Entry 47 IDT1415 - Reflection on Design

TASK - Select a language course which is familiar to you and write 500-1000 reflection on its structure, content, approach. Your reflection should be based on the activities of the past weeks. Ideally your reflection will demonstrate your understanding of the basic concepts of the different approaches and their implications for the designing of a language course. In your reflection you should also include considerations about technology. For instance:

1. does technology have a place in the design of your chosen course?
2. if yes, does technology support the overall approach of your chosen course?
3. if not, would technology have supported the overall approach of your chosen course?

This is an informal task, so you should feel comfortable to complete it. In other words it should not become a major burden for you. As usual, you can choose how you want to express your opinion: in writing, video, audio, images, etc.
Use this message's REPLY button to submit your reflection

 ////////

In this reflection task, I have chosen New English File Elementary (NEFE) as it is a course book and coursebook series which I am familiar with and regularly use on both my English and Teacher Training courses (amongst others of course!).

Structure & Language Teaching Approach

NEFE is a very popular ESOL course book part of a series which covers all but one of the levels available in the CEFR: Beginner (A1), Elementary (A1/A2), Pre Intermediate (A2), Intermediate (B1), Intermediate Plus (B1/B2), Upper Intermediate (B2), and Advanced (C1) with Proficiency (C2) missing.

NEFE is divided into 9 units and each unit into 4 main sections or topics: A, B, C and D. These topics cover Grammar, Vocabulary and Pronunciation and follow a combination of a Text-based and Guided Discovery approach to language teaching as all language is presented via a Reading or Listening text which provides the context and embeds the Target Language. The tasks are in line with these approaches as they are to a great extent inductive as students are required to observe the TL in context in order to answer questions about it which highlight patterns and how language works. There are a further 3 separate sections in each unit which deal with Practical English (Functional Language), Writing Skills and Revision. 

The NEF series and not only the NEFE course also offers a wide range of online resources via a dedicated site linked to the coursebook called StudyLink and which provides students with 9 extra sections for self study or in my case specifically allocated homework tasks as well as self study. The online StudyLink is composes of different types of exercises with features such as self correction and keys available. All activities available have bee mapped onto the course book content and structure and so they are easy to navigate.

Content & Course ware

As regards content, NEFE includes a wide range of Reading and Listening texts which are set and although the third edition tries to incorporate current topics and issues, I would argue that it has a Western-centric approach which can be very limiting if used in other cultures.

NEFE also offers a Teacher’s Book with extra in-class activities and detailed guidance for novice teachers. There is also Video available in the MultiROM, a workbook, class CDs, a dedicated website and a StudyLink logo used throughout the coursebook to indicate extra online activities are available for that specific unit or topic.

Approach

In terms of approaches it can be said that although traits from several approaches can be identified, the main one present throughout is a Traditional Approach as the course book is divided into units and these built around topics and concepts. Knowledge is viewed here as a body of pre-established theory or concepts which are presented to the students regardless of their specific needs. I would argue that although this is so in the course book, it is the Teacher’s responsibility to adapt it to suit their students’ needs. After all, teaching the course book needs no training and this I would argue makes the difference between suitably trained teachers and unqualified practitioner. The process of learning is static if the course is followed as it is as topics are set and so these are transmitted to students directly and these embed the information, facts and concepts needed for study. This is also in line with the goals and the choice and organisation of content as the main goal is to acquire the linguistic skills needed at A1 level (CEFR) and the way the topics are sequenced generally in line with the CEFR descriptors for this level. Assessment methods include Progress Tests (Checks) after each unit available in the Teacher’s Book and also separately in a Test Builder CD which also includes final achievement tests. There is also an online TestMaker tool for students to practise through tailored tests. Resources and infrastructure are tangible as most work is based on established coursebooks.

