Bautista, M.C.R., Bernardo, A.B.I, and Ocampo, D. (2008/2009). When reforms don’t transform: Reflections on institutional reforms in the Department of Education. Human Development Network. Retrieved 05 May 2010 from http://hdn.org.ph/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/dp02_bautista_etal.pdf
Department of Education (DepEd). (2006). Basic Education Reform Agenda 2005-2010. Retrieved 05 May 2010 from http://efa2015.110mb.com/BESRA%20brochure.pdf
Department of Education (DepEd). (2008). Implementing Rules and Regulations on Executive Order No. 210, Establishing the Policy to Strengthen the Use of the English Language s a Medium of Instruction in the Educational System. (DepEd Order No. 60; Department of Education, Republic of the Philippines). Retrieved 05 May 2010 from http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/DO%20No.%2060,%20s.%202008.pdf
Department of Education (DepEd). (2009). Institutionalizing Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MLE).(DepEd Order No. 74; Departmentof Education, Republic of Philippines). Retrieved 05 May 2010 from http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/DO%20No.%2074,%20s.%202009.pdf
GMANEWS.TV. (2008) Bill pushes native language as medium of instruction in elementary schools. Retrieved 05 May 2010 from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:weNF8RxuUvkJ:www.gmanews.tv/story/92689/bill-pushes-native-language-as-medium-of-instruction-in-elementary-schools+Philippine+house+bills+approved+medium+of+instruction+2010&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ph
Ginugundo, M. (2010). Language-in-education policy making in the Philippines. Multilingual Education-Philippines. Retrieved 05 May 2010 from
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mL9xM4Iakw0J:mlephil.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/language-in-education-policy-making-in-the-philippine/+Philippines+HB5619&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ph
Gonzalez, A. (2003).Language planning in multilingual countries: The case of the Philippines. Retrieved 05 May 2010 from http://www.silinternational.org/asia/ldc/plenary_papers/andrew_gonzales.pdf
Lapus, J. Message. Retrieved 05 May 2010 from http://mlephil.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/lapuxmessage-mle.pdf
Nolasco, R.M. (2008). The Prospects of Multilingual Education and Literacy in the Philippines. Retrieved 05 May 2010 from http://www.seameo.org/_ld2008/doucments/Presentation_document/NolascoTHE_PROSPECTS_OF_MULTILINGUAL_EDUCATION.pdf
Nolasco, R.M. (2010). Educating our children in their first language. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved 05 May 2010 from http://mlephil.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/educating-our-children-in-their-first-language/
Ocampo, D. et.al. (2006). Formulation of the national learning strategies for the Filipino and English languages. Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda 2015. Retrieved 05 May 2010 from http://sites.google.com/site/dinaocampo/thephilippineroadmaptomulti-literacy
Pimentel, A. (2007) Preserve our languages/strengthen the republic. Retrieved 05 May 2010 from http://www.nenepimentel.org/speeches/20070905_Language.asp
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
OTHER REFERENCES FOR MY ELL315 PAPER
Espiritu, C. Language policies in the Philippines. National Commission for Culture and Arts. Retrieved 04 May 2010 from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Tzrx_qFzjfsJ:www.ncca.gov.ph/about-culture-and-arts/articles-on-c-n-a/article.php%3Fi%3D217%26igm%3D3+language+policies+in+the+Philippines&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ph
Llanto, J. (2009). Senate is key to passing English as medium of instruction bill. Abs-cbnNEWS.com. Retrieved 04 May 2010 fromhttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:B-hLlfLZWEgJ:www.abs-cbnnews.com/features/01/07/09/senate-key-passing-english-medium-instruction-bill+House+Bills+230,+305,+406&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ph
Llanto, J. (2008). Legislators push English as medium of instruction. Newsbreak. Retrieved 04 May 2010 from
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VOSgCFA5ROQJ:newsbreak.com.ph/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D4898%26Itemid%3D88889066+House+Bills+230,+305,+406&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ph
Martin, R. (2008). English as a medium of instruction. UE Today 17:4. Retrieved 04 May 2010 from http://www.ue.edu.ph/manila/uetoday/index.php?nav=27.htm&archive=200808
Melencio, G. (2006). Philippines debate use of Filipino as instruction medium. Arab news. Retrieved 04 May 2010 from
http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=86121&d=20&m=8&y=2006
Sugbo, V. (2003). Language policy and local literature in the Philippines. University of the Philippines in Visayas. Retrieved 04 May 2010 from
http://www.sil.org/asia/ldc/parallel_papers/victor_n_sugbo.pdf
Supreme Court Library. (2003). Executive Order 210. Retrieved 04 May 2010 from
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wxzeURq-TlUJ:elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/index10.php%3Fdoctype%3DExecutive%2520Orders%26docid%3Da45475a11ec72b843d74959b60fd7bd645f73003691a4+Philippines+executive+order+210&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ph
Llanto, J. (2009). Senate is key to passing English as medium of instruction bill. Abs-cbnNEWS.com. Retrieved 04 May 2010 fromhttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:B-hLlfLZWEgJ:www.abs-cbnnews.com/features/01/07/09/senate-key-passing-english-medium-instruction-bill+House+Bills+230,+305,+406&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ph
Llanto, J. (2008). Legislators push English as medium of instruction. Newsbreak. Retrieved 04 May 2010 from
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VOSgCFA5ROQJ:newsbreak.com.ph/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D4898%26Itemid%3D88889066+House+Bills+230,+305,+406&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ph
Martin, R. (2008). English as a medium of instruction. UE Today 17:4. Retrieved 04 May 2010 from http://www.ue.edu.ph/manila/uetoday/index.php?nav=27.htm&archive=200808
Melencio, G. (2006). Philippines debate use of Filipino as instruction medium. Arab news. Retrieved 04 May 2010 from
http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=86121&d=20&m=8&y=2006
Sugbo, V. (2003). Language policy and local literature in the Philippines. University of the Philippines in Visayas. Retrieved 04 May 2010 from
http://www.sil.org/asia/ldc/parallel_papers/victor_n_sugbo.pdf
Supreme Court Library. (2003). Executive Order 210. Retrieved 04 May 2010 from
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wxzeURq-TlUJ:elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/index10.php%3Fdoctype%3DExecutive%2520Orders%26docid%3Da45475a11ec72b843d74959b60fd7bd645f73003691a4+Philippines+executive+order+210&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ph
Monday, May 3, 2010
Proposed ELL312 Research Paper (outline and references)
I. Objectives:
This paper is meant to help establish the background for my proposed dissertation(tentative title: “The Influence of Cognitive Processes and Contextual Factors on Public School Teachers’ Interpretation of ELT Policies and Classroom Practices”). It may be included as a sub-section in the introduction to describe the most current policies that are prescribed and implemented by the Department of Education.
