Dogme language teaching…what is it?

Hashtags: #dogme21 #elt4 #clivage3 #polqc2 #thatcher2 #bêtise1 #croyance1 #méthode1 #dégâts1 #eltchat #dogme

Trying to seek a better understanding of Dogme language teaching…

Dogme language teaching is considered to be both a methodology and a movement - a communicative approach to language teaching that encourages teaching without published textbooks and focuses instead on conversational communication among learners and teacher (Wikipedia, 2015). Dogme has ten key principles:

1. Interactivity: the most direct route to learning is to be found in the interactivity between teachers and students and amongst the students themselves.
2. Engagement: students are most engaged by content they have created themselves
3. Dialogic processes: learning is social and dialogic, where knowledge is co-constructed
4. Scaffolded conversations: learning takes place through conversations, where the learner and teacher co-construct the knowledge and skills
5. Emergence: language and grammar emerge from the learning process. This is seen as distinct from the ‘acquisition’ of language.
6. Affordances: the teacher’s role is too optimize language learning affordances through directing attention to emergent language.
7. Voice: the learner’s voice is given recognition along with the learner’s beliefs and knowledge.
8. Empowerment: students and teachers are empowered by freeing the classroom of published materials and textbooks.
9. Relevance: materials (e.g. texts, audios and videos) should have relevance for the learners
10. Critical use: teachers and students should use published materials and textbooks in a critical way that recognizes their cultural and ideological biases.

The Twitter hashtag #dogmeelt was active from April 15, 2015 through June 21, 2014, but hasn’t seen much action since. Presumably, Twitter activity has migrated to the hashtag #dogme. Top hashtags include #dogme21 #elt4 #clivage3 #polqc2 #thatcher2 #bêtise1 #croyance1 #méthode1 #dégâts1 #eltchat1, while top languages include French and English (#dogme statistics, March 14, 2015).

It seems that the main reason Dogme came about was that English language teaching (according to Scott Thornbury)...

had become similarly dependent on a constant fix of materials and technology, at the expense of the learning possibilities that could be harvested simply from what goes on “within and between" the people in the room (to borrow Stevick's phrase). ELT needed a similar kind of "rescue action". (as cited in Meddings, 2003)

Others seems to agree. An ELT Dogme Yahoo Group was formed that shows an active message history being primarily between 2002-2011. Trending topics include ELF workshop and teaching project-based learning. The Yahoo group was founded in 2000, currently has 1,564 members, and includes a website link to Scott Thornbury.

I recently had a discussion about Dogme in LinkedIn where the following manifesto was presented as follows (derived from Dogme 95)…

1. All teaching and practice of language must be done "in situ", in the real location. No fake props or sets but only using real language in a real location.
2. Teaching is holistic. There must be no separation of function and form and language is treated not in discrete parts, nor dissected but rather as it is used.
3. Technology must be simple and hand driven. Chalk, pencils, pens etc.... No use of electronic devices; computers, screens, CD players and so on. The speaker, the human being, is the focus.
4. Teaching must be real. It can't be a play, a scripted event. The plan is that there is no plan other than the main objective to start things off. No fakery, no lying on the part of the teacher.
5. Extrinsic motivators are forbidden. The class must not be tainted by point systems, rewards and competition.
6. There should not be any role playing in the classroom (this is artificial). All language takes place and arises from a real need and impulse.
7. No use of video to show learners language used in a different time and place. It all happens in the here and now.
8. The teacher can't be an actor or use different teaching styles. Nor are there any different types of English to be taught (business, global studies, finance, hospitality and tourism etc...). The only English used is that of necessity that comes from the learner, there is no imposed structure given from the instructor.
9. The class must be 10 or less students to facilitate real use of the language and proper instructor intervention.
10. The teacher is part of the class and a learner. Credit goes to the whole class for any success, not just the teacher.

In summation, I can’t quite connect the Dogme 95 list to the Dogme Manifesto list above, and can’t quite reconcile the Dogme Manifesto list above with the ten principles listed at the beginning of this post. I´m willing to reservedly accept a definition like… 

a communicative approach to language teaching that encourages teaching without published textbooks and focuses instead on conversational communication among learners and teacher…(emphasis added)

but can’t quite accept a definition like Dogme ELT is a materials light methodology (What is Dogme ELT?, n.d.).

The main problem I have with the notion of Dogme is the uncertainty in the use of the term "materials".

I use terms like authentic learning using authentic materials to describe many aspects that Dogme seems to embrace. This would also include the Socratic Method and many principles from Mortimer’s Paideia School. At this point, still am not compelled to use the term Dogme as a “rescue action”, although such action is definitely needed.

Photo attribution

MOOCs, PR, and Popularity

Hashtags: #mooc #education #pedagogy #distancelearning

Read OP-ED: MOOCS AND THE ROCKSTAR LECTURER and thought differently...

So the argument is that quiet professors are at a disadvantage when it comes to teaching in MOOCs (but not in face-to-face scenarios) because incompetent but popular professors have more opportunities given the high production teams that promote this type of online delivery? The argument is that society places more value on extroverts regardless of knowledge/pedagogical competence?

