Chapter 4, Kuma.

Chapter 4 of Cultural Globalization and Language Education begins with a story about an article published in the March 19th, 1998 edition of the Seattle Times. The headline read: “Do Culture Factors Cause Air Crashes?” The story was in response to the crash of a Boeing 747 that crashed into a hill, killing 228 people onboard. The “black box” didn’t reveal any mechanical malfunctioning. Investigators tried to recreate what happened before the crash, and came to the conclusion that the Korean pilot forgot that the auto-pilot was on. The co-pilot, also Korean, noticed this and also realized the impending danger. Investigators thought that, because culturally the co-pilot was disposed to obey and not to question authority, he never spoke up to correct the captain. This cultural ‘deference to authority,’ according to investigators, might have caused the accident.
Kumaravadivelu goes on to create his own situation of what the pilot might have been thinking before his death, armed with the assumptions of the investigators. The authors resulting fictional narrative succeeds in placing doubt in the readers minds as to whether culture really is the possible reason for the plane crash.
According to Chapter 4, stereotypes permeate so much of our daily life; our thinking, what others think of us, how we react to others, how others react to us, all in a variety of different settings. I was glad that the author included in this discussion the idea that stereotypes aren’t always negative, that they can at least seem positive. Even though a stereotype may seem positive, its effect can be negative, as seen in the example given in the book concerning Asian students. These stereotypes, though mostly positive (ex, overachievers, 4.0 GPA, great in math and science) are according to the study cited in the chapter, “reinforced in the school context and contribute to a biased and limited perspective of Asian Americans.”
Reading this chapter reminded me of stereotypes that I’d come across in my travelling and in interacting with people. If you really think about it, stereotypes are everywhere! There have been stereotypes toward me as an American in a foreign country; I was told that it was easy to tell I was an American, just by the way I hurriedly got my bags out of the overhead compartment, was I being the stereotypical “pushy American” or was I in a hurry to catch my next plane? My Italian boyfriend and his family have now been in the US for about 8 years, and the number of stereotypes they’ve come across are at times laughable in their ridiculousness. “Oh, you’re from Italy! Are you in the Mafia?” “Are you gonna make me an offer I can’t refuse?” “Why don’t you sound like Mario and Luigi?”
In reality, stereotypes are always there, but it’s our job as ESL and EFL teachers not to let stereotypes interfere with the education of our students.

Hall Chapter 2

Hall, Chapter 2: Language and Identity. Chapter 2 of hall begins with introducing the reader to the more traditional view of language systems as opposed to the more traditional ‘linguistics applied’ approach. This view considers individuals to be agents of free will instead of “fixed entities in whose heads these systems reside.”

According to Hall, “The purpose of the chapter is to lay out some of the more significant assumptions embodied in contemporary understandings of identity.”

Our use of language stems from our social histories, which develops out of things like gender, social class, religion, and race. Hall explains that “who we are, who we think others are, and who other think we are, mediate in important ways our individual uses and evaluations of our linguistic actions in any communicative encounter.” Hall goes on to demonstrate that language use and identity have close ties by using the example of the misunderstanding between Navajo students and their teacher. In Navajo communities it is not expected that answers will immediately follow questions in the classroom. This conflicts with more mainstream communities, like that of the teacher in this example. Because the students didn’t immediately answer the questions, the teacher assumed that the students English skills were lacking to the point where they couldn’t understand her.
I was especially drawn to the example of the two English native-speaking advisors who were asked for a letter of recommendation by a Non-native speaking student. One advisor was successful in understanding what the student needed, while the other was unsuccessful. The first used patience, amplification and agreement markers, while the second treated the student as a ‘disfluent, inappropriate outsider’ by directing the student away to get more information. It is argued in the chapter that the strategies used by the advisors are rooted in ideological orientations toward non-native speakers of English.
Culture, social identity, and social history are put to use every day through our use of language, and the social identity, history and culture of others have an impact on the way we communicate, not to mention the study of language and linguistics.

