and error reflective
situations and then use these to plan action, testing out our ideas.

Video Lesson
Self –awareness and self-observation
The classroom practices of language teachers are of interest to many different people: Program administrators, supervisors,
students, researchers. But, those with greatest interest in knowing what teachers do in the classroom should be teachers
themselves.
Teachers want to know how well they are doing. This can be done through different tools: supervisor’s evaluations,
students’ grades, observation, etc.
Self-monitoring is important for checking how we are maturing in the profession. To self-monitor yourself you should be
open to change.
Self-awareness and self-observation are the cornerstones of all professional development. They are essential ingredients,
even prerequisites, to practicing reflective teaching.
The term self-observation implies checking on something relative to an existing standard or expectation. Self-observation
implies a professional curiosity- watching, listening, and thinking without necessarily judging.
According to Diane Larsen-Freeman, teachers need the following in order to “make informed choices”:
1. heightened awareness – when we are able to understand all elements in the classroom. It is the possibility to be
aware of everything going on in the classroom.
2. a positive attitude that allows one to be open to change
3. various types of knowledge needed to change – methodologies, social conditions, know about parents, etc.
4. the development of skills.

Diane Larsen-Freeman says: “I cannot make an informed choice unless I am aware that one exists. Awareness requires that
I give attention to some aspect of my behavior or the situation I find myself in. Once I give that aspect my attention, I must
also view it with detachment, with objectivity, for only then will I become aware of alternative ways of behaving, or
alternative ways of reviewing the situation, and only then will I have a choice to make.”

Descriptive Model of Teaching: The Constituents

 Awareness: triggers and monitors attention to:
 Attitude: A stance toward self, activity, and others that links intrapersonal dynamics with external performance
and behaviors
 Skills: The how of teaching.
 Method/technique/activity/materials/tools
 Knowledge: The what of teaching
 Subject matter / knowledge of students / sociocultural / institutional context
 Knowledge Transmission
 View of Language Teacher Education

What is awareness?
Awareness is the capacity to recognize and monitor the attention one is giving or has given to something. Thus, one acts on
or responds to the aspects of a situation of which one is aware.

Levels of Consciousness
1. Global consciousness is “just being alive and awake”.
2. Awareness is consciousness of something. It involves perceptual activity of objects and events in the environment,
including attention, focusing and vigilance.
3. Metaconsciousness is one´s awareness of the activity of the mind...
4. Voluntary action, reflective processes, and mindfulness are deliberate and purposeful engagement in actions.
5. The importance of metaconsciousness is that freedom exists in the acquisition of metalanguage in which to reflect
upon and therefore negotiate how one represents and uses meanings in language.

Lesson 07
Language and Cultural Issues
The teaching of English as a foreign language brings social and political implications. This subject has been researched by
many theorists.
Promodou (1988), for example, analyzed the English language teaching in Greece. The description he does about the
influence of the English language on Greek people can be compared to what has happened in Brazil. 
English language is heard in soap operas on television, in documentaries, in ads. English is the language of music, movies. 
Promodou says that English is the language of power, progress and prestige in Greece. 
Keeping these issues in mind we are going to discuss the impact of the cultural imposition in the learning of a foreign
language and the effects of globalization.

What is English as a lingua franca?

In recent years, the term ‘English as a lingua franca’ (ELF) has emerged as a way of referring to communication in English
between speakers with different first languages.
Since roughly only one out of every four users of English in the world is a native speaker of the language (Crystal 2003),
most ELF interactions take place among ‘non-native’ speakers of English.
This does not preclude the participation of English native speakers in ELF interaction.
However, what is distinctive about ELF is that, in most cases, it is ‘a ‘contact language’ between persons who share neither
a common native tongue nor a common (national) culture, and for whom English is the chosen foreign language of
communication’ .
How does Imperialism promote exclusion?
When a practitioner explains that one variety of language of superior to others, it promotes the idea that some varieties of
language are less valued and marginalizes speakers from other varieties.
The same happens when a language teacher presents vocabulary based on only one variety, giving the idea that such lexical
registers are more useful in comparison to others. It presents English as being part of a specified faction of the native-
speaker contingency.
On the other hand, students where culture-specific educational norms are emphasized become coerced into conforming to
a nation-state centered view, as opposed to an international frame of reference.

Is that necessary to have a near native proficiency?

Insisting on near-native proficiency in the ELT context is an act of proficiency imposition for those students who do not
want to learn English with integration motivation.
For learners who primarily want to acquire the language because it is a useful cross-cultural communicative tool, pressure
to attain near-native proficiency may result in establishing them as auxiliary members of the culture which is represented
by the prescriptive educational standard, something not in harmony with their own self-image.
For these students, the language is not presented as a lingua franca primarily designed to provide them with access to the
global village, but is instead an avenue into cultural indoctrination.
Thus, when discussing what ELT practitioners should do to quell the accusation that they are agents working for the
domination of the cultures which they represent, or which they identify with, it is clear that a macro approach to English is
required.
A multiplicity of teaching practices, and a view of the language as belonging to a broad range of peoples and cultures, is the
best that language instructors can do, in institutionalized teaching and learning settings, to promote cultural equality.
What happens outside the instruction hall, the exposure which students have to other input which is also an aspect of
linguistic imperialism, is beyond the language instructor’s control, and so cannot be associated with ELT activities.

Does promotion of the English language undermine cultural diversity?

Institutionalized English language learning based on culture-specific prescriptive norms, and supported by exposure to the
language in a wide spectrum of activities, comprises a program which can be perceive as being what Phillipson calls ‘an
imperialist structure of exploitation of one society or collectivity by another’ (1992: 55).
Such positioning supports a belief that the promotion of the English language undermines cultural diversity. English
virtually Anglo-Americanizes the non-native speaker. 
Because English is such a dominant force in world affairs (and the bulwark of Western ideology), there is a danger that its
spread dilutes (and ‘corrupts’) the distinguishing characteristics of other languages and cultures.
Some sociolinguists perceive this process as linguistic imperialism pointing out that government agencies and private
enterprises, primarily in the UK and the US, export educational materials and operate language schools as a way to extend
their ‘sphere of influence’.
Braj Kachru proposes that one way to safeguard the cultural integrity of the non-native speaker is to promote those
indigenized varieties of English which are established forms of intra-national communication (see Kachru 1982).
For Europe, however, where the ideology of integration motivation, near-native proficiency, and educational standards
based on ‘prestige’ varieties is accepted and practiced, the impositions of Anglo-Americanization are only beginning to be
discussed. One hears of ‘McDonaldization’. Nevertheless, European integration, and the use of English as the unofficial
language for European affairs, is forcing EU citizens to come to terms with Anglo-American ‘linguistic imperialism’.