The following are warrants that I don't fully embrace:

• If teachers lack professional competence but are outgoing, have a “MOOCish style” (?), and are “splashy” (?), then students (or society) will place them on a pedestal and will have a professional advantage over “quiet” teachers.
• “Quiet” teachers are inherently placed at a disadvantage that exists in MOOCs that do not exist in face-to-face scenarios.
• “Quiet” teachers are modest and MOOC teachers are not.
• If a professor teaches a MOOC, a certain pedagogical style is a given.
• If the production value of a MOOC is high, then so too is its educational value (and vice versa).
• If the production value of a MOOC is high, then so too are the odds of hiring a “MOOC-style”, “rockstar” professor.
• All teachers are qualified and/or have an interest in teaching in a MOOC.
• If teachers are quiet and competent, no student will appreciate them, if they teach online although they may if the same teacher teaches face to face.

Further phrases that obscure…

• …they’ve raised the status of the rock star lecturer to the point where normal teaching looks shabby in comparison. [What is “normal” teaching?]
• But there are also quiet teachers who are just as effective for other reasons. [Just as effective for other reasons suggests that rockstar professors are effective for reasons other than their love for the subject, the clarity of their explanations, etc.]
• It’s important to me that we not leave these teachers behind. [Who are “we” and what exactly are “we” to do? Whose responsibility is it?
• …not all MOOCs have documentary-style pizazz, but those that do create unrealistic expectations about what online courses should look like. [So MOOCs with “pizazz” create unrealistic expectations - an anthropomorphism…about what online courses should look like? Are looks all that important? Or does this refer to all aspects of an online course?]
• “Quiet”, “splashing” and “MOOC-style” teachers…vague.

I get the sense that there is actually some underlining problem here that is being glazed over by making broad claims with little evidence (i.e., details, examples, etc.) and shaky warrants. If a certain group of teachers are being neglected for specific reasons, have that discussion. Getting past the hyperbole, I have a genuine interest in getting to the root of this argument so to better understand what truly distinguishes teachers between those who succeed online and face to face, or if there are more similarities than differences.

Teachers as doctors...

Due to word count limits in LinkedIn, I am posting my response to Teachers, focus on preventative medicine! in its entirety here...

Thanks David for your followup and welcome to blogging in LinkedIn...was curious about how it would appear and what kind of interaction (if any) would result.  Let me say that your post is certainly not inflammatory (and applaud you for being idealistic) and have come to recognize your style as one of provocation...a good thing. Having had the pleasure of conversing with you in the past, I'm certain we agree more often than not. The only real difference in opinion that I see is what kind of language best provokes a change in another.

What caught my attention of your post were two things: attempting to decipher your own beliefs and (more importantly) envisioning how others might interpret your message.  I'm constantly curious about how language is used and spend a fair amount of time discussing this with teacher trainers.  As I tell my students, my interpretation is only one and should be placed among many others before attempting to understand the "true" message (intent), the person who wrote the message, the target audience, locutionary/illocutionary/perlocutionary forces, etc.

Your point about "playing teacher" could very well be true.  My point is simply to ask, should we generalize this idea as fact or idealistically look at it as a potential problem and make suggestions towards fixing it.  Unless they are conclusions from empirical evidence, I tend to avoid blanket statements about groups of people...but that's just me.  Perhaps in your post on preventative medicine you might clarify what you mean when you say "teachers should prescribe".  For me, prescribing is saying that a group of individuals (e.g., teachers) should do the same thing in different contexts: same teaching techniques, methods, approaches, strategies, etc. - I'll admit that teacher-doctor analogy falls a bit short in this regard.  My point is that we should attempt to expect similar student outcomes regardless as to the technique, method, etc. teachers employ.

Regarding your reply on $$$...I completely agree with you.  My only point is whether or not this message addresses a slightly different target audience than the target audience you sought for the overall post - teachers. This shift in audience seems to cloud the intended message...again, one that I completely agree with.

Always appreciate your point of view and will continue to follow your ideas and perspectives that continue to help further my own understandings.

Assessment-based instruction...always applicable?

Hashtags: #assessment #formativeassessment #summative assessment #testing

Inspired by a Google+ chat on a discussion of assessment and instruction, I felt compelled to discuss how I see the relationship between the two terms.

I’d like to address what Seburn finally concludes in his last post:

I would suggest rather the assessment and instruction are working off each other, not one driving the other so black and white. While I agree assessment should not simply be an afterthought, which really dismisses its value (as though it’s simply tagged on to the end of a course out of necessity), I don’t think it’s what should be made first either, before the instructional content. That lends to the danger of simply teaching to the test and not allow for the flexibility of adapting instruction to emergent student needs.

There are few things in life that I feel are black and white, right or wrong, better or worse, etc. But when it comes to assessment and instruction, my belief is that assessment should come first…I’ll explain.

Formal education

A common reality in formal education, or learning in schools, universities, etc., is that goals, objectives, and values, and usually expressed in terms of a curriculum. The written curriculum states what learning outcomes can be expected. The taught curriculum (which can differ from the written curriculum) involves a great number of variables that influence how the written curriculum is interpreted and employed within each classroom. If a curriculum is evaluated, then some attempt is made to reconcile any possible disconnects between the written and taught curriculum.  Most often this implies a change in the taught curriculum more than a change in the curriculum. So, at the level of institution, the premise that outcomes are planned beforehand is fairly straightforward: instruction has yet to be implemented in this scenario. Instruction, in fact, is designed later as a means for achieving certain ends, ends that are articulated in the written curriculum, interpreted by individuals (teachers) in the taught curriculum, and (hopefully) reflected upon later to evaluate any discrepancy between the written word and human discernment.

