Indeed, “the classroom practitioner” should be placed “at the heart of language policy (at the center of the onion)” (Ricento and Hornberger, 1996, p. 417). Teachers have the power to implement, question, adjust, modify, and introduce language policies to meet their students’ needs, to achieve their instructional goals, and to advocate critical language awareness. However, the reality is that many teachers do not use this power because they work in contexts that impose and prescribe strict language policies. There are some contexts though that empower teachers to seek answers that may solve puzzling language issues and to propose fresh language policies.
As a classroom teacher, a former chair and coordinator, a teacher educator, and a language researcher, I see language policies as instruments in promoting critical and cultural literacy. They need to be evaluated and modified regularly to ensure that they serve their purpose. If they become obstacles to thinking and learning, then they need to be amended. Reviewing existing specific ELT policies is unquestionably a challenging task because it usually entails destroying old paradigms that threaten traditional and established programs and practices. Nevertheless, it is an important process that needs to be followed if the goal is learning advancement.
I have always been an ELT maverick and the first thing I do as a classroom teacher is study the prescribed/recommended ELT policies as reflected in the syllabus, the tasks/activities, and materials and check if they are congruent with my teaching context. While I follow the “musts” (non-negotiable items or prescribed items) in the course, I assess the learners’ needs and course objectives. After doing so, I introduce “wants” (enrichment tasks/projects/activities) that may enhance the cognitive abilities and critical awareness of my students further. If I see flaws in the “musts,” I adjust them without deviating from them. I design experimental/alternative materials and conduct experimental/alternative lessons that I evaluate through action research. The results of my action research I share with my co-teachers and the department to propose the innovation of materials, the enhancement of practices, and the improvement of programs. Thus, instead of being influenced by language policies, I tend to do the opposite because I believe that the ultimate policy-maker and agent of implementation is the teacher who knows exactly what needs to be done in the classroom because she is the soldier in the battlefield of education. However, developing policy has to be research-based and process-oriented for it to be formed successfully.
My Ateneo teaching contexts (Ateneo High School and School of Humanities) have allowed me to be an active agent in policy evaluation and innovation. It has not been an easy journey, but it has been a meaningful and fulfilling one. As a teacher educator, I share my findings and experiences with fellow classroom practitioners to encourage them to use their power as policy evaluators and innovators. The sad part is that many of them are constrained by their school environments that are guided by rigid language policies. My answer is that they can introduce little changes that do not totally go against the prescribed policies and allow ripples of change to bring about a significant impact on the system. Whenever I conduct workshops on critical thinking for teachers, I remind them that as language teachers, we have the burden, the duty, and the privilege of empowering learners’ minds. I believe that the classroom is the starting point of social change and every teacher is a catalyst who may inspire learners to make a significant contribution to society. There may be many impediments, but it is a matter of overcoming them with passion, conviction, and determination.
Reference:
Ricento, T. & Hornberger, N. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: language planning and
policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30 (3), 401-427.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Len. You are an ELT maverick, indeed! I think I also do some of the stuff you mentioned in the blog, although I must say that I probably was more of a maverick when I was in UP then when I am in Singapore now. Hirap dito. Daming constraints. Do kaya dahil Ateneo ka rin kaya marami ka ring nagagawa? Just random thoughts here. I don't have an answer really.
ReplyDeleteAlso, with the changes we make in the classroom, what could be the basis of our transforming practices? In other words, how can we defend our work (e.g. innovation) as TRULY transformative?
Had Len been my English Coordinator, perhaps I would have learned or "unlearned" more than what I am today. (I would not have been the "manong" that I am. hehe! :-D) It is true that we do our best for the benefit of the student by negotiating with the "musts" and the "wants" of the class. Sadly, in the Philippines, many have not seen it that way, and many have less compassion for the students and for the English teaching "vocation" itself.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this post Len! I can just imagine you in the classroom! :)
ReplyDeleteI think Tops and I have similar questions: You describe yourself as an ELT maverick and you show how you have been able to carve a space where you can be an active agent. You also mention that your specific teaching contexts "have allowed" you to be an "active agent in policy evaluation and innovation". What about your teaching contexts have allowed (and/or constrained) you to be such? What specific institutional ideologies and practices have "allowed" you to negotiate an identity as an "ELT maverick"? What have not?
Thanks, Dr. Tupas, Oliver, and Bea for your helpful and interesting comments!
ReplyDeleteThe Ateneo’s academic environment that advocates critical thinking and the Ignatian Pedagogical paradigm that promotes constant REFLECTION and EVALUATION based on learners’ and learning CONTEXTS and EXPERIENCES are the factors that have encouraged me to explore alternatives and introduce innovations in the classroom. However, practical requirements have to be considered for changes to take place.