Below are the current sub-sections in the background of my dissertation proposal:
*The Global and Local English Language Teaching (ELT) Climate
*The Background of ELT in the Philippines
*The Researcher’s Context and Concept
*The Research Setting and Situation
It may be presented as the third sub-section to offer a deeper and broader analysis of ELT in the Philippines by discussing the current LPP conditions in the country.
*Note: My panelists in the mock defense suggested that the specific questions on language policy and planning processes be deleted because my main focus should be on teacher cognition. My adviser thought that these items may surface as part of contextual factors that teachers usually consider in their classroom practices. However, I believe that a specific section of my dissertation should be devoted to LPP because it is a vital cog in the teaching-learning cycle. Including it in the background of my dissertation will provide a solid perspective on the issues that will be tackled in my study.
II. Tentative Title of the Sub-section (ELL312 Paper):
The Position of Language Planning and Policy in the Philippines: Perspectives, Predicaments, and Possibilities
III. Research Questions:
A. What are the current English language teaching policies prescribed by the Department of Education for Philippine public secondary schools?
B. What educational philosophies and pedagogical approaches guide these policies? What are the factors that influence policy makers?
C. What processes are followed in formulating such policies? What mechanisms are used for relaying them to various school divisions?
IV. Content:
A. Perspectives (approx. 3 pages)
*Current views on LPP
B. Predicaments and Possibilities (approx. 10 pages)
*Various issues on LPP (focus: the Philippine situation)
*Current ELT policies prescribed by DepEd (Understanding by Design; 2010 Secondary Education Curriculum)
*Description and Critical Analysis of the following: educational philosophies and pedagogical approaches behind the policies; factors that influence policy makers; processes in formulating policies and mechanisms
C. Insights, Implications, and Innovations: (approx. 2 pages)
*Summary, Conclusion, and Recommendations
Total: 15 pages
V. Data/Sources:
Please refer to the tentative reference list below.
REFERENCES:
Baker, C. (2006). Psycho-sociological analysis in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.) An introduction to language policy: theory and method (pp.210-228) Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Cuyegkeng, M.A. (2009). Preface. In P. Sicam and R. Barbasa (Eds.) Agenda for Hope: Ideas on Building a Nation. Preserving and Transforming Philippine Identity and Culture. (pp. vii-viii). Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila Loyola Schools.
De la Salle. (2009). Educational Mission Services. Retrieved 02 May 2010, from http://www.delasalle.ph/index.php?page=about§ion=erst
Department of Education (DepEd), Philippines. The 2010 Secondary Education Curriculum. Retrieved 02 May 2010, from http://www.cfo-pso.org.ph/main/pdf/8thconferencepresentation/day2/2010_curr.pdf
Department of Education (DepEd). (2005). The Monitoring and Evaluation of the
Implementation of the Basic Education Curriculum: Findings and Recommendations.
(DepEd Order No. 35; Departmentof Education, Republic of Philippines).
Department of Education (DepEd). (2009). Changes to DEPED Memorandum No. 431, S. 2009National Conference on Understanding by Design. (DepEd Order No. 472, Departmentof Education, Republic of Philippines).Retrieved 02 May 2010, from
http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/DM%20No.%20472,%20s.%202009.pdf
Department of Education (DepEd). (2009). Training of Fourth Year Teachers of the 22 Pilot Schools on the 2010 Secondary Education Curriculum (SEC). (DepEd Order No. 71, Departmentof Education, Republic of Philippines).Retrieved 02 May 2010, from
http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/DM%20No.%2071,%20s.%202009.pdf
Department of Education (DepEd). (2009). Training-Workshop for Teachers, Coordinators and Administrators of Private Schools on the Implementation of the 2010 Secondary Education Curriculum. (DepEd Order No. 110, Departmentof Education, Republic of Philippines).Retrieved 02 May 2010, from
http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/DM.%20110%20s%202010.pdf
Gonzalez, A. (2008). A favorable climate and soil: A transplanted language and literature. In K. Bolton & L. Bautista (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary Perspectives (pp. 13-27). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Hornberger, N. & Johnson, D.C. (2007). Slicing the onion: Ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41:3, 509-531.
Kachru, B. (1992).Teaching world Englishes. In Kachru, B. (Ed.) The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures, 2nd ed (pp. 355-365). Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
Kachru, Y. & Nelson, C. (2006).World Englishes in Asian Contexts. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Univ. Press.
Kelly, P. (1980). From innovation to adaptability. In M. Galton (Ed.), Curriculum Change.Leicester: Leicester University Press.
Kennedy, C. (1988) Evaluation of the management of change in ELT projects. Applied
Linguistics 9:4, 329-342.
Lambright, W. and Flynn, P. (1980). The role of local bureaucracy-centered coalitions. In J. Agnew (Ed.), Innovation Research and Public Policy. Syracuse: Syracuse University.
Martin, I. (in press). Periphery ELT: The politics and practice of teaching English in the Philippines. In A. Kirkpatrick, The Routledge handbook of world Englishes. London: Routledge.