Let’s move now to the level of the individual classroom or teacher. Based on the curriculum, a syllabus, scheme of work (e.g., weekly schedule), and more detailed lesson plans are all planning devices that ideally align with each other. The goal however remains the same: to provide a (written) predetermined “roadmap” as to what can be expected in terms of learning outcomes. Lesson plans will include instructional designs, but only after assessments have been established beforehand that articulate the learning outcomes that align with the scheme of work, syllabus, and written curriculum. Assessments are where expectations (of learning outcomes) are revealed and may appear in the lesson plan, scheme of work, syllabus, and the curriculum.

So, lesson plans follow the same logic as the scheme of work, syllabus, and written curriculum. In formal education, planning for expected outcomes drives instruction. Planning for performance tasks, creating academic prompts, and factoring in different types of formative assessments beforehand creates the “blueprint” for instructional design. Taking into consideration both formative and summative assessments collectively guide teachers and students to the end goal. I'll all for heavy formative assessments, but the absent of summative assessments create a lack of goals (expected learning outcomes) which will lead to detours throughout the learning journey.

What happens when assessments are planned after instruction? A teacher begins instruction (with no specific end in mind) and after a few weeks decides to think about assessment. Perhaps formative assessment was employed, but with no clear performance task, academic prompts, etc. being considered, there is more of a likelihood that assessments end up aligning more with instruction than aligning with the scheme of work, syllabus, and/or curriculum.  In other words, summative assessments get tweaked to accommodate prior instruction.  An alternative is planning assessments with students (an option) which can serve as a motivation tactic that allows students to establish an end goal collaboratively before beginning instructional activities. If assessments are planned afterwards, it’s as if the logic behind planning a lesson plan differs from the planning that goes into each week, each course, and each school-wide program.

Assessment-based instruction does not equate to a “cookie-cutter” approach to education. Differentiated instruction (DI) provides opportunities for a more democratic way of learning. DI affords learners choices in what content they interact with, how they decide and ultimately interact with such content and with others, and what products they will create.  Teachers create this learning environment based on students' readiness levels, interests, and learning preferences. Negotiating performance tasks with students (before instruction) is an example of DI which permits students to invest in their own learning. Depending on the context, students can even have a say as to how they will be evaluated. DI works when teachers and students are co-creators within an overall learning design, one which still plans for assessment before instruction.

Today, high-stakes exams (or standardized tests) are a reality. A common misconception is that assessment-based instruction is the same as teaching to the test. Teaching to the test is preparing students for the test items that appear on a standardized test. Assessment-based instruction is not about teaching to the test; it’s about assuring that instruction allows students to gain the understandings, skill sets, and disposition that standardized test items set out to measure.

Informal education (intentional)

Informal education that is intentional, or teaching and learning typically occurring outside of school for a particular purpose, may differ from formal education assessments in how they emerge, but still should be designed before instruction. When one sets out to learn something (intentional learning), goals are set. There may be no restrictions to time and place, but setting goals helps one reflect on one’s progress. Goals align with the overall purpose and can be the driving force behind instruction. It’s important to note that instruction (whether in formal or informal educational contexts) means one person or group imparting understandings, skill sets, and dispositions onto another person or group.

Informal education (incidental)

People are always learning, whether they are aware of it or not. But I would argue that incidental learning alone seldom occurs - for the most part, incidental learning co-exists with intentional learning since humans usually behave around a certain purpose or for a certain reason.  I'll just say that my thesis pertains to intentional learning only; if someone else wishes to build an argument solely around incidental learning and assessment/instruction, have at it.

I agree with Seburn when he says, I would suggest rather the assessment and instruction are working off each other...only as it applies to formative assessment and only if what is meant by "working off each other" means making adjustments to instruction and learning tactics during designated times (as opposed to some fluid exchange happening continuously).  Education should be heavy in formative assessment because it promotes learning, I concur.  But I don't agree with no forms of summative assessment being put to use.  Summative assessment tends to get a bad rap because many associate it with tests, quizzes, etc. where these are the primary forms of assessment (i.e., with little-to-no formative assessment). But measuring learning (i.e., summative assessment) also helps students (and all educational stakeholders) see where they've been and where they've ended up.  It also provides criteria for goal setting and purposeful education (as in the case of performance tasks where rubrics are used).  In other words, both formative and summative assessment complement each other.  In order for them to complement each other, assessment-based instruction needs to replace assessment that emerges after instruction has emerged.  Most enter a car knowing where they will end up and prepared to take an alternative route if necessary.

So, what do you think? What's the relationship between assessment and instruction? 

Photo attribution

Is there a standard variety of English?

Hashtags: #eltchat #tesol #tefl #tesl 

Inspired by the question Is there a "Standard English" - yes or no?, I tried to post directly but was unable, presumably because I exceeded the word limit (I really tried to answer the question simply with a yes or no, but just couldn't).

English speakers can and do oftentimes associate their ideogrammatical tendencies to some standard – usually based on a country.  And for that reason only, the term standard English holds meaning for some and therefore does exist. 

Conversely, listening to an English language learner (ELL) speak or observing a text written by an ELL, a language educator can make certain assumptions about the standard of English being used.  One’s lexicon, pronunciation, form, etc. can be an indicator of this.  So from a listener’s standpoint, individuals generalize and thus think in terms of a standard English that is associated with the speaker.

