Mindfulness in Teaching: a Fad?

Recently, I read a thought-provoking post by Donald Clark claiming that mindfulness in education is a fad.  I tend to agree with him, but not for the reasons he gives.

A fad is some activity that becomes really popular for a while, then fades from view.  Have you ever looked back at your participation in a fad and thought, "How could I ever have thought that was cool? What was I thinking?"  I know I have!

1964: Cool glasses, Kathy!

Fads happen in business, too.  Over the decades I spent in corporate-land, I saw them come and go. Somebody at a high level sat next to somebody in business class and the next thing you know, "we're all going to do things differently now". Long ago, for example, we all received training in something called PQMI, a way to manage processes so as to improve quality.   Once we were trained, we were expected to do things the new way, documenting this in paperwork.  What really happened was that those that bought in tried to make it work while many others who didn't buy in just jiggled the paperwork and did things the way they always did.  It happened again a few years later with ISO certification.

The ideas themselves are sound and have been used successfully around the world. What is faddish is when something that requires a fundamental change in thinking is reduced to a training program and then imposed onto people who are already busy and who may or may not buy into it. Training alone does not cause new ways of thinking. In the business examples I mentioned, a tight implementation schedule sent the message that the most important thing was getting the certification. Many of my coworkers rushed around trying to make paperwork look good so we would not "fail" various audits. Little support had been given to the development of a culture that views audit findings (especially from internal audits) as valuable -- even desirable -- pointers to areas for improvement.  In the Wikipedia entry for ISO (see "criticisms"), Roger Frost of ISO is quoted as saying, "If you just want the certificate on the wall, chances are you will create a paper system that doesn't have much to do with the way you actually run your business." (Top-down leadership isn't very good at culture change, really. Another kind of leadership may be more effective.)

The origin of mindfulness is Buddhism, an umbrella term for a wide variety of religious denominations around the world.  It is only one aspect of Buddhist practice, and is more important in some denominations than others. In the 1970s, Jon Kabat-Zinn determined that mindfulness might be useful in helping his patients deal with pain and stress.  He developed an eight-week program (Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction, or MBSR) to introduce it in secularized form to patients in pain.  A number of techniques, including a particular kind of meditation, are taught. While the program is quite structured, the people who attend are adults who are there by choice, often because a doctor has recommended it.

 Research has apparently shown MBSR to be effective (I have not reviewed the papers at the link). The program has become a standard offering at hospitals around the world.  A similar program (mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, MBCT) is also now used for helping with depression and other mental health issues.  Programs such as these use some of the techniques associated with developing mindfulness.  But they themselves are not mindfulness practice.  Some do offer their "graduates" continuing support from people with much experience and training in mindfulness practice and some graduates do go on to make mindfulness a part of their lives.

But now we see programs marketed to schools as tidy packages that can be  included as part of an educational curriculum for the purpose of delivering specific outcomes (example here).   Here's a quote from Mindful Teaching and Teaching Mindfulness by Deborah Schoeberlin (a book recommended at the example link):

Peer support is important -- for teachers and for students -- and teaching mindfulness is easier, and arguably more effective, in schools and school districts where everyone participates.  Getting everyone involved in a schoolwide program that incorporates research-based methodologies requires strong  administrative support -- but schools are also more likely to approve large-scale, demonstrated methodologies.  Once adopted, such programs have the greatest potential to impact the overall school culture as well as individual classroom climate.

Note the top-down perspective.  Adopt the program package first and culture change will follow.  In some cases where the environment is already amenable, maybe it will be just fine.  I suspect, though, that many other cases will go the way of the business examples above.  And "mindfulness" will be branded a passing fad ...

By the way, I think mindfulness practice DOES have a place in education.  If you happen to already have a personal practice, then it will be there in the classroom with you because it's a way of life.  I could see a school supporting a teacher's voluntary attendance in mindfulness training as a kind of professional development, and I could see the school supporting trained teachers by giving them time to meet with each other, allowing them to attend follow-up seminars, and listening to their ideas.  (See a book called The Mindful Teacher by Elizabeth MacDonald and Dennis Shirley for what looks like an example of complexity leadership related to mindfulness.  I haven't read it in a few years, need to read it again myself!)

But in the absence of such support, there is no need to teach mindfulness, just be it and support it in others as it may arise. Eight or nine years ago, I attended a talk by a Buddhist nun who said, "It's a poor lifeguard who can't swim."  That has stuck with me ever since. May I continue to practice my swimming skills for the benefit of the learners in my classes.

Note: edited to add a note that I accidentally deleted!

The 93% Myth

In my high-intermediate and low-advanced class, I try to encourage the use of one-language dictionaries.  (Note: I don't discourage translating dictionaries, it's more about helping learners to expand their tool chest.) I keep a selection from different publishers on the table during our lessons and we use them when questions come up.  The wide selection allows us to compare different takes on a word and gives us different example sentences to examine. It also lets learners decide for themselves which dictionary they like best in case they decide to buy one.  Learners regularly take one or another home to look over for a few days.

Can you tell that's a Greek dictionary on the left?

Those paper dictionaries are just marketing, actually! They're visible during a lesson and folks get used to using them.  But almost everyone has 24/7 access to the Internet, so the dictionaries they are likely to use outside of class are probably going to be electronic.  I recommend two free, corpus-based online learner's dictionaries: MacMillan (American English option) and Merriam-Webster.  We refer to these in class, too. (Only Merriam-Webster offers an app -- more on that in another post.) Both dictionaries have features that I like and, once again, it's good to compare two perspectives when discussing, say, a word's connotation.

I especially like the "red words" feature in the MacMillan dictionary.  Here's a video promoting this feature:

I hope learners find this helpful -- I know the red words help me decide what words to recycle, etc., as I'm planning future lessons!

But I have a peeve about the video.  It promotes the common fiction that 7500 words make up the vast majority of English.  "Research shows that most of the language we use in our everyday lives consists of just 7500 words." A graphic reinforces this by stating that this is "93% of all used words".  What's factual is that 7500 strings of letters, separated from other strings by spaces or punctuation, occur most frequently in the corpus that MacMillan uses to develop their dictionary, which is very likely mostly written and not spoken English.  While a single word may be represented by a string of letters, a string of letters standing alone does not represent a single word. It could stand for many words, parts of words, and idiomatic and pragmatic uses of words.  Let's examine the entry for one of these strings, look.

