Advantages and Disadvantages of Bilingualism

Bilingualism has been a hotly-debated issue in the fields of second language acquisition, linguistics, and cognitive and social sciences. One of the concerns about bilingualism on which also a lot of discussions and research has been carried out is the question whether being a bilingual puts an individual at an advantageous or disadvantageous position. From this perspective, developments in the field divided the literature into three chronological phases in terms of the effects that bilingualism exerts on individuals: the period of negative effects, the period of neutral effects and the period of positive effects (Baker, 2000). Of these three views the one which is now held by researchers and specialists in the field is the last one that posits that bilingualism has no negative effects; on the contrary it has certain advantages for individuals. Nevertheless, although we know and accept that bilingualism has impressive positive effects on bilinguals, there also some disadvantages that being a bilingual might give way to. In the following paper you will find a concise summary of advantages and disadvantages of being a bilingual.

Baker and Jones (1998) maintain that there are three kinds of benefits of bilingualism these are communication advantages, cultural advantages and cognitive advantages. In terms of communication advantages they state that being a bilingual enables individuals to form strong bonds with their family members and thus helps them to bridge the gap that is possible to exist between generations. Another communication advantage they mention is that being able to switch from one language to another, bilinguals can be more “attuned” to communicative needs of other parties. This is believed to be the reason for bilinguals’ being more “emphatic” listeners. Baker and Jones indicate that cultural advantage of bilingualism is that it provides people with cultural information from two distinct societies.

 It is emphasized that bilingualism opens up new worlds in individuals’ mind which brings a feeling of partnership emanating from the shared languages. As to cognitive advantages of bilingualism Baker and Jones denotes that being a bilingual brings “creative thinking, flexibility and elaboration in thinking”. Baker (2000) also states that bilinguals have superiority in concept formation compared to monolinguals. 

Underachievement and Giftedness

A general misconception about gifted children is that they are mostly associated with high achievement. Parents and teachers mostly believe that these children will display extremely successful performances regarding their lessons compared to their peers. However, the fact is quite different. Let alone keeping a pace parallel to their peers, gifted students might even fall behind of them. Although a relatively large percentage of gifted students are successful at meeting their teachers’ and parents’ expectations, we come across underachieving gifted students too. Facing this fact can be pretty much frustrating not only on the parts of parents and teachers but on the part of these students as well.

In order to fully comprehend and analyze this problem we have to understand what is meant by “underachievement”. Davis and Rimm (1998) define underachievement as “the discrepancy between the child’s school performance and some index of his or her intellectual ability such as intelligence … and creativity…”. Put another way, underachievement takes place when there is a certain mismatch between what the child exhibits and what s/he is supposed to exhibit taking his/her intelligence and creativity into account. It is a quite puzzling fact that even though gifted children are highly intelligent and creative, results of their school performance mark them as purely an underachiever or a mediocre student. Clark (2002) reports from Robertson’s 1991 study that every year 18-25% gifted and talented students drop out of high school as a result of this erroneous ascertainment. We believe that these figures are enough to express the magnitude of the problem.      

What help us a lot in differentiating between a gifted underachiever and a typical underachiever are the defining characteristics of gifted students. Despite the fact that there is not a totally-agreed upon set of characteristics for these children, there are certain attributes that distinguish them from others. Gallagher (1985) quotes from Terman & Oden’s study (1947) on gifted underachievement and mentions following characteristics as the distinguishing characteristics of gifted underachievers: “a lack of self confidence, the inability to persevere, a lack of integration to goals, the presence of inferiority feelings”. Besides these, one generally observed event is that these children, being totally aware of their underachievement, act out their frustration and mostly turn aggressive or withdraw (Clark, 2002. Underachieving Gifted Students).