But the question is not if standard English exists (it does), but what variety (or varieties) of English should one teach?  Or which variety (or varieties) of English should one accept?

Answering this question will depend on the purpose of teaching an additional language.  In a formal educational setting (where exams are administered), the purpose is to yes, learn a language, but more importantly to pass an exam.  That is, the variety of English expected in class will align directly with the variety of English included in the exam – imagine if it didn’t!  This doesn’t mean the exclusion of different varieties of English in class necessarily, only that the learner recognizes which variety of English to expect on the exam - and most importantly, that the teacher corrects the variety of English that is not considered “correct” on the exam.  In formal settings where high-stakes exams are expected, teachers naturally will gravitate towards being prescriptivists more than descriptivists.

Even in informal settings, knowing the reason why an individual is learning an additional language helps direct a language educator in knowing what to correct.  Syntax, semantics, and pragmatics pair up with cultural aspects that the language learner is likely to face, and will dictate what varieties of English are “standard” or “nonstandard”; right or wrong, etc.

Other terms like international English have also been used to mean some general acceptance in what varieties of English are (and are not) acceptable.  My views have always been not to attempt to claim what is right and wrong from a global linguistic perspective, but to look at what is right and wrong with some local context, particular speech community, situation, location, etc.

So, is there a standard variety of English...no.  There is no one standard but many!

Academics...what does it mean?

Hashtags: #education #edchat #academics #logic

Inspired by an initial blog post by Hudson (Forget "Academics" For Middle School.  Focus On Engagement and Authenticity), then an insightful followup from Sadler...

Let’s put aside for a moment whether or not members understood the definition of academics.  And I certainly don’t fault them for referring to a dictionary when they need to clarify a word in English – I tell my English language learners this all of the time.  Taking a linguistic analysis approach, what follows is my interpretation of the bigger problem(s). 

Hudson begins...

Several years ago when my school district was working to create a new, more actionable mission statement, we hit an unforeseen bump in the road. We were proudly reviewing our sixth draft of the statement (which was 95 percent finished) when we received the feedback from an anonymous community member that our mission made no reference to “academics.”

If anyone has every openly constructed a mission statement, the process is usually quite daunting if those involved are truly able to speak freely.  If they were proud of reviewing their sixth draft of their mission statement, I presume that there was little pushback or dissension in how the mission statement came together at that point. If there had been dissension, then what came next would probably be less unforeseeable.  

The second issue here is that of the anonymous community member sharing opinions.  If management is gathering opinions around such an important piece of text, should input be considered via anonymous sources?  Wouldn't the person's identity play a part in validating an opinion?  Wouldn't the opinion itself also reflect back on the person's identity?  Sure, there are pros and cons here, but I'm leaning more towards making opinions openly and transparent...transparent in the sense that a person's identity and opinions can be linked back to each other.  Regardless, this does not diminish the value of bringing up a suggestion about whether the word academics should be included in the mission statement, asking,

"How can a school district's mission not include any mention of academics?"

Hudson goes on...

It’s fair to say that none of the 40 members of the committee knew the extent of the true definition, because the descriptions we found were surprising:

• “theoretical or hypothetical; not practical, realistic, or directly useful”

• “learned or scholarly but lacking in worldliness, common sense, or practicality”

I'll admit, after reading Sadler's followup, I went straight to the dictionary, the same dictionary incidentally referenced by Hudson (dictionary.com).  Hudson illustrates how he perceives none of the 40 members of the committee knowing what the "true" definition of the word is.  I'm less concerned that the writer infers that members do not understand a word in English and more concerned that he feels compelled to share a true definition where four variations of the noun form exist.  I'm also concerned that he feels surprised that there exist a perceived gap between theory and practice, researcher and practitioner, academic and teacher, etc., age-old dichotomies that have been the basis of arguments for many a stakeholder.  

Hudson continues explaining how they reached a decision to leave out the term "academic" (which is different than the word in question, academics) in the mission statement by presenting a final rationale...

As adults looking back, we know that some of our classes and courses were of little or no use, and we may have felt at times that we were simply jumping through hoops. It becomes critical that our mission and district practices avoid these pitfalls of traditional “academics” because, by definition, such practices will be the cause of boredom for all but a few students who are interested in those areas.

So, a mission statement should avoid the "pitfalls of traditional academics because, by definition, such practices will be the cause of boredom for all but a few students who are interested in those areas".

I'll delineate the absurdity of this line of thinking as follows:

1. The quality of classes adults took in the past is irrelevant. The mission statement (and respective vision statement, values, objectives, etc.) is more about the present and future of a school, organization, etc.
2. Let's say that academics means the scholarly activities of a school or university, as classroom studies or research projects, which originates from Hudson's "true" definition.  Hudson says the ...pitfalls of traditional academics...by definition... as if the term academics is being defined as what their committee members defined the term as, which was not based on the "true or dictionary definition: not practical, lacking common sense, etc.   Bottom line: Hudson demonstrates that the committee does not understand the definition of academics yet feels it's necessary to use this definition as a basis for excluding the term from the mission statement, comparing it to the term traditional academics.  Absurd...not because they don't use the term in the mission statement; not because committee members don't know the meaning of a word; but because the rationale for excluding the word was based on a perceived (based on the argument here, mis-) understanding of a word and not on the ("true") dictionary definition or simply mistakenly comparing the term academics with the term traditional academics.  Absurd, because the point was made that committee members didn't understand the meaning of the word, yet used that meaning - which was "wrong" - to make an important decision (like creating a mission statement).
3. Placing the adjective traditional before the word academics just adds to the confusion, to expand on what I already mentioned above.  Are they referring to a definition of academics or traditional academics?  It's as if decision makers can't help but force their own meaning onto a word for their own purposes. The argument is not whether or not to use the term traditional academics in the mission statement, but rather the term academics. 