For example, when I was the language coordinator of the English Dept. (before taking my PhD), I proposed a research project with my co-teachers that included a needs analysis for the program review of the language courses. The Loyola Schools research committee did not approve it and no funding was granted. Despite that, we still pushed through with it because we believed in improving our courses to promote critical thinking and cultural awareness and design them according to our learners’ needs. Our alternative was to create a big committee of competent and committed teachers who would willingly get the job done. Mission accomplished and the results of the needs analysis showed that we needed to develop and design new materials. Again, I asked for funding for the materials development stage (in the form of deloading because it would entail a lot of work for the teacher-writers). The same thing happened. No funding. So, we formed another committee of dedicated teachers to design the materials and realize our objectives. It took us two years to make it happen, but it’s all worth it. This school year, the changes will be implemented and the new materials will be used. That’s what I mean by passion, conviction, and determination.
WAGI pa rin kaming mga ELT mavericks! IPINAGLABAN pa rin namin. Funding or the lack of it was not a hindrance to our advocacy. We just applied the spirit of Ignatian generosity. Hahaha! Pero may moral, spiritual, at logistical support naman ang English Dept. Kaya masaya na rin kami. Marami ring debates before the changes were approved pero ang maganda, it provided venues for evaluating the policies and practices thoroughly. At ELT practitioners ang involved kaya may OWNERSHIP. Mahirap, madugo, pero may pagbabago!
(More comments in the next one...)
(con't)
ReplyDeleteAs for other contexts such as China that may not be that flexible in terms of ELT policies and practices, little ripples of changes can still be done. I had a Tibetan student who did her MA thesis on materials evaluation. She wanted to find out if the English textbook that the Tibetan learners were using was helpful. I was her thesis adviser and I encouraged her to propose practical recommendations based on the results of her study. Her participants included Tibetan teachers and learners. Her findings suggested that the textbook was primarily designed for Chinese learners and the Tibetan learners found it difficult to understand many of the concepts used in the textbook (e.g. Chinese celebration of birthdays; Tibetans do not celebrate birthdays the way the Chinese do). The teachers also found it hard to use the textbook. She proposed that materials be adjusted to make them more suitable to the Tibetan learners’ culture and context. Because it was research-based and process-oriented, it was not seen as a controversial issue but as an academic and pedagogical endeavor.
Pero, sa totoo lang, may statement at advocacy na ang thesis nya. Ang sinasabi nya, kelangang igalang ang kultura ng magaaral sa paggawa at paggamit ng textbook. Kelangang may cultural appropriateness! Hindi pwedeng sabihing paniniwala lang nya. Lumitaw sa kanyang imbestigasyon. Higit sa lahat, dahil sa thesis nya, nagkaroon ng boses at lakas ang mga Tibetan teachers at learners. Isang simula na ng pagbabago!
To conclude, for changes to happen and for them to be implemented successfully, they need to involve and empower ELT practitioners because they are, indeed, the center of the onion. Although there are obstacles to policy evaluation and innovation, there are ways of overcoming them as shown in the two examples I shared. However, CHANGES should be grounded in RESEARCH to obtain a PROPER DIAGNOSIS of the SITUATION and to find the BEST CURE to the problem.
Madaling sabihin, mahirap gawin, pero kayang baguhin kung may paninindigan. :)
Wow, you have such absolutely interesting work out there, Len. I can see how tough it has been, but based on your story, you have persevered and have "triumphed" in some sense. I think to me, the important point to remember is not so much the fact that teachers can do something within given constraints. Teachers perhaps have been doing this all the time (my mom's an English teacher too, and in Aklan where the resources are even more limited). My take on this is that to be able to effectively make changes, one must be mindful of the limiting conditions within which we work so that we can push the limits in a more appropriate and effective way. Sometimes the trouble with being able to articulate our freedom is to be triumphalist about it, and forget the many structures that define to some or large extent what we can do and cannot do.
ReplyDeleteI'd be very happy to talk to you about your experiences. So rich, so exciting.
Hi Len:
ReplyDeleteJust a quick note: perhaps trying to uncover the (contradictory) institutional ideologies and practices (which need not be conceived of as being separate) and how these shape teaching practice might be one way to "contextualize" your thesis.
I truly appreciate your comments, Dr. Tupas and Bea! I'll think about them further because they actually motivate me to define the elements of my dissertation which is directly related to this topic. I still have a lot of questions about the direction of my dissertation, and hopefully, I can discuss them with you when I go to Singapore. Looking forward to our session on Friday!
ReplyDelete