McFarland, C. (2008). Linguistic Diversity and English in the Philippines. In K. Bolton & L. Bautista (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary Perspectives (pp. 131-155). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
McTighe, J. & Seif, E.(2003). A Summary of Underlying Theory and Research Base for Understanding by Design. Retrieved 02 May 2010, from
http://www.jaymctighe.com/articles/UbDResearch.pdf
Mindo, D. (2008). English language teaching, curriculum innovations and implementation strategies: Philippine experience. In Choi, Y. H. and Spolsky, B. (Eds.) ELT Curriculum Innovation and Implementation in Asia (pp. 161-189). Asia TEFL. Seoul: edKLC.
Nelson, C. (1992). My language, your culture: Whose communicative competence? In Kachru, B. (Ed.) The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures, 2nd ed (pp.327-339). Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
The News Today Online. (2009). Deped Gears Up Financial Literacy in Secondary Schools. Retrieved 02 May 2010 from http://www.thenewstoday.info/2009/02/06/deped.gears.up.financial.literacy.in.secondary.schools.html
Office of Caloocan City. Public Information Office. (2007). Press Release [Understanding by design]. Retrieved 02 May 2010, from http://www.caloocancity.gov.ph/content.aspx?sectionid=267
Pelones, M.T. (2010). National Education Conference: Getting the Core of 2010 Secondary Education Curriculum. Pinoy ALERT (Advancing Learning using Electronic and Relevant Technologies). Retrieved 02 May 2010, from http://www.pinoyalert.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/101-national-education-conference-getting-the-core-of-2010-secondary-education-curriculum.html
Ramanathan, V. & Morgan, B. (2007). TESOL and policy enactments: Perspectives from practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41:3, 447-463.
Rubdy, R. & Saraceni, M. (2006) Introduction. In Rubdy, R. & Saraceni, M. (Eds.). English in the world: Global rules, global roles (pp.5-16). Wiltshire: Antony Rowe Ltd.
Schmidt, R, Sr. (2006). Psycho-sociological analysis in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.) Political theory and language policy (pp. 95-110) Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Tomlinson, B. A multi-dimensional approach to teaching English for the world. In Rubdy, R. & Saraceni, M. (Eds.). English in the world: Global rules, global roles (pp.130-150). Wiltshire: Antony Rowe Ltd.
Tupas, T.R. Standard Englishes, pedagogical paradigms and their conditions of (im)possibility. In Rubdy, R. & Saraceni, M. (Eds.). English in the world: Global rules, global roles (pp.169-185). Wiltshire: Antony Rowe Ltd.
Villar, M. Resolution Supporting the Proposed 'Understanding By Design' Framework and Other Similar Initiatives that Aim to Revolutionize the Learning Process and Ultimately, Modernize Philippine Education.14th Congress Senate Resolution No. 1295. Filed on August 19, 2009 Retrieved 02 May 2010, from http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/1218910705!.pdf
http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/1218910705!.pdf
Vilches, M.(2005). Learning to learn: Perspectives from the Philippines English language teaching project. In Burns, A. (Ed.). Teaching English from a global perspective: Case Studies in TESOL Practice Series. Burton, J. (Series Ed.0) (pp. 113-127). Asia TEFL Book Series. Virginia: TESOL.
Vilches, M. (2009) Creative teaching thrives in public school classrooms. In P. Sicam and R. Barbasa (Eds.) Agenda for Hope: Ideas on Building a Nation. Preserving and Transforming Philippine Identity and Culture. (pp.89-107)Quezon City: Ateneo de
Manila Loyola Schools.
Waters, A. & Vilches, M. (2008).Education curriculum factors affecting ELT reforms: The case of the Philippines Basic Education Curriculum. RELC Journal 39:5 Retrieved from
http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/39/1/5;
http://www.sagepublications.com
Web Phil Info.Com Inc. (2010). DepEd Understanding by Design Staged. Retrieved 02 May 2010, from http://webphilippines.blogspot.com/2010/01/deped-understanding-by-design-staged.html
This paper is meant to help establish the background for my proposed dissertation(tentative title: “The Influence of Cognitive Processes and Contextual Factors on Public School Teachers’ Interpretation of ELT Policies and Classroom Practices”). It may be included as a sub-section in the introduction to describe the most current policies that are prescribed and implemented by the Department of Education.
Below are the current sub-sections in the background of my dissertation proposal:
*The Global and Local English Language Teaching (ELT) Climate
*The Background of ELT in the Philippines
*The Researcher’s Context and Concept
*The Research Setting and Situation
It may be presented as the third sub-section to offer a deeper and broader analysis of ELT in the Philippines by discussing the current LPP conditions in the country.
*Note: My panelists in the mock defense suggested that the specific questions on language policy and planning processes be deleted because my main focus should be on teacher cognition. My adviser thought that these items may surface as part of contextual factors that teachers usually consider in their classroom practices. However, I believe that a specific section of my dissertation should be devoted to LPP because it is a vital cog in the teaching-learning cycle. Including it in the background of my dissertation will provide a solid perspective on the issues that will be tackled in my study.
II. Tentative Title of the Sub-section (ELL312 Paper):
The Position of Language Planning and Policy in the Philippines: Perspectives, Predicaments, and Possibilities
III. Research Questions:
A. What are the current English language teaching policies prescribed by the Department of Education for Philippine public secondary schools?
B. What educational philosophies and pedagogical approaches guide these policies? What are the factors that influence policy makers?
C. What processes are followed in formulating such policies? What mechanisms are used for relaying them to various school divisions?
IV. Content:
A. Perspectives (approx. 3 pages)
*Current views on LPP
B. Predicaments and Possibilities (approx. 10 pages)
*Various issues on LPP (focus: the Philippine situation)
*Current ELT policies prescribed by DepEd (Understanding by Design; 2010 Secondary Education Curriculum)
*Description and Critical Analysis of the following: educational philosophies and pedagogical approaches behind the policies; factors that influence policy makers; processes in formulating policies and mechanisms
C. Insights, Implications, and Innovations: (approx. 2 pages)
*Summary, Conclusion, and Recommendations
Total: 15 pages
V. Data/Sources:
Please refer to the tentative reference list below.