The issue here is how one's background with a word (i.e., academics) can lead to such an illogical argument (claiming that a definition is wrong then making decisions based on that wrong definition).  I have to believe that an appropriate mission statement can include the word academics in such a way that is forward thinking, progressive, etc.  But even if this turns out to be an impossible endeavor, the rationale not to include the word is not because the word refers to the theoretical, hypothetical, not practical, lacking in worldliness, common sense, or practicality.  One may associate the word academics with these negatives, but it's not the same as it's definition. Finally, this post was originally published at Dreambox Learning on January 29, 2015, then again on Getting Smart on February 11, 2015. I have to question the logic in doing this as well.

Thesis Seminar Weekly Roundup

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0cPRxxBI8o]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thesis Seminar Weekly Roundup

Hashtags: #tesol #tefl #appliedlinguistics #linguistics #research

As we conclude week two of thesis seminar, we want to begin looking at aligning our thesis statement with our research questions.  Some of you have already completed your literature review from last semester's academic writing course; so for you, it's a matter looking at the last sentence of your introduction paragraph, where your thesis statement should reside, and verifying if this one single sentence answers your research questions.  Your research questions will be introduced in the final paragraph of your literature review, just before the Method section. For those of you who are starting your literature review from scratch, begin writing your thesis statement and research questions in the same way...the only difference is that you will not have a completed literature review to separate the two.

For those who have a completed lit. review, note the main idea from each paragraph that makes your completed lit. review.  If you are developing your lit. review, simply write out the main idea that later will become a developed paragraph.  For both, list these topic sentences in the order in which you plan to organize your premises/claims.  Refer to my video tutorial from last week for details regarding premises and claims.

Once you are content with the order of your topics sentences, then begin either moving your completed paragraphs or begin developing each paragraph around the respective topic sentence.  Typically the topic sentence, I have found, is the most difficult sentence of a fully-developed body paragraph.  We'll discuss body paragraph development in a subsequent tutorial.

This exercise does two things: it forces you to develop coherent topic sentences for each body paragraph and it also forces you to take a macro view of your work to take sure that your ideas follow a logical order.  When you organize your topic sentences, also make sure to remove any headings that you might have.  I have found that sometimes headings are not clearly representative of the content (text) it represents.  If this is the case (or you are not sure), removing the headings when organizing your topic sentences can help.

For week three, follow the process as described above and contact me when you would like for me to review your work.  Let's review...

1. Based on your annotated bibliography and a concise researchable problem, develop and align a clear thesis statement and set of research questions.
2. Organize topic sentences in a logical fashion that creates an overall argument or position that directly and explicitly supports the thesis statement.
3. Move or develop body paragraphs for each topic sentence.
4. Add (back) headings as necessary, making sure that typically you have more than one paragraph for each heading.

Remember that the last paragraph of your literature review should transition from the theoretical framework to the specifics of the actual study.  Your transitional paragraph might include the following...

Restate and reword your thesis statement within the context of the researchable problem.
State the purpose of your research.
Introduce your research questions.
Finish with a closing sentence.

Continue working this week on your literature review while you continue reflecting on the specifics of your own research.  As you complete your literature review make sure the thesis statement aligns with your preliminary ideas that you currently have about your method section: participants, instruments, and procedure.

Make sure you contact me if you become frustrated or are not sure how to proceed and I look forward to seeing your work!

Why I dig at arguments about Krashen...

Hashtags: #eltchat, #edchat #tesol, #tefl

I read Stein’s (@kevchanwow) Why I Dig Stephen Krashen at iTDi.pro this morning and felt compelled to provide a slightly different perspective.

Stein writes how he digs Krashen which leads into an announcement for a Krashen course that costs $59-$89 US dollars depending on the type of course one chooses. One of iTD.pro’s principles is that Every teacher deserves access to professional development. I would add …for a fee to this statement, not to criticize but to reflect honesty. I’m sure the course is well worth the investment.

My perspective on Stein’s piece is less about an argument against Krashen as it is interpreting Stein’s argument about Krashen. I am not an expert on all of the ideas the linguist holds, but do have an opinion on how Stein outlines his premises about the professor and how others might interpret this from a practitioner's perspective.  My views are likely to fall just outside the Overton Window.

In ELT, policy recommendations are called ‘best practices’.

I can appreciate the attempt to introduce Krashen as an influential figure, but bringing up the term best practices seems irrelevant. Whether the term emerges from top-down or bottom-up influences, it still relates primarily to a set of practices that are expected among the rest of the faculty. As long as best practices aren’t imposing, and if they emerge transparently from open dialogue among all educational stakeholders, then fine, let’s use the term. If not, let’s not.

When people talk (or write) about Stephen Krashen, they most often write about the finer points of how he formulates his hypothesis.

Here, Stein introduces one of Krashen’s six hypotheses, the i+1. This led me to ask, well how do you feel about the other five? Can one dig Krashen and be selective in which hypotheses best apply to language learning contexts? Should an argument about an entire individual derive from only one hypothesis (or a few hypotheses)?