One common striking characteristic among these children is their belief that they cannot accomplish anything. Depending on this low self-esteem they consider having a limited control over their lives. When they fail accomplishing a task they ascribe this to their incompetence; and when they accomplish a task they attribute this to luck. This is what is called “learned helplessness” (Seligman, 1975). This idea frequently leads them to “letting it go” since they believe that whether they make an effort or not will not create a difference.  It is probable that gifted children try to keep away bringing of being gifted in this way. This is thought as a shield that will protect them from the expectations built on their giftedness. Radical rebellion against authority is another method for them to protect themselves. In this way, they again hold their shield and keep responsibilities away by playing the idle (Davis & Rimm, 1998).

Another point that needs to be investigated in gifted underachievement is the reason why gifted children underachieve. An understanding of causes of this phenomenon will let daylight into this matter. Before all else, it should be known that causes underlying underachievement are complex and they display individual and contextual differences. That is why every single gifted child should be handled with caution and attention. Nevertheless, as in the characteristics of these learners, we can find some patterns with respect to gifted underachievement as well.

Clark (2002) basically points out three factors that might give way to underachievement. These are “the personality of the child, the home and/or parents, and finally the school”. Besides these, other developmental problems which are generally observed in gifted children might be in charge. We know that giftedness is almost always accompanied by other difficulties such as ADHD and hearing difficulties. It should be kept in mind that co-morbidity is something generally observed when the issue is giftedness.

The personality of the child is one of the biggest shareholders in child’s underachievement. If lessons available for the child do not correspond to his/her interest and benefits, s/he might underachieve. At this point, come across the issue of proper guidance. Unless gifted children are guided and handled in line with their interests, underachievement is inevitable. Secondly, parents’ setting unrealistic goals for the child, not being supportive, active in school matters is another cause. And finally, inflexibility, being unrewarding, and existence of a competitive environment are the factors leading to underachievement on schools’ part.       

In order to overcome the problem of gifted underachievement we need some adjustments both at school and home. Parents’ being educated and attentive on this issue is a must. As for the schools, we need sensitive teachers, inclusive procedures and proper guidance that will motivate these children.

REFERENCES:

Davis, G. A. & Rimm, S. B. (1998). Education of the gifted and talented (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Clark, B. (2002). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home and at school (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Seligman, M.E.P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development and death. San Francisco: Freeman.

Gallagher, J. & Gallagher, S. (1994). Teaching the gifted child. (4^th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). The gifted child grows up: Twenty-five year follow-up of a superior group, genetic studies of genius. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Robertson, E. (1991). Neglected dropouts: The gifted and talented. Equity & Excellence, 25, 62-74.

A Brief Analysis of Dyslexia

Today it is widely known and admitted that many children are born with learning disabilities. In spite of this fact, most of the known learning disabilities in children cannot be diagnosed before school age. What is even worse is that the problems observed in these children are mostly attributed to studying less than enough rather than any specific learning impairment. Nevertheless, nowadays there is a growing awareness to deal with children with learning difficulties and the difficulties themselves.

Although there is not a universal definition accepted for learning disability, one of the definitions that is widely held by experts is explained in Valuing People Now (2009) which defines learning disability as following: “A significantly reduced ability to understand new or complex information, to learn new skills (impaired intelligence), with; a reduced ability to cope independently (impaired social functioning); which started before adulthood (18 years), with a lasting effect on development”. As it can be inferred from this definition, people with learning difficulties are mostly in a disadvantaged position both in society and schooling. And one the biggest member groups of this disadvantaged community is people with “dyslexia”.

Lyon (2003) defines dyslexia as “a specific language-based disorder of constitutional origin characterized by difficulties in single word decoding, usually reflecting insufficient phonological processing”. He continues to state that manifestation of dyslexia is not dependent on age or cognitive and academic abilities. He maintains that dyslexia shows its effects in various forms of language, reading being the most observable one. Even though there is no consensus over the causes of dyslexia, three main factors are believed to lead to dyslexic development: 1) inherited factors 2) hearing problems at an early age 3) improper brain development. These three factors are said to be the basic causes of dyslexia. However, there are also some scientists like Philip J. Landrigan who alleges that there is evidence that shows exposure to chemicals in the environment causes dyslexia as well.      