What about the future of English?

David Graddol (1997) is doubtful not only of the ability of the tongue to continue to maintain its position as the world’s
lingua franca, but also of the native-speakers’ ability to maintain their position as ‘representatives of the tongue’.
He contends that there is a ‘growing assertiveness’ among ‘countries adopting English as a second language that English is
now their language, through which they can express their own values and identities, create their own intellectual property
and export goods and services to other countries’.
The same can be said of foreign-language speakers. In a
critique of Kachru’s ‘inner, outer, and expanding circles’
model, which Graddol believes ‘will not be the most useful
for describing English usage in the next century’ because ‘it
locates the ‘native speakers’ and native-speaking countries
at the centre of the global use of English.
Instead, by implication, the sources of models of
correctness, Graddol suggests that the ‘centre of gravity’ is
shifting to the L2 speaker.
In political terms, it is evident that British Council
ideologues are pursuing this liberal line of reasoning partly
because it is the logical conclusion to draw, but also because such strategic positioning promises the larger market share
for the British Council in the new era.

Is English the language for international communication?

We must keep in mind that acquiring English is something difficult to avoid. English is now a prerequisite for participation in
a vast number of activities.
The global village is being constructed in the English language, as are the information highways.
Access to findings in science and technology is made through English, and scientists who want to partake in the discussions
which are currently taking place internationally must have a command of the tongue.
Moreover, the entertainment field, as well as the arts, is moving steadily toward a realm where English is a requirement for
participation. In industrial, financial, and diplomatic arenas, English is also making gains.
Individuals who desire or need to participate in the international movement will be rendered incapable of doing so without
learning English.

Has English a mind of its own?

One could say that in terms of linguistic politics, Pennycook and Honey are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Each has a
conviction that their particular ideology has functional value in language planning.
It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that the spread of English (and the linguistic behavior of the non-native speaker)
is no longer solely in the hands of the educators or ideologues who perceive themselves as the engineers of language
learning.
Instead, with globalization, the English language is making inroads into the consciousness of non-native English speakers in
a manner which is securely cut off from the influences of education authorities
Information technology is introducing new avenues for the English language to take as it continues to colonize the hearts
and minds of millions of non-native speakers.
While Pennycook’s animosity to this spread will have little bearing on its progress, the call for the promotion of a culture
specific ‘Standard English’ is equally doomed to fail.
The increasing use of English among non-native speakers has radically changed the way in which we perceive this
language’s international function. 
Now, as the lingua franca, it is public property, and has taken on new characteristics. A global culture is emerging wherein
cultural artifacts are being created in the English language by non-native speakers. 
In Europe and elsewhere it is becoming commonplace to write in English without first composing texts in a native tongue. 
Swedish musicians, for example, have for some time produced popular songs in the English language which have been
successful internationally (from ABBA to Ace of Base). 
Thus, access to global markets is made through the creation of cultural artifacts in the English language. 
The artifact itself is not necessarily steeped in the distinctiveness of a defined and unique culture, but is instead a marker of
world culture.
Across the board, from film to music to literature, there is an increasing number of cultural artifacts which are not
produced in the native tongue of the artists responsible for the expression.

What is the influence of global culture in English?

This movement, along with widespread exposure, learning, and use of English, profoundly impacts on those cultures which
up to now have retained distinctive identities.
Here it is clear that while historically the spread of English was integrated into the processes of colonization under the
auspices of Great Britain, and as such furthered the forces of British cultural hegemony, the ‘imposition’ of English no
longer stems from such clearly defined epicenters (although America and Britain are major factors).
Instead, what can be perceived as a cultural imposition may very well have its origins in any number of places. The USA and
the UK do not hold monopolies on what are perceived to be ‘international’ cultural phenomena marketed in English.

How is cultural integration versus linguistic diversity done?

It appears that the forecast of the globalization process continuing and gathering momentum in the coming decades is a
reliable one.
This movement, which requires, as a precondition for success, a common tongue, has locked on to English and is now
moving toward the second stage of development. 
That is to say, while the lingua franca was initially intended to bring people together, it is now being deployed in the
creation of cultural artifacts which are representative of global culture.
It is this movement of cultural integration, together with the social and economic necessities of knowing English, which will
secure the English language as the platform upon which globalization will come into being.
Graddol has made it clear that there is a possibility of English sharing global linguistic hegemony with Spanish and Chinese
(1997: 3).
However, while they may appear logical, such scenarios are essentially irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
The momentum which English has amassed at this point in history is so great that there is every reason to assume that as a
lingua franca English will continue to dictate protocol throughout the better part of this century.
Nevertheless, because of the need to conserve linguistic diversity, it is reasonable that language planners should work
toward demoting English and promoting the learning of other languages.
Such a program is currently being carried out in the EU. At the same time, however, improved English proficiency among
the citizens of the EU can be observed.
Programs aimed at altering the movement toward increasing knowledge of English are up against a formidable force, and it
is inconceivable that enough educational planning could be carried out to curtail the impact of the spread of English on the
unique identity of a multitude of European cultures.

What role will a global educational standard play?

If then, as procurers of the English language, we are committed to utilizing language teaching and learning practices which
are supportive of cultural diversity, we find ourselves faced with serious challenges.
 This is because it is impossible to learn a foreign language without being influenced ideologically, politically, culturally etc.
 The teaching and learning of a geographically, politically, and culturally ‘neutral’ form of English, which is perceived as a
language of wider communication and not as the possession of native speakers, is one of the few options we have at hand
if we want to continue to promote English language learning.
At the same time, attempt to somehow ‘neutralize’ the impact which the spread of English has on the cultural integrity of
the learner (see Mondiano 1999).
 This is because the use of a ‘core-based English’, as opposed to a variety based on the nation state, impacts less negatively
on the culture and language(s) of the non-native speaker (there is less need to mimic specific behaviour, to assume multi-
identities, to pay lip-service to foreign value systems etc.).
Instead, English, as an international language, is simply a utilitarian communicative tool, one which allows the non-native
user to retain, to the greatest degree possible, their distinctive cultural characteristics.

How can be a phonology for EIL?

In an effort to construct a taxonomy for EIL, Jennifer Jenkins (2000) attempts to reconsider:
[…] the problems of mutual phonological intelligibility […] with the aim of facilitating the use of EIL’ Jenkins’ perceptions of
her findings, situated in a belief that the cultural orientation of English, for the L2 speaker, must by definition be lingua
franca-orientated, as opposed to being based on a ‘prestigious’ L1 variety, leads her to contend that a core EIL phonology is
more ‘cross culturally democratic.
 Here we see how an EIL perspective not only challenges traditional notions of educational standards, and teaching and
learning practices, but more importantly positions ELT as an enterprise primarily dedicated to the acquisition of inter-
cultural communicative skills.