In MacMillan's entry, look merits eight definitions, most with several collocations which shade the meaning. This is followed by a listing of 21 idiomatic uses and then 18 phrasal verbs.  There is some overlap -- look for is included under a main definition and also listed as a phrasal verb. At the end of the entry, there is a note that all of the above is American English.  British English would have its own variations. Not included here is the role that this string of letters plays in compound words (overlook has four senses as a verb and the noun -- as in "scenic overlook" -- doesn't appear at all). Slang ("Well, lookie there!") and spoken English that every child knows ("Lookit!") are also left out.

Clearly, look is a tremendously important string of letters that's worthy of its three-star rating and I'm glad that Macmillan highlights it!  My peeve is with the misleading suggestion that learners only need to know 7500 words to understand 93% of English.  This has real consequences, in my opinion.

All of us want to find ways to make teaching/learning English measurable. We like to see progress, it's encouraging!  Publishers like to tout the "coverage" of high-frequency words in their materials.  Administrators want a concrete way to show stakeholders that they're making good use of funding and learner time. How about teachers?  If I skimmed the three-star word list, I'm pretty sure I would feel good if I saw a lot of words that we had spent time on over the last year. But here are several recent incidents that belie the illusion:

Last week, my low-intermediate group read an interesting text about over-scheduled families and the stress it can cause. It was written for beginning native-speaking adult readers, not English learners.  Looking over the text with  a "high-frequency word checklist" mentality,  I saw only four or five words that this group had probably not seen before.  But in reality, this text was quite a challenge! Learners asked about slow down, cut back on, get older, on the run, fall behind, and make sure.  In discussion, speed up and catch up also came up.  Learners know all of the individual words, so why was it so hard to read the text (she asked rhetorically)??  Frankly, I'm glad we looked at this text.  It will be quite easy to support and recycle these words going forward, because they're very common (which is why they were used for a beginning reading text).

In another case, one of the learners in my higher-level group has been attempting to read the Metro, one of those free newspapers you can pick up at the train station (see picture above, on the right). It's written to attract the attention of a general audience with a lot of everyday language, puns, and cultural references.  This learner is (quite rightly) frustrated that she knows all of the words but can't understand even a three-paragraph article.

And not too long ago, I asked everyone to choose some recent vocabulary to make flashcards for quizzing each other.  They were to find a good example sentence with collocation and use that (with a gap for the word or collocation) on the test side of the card.  I noticed that everyone made cards for the new words and skipped new senses of familiar words.  I asked a learner about one of these and she said, "Oh, I already know that word."

I hope to change that perspective, but it would really help if language professionals could leave the 93% Myth behind.  The bulk of English is NOT made up of 7500 words!

Values in the Classroom

Just read a thought-provoking post at k.liz's blog Just a Word. She asked:

"What is our role, as educators, in teaching/encouraging/fostering values and/or morals in our students?"

Little Egret

I started asking myself questions about my values while I was still working at my last (non-teaching) job. The reason was that my company had a set of "core principles" that employees were supposed to adhere to. When we submitted our annual performance reports, they were to be written in terms of these principles. For example: in what concrete ways did I demonstrate integrity with my customer and fellow workers? As is true in any company, I guess, lots of people don't take the annual reports very seriously. But I took it as an opportunity to ask myself, "What does it mean to have integrity and do I actually have it?"

Frankly, lots of us believe what we wish were true rather than what is actually true ... and I didn't have as much integrity as I imagined I did. I say this with kindness toward the me that I was. I wasn't, and am not, a bad person. I had worries and fears that I allowed to drive some of my choices and I needed to develop some courage. Let it be noted that this self-examination was an example of honesty ... a good value that I was exercising quite well!

One of four!

Anyway, I set off on an exploration of values in general. What ARE my values?  Are they ethical/moral values?  How do I know?  How do I live them (or do I live them)?  I'm not going to post any Grand Answers here!  I will say that one of the most interesting things to ponder isn't about what to do when there is a clash between right and wrong, but what to do when there is a clash between right and right (the so-called ethical dilemma).  You know, loyalty to a friend vs. honesty to the police and so forth.  Exploring these, I softened somewhat on demanding that One True Answer to every ethical question.  Two sources that were useful to me were:

- "Moral Courage" by R.M. Kidder. You can download the first chapter, which gives true examples of where moral courage was lacking. This is the book that introduced the right vs. right concept to me.

-The Josephson Institute web site. Their Six Pillars make a good starting point for thinking about "what are my ethical values?".  They also list 10 myths of ethics, which makes for interesting reading (you'll need to scroll down).

And that brings me back to the classroom.  I'm not teaching an ethics class and, goodness knows, I'm not qualified to teach one!  But moral/ethical values do have a place in my lessons. First, I should live them myself, to the extent that I can (nobody's perfect).  A byproduct of this is that it can be a model to others.  A more important byproduct is that it's conducive to language learning.  Looking at the Six Pillars: if we trust and respect each other, we can take risks, which is needed for learning.  If we demonstrate responsibility, then we're prepared for each lesson, we take our time together seriously, and we follow through on our commitments to each other (and I to the people who fund our classes).  Fairness and caring develop community -- a principle of unplugged teaching is that language learning is a social process. And, what could be more important than citizenship in a civics class?

Osprey

One other point that k.liz brought up was that of neutrality.  Many teachers believe (and I was one of them) that in cases where moral/ethical views may differ, the teacher should be neutral.  The reasoning is that, no matter how nice we may be, we come into class with a kind of authority.  If I express my opinion on a topic, some learners may refrain from disagreeing with me.  This can hamper their ability to speak out in class.  This is a good point, and may be especially true in EFL classes that take place in countries where respect for hierarchical authority pervades the culture.  But I'm not in that extreme situation.  For me, I think it's a matter of redefining "authority".  My authority derives strictly from my responsibilities related to conducting a successful class.  Learners in my classes have authority of their own (their cultural knowledge and language skills, their own job responsibilities, managing their homes, taking care of their kids, etc.).  I'm not the boss of their opinions and they're not the boss of mine!  If trust is established, we can *all* express ourselves.  However, other than setting expectations about what's needed for a good English class, I do prefer to background my moral/ethical opinions.  It's more so I can focus on guiding discussions even-handedly.  If someone asks, though, I will share my view.