Franck Ramus (2004) state that scientists are puzzled not only by the plurality and complexity of symptoms of dyslexia but also its co morbidity with other developmental learning disorders like specific language impairment. Therefore, he states that symptoms observed in dyslexic individuals may also be shared by other learning disabilities. Nicolson et. Al (2001) state that one of the most significant symptoms of dyslexia apart from difficulties in reading-related symptoms is difficulty in “skill automatisation”. That is to say they claim that dyslexic individuals can fulfill the process of automatising skills after repetitive practices at a considerably slow pace. Another important symptom they mention, is significant reading delay. They put forward that dyslexic individuals can start reading at least 18 months later than typically developing individuals. Other symptoms of dyslexia seem to be delayed speech, early stuttering and cluttering, difficulty in learning the alphabet, difficulty in mastering shoe-tying, slips of the tongue, getting visibly tired after reading for a short while and so on.

Tijms et. al (2003) allege  that using some psycholinguistic treatment techniques for dyslexia have proven to be effective. However, he also states that results may not be long-lasting. Nowadays there are on-going studies and research in order to find a treatment for dyslexia. Nevertheless, this does not remove the necessity for us to prepare and establish educational systems taking dyslexic individuals along with others who suffer several kinds of learning impairments. From a teachers’ perspective I believe that instead of ignoring these individuals we should come up with solutions to accommodate them in our learning environments.

REFERENCES

Lyon, G.R. (1995). Toward a definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 3–27.

Nicolson, R. I., & Fawcett, A. J. (1995b). Dyslexia is more than a phonological disability. Dyslexia: An International Journal of Research and Practice, 1, 19-37.

Nicolson, R.I., Fawcett, A.J., & Dean, P. (2001). Developmental dyslexia: the cerebellar deficit hypothesis. Trends in Neurosciences, 24 (9), 508–511.

Ramus, F. (2004). Neurobiology of dyslexia: A reinterpretation of the data. Trends in Neurosciences 27(12):720–26.

Ridge, Melanie. (2009). A Health Needs Assessment for adults with learning disabilities, autism and Asperger syndrome. Bromley PCT.

Tijms, J., Hoeks, J.W.M., Paulussen-Hoogeboom, M.C., & Smolenaars, A.J. (2003). Long-term effects of a psycholinguistic treatment for dyslexia. Journal of Research in Reading, 26, 121-140.

Valuing People Now: A new three- year strategy for people with learning disabilities, Department of Health 2009

http://www.dys-add.com/symptoms.html#famous

European Language Portfolio and Its Insights for Teaching Young Learners

                                                                                                                       

            In today’s world, learning languages is becoming more and more significant as a result of all the interaction going around all over the globe. Naturally, the more significance learning languages is attached to, the more emphasis is put on the ways, strategies and methods which will enable language learners to make sure that this process of language learning is achieved smoothly and with ease. One of the attempts that have been made towards this goal is Council of Europe’s European Language Portfolio (ELF). European Language Portfolio is basically a reporting instrument on language learning (Kohonen, 2004). It is a part of Common European Framework, which sets parameters and designs curricula for learning languages (Little, 2005). European Language Portfolio aims at making it possible for learners to keep track of their development in the target language and encouraging them by acknowledging their efforts. ELP has three basic components: language passport, language biography, and dossier (Council of Europe, 2000). Also, ELP has a version which has been designated towards young learners: ELP junior version, which is available only in English and targeted at the young learners living in the UK.  In the following paper you will find an overview of the three components of ELP along with the insights that it offers for young language learners.

             The language passport part of ELP is set up to present learners’ proficiency levels in different languages. It gives a description of qualifications and competences in respective languages. This passport makes it possible for not only language teachers but also learners to make assessments. It also helps keeping records of both intercultural experiences and important language learning experiences. In the junior version of ELP the language passport section is presented quite like a game to grab young learners’ interest and attention. Learners are required to fill in a “passport-like” form indicating their name, school, age and the languages they learn at school and speak at home. They are also asked to ascertain their level proficiency in the target language as they progress. In this way, they raise an awareness of their language improvement.  