Toward a Postmethod pedagogy

In response to the Kuma, B. article, Toward a Postmethod pedagogy, The 1990s were home to the beginning of new ideas that can restructure 2nd and foreign language teaching and teacher education. The first idea focuses on the need to “go beyond the limitations of the concept of method” with a call to find other ways of designing teaching strategies. The second idea focuses on advocating the creation of efficient teaching professionals.
In other words: idea 1- focused on teaching strategies.
Idea 2- focused on the teachers themselves.
The article focuses on practicality and particularity. What is taught should depend on many factors like who and where. According to Hanlon, professional theories are generated by experts and transmitted from centers of higher learning, while personal theories are those that teachers develop by interpreting and applying professional theories in practical situations while on the job. Included in the discussion of practicality is the difference between theorist- theory and teachers theory, or reflective teaching and action research. The difference between these, as argued in the article is rooted in practicality. Action research is to improve practice rather than to produce knowledge, while reflective teaching suggests that teachers are treated merely as implementers of professional theories. In short, pedagogy of practicality aims for a teacher-generated theory of practice.
The article goes on to explain that the experiences brought to the classroom are shaped by a number of things like social, economic, and political factors that are instilled in us in the environment in which we grow up. The example of students from Sri-Lanka rewriting their ESL books was of interest to me. It is understandable that people put in certain situations and growing up in certain environments will “demonstrate the ability of human subjects to creatively fashion a voice for themselves.” From this article I learned that the classroom is not only a place to learn about specific subjects, it is also a place for students to express themselves.
Toward the end of the article, the author suggests that teacher research is not all static, it is about keeping ones “eyes, ears and mind open to what works and what doesn’t in the classroom.” From this I gather that success in the classroom is due largely in part to the teachers ability to access the needs of his/her students and be able to address the class in ways are sensitive to their political, economic, and social concerns and conflicts.
Language-learning, teaching, and teacher-education need conceptualization and contextualization within the contexts of educational, cultural, social, and political essentials in order to be effective in serving the interests of students. It seems to me in my experience teaching that this is part of the trick to teaching in general.

Firth and Wagner: On Discourse, Communication, and (Some) Fundamental Concepts in SLA Research.

In response to the Firth and Wagner reading of this week; the authors explain toward the beginning about a growing number of SLA studies, mainly being ethnographic that are focused on the social and contextual aspects of SLA. They go on to say that although most studies are beginning to question and explore notions of the learner, nonnative, and native speaker and interlanguage, most “tend to take the formal learning environment as their point of departure.” My question is, why to these studies tend to do this?
One of the three main changes that the authors state would address the imbalance that “hinders progression within the field” asks for a “significantly enhanced awareness of the contextual and interactional dimensions of language use. “ I usually find the word “contextual” to include a vast array of meanings. In this case, what contextual dimensions should be enhanced? (Verbal and social?)
Within the article the authors describe “learner” discourse as, language “above the sentence”. I am interested to know more about what exactly the authors mean by this phrase. Would “above the sentence” include things like voice inflections and accents? Does it include spoken ques as well?
By gathering information from this article in the interactive section, I’ve begun two lists of views and theories supported by Hymes and Chomsky. I remember learning about them in my linguistics class, but I just want to make sure I have the right idea. In other words, let me get this straight:
Hymes: communicative competence (social and contextual)
Chomsky: grammatical competence, formalistic, context free.
The “interlanguage” section of the article was of the most interest to me. Information regarding the interaction between native speakers and non-native speakers, to me, is not only interesting, but according to this article, also has a lot to do with the study of Second Language Acquisition (SLA).
It was fascinating to learn that, according to their studies, when natives and non natives are interacting for the first time (in these recorded conversations) they tend to restrict themselves to “here and now topics”. They also found that natives tend to adopt the role of “information gatherer.” Both speakers assign themselves to specific roles, but is this a defense mechanism used to avoid embarrassment? After reading this article I now notice that in my experience speaking English with a non-native speaker, to avoid confusion, I sometimes did the things that the author mentioned.
I noticed while reading the article that many questions arising from discourse communication have a connection to psychology. Questions about the behavior of people in SLA like why they act a certain way are the same questions asked in the subject of psychology. Certain psychological factors could contribute to the behavior of native speakers and to their communication with each other.