How can be an ecology of language?

It is of paramount importance that educators investigate strategies which have the greatest likelihood of supporting the
cultural integrity of those who are threatened by the spread of English.
 It is also in the best interest of the international community to begin implementing programs which support the
establishment of an international standard for English teaching and learning.
An ecology of language and culture, like the movement for an ecology of the environment, will emerge as one of the
primary challenges in our times.
 Here, linguistic ecology does not necessarily mean protecting languages from ‘impurities’, or influence from other
languages, but is indicative of a desire to safeguard languages from becoming extinct.
Never before in History has the multitude of human languages been more threatened by the spread of one specific tongue.
We have been witnessing the expansion of this language for centuries, and many of us have dedicated our professional
lives to its promotion.
 Our responsibility now must be to both embrace the beast and at the same time to tame it, to allow the language to act as
the interface for the global network, while at the same time taking action to protect minority tongues and cultures from
extinction.
In the rush to participate in the global movement, the spread of English can potentially wreak havoc on any number of
languages and cultures.
While it is capable of ushering in the ‘beneficial’ fruits of technology and of so-called ‘Western advances’, the English
language, like other European languages with a colonialist legacy, is a dangerous bedfellow.
New teaching and learning strategies can, to some extent, support non-native speakers in their efforts to both participate
in the global movement and at the same time preserve their unique identities. 
The ELT practitioner can be actively involved in this ‘ecology of language’ mindset, and attempt to implement language
teaching and learning practices which support the cultural and linguistic integrity of the non-native speaker, or,
alternatively, the practitioner can promote a nation-state based prescriptive norm, and in the process actively work
towards a diminishing of cultural diversity.
Hopefully, people responsible for language planning will take a hard look at some of the traditional practices which position
the educational standard for English as being based on an American or British variety (or some other proposed ‘prestige’
nation-state, culture-specific variety).
Instead, come to an understanding that as a lingua franca, an international view of the language is more conducive to the
conservation of cultural pluralism.
Lesson 08
The Teaching of the English Language and the New Technologies
What’s the importance of the technology in SLT?
In recent years, technology has been used to assist and enhance language learning.
Teachers have incorporated various forms of technology to support their teaching, engage students, provide authentic
examples of culture and connect their classrooms to classroom in other countries.
Some technology tools enable teachers to differentiate instruction and adapt classroom activities and homework
assignments, thus enhancing the learning experience.
Distance learning programs can enable language educators to expand language learning opportunities to all students,
regardless of where they live, the human and the material resources available to them, or their language background and
needs.
In sum, technology continues to grow in importance as a tool to assist teachers of foreign languages in facilitating and
mediating language learning for their students. 
While technology can play an important role in supporting and enhancing language learning, the effectiveness of any
technological tool depends on the knowledge and expertise of the qualified language teacher who manages and facilitates
the language learning environment. 
In some cases, however, school and university administrators have permitted technology to drive the language curriculum
and have even used it to replace certified language teachers. 
Language technology companies have made unsubstantiated claims about their products' abilities to help students learn
languages, thus confusing administrators into thinking that these technologies can be an effective cost-cutting measure. 
There is currently no definitive research to indicate that students will acquire a second language effectively through
technology without interaction with and guidance from a qualified language teacher.

How do Teachers face Technology in the classroom?

Foreign language (FL) teachers have always been ahead of the curve in integrating technology in FL instruction and
learning, seeing the benefits of technology even without an extant research database to confirm their judgment.
The number of computer applications, communications technologies, and sheer volume of offerings on the Internet has
grown at an amazing rate over the past 15 years, and many FL educators, heeding instinct, common sense, and anecdotal
information, have embraced these new technologies as useful instructional tools.
 There is, however, a small but increasingly vocal cadre of second language acquisition (SLA) researchers who question
whether the use of new technologies in language instruction furthers second language acquisition (Chapelle, 1997; Cubillos,
1998; Ervin, 1993; Garrett, 1991).
Researchers lament the lack of sufficient empirical evidence to support this general belief (Burston, 1996; Salaberry, 1996)
and have attempted to collect such evidence through literature reviews and calls for principled and theoretically based
studies (Chapelle, 1997; Liu, Moore, Graham, & Lee, 2002; Warschauer, 1997; Zhao, 1996).

What are the theories of  SLA which support the research about technology in the second language learning classrooms?
While there are several competing theories of SLA, much of the research supports an interactionist position, underscoring
the concomitant effects of the external linguistic environment and internal individual learner variables on language
acquisition (Ellis, 1994; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991).
The tenets of comprehensible input, intake, output, negotiation of meaning, and attention to both form and meaning are
posited to have an impact on a learner’s inter-language progression. 
Socio-cultural perspectives on language learning, as influenced by the work of Vygotsky (Lantolf & Appel, 1994;
Warschauer, 1997), provide a complementary position that considers language learners in direct relation to their social and
cultural surroundings and condition.
This theoretical background — reflecting both interactionist and socio-cultural perspectives on second language acquisition
— will frame the discussion in this lesson. 
While a broad range of technologies may support teaching, this lesson will examine those technologies involved in
computer and Internet use for purposes of FL instruction and learning and will use the term CALL (computer-assisted
language learning) to include “the search for and study of applications of the computer in language teaching and learning”
(Levy, 1997).

What are the problems with research about the use of technology?
 Lack of Consensus – Researchers have not come to an agreement on what promotes and what hinders SLA.
Technology research is centered on the investigation of computer use that facilitates or promotes those things,
rather than on the measurement of outcomes. Therefore, research base on qualitative elements on affective
reactions to technology use. The relation between these variables and learning outcomes remain a matter of
speculation by researchers.
 Limited population of subjects – Most research in SLA and technology use has been carried out using population at
the college level. Very little research has been done at the K-12 level, which is when most language instruction
takes place in US.
  Mixed methodologies – Some studies are qualitative while others are quantitative. Some are purely experimental
and others have descriptive statistics. This presents difficulties in categorizing and generalizing across studies.
 Impact of the technology medium – Many studies fail to take into consideration the potential negative effects or
computer use in terms of inexperience or aversion, such as for students with limited word processing skills. “False
positive” results stemming from novelty of computer use are overlooked. There is evidence that CALL represents a
different mode or form of communication than that occurring without computer technology. The resulting data
from these studies should be analyzed with that in mind.

How is the skill of listening conducted?

Very few studies concentrate specifically on the skill of listening. Clearly one benefit of CALL in this area is the increased
access to target language input presented in a variety of ways.
The multimedia capabilities of CALL enable learners to engage in a complex listening experience, complete with visual cues
from the interlocutor.
The greatest advantage touted in research on listening and CALL is that the multimedia nature of the activities addresses
the use of different modalities, thus appealing to a wider variety of learning styles (see Liu et al, 2002).