My thanks to k.liz for getting me going, ha ha!  I just discovered her blog and am putting it on my feedly app for further reference.

Yellow-Crowned Night Heron

Picture credits: I'm too lazy to look for pics about ethics, so posting some fun critter shots from my recent vacation.  I had just gotten a new camera and within days had exposed it to sandy beaches and murky mangrove swamps, but it still produced some nice pictures! (Credit to hubby too for maneuvering the kayak on that last one!)

Slow Learning

After (admittedly only a little) exploration, it seems to me that unplugged teaching is a form of adaptive leadership. (See word cloud for other recent posts.) Exploring a bit more over the last day, I've discovered "complexity leadership" which poses a way to introduce and support adaptive leadership in an organization. The teachers (in the case of ELT) promote emergence while more traditional leaders do administrative stuff and another type of leadership supports the interface between these two (if I understand my skimming, that is). Very interesting! Here's the PDF by Uhl-Bien, Marion, McKelvey. Some quotes from the introductory material:

"Complexity science suggests a different paradigm for leadership—one that frames leadership as a complex interactive dynamic from which adaptive outcomes (e.g., learning, innovation, and adaptability) emerge."

"Adaptive challenges are not amenable to authoritative fiat or standard operating procedures, but rather require exploration, new discoveries, and adjustments."

"Leadership, however it is defined, only exists in, and is a function of, interaction."

Creatively re-used stuff (and me). Magic Gardens, Philadelphia

And, in a slightly-related discovery, here's an interesting article by Atul Gawande from the New Yorker. It proposes that some good ideas propagate into common use more slowly than others:

"[many important but stalled ideas] attack problems that are big but, to most people, invisible; and making them work can be tedious, if not outright painful. The global destruction wrought by a warming climate, the health damage from our over-sugared modern diet, the economic and social disaster of our trillion dollars in unpaid student debt—these things worsen imperceptibly every day."

In the case of language learning, a learner's situation doesn't worsen, but unplugged teaching may not be readily adopted or supported because a learner's improvement changes imperceptibly every day. Traditional teaching produces something that's easier to measure (it's not necessarily language learning, though!).

Gawande comes to a familiar conclusion:

"Every change requires effort, and the decision to make that effort is a social process."

He's involved in testing this idea via a project in north India where mentors work with nurses on a personal basis to encourage the taking of a simple step to improve newborn survival rates. This isn't a complexity issue. The problem and its solution are clear. But it's interesting that it still seems to need a social solution because its effects are invisible to the people who need to practice it.

Adaptive Leadership

I've been thinking a lot about "adaptive leadership" lately.  It's an idea from Harvard professor Ronald Heifetz. ( my earlier post)

To review: many people habitually take the obvious approach to leadership:

from lumaxart

But sometimes another approach may be more appropriate:

from lumaxart

In the article that inspired my earlier post, it was proposed that the first perspective is most useful for technical problems where an expert can lead others to a relatively static "right answer".   The other perspective is more helpful in complex situations such as dealing with poverty or climate change where "the people are the problem and the people are the solution".  Researchers such as Larsen-Freeman argue that language develops and is learned in a dynamic and personalized way (a complex adaptive system).  This suggests that the second form of leadership may be more useful in a language classroom.  It follows (to me, anyway) that the problems of teachers who are working with language learners of different ages, backgrounds, abilities, and needs are also complex.  Agencies such as mine could benefit from more of this second type of leadership when supporting their teachers.

In a recent meeting with my ESL team, I mentioned this idea (in far fewer words, ha ha!). Someone commented, "Yes, but that's too idealistic for the real world."  I've been chewing on that thought for some time now! Seems to me that the other teacher was not saying we shouldn't have ideals, but that we're locked in to a "real world" where our leaders rely overwhelmingly on the classic leadership approach and press us to do the same with our lesson plans, testing, and so forth.

That's a valid (and somewhat depressing) point!  But I have to say: if the people are the problem and the people are the solution ... that's us.  We don't need to look for a "right answer"  from our management (that's viewing the problem through the classic leadership lens).  We ourselves can use this method as appropriate in our classrooms and when working with each other and we can press back on our managers to the extent that it's practically possible.  If that's not very much, well OK, then some of us will move on when the opportunity arises.

When I look back over the hundreds of learners who have come through my classes, I realize that the very best of them had this attitude.  They supported the teacher and their classmates because facilitating our lessons was how they were going to get their own needs met.  I remember one learner who was always alert to the needs of the lower level learners in the class and who kept me sensitized to them (and helped them herself).  That, of course, kept them from falling too far behind which was to her benefit.  Another learner went to a community meeting regarding the Haitian community and then translated the English handouts into Haitian Creole for his classmates.  That translation experience was a meaningful writing exercise for him.  Another learner occasionally pushes back on me in class, challenging me to give examples when I make an unsubstantiated claim.  I thanked him after class once for keeping me on my toes and he asked me to let him know if he ever goes too far.

This second kind of leadership can be enacted by anyone.  It's only "too idealistic" if we're thinking in terms of the first kind of leadership (that there is one right answer)!

PS: It has just occurred to me to look for more from Heifetz.  Here's a PDF that looks interesting, I've only skimmed it so far!

The Teacher-Leader

When a patient comes to a surgeon, the surgeon's default setting is to say, 'You've got a problem? I'll take the problem off your shoulders and I'll deliver back to you a solution.' In psychiatry, when a person comes to you with a problem, it's not your job actually to solve their problem. It's your job to develop their capacity to solve their own problem.

These are the words of Ronald Heifetz, a professor of public leadership at Harvard's Kennedy School, as found in this article  by Shankar Vedantam from this morning's broadcast of Morning Edition on NPR.

If language teachers are leaders, which kind of leadership should they offer?

My thinking is both, but mostly the second type.  That is, the "problem" of learning a language is complex and highly personal.  There are sub-problems, such as needing to learn how to pronounce a specific sound or having to pass a particular exam, that may benefit from targeted application of the first kind of leadership.  But the actual job of learning a language is up to the learner. 

Maybe many of the problems facing our public school system today are also in need of the second kind of leadership?

The Master doesn't talk, he acts.

When his work is done,

the people say, "Amazing:

we did it, all by ourselves!"

