Writing Right in the 21st Century

As technology has developed, communication has evolved.  Consider the following quote:

"Language is constantly evolving, and so we must begin to accept - and even teach – the shortened forms of communication that are used with technology. This language may contain abbreviations, symbols (emoticons) and even untraditional grammar and punctuation, which would be considered “errors” in many classrooms. We accept different forms of oral communication without penalty … we should do the same with written communication."


It's true that language is constantly evolving.  Even Harmer acknowledges this evolution when discussing how text messages and emoticons are now common ways of communicating in certain discourse communities.  I believe the author of the above quote has a very valid point for a number of reasons.

1. Membership in a Discourse Community
Probably no teachers of English as another language would disagree that if learners of English as another language want to be able to read, understand, and write for English-speaking audiences, they will need to gain membership in the discourse community on some level.  They will need to understand conventions they may read and they will need to use those conventions to communicate their own messages through text as well.

2.  Changes within the Discourse Community

Most teachers of English as another language will also agree that while there are constraints guiding the comprehension and production of most genres and sub-genres, in response to new technology, new forms (genres of their own?) have developed.  This is apparent in the micro-blogging world of Twitter:  140 characters to share important news, ideas, and some fun.

While it's possible that some teachers may disregard the importance of Twitter and other forms of technology, but in I my opinion, it would be to the detriment of the learners.  These environments now are serious places for interaction with possible business clients, professional colleagues, future employers, fellow students, and practicers of common interests.

3.  Changes within Language Conventions
Because of the change in the discourse community, it would be logical to assume that changes within our language conventions would result.  It is important for a learner who will use Twitter, LinkedIn or even text messaging to understand what lol means or what c u @ 2 might mean.  If we are seriously committed to helping our students gain competence and schematic knowledge, we will need to help them understand and use these new conventions.

Having said all of that, here is a qualifier:

At the beginning of Chapter 2, Harmer himself says "different purposes provoke different kinds of writing".  Being able to communicate a piece of news around the world a half hour before the international stories are published is one way Twitter makes its name for itself.  But that's Twitter.  There are also many other purposes for which our learners will be writing.  They will also need to comprehend and be fluent in the use of the conventions for other genres of writing.  We should not neglect one for the other.

I would hold that it is a valuable investment of time to learn the conventions of both more traditional genres and those that are developing today.  Learners should become competent in both, and know when to use which accordingly.  I'm not sure I would go as far as our original quote and say "We accept different forms of oral communication without penalty".  Rather, I would say that we should help learners understand the complexities of the genres and the conventions and decide when it is appropriate to use any of these newer conventions.  It would be hard for me to imagine any employer accepting an application that closed with the text.... c u l8r

It is this sensitivity that we can teach and for which we should hold our learners accountable.

Presenting Grammar

Given your comfort with teaching, which strategy would you be more inclined to use to present grammar? How could you encourage yourself to be more comfortable with the other strategy?
When grammar is taught deductively, the teacher:

1. Explains the rule clearly to the students
2. Does not necessarily provide content or communicative function for the grammar
3. Focuses on the form and then the meaning
4. Creates drills and repetition for students to learn the desired structure
5. Takes all responsibility for students’ learning

When grammar is taught inductively, the teacher:

1. Presents students with many examples of the target language
2. Helps the learner to induce the rule
3. Provides students with a context for the language and a purpose for its use
4. Focuses on the meaning and then the form
5. Provides opportunities for meaningful communication through which students can discover the rule
6. Empowers the students to problem-solve

Although I may have had extensive experience in the classroom, I must admit I have not had extensive experience teaching grammar.  As I read over the disadvantages and advantages of inductive and deductive approaches as put forward by Thornbury, it seems that a less-experienced educator would probably feel most comfortable using a deductive approach.  This may be true for several reasons.  First, it is a straight-forward approach that gets straight to the point of explanation of a rule.  It allows the teacher some freedom to deal with grammar points as they arise, rather than anticipating them in advance.  It also can be quick and provide time for lots of practice.  It seems that not having significant experience with the teaching of grammar structures, I would probably feel more secure in this traditional, succinct approach. 

On the other hand, the benefits for the learners in the inductive approach appear to be exceptional.  When teachers challenge learners to infer the rules of form and usage from a group of carefully chosen examples, they invite them to spend mental energy recognizing and hypothesizing rules.  This cognitive effort may make the rules more memorable and encourages learners to depend on themselves.  Such benefits can be reaped in the event that educators have spent significant effort preparing relevant, meaningful examples and / or situations. This approach seems to be more taxing on educators in a variety of ways even though it provides specific benefits to learners.  