What about speaking and reading skills?

Few studies focus on speaking, though speech recognition software has been explored as a possible aid to language
learning.
The general consensus is that, while this software shows promise for future research, it is not yet sufficiently developed or
reliable to justify its use in FL studies (see Liu et al, 2002).
As for studies on the use of CALL to improve reading skills, the primary emphases have been the use of glosses and
vocabulary acquisition. 
In both areas, students using computer technologies to assist in comprehending reading passages and identifying
vocabulary outperformed control groups of students who did not have this assistance available or chose not to use it (see
Cubillos, 1998; Liu et al, 2002).

What’s the role of language teachers?

The role of the language teacher/technologist is changing dramatically due to the convergence of internal and external
forces that dictate how new technologies can be used for language learning in an institution.
These forces include, but are not limited to, the following: 
 The fact that social software and collaborative technologies hold extraordinary potential for language teaching and
learning;
 The reality that there are specific, user-centric technologies that are now a normative means for our students to
communicate, collaborate, and play with their peers;
 The acknowledgement that there are security-oriented institutional constraints imposed upon technologies for
teaching and learning in most academic settings that may limit the scope and the range of any technology used for
teaching;
 The analysis of the way in which we teach language and promote cultural literacy in the foreign language
classroom.

What do social software tools challenge?

Social software tools challenge the language teacher/technologist to examine critically the current pedagogical practices for
language teaching. Social software, by its very nature, is about
creating communities and connections. 
These tools require that we question how we teach and what we
teach by challenging our beliefs about the value of teacher-centric,
classroom-centric learning versus student-centric out-of-class
learning.
By adopting these tools and the teaching philosophies they
promote, a disjunction is created within many of our institutions
between the task of maintaining a secure, closed IT network and
our duty to remain current and conversant in the tools that are
being developed by others and for an open and ever-expanding
community of learners.

How are the students failing?

Our language students are not only falling short in language and
cultural literacies, but are falling behind in other areas as well. In a
recent American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) report, business professionals were polled about recent
college graduates who had just entered the workforce. 
The conclusion from this survey was that institutions of higher learning are producing graduates who can be employed, and
that these are very capable individuals.
However, according to this study, these same individuals do not necessarily have the skills to be promoted. 
Our students leave our schools unable to critically evaluate and synthesize complicated information and without sufficient
real-world experiences to prepare them for the messiness of the world after college.

What do students really need?

To know a language means that one has proficiency in the reading, writing, speaking, and listening comprehension of that
language. Each proficiency is a separate skill set and is something that can always be improved.
Furthermore, affinities for each skill set vary between learners. Where one learner may excel at reading in the target
language, another learner may have an innate gift for speaking the language.
One’s ability to achieve proficiency can be affected by one’s learning style. As a result, language teachers have developed
multiple means of presenting information to accommodate different learning styles in order to enable students to become
proficient in the four skill sets. 
“Learning a second language is not just a skill set that is acquired through the persistence of practice, it involves complex
social interactions, that engage the identities of the foreign language learners in ways that have always received very little
attention by second language acquisition researchers” (Norton Pierce 1995).

How much time do students need to be proficient in a second language?

Alice Omaggio Hadley’s research reminds us that it takes approximately 720 contact hours to achieve a minimal level of
proficiency in a second language, provided that the language learned has a similar structure to that of our native language
(Omaggio Hadley 1993). 
Add to this fact the realization that in a typical classroom of twenty students, meeting three times a week for one hour
each meeting, each student will have, on average, two minutes of direct contact time with the language. 
A quick calculation reveals that achieving a minimal level of proficiency requires more time than our formal classroom
environment can provide, and that the goal of fluency via The Academy is, at best, a pipe dream. 

Which tools can be used by educators and students?

Social software such as blogs and wikis and even Voice-over-IP tools like Skype® can help educators and students in two
ways.
First, they can augment needed contact time with the language and allow students a means to continue to connect with
the language outside of the classroom.
Second, these tools offer our students the possibility of authentic, dynamic contact with native speakers, and therefore the
challenge of putting that which is learned in the classroom to the test in a context that mirrors, but does not duplicate, the
real world, the real culture, the reality that awaits them outside of The Academy.

Can students learn a language in isolation?

Students cannot learn a language in isolation and they need opportunities for interacting, making and correcting their
mistakes, communicating within a community that is supportive, engaging, and encouraging. 
If a community is created and nurtured within the face-to-face classroom, then blogs can reinforce that community and the
learning it creates outside of the classroom. 
“We can learn without effort if we are interested in what we are doing (or what someone else is doing), free from
confusion, and given assistance when we seek it. […] You learn in communities of people who do what you are expected to
learn.” (Smith, 1998).
For security and privacy reasons, or because of mandates from the institutions, many teachers chose to use blogs behind a
password and only with the members of the class. 
I would argue that practices such as these, while prudent, dramatically limit the teaching and learning potential that blogs
can offer the foreign language curriculum. 
What follows here are examples of how students in my classes have carefully, conscientiously, and effectively used blogs to
communicate with the outside world, and in turn, have enriched not only their own learning, but also the learning of their
classmates, their teacher, and their correspondents, in the process.
Blogs can be structured in whatever way suits the content of the class being taught.   For my Spanish class, I chose to have
a “mother blog” called el blog central that would serve as the opening page for the class and off of which my students’
blogs would be linked via a “blogroll”.
 
What about errors?
My students were encouraged to write and self-correct, or ask for guidance before posting to their blogs. However I did not
correct nor grade their writing once it was posted. 
This practice may seem outrageous and even blasphemous to some language teachers.
Is that not our job as teachers? Won’t those errors fossilize if not corrected on the spot? 
My response to these concerns is that I consider my students’ errors in the context of the conversation that is evolving
within the blog.
Are the errors so serious such that they obscure meaning? If so, or if a post begs clarification, what might be the most
effective and encouraging way to help the student address those errors and yet keep writing, keep creating in the
language? 
Just as we might do in the classroom, asking questions that model the correct grammatical form in a comment to a
student’s post allows a less stressful means of improving language but all the while continuing the conversation. 
The language that our students create via individual posts should not be judged as discrete, staccato moments.
Blogs, when used effectively for language study, should be seen as a portfolio, a collection of thoughts, or posts, that grow
and deepen in complexity and intensity over time. 
A final word about errors: we need to remind ourselves that even native speakers make errors in their own language, as do
we in our own language. Blogs allow us to see language created in all of its forms, the perfect, the imperfect, the bold, and
the weird.
  