            ELP’s language biography section “facilitates the learners’ involvement in planning, reflecting upon and assessing their learning process and progress”. It asks learners to solidify what competences they have in languages and what they can achieve through language. In this part of the portfolio they also write their cultural experiences related to the use of language. In the junior version of ELP, “my language biography” section is presented very vividly and catchy along with the pictures that are intended help learners solidify their competences in the language.

            The dossier section ELP is intended to be used to learners to keep records of materials, achievements or important learning moments that are present in their “language passports” and “language biographies”. Little and Parclova () uses the metaphor of “an artist’s portfolio” for this part of ELP. This metaphor really stands because in this part learners keep their most valuable or significant materials in their portfolio, be it a letter written to a pen-friend or homework that is much appreciated by the teacher. They demonstrate their reading and writing skills and they can also use audio-recordings for their speaking skills. In the junior version of ELP, the dossier also is presented very vividly with pictures around. It asks the learners to keep their important learning materials and valuable leaning assets in the folder.      

            All in all, we see that European Language Portfolio is a valuable source to organize teaching and learning. It is possible to state frankly that with the use of ELP both teachers and learners –no matter what age they are- will benefit. With its clearly-set objectives and nature of raising awareness on the part of the learners ELP is of great help in language classes. Language teachers ought to be aware of this source and make use of it as much as possible.   

REFERENCES:

Council of Europe (2001a). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:     

learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (http://culture.coe.int/portfolio)

Council of Europe, (2000): European Language Portfolio (ELP): Principles and Guidelines. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Hasselgreen, A. (2005). Assessing the language of young learners. Language Testing. 22 (3), 337– 354.

Little, D. & Perclova, R. (2001). European Language Portfolio: guide for teachers and teacher trainers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. (http://culture.coe.int/portfolio)

Little, D. (2005). The Common European Framework and the European Language Portfolio: involving learners and their judgements in the assessment process. Language Testing 22 (3), 321-336.

Kohonen, V. (2004). On the pedagogical significance of the European Language Portfolio: findings of the Finnish pilot project. Future Perspectives in Foreign Language Education. Oulu, Finland: Studies of the Faculty of Education of the University of Oulu.

Handling Errors in ELT Classroom: Three Basic Immediate Correction Techniques

                                                                                                                

Teaching languages is a challenging task in which the teacher should consider many variables that have significant effects on learning outcomes. One of those significant considerations is how to respond students’ errors. One important point that is needed to be mentioned here is that errors are natural parts of acquisition. Learners might make mistakes at all stages and this happens no matter how able or perseverant the teacher is (Thornbury, 1999). Therefore, it should be kept in mind that learners’ making errors is an inevitable part of language learning. However, this does not tell us that errors can be ignored; instead it tells us that approaches toward error correction is supposed to consider this basic fact. After internalizing this, teachers have to focus on some other issues about error correction. That is to say, just spotting the error and correcting it directly will not help much. Firstly, teacher has to classify the error (grammar error, pronunciation error etc.). Secondly, s/he has to decide whether to handle it or not. Thirdly, teacher should decide when to correct the error (immediate-delayed). And finally, s/he should determine the appropriate technique to correct the error made (Scrivener, 1994). In the present paper you will find information about useful techniques to handle errors on-the-spot (immediately) especially the ones made by young learners.

One of the error correction techniques that is mostly used by teachers is recasting the incorrect statement in the correct manner. Recasting or with another name “rephrasing” is an immediate type of feedback. It is believed to be a gentle way of offering correction. However, one possible defect of this type of feedback is that learners may not notice that they made an error and it was corrected by teacher; this is true especially with young learners since they pay more attention to meaning than on form. Yet again, this method is favored over many others as it presents a more indirect approach which does not lead to offense or humiliation on the part of the learner.  

Another technique that is used to correct learners’ errors is to “echo the error”. In this technique teacher literally repeats the erroneous utterance made by students. In this way teacher can attract leaner’s attention to the sentence s/he formed and make him/her feel that there is something wrong with the utterance. Nevertheless, it is possible to have the same problem of meaning versus form focus distinction here. A similar technique to this is echoing up to the error in the utterance and letting student to complete the sentence. Differently from the previous one this technique is more possible to be successful in attracting learner’s attention to the error.     

