One of my students this term is from Africa. I was talking with her during a break one day, and I learned that she speaks at least four languages: French, her "mother tongue", the language of the town in which she grew up, and English. There may have been a fifth, but if so, I've forgotten.
She is not that out of the ordinary. Most of my students of the past year can speak at least two languages, not including English. If not languages, then at least two dialects of the same language. It seems the norm.
I wonder what this does to a person's perspective of the world. More than that, I wonder what it does to those culture's perspectives on the world and even their own communities. I wonder whether there has been research into whether or not there are measurable thought pattern trends in both multilingual individuals and multilingual societies. If there are measurable trends, I wonder what they might be.
Can anyone suggest any reading?
Showing posts with label language learning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label language learning. Show all posts
Friday, February 12, 2016
Monday, January 12, 2015
Flipped: A Teacher's Reflection
What did I think about my first attempt to flip a classroom? What were some positives and negatives? What might I need to adjust or change?
Some of what I liked:
Students, as whole whole, seemed much more engaged. Students would ask questions about what they viewed and about quizzes they took. The pace and structure of class time (sans lectures) forced students to be attentive; there was always something to DO, as idle or even passive moments were few and far between.
The class was incredibly active. Not having to spend time introducing grammar material in class, time could be spent doing activities: discussions and group tasks, cognitive and physical, at the board and even on the floor. This helped maintain students' focus and kept student from always just sitting in their desks for 50 minutes.
The class was incredibly interactive. Students' questions drove "teacher time". Students sought feedback throughout class activities. Yes, I transitioned from activity to activity, but so many of those transitions were based on the pace and needs of students. Lesson plans became lesson concepts or even lists of possible activities, all contingent on how students reacted to the activities in which the students where engaged. It was like one big feedback loop.
I could enter class with more confidence that I knew which aspects were causing students difficulty, which things they "weren't getting". I knew the content they were to have covered, and I could see which questions were proving troublesome to many students or which students were having trouble with which questions or tasks. Much more than ever before, I could enter the classroom with data-driven understandings rather than intuitions and perceptions.
Class time was maximized. At least this is my estimation. The time I most value is the time to work through the difficulties students have. Close behind is the time used to strengthen students' skills. By taking the lectures (which would have otherwise occupied time during class) and moving them online as homework, significantly more time became available to focus on those things that I, as a teacher, can really bring to the classroom.
What I didn't necessarily like:
Busy Busy Busy
Record keeping and observations were never-ending. Which students completed the quizzes? Which students watched the tutorials? Who is completing homework. You need to be aware of this every morning. (Thankfully, Moodle keeps statistics, which meant I could see the exact times that students watched tutorials, completed quizzes, or even clicked links to extra resources!)
Which quiz questions or topics are causing difficulty? If you don't know this, you won't know to address that in class. This meant that almost every morning required assessment of problems, record keeping, and adjustment to planned lessons, all before 8:30 a.m. It sometimes felt overwhelming, but it always felt worthwhile.
Also, as this past term was not a "flip" I had planned, I was doing all my work on the fly, usually only a day "(sometimes a few minutes) ahead of the students. The stress was palpable. Once done however, only tweaks are needed. I think I'm sitting relatively pretty for this next term.
Participation
There were three students who rarely (if ever) could be cajoled into participating in the flipped model. One student had excellent grammar skills already. That student only sporadically watched tutorials or took quizzes (ungraded) when he felt necessary. I wasn't worried about him. A second student was a bit more consistent, but his skills were lower and he could've used more practice. He still passed.
The third student simply would not do the work outside of class. Could he log on? Yes, he showed me. Did he log on? No. In spite of repeated encouragements and admonitions, in spite of emails and after class discussions, the student simply would not watch the tutorials. He never watched even one tutorial and completed but one quiz. It showed in his exam scores.
Had it been a traditional classroom style, would he have done homework? Perhaps not. Nevertheless, it is cause for pause when students refuse to "flip" with you.
Conclusion
Flipping a class is a lot of work. A LOT! (Unless, of course, you can rely on other people's Youtube videos. That would never do for me.) Nevertheless, I loved it. The students, by and large, loved it. I've spent this winter holiday tweaking quizzes, reorganizing materials, and reshooting some videos, all in the excitement of trying it again in just over a week!
Some of what I liked:
Students, as whole whole, seemed much more engaged. Students would ask questions about what they viewed and about quizzes they took. The pace and structure of class time (sans lectures) forced students to be attentive; there was always something to DO, as idle or even passive moments were few and far between.
The class was incredibly active. Not having to spend time introducing grammar material in class, time could be spent doing activities: discussions and group tasks, cognitive and physical, at the board and even on the floor. This helped maintain students' focus and kept student from always just sitting in their desks for 50 minutes.
The class was incredibly interactive. Students' questions drove "teacher time". Students sought feedback throughout class activities. Yes, I transitioned from activity to activity, but so many of those transitions were based on the pace and needs of students. Lesson plans became lesson concepts or even lists of possible activities, all contingent on how students reacted to the activities in which the students where engaged. It was like one big feedback loop.