SLA theorists want to know what exactly is “i” and how can we go about measuring ’+1’. 

Perhaps, but this is not the underlining problem. The problem is that language educators (not theorists) oftentimes want to know what exactly i is and how to get to +1. It’s the practitioners who expend wasted effort in this pursuit that is the issue. I’ll get back to this point later.

…the best input is so interesting and relevant…

If one wishes to attribute this idea to Krashen, then fine. But there have been other researchers, practitioners, etc. who have advocated this as well. I agree with Krashen that an individual who forgets the message being encoded in the foreign language is something to strive for, but how does this directly relate to i + 1 within Stein’s argument? From a practical standpoint I disagree with i + 1 while agree with authentic learning scenarios where language learners (I know, I said “learners”) use language as a means to an end - where does that leave me? Although related, comprehensible is different from interesting, meaningful, and relevant. And this distinction has a lot to do with trying to know exactly what i is and how to get to +1…if it’s something we (language educators) even should be doing (I would say it’s not). Imagine a language educator reflecting on the following each moment of each class: Does every student comprehend, understand, know, etc. each vocabulary word?  Does every student find the text interesting, meaningful, relevant, necessary, etc.?  How would a teacher even go about finding this out?  And if she could find this out, what next?

But even as people have busily and sometimes heatedly been arguing over these points, Stephen Krashen has not given up an inch.

This just sounds like the Stephen Krashen pep squad. I would stick to the key ideas supporting each premise and avoid congratulating Krashen for his determination.  Stein is a follower of Krashen and the reader should respect that.  No need to bring it into the argument.

…as his detractors have grown increasingly obsessed with knocking down his theories, something pretty remarkable has been happening around them. Teachers and publishers have increasingly worked to find and produce more interesting and engaging texts in which, if content is not the primary concern, it at the very least doesn’t play second fiddle to issues of teachable grammar points

Assuming a cause and effect relationship here might be a stretch. I think it’s more likely that others (those who are not Krashen) also had some influence on the production of more interesting and engaging texts. And is it possible that educational stakeholders have also become more discerning individuals, even without any changes to texts (or even texts that have become worse) over the years? I would like to think so.

In reading classrooms, teachers spend more time letting students actually read and less time ’teaching’ reading. 

Ok, perhaps…but wouldn’t it be more useful to get students learning on their own, outside of the confines of the classroom? And if so, then shouldn’t we be assisting language educators to this end? And what’s Krashen say about the role of the language educator in promoting reading strategies with their students? Stein mentions towards the end of the post that Krashen is for learner autonomy? What does he say about learner autonomy and extensive reading? Is it productive to spend a lot of time reading in class? What does Krashen say about this?

I’m not saying that Stephen somehow directly orchestrated all of these changes… [but] Stephen has managed to move the Overton window, the ideas that can be entertained as a best practice, more than any other language theorist. 

So, Krashen has indirectly moved the Overton Window (i.e., not saying that Krashen has directly orchestrated these changes) more than anyone else? So if there were (hypothetically) 100 language theorists, Krashen could have indirectly orchestrated changes by say 2% to each of the others respective 1%? And does Krashen promote theories or hypotheses? Throughout the argument, the terms hypothesis and theory have been used interchangeably, as if synonymous.  When words are synonymous and not overly technical, this practice is acceptable; but in this case, these terms have distinct meanings which I feel are each relevant to the overall thesis.

Stephen’s ideas have directly led to the Extensive Reading movement as well as, at least indirectly, influencing text comprehensibility and vocabulary acquisition research. 

So if Krashen has influenced others by 2% (to everyone else’s 1%), he now has directly influenced others on the extensive reading movement? And this direct influence is the result of indirect influences…?

The fact that we can walk into a classroom with some assurance that a text in which 98% of the words are known will allow students a fair chance to understand the remaining 2% from context (Hu & Nation, 2000) is the research driven answer to the question of what actually constitutes ‘i +1’. 

So it’s a “fact” that we (language educators?) can enter a classroom with some assurance (vague) that a text in which 98% of the words (as if somehow this were measurable from a practical standpoint) are known (vague - what is it to “know” a word and how would one measure this from a practical and real sense) will allow student a fair chance (again, vague) to understand (depends on how one defines the term, Bloom or Wiggins and McTighe (2005) or someone else) the remaining 2% from context (And what’s specific about 98%/2%? So it’s impossible to gain meaning from context when the reader doesn’t understand 3%, 4%, 5%, etc. of the text? And wouldn’t it depend on the type of text? reader? etc.).

Ideas as diverse as avoiding error correction during fluency activities, the importance of learner-autonomy and a need to introduce students to ways to seek out comprehensible input outside of the classroom, and even negotiated syllabus design that eschews a traditional sequenced grammar, are all to some extent influenced by Stephen’s theories.

Actually, aren’t they still Stephen’s hypotheses? If they have become theories, let me know. If you want to build an argument as to why you dig Krashen, I would focus on these points that you mention here: using different error correction techniques, learner autonomy, and most importantly guiding language learners to becoming more discerning language learners (readers, writers, speakers, listeners, etc.). Even looking at building a community syllabus through teacher-student negotiation is a more interesting, meaningful, and relevant talking point than Krashen’s hypotheses. If Krashen supports these ideas, then we should all dig Krashen.