The last immediate error correction I will mention in this paper is peer correction. In this technique, error made by a student is asked to be corrected by other students in the class. This can be implemented in route following manner, for example starting from the student closest to the teacher to the farthest one. Every student in the line is given a chance to correct the error made. The procedure is followed until one of the students presents the corrected form. Once again teacher mat come across the possibility of humiliation of the student who made the error in this method. Therefore, teacher needs to be especially careful with tone and approach s/he has towards students.

It is never possible to mention the ultimate best technique of error correction. Actually sometimes teachers do not even have to correct errors. Before taking a step toward error correction teacher has to answer certain questions: 1) Which learner errors should be corrected? 2) When should errors be corrected? 3) Who should correct learner errors? 4) How should errors be corrected? (Hendrickson, 1978) For the correction to be efficient and to serve its goals teachers should firstly answer these questions. I believe it is important to note that there are various kinds of handling error only three of which are covered here. However, as stated above, there is never the best one. The most appropriate technique varies according to the answers that can be given to the questions above. It should also be noted that correcting more does not guarantee that students will make fewer errors. Therefore, teachers should be careful about these considerations that will help them shape the correction technique they can make use of.  

REFERENCES:

Cohen, Andrew D. (1975). Error Correction and the Training of Language Teachers. The Modern Language Journal. 59: 414-422.

Fanselow, John F. (1977). The Treatment of Error in Oral Work. Foreign Language Annals 10: 583-593.

Hendrickson, J. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387–398.

Sanavi, R. Mirsaeedi, K. (2008). Error Treatment Predicament: Negotiated Corrective Feedback English. Language Teaching Conference. Iran.

Scrivener, J. (1994). Learning Teaching. Heinemann: Oxford.

Thornbury, S. (1999). How to Teach Grammar. Harlow: Longman.

My Teaching Philosophy

Introduction

It is widely known and understandably clear that learning languages is an undeniable and inseparable part of our lives. The reciprocal interactions of diverse communities all around the globe have gained mobility due to untraceably-swift spreading technology and communication network. The world is now turning into a “global village” where linguistic interactions are carried out effortlessly (Marshall McLuhan, 1962). To give an example, one can watch programs and news, listen to songs that are broadcasted in English, German, Italian, Portuguese and so forth; and I believe it would be no surprise to watch a TV series even in Swahili if it were not a dead language. In this amazingly and extraordinarily abundant flow of communication taking place in our lives our attention is drawn to the field of language studies. Although learning languages has always been a part of human life since its very origin, due to lack of the opportunities and facilities that I listed above, it did not turn into an area of exclusive study with its all dynamics, processes and features until the turn of the 19th century which sparked and brought about the existence and applications of language studies. Indeed, the concept of language teaching as a distinct and separate domain was initiated in this era, when we witnessed a bombardment of ideas, methods and approaches which endeavored to yield the best learning outcomes regarding language teaching. All of these efforts of explaining and describing how languages are learned, and in line with this, how languages should be taught has offered language teachers insights making them come to the realization of the complicated process of language acquisition. Having gone through these basic methods and approaches of language teaching the very first thing that I can dauntlessly state is that there is no best way of teaching a language; however, this does not mean that teaching languages to its full content is impossible. Put another way, there can be only good ways of teaching languages, yet in my view it is neither reasonable nor credible to mention the ultimately best method of teaching. Throughout this paper I will attempt to explain my view of language teaching (teaching philosophy) combining parts of various methods (although not mentioned directly) that seem applicable, which we can refer to as an “eclectic” way of teaching.