I could enter class with more confidence that I knew which aspects were causing students difficulty, which things they "weren't getting". I knew the content they were to have covered, and I could see which questions were proving troublesome to many students or which students were having trouble with which questions or tasks. Much more than ever before, I could enter the classroom with data-driven understandings rather than intuitions and perceptions.
Class time was maximized. At least this is my estimation. The time I most value is the time to work through the difficulties students have. Close behind is the time used to strengthen students' skills. By taking the lectures (which would have otherwise occupied time during class) and moving them online as homework, significantly more time became available to focus on those things that I, as a teacher, can really bring to the classroom.
What I didn't necessarily like:
Busy Busy Busy
Record keeping and observations were never-ending. Which students completed the quizzes? Which students watched the tutorials? Who is completing homework. You need to be aware of this every morning. (Thankfully, Moodle keeps statistics, which meant I could see the exact times that students watched tutorials, completed quizzes, or even clicked links to extra resources!)
Which quiz questions or topics are causing difficulty? If you don't know this, you won't know to address that in class. This meant that almost every morning required assessment of problems, record keeping, and adjustment to planned lessons, all before 8:30 a.m. It sometimes felt overwhelming, but it always felt worthwhile.
Also, as this past term was not a "flip" I had planned, I was doing all my work on the fly, usually only a day "(sometimes a few minutes) ahead of the students. The stress was palpable. Once done however, only tweaks are needed. I think I'm sitting relatively pretty for this next term.
Participation
There were three students who rarely (if ever) could be cajoled into participating in the flipped model. One student had excellent grammar skills already. That student only sporadically watched tutorials or took quizzes (ungraded) when he felt necessary. I wasn't worried about him. A second student was a bit more consistent, but his skills were lower and he could've used more practice. He still passed.
The third student simply would not do the work outside of class. Could he log on? Yes, he showed me. Did he log on? No. In spite of repeated encouragements and admonitions, in spite of emails and after class discussions, the student simply would not watch the tutorials. He never watched even one tutorial and completed but one quiz. It showed in his exam scores.
Had it been a traditional classroom style, would he have done homework? Perhaps not. Nevertheless, it is cause for pause when students refuse to "flip" with you.
Conclusion
Flipping a class is a lot of work. A LOT! (Unless, of course, you can rely on other people's Youtube videos. That would never do for me.) Nevertheless, I loved it. The students, by and large, loved it. I've spent this winter holiday tweaking quizzes, reorganizing materials, and reshooting some videos, all in the excitement of trying it again in just over a week!
Friday, May 23, 2014
Reading aloud is an ageless activity
 |
| Story time at the Ketchikan Public Library, Ketchikan, Alaska (From krbd.org) |
When was the last time someone read aloud to you?
As I read "Why reading aloud to older children is valuable", I thought of my step-mother. Like me, my step-mother loves to read, and she loves to borrow books form the library. Unlike me, however, she checks out a lot of audiobooks.
You see, my step-mother must commute 30+ minutes to and from work every day. I'm sure that one some of those trips the radio is tuned to a favorite radio station. On many days, however, a book on tape is the entertainment of choice. I can recall many time: her sitting in her car in the driveway several minutes after arriving, finishing up a chapter in her audiobook.
I also thought of myself. I don't borrow audiobooks, though perhaps I should. I do, however, listen almost exclusively to NPR. Don't laugh; in an average US city or town (i.e. not metroplex), it will have more diverse and interesting programming than almost any other radio station. There's music. There are interviews. There are even stories. I love listening to stories.
People have always enjoyed listening to stories. It's common across the cultural spectrum. When with friends, people tell stories to one another constantly: stories about friends, stories about ancestors, stories about their weekends, stories about their children, etc. We are a story-loving species.
I agree with all the ideas mentioned in the article. Reading to students' listening levels, modeling, "broadening the menu", the power of shared words, etc. are all important to learning, important to academic and emotional growth. But there is another reason: It's simply enjoyable.
Do you read to your students? What do you read?
Follow me on Twitter @MatthewTShowman
Monday, May 19, 2014
The demise of pleasure reading
There have been many reports recently with headlines such as "Why don't teen read for pleasure like they used to?" or "Why aren't teens reading like they used to?" or "U.S. children read, but not well or often: report". Most of the articles seem to reference this article from Common Sense Media.
The statistics, quoted from Common Sense Media, are not encouraging:
As a citizen of the US, this concerns me. As an educator, a language educator no less, this concerns me. As a father of young boys, the oldest of which (2 years 8 months) loves being read to, this concerns me. As an individual who tries to set aside at least a little time for reading every day, this concerns me.
Most of the articles are fairly quick to single out rising rates of media usage as the primary culprit. Rates of television viewing have remained basically stable, but computer and handheld device screen time has risen precipitously. Most articles also mention, however mostly in passing, that screen time could be spent in reading activities.