I believe that in order to feel more comfortable with an inductive approach, I will need to feel more confident in general as a teacher of grammar.  I will need to better familiarize myself with language rules, structures and forms, their intricate interplays and exceptions.  I will need to build a better repertoire of grammar-teaching resources, including textbooks, and the use of software like corpora or concordancing programming.    

As we have been discussing, it is probably most beneficial for learners to be exposed to both approaches so that they are given communicative contexts within which to practice communication at the same time they are guided with identification and reproduction of particular patterns and structures.  It seems to be a delicate balance that challenges teachers to develop skills in both inductive and deductive strategies.

Least Appealing Teaching Methods

So far this week, throughout our discussions together, the members of our class have pointed out and discussed reasons they dislike the Grammar-Translation Method and the Audio-Lingual Approach in particular.

Since we certainly don't want the guy in this image to be the result of our grammar lesson, a reflective discussion of these methods and why they are disliked is warranted.

Grammar-Translation:
Some of my colleagues and I wrote about the grammar-translation method and how it lacks an attention to the development of language skills for the purpose of authentic communication.  The method focuses on reading and some writing, but mainly neglects speaking and listening.

Several of the discussion participants brought up excellent points that this method is well-known in the world of language learning and teaching and may be THE expectation for learners about how they will be learning language.  They may think other approaches are incorrect or will not properly prepare them for the use of the language.  Of course, we should always take a learner's background and preferred learning styles into consideration when planning our lessons, in order to meet their needs and wants.

Audio-Lingual:
My colleagues expressed several reasons for their dislike of the audio-lingual approach.  Restrictions on students, level of teacher control, and the use of boring, repetitive drills were main reasons mentioned.

However, as was in the case of the grammar-translation method, some participants shared positive results they themselves experienced or results they observed from other learners.  The use of songs, rhymes, and chants played a particular role in this success.

It is probably not wise to label an approach or method as entirely lacking value for learners.  It seems that each approach has some benefit to contribute in some situation for some learner.  It is essential, then, that we adequately assess and endeavor to know learners' needs and preferred learning styles.  The results will help guide us as we plan successful, engaging lessons for our learners. That means we will probably be using the Grammar-Translation and Audio-Lingual approaches in one way or another in our classrooms - no matter how much we may dislike them.  The key is for us to know each one well, focus on the benefits of each and use them when appropriate. As was written in our reading, the key is to 'adapt, not adopt'.

Get grammar lessons 'flow'ing...

As a reminder, there are 9 elements that contribute to flow (read more about flow here):

1. clear goals every step of the way
2. immediate feedback for one's actions
3. balance between challenges and skills
4. action and awareness are merged
5. distractions are excluded from consciousness
6. no worry of failure
7. self-consciousness disappears
8. sense of time becomes distorted
9. activity becomes 'autotelic' (an end in itself)

How can we write lesson plans that apply these principles?  

When we use clear goals in our lesson plans, they help us create a focused, concentrated sequence of activities that will start from the assessed learner's needs and gradually build on their skills and knowledge to ensure that new content is learned one concept at a time with increasing levels of independence. This makes it possible for learners to gain confidence with new material in an environment that balances skill with challenge in such a way as to produce the feeling of flow, which will be discussed in a following point.

What does this look like in practice?  Goals will be specific and focused.  They will be few.  Activities in the lesson will be gradually building confidence.  First, the topic will be presented, learners will practice first in a 'safer' environment among peers with activities that involve group or peer work.  Learners at this point will correct themselves or others.  By doing so, adequate feedback is given, learners are less self-conscious and they are interacting and using the language, so they are aware.  Then, learners may practice independently with yet a more advanced activity that will increase the level of challenge since skill and knowledge have also increased.  

In fact, is essential that challenge and skill are well balanced if we want to achieve a sense of flow.  If activities planned in our lessons are too easy or have already been mastered by our learners, they will either be too relaxed, bored, or basically indifferent.  At the same time, if we have planned lessons that are too difficult, disregard gaps in learner skills and / or knowledge, or require learners to independently perform activities they are not yet prepared to perform in a small group or pair, we have misjudged our learners' readiness.  In this case, learners may feel frustrated, anxious, or worried.  

Whether it is indifference or anxiety, such feelings will not contribute to learning and will not result in flow.  Lessons with a good balance of challenge and skill do not throw learners into the sea without first teaching them to swim - or at least giving them a life jacket.  Rather, learners are well prepared for the challenges presented to them throughout the lesson (by the teaching of specific skills and knowledge necessary to effectively achieve the goal of the lesson).  Because he or she has mastered the required tools for the challenge, the learner does not fear it and will apply themselves and the newly acquired tools (skills and knowledge) to the challenge with joy.