Before starting to explain my teaching philosophy I need to mention a critical point in language teaching. As a teacher candidate who has experienced teaching, not substantially though, I have come to recognize that people have a wide range of motivations in their attempts to learn languages. For instance, a considerably large number of people in Turkey compared to other countries learn languages, English mostly, in order to acquire accreditation for certain areas. A number of academicians learn English to pass the UDS exam, which is obligatory for them to pass to go on their academic lives. And obviously these people’s driving force of learning English is not communication but filling in some circles on the optic-reader form correctly. Even though I am strictly against teaching English giving some rules and formulas as if it is mathematics, I am of the opinion that we need to consider thoroughly the purposes of the learners in their attempts to learn languages so that we can determine the nature of teaching that we will adapt to class. In the philosophy of teaching I will present I assume that learners are learning the target language for communicative purposes.

According to my teaching philosophy, languages should be taught with the fundamental aim of enabling learners to communicate in the language of concern. I believe that there is no use in learning a foreign or second language unless the learners can engage in conversations in the concerned languages at the end of their learning. Therefore, my philosophy of teaching is nourished mainly by Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), which by its very nature views learners as active participants in the process of learning and which highlights the teaching abilities of instructors putting a heavy burden on their shoulders to ensure the proper adaptation of CLT in class. Apart from this, my teaching philosophy has five main pillars on which, I believe, a language teaching class should be constructed. These pillars are: communicative competence, learner autonomy, comprehension and production, cooperation, and finally motivation. In the following pages you will find my views, comments and beliefs on these issues as well as citations from the works of specialists from the area. And at the end of my synthesis of teaching philosophy, you will see the connections that I have integrated into my philosophy inspired by the specific incidents, insights and experiences that I have gone through during the course FLED 311 which have exerted significant impacts on my composition of teaching philosophy.

Communicative Competence

As mentioned above, in my understanding of learning languages primary goal of instruction is to enable students to communicate and engage in interactions using the target language, which predictably entails communicative competence. For the purposes of my teaching philosophy I have found it useful to adopt Brown’s (1994) definition of communicative competence:

“Communicative competence is that aspect of our competence that enables us to convey and interpret messages and to negotiate meanings interpersonally within specific contexts”

In this definition we can see the emphasis placed on the interactions supposed to be carried out in the language concerned. In parallel with this definition, I believe that teachers of foreign languages should set their teaching goals in this direction. However, an instructor should be well aware of what is meant by communicative competence in order to fulfill these goals. The fact that communicative competence cannot be compressed in a small pot necessitates making some categorizations of functions in the scope of communications. This is required for the instructor to be not only realistic but also organized in the processes taking place in class. Keeping these respective functions in mind, the instructor will surely handle the regulation aimed to possess. Thus, I also suggest a functional approach to teaching languages believing that language is both interactive and interpersonal. Therefore, considering the functions of the language, I would like to mention Halliday’s seven functions, who is believed to have provided the best interpretations concerning this issue. These functions are: the instrumental function, the regulatory function, the representational function, the interactional function, the personal function, the heuristic function, the imaginative function (Halliday, 1973). These functions are really significant for communicative competence and none of them should be forsaken at the expense of another. Furthermore, in the preparation of lesson plans, Halliday’s functions can officiate as perfect guidelines providing a framework for the objectives supposed to be achieved during class. Besides being a guideline for communicative competence, Halliday’s “systematic functional approach” sets useful parameters for teaching grammar too.

Another consideration that needs to be defined in is the make-up of one’s communicative competence. Understanding what the concept of communicative competence attempts to achieve in learners is crucial. Littlewood (1981) summarizes the four domains or skills which constitute one’s communicative competence to be identified in foreign language teaching. Littlewood postulates that (1) the learner must obtain as high a degree as possible of linguistic competence – “he must build skills in manipulating the linguistic system”- to the extent where he can use it without premeditation and flexibly in order to convey his message, (2) the learner must differentiate between the forms which he has excelled as a part of his linguistic competence, and the communicative functions they carry out; this means that items must also be understood as part of a communicative system, (3) the learner must develop strategies and skills for using language to communicate meanings as effectively as possible in concrete situations, he must learn to use feedback to judge his success, and if necessary, remedy failure by using different language, and finally that (4) the learner must recognize the social meaning of language forms; this may not require the ability to modify their own speech to suit different social circumstances but rather the ability to use generally acceptable forms and refrain from potentially offensive ones.