Tao Te Ching, Chapter 17, as translated by Stephen Mitchell

Frédéric Glorieux

A Textbook for Autonomous Learners

I know, I know, the "t" word is something of a no-no for fans of the unplugged approach!  But I don't think that education-oriented books should be banned completely from the lives of English learners.  (Deep breath ... hear me out!) I read textbooks for information and inspiration as I work on improving my teaching skills.  Why shouldn't English learners use them to support their efforts as well?

Four pages of this.

Of course, I'm using a broad definition of the word textbook.  I'm NOT referring to those books with a "scope and sequence" at the beginning!  In my opinion, those are written for teachers and administrators.  Just skim the 10-20 pages at the beginning of one such book -- if they were addressed to a language learner, they would be in L1, no?  They basically promise that if you follow the steps in the teacher's guide and the student follows the steps in the student book, the student will produce something that correlates to the requirements of funding providers. (I accept that that something will include some learned English.  My point is that the book is written to serve teachers, not learners.)

What I'm thinking of is the kind of book that has readable chapters with questions and other activities for discovery and reflection, suggestions for trying out new ideas, and a good list of references. These are the books that I (a dedicated self-motivated learner) use myself.  They can be used alone for reading and reference, they can be used as a textbook in a formal class, and they're very effective in an informal book circle arrangement.

Such a book does not pretend to be teaching English.  It can be in the learner's L1 (although, if it's addressing advanced learners it might be in English).  What it offers is support for a transition from student to learner. Some ideas:

How to be a learner.  For those who are not already skilled at self-directed learning (any kind, not just language learning).  Especially for those who have many years of training as "students" and who believe that a tutor or teacher must tell them how to reach their goal. It might address identifying personal goals; noticing, evaluating and taking advantage of resources; finding and asking for help; reflection and self-assessment; learning from undesired or unexpected experiences; setting up a network of supporters; making time for practice, etc.

Two pages of this.

How to be a language learner. The learner applies the skills above directly to language learning.  What are the habits of a successful English learner and how can they be acquired?  Is a language class necessary?  If so, what kind of class?  What do you intend to get out of it?  How can you check that you are getting what you need?  How can you help the teacher, other learners, and even administrators to help you reach your goal?   If language class is not needed (or not available), what resources do you have available and how can you take advantage of them?  What is the best dictionary?  How do you use a corpus?  How can you analyze a text for readability?  What is the pedagogical relevance of certain activities and drills?  And so forth.

How to be a [particular L2] learner. This should explicitly address issues that are unique to various kinds of learners (for English: EFL, EAP, ESP, ELF, ESL, etc.).  In the US, for example, folks who are here on an F-1 visa should know that they can't attend free government-funded classes (it's illegal).  They would do better to find (or contribute to setting up) a conversation "meetup" in a coffee shop.  Wouldn't it be nice if they had tips for going about doing this and the confidence to try?   Hmmm, learners might be better served if this were a subscription e-periodical so they would get access to regular articles and advice on different topics and learners could discuss with each other, share tips, etc.

I've been mulling over ways to untrain students into learners for a long time.  The motivation to put it in writing came a week or so when I stumbled on a book that is effectively a prototype for How to Be a Language Learner.  It's a Peace Corps document called On-Going Language Learning Manual (free PDF!).  It's written for people who are in a foreign environment and want to learn the language, even though they don't have access to a teacher or class.  In other words, it's a set of instructions for autonomous learning!

Four pages of this.

One gem:

Try to learn grammar every day from listening to people talk. You will come to recognize patterns of sounds and the meanings they carry. You can begin to figure out the rules from the many examples you hear in everyday speech. In fact, eventually you will become aware that you are internalizing many of the rules without giving conscious thought to them.

Another priceless aspect is the idea of having a "language helper".  A volunteer might find a native speaker who is willing to answer questions, model authentic speech, etc.  The learner is clearly directing and controlling what he or she wants from the helper.  For example, here is one tip:

Ask your language helper to accompany you on your learning adventures to observe or “coach” you, but only when you need and want help.

This book could be edited slightly, translated to other languages and offered to every learner who finds themselves in a place where a new language is spoken and who wants to join in.  And its ideas can be used for untraining now.  I will be borrowing from it for my lessons as soon as possible.

Just to set the record straight: I think teachers and English classes play a valid role in the learning process.  In fact, classes would be more effective if learners and teachers know from the outset what they want and need from each other and everyone in the room is working together to make it happen.  Even books like the one pictured here could play a role (thought neither the teacher nor the learners would be snaking through it mindlessly, hoping to push other-defined "success"  out at the end)!

Word Frequency Lists

It has been really helpful to participate in an online book group while reading Ken Folse's book Vocabulary Myths.  I have started to get to know a few other teachers (always a plus), gotten ideas from them and the moderator, and the discussion questions motivated me to read each chapter again (sometimes several times).

I can tell that I'm in the process of learning, because every time I sit down to blog about my experience, I end up writing a long and unfinished piece!  I'm trying to relate what I've read to my current understanding and experience and there are whole subtopics out there that I really don't understand yet (how to use corpora, for example)!

Speaking of corpora, I've notices that many vocabulary resources make a statement something like this:

The 4,000 most common English words account for 80% of words in a typical text.  

This is usually followed by a recommendation that these 4,000 words be the foundation upon which learners build their vocabulary knowledge.  I don't disagree with this.  Since we can't begin to teach every word a learner needs to know, using a frequent words list can help us make choices. But statements like the above bother me.

In the chapter on using translations while learning vocabulary, Folse make the point that each meaning of a word could be thought of as a different word.  He notes that "take medicine" is not the same as "take a shower" and proposes that these expressions be taught as separate "words" (Ch. 4, p. 65):

When using translations for learning new vocabulary, learners and teachers need to remember that a word is not always a single word but rather a chunk of several words and that is what needs to be translated. (the author's italics)

As far as I can tell, the researchers who calculate word coverage don't distinguish between different semantic uses of each word. If "off" only rates a single entry on this list, then its use as a preposition may be "covered" but not all of the shades of meaning that it brings to phrasal verbs.  Modals, too, affect meaning depending on the words they travel with. And, of course, most "regular" words have more than one meaning.  Consider "brush": an implement with bristles, vegetation, an action.  Indeed, some of the most common words (make, get, and put are among the top 100) can generate a half-page or more of elaboration in a good dictionary.

thanks to Jaboney*

If most strings of characters that are counted as words have several to many meanings, then teaching one meaning for each of the 4,000 most common strings will not bring a learner anywhere near 80% "coverage".   (It occurs to me that native speakers who are learning to read probably already know the meanings of many words. Their challenge would be much smaller than that of English language learners.)