My main argument against Krashen's ideas is the terminology used: i + 1, acquirer/acquisition, acquisition-good and learning-bad, comprehensible..., natural order, etc. Many interpret (which is more relevant than what Krashen specifically says or means) these notions as being dichotomous, all or nothing, black or white, having it or not having it, fixed, etc.  (Language) learning is just too complex and is best viewed in terms of degree. I don't believe the words associated with Krashen's beliefs quite get us there.

What are your thoughts about Krashen's ideas, Stein's argument, and/or my interpretation?

Is the tone of the assessment conversation what really matters? (#edchat)

Hashtags: #edchat, #eltchat, #education, #teaching, #learning
Photo attribution

Just read Kilburn’s Predictions for K-12 Education in 2015, and his point about the tone of the assessment changing for the better left me perplexed.

One thing is the “tone of the conversation”, or narrative, and another is the reality of two often diametrically opposing world views about K-12 education put into practice. Has the narrative changed all that much to think that some narrative equates to some concrete change for 2015? And who exactly are those participating in this narrative: teachers, administrators, public leaders, politicians, etc.?

I doubt really that many more teachers are talking about the benefits of formative assessment over summative assessment, which has been discussed at length for some time now in the literature - any decent educational program will reveal this.  And perhaps we might lump administrators into this same group as well.  If teachers and administrators are opening up classroom experiences in ways that make the implementation of formative assessments more transparent, and if this is what is meant by a change in the “tone of conversation”, then Godspeed. This is a good thing, but is it really enough?

Or, has a change in narrative by consensus that occurred in 2014 occurred beyond the level of teacher and administrator? Teachers and administrators within the school can be as transparent as they want, but if this level of transparency does not extend to educational stakeholders outside the school system (i.e., civic leaders, politicians, etc.), what good is it?  We still live in times of standardized testing when it comes to teaching and learning in K-12, so I ask, “Who reached this consensus in 2014?” If this consensus went beyond teacher and administrator, I would love to see some evidence of this.  Kilburn also states,

…during 2014 we have seen a growing consensus on the need for better, fewer assessments that provide timely insights into the teaching and learning cycle (para. 7).

So, moving on from consensus, I will assume that “better" assessments means more formative assessment and less summative assessment?  And I was left scratching my head when I read about the idea of fewer assessments, to the degree that I wonder if he means better (formative and/or summative) assessment and fewer (formative) assessment?  For instance, since formative assessment is ongoing, informal, and an alternative to more traditional approaches to student evaluations, it’s hard to quantify it: checking homework, informal classroom decisions, etc. are examples of formative assessment that I doubt many would suggest we count doing, let alone think we should do less of.  So let’s assume that “fewer” assessments means doing fewer summative assessments.

Doing fewer summative assessments can occur internally or externally, which will depend greatly on who has taken part in the consensus building that occurred in 2014.  Since Common Core is still a reality, can we say that external summative assessments have not changed all that much in 2014?  Sure, there are those who oppose them, but is the opposition all that much greater than what we typically see when any standardized program is being implemented at the national level?  And since there is a big difference between talking about doing fewer assessments and actually doing fewer assessments, perhaps whomever is saying that we should do fewer external, summative assessments isn’t really an indicator that in 2015 that we can expect some meaningful change of the actual number of external, summative assessments that are being applied. Yet, Kilburn remains the optimist as he predicts,

I believe that in 2015—fueled by the ways that technology can make assessment data a powerful tool for personalizing learning—we will see a more positive and productive conversation about how assessment data can be used to provide more timely, useful feedback for teachers and students.  

So I ask,

1. Which educational stakeholders will make this realization in 2015 that technology affords better assessment data for personalized learning?
2. Are we talking about formative assessment, summative assessment, or both?
3. Are we talking about personalized learning or differentiated instruction, since there is much more literature on and I would say more useful to discuss the latter.
4. How will technology (through learning analytics) conjoin formative and summative assessments, both internal and external, using both qualitative and quantitative data in such a way that best benefits each learner?
5. How will learning analytics be shared among all educational stakeholders and for what specific purposes?

The narrative I would like to see among all educational stakeholders would include seeking answers to the various questions that I pose.  The tone of a conversation is only as good as an end result.  Reaching a consensus is an outcome of putting into practice an idea that came from first having a change in narrative.  I want more for 2015…I want more than a change of tone of the assessment conversation, but a more specific yet contextual and open narrative of the differences in assessment and concrete plans that reveal timely and purposeful learning analytics to better transform each learner into more productive, global citizen.

Desk app for Mac: Initial post and reaction

http://bit.ly/1zIadnb

Initial purchase

I just purchased Desk and am now testing the app on my MacBook Air, mid-2012.  I particularly like the option of uploading directly to a blog (most popular blog sites are supported); but in my case, had a slight issue getting started.  I have a blogger account with the address, http://benjaminleestewart.blogspot.com, but since I reside in Mexico, this same URL automatically changes to http://benjaminleestewart.blogspot.mx/.  I tried entering the .mx URL when setting up my blogger account in Desk, but to no avail.  It wasn’t until I entered the .com URL that everything worked just fine.  So, food for thought to those in a similar situation.

Initial reaction

Things that I like about this app for far...