The issues mentioned above are significant points in achieving communicative competence in class. One important aspect that must be kept in mind is that the guidelines helping to form and maintain communication in class can only be actualized with enthusiasm and diligence. After the points above have been internalized, then it is the time to implement them which can be carried out with “meaningful interactions”. That’s why teacher should try his or her best to come up with activities, applications and performances that will make this theoretical knowledge turn into practice.

Learner Autonomy

Learner autonomy is what we basically define as the ability of the learner to take the responsibility of learning. There are also numerous names associated with and sometimes used instead of learner autonomy such as 'learner independence' (Sheerin, 1991), 'language awareness' (Lier, 1996; James & Garrett, 1991), 'self-direction' (Candy, 1991). This abundance of naming this process indicates the magnitude of importance placed on this concept. However, one common ground that all these names and definitions share is the fact that all of them assume the active role of learner, which requires generation of ideas, creating learning opportunities and promoting learning opportunities on the part of the learner. Thus, learning is seen as a result of “self-initiated interactions” with the world (Thanasoulas, 2000)

Learner autonomy requires the learner to be self-sufficient, to make self-assessment, and to have self-awareness. Nevertheless, these requirements can be viewed as products as well. That is to say, a learning experience gone through taking learner autonomy as its basis can generate learning outcomes listed above. These skills are now accepted to be prerequisites for both foreign language education and education in general (Balçıkanlı, 2008). This need emerges in foreign language education owing to the fact that learners are not able to diagnose their learning needs and they cannot identify resources and strategies for themselves. Most of the time, they do not find any need, incentives, and motivation to make use of autonomous learning.

I believe that learner autonomy adds to the effectiveness of teaching at incredible rates. Students after learning and benefiting from this autonomy will certainly realize the extendibility of this process to their whole lives. One effective way of achieving this is portfolios that are “purposeful collection of students’ works” and they can provide valuable information about students’ understanding. Additionally, portfolios increase student participation in assessment and the responsibility for their learning. In other words, portfolios giving learners the opportunity to assess themselves promotes learner autonomy. As conclusion, I believe in the effectiveness of portfolios in both assessing learning outcomes, evaluating the course and creating learner autonomy which is essential in learning.        

Comprehension and Production

It is known both by experts of language studies and teachers of languages that comprehension precedes production. This means that we cannot expect to have learners to speak a language right after or during the course of teaching. This is mostly because comprehension of words, especially spoken ones, seems to an extremely challenging task. And also we have to note that comprehension is not facilitated with higher degrees of knowledge but rather with higher degrees of familiarity with structures in language. As to production, we can say that it is promoted by both familiarity with structures and the level of comprehension (Treiman et.al, 2003). While identifying short-term and long-term goals of teaching we need to consider these points as well as the maturity levels of learners.

We have mentioned that comprehension precedes production. That is why, before we expect learners to produce sentences in the target language, we have to make sure that their comprehension levels are high enough to allow for production. The best way of effectuating comprehension is engaging learners in interactions in the target language as much as possible. This will increase their familiarity with structures and build upon their readily constructed body of knowledge gained from the instructor. As in my philosophy of teaching teacher is responsible to make students comprehend and communicate, being the first but not only resource of information, s/he should make the necessary modifications in his or her speech to ensure comprehension.

After we check understanding (comprehension) and therefore solidify of expectations of production, we can have students communicate in the language of concern. In this process errors are natural and acceptable; however as a person who have benefited from error correction a lot, I am definitely for error correction when it occurs. Although this is claimed to cause a decrease in learner motivation, with proper approaches, this can be avoided. In conclusion, I am of the opinion that we have to be realistic in our expectations of comprehension and production and take steps bearing mind the natural order of these processes.

Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning may include role plays, projects, discussions and simulations carried out by students in groups, and it requires total participation on the part of the learner. Nevertheless, there is a wide range of classroom activities in which learners work together such as problem solution activities. If successful interaction is achieved in the class with the initiative of students themselves, they will surely build skills and approaches needed for cooperation in other aspects of their learning and lives and they will start to believe in the power of cooperation (Jacobs, 1998).