Lesson 09
Semiotics – Production of meaning in language teaching
Semiotic Nature
We have to understand that there is a semiotic nature of language teaching methods. The verbal and the non-verbal
aspects of language teaching should not be kept separate since they are closely interrelated and interdependent. 
The use of signs, symbols and visual aids by the teachers help the enhancement of the learning capacity of the language
learner both at cognitive and meta-cognitive levels as they listen and try to learn a foreign language component in the
classroom.

Pierce developed a semiotic theory that is at once general, triadic and pragmatic:
 General – it is general:
o In that it takes into consideration emotional, practical and intellectual experience;
o It includes all of the components of semiotics;
o It broadens the concept of the sign.
 Triadic – it is triadic:
o In that it is founded upon three philosophical categories: firstness, secondness and thirdness;
o It brings three terms into relation: the sign or representamen, the object and the interpretant.
 Pragmatic – It is pragmatic:
o In that it takes into consideration the context in which signs are produced and interpreted;
o It defines the sign by its effects on the interpreter.

What is the role of semiotics in language learning and teaching?

The semiotic nature of language teaching is a complicated and an essential concept to study. In the language classroom, the
primary role of the language learner is to transfer and exchange correct information with his/her audience. 
While doing this, the language learner makes use of the semiotic signs. Most of these signs are used unconsciously by the
students and the teachers.
Since semiotics is the combination of signs and symbols to communicate the information, the students and the teachers
make use of a number of signs, some of which are iconic and some are symbolic. 
Thus, it can be said that, semiotics is a fundamental issue to be considered in language teaching pedagogy, because it helps
the individual to develop his cognitive facilities at all levels of perception. 
Moreover, semiotics not only offers different models of teaching but also broadens the scope of language teaching by
offering tools to consider for visual communication in a given context. 
To illustrate, non-verbal and visual communication, cultural elements in semiotics and for vocabulary teaching, signs and
symbols are used actively in the language classrooms. The language teachers should study many semiotic signs in the
teaching process.

How is linguistic knowledge seen?

While teaching a language, the teacher refers to his/her linguistic knowledge. 
“Linguistics then works in the borderland where the elements of sound and thought combine; their combination produces
a form, not a substance”. (Hodge; Kress, 1988:24). 
In the lines above, Hodge and Kress state that linguistics, which is the study of language, has a careful role to perform in
humanities related sciences.
According to them, linguistics works at the borderland, because linguistics should provide every background and
philosophical information to language teachers and learners to help them overcome their problems in learning a foreign
language.
One of the contributions of linguistics to language teaching is in the field semiotics.

What’s the role of semiotics to Jacobson?

According to Jacobson, the role of semiotics in linguistics is to provide "the communication of any messages whatever" or
"the exchange of any messages whatever and the system of signs which underlie them". 
In this case, Jacobson and Sebeok’s concerns include considerations of how messages are successively generated, encoded,
transmitted and decoded in certain contexts.

What’s the importance of semiotics in language?

About the importance of semiotics in language, French Semiolog Ferdinand de Saussure (1983:15-6) states that:

“A language […] is a social institution. But it is in various respects distinct from political, judicial and other institutions. Its
special nature emerges when we bring into consideration a different order of facts […] A language is a system of signs
expressing ideas, and hence comparable to writing, the deaf-and-dumb alphabet, symbolic rites, forms and politeness,
military signals, and so on. It is simply the most important of such systems […]It is therefore possible to conceive of a science
which studies the role of signs as a part of social life. It would form part of a social psychology, and hence of general
psychology. We shall call it semiology from the Greek semeion sign.”

In the lines above, Saussure puts forward the importance and the necessity of the existing semiotic signs and symbols in the
language system.
Thus, in language teaching, the teachers should make use of these semiotic signs (both iconic and symbolic) in the language
teaching process to provide a better understanding in the target language, to gain acceleration and perhaps the most
important, to avoid cross-cultural failure in the classroom while teaching a foreign language.
As Hodge and Kress (1988:26) claim:
 
“Students of cross cultural communication know how often misunderstanding arises because of different assumptions in
different cultural groups. Undoubtedly, it creates heavy demands to extend semiotics in this way, to include the description
and analysis of the stock of cultural knowledge in a given society.”

Therefore, it can be said that semiotics not only helps learners to get the right message through semiotic signs to avoid
cross-cultural failure, but also encourages the language teachers to play a critical role in the classroom.

What’s the semiotic nature of the language teaching methods?

The methods provide teachers the opportunity to cope with the four skills more easily. People have approached language
learning in many ways over the years. However, the debates showed that there is no ideal method which would meet all
the needs of learners.
In order to be successful, teachers need to make some critical decisions about material, activities, etc., but these may not
be enough. There are semiotic signs actively used by students and teachers.
Semiotics signs in teaching help learners in many aspects. They present visual feedback and accelerate the learning process.
Semiotic elements are presented through activities in many methods, especially in direct method, audio-lingual method
and communicative method.

What’s situational language teaching?

Situational language teaching is a term not commonly used today, but it is an approach developed by British applied
linguists in the 1930s to the 1960s, which had an impact on language courses which survive in some still being used today. 
The theory of learning underlying the situational language teaching is behaviorism. It gives more importance to the process
rather than the conditions of learning. 
According to Richards and Rodgers (1990:37), “situational language teaching employs a situational approach to presenting
new sentence patterns and a drill based manner of practicing them.”
For Richards and Rodgers, the situation refers to the manner of presenting and practicing the information (the structure of
language) in the language classroom.
 
“The situation will be controlled carefully to teach the new language material […] in such a way that there can be no doubt
in the learner's mind of the meaning of what he hears […] Almost all of the vocabulary and structures taught in the first four
or five years and even later can be placed in situations in which the meaning is quite clear” (Pittman, 1964:155-6).
 
Pittman used the term situation to refer to objects, pictures, and realia, together with gestures to demonstrate the
meanings of new language items. These objects and pictures are always used as semiotic signs to provide a better
understanding in the target language.

What are the principles of situational language teaching?

 Language learning is a habit formation;
 Students should avoid making mistakes. Teacher's immediate guidance is needed if they make mistakes;
 Language skills are better and more effectively learned if they are presented orally first, then in written mode;
 Analogy is better than analysis;
  The meanings of the words can be learned more easily in a linguistic and cultural context;
 Accuracy in pronunciation and grammar is always appreciated;
 Students' ability to respond quickly and accurately in speech situations is always welcome;
 Students and teachers should have the auto-control over the structure of language use;
 A situational presentation of new sentence patterns is a must;
 Procedures move from controlled to freer practice of structures;
 Procedures move from oral use of sentence patterns to their automatic use in speech, reading and writing.

What about the Audio-Lingual/ Audio-Visual Method in semiotics?

