Toohey
says that for some 'alternative views are literally unthinkable' and how what
is to be taught remains unchallenged simply because they reflect what has been
'so commonly held... accepted without question' and this made me think about
the prescriptive curriculum most language schools follow in a rather 'traditional
approach' as defined by Toohey. In my current context, the curriculum
is tightly linked to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), what the
publishing market offers in terms of course books and local demand so it
suddenly becomes apparent that these seem to be axiomatic. It is true that we
have the freedom to design courses on demand, but these are or should be more
often than not perfectly in line with the CEFR, what imposed by the larger
national and international organisations we belong to and what's available in
the market as totally new courses e.g. English for Speleology (the study of
caves) are more the exception than the norm so confined to what is 'accepted
without question' in Toohey's words (1999:44).
This
prescriptiveness in my own context seems to go hand in hand with a performance
approach (p51) and so I wonder whether this is really possible. I can
see Tyler's (1949 in op.cit.) 4 questions as relevant and also part of our
mission as a school and seem to be in line with Romiszowski's (1984 in op.cit.)
three phase process: 'establishing precise and useful objectives, planning
study and testing them' as this is a familiar process I am required to go
through - mainly steps 1 and 2 - whenever deciding on course design matters at
work. I fully agree with Toohey when she
says that this approach offer the promise of accountability as this is
something that is often in my mind when defining aims while trying to ensure
they are clear enough so that they can be easily measured not only by me but by
anyone delivering the course. I personally think that this accountability is a
positive aspect because it adds clarity to the assessment process and expectations
for those involved are clearer (p53). Notwithstanding,
I would still argue that even following these performance guidelines I feel
we're still very much bound by the traditional approach above especially in
terms Toohey's questions 4 and 5, content and assessment respectively.
Moving
on to the cognitive approach I can say that in my field, Teaching of
English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) this approach became more evident
in the 1990s when there was a shift thanks to the work of
Rubin & Thompson (1987), O’Malley, Chamot and Küpper (1989) and Oxford
(1990) where Cognitive and Metacognitive
Strategies or learning strategies that help the learner construct,
transform or apply language knowledge and strategies in the cognitive dimension
which help the learner control via Planning, Organising, etc., their cognitive
strategy use (Oxford
1990:289 in Martínez,
2012). This is also an approach we
encourage in my work place and in my current practice as a teacher trainer through
training on awareness raising of such strategies and their importance for teachers
and students so that they can then replicate these in the classroom thanks to
their own understanding of these rather than because it is required of them. I
must say though that this approach is applied in my context in a looser way and
can be defined as integrative rather than as differentiated.
As
regards the Experiential or personal relevance approach I find the
difference made by Knowles (p59) between andragogy and pedagogy relevant to and
clearly identifiable in my context in the courses and programs offered and the
methodology used in our field through the labels used i.e. Very Young Learners,
Young Learners, Teenagers, Adults. In addition, the characteristics described
also find clear reference in the ESOL classroom and the well accepted philosophy
that e.g. the atmosphere should be conducive to learning, rapport is essential
for classroom dynamics, etc. However, the part that does not fully match the
description in the ESOL sector in general may be that of 'the students
nominating the skills and knowledge that they would like to acquire and the
kinds of problems they would like to be able to deal with' (p60) as students may
be asked about what they would like to cover in class and this may inform
specific course design under very specific circumstances but I would say that it
is not the norm or at least I have not seen it happen that often in my 20 years
in ELT. A place where this is possible
makes me think of a Dogme
classroom as it appears to share many of its characteristics while being based
in Freire's words on the view that 'education is communication and dialogue'.
(Meddings and Thornbury 2009:7 in Akca 2012).
This
brings us to the last of Toohey's list: the socially critical approach
which I find fascinating because of the implications and fully identifiable
even more so in my own context - a private sector language school which
automatically shouts Toohey's words at the end of page 63 '...the system is
designed by and for the socially advantaged'! Coming from a not socially
advantaged background myself these words take a powerful meaning and fill me up
with pride and frustration about the fact that I have worked hard to be able to
study and learn and continue to learn, but also angry about the fact that Toohey's
words are so true and will continue to be so as education is only available to
those with the means. Although I know that many institutions offer scholarships
and bursaries - I would not be able to afford my current MA
in Digital Technologies for Language Teaching had I not been able to secure
one of the many scholarships offered by the University of Nottingham - I still
believe that more can be done for those who cannot afford even free education.
In
light of the reflections above, I would agree with Toohey's argument that most
educational settings still see a traditional or discipline-based approach as a
prevalent model (p67) with some if not most the reasons given for higher
education being shared by institutions in the private sector e.g. ignorance
regarding education especially in schools which are run by business suits who
want bums on seats rather than educators, or educators who are comfortable with
their one year's experience twenty times as opposed to twenty years of
experience and a passion for education. I must acknowledge that I am in a
privileged environment as the powers above are represented by an educator
herself who cares about the students and her staff and is open to dialogue with
a vision for continued professional development and growth.
References
Akca,
C. (2012). Dogme Unplugged. In Institute of Language and Communication Studies
(ILCS)(Eds), International Symposium on Language and Communication: Research
Trends and Challenges–Proceedings Book (pp. 1743-1756).
Martínez, R. (2012). Beliefs
and Practices in the Initial Teacher Training Community regarding Receptive
Skills Development and the Pre-Teaching of Vocabulary. Sheffield Hallam
University.
Toohey, S. (1999). Beliefs,
Values and Ideologies in Course Design. In Designing courses for higher
education (pp. 44–69). Buckingham, SHRE and OUP. Retrieved from <Go to
ISI>://WOS:000088259300016
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.