I'd like to reiterate that I think lists of common words are useful tools for both teachers and learners.  I guess what I'm concerned about is that "facts" such as the above can be very attractive to administrators looking for ways to measure success.  But when it comes to English language learners, I don't think "coverage" is so easily defined!

* image changed to one that's more clearly "free"

The Teacher-Learner

Last time, I noted that I would like to see the line between teacher and learner be eliminated completely. Is that just idealistic musing?

For one thing, I'm being paid to be in the room and that brings certain responsibilities: ensuring a safe and respectful place to meet, facilitating access to civics knowledge and language-improvement, and taking action to foster desired attendance and gains outcomes. But I would argue that the learners take on these same responsibilities when they sign on to the class. If a learner has poor attendance, does not take steps toward improvement, does not support and respect others, is a distraction, or threatens our safety then I may ask that person to leave. And if there were no line between us, the learner would also has the power to ask for my dismissal, if necessary. My agency does have a grievance policy in place. Is it clear? Would a learner feel comfortable using it? (These are rhetorical questions, not comments on our particular policy.)

Where else do I draw a line between myself and the learners that may not be necessary? I commented in a recent post that when I promote life skills such as goal-setting or technology-readiness, I should buy into those myself. That doesn't mean that I have to be an expert, by any means! But I do think I should be as willing to learn as I expect my learners to be.

Kids studying in Bolivia

Let's take technology-readiness. Like it or not, it's now a critical component of literacy education. If I tell a learner "this is very important" but don't show interest in improving my own skills, I'm drawing a line. With the aid of materials prepared by someone else, I might be an OK "guide on the side", and I might even learn some! But I'd rather sit side-by-side as equally-interested explorers. I would bring strengths to this deal, because I can model other skills such as goal-setting, collaboration, critical thinking, resiliency, etc. And let's not forget English skills! At the same time, it's very possible that a learner will bring knowledge that I want to know more about. (Santa may bring me a smart phone this year -- some of my learners who don't have computers are quite experienced with their smart phones!)


There's another place where I have drawn a line in the past. I have typically thought of my own development in terms of reflection, reading, discussion with peers and taking workshops or courses. I mean, sure, the experience of teaching constantly informs my learning, and I do try new things in my lessons. But when I'm in the classroom, I'm thinking mostly of the learners learning. Our lesson plan format (which is pretty typical) is in alignment with this thinking. It has a small space at the bottom for reflection, but that's to be done after the lesson and is open-ended.

These days, we're being asked to do "job-embedded professional development". In short, it shifts to a local PD effort directed by learning groups and individual teachers and driven by data collected in the classrooms.* When I first learned about it, all I could think of was budget cuts -- no money for PD classes and workshops! But with more reflection, I see this as an opportunity to erase that line between learner and teacher.

I believe that change comes slowly over most organizations. A full-blown JEPD program includes collaboration between teachers and other support outside the classroom. In my organization there are steps being taken toward this goal, but there are also many impediments, not the least of which are part-time teachers working far apart from each other with little extra time for meetings. But in the meantime, there are things that an individual teacher can do in the classroom. Action research** is a process which can be used to examine both student performance and my own (there goes the line!). What if I were completely transparent about this effort as I taught? Would learners be more willing to give me honest feedback about whether their needs are being met, as well as what they liked or didn't like about our activities? That's more data for the benefit of all. How would I change my lesson plan format to incorporate this thinking? This is not a rhetorical (display) question, I really am asking myself. If you have comments or suggestions, please share!




* Research on Professional Development and Teacher Change: Implications for Adult Basic Education (PDF) by Smith and Gillespie contrasts traditional PD and JEPD.

**A very helpful book on action research is Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms by Jack C. Richards (now available online!). I also learned some nitty-gritty about gathering data, analyzing it and making changes in a course called Breaking Rules at iTDi.pro. I hear it will be offered again, so keep an eye open for it!

Should we be student-centered?

In an earlier time (my youth!), the traditional approach to teaching was teacher-centered.  Students gathered before the person in the front of the room and received information.  When I studied language (Spanish, German) in classes, we listened to lectures, read and memorized dialogues, did exercises and listened to tapes.

In more recent times, this view of teaching has been shaken up.  The buzzword you hear in professional development and read in the copy accompanying teaching products is student-centered. The way it was presented to me in my certificate training was "sage on the stage" vs. "guide on the side".  The focus turns from the teacher teaching to the students learning. The teacher facilitates as the students plan, explore, collaborate, and share what they have learned.

I am all for the empowering of students!  I thoroughly agree with helping them to become self-directed, curious and creative learners.  But I'm not so thrilled with the label, for several reasons.

First, the word is an umbrella term. It not only refers to a group of related pedagogical principles (see one overview in the link below), but it's also used to refer to any activity where attention is on the student's life, interests or needs.  I see many lesson plans (online and my own) that include "student-centered" activities such as having them work in small groups or pairs, surveying them to find out their needs, asking them to personalize their answers, etc.  To my mind, those are still largely teacher-centered.  Sure, I'm paying attention to the learners and collecting information about their needs ... but I made the plan, I  decide when they move into groups, I decide what information to collect, I take the survey home and decide how to use the information in a future lesson plan.  Don't I still hold most of the real power?

Second, in my explorations on the topic I read again and again that student-centered learning is achieved by shifting power from the teacher to the student:

from 

Student–Centred Learning: What Does it Mean for Students and Lecturers

by Geraldine O’Neill and Tim McMahon 

I think another model may be more useful.  For the student to be empowered, must the teacher's power be diminished?  Isn't the shift really from authoritarian power (respect is defined by compliance) to individual power (respect is defined by acknowledging the unique gifts offered by each person as well as their needs and ambitions)?  To my mind, the student-centered label retains a hierarchical mindset.  It continues to put someone on a pedestal (just a different person).  It does not acknowledge the individual power of the teacher, nor of the others at a school who support both teacher and student.

Third, I'm not so sure that the focus should be on people at all.  We've recognized that a spotlight on a person who is a font of knowledge is not effective.  Should the spotlight be turned to the seekers of knowledge?  Or should it be turned to the knowledge itself?  Imagine that the teacher and learners are each using their own spotlight to explore a topic.  When we work together, more light is shed on a subject.  When learners step out of the school, they take their spotlight with them and use it alone or with others as they choose.  That's autonomy.