Mid 1960's - two new technological aids came into general use in the classroom-language laboratory: portable tape-
recorder and film-strip projector. All these were greeted with euphoria in all modern language departments. 
Extensive use of tapes and equipment was revolutionary for language teachers. Instead of buying sets of books to equip a
class, teachers were demanding most expensive boxes of film-strips and sets of tapes to enable audio-visual instruction in
the classroom.
Potential offered to language teaching by tape-recorder was enormous – now possible to bring native speaking voices into
classroom. 
Editing and self-recording facilities on video and tape-recorder helped the students to become more aware of their talents
and proficiency to improve their speaking skills in the target language. 
Tapes could be used with tape recorder in the classroom or in language laboratory. Today, audio-visual courses consisted of
taped dialogues, accompanied by film-strips which are designed to act as visual cues to elicit responses in the foreign
language.
Most audio-lingual courses consisted of short dialogues and sets of recorded drills. Method was based on a behaviorist
approach, which held that language is acquired by habit formation.
Based on assumption that foreign language is basically a mechanical process and it is more effective if spoken form
precedes written form. 
The stress was on oral proficiency and carefully-structured drill sequences (mimicry/memorization) and the idea that
quality and permanence of learning are in direct proportion to amount of practice carried out. 
The audio-lingual method was widely used in the United States and other countries during the 1950's and 1960's. It is still
used in some programs today.
To put it brief, the instructional materials play an important role in this method. These materials are primarily teacher
oriented.

What about semiotics in the Communicative Method?

Communicative language teaching began in Britain in the 1960s as a replacement to the earlier structural method, called
Situational Language Teaching. 
This was partly in response to Chomsky's criticisms of structural theories of language and partly based on the theories of
British functional linguists, such as Firth and Halliday, as well as American sociolinguists, such as Hymes, Gumperz and
Labov and the writings of Austin and Searle on speech acts.
 Communicative language teaching is based on the following principles.
 Activities should involve real communication to promote learning;
 Activities should not be imaginary but should be based on realistic motives;
 The meaningful use and production of language promotes the language learning process;
 Students use language as a means of expressing values and their concerns;
 Students are demonstrated with the functions of language that best meet their own communicative needs;
 The communicative language teaching makes use of any activity which would help the learners to get engaged in
authentic (real) communication;
 The communicative language teaching aims to develop certain language skills and functions by using the target
language and communicative activities;
 Favorite activities are; social interaction activities; conversation and discussion sessions, dialogues, pair and group
discussions and role plays.

“A wide variety of materials have been used to support communicative approaches to language teaching. Unlike some
contemporary methodologies such as Community Language Teaching view materials as a way of influencing the quality of
classroom interaction and language use. Materials thus have a primary role of promoting communicative language
use.”(Richards and Rodgers, 1990:79).
 
The materials in communicative language teaching can be studied in three groups. They are text-based, task-based and
realia.
In the text based materials, depending on the context of study, to start the conversation, dialogues, drills, sentence
patterns, visual cues, taped cues, and pictures are used actively.
In the task-based activities, a variety of interactional patterns like, pair work, group work, games, role plays. In this respect,
the cue-cards, pictures and the activity cards are actively used as the semiotic elements of the course.
In terms of realia, as is clear, the communicative language teaching requires the use of authentic and from life materials in
the classroom. These materials can be in the form of; language-based realia, such as signs, magazines, advertisements and
their symbols, graphics and statistics (i.e. maps, pictures, charts, symbols).

The other language teaching methods and their semiotic nature

Besides the other language teaching methods as described above, there are others where semiotic symbols are actively
used in lessons and activities. These methods are: the silent way, suggestopedia and the total physical response (TPR)
method.

The Silent Way

The theoretical basis of Gattegno's Silent Way is the idea that teaching must be subordinated to learning and students
should develop their own inner criteria for correctness. 
All four skills - reading, writing, speaking, and listening - are taught from the beginning. 
Students' errors are expected as a normal part of learning, the teacher's silence helps foster self-reliance and student
initiative. The teacher is active in setting up situations, while the students do most of the talking and interacting.
While setting up situations and the activities for the language learners
the teacher uses a lot of thought provoking symbols. 
To illustrate, the teacher may show a number of traffic signs and may ask students to write or talk about the suggested
behaviour of a driver on the roads taking into consideration the traffic signs. 
Here by providing minimum input to the students the learners are encouraged to practice and participate more the
classroom activities.

Suggestopedia
Lozanov's method seeks to help learners eliminate psychological barriers to learning. 
The learning environment is relaxed and subdued, with low lighting and soft music in the background. 
Students choose a name and character in the target language and culture, and imagine being that person. Dialogues are
presented to the accompaniment of music. 
Students just relax and listen to them being read and later playfully practice the language during an "activation" phase.
In suggestopedia, the dim lights, the posters on the walls, the background music, context specific cards etc. themselves are
used as symbols to provide motivation for the learners and better learning in the target language.

Total physical response (TPR) method

Sher's approach begins by placing primary importance on listening comprehension, emulating the early stages of mother
tongue acquisition, and then moving to speaking, reading, and writing. 
First of all the teacher gives a command and the students demonstrate their comprehension by acting out commands
issued by the teacher; teacher provides novel and often humorous variations of the commands quite quickly. 
In this method, the teacher directs the students other than the volunteers. Activities are designed to be fun and to allow
students to assume active learning roles. 
Activities eventually include games and skits. In total physical response, the teacher and the students are the active
participants of a dynamic course. 
In order to let students response physically, semiotic signs, symbols are frequently used in the activities.
This method is not only used in language teaching but also in other training courses as well, such as courses for drivers,
courses for pilots, courses for sportsmen etc.
To illustrate, at a course offered for drivers, the teacher (in the car) can ask the trainee to act accordingly taken into
consideration the traffic signs. 
Here, the signs function as physical stimuli which give way to the driver’s behavior.
In a language teaching classroom, the teacher can show students the traffic signs and can ask students to write commands
about each sign. Later, the students can write a response essay as a follow-up activity about the ideal driver’s responsibility
in the traffic.
 