Projects can function like means of linking the world outside the class to what they are learning in the classroom, which increases their motivation and willingness to participate further in projects. As they spend a long period of time working on projects together, they tend to form group cohesion and a membership feeling. Role plays which are another way of starting and maintaining collaboration in class seems to be one of the most preferable cooperation helping learners not only with their learning but also with their personality development, especially regarding life-orientation. Encouraging them imagining themselves as if they are someone else, it gives students the chance to recognize similarities and differences among people and makes them know what “empathy” is. In conclusion cooperative learning constitutes an indispensible part of my teaching philosophy.

Motivation

The main force that drives our actions in our lives is our motivation. We approach to and refrain from incidents or cases in our lives due to our absence or existence of motivation towards them. And language learning is no exception this mentality. That is why as language teachers, we have this challenging task of motivating learners and enabling them to maintain this motivation. In this part instead of mentioning specific types of motivation like extrinsic or intrinsic, I would like to refer to importance of keeping students motivated no matter what kind motivation they have to learn a language.

Unmotivated students will reject to learning either implicitly or explicitly. At this point teachers have to be cautious.  Teachers of languages do not necessarily have to keep motivation in class by preaching. Instead of this we have to concentrate on activities that will underlying motivate learners. Using games is a perfect way of doing this. These activities predictably should be modified or replaced according to the levels of students. We should not expect 40-year-old learners jumping around n the class. All in all, I can state that keeping learners motivated is a significant part of my teaching philosophy.  

Discussion & Experiences and Insights from FLED 311

In my teaching philosophy, I have chosen not to give direct references to methods or approaches but rather to extract from them what I believe to be useful in language teaching. I have built my philosophy on five pillars which seem to me as the most important components of language teaching. I suppose these pillars are crucial and needs to be considered thoroughly in language teaching. Although they may not be applicable and available at all places and in all times, they can be manipulated in order to fit to what is needed. Finally, I think that I will benefit from having stated my philosophy in my teaching career.   

As a teacher candidate who have high expectations from future teaching experiences (just like once every graduate student had) I am aware of the fact that my teaching philosophy is an ideal maybe even utopic one to apply and maintain. The real teaching world will probably be a lot more different than the one I have in my mind. However, actually the main challenge lies here. If I can be courageous and initiative enough, for which I will try my best, I believe that some changes are possible. And in this future process I know that stating my philosophy of teaching will help me make my plans clearer and more systematic.  

   We covered the course FLED 311 watching presentations on specific methods and approaches of language teaching. Most of the time, I was amazed by the power of imagination and adaptation of my peers. The contents they presented us so knowledgeably and professionally make up the main reference of my teaching philosophy. 

 

References

 Balçıkanlı, Cem. (2008). Fostering Earner Autonomy in EFL Classrooms. Vol. 16, No. 1: Kastamonu Education Journal. Gazi University Press.

 Brown, H. (1991). Breaking the language barrier. Intercultural Press.

Brown, H. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, JC: Prentice Hall.

Halliday, Michael. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. Hodder Arnold.

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Council of Europe.

Jacobs, G.M. (1998). Cooperative learning or just grouping students: The difference makes a difference. Learners and language learning. SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Jacobs, G. M., & Cates, K. (1999). Global education in second language teaching. SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Tottori University.

Javier, Rafael. (2007). The Bilingual mind. Springer Verlag.

Littlewood, William. (1981). Communicative language teaching. Cambridge University Press.

McLuhan, Marshall. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy. Univ of Toronto Press.

Richards, Jack, Rodgers, Theodore, & Dudeney, Gavin. (2000). The Internet and the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.

Thanasoulas, Dimitrios. (2000). What is Learner Autonomy and How Can It be Fostered? Vol.6, No.11: the Internet TESL Journal.

Treiman, R., Clifton, C., Jr, Meyer, A. S., & Wurm, L. H. (2003). Language comprehension and production. Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology, Volume 4: Experimental Psychology. Wiley & Sons.