REFERENCES:
Baker, C. (2006). Psycho-sociological analysis in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.) An introduction to language policy: theory and method (pp.210-228) Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Cuyegkeng, M.A. (2009). Preface. In P. Sicam and R. Barbasa (Eds.) Agenda for Hope: Ideas on Building a Nation. Preserving and Transforming Philippine Identity and Culture. (pp. vii-viii). Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila Loyola Schools.
De la Salle. (2009). Educational Mission Services. Retrieved 02 May 2010, from http://www.delasalle.ph/index.php?page=about§ion=erst
Department of Education (DepEd), Philippines. The 2010 Secondary Education Curriculum. Retrieved 02 May 2010, from http://www.cfo-pso.org.ph/main/pdf/8thconferencepresentation/day2/2010_curr.pdf
Department of Education (DepEd). (2005). The Monitoring and Evaluation of the
Implementation of the Basic Education Curriculum: Findings and Recommendations.
(DepEd Order No. 35; Departmentof Education, Republic of Philippines).
Department of Education (DepEd). (2009). Changes to DEPED Memorandum No. 431, S. 2009National Conference on Understanding by Design. (DepEd Order No. 472, Departmentof Education, Republic of Philippines).Retrieved 02 May 2010, from
http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/DM%20No.%20472,%20s.%202009.pdf
Department of Education (DepEd). (2009). Training of Fourth Year Teachers of the 22 Pilot Schools on the 2010 Secondary Education Curriculum (SEC). (DepEd Order No. 71, Departmentof Education, Republic of Philippines).Retrieved 02 May 2010, from
http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/DM%20No.%2071,%20s.%202009.pdf
Department of Education (DepEd). (2009). Training-Workshop for Teachers, Coordinators and Administrators of Private Schools on the Implementation of the 2010 Secondary Education Curriculum. (DepEd Order No. 110, Departmentof Education, Republic of Philippines).Retrieved 02 May 2010, from
http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/DM.%20110%20s%202010.pdf
Gonzalez, A. (2008). A favorable climate and soil: A transplanted language and literature. In K. Bolton & L. Bautista (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary Perspectives (pp. 13-27). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Hornberger, N. & Johnson, D.C. (2007). Slicing the onion: Ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41:3, 509-531.
Kachru, B. (1992).Teaching world Englishes. In Kachru, B. (Ed.) The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures, 2nd ed (pp. 355-365). Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
Kachru, Y. & Nelson, C. (2006).World Englishes in Asian Contexts. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Univ. Press.
Kelly, P. (1980). From innovation to adaptability. In M. Galton (Ed.), Curriculum Change.Leicester: Leicester University Press.
Kennedy, C. (1988) Evaluation of the management of change in ELT projects. Applied
Linguistics 9:4, 329-342.
Lambright, W. and Flynn, P. (1980). The role of local bureaucracy-centered coalitions. In J. Agnew (Ed.), Innovation Research and Public Policy. Syracuse: Syracuse University.
Martin, I. (in press). Periphery ELT: The politics and practice of teaching English in the Philippines. In A. Kirkpatrick, The Routledge handbook of world Englishes. London: Routledge.
McFarland, C. (2008). Linguistic Diversity and English in the Philippines. In K. Bolton & L. Bautista (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary Perspectives (pp. 131-155). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
McTighe, J. & Seif, E.(2003). A Summary of Underlying Theory and Research Base for Understanding by Design. Retrieved 02 May 2010, from
http://www.jaymctighe.com/articles/UbDResearch.pdf
Mindo, D. (2008). English language teaching, curriculum innovations and implementation strategies: Philippine experience. In Choi, Y. H. and Spolsky, B. (Eds.) ELT Curriculum Innovation and Implementation in Asia (pp. 161-189). Asia TEFL. Seoul: edKLC.
Nelson, C. (1992). My language, your culture: Whose communicative competence? In Kachru, B. (Ed.) The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures, 2nd ed (pp.327-339). Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
The News Today Online. (2009). Deped Gears Up Financial Literacy in Secondary Schools. Retrieved 02 May 2010 from http://www.thenewstoday.info/2009/02/06/deped.gears.up.financial.literacy.in.secondary.schools.html
Office of Caloocan City. Public Information Office. (2007). Press Release [Understanding by design]. Retrieved 02 May 2010, from http://www.caloocancity.gov.ph/content.aspx?sectionid=267
Pelones, M.T. (2010). National Education Conference: Getting the Core of 2010 Secondary Education Curriculum. Pinoy ALERT (Advancing Learning using Electronic and Relevant Technologies). Retrieved 02 May 2010, from http://www.pinoyalert.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/101-national-education-conference-getting-the-core-of-2010-secondary-education-curriculum.html
Ramanathan, V. & Morgan, B. (2007). TESOL and policy enactments: Perspectives from practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41:3, 447-463.
Rubdy, R. & Saraceni, M. (2006) Introduction. In Rubdy, R. & Saraceni, M. (Eds.). English in the world: Global rules, global roles (pp.5-16). Wiltshire: Antony Rowe Ltd.
Schmidt, R, Sr. (2006). Psycho-sociological analysis in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.) Political theory and language policy (pp. 95-110) Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Tomlinson, B. A multi-dimensional approach to teaching English for the world. In Rubdy, R. & Saraceni, M. (Eds.). English in the world: Global rules, global roles (pp.130-150). Wiltshire: Antony Rowe Ltd.
Tupas, T.R. Standard Englishes, pedagogical paradigms and their conditions of (im)possibility. In Rubdy, R. & Saraceni, M. (Eds.). English in the world: Global rules, global roles (pp.169-185). Wiltshire: Antony Rowe Ltd.