1. Streamlined interface.
2. Automatic numbering/bullets just by entering a number or bullet point…no need to push a formatting button.
3. Automatic resizing of text when adjusting window size.
4. Streamlined process for uploading to personal blog.
5. Simple word formatting like underline, bold, and italics just be using hot keys or intuitive popup mini toolbar that appears once text is selected.  Although using hot keys to format text is standard these days, this app does not include fixed icons that takes up space.  One of the attractive features of this app is the minimalistic approach it takes by not including tool bars that take up screen real estate and distract from the overall writing experience.  Again, when you select text, a mini toolbar appears for most common formatting features one would need.

Two things that I miss already (have had the app only for about 30 minutes): 1) automatic spellcheck and 2) a way to insert an image using a URL.  I just tweeted @DeskPM about this and will post there response.


What do you think?  What’s your experience with this app?  Is it something that you find useful?

#Edudemic authors, why hide?

Edudemic (#edudemic) was created in 2010 and has since grown into one of the most popular destinations to cover teaching, learning, and how technology positively shapes our education.  They publish various types of posts:

• Research and evidence-driven strategies for professional and self-improvement
• Expert guides and how-tos for the newest education apps
• News re-caps of the most important updates for each week
• Compilations of the most useful edtech tools and tips
• Reviews of valuable and innovative products for educator
• Special features such as college reports

I have written for Edudemic in the past (image) and have shared many great stories related to education.  But today, as I was perusing the site, I came across a post that I wanted to share. I noticed (for the first time) that the "author" of the post was listed as Edudemic Staff.

In this particular Edudemic post, I happened to take issue with the narrow definition of the term scaffolding; but more importantly, the bigger question is whether an educational website like Edudumic should post ideas anonymously.

The term anonymous can be defined as

1. without any name acknowledged, as that of author, contributor, or the like.
2. of unknown name; whose name is withheld.
3. lacking individuality, unique character, or distinction

By listing the author as Edudemic Staff, ideas then get linked to the entire Edudemic organization and not to any particular author(s).  From an organizational standpoint, what's the benefit for doing this?  From an individual standpoint, what's the benefit?

As in a school, Edudemic's identity, reputation, etc. is directly related to the efforts of it's individuals.  What's better for the organization, to have a reader disagree with an individual (author) or with the entire organization?

As an individual author, what advantage is there posting one's ideas as Edudemic Staff versus listing one's own name?

When I have posted to Edudemic, I would never have considered spending the time to post an idea if my name weren't associated with the idea.  My rationale was (and still is) that posting to Edudemic was a good opportunity to share my ideas to a readership that also might subsequently lead to connecting with other individuals.  Those who read my posts could also make a value judgment on the validity, reliability, and level of bias of my ideas - they could consult my online identity and judge for themselves how credible (or not) my thoughts and opinions were.  I think this is a valuable consideration that readers of Edudemic lose when posts are published under the veil of Edudemic Staff.

A possibility: One possible reason for posting as Edudemic Staff is to give the impression that there are more authors involved in publishing than there actually are.  If this is the case, what's worse? 1) A blog with the same (or limited number of) authors or 2) not knowing who wrote the blog?  I would say the latter.  If the problem is having a limited number of authors, the answer is not posting ideas anonymously. 

Reflection...

1. Should websites like Edudemic post ideas anonymously?
2. From an organizational standpoint, what's the benefit of posting ideas as Staff?
3. From an individual standpoint, what's the benefit of posting ideas as Staff?
4. From an organizational and individual standpoint, what's the benefit of posting ideas using the author's name? 
5. What's better for the individual and/or organization, a reader disagreeing with an idea posted as Staff or an idea where the author's real name is revealed?
6. How can organizations promote open authorship in online spaces?
7. What are possible reasons for posting ideas as Staff?

ELT Live #7: Questions from future English language educators

ELT Live #7 is scheduled for tomorrow where my applied linguistics group will have their second opportunity this semester to participate in a live hangout on air (HOA) - see their first attempt from last month.  Questions from the show notes have been percolating all week as educators from around the world have been both asking and answering questions related to TESOL.  Our friend Maria Colussa even posted to her blog a detailed reflection!

Once the recording has been posted to YouTube, I will embed the recording to this blog post as well as to the ELT Live archive page. You are also encouraged to visit the ELT Live main page to find a more complete video archive along with Twitter feeds for each talk.  If you wish to find out more about ELT Live, you are encouraged to join the ELT Live Community.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKgpGPD_8Hs&w=560&h=315]

Matching the needs of the learner with the expectations of the teacher (@teachpitch)

TeachPitch asks, @bnleez thank you for tweeting! We'd love to hear your take on how we best map & match the #learning needs of #teachers. Do let us know:)


Let's assume a formal educational context where course objectives are stipulated beforehand, based on curricular goals.  Create a learning map (e.g., Google sheet) that is shared by all students.  In it, course objectives and any other expectations the teach has can be included.  Then, set up column titles that students can fill out (one row per student): student name, interests, needs, goals, strengths, weaknesses, individuals or public websites students feel comfortable with for getting additional help, any social media contact information, etc.  Depending on the maturity level of the students, this information might be a public document or private, and teachers may wish to obtain this same information by having students respond individually.  But there should also be a way for students to periodically check in with the teacher about how the class is going: particular things students like, dislike, find easy, find difficult, and suggestions as to what students need or how they prefer to engage.  This allows the teacher to "check the pulse" of the class throughout so that changes to teaching practice and/or learner tactics can be made more promptly.  

This is one way to map and match learning needs with the expectations of the teacher.