I would also point to digital (visual) media as a primary culprit. Between watching a video and reading a story, watching videos has a lower cognitive load than reading, and people tend toward lower cognitive loads when they can. Watching videos is more immediately gratifying than the slower process or reading. Together, this is a near death sentence for pleasure reading.
People are quick to bring up the examples of the Harry Potter series and The Hunger Games, forgetting that these phenomena were not primarily a victory of reading. These were primarily social movements, drawing people in because all their friends were reading them, not due to an intrinsic interest in reading. It's that intrinsic interest that defines pleasure reading.
While many young people are reading via social media and the like, I would be loathe to call this pleasure reading. That type of reading only builds language skills for that arena: social media. The language used among peers does not readily transfer to the skills needed to comprehend or appreciate texts of fiction, non-fiction, biography, science, technology, etc.
It is popular today to hear people talk about "digital literacy" and to make trendy assertions that today's students are simply different and have different "learning styles" than students of the past. Reading, however, still does and will form the foundation of an educated society. Reading needs to to be a primary concern of parents, educators, and society as a whole.
Follow Matthew on Twitter @MatthewTShowman
The statistics, quoted from Common Sense Media, are not encouraging:
Two of the articles linked above also delve into reading proficiency. Did you know that only about 1/3 of fourth grade students read proficiently? Or that another 1/3 read at a below basic level?
- 53% of 9-year-olds vs. 17% of 17-year-olds are daily reader
- The proportion who "never" or "hardly ever" read has tripled since 1984. A third of 13-year-olds and 45% of 17-year-olds say they've read for pleasure one to two times a year, if that.
As a citizen of the US, this concerns me. As an educator, a language educator no less, this concerns me. As a father of young boys, the oldest of which (2 years 8 months) loves being read to, this concerns me. As an individual who tries to set aside at least a little time for reading every day, this concerns me.
Most of the articles are fairly quick to single out rising rates of media usage as the primary culprit. Rates of television viewing have remained basically stable, but computer and handheld device screen time has risen precipitously. Most articles also mention, however mostly in passing, that screen time could be spent in reading activities.
I would also point to digital (visual) media as a primary culprit. Between watching a video and reading a story, watching videos has a lower cognitive load than reading, and people tend toward lower cognitive loads when they can. Watching videos is more immediately gratifying than the slower process or reading. Together, this is a near death sentence for pleasure reading.
People are quick to bring up the examples of the Harry Potter series and The Hunger Games, forgetting that these phenomena were not primarily a victory of reading. These were primarily social movements, drawing people in because all their friends were reading them, not due to an intrinsic interest in reading. It's that intrinsic interest that defines pleasure reading.
While many young people are reading via social media and the like, I would be loathe to call this pleasure reading. That type of reading only builds language skills for that arena: social media. The language used among peers does not readily transfer to the skills needed to comprehend or appreciate texts of fiction, non-fiction, biography, science, technology, etc.
It is popular today to hear people talk about "digital literacy" and to make trendy assertions that today's students are simply different and have different "learning styles" than students of the past. Reading, however, still does and will form the foundation of an educated society. Reading needs to to be a primary concern of parents, educators, and society as a whole.
Follow Matthew on Twitter @MatthewTShowman
Friday, February 28, 2014
Grammatical nit-picking
 |
| See this photo and others at The Huffington Post. |
I was conversing with a young professional in academia a few days ago. The topic related to and English program, no less. A question was asked; by whom, I do not recall. Out came a wonderfully grammatically "incorrect" phrase:
"I'll try and find out..."
For those of you who may not see the problem. The "correct" form should be, "I'll try to find out..." Think about it: Was the speaker going to try something and find out something? No. The speaker was going to make an attempt to do something: try to do. Yet the try and form is quite widespread, and few notice it when used in conversation. Therein lies the problem which leads to the topic of this post: Does focus on "correct" grammar during assessment disadvantage English language learners (ELLs).
Of course grammar is a necessary component of language assessment, and I have called a "grammar nazi" more times than I can count. Nevertheless, one must keep in mind that "correct" grammar is not always a matter of rules but of conventions. That is, English includes many grammatical conventions that do not precisely correspond to rules. Often these are referred to as exceptions. Or in this case, what native speakers say and understand in actual practice is different from what is considered "correct".
Take double negatives as an example: "I don't want to pay no taxes." Today we would say this is grammatically incorrect. Yet in English's distant past it was acceptable. Yet even today, despite the a fact that the grammar and the semantics reveal a logical contradiction, people use this type of structure, and no one misunderstands the intent.
 |
| Does any one misunderstand this grammatical error? From smartphowned.com. |
Why then do we penalize ELLs for the same errors?
I've seen speaking assessment rubrics that have grammar components such as "near native-like use of grammar" paired in the same grade band with "virtually error-free usage". So which is it? Are ELLs to be assessed based on native-like speech, which is commonly filled with grammatical inconsistencies? Or should ELLs be assessed based on grammatical precision, a standard to which we rarely hold native speakers?
What are your thoughts about grammar and assessment for ELLs?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)