The first time I encountered the proposal that we all, students and teacher, put the subject in the center of the circle was in Parker J. Palmer's excellent The Courage to Teach (Ch. 4, see diagram on p. 105).  He says:

To be in the truth, we must know how to observe and reflect and speak and listen, with passion and with discipline, in the circle gathered around a given subject.  (p. 107)

He also shares this quote from Robert Frost:

We dance round in a ring and suppose,
But the Secret sits in the middle and knows.

The paradigm-shift that gave birth to the phrase "student-centered learning" is revolutionary.  But I wonder if it isn't time to step even further along that path.  I'd like to see the line between student, teacher, and the others at a learning institution eliminated completely and replaced with equal respect for our experience, skills, responsibilities, needs and aims.  We are all there to support the same thing: learning.  Who is the learner?  Who is the teacher? 

Joining the Ear Force

In my last post, I went on about everyday spoken English and how it's not usually given a big role in ESL classes.  I do see some attention given to it in some textbooks.  For example, the Side by Side books will end a unit by including a pronunciation point.  In books 1 and 2, it's generally tacked on at the end, not integrated into the lesson. And it's presented as speaking practice: Listen and repeat.  Say and listen.

My feeling is that the there would be better value in shifting the focus to listening.  A second language speaker who says "twenty" instead of "twenny" will surely make herself understood.  But she could be confused when she receives "twenny" as input.  And, while judicious use of informal pronunciation can help a learner to sound likable, misuse can have the effect of making the learner sound uneducated.  "Gotta" and "gonna" may not go over well in a job interview, even if the interviewer happens to be speaking that way!  But it's important to understand an interviewer in this situation, nevertheless.

My learners are fascinated to hear the same text read with varying degrees of formality.  So, why not have students listen to two versions and contrast what they hear, discovering pronunciation differences on their own?  They might even try to generalize a bit.  If "want to" is pronounced "wanna", then "twenty" might be pronounced "twenny" for the same reason?  We would be analyzing authentic speech instead of  trying to reproduce it.  This might more effectively build the skills that ESL learners need to fearlessly grapple with the language of the man on the street.  And the same skills would be helpful to a traveling student who encounters regional differences.  (Those differences don't have to be copied, just comprehended.) Let students join the Ear Force and move up in the ranks!

A member of the Ear Force heading to class.

In related news, I discovered a great little web site which highlights some of the "secrets" of spoken American English with videos and text of short, simple snippets of speech. It's called True Spoken English.  My intermediate students were thrilled when I shared the URL earlier this week! I'm sure we can use it to complement an input-focused approach.

A final note: this whole idea of giving more attention to everyday spoken input is most relevant to learners who are trying to cope with native English speakers on the street (ESL).  But it can apply to EFL learners who want to visit an English-speaking country, watch movies or other videos, sing along with pop songs, etc. Does it have relevance for ELF (English as a Lingua Franca) learners?

Two Languages in One

I'm not a linguist, so I'd like to note that my comments on language and how it works are just personal reflections. If you are an expert on language, I would love to know what you think. I'd also be grateful to be pointed in the direction of any relevant research!

In an old post, I shared that many of my adult learners have noticed a distinction between the English they hear in class and the English they encounter "out there". Intermediate learners understand me and (for the most part) their classmates but some of them are frustrated when they take their English on the road. They can handle everyday tasks such as buying tokens or grocery shopping but when they try to go beyond ritual transactions, things go south quickly.

Part of the problem is their output, of course. Well-chosen words and good grammar are fine but missing discourse markers, intonation and stress can all lead to a disconnect.

And then there's the input. My frustrated students are not mistaken. What they're taking in is not the same language they experience in the classroom. I think that, as products of an academic system ourselves, ESL/EFL providers have a habit of thinking of input in terms of reading. In the program at my organization, our only formal assessment is a reading test. Our materials and activities, too, are heavily oriented toward text. Reading is an academic pursuit. We native speakers don't begin school until we're already using everyday English pretty fluently. A teacher's spoken language, too, could be considered closer to reading aloud than to everyday speech. We naturally register-shift to the language of the classroom (academic), although ESL/EFL teachers do use a form that we think will be taken in more easily (teacher talk).

I'm not criticizing the teaching of academic English in ESL/EFL classes! What I'm exploring is the fact that our programs typically neglect an important aspect of input learning: the ability to understand everyday spoken English as used by the community in which the learner is most likely to interact. As noted above, native speakers walk in to academic training with this skill already in place. I don't believe we even think of it as something learned. It's just there. And that leads me to the "two languages" in the title of this post.

Tonbridge Castle Gatehouse, built around 1088, Kent *

I had phrasal verbs on the mind after my last post and then I read a post from John McIntyre at the Baltimore Sun where he reminded his fans (I'm one) that we have the Normans to thank for the way we use English today. He said:

Anglo-Saxon was demoted mainly to the tongue of an illiterate peasantry, and for decades following the Important People of England spoke Norman French (the aristocracy) or Latin (the church).

Do you see a connection? This dichotomy lingers today. We spend the first five or six years of our life learning everyday English, including the very Germanic phrasal verb. When we start school, we're already using discourse markers, intonation, thought groups and suprasegmental stress like pros. As we begin our academic life, we set about learning a second language -- the language of the literate. By its very definition, it's the language of reading, writing and prepared speech.

When we take a fully academic approach to second language teaching, we do it the other way around. We dive right into the reading, writing and formal speaking. Those students who make it to higher levels may be invited to take a conversation class or to study the subtle meaning shifts of phrasal verbs and modals as an academic subject!

So, what's to be done about this?  I think it depends on the purpose of the teaching program and the learning goals of the participants.  Students who want to go to an English language university, for example, will focus on academic language as a priority and will choose a program that aids them in this quest.  What about our EL-Civics program?  We, too, want to help learners get into English language educational programs or find satisfying employment.  Both of these goals are served by the teaching of academic English.

At the same time, many of our learners want simpler successes.  Older learners want to relate to their English-speaking grandchildren.  Lonely refugees want to get to know their neighbors and make friends.  A traveler wants to ask for directions and be able to understand the response.  A spouse wants to follow the joking and storytelling at his wife's office party.  Just about anyone wants to understand a message left on their voice mail.  Should the listening skills that are needed to understand non-academic English be ignored or taught as an afterthought?