However, I would argue that while the traits above are more static as they are clearly recognisable in the materials, traits of other approaches are variable. For instance, on reflection of my language teaching experience and varied cultural contexts in which I have worked (8 different countries in 4 continents), I would argue that all the organisations I worked for were in favour of an eclectic approach which incorporated traits from other approaches to one extent or another. Traits of a Performance Approach typical of language teaching easily come to mind: 

·        Focusing on the best way to achieve the course objectives – thus giving freedom to the teacher to make informed decisions as to how to do this;

·        Teaching towards the goal and evaluate whether goals have been achieved – mainly through progress and achievement tests which are not only written but also performance and behaviour-related.

The process of learning is aided by the analysis of tasks and how this translate into knowledge and skills (clearly outlined and labelled in the coursebook) with teacher roles which vary and help them make informed decisions as to what should be acquired depending on classroom performance. This gives a bigger sense of clarity for the students whenever they are informed about their learning paths (we strongly encourage this in my current context). This combined with regular feedback on performance aims to increase student's confidence and sense of achievement. In NEFE Goals can be said to also be performance-based because of the emphasis on following a communicative approach which gives precedence to what the students can or cannot do, linguistic behaviours which determine their competence. Choice and organisation of content traits are seen in the Practical English sections of the coursebook which focus on skills and knowledge most valuable within the discipline or the ability to successfully interact with others in given situations. Purpose of assessment and methods which include frequent feedback in or outside class can be identified in the progress checks available after each unit. In my current context, teachers are trained and encouraged to adopt and use continuous and integrated assessment, that is, all work done through the Term (there are 2 Terms in a school year) is ongoing and taken into consideration as a whole along with any summative assessment established for the course. Resources and infrastructure are far more flexible as we encourage to use at least 70% of the coursebook mainly because of parents’ concerns with paying for a resource which if not used to a good extent then it is seen as a waste of money. Teachers are given flexibility and encouraged to use a wide range of technology and resources to supplement their teaching as best fitting their students’ needs.

As far as other approaches are concerned, I would say that the Cognitive Approach remains a desire of mine to be more clearly integrated into my current curriculum. I believe NEFE tries to address some of these traits (Process of Learning) by trying to incorporate real world examples of issues and problems and a gradual incorporation of previous information into new topics to provide opportunities for revision. Group work and also analysis (of language in this case) is provided through a guided discovery approach which requires students to observe the language in context in order to see patterns and rules. Unfortunately, I believe that goals and how they are expressed, choice and organisation of content, purpose of assessment and methods as typical of a Cognitive approach fall short here with resources and infrastructure being more typical of a communicative teaching approach rather than that of the coursebook itself.

Traits of an Experiential Approach can be seen in a focus on personal relevance and learning from experience as tasks in NEFE tend to lend themselves to allow students to experiment through in class collaboration. Again, I would argue that this would also be typical of a communicative approach and of informed decisions made by the teacher rather than being part of the coursebook itself.

Finally, no traits of Socially Critical Approaches are identifiable in this coursebook which seems to be in line with the purpose and field of study: language.

Technology

• Does technology have a place in the design of your chosen course? The first edition of NEFE did not have an online component and this was introduced subsequently which shows that course designers have adapted to a growing trend. I think the technology now available is of a good quality and saves time for the informed teacher who is aware of how it can support their students’ learning. Used as self study alone, I believe, can easily reduce the value of the materials themselves as it would be better exploited if some guidance from the teacher was given as to how to best use it.

• If yes, does technology support the overall approach of your chosen course? I believe it does. However, I would say that tech available would only be a small part of what is there already and as such can help the teacher save time in a restricted way.

Entry 46 IDT1415 - Pedagogical Approaches

In this entry I would like to share a Popplet which we, the MA in DTLT semester II group, created as part of a collaborative reading task on Pedagogical Approaches: Traditional, Performance-based, Cognitive, Experiential, and Socially Critical. The Popplet also inlcudes a Bibliography.