A good balance of challenge and skill also keeps learners involved and on task.  As Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi describes in his video about flow, the brain can handle only so much stimulation at a time.  Thus, when learners are adequately challenged and have the right skills required by the activity, they will be busy, focused on the application of their skills, their awareness will be heightened and the activity will become autotelic or an 'end to itself'. 

What does this look like in practice?  It appears as a progression from perception (through presentation) to recognition and comprehension (through focused practice) to use (independent free use).  Activities will be planned in such a way as to reflect this progression, moving gradually from one stage to another, providing adequate feedback and confidence along the way.

If we want our learners to be 'in a state of flow' as they are learning language, it is essential that we apply these techniques to our lesson planning.      

The Role of Assessment

Assessment is an essential tool without which educators could not adequately, effectively or efficiently meet learners' needs and wants.  

Why assess?

Performing assessments will help educators determine learner placement, develop materials, curriculum, and teaching approaches. It also provides important information about what learners bring to the course, what they already have accomplished and what they want or need to know next.

When to assess?

Assessment is most useful when it occurs before, during and after courses. Having done so gives educators a baseline from which to start, an opportunity to check progress midway and change course if needed, and evaluate end results.

Who benefits from assessment?

First and foremost - the learner reaps the benefits. When educators have a good idea of what the learner has learned, wants or needs to learn and how he or she prefers to learn it, the most effective learning setting is prepared. Others also benefit from assessment including educational authorities, program funders and employers.

What information is included in an assessment?

6 main types of information may be included in assessments. Personal information, language-related information, learning-related information, teaching-related information, goal-oriented information, and miscellaneous information.  


When educators include comprehensive assessments before, during and after their courses, they are better equipped to provide learners opportunities to achieve. Educators can use the information from the assessments to drive the development of materials, to guide the direction of the curriculum, and to inform approaches used. Rather than using the same material over and over again with different learners who have different needs, wants, and objectives from the learning, educators who use assessment results effectively can ensure a "flexible, responsive curriculum."


As our the author of our text so poetically put it,
"If we know what's of interest to our students, we can package the desired with the required, and can provide a more effective and dynamic learning environment for everyone."

What is competence?

When it comes to language, what is competence?  Can we define it as skill or ability - demonstrable through performance?  But what are the components of this language competence?   If it changes over time, why?  What's the difference between competence and proficiency?

Before I read the article including a history and research overview of the definition of "competence",  here is what I wrote in my notebook as a definition of competence:

"the ability to communicate clearly and meaningfully about relevant, important topics with others who are native speakers"

As we read through the article, Defining Communicative Competence, we learned there are 3 main models of communicative competence created by theorists and developed through research.

1.   Canale and Swain (1980, 1981) and then Canale (1983, 1984):

• 3 main types of skills: 
• grammatical (grasp of language rules, forms and structures)
• sociolinguistic (the right use of the right language in the right place at the right time with the right cultural considerations)
• strategic (verbal and nonverbal tactics used when a breakdown in communication happens as a result of an underdeveloped area of competence)
• later Canale (1983, 1984) added discourse (putting the right words or texts together in the right way to make meaningful utterances)

2.  Bachman and Palmer (1996)

• Crucial ability is language ability, but strategic knowledge also plays a role
• Language ability is made up of two main elements:
• organizational knowledge (mostly formal language structures)
• pragmatic knowledge (mostly production and understanding of communication)
• These elements complement each other and also have subcomponents as is clear below in the figure.

3.  Common European Framework (CEF)

• 3 basic components, each including both knowledge and ability to apply (strategic competence, is not separate on its own): 
• language competence: (knowledge of and ability to form required structures)
• sociolinguistic competence: (knowledge of and correct use of language skills in social context) 
• pragmatic: discourse and function

These three sets of theories, and the differences therein, are illustrated below in the figure.

Reading the history and research review certainly added to my understanding of the concept.  I especially enjoyed the visual images that represent the various theorists' opinions.  Their points of view and theories about language learning inspired many more questions, too.  Reflection on the philosophy behind the nature of language learning certainly opens our understanding to new ideas, new questions, and possible new interpretations of old world views.  After having read the article, I believe it is worthwhile to do much more investigation and study about the nature of language learning. At the same time, it will be essential to keep up with new theories or contributions.

So, perhaps I could rephrase my first definition of competence to read:    

"a dynamic set of knowledge, skills, and behaviors resulting in clear, meaningful communication, including language, sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence"