Assignment 9/28/13: APA Journal #1
Teachers College, Columbia University
Xu Guohong
“What is language?” we were asked. Having taught English to college students for over twenty years in China, it seems there is no quick answer. These adult second language learners in my class learned this language not as a mode in which to speak but rather as a tool to communicate with the outside world and to associate themselves with a higher status. So in class, I defined language as a medium of communication as well as a tool to get to a better life.
Learning about the process of second language acquisition here, outside of Asia, is quite eye opening as it allows room for different methods influenced by different theorists. When I taught, we lectured while students memorized. We were in formal confined classroom settings. As the reading teacher, I taught students to memorize vocabulary and grammar structures before they started reading. So yes, I believed that educators should provide simple materials and nothing that students have not mastered yet. More importantly, students knew the purpose of learning – to pass competitive exams. So educators only looked to have students acquire the English language, not necessarily be competent in it.
However, Lightbrown and Spada (2013) opened my eyes to the possibility that language is a natural process that can happen outside the confined walls of a classroom; that such things as “output” mattered. Back in China, the teachers were the sole input, sole educators. There was usually rare opportunity for my students to interact with each other in my class. They solely took notes and memorized at home. Learning was passive. There was homework, in-class practice, and occasionally learning how to translate English on the exams back to basic comprehendible Chinese. I did notice though, that our particular teaching methods seemed only to work with our science and technique students who had passion for learning the second language. However, the second language failed to be acquired in the minds of students with no apparent motivation.
Meanwhile, group work seems to be the norm here. I was confused and was not sure why we were wasting such valuable class time. But I think I cannot judge yet with my little exposure to the American education system. When I discussed with peers in class, I began to actively process the information and revisit my already formed opinions. I might have engaged in critical thinking, unlike my past students. Does the way of teaching in China prevent active thought provoking information processing of a second language? Is it really the stages of information processing system that they missed? Did these students fail to acquire as quickly because of the critical interactions they were deprived of?
The most uncomprehensible issue that many Chinese educators don’t understand, I think, is why educators here do not immediately provide corrective feedback when students are wrong in order to have them stop the habit and start studying the prescriptive language. But Americans seem to have many different alternative perspectives as to the obvious Chinese ways of correcting students. Why? I still hold true to the belief that immediate corrections are the best and still engage in this practice daily when advising my own son. I have yet to learn all the different possibilities of teaching techniques.
Teachers College, Columbia University
Xu Guohong
“What is language?” we were asked. Having taught English to college students for over twenty years in China, it seems there is no quick answer. These adult second language learners in my class learned this language not as a mode in which to speak but rather as a tool to communicate with the outside world and to associate themselves with a higher status. So in class, I defined language as a medium of communication as well as a tool to get to a better life.
Learning about the process of second language acquisition here, outside of Asia, is quite eye opening as it allows room for different methods influenced by different theorists. When I taught, we lectured while students memorized. We were in formal confined classroom settings. As the reading teacher, I taught students to memorize vocabulary and grammar structures before they started reading. So yes, I believed that educators should provide simple materials and nothing that students have not mastered yet. More importantly, students knew the purpose of learning – to pass competitive exams. So educators only looked to have students acquire the English language, not necessarily be competent in it.
However, Lightbrown and Spada (2013) opened my eyes to the possibility that language is a natural process that can happen outside the confined walls of a classroom; that such things as “output” mattered. Back in China, the teachers were the sole input, sole educators. There was usually rare opportunity for my students to interact with each other in my class. They solely took notes and memorized at home. Learning was passive. There was homework, in-class practice, and occasionally learning how to translate English on the exams back to basic comprehendible Chinese. I did notice though, that our particular teaching methods seemed only to work with our science and technique students who had passion for learning the second language. However, the second language failed to be acquired in the minds of students with no apparent motivation.
Meanwhile, group work seems to be the norm here. I was confused and was not sure why we were wasting such valuable class time. But I think I cannot judge yet with my little exposure to the American education system. When I discussed with peers in class, I began to actively process the information and revisit my already formed opinions. I might have engaged in critical thinking, unlike my past students. Does the way of teaching in China prevent active thought provoking information processing of a second language? Is it really the stages of information processing system that they missed? Did these students fail to acquire as quickly because of the critical interactions they were deprived of?
The most uncomprehensible issue that many Chinese educators don’t understand, I think, is why educators here do not immediately provide corrective feedback when students are wrong in order to have them stop the habit and start studying the prescriptive language. But Americans seem to have many different alternative perspectives as to the obvious Chinese ways of correcting students. Why? I still hold true to the belief that immediate corrections are the best and still engage in this practice daily when advising my own son. I have yet to learn all the different possibilities of teaching techniques.