 

Entry 45 IDT1415 Traditional Approaches: Reflections on Cousin (2006) and Land et al (2005): Threshold Concepts

This blog post is a mix between a summary of points from my reading of Cousin's (2006) 'An Introduction to Threshold Concepts' and Land et al.'s (2005) Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (3): implications for course design and evaluation.

I must start by making a confession: I found the concept of threshold concepts rather difficult to grasp - which after reading I should call an 'acceptance of my liminal space'.  I first watched the Glynis' interview suggested in the Moodle and to be honest I struggled getting it! :-(  I watched it twice and was still 'stuck' so I was determined to find out what Cousin and Land et al. meant by Threshold Concepts.  It's now 19.00 and so after doing all the readings I can happily say that I think I got it, or at least I think I have!

Now, what are threshold concepts? TCs are those concepts which students have difficulty in understanding, which should be identified by the teachers in conjunction with the students in advanced and focused on in the process of teaching and learning. (Believe me when I say that silly as it may sound, it took me a while to be able to come up with this definition).

Now, Glynis says that threshold concepts are central to the mastery of the subject (2006) and this statement made me think, while struggling to understand the concept itself and looking at the PPT part of the readings, about what the concepts central to the mastery of the English Language were. Thinking of my own students and experience in the ESOL classroom, I came up with the following, but I'm sure there will be more...

• Register? Difficult for Romance language speakers because they have clearly defined formal and informal established forms while in English it is marked by prescribed grammar, word choice, and pronunciation.
• Functional Language? Pragmatics?
• The concept of time (how past tense and future are formed and used in English)?
• Pronunciation?

A learning activity around one of the concepts above (Future in English) could be along the lines of something I already do to raise students' awareness of how different it is in English.  It seems to me that Italian students struggle with the concept of futurity in English because they approach it from a grammatical point of view rather than a semantic or conceptual one and so if asked whether they know about the future they are likely to say: yes, 'will'.

I often use a mind map like the one above, which I just drew up, with intermediate level students and above to make them think of the different perspective we adopt, that is, by looking at the concept we want to express rather than at the grammar structure we need to use. They usually find this concept difficult to grasp but being recursive and excursive to use Glynis' words (op.cit.), they usually succeed (‘The role of the teacher is to arrange victories for the students.’ Quintilian 35-100 AD Cited in Land 2010 in the Workshop PPT shared in the module Moodle). I have seen evidence of this during the course of studies and after introducing the concept. They start, or better still stop at times when expressing future ideas, to think about the concept they want to express rather than the grammar structure they need. You can almost see the clogs in their brain moving and this I find exciting. Of course, their choices are not always correct, but the fact that they are in this process is wonderful indication of the process they're going through in their accommodation of new language, I believe.

Here's a summary of what Threshold concepts are/can be:

1. Transformative - if you get it, it will change your way of doing things.

2. Irreversible - if you get it, you will not forget it.

3. Integrative - if you get it, you will be able to make connections.

4. Bounded - it can be a form of disciplinary property and is best understood as having a provisional explanatory capacity.

5. Counter-intuitive - it can be troublesome/difficult to understand because it goes against common sense in another culture or discourse.

Curriculum Design

1. Explore and identify with students what their threshold concepts are, the key areas they need mastery in, 'the jewels':-).

2. 'Listening not for what students know but the terms that shape their knowledge' (p2).

3. Uncover fear threshold concepts early on the course and show it is not a problem not to understand a concept.

4. Be recursive (revisit) and excursive (willing to go off and have unexpected outcomes.)

Liminal States

Glynis (op.cit.) says that it is a space where learners oscillate between old and new language, a limbo like the one adolescents inhabit in the transition period between adults and children. For me, they are like Vygotsky's ZPD but without the mentioning of a more able helper or Piaget's accommodation process which can be more painful as one is confronted with what we hold to be true and the new knowledge.

