Communication is a key factor in culture. No matter where you are from, it is understand that you must be able to communicate in order to succeed in a community. I would like to point out that in Ms. Jones' classroom, the students were required to be independent. They all had their own materials to work from, books that they didn't share with others during silent reading time, create their own ideas, and their desks pushed apart from each other. Simply put, everything was structuralized. Was this form of classroom management completely beneficial to the L2 learners? In the Toohey's article it states, "Lave and Wenger (1991) write that “learning is an integral and inseparable aspect of social practice” (p. 31)." (80.) I feel the emphasis on individuality is in fact, the complete opposite of what this statement is making. Ms. Jones' intentions are well, but when children collaborate and share, they are not burning language bridges, but rather building them. Acquistion comes with practice and from others. Yes, other factors such as culture play a role, but it all wraps back to the idea of how community and communication are vital in SLA.

I would just like to also make a rather obvious statement and say that in foreign language classrooms, teachers do not emphasis individuality. They encourage group work, talking about your weekend, sharing books and notes, and sitting together to practice and internalize the language.

Week 7

This week's reading covered multiple interesting topics. One issue that was addressed was that of dialogic pedagogy. Looking a little past the reading, I found that according to Vygotsky that this type of pedagogy is "a teacher-student relationship that stresses mutual respect, sharing, and learning in community." With this being said, Dialogic pedagogy requies students to express themselves and also, even more importantly in my opinion, be self-aware of their thought processes and their own L2 language acquisition. I think that sort of addesses the question, "What is the nature of the learner or student?" To determine the nature, the student must have a certain self-awareness.

The history of TESOL methods was also interesting. I enjoyed reading about the Audiolingual approach, along with the cognitive revolution, and the communicative and natural approaches to TESOL. I found it particularly interesting how, in the communicative approach, they defined usage and use. This makes a big difference in language acquisition. We, as teachers, should have our students USE the language rather than limit it to a certain usage.

I noticed quite a few similarities to LightBrown and Seville with Wong's reading. It readdessed Krashen's notion of i+1 along with ZPD and scaffolding. However, there was a lack of stereotyping mentioned, particularly towards Americans who put their noses in the air when it comes to learning an L2. I'd like to share nteresting comment thought  that I heard on the radio today, and that was that a recently survey showed that attitudes towards America from other cultures is bettering. That's a nice relief.To be the best possible TESOL teacher, we have to be aware of other cultures' attitudes, beliefs, perception, recpetion to things, and learning styles.

That's unfair.

Reading about how some immigrants do not feel welcome in new surroundings was really very saddening. It's unfair that Americans have a certain perconceived notion towards them. It's unfortunate that they do not feel like they can learn in our society. Why don't we have patience? Where has this intolerance come from? To learn a language, practice is absolutely necessary. I know this from my experience in Spain. I wouldn't have learned half as much as I did if it hadn't been for my Spanish friends who patiently listened to me talk and corrected my fragmented sentences. Gracias a ellos por su paciencia!

ZPD - I'm in the zone

Oh yes, ZPD - the Zone of Proximal Development.

It almost sounds like something eerie from the Twilight Zone, doesn't it?

For a learner, there is the area of knowledge which they clearly already possess. Beyond that, there's a foggy gray area, then there's their maximum potential. The ZPD is that middle part, where we, as teachers, are to guide our students so that they DO reach their goals/ maximum potential.

There are 2 misconceptions associated with ZPD according to the article we read. One being that it is the same thing as scaffolding, and the other that it is similiar to Krashen's notion of i + 1.

What are your thoughts? The article argues that scaffolding is assisted performance, while in ZPD, you only help the child achieve a goal rather than aid in their development. But, isn't achieving a goal aiding in development?