Villar, M. Resolution Supporting the Proposed 'Understanding By Design' Framework and Other Similar Initiatives that Aim to Revolutionize the Learning Process and Ultimately, Modernize Philippine Education.14th Congress Senate Resolution No. 1295. Filed on August 19, 2009 Retrieved 02 May 2010, from http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/1218910705!.pdf
http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/1218910705!.pdf
Vilches, M.(2005). Learning to learn: Perspectives from the Philippines English language teaching project. In Burns, A. (Ed.). Teaching English from a global perspective: Case Studies in TESOL Practice Series. Burton, J. (Series Ed.0) (pp. 113-127). Asia TEFL Book Series. Virginia: TESOL.
Vilches, M. (2009) Creative teaching thrives in public school classrooms. In P. Sicam and R. Barbasa (Eds.) Agenda for Hope: Ideas on Building a Nation. Preserving and Transforming Philippine Identity and Culture. (pp.89-107)Quezon City: Ateneo de
Manila Loyola Schools.
Waters, A. & Vilches, M. (2008).Education curriculum factors affecting ELT reforms: The case of the Philippines Basic Education Curriculum. RELC Journal 39:5 Retrieved from
http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/39/1/5;
http://www.sagepublications.com
Web Phil Info.Com Inc. (2010). DepEd Understanding by Design Staged. Retrieved 02 May 2010, from http://webphilippines.blogspot.com/2010/01/deped-understanding-by-design-staged.html
Thursday, April 29, 2010
SUPPLEMENTARY READINGS
Here are the supplementary readings to the primary reading assigned to me(Farrell & Tan) for "RECLAIMING THE LOCAL IN LPP: CASE STUDIES." I got them from my dissertation proposal reference list. They are the ones that may provide further background/context and extend the arguments given in the assigned reading.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: a review of research on what language teachers, think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81-109. Retrieved 29 Aug 2009, from
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/1652/1/borgs1_Language_Teaching_36-2.pdf
Chew, P.G.L. (2007). The history and the policy of English education in Singapore. In Choi, Y.H. and Spolsky, B. (Eds.), English Education in Asia: History and Policies (pp. 141-165). Asia TEFL. South Korea: eduKLC.
Fukami, R. (2005). Teacher cognition in context: what’s on their mind? Essex Graduate Student Papers in Language and Linguistics, 7. Retrieved 29 Aug 2009, from
http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache%3AL8cyP4lodFkJ%3Awww.essex.ac.uk%2Flinguistics%2Fpgr%2Fegspll%2Fvolume7%2FPDFs%2FFukami.pdf+studies+on+teacher+cognition&hl=tl&gl=ph.
Gutierrez, M. (2004). Studying teacher cognition: the interplay of teacher beliefs and instructional practice. Kritika Kultura, 4, 53-78. Retrieved 29 Aug 2009, from
http://150.ateneo.edu/kritikakultura/images/kkissue004.pdf
Haque, E. & Cray, E. (2007). Constraining teachers: Adult ESL settlement language training policy and implementation. TESOL Quarterly, 41:3, 634-642.
Harper, C., Platt, E., Naranjo, C. & Boyton, S. (2007) Marching in unison: Florida ESL teachers and No Child Left Behind. TESOL Quarterly, 41:3, 642-651.
Kennedy, C. (1988) Evaluation of the management of change in ELT projects. Applied
Linguistics 9:4, 329-342.
Martin, I. (in press). Periphery ELT: The politics and practice of teaching English in the Philippines. In A. Kirkpatrick, The Routledge handbook of world Englishes. London: Routledge.
Mindo, D. (2008). English language teaching, curriculum innovations and implementation strategies: Philippine experience. In Choi, Y. H. and Spolsky, B. (Eds.) ELT Curriculum Innovation and Implementation in Asia (pp. 161-189). Asia TEFL. Seoul: edKLC.
Nishino, T. & Watanabe, M. (2008). Communication-oriented policies versus classroom realities in Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 42:1, 133-138.
Probyn, M., Murray, S., Botha, L., Botya, P., Brooks, M., Westphal, V. (2002). Minding the gaps – an investigation into language policy and practice in four Eastern Cape districts. Perspectives in Education 20:1, 29-46 Retrieved 29 Aug 2009, from http://eprints.ru.ac.za/1449/01/Minding_the_Gaps.pdf
Richards, J.C., Tung, P., & Ng. P. (1992). The culture of the English language teacher: A Hong Kong example. RELC Journal, 23 (1): 81-103.
Waters, A. & Vilches, M. (2008).Education curriculum factors affecting ELT reforms: The case of the Philippines Basic Education Curriculum. RELC Journal 39:5 Retrieved from http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/39/1/5; http://www.sagepublications.com
Winer, L. (2007). No ESL in English schools: Language Policy in Quebec and Implications for TESL Teacher Education. TESOL Quarterly, 41:3, 489-507.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: a review of research on what language teachers, think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81-109. Retrieved 29 Aug 2009, from
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/1652/1/borgs1_Language_Teaching_36-2.pdf
Chew, P.G.L. (2007). The history and the policy of English education in Singapore. In Choi, Y.H. and Spolsky, B. (Eds.), English Education in Asia: History and Policies (pp. 141-165). Asia TEFL. South Korea: eduKLC.
Fukami, R. (2005). Teacher cognition in context: what’s on their mind? Essex Graduate Student Papers in Language and Linguistics, 7. Retrieved 29 Aug 2009, from
http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache%3AL8cyP4lodFkJ%3Awww.essex.ac.uk%2Flinguistics%2Fpgr%2Fegspll%2Fvolume7%2FPDFs%2FFukami.pdf+studies+on+teacher+cognition&hl=tl&gl=ph.
Gutierrez, M. (2004). Studying teacher cognition: the interplay of teacher beliefs and instructional practice. Kritika Kultura, 4, 53-78. Retrieved 29 Aug 2009, from
http://150.ateneo.edu/kritikakultura/images/kkissue004.pdf
Haque, E. & Cray, E. (2007). Constraining teachers: Adult ESL settlement language training policy and implementation. TESOL Quarterly, 41:3, 634-642.
Harper, C., Platt, E., Naranjo, C. & Boyton, S. (2007) Marching in unison: Florida ESL teachers and No Child Left Behind. TESOL Quarterly, 41:3, 642-651.