Some final words about semiotics in language teaching
In language teaching, the teachers use different methods depending on the goals and objectives of the course. Taking into
consideration the students' needs, a variety of materials are used for different purposes in the language classroom. 
Besides their linguistic and pedagogic value, most of these materials have semiotic value. As discussed in the previous
sections: the British flag and London clock tower symbolize the British Society in general. 
The double-decker buses practiced in dialogues in several methods help the language learner to get to know more about
the social and cultural cues in the target language. Such symbols also fasten the cultural acquisition of the foreign language
learner.
For a better understanding in the target language, students and teachers should not only undergo training in language, but
also a socializing experience. 
By doing so, the students find the opportunity to develop their sociolinguistic competence which both broadens the
students' education by presenting more cultural input, and exercises semiotic signs and symbols in a variety of activities.
According to Hymes (1971), the sociolinguistic competence, which is concerned with the social rules of language use, is
equally as important as grammatical competence- the linguistic rules of a language. 
The acquisition of linguistic and socio-cultural knowledge is integral to one another (Poole, 1992:593 concludes). 
Therefore, an ideal EFL program should seek both linguistic and sociolinguistic acquisition which complete each other and
form a cultural value system. 
Moreover, according to Robinett (1978:113), each word used in the EFL classroom is conditioned on the part of 'both
speaker and the hearer' by each person's own particular, personal experiences and those experiences that are common to
the culture of which he or she is a part. 
Thus, the language teaching classroom will be pervasively influenced by the target culture since "classroom discourse
features encode cultural norms and beliefs".
To illustrate, the pictures are used as semiotic signs and symbols to present the particular social aspects of the Western
culture like; boyfriend/ girlfriend, dating, double-decker buses and flags etc. 
Moreover, the books also comprise a set of symbols which tell the teacher and the students to take further action in the
upcoming sessions. 
For example, the cassette signs indicate the time of a listening activity, a smiling face indicates the success in the activity,
the tick and the cross signs refer to a true/ false activity and different colors in a textbook might represent different
sections of language study like; speaking, reading, listening etc.
To sum up, the students learn the linguistic and sociological aspects of language through methods. 
In this respect, the language teacher should pay attention to use these semiotic symbols as a part of his/her language
course. 
It should be borne in mind that the more the teachers activate the use of these symbolic signs and symbols through
activities in methods, the better the students achieve the social and linguistic aspects of the target and are able to melt
them in the same spot.

Lesson 10
Ecological Linguistics and Language Learning
The term “language ecology”, like “language family”, is a metaphor derived from the study of living beings.
The view that one can study languages as one studies the interrelationship of organisms with and within their
environments presupposes a number of subsidiary metaphors and assumptions.
“Most notably that languages can be regarded as entities, that they can be located in time and space and that the ecology
of languages is at least in part different from that of their speakers.
Language is not an object that can be considered in isolation, and communication does not simply occur by means of
sequences of sounds […]. Language […] is a social practice within social life, one practice among others, inseparable from its
environment […].
The basic idea is thus that the practices which constitute languages, on the one hand, and their environment, on the other,
form an eco-linguistic system, in which languages multiply, interbreed, vary, influence each other mutually, compete or
converge.
This system is in interrelation with the environment. At every moment language is subject to external stimuli to which it
adapts.
Regulation, which I will define as the reaction to an external stimulus by an internal change which tends to neutralize its
effects, is thus a response to the environment. 
This response is first and foremost the mere addition of individual responses – variants that, over time, lead to the
selection of certain forms, certain characteristics. In other words, there is a selective action of the environment on the
evolution of language […]” (Calvet, 2006).

What is Eco-Linguistics?
Eco-linguistics emerged in the 1990s as a new paradigm of linguistic research which took into account not only the social
context in which language is embedded, but also the ecological context in which societies are embedded. 
Michael Halliday's 1990 paper New ways of meaning: the challenge to applied linguistics is often credited as a seminal work
which provided the stimulus for linguists to consider the ecological context and consequences of language. 
Among other things, the challenge that Halliday put forward was to make linguistics relevant to the issues and concerns of
the 21st century, particularly the widespread destruction of ecosystems.

What’s eco-critical discourse analysis?

Eco-critical discourse analysis includes, but is not limited to, the application of critical discourse analysis to texts about the
environment and environmentalism, in order to reveal hidden assumptions and hidden messages and comment on the
effectiveness of these in achieving environmental aims (e.g. Stibbe 2012, Harré et al, 1999). 
In its fullest formation, it includes analysis of any discourse which has potential consequences for the future of ecosystems,
such as neoliberal economic discourse and discursive constructions of consumerism, gender, politics, agriculture and nature
(e.g. Goatly 2000, Stibbe 2004).
Eco-critical discourse analysis does not just focus on exposing potentially damaging ideologies, but also searches for
discursive representations which can contribute to a more ecologically sustainable society. 
Approaches such as eco-semiotics (Selvamony, 2007), environmental communication and eco-criticism have broadly similar
aims and techniques to eco-critical discourse analysis.

What were the changes in the status of English as a foreign language?

According to the information presented by Joshua Fishman in his book entitled Post-Imperial English, the status of English
as a foreign language changed noticeably after World War II, when most North European countries “…downgraded German
and at the same time upgraded English as a school subject”. 
At that time, French was chosen as a foreign language by a minority of students (before World War II) the situation was
reversed- French dominated as a foreign language or “lingua franca” in the majority of European countries).
At present, English as a foreign language has an overwhelming lead over all other foreign languages in schools of EU. 
Especially interesting may seem the changes that took place in Eastern Europe during the so-called transformation period.
In these countries, German was traditionally a “lingua franca” and the major foreign language taught in schools. 
After World War II, the situation changed as a consequence of the Soviet victory and Russian was introduced into schools as
the first foreign language. German retained its second position. 
The situation changed radically after the collapse of the Soviet Union around 1990, due to which the political upheaval in
Eastern European countries took place.
As a result, a tremendous increase in English as simultaneous decrease of Russian could be observed. 
Worth mentioning is the fact that English was preferred as a foreign language also in Germany especially in more
demanding school forms and tertiary education.
The spread of English as the first foreign language in Eastern Europe caused its acceptance as the language of higher
education, science and worldwide communication: when we move on from the teaching or studying of languages to their
application in communication, it seems useful to distinguish different spheres, or, in a special sense, “domains” of language
uses like industry and commerce, science and others.
Concluding, it can be stated that during the post-World War II period, English became a dominating foreign language both
in education and commerce as well as in worldwide communication. It gained tremendous popularity and became a global
language.

Why Ecology?
Since the first application of the ecological linguistics two decades ago, it has offered an alternative to the mechanistic and
de-contextualized “computing” metaphor for language learning, with its input, outputs and feedback.
The ecological perspective situates language and learning in its social and cultural contexts – the linguistic ecosystem.
Just as organisms adapt to their environments, and in so doing shape their environments, so do speakers that use language
both to integrate into, and to influence, their discourse in communities. Through this reciprocal process of interaction and
mutual adaptation, the linguistic system evolves.
This is the view propounded in a number of recent publications including Leo van Lier’s The Ecology and Semiotics of
Language Learning (2004) and Larsen-Freeman and Cameron’s Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics (2008).

