Reflecting on critical thinking and critical pedagogy in LL2
As I was reading the Casanave , ch. 6, I was stricken by different views on critical pedagogy and critical thinking paradigm. If I had to take a stand, I would say that it is not easy for language teachers to look at language teaching as a neutral activity because language itself (at least English) has never been so. Not only must teachers help learners understand possible ideologies, hidden agendas that drive big languages, they also have to invite them to think about – thanks to their voice in their writing—contributing to positive social changes. Needless to mention big figures in varied domains of the human history who brought in great changes thanks to their written works. An illustrative example would be a glance at the list of Nobel literature prize winners over years. Moreover, by doing so, teachers have an opportunity to re-define and actively play their role in language education policies instead of being mere ‘soldiers’, docile servants of the system or ‘bureaucrats who follow orders unquestionably’( E. Shohamy, Language policy. Hidden agendas and new approaches, 2006, pp. 78-79)
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
REFLECTING ON " WRITING ASSESSMENT"
Reflecting on writing assessment (Casanave, Ch. 4)
As I enjoyed reading Casanave, (Chap. 4) about assessment, the author discussed two points that raised concerns about my funds of knowledge on language teaching in general and assessment in particular. First, she stated that “a fair assessment of writing, above all, treat all students without bias against differences in culture, background knowledge of content, students’ experience…..” p. 119. If assessment is an intrinsic part of language teachers’ daily activities with regard to empowering learners with language skill and learning strategies, how can language teachers, in real-world classroom, be blind graders? Can language teachers, all the sudden, break the golden rule in language teaching, which stipulates that the more teachers know about students’ background and learning past experience, the better they can help them? As to quote Gebhard, (2005) “A number of educators encourage language teachers to take on the role of needs assessor. Doing so includes learning about students’ language-learning history, goals, interests, study habits, learning strategies, and language-learning styles. They suggest we interview students, have them complete questionnaires, and generally observe what they do and say. (p. 57). In the same line, Reid (1998) provided language teachers with a very nice chart to use while inquiring about students’ background so as to better help them in their language learning endeavors.
The second point raised by Casanave is about items to focus on in language assessment. She recommended that “a fair assessment examines performance in writing rather than multiple-choice knowledge of grammar, style or vocabulary, (…). “p.119. Sincerely speaking, how professional would it look like reading a student’s paper, noticing grammar, style or vocabulary errors, and closing your eyes as a teacher and moving on? That way, how do language teachers help students who are on long journey of modeling and molding their language? How will students know that a given verb phrase, a syntactic structure or a word are to be replaced, rephrased or revised if they miss the opportunity of learning about it through their assignments, in classroom situation (which is likely the only opportunity to use a language both in writing and oral form, at least in EFL context )? Is assessment exclusively about content?
Moreover, the washback effect is so influential (Bachman & Palmer, 1996 ) that teachers cannot help targeting such items (grammar, vocabulary and style) because they are the main components in high-stake composition tests. Bsed on my experience as a national examination marker for 4 years, composition used to count for 40% of the language paper (Kinyarwanda, French, English and Kiswahili). The marking scheme was thoroughly detailed about items to grade, such as grammar, style, vocabulary, length, ideas, arguments, format (according to a genre). And guess what! After the marking session, teachers (included myself, of course) used to take their marking schemes back to their schools and use them as invaluable guidelines to teach language and prepare their students for the national exams. And it used to work: the more students understood the markers’ expectations, the better they performed and passed their exams. Needless to mention that the same criteria are used in standardized tests such as TOEFL, GRE and the like. The ACTFL (American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages) Proficiency protocol is not far different.
As I enjoyed reading Casanave, (Chap. 4) about assessment, the author discussed two points that raised concerns about my funds of knowledge on language teaching in general and assessment in particular. First, she stated that “a fair assessment of writing, above all, treat all students without bias against differences in culture, background knowledge of content, students’ experience…..” p. 119. If assessment is an intrinsic part of language teachers’ daily activities with regard to empowering learners with language skill and learning strategies, how can language teachers, in real-world classroom, be blind graders? Can language teachers, all the sudden, break the golden rule in language teaching, which stipulates that the more teachers know about students’ background and learning past experience, the better they can help them? As to quote Gebhard, (2005) “A number of educators encourage language teachers to take on the role of needs assessor. Doing so includes learning about students’ language-learning history, goals, interests, study habits, learning strategies, and language-learning styles. They suggest we interview students, have them complete questionnaires, and generally observe what they do and say. (p. 57). In the same line, Reid (1998) provided language teachers with a very nice chart to use while inquiring about students’ background so as to better help them in their language learning endeavors.
The second point raised by Casanave is about items to focus on in language assessment. She recommended that “a fair assessment examines performance in writing rather than multiple-choice knowledge of grammar, style or vocabulary, (…). “p.119. Sincerely speaking, how professional would it look like reading a student’s paper, noticing grammar, style or vocabulary errors, and closing your eyes as a teacher and moving on? That way, how do language teachers help students who are on long journey of modeling and molding their language? How will students know that a given verb phrase, a syntactic structure or a word are to be replaced, rephrased or revised if they miss the opportunity of learning about it through their assignments, in classroom situation (which is likely the only opportunity to use a language both in writing and oral form, at least in EFL context )? Is assessment exclusively about content?
Moreover, the washback effect is so influential (Bachman & Palmer, 1996 ) that teachers cannot help targeting such items (grammar, vocabulary and style) because they are the main components in high-stake composition tests. Bsed on my experience as a national examination marker for 4 years, composition used to count for 40% of the language paper (Kinyarwanda, French, English and Kiswahili). The marking scheme was thoroughly detailed about items to grade, such as grammar, style, vocabulary, length, ideas, arguments, format (according to a genre). And guess what! After the marking session, teachers (included myself, of course) used to take their marking schemes back to their schools and use them as invaluable guidelines to teach language and prepare their students for the national exams. And it used to work: the more students understood the markers’ expectations, the better they performed and passed their exams. Needless to mention that the same criteria are used in standardized tests such as TOEFL, GRE and the like. The ACTFL (American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages) Proficiency protocol is not far different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)