Kennedy, C. (1988) Evaluation of the management of change in ELT projects. Applied
Linguistics 9:4, 329-342.
Martin, I. (in press). Periphery ELT: The politics and practice of teaching English in the Philippines. In A. Kirkpatrick, The Routledge handbook of world Englishes. London: Routledge.
Mindo, D. (2008). English language teaching, curriculum innovations and implementation strategies: Philippine experience. In Choi, Y. H. and Spolsky, B. (Eds.) ELT Curriculum Innovation and Implementation in Asia (pp. 161-189). Asia TEFL. Seoul: edKLC.
Nishino, T. & Watanabe, M. (2008). Communication-oriented policies versus classroom realities in Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 42:1, 133-138.
Probyn, M., Murray, S., Botha, L., Botya, P., Brooks, M., Westphal, V. (2002). Minding the gaps – an investigation into language policy and practice in four Eastern Cape districts. Perspectives in Education 20:1, 29-46 Retrieved 29 Aug 2009, from http://eprints.ru.ac.za/1449/01/Minding_the_Gaps.pdf
Richards, J.C., Tung, P., & Ng. P. (1992). The culture of the English language teacher: A Hong Kong example. RELC Journal, 23 (1): 81-103.
Waters, A. & Vilches, M. (2008).Education curriculum factors affecting ELT reforms: The case of the Philippines Basic Education Curriculum. RELC Journal 39:5 Retrieved from http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/39/1/5; http://www.sagepublications.com
Winer, L. (2007). No ESL in English schools: Language Policy in Quebec and Implications for TESL Teacher Education. TESOL Quarterly, 41:3, 489-507.
Len’s Blog Assignment #7 (Lin)
In my dissertation proposal, I describe the significance of my study by indicating the themes of my research that includes
BARRIERS which will reveal the obstacles that block teachers from implementing prescribed policies; BRIDGES which will show what teachers actually do in the classroom to meet their instructional goals despite such blocks; and BREAKTHROUGHS which will lead to new insights that may guide policy-makers and educators, inspire new research in the field of teacher cognition, and improve teaching practices. (Canilao, 2010, pp. 35-36)
The paper of Lin (2006, p. 287) does the same thing: she discusses the BARRIERS (“the dichotomous ways of conceptualizing language and language pedagogies”), explores the BRIDGES (analysis of “the bilingual pedagogical practices in a Hong Kong science classroom”), and presents the BREAKTHROUGHS (proposal of “practical bilingual pedagogies”). Lin provides concrete answers to particular issues that many educators find burdensome and confusing. Her study may provide an answer to the dilemma that many language policy makers and teachers face. Although further research is needed to verify the impact of the proposed bilingual pedagogies, her study inspires language researchers to follow her lead.
In my dissertation, I plan to observe teachers who bridge the gap between policies and practices by employing strategies that may address their learners’ needs in the same way that the science teacher in Lin’s study finds various ways to make her lessons more comprehensible to her students. I will have to observe the factors (e.g. big class size; students’ behavior and attitudes) that may serve as hindrance to the successful implementation of prescribed ELT policies. I will also identify what the teachers do to make things work in the classroom and based on my findings propose particular directions that may be taken by policy makers and teacher educators to improve programs and practices.
Dr. Marlu Vilches, my adviser, and I have agreed to continue through my dissertation her initial study of public school teachers who have found some answers to the typical concerns of ELT practitioners who have to work under various constraints. It will be beneficial to a lot of sectors to uncover the secrets of these proactive public school teachers who are not overwhelmed by discouraging circumstances. Despite their teaching conditions, they still manage to teach effectively. They destroy BARRIERS, build BRIDGES, and introduce BREAKTHROUGHS.
My proposed LPP paper (proposed ELL312 research topic #2) will also be designed according to these themes. In conducting program reviews involving teachers, there are a lot of issues, problems, and concerns that may discourage or impede the process (BARRIERS: e.g. budget constraints). However, there are several venues that may be considered to overcome such obstacles (BRIDGES: e.g. formation of a committee of committed teachers). After a thorough analysis of the barriers and the bridges, BREAKTHROUGHS (e.g. framework for conducting needs analysis) may be proposed that other program reviewers may follow in conducting their own evaluation.
What is interesting about Lin’s study is that it veers away from deepening the schism that obstructs the thinking of ELT practitioners. Instead, she works toward reducing such divergence and providing alternatives that they may take into account in solving pedagogical dilemmas and predicaments.
Research, then, does not simply remain a description of what the problems are, but breaks the borders of limitations and explores the realms of possibilities. As a researcher, I have to be convinced that my work will not simply be placed in a library shelf or filed in a drawer; I want it to be read and spread to inspire others to pursue further research and challenge fellow ELT practitioners to continue seeking answers to their quests.
References:
Canilao, M.L.E. (2010).The Influence of Cognitive Processes and Contextual Factors on Public School Teachers’ Interpretation of ELT Policies and Classroom Practices. Dissertation proposal. Ateneo de Manila University.
Lin, A. (2006). Beyond linguistic purism in language-in-education policy and practice: exploring bilingual pedagogies in a Hong Kong science classroom. Language and Education 20 (4): 287-305.
BARRIERS which will reveal the obstacles that block teachers from implementing prescribed policies; BRIDGES which will show what teachers actually do in the classroom to meet their instructional goals despite such blocks; and BREAKTHROUGHS which will lead to new insights that may guide policy-makers and educators, inspire new research in the field of teacher cognition, and improve teaching practices. (Canilao, 2010, pp. 35-36)
The paper of Lin (2006, p. 287) does the same thing: she discusses the BARRIERS (“the dichotomous ways of conceptualizing language and language pedagogies”), explores the BRIDGES (analysis of “the bilingual pedagogical practices in a Hong Kong science classroom”), and presents the BREAKTHROUGHS (proposal of “practical bilingual pedagogies”). Lin provides concrete answers to particular issues that many educators find burdensome and confusing. Her study may provide an answer to the dilemma that many language policy makers and teachers face. Although further research is needed to verify the impact of the proposed bilingual pedagogies, her study inspires language researchers to follow her lead.
