Monthly Archives: November 2014

November 11, 2014

Benson (2010) autonomy constraints

Benson, P. (2010). Teacher education and teacher autonomy: Creating spaces for experimentation in secondary school English language teaching. Language Teaching Research 14(3), 259-275.

Benson interviewed English language teachers to investigate constraints on teachers’ autonomy. In addition to isolation and under funding, participants were also constrained by school’s decision-making systems and collaborative teams who used external curricula that did not support wider educational purposes nor the social and child-minding function of schools.

Schemes of work dictated the content and pace of lessons (and prescribed what teachers do not what students learn). Often schemes of work were created from the content pages of commercially published course materials, which prepared students for commercial examinations. However schemes of work did reduce teachers’ workload and standardize teaching (which students and parents perceived as fair).

In accordance with Lamb’s (2000) idea that “teachers need to understand constraints upon their practice, but rather than feel disempowered need to be empowered to find space and opportunities for maneuver”, participants created space for autonomy by modifying the compulsory schemes of work. Participants strived to complete the schemes of work ahead of schedule to allow them to then work in ways outside the scheme of work. Participants used this extra time meet students’ learning needs and interests, basing their judgements on their deeply held beliefs about language learning and teaching.

Participants did not use their created space to experiment with new ideas, even if formal professional development demanded action research or experimental learning. Teacher education needs to be aware of the realistic working contexts and conditions that limit opportunities for teaching autonomy and experimentation. Three of the four participants reported that they learned very little during their post graduate educational degrees. Teacher education may be too ambitious about what they hope to achieve.

Participants (who Benson describes as ‘accidental English teachers’) described learning ‘on the job’ through experience, self-selected reading, and discussions with colleagues. Benson proposes that ‘learning by doing’ may have created a greater reliance on personal capabilities and a more dismissive attitude to authoritative systems (in comparison to ‘career English teachers’ practice). Autonomy appears to be related to teachers’ identities that are developed throughout their careers and intertwined with contexts in complex ways.

Varghese et al. (2005) seek to “understand how language teachers form their identities in teacher education and schools”. We need to be aware that construction of teacher identity may conflict with school priorities.

November 6, 2014

Hase & Kenyon (2007) self-directed learning

Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2007). Heutagogy: A child of Complexity Theory. complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 4(1), 111-118.

Hase and Kenyon argue that the notions of pedagogy and andragogy are deficient. Teachers merely facilitate students to acquire knowledge and skills, which they maintain is not learning. Acquiring knowledge and skills allows students to be competent to recall and use that knowledge and those skills in familiar situations. In contrast, learning demands change. However, we need to remember that comfort hinders change. Change occurs in response to distressful needs (and intense desires). Hase and Kenyon define learning as an emergent and integrative process that changes behaviour, knowledge, understanding and becomes incorporated into people’s existing attitudes and values. Learning empowers students to be capable to react and adapt to unfamiliar and unanticipated situations drawing on all their holistic knowledge, skills and values. Hase and Kenyon define capability as beyond competency: being able to adapt to unknown and changing contexts, having appropriate values to work collaboratively, and knowing how to learn.

Pedagogy and andragogy appear to remain teacher-centered with little micro or macro involvement from learners. Curricula are inflexible, which is disappointing because “it is impossible to predict the extent and effect of bifurcation”, i.e. separation of planned curricula and learners’ changing needs. In contrast, heutagogy is self-determined learning. Learner-centered and learner-directed learning which occurs as result of personal experiences. Students become the key drivers and designers of learning processes, activities, objectives and assessments. Heutagogy requires a living flexible curriculum that is able to change as students learn.

Hase and Kenyon recommend action research and action learning as meta-methodologies to empower learners to experiment with real experiences in real world contexts. Action research and action learning provide flexibility to understand unpredictable and complex social phenomena, give ownership and control of the learning to the students, and can also be trialled and tested in subsequent cycles. Alongside action-learning, teachers need to provided personal coaching.

Adaptive systems (Bertanafly, 1950; Akoff & Emery, 1972; Emery, 1971, 1986; Emery & Trist, 1965) and Complexity Theory are worth investigating in relation to learning (Davis & Sumara 1997; Doll 1989; Doolittle, 2000). At the time of writing, Hase and Kenyon were still researching the usefulness of heutagogy as a concept, and questioning how learning occurs in complex adaptive systems and how these systems harness and facilitate learning.

November 2, 2014

Edwards (2014) Dutch English

Edwards, A. (October, 2014). Who’s afraid of Dutch English? Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for English-Native-Speaking Editors (SENSE), Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Edwards started the red thread unrolling by identifying opposing roles on a continuum: prescriptive editors need rules whereas descriptive sociolinguists question rules! “What is a rule really?” Referring to Paikeday, Alison reminded us that that English native speaker norms are sometimes inappropriate. Native speakers are the minority not majority. An editor’s moral quandary is to maintain standards while not trampling on writers’ content and style. However, what is (un)acceptable?

Judgments about language are never objective and are based on history, attitudes and politics. Varieties such as Singlish and Hinglish are valued. However, English with a Dutch flavour has derogatory labels: Steenkolenengels, Nederengels and Dunglish. (Note that comic collections, such as I always get my sin, use inauthentic and unrealistic examples because they are immediately recognised as absurd.) Over time, Dutch English may become accepted. Errors can be institutionalised and reinforced by mass use. What were errors become innovation and language norms, e.g. would’ve -> would of. Not logical, but language change ain’t logical.

To further the discussion, Alison explained lects in the Dutch context. In the basilect, English and Dutch integrate and both diverge from standard forms, e.g. Price not includes saus. In the acrolect, Dutch and English combine into acceptable forms, e.g. Prof Dr, it ìs good, and enable “filling a hole by drawing on your whole linguistic repertoire”.

Alison also explained how Kachru’s Three Circle Model defines countries as

  • ‘norm-providing’ i.e. the Inner Circle, e.g. Australia,
  • ‘norm-developing’ i.e. the Outer Circle, e.g. India,
    English has official or historical roles and is enculturated,
  • ‘norm-dependent’ i.e. the Expanding Circle, e.g. Russia,
    English is a foreign language used by learners.

Kachru removed the native and non-native division; however he shifted the barrier and redefine users’ language as acceptable innovation in the outer circle or unacceptable errors in the expanding circle.

However, varieties of English are no longer restricted to former colonies. “A variety emerges when people have an identity as English users” and empirical data shows that “the Dutch are willing to act as active builders … and construct their own English”. However, before Dutch English becomes recognized, it needs to be valued by the Dutch people themselves.

Alison concluded that the “prescriptive nature of editing does not need to be at odds with sociolinguistic ideas”. “If a client wants to hold onto Dutch English, there may be an interesting reason for this”. “Writers don’t need a generic voice”. Be aware of the target audience and treasure opportunities to “witness language development”.