 |
 |
This is indeed, a very interesting discussion. I agree with Philida and the contributor before her, but the key thing to ask, in whatever context ESOL is being taught, is if learners are learning language to, not just 'survive in the Big society' but fulfil their potential and are impartially guided to the appropriate emplyment or vocational courses. Neena ----- Original Message ----- From: "ESOL-RESEARCH automatic digest system" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 11:14 PM Subject: ESOL-RESEARCH Digest - 13 May 2012 to 14 May 2012 - Special issue (#2012-119) There are 4 messages totaling 139579 lines in this issue. Topics in this special issue: 1. Informal ESOL classes (3) 2. London ESOL Research Network (LERN) March Seminar Presentations *********************************** ESOL-Research is a forum for researchers and practitioners with an interest in research into teaching and learning ESOL. ESOL-Research is managed by James Simpson at the Centre for Language Education Research, School of Education, University of Leeds. To join or leave ESOL-Research, visit http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ESOL-RESEARCH.html A quick guide to using Jiscmail lists can be found at: http://jiscmail.ac.uk/help/using/quickuser.htm To contact the list owner, send an email to [log in to unmask] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 15:41:56 +0100 From: Martin Nickson <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Informal ESOL classes This is a rather lengthy contribution, but the Seminar gave me a lot to think about. And as James mentioned, there are number of issues that the Leeds seminar highlighted. I started to try to answer some of the questions raised by James and the observations made by Helen and others, but it rapidly turned into an essay! So I would just like to address two issue which may be fundamental to many of the questions asked, and those issues are 1. Are mainstream and non-mainstream ESOL fundamentally different? 2. Does non-mainstream ESOL offer a space for pedagogical innovation? My response is not particularly short, but some issues are difficult to address in a few paragraphs, ,even if convention says we should! In short, I think that the non-mainstream does provide a space for pedagogical innovation, but not because it is inherently distinct from mainstream in some way but because I think that ESOL policy seeks to narrow the scope of language pedagogy. My current understandings of ESOL teaching and learning, and SLA acquisition research, lead me to believe that because language learning is so context dependant across a huge range of variables, a top-down approach to ESOL provision is not viable, nor effective. I think that ESOL policy - with arbitrary legal requirements for attendance and politically constructed barriers to access, and its dependance on measurable outcomes