Made in America - Ch 1&2 discussion questions

Chapter 1.

1. It's an anthropological study (which looks at behaviors and customs) of the design of ELL and culture in the classroom.
2. Olsen uses a historical anthropology as her means of showing the theoretical background. She defines the schooling system of inequality. On page 17 it says, "Schools, reproduction theorists argued, are critical in this process because class relations and the capitalist division of labor requires a school system that reproduces a system of inequality by selectively transmitting skills according to which class people are in, sorting people by granting credentials from the school into appropriate social positions, and serving to shape an individual's attitudes and identity to fit their classroom."
3. She uses an ethnographic approach, which is the observation, participation, and interviewing of life, culture, customs. She uses this approach because it immerses her in the culture so that she can understand it more in depth rather than looking it from the surface.
4. 15 faculty members and 47 students participate.
5. Her research questions include the following:
-How did they understand "America"? What does it mean to be "American"?
-What borders and boundaries did they create or detect in social relations? What language did they use to articulate and create those borders and boundaries?
-How were the crossings, the borderlands and terrain in between languages, cultures, and national identities experienced, shared, and contested?
-How did they experience and view their encounters with each other across languages, cultures, and national identities?
-What was it like for those students and teachers who felt themselves involved in forging new terrains of language, culture, racial, and national identity?
-Why were they in school, and how did they experience school? What relationship did school have to the rest of their lives?

We, as TESOLers are all about context. We need to understand where our students are coming from and their perception of the world in order to best teach, connect with, and understand them. Through these questions, Olsen is able to do just that.

6. Some data sources are the teachers at Madison High School She met and had conversations with them in various locations around the community. She observed them in the eduactional setting as well to gather data.

7. She plays three roles acting as the storyteller, the anthropologist, and the advocate.

8. All of the students are labeled according to their racial identity. Students had an assignment to make a map of their high school. Students were seperated into the following categories: Mexican-Mexican Girls and Boys who speak Spanish, Blacks, Afghan Girls, Fijian Girls, Afgans, Indian Girls, Vietnamese Girls, Fijian Boys, Vietnamese who speak English. Mexicans who speak English, Chinese Boys, Vietnamese Boys, Chinese Girls who speak Mandarin, and "the Americans." Interesting.

Chapter 2

1. It's interesting how they base their worth of how "American" they are by the way they dress. It's as though they feel the need to conform to fit in and lose their originial identity. The Brazilian girl, for example, wore what she would normally wear in Brazil to school (tighter, shorter clothing) and was not socially accepted and felt as though she lost a part of herself in trying to become more "American" and not as much of a part as her Brazilian culture. Another girl felt wrong for wearing a serape to school. Students should not feel wrong wearing anything.

2. Page 46 - "Americans always change their clothes."
Page 48 - "Americans listen to English much and good songs and most of them listen to rap, especially the black Americans."
"Very few people listen to piano."
"They usually listen to music in the car and turn it up way loud so that everybody would hear them."
"Music is way loud."
"The music you listen listen to is part of who you hang out with. People don't listen to different kinds of music. Each groupd just listens to one kind."
"Americans want to have fun."

September 8

Well, I'll be honest. I've never been much a literary analyst -- I prefer to read already written descriptions of what other people think about different writings, but this is all part of the college experience, right?

Pennycook's article was lengthy and wordy and at times, I'll be honest, I had no idea what was being said. However, I did infer a few important items to note. First, I think it is important to point out that "language, gender, sexuality, race, class, ethnicity, popular culture, education, immigration, teaching practices, curriculum development and other concerns" are all "interwoven" into TESOL (333). Before taking any of my TESOL courses, I would have just presumed that ESL meant people who didn't speak English were learning English. I didn't know that all of these other factors played a role when it came to learning/teaching a foreign language. My perspective has been broadened since I first came to ISU 3 years ago and now I now understand how everything is interconnected. It makes me wonder, was it my young age and immaturity that made me ignorant, or is it the fact that we are not properly educated on the subject matter in our country?

I also thought the transformative pedagogies part was interesting. We talked about teachers as transformative educators in class on Tuesday, so that was still fresh in my mind. It's emphasized, that, in order for changes to take place, people need to change their thinking. That, I believe, is a given. What types of changes though? Social and cultural awareness? Universal acceptance? Changes in our students? Their thinking? Their views and ways of life? Changes in American thinking towards "foreigners"?

September 5

Why are roles defined in the first place? Who defines them? Is it society? Is it those affected by the actions of the role player (i.e. students)? Is it the person playing the role themselves?


I think all of these take part in defining what a role is. Kuma specifically looks at the role of a teacher and the different tasks they take on. He also mentions early on in the chapter that David Hansen believes teaching is a vocation, defining it as, "guaranteeing personal autonomy and personal significance." Ok, yes, I definitely agree with that statement. Every teacher should strive to make students feel important and as though they have a role to play in society. If teaching were seen as anything but a vocation, for example, a job, work, a career, an occupation, or a profession, it would lose it's personal touch and be seen as a day in, day out, drag your feet to work type deal.