Are language and communicative competences learned and developed in intra-cultural, inter-cultural and trans-cultural
contexts?
Language and communicative competences learned and developed in intra-cultural, inter- cultural and trans-cultural
contexts. But in schools today, focus is mostly on the inter-cultural and to a certain extent, the intra-cultural contexts.
Through a further presentation of the characteristics of the three contexts, we argue that this focus is too narrow if the
goal of language education (mother tongue and foreign languages) is to contribute to friendly and fair cooperation locally
and across regions, nations, ethnicity, gender/sex and age and to a fruitful childhood, creativeness and democracy.

Final Words
Now, to give you something to chew on over breakfast, here is a quick cut and paste of some of the ideas that capture
many of the core themes of the classes in this course:
1. If there are no languages, only language, what is it that we teach? The short answer, perhaps, is that we would
facilitate a kind of creative DIY approach – semiotic bricolage, perhaps – by means of which learners would
become resourceful language users, cutting and pasting from the heteroglossic(with the presence of two or more
expressed points of view) landscape to meet both their short-term and their long-term goals. 
2. The tension – and challenge – of successful communication is in negotiating the given and the new, of exploiting
the predictable while coping with unpredictability. To this end, a phrasebook, a grammar or a dictionary can be of
only limited use. They are a bit like the stopped clock, which is correct only two times a day.
3. Creating the sense of ‘feeling at home’, i.e. creating a dynamic whereby students feel unthreatened and at ease
with one another and with you, is one of the most important things that a teacher can do. 
4. A reliance on the course book IN the classroom does not really equip learners for self-directed learning OUTSIDE
the classroom, since nothing in the outside world really reflects the way that language is packaged, rationed and
sanitized in the course book.
5. The language that teachers need in order to provide and scaffold learning opportunities is possibly of more
importance than their overall language proficiency.
6. A critical mass of connected chunks might be the definition of fluency (plus, of course, the desire or need to BE
fluent). 
7. Education systems are predicated on the belief that learning is both linear and incremental. Syllabuses, course
books and tests conspire to perpetuate this view. To suggest otherwise is to undermine the foundations of
civilization as we know it. 
8. If I were learning a second language with a teacher, I would tell the teacher what I want to say, not wait to be told
what someone who is not there thinks I might want to say.
9. Irrespective of the degree to which we might teach grammar explicitly, or even base our curriculums on it, as
teachers I think we need to know something about it ourselves. It’s part of our expertise, surely. Besides which, it’s
endlessly fascinating (in a geeky kind of way). 
10. Every language divides up the world slightly differently, and learning a second language is – to a large extent –
learning this new division.
11. The meaning of the term student-centered has become too diffuse – that is to say, it means whatever you want it
to mean, and – whatever it does mean – the concept needs to be problematized because it’s in danger of creating
a false dichotomy.
12. There is a responsibility on the part of teachers to provide feedback on progress, but maybe the problem is in
defining progress in terms of pre-selected outcomes, rather than negotiating the outcomes during the progress.
13. Language learning, whether classroom-based or naturalistic, whether in an EFL or an ESL context, is capricious,
opportunistic, idiosyncratic and seldom amenable to external manipulation.
14. I have no problem with the idea of classes – in fact for many learners and teachers these can be less threatening
than one-to-one situations – but I do have a problem with the way that the group learning context is molded to fit
the somewhat artificial constraints of the absentee course book writer.
15. The idea that there is a syllabus of items to be “covered” sits uncomfortably with the view that language learning
is an emergent process – a process of “Uncovering”, in fact. 
16. This, by the way, is one of [Dogme's] characteristics that most irritates its detractors – that it seems to be a moving
target, constantly slipping and sliding like some kind of methodological ectoplasm. 
17. The “mind is a computer” metaphor has percolated down (or up?) and underpins many of our methodological
practices and materials, including the idea that language learning is systematic, linear, incremental, enclosed,
uniform, dependent on input and practice, independent of its social context, de-humanized, disembodied, … and
so on.
18. Is there no getting away from the fact that classrooms are just not good places to learn languages in? And that,
instead of flogging the present perfect continuous to death, it might not be better simply “to take a walk around
the block”?
19. If automaticity is simply the ability to retrieve memorized chunks, this may result in a repertoire that is fast and
accurate, but functional only in situations of the utmost predictability. Fine, if you’re a tourist – just memorize a
phrase-book. But for a more sophisticated command of language – one that is adaptable to a whole range of
situations – you need to be able to customize your chunks. In short, you need to be creative. Hence, creative
automaticity.
20. Technosceptics , like me, happily embrace technology in our daily lives, but are nevertheless a little suspicious of
the claims made, by some enthusiasts, for its educational applications – claims that frequently border on the
coercive. 
21. As edtech proponents tirelessly point out, technology is only a tool. What they fail to acknowledge is that there
are good tools and bad tools. 
22. Another bonus, for me, of the struggle to dominate a second (and third, fourth etc.) language has been an almost
obsessive interest in SLA theory and research – as if, somewhere, amongst all this burgeoning literature, there lies
the answer to the puzzle.
23. ‘Fluency is in the ear of the beholder’ – which means that perhaps we need to teach our students tricks whereby
they ‘fool’ their interlocutors into thinking they’re fluent. Having a few rehearsed conversational openers might be
a start. 
24. I’ve always been a bit chary of the argument that we should use movement in class in order to satisfy the needs of
so-called kinesthetic learners. All learning surely has kinesthetic elements, especially if we accept the notion of
“embodied cognition”, and you don’t need a theory of multiple intelligences to argue the case for whole-person
engagement in learning.
25. I agree that learners’ perceptions of the goals of second language learning are often at odds with our own or with
the researchers’. However, if we can show [the learners] that the communicative uptake on acquiring a
“generative phraseology” is worth the initial investment in memorization, and, even, in old-fashioned pattern
practice, we may be able to win them over. 
26. How do we align the inherent variability of the learner’s emergent system with the inherent variability of the way
that the language is being used by its speakers? 
27. The problem is that, if there is a norm, it is constantly on the move, like a flock of starlings: a dense dark center, a
less dense margin, and a few lone outliers.
28. Think of the blackbird. All iterations of its song embed the echo, or trace, of the previous iteration, and of the one
before that, and the one before that, and so on. And each iteration changes in subtle, sometimes barely
perceptible, ways. But the net effect of these changes may be profound. 
29. Diversity is only a problem if you are trying to frog-march everyone towards a very narrowly-defined objective,
such as “mastering the present perfect continuous.” If your goals are defined in terms of a collaborative task
outcome … then everyone brings to the task their particular skills, and it is in the interests of those with many skills
to induct those with fewer.
30. Teaching [...] is less about navigating the container-ship of the class through the narrow canal of the course
book/syllabus than about shepherding a motley flotilla of little boats, in all weathers, across the open sea, in
whatever direction and at whatever speed they have elected to go.