Photo © Copyright Pete Chapman and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence

ESL Improv?

It's a story I may tell another time, but hubby and I had tickets to see Colin Mochrie and Brad Sherwood at Princeton this past weekend and we missed it.  We were both disappointed.  But I got to thinking about improvisational comedy (they're both alumni of "Whose Line is it Anyway?") and it occurred to me that at the core of improv lies "good listening".  Just the skill that would benefit our English learners!

A quick browse through the Internet confirmed that this isn't an original idea (dang!).  Tina Fey and Stephen Colbert (both favorites) have applied the rules of improv to everyday life. 

The first rule is "Say yes." That doesn't mean "agree with everyone"; it means accept what's happening in this moment and work with it.  In my browsing, I learned that when the other improv performer (interlocutor?) makes a statement it's called an offer.  You're expected to take the offer up and build on it by adding more details to the story. ("Yes, and ...:")

I can imagine watching some brief examples of improv in class, identifying the offer and noticing how the others built on it.  I can also imagine students trying this themselves.  To account for shyness, maybe students could write anonymous "offers", put them in a hat and draw out something to write a response to.  At least, until or unless the class seems ready for something more interactive!

Another rule is to let go of personal agendas about how the story is supposed to go, but really listen to and respond to what the other person is saying.  Oh my gosh, is that not the essence of "deep listening"?  What a great way to practice it!

Here's a quote from Stephen Colbert's commencement address at Northwestern University:

“Now there are very few rules to improv, but one of the things I was taught early on is that you are not the most important person in the scene -- everybody else is,” he said. “And if everybody else is more important than you are, you will naturally pay attention to them and serve them.

“But the good news is, you’re in the scene, too. So hopefully to them, you’re the most important person, and they will serve you. No one is leading, you’re all following the follower, serving the servant. You cannot win in improv. And life is an improvisation.”

Awesome!

Here's some improv to watch ... do they follow the "rules"?

(Edit: it seems that links to YouTube get removed periodically. I suppose I should just recommend that you look for some improv on YouTube yourself and check to see if they follow the "rules" ...)

Finally, Tina Fey's tips on applying to rules of improv to business life could also be worth discussing in class!

Jokes

John McIntyre of the Baltimore Sun has produced a number of short videos telling silly jokes.  They're on the order of one minute in length ... could be an amusing interlude for an intermediate or advanced lesson!

I can't figure out how to embed an example, but here is a link to a "best of" list.  Although the jokes are short, they're full of great language to explore!

Direct Education

I always get so much to think about when I read Scott Thornbury's blog, An A-Z of ELT.  This week, the topic is "personalization" -- drawing on student experience for the content of our lessons.  Scott raised some questions about the risks that come with this endeavor.  There's the risk that things might get too personal, for one thing.  There's a question about whether students want so much attention on their personal lives.  There's also the question about whether there's a sound theoretical basis for this approach.  See his post for more on those questions!

I jumped into the comments and made a bunch of references to Facilitating Group Learning: Strategies for Success with Diverse Adult Learners by George Lakey.  (I've linked to the Amazon entry so you can browse through part of the book if you want.)  I think there are many parallels between this book and the Dogme approach. Lakey contends that real learning happens when both the teacher and the students drop pretense and "get real".  To be yourself is to personalize.

Lakey describes his approach this way:

"I call this kind of education direct because it brings focus to the encounter of teacher and group; it replaces scatter—of teacher preoccupied with curriculum and participants preoccupied with distractions—with gathered attention. Direct education takes the most direct path to the learner in the here and now."

from kalyan02

It could be a description of Teaching Unplugged! The name of direct education is also derived from "direct action", or organized activities for social change.  Lakey facilitates workshops in this area and has published a book on the topic.

And that brings me to the new book 52 by Lindsay Clandfield and Luke Meddings (co-author of Teaching Unplugged).  It's a book of materials-light activities, one for each week in a year, that are described as "disrupting", "subversive", and "empowering".  I just bought it yesterday and I LOVE it!  It's one of those books that makes you slow down when you're reading because you don't want to finish too quickly. I found activities that echo or build on much that we've been doing in the classroom lately.  I'll be doing activity 16 (Respect) in the coming week, as it ties right in with recent discussions about what makes a successful English class.  There's a free excerpt to download at the link.

To finish, I'd like to repeat something from a very early post on this blog:

"It's not a stretch to see our ELCivics-based classes as a sort of training for social action.  Not that I want students to take any particular action.  But an important purpose of the class, as I see it, is to give learners the communication tools and cultural information they need to take action of their choice.  Participation at all levels of community is social action!"

Putting it Into Production

Hubby and I had an enjoyable dinner of tapas at a restaurant in nearby Conshohocken tonight.  That's "Conshy" to the locals ... or "Pleasant Valley", as translated from the language of the Lenape (the original locals).

Our dinner conversation ranged all over the place, which is probably appropriate, since our food varied quite a bit as well!  At one point, we were recalling our days in engineering. Both of us have changed careers after more than 20 years -- he has switched to accounting and I to teaching ESL.  A little bit of good-natured banter always arises because we both worked at AT&T but he worked in production at the IC manufacturing plant ("the fab" or "the works") and I worked across town in R&D.  The back-and-forth tends to generalize along the lines of the Ivory-Tower-Head-in-the-Clouds types in research vs. the Practical-Rubber-Meets-the-Road people in engineering. (Actually, I wasn't in research -- I was in development, which is halfway between the Tower and the Road ... but the folks at the plant tended to lump all of R&D together.)

Why do I bring this up on an ELT blog?  It occurred to me that teaching and engineering have something in common.  Teachers and engineers both take the work of researchers and put it to practical use.  Teachers and engineers must often find compromises ... they must deal with the needs and deadlines of customers/students today, whether recent research is there to back them up or not.  Sometimes they're inspired by work in  progress; sometimes they inspire it. Teachers and engineers have practical insights that may be overlooked too often by researchers (and administrators).  I've always thought that my career switch was really quite radical, but perhaps not!

For decoration, here's an old picture from a bike ride near historic Gettysburg, PA.  I manipulated the original photo to better reflect my impression at the time ...

Do You Hear Me?