In my dissertation, I plan to observe teachers who bridge the gap between policies and practices by employing strategies that may address their learners’ needs in the same way that the science teacher in Lin’s study finds various ways to make her lessons more comprehensible to her students. I will have to observe the factors (e.g. big class size; students’ behavior and attitudes) that may serve as hindrance to the successful implementation of prescribed ELT policies. I will also identify what the teachers do to make things work in the classroom and based on my findings propose particular directions that may be taken by policy makers and teacher educators to improve programs and practices.
Dr. Marlu Vilches, my adviser, and I have agreed to continue through my dissertation her initial study of public school teachers who have found some answers to the typical concerns of ELT practitioners who have to work under various constraints. It will be beneficial to a lot of sectors to uncover the secrets of these proactive public school teachers who are not overwhelmed by discouraging circumstances. Despite their teaching conditions, they still manage to teach effectively. They destroy BARRIERS, build BRIDGES, and introduce BREAKTHROUGHS.
My proposed LPP paper (proposed ELL312 research topic #2) will also be designed according to these themes. In conducting program reviews involving teachers, there are a lot of issues, problems, and concerns that may discourage or impede the process (BARRIERS: e.g. budget constraints). However, there are several venues that may be considered to overcome such obstacles (BRIDGES: e.g. formation of a committee of committed teachers). After a thorough analysis of the barriers and the bridges, BREAKTHROUGHS (e.g. framework for conducting needs analysis) may be proposed that other program reviewers may follow in conducting their own evaluation.
What is interesting about Lin’s study is that it veers away from deepening the schism that obstructs the thinking of ELT practitioners. Instead, she works toward reducing such divergence and providing alternatives that they may take into account in solving pedagogical dilemmas and predicaments.
Research, then, does not simply remain a description of what the problems are, but breaks the borders of limitations and explores the realms of possibilities. As a researcher, I have to be convinced that my work will not simply be placed in a library shelf or filed in a drawer; I want it to be read and spread to inspire others to pursue further research and challenge fellow ELT practitioners to continue seeking answers to their quests.
References:
Canilao, M.L.E. (2010).The Influence of Cognitive Processes and Contextual Factors on Public School Teachers’ Interpretation of ELT Policies and Classroom Practices. Dissertation proposal. Ateneo de Manila University.
Lin, A. (2006). Beyond linguistic purism in language-in-education policy and practice: exploring bilingual pedagogies in a Hong Kong science classroom. Language and Education 20 (4): 287-305.
Len’s Blog Assignment #6 (Farrell & Tan; Tupas)
The readings are quite relevant to my dissertation (tentative title: “The Influence of Cognitive Processes and Contextual Factors on Public School Teachers’ Interpretation of ELT Policies and Classroom Practices”) and my proposed LPP paper (proposed ELL312 topic #2: empowering teachers in LPP) because they both reveal the crucial role of teachers in translating policies into classroom practices.
In Farrell & Tan’s piece, I found the following statement quite striking: “The findings of this study demonstrate how the many complex beliefs held by teachers can sometimes be in conflict with each other and how these beliefs exert different degrees of power and influence on the teachers’ final classroom practices” (2008, p. 396). This is one area that I would like to explore in my dissertation. I would like to find out how teachers’ belief systems and their classroom practices connect or clash given particular contextual factors (e.g. ELT policies; logistical constraints). I intend to unveil the intervention of teachers’ personal pedagogical paradigms because it is a major influence on classroom instruction.
Farrell & Tan’s work has also made me realize that, indeed, teachers need to be involved in all stages of LPP because they are the ultimate interpreters, translators, evaluators, and executors of language policies. As Tupas (forthcoming) asserts: “It goes without saying that, if we want to empower teachers and learners with particular models of English, we must let these models emerge from the communities of cultures, literacies and politics” (p. 577). Thus, language policies should be based on the NEEDS of particular teaching/learning communities or contexts (bottom-up process), NOT on what policy makers perceive to be the needs of these teaching/learning communities or contexts (top-down process).
The studies that I have reviewed for my dissertation proposal reveal that in many instances, policies are not implemented successfully because there is a “cultural mismatch” (Kennedy, 1988, p. 333) between the prescribed policies coming from the state and the local teaching-learning communities. Thus, teachers either follow policies and compromise the learning needs of their students or deviate from them to meet their students’ needs.
How can a bottom-up process be followed in LPP? This is one question I intend to answer in my ELL312 paper by presenting the NEEDS ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK I designed in conducting the review of language courses of the Ateneo de Manila University School of Humanities English Department. This framework focuses on learning needs with the following elements: situation needs: teaching and learning context; language needs: the purpose for teaching and learning English; learners’ objective needs: students’ proficiency and skills levels; learners’ subjective needs: students’ preferences and expectations. This comprehensive framework covers both the macro-level and micro-level perspectives that need to be taken into account in evaluating, improving, and developing programs.
Moreover, I will discuss the PROCESS-ORIENTED approach our program review team followed to allow teachers to participate in proposing CHANGES and evaluating proposed CHANGES. Instead of employing an “external agency” to study learners’ needs and propose program changes, teachers who are the main agents of implementation are the ones directly involved in analyzing the learning needs. This is a form of TEACHER EMPOWERMENT and one venue for promoting OWNERSHIP among them.
My purpose in writing this paper is to share it with other departments and institutions that may consider a more bottom-up process in evaluating and improving their language programs. The current issues discussed in the works of Farrell & Tan and Tupas often surface in language conferences (e.g. ACELT conferences). Teachers often ask: What kind of English should we teach? I agree with Jenkins (2007, p. 36) that the “decision should be made by those directly involved.”
References:
Farrell, T. & Tan, S.K.K. (2008). Language policy, language teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics 29 (3): 381-403.