LAND ET AL 2005

Troublesome knowledge is so because those threshold concepts require students to integrate what they know with new ideas and this integration required acceptance (p2). Their problems when trying to get a deeper level of understanding - Perkins (2005) 'the underlying game', I would call it reading between the lines, inferring in a more sophisticated way, but still, for me: reading between the lines.  Savin-Baden's (2005 in Land et al. 2005) calls it 'Disjunction' - in my humble opinion I see very little or no difference between Meyer and Land's (2003 in Land et al. 2005) threshold concept. I may not be seeing the 'underlying game' ;-)!

Now, 'in-between state' or 'liminality'. Students stuck there tend to resort to 'mimicry' or they give up. I did so when I started an MA in Applied Linguistics many, many years ago and I'm not saying which institution with and found the materials boring and unengaging and this had a huge impact on my motivation. I found I had to read the materials several times and the more I read them the more difficult I found them... those 'threshold concepts!' I felt frustrated and discouraged and that added to problems with work and family overseas led to my decision to give up and try later! I found that when I started an MA in TESOL a few years later with Sheffield Hallam University, the materials, program and tutors were successful in keeping me motivated and interested and so this environment contributed to Land et al.'s 'conceptual peristalsis' which allowed me to successfully move on and complete my studies with a Merit.

Ok, enough sentimentalism already so I'll move on to my summary of the Considerations for course design and evaluation as suggested by Land et al (op.cit.). In their opinion programmes should be designed and reviewed according to:

• Sequence of content
• Excursive learning - how ss are helped to deal with threshold concepts.
• How attainment of threshold concepts is assessed.

Nine  Considerations

1.      Jewels in the curriculum - threshold concepts can be used to identify problematic areas.

2.      Engagement - the more the students are engaged, actively involved with the threshold concept the better. Design a framework of engagement, specific forms of engagement which lead to transformative understanding of concepts at different stages. Lather (1998:492 Provocations which bring things into happening).

3.      Listening for understanding - trying to understand not what they know but where they are stuck.

4.      Reconstitution of self - creating supportive liminal environments as this integration requires acceptance and re shifting of one's beliefs. Bonamy et al (2001) called these 'provisional stabilities'.

5.      Tolerating uncertainty - Elfklides (2005) highlights the importance of self-regulation, a metacognitive skill, which can determine whether students can cope with the issue and determine to engage with the threshold concept or not.

6.      Recursiveness and excursiveness - approaching the same material from different angles. Consideration of threshold concepts goes against a traditional linear and homogenous approach to curriculum design. Recursive = 'always beginning again' (p491). Excursive - you know where you want to go, may get there eventually or reconsider your destination.

7.      Pre-liminal variation - at the time of writing there was no clear answers as a three-year study was undergoing on why some ss will negotiate the liminal space of understanding and others not.

8.      Unintended consequences of generic 'good pedagogy' - simplification of concepts for ss is not necessarily good as shown by the case of teaching the concept of opportunity cost in a South Australian context. Also, trying to base it on the ss' experience when they do not have the experience to relate the concept to.

9.      The underlying game - course designers need to check that there is no threshold conceptions which ss fail to recognise and understand. Lucas (200) explains difference between 'authorised' (endorsed by disciplinary community) and 'alternative' (intuitive or everyday common sense of the same) understandings.

These three readings on Cousin (2006), Land et al (2005), the video and the PPT on Threshold Concepts have helped me figure out what they are and why they are important. I would have called them 'A Theory of 'Difficult Concepts' Learners Struggled with' to start with and this would have probably spared me the initial discomfort hitting the 'threshold concept' barrier myself, but I guess that's the whole point! That I experience myself what it feels like to be able to make sense of it!

References

Cousin, G., 2006. An introduction to threshold concepts. Planet, (17), pp.4–5.

Land, R. et al., 2005. Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (3): implications for course design and evaluation. Improving Student Learning Diversity and Inclusivity, 49(3), pp.53–64. Available at: http://owww.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsld/isl/isl2004/abstracts/conceptual_papers/ISL04-pp53-64-Land-et-al.pdf.