In a very informative discussion that followed a recent post on Jemma Gardner's blog, she used the following phrase to describe one aspect of Dogme:

“listening to what the students are saying and doing something with it, rather than batting it off to continue with what I want to do”. 

Edison Museum, Fort Meyers, Florida

I think this highlights just what attracted me to the unplugged style of teaching in the first place.  I acknowledge that capable teachers the world over skillfully listen to their students, using whatever methodologies suit them best.  It's not exclusive to Dogme.  But not every teacher walks into each lesson with the intention of using what they hear to determine how the lesson will go.  Teachers who follow a Dogme approach, however, do and that's important to me.  Here's why.

It's a natural tendency to think of speaking as the primary aspect of communication.  The American Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. We all want to have our say, to speak out.  Even the seminal article by Claude E. Shannon that diagrammed the famous sender -> medium -> receiver model of communication in 1948 shows the arrows of communication going in one direction, from source/sender to destination/receiver. But is it communication if you don't know whether your message was received?  Later models of communication show a loop, recognizing that the process is incomplete without feedback: a return message that says "I hear you."

I see my primary role in teaching not as someone who provides information about the structure and content of the English language but as someone who helps people who want to communicate using English.  People come to my class because they want to be heard. I want to give them feedback -- to say, "I hear you." Yes, they need to know the mechanics as well. However, the branch of linguistics that views language as a complex adaptive system suggests that much (if not most) of that part of the process will emerge if students are given the opportunity to communicate often enough.  Sure, there are impediments for people who are acquiring a second language and intervention from teachers (i.e., explicit help with grammar) has been shown to facilitate the subconscious process. That's a second kind of feedback that we can give to students in the context of helping them to communicate as often as possible.

Feedback is not necessarily words. If a student has something to say and I sit down, go quiet and look directly at him or her, there is no question that they have my attention.  If I take action in response to what was said, no words are necessary.

But in addition to giving attention and taking action, truly effective listening includes another component: letting go of my own agenda.  Naturally, I can't do that to the point where there is no English lesson!  But what I mean is, when I'm listening "deeply", it's not about me.  As a teacher, I have a tendency to look for ways to correct or assist, so I'm likely to run what I hear through the "I want to help" filter.  It's not always necessary. Students will tell me when they need help and what they need. It may not be in English; it may not even be in words.  If I'm already busy thinking of solutions, I may miss the real message. My lesson plan can be thought of an extension of the "I want to help" filter.  It's literally my agenda!

Anyway, experts have described this better than I can. This concept, or something similar, crops up in assertiveness training, leadership training, and mediation training, among other places -- all areas where good communication is essential. I've taken an 8-week mindfulness-based stress reduction program twice and this type of listening skill is developed as an integral part of the program.  (Note: the program is not just for people in mental or physical pain. It's also used in leadership training, at police academies, in prisons, etc.)  I surfed around and found a pdf file at this link which outlines the basics of mindful listening nicely.  It's addressed to project managers, but you can easily transfer the ideas to a teaching environment.  There's also a nice list of references at the end.  I've recently read two books more specifically on the topic of mindfulness and teaching and would like to comment on them (as well as a third) sometime soon.  If you're interested, stay tuned!

The point I wanted to make was that Jem's comment really hit the nail on the head.  Many people say Dogme is just good teaching. Maybe it's more accurate to say that Dogme includes good teaching skills such as staying present and listening carefully.  But it's more than that.  The intention to listen and make adjustments is built into the plan before a teacher ever walks into the room. I like this, because I believe that sharing the shaping of the plan with the people in the room is part of what makes an authentic communication process. When a student knows that his or her thoughts and ideas matter, and that they've been heard (in English), the affective filter is lowered and he or she becomes more receptive to what others in the room are saying. The feedback loop is strengthened and communication (in English) is further facilitated.  When it's time to pause and analyze, that's more likely to be heard and absorbed as well.

I'm not a consistently skillful listener, but I can vouch for the results when I'm able to pull it off.  And I can't say -- really, words fail to capture -- how good it feels to be on the receiving end of deep listening.  It happens all too rarely in this busy "information age"!

Reading News for Fun

I enjoy reading The Economist's blog on language, Johnson.  Today's post asks English teachers to offer suggestions on how they can support language learners.  Be sure to share your thoughts!   There are a number of good ideas in the comments so far, too.

I posted something that's been on my wish-list for a while, though I didn't have the nerve to suggest it to an actual news publication until this invitation came along.  I would love to see a newspaper or magazine include a regular feature that supports a new reader's efforts to take up recreational reading.  Give it a title or logo that makes it easy to find and sprinkle such articles around the publication in a way that encourages poking around.

From NS Newsflash

Of course, there are newspapers for new readers (such as News for You  from New Readers Press) that have leveled articles with audio, exercises and vocabulary support.  I have a folder of News for You back issues and make them available to my readers for recreational reading. The many additional features are wonderful as a support for explicit learning.  However, I wonder if they detract from the quality of the input in terms of implicit learning.  A whole newspaper that's just for learners, with highlighted vocabulary, etc. seems to scream out: "this is a learning experience, not reading for meaning!"  Boldfaced vocabulary may or may not highlight the words a reader doesn't know, but it suggests that someone somewhere thinks these words should be known. And I know from my own experience listening to Langsam gesprochene Nachrichten that, when listening to audio as an L2 learner, there's a temptation to focus on how the words are said rather than what they mean (I catch myself parroting phrases rather than paying attention to what follows!)

I think it would be nice if well-known news and information providers offered some of their content in an easily-recognized and relatively digestible form, but without making much of a fuss about it.  Give the feature a name so it can easily be found, but not something that implies that the information is watered-down for learners. No boldfaced vocabulary, no audio support (unless it's offered for all articles anyway, or it provides supplemental details) and no links to comprehension questions or grammar exercises.  Limit, but don't eliminate, complex sentence structures.  Include selected idioms, but don't get too clever.  Embed clues for inferring the meaning of challenging words.  Let the new reader get used to going to the news site and browsing for articles that are interesting or informative, then reading.  In short, make it as close to the actual experience of reading the news as possible.

This would benefit the reader, obviously, who would eventually find him or herself skimming other articles with more and more comprehension.  It would benefit the publisher, too, as readers get into the habit of coming to their site.  These articles would also be a valuable resource to native-speaking literacy learners.