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kennedy, C. (1988) Evaluation of the management of change in ELT projects. Applied
Linguistics 9:4, 329-342.
Tupas, T.R.F. (forthcoming). Which norms in everyday practice and why? In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.). Handbook of World Englishes. Routledge.
In Farrell & Tan’s piece, I found the following statement quite striking: “The findings of this study demonstrate how the many complex beliefs held by teachers can sometimes be in conflict with each other and how these beliefs exert different degrees of power and influence on the teachers’ final classroom practices” (2008, p. 396). This is one area that I would like to explore in my dissertation. I would like to find out how teachers’ belief systems and their classroom practices connect or clash given particular contextual factors (e.g. ELT policies; logistical constraints). I intend to unveil the intervention of teachers’ personal pedagogical paradigms because it is a major influence on classroom instruction.
Farrell & Tan’s work has also made me realize that, indeed, teachers need to be involved in all stages of LPP because they are the ultimate interpreters, translators, evaluators, and executors of language policies. As Tupas (forthcoming) asserts: “It goes without saying that, if we want to empower teachers and learners with particular models of English, we must let these models emerge from the communities of cultures, literacies and politics” (p. 577). Thus, language policies should be based on the NEEDS of particular teaching/learning communities or contexts (bottom-up process), NOT on what policy makers perceive to be the needs of these teaching/learning communities or contexts (top-down process).
The studies that I have reviewed for my dissertation proposal reveal that in many instances, policies are not implemented successfully because there is a “cultural mismatch” (Kennedy, 1988, p. 333) between the prescribed policies coming from the state and the local teaching-learning communities. Thus, teachers either follow policies and compromise the learning needs of their students or deviate from them to meet their students’ needs.
How can a bottom-up process be followed in LPP? This is one question I intend to answer in my ELL312 paper by presenting the NEEDS ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK I designed in conducting the review of language courses of the Ateneo de Manila University School of Humanities English Department. This framework focuses on learning needs with the following elements: situation needs: teaching and learning context; language needs: the purpose for teaching and learning English; learners’ objective needs: students’ proficiency and skills levels; learners’ subjective needs: students’ preferences and expectations. This comprehensive framework covers both the macro-level and micro-level perspectives that need to be taken into account in evaluating, improving, and developing programs.
Moreover, I will discuss the PROCESS-ORIENTED approach our program review team followed to allow teachers to participate in proposing CHANGES and evaluating proposed CHANGES. Instead of employing an “external agency” to study learners’ needs and propose program changes, teachers who are the main agents of implementation are the ones directly involved in analyzing the learning needs. This is a form of TEACHER EMPOWERMENT and one venue for promoting OWNERSHIP among them.
My purpose in writing this paper is to share it with other departments and institutions that may consider a more bottom-up process in evaluating and improving their language programs. The current issues discussed in the works of Farrell & Tan and Tupas often surface in language conferences (e.g. ACELT conferences). Teachers often ask: What kind of English should we teach? I agree with Jenkins (2007, p. 36) that the “decision should be made by those directly involved.”
References:
Farrell, T. & Tan, S.K.K. (2008). Language policy, language teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics 29 (3): 381-403.
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kennedy, C. (1988) Evaluation of the management of change in ELT projects. Applied
Linguistics 9:4, 329-342.
Tupas, T.R.F. (forthcoming). Which norms in everyday practice and why? In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.). Handbook of World Englishes. Routledge.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
LEN’S RESEARCH TOPIC BLOG (ELL312 RESEARCH PAPER)
#1. What are the current English language teaching policies prescribed by the Department of Education for Philippine public secondary schools? What educational philosophies and pedagogical approaches guide these policies? What are the factors that influence policy makers? What processes are followed in formulating such policies? What mechanisms are used for relaying them to various school divisions?
*This the ideal topic for me because I originally wanted it to be part of my dissertation and it’s something that interests me. However, during the mock defense, one of the suggestions was to delete this set of questions because according to the panelists, my focus should be on teacher cognition. I’m still thinking about it. If I pursue it for my LPP paper though, my biggest problem is the TIME for data gathering. To answer the questions above, I need to contact DepEd and interview officials, policy makers, division heads, and public school teachers to get solid data. I don’t think I can do it in a week considering my personal circumstances and taking into account the national elections on May 10.
#2. What steps may be taken to empower teachers in language planning and policy? How can language programs be improved by teachers themselves? What framework may be used in conducting a systematic language program review by teachers?
*I would like to present a case study based on the language program review that the Ateneo SOH English Department conducted from 2008 to 2010. As the En11/12 Coordinator, I initiated it with the help of a committee of dedicated English teachers. The focus of the LPP paper would be the PROCESS that we followed in conducting the review. Based on this process, I would propose a FRAMEWORK that other ELT practitioners may follow in conducting their own language program review that may lead to changes in their ELT policies and practices. I think this is more feasible than the first one and it’s also something I’d like to work on.
*This the ideal topic for me because I originally wanted it to be part of my dissertation and it’s something that interests me. However, during the mock defense, one of the suggestions was to delete this set of questions because according to the panelists, my focus should be on teacher cognition. I’m still thinking about it. If I pursue it for my LPP paper though, my biggest problem is the TIME for data gathering. To answer the questions above, I need to contact DepEd and interview officials, policy makers, division heads, and public school teachers to get solid data. I don’t think I can do it in a week considering my personal circumstances and taking into account the national elections on May 10.
#2. What steps may be taken to empower teachers in language planning and policy? How can language programs be improved by teachers themselves? What framework may be used in conducting a systematic language program review by teachers?
*I would like to present a case study based on the language program review that the Ateneo SOH English Department conducted from 2008 to 2010. As the En11/12 Coordinator, I initiated it with the help of a committee of dedicated English teachers. The focus of the LPP paper would be the PROCESS that we followed in conducting the review. Based on this process, I would propose a FRAMEWORK that other ELT practitioners may follow in conducting their own language program review that may lead to changes in their ELT policies and practices. I think this is more feasible than the first one and it’s also something I’d like to work on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)