Further, Kuma explains teachers in terms as passive technicians, reflective practitioners, and transformative intellectuals. He clearly objectifies what each role entails. If I were to describe my ideal teaching type, it would be the third one - a teacher as a transformative intellectual. Not only does this title imply that I, as a teacher, have knowledge in my specific content area, but that I want to convey what I know to my students and TRANSFORM their minds. I connect the classroom to real life and am open to outside suggestions to better improve my classroom. That's what I strive to be.

Celce-Murcia/Kuma - Eng 345

The Celce-Murcia article was a nice, easy read and a good introduction to the 9 different 20th century teaching approaches. It was useful the way the described the difference between approach, method, and technique as well. Before, I thought there were words that could be used interchangeably. As far as the nine different approaches go, I found some to be unrealistic and couldn't imagine using them myself in the classroom. Others I found to be more useful and effective. I will probably be using multiple approaches for my students because, after all, they do not all learn the same, right?

The Kuma article was very dense and harder to read. Yet, it was still interesting to see how different methods and approaches have developed and changed over time. It's kind of like science and medicine; people are always researching it and discovering something new and supposedly "more effective." I've noticed a trend in teaching these days, people are continually unsatisfied with the different methods and approaches out there and continually look to find something better. Is the grass really always green on the other side though?

As I was reading, I mentally noted that some of these very methods had been used while I was studying Spanish. We had days in class where we could only speak Spanish, used pictures to define vocabulary, analyzed texts and so forth. Was my teacher really following a specific method? I don't really think so. I'm not really sure why.

Ch 1 & 2 Methodology in Language Teaching

The best way I could interpret these two chapters into my own words and thoughts is simple: teaching philosophies.

The chapters addressed approaches, methods, techniques, applications, and so forth. As the book says, there is no correct way to teaching, no one method, and that it's a continually changing process. We have to learn about our students first in order to fully develop our ever changing teaching philosophy. Teachers are supposed to be flexible and teaching is in a sense like playdough -- it can be molded so many different ways and still ends up a unique shape. I think it is important that teachers understand that each student is different from the next, that their learning styles vary, and that nothing is ever set in stone and is subject to change.

It's simple -- our teaching philosophies may contain specific principles that we have learned about teaching, but we need to be flexible and open to change.

ENG 394 Made in America - Week 1

First, I'd like to begin by saying that I extremely enjoy this book already. The format and way the information is presented in a storylike form is ideal to me.

The first 2 chapters briefly dove into how the "newcomers" feel in the American culture and what the assimilation process entails to them. One of the major issues addressed was clothing -- it is difficult enough being an American student myself trying to dress "properly" and "to fit in." I could not even imagine the shock and difficulty the immigrant students faced coming to the U.S. The only correlation I can make is from my experience abroad, studying in Spain. I felt as though I had to dress nicer because my American clothes were not fashionable or nice enough. In terms of identity, I was tired of being recognized as an outsider, as an American. Many Spain natives had unpleasant thoughts towards my country. I worked hard to develop my speaking skills and adopt the habits of the natives. It was a relief to be able to speak English, but I hated the assumptions that the espanoles made towards all American girls.

I think it would be interesting to put all Americans through a study abroad program so that they could see what their immigrant peers are going through. How would they feel about having to "take off the turban." Giving up your heritage to be accepted by others is not an easy process. As a matter of fact, it should not have to be done. I like how the author introduced the notion of "staying who you are but trying to become American at the same time." In all honesty, is that possible? It is our job as future educators to try to make each and every individual feel comfortable with who they are and where they come from as well learn about their second way of life, the American culture.

Our country -- the Salad Bowl.

I found both of the articles to be easy yet informative reads. Our country really is one big salad bowl, as the Diaz-Rico & Weed article describes. The article was filled with a lot of facts and numbers about the different populations here in America. I don't really know what to make of it, except to say, "I really had no idea we were that diverse." I knew that America has always been viewed as a melting pot, but really? Are we? Yeah, one could argue that we have meshed together, but after reading that history and Caucasians have dominated other cultures, especially minorities, I don't think much "melting" is going on there.

The most interesting portion of the Who Speaks English? article was the chart that displayed all of the different Englishes spoken around the world. It makes me, as an American, feel as though I have been living in my bubble for my whole life. I had NO idea there were that many varieties. I assumed there was American English, Australian English, and British English. No, not assumed, thought. I thought there were only those 3. So, with that assumption, does that mean that these 3 countries see themselves as better than other ENL countries that are not as well known? Does that make the English speaking population of the UK, Australian, and Britain better than ESL speakers that are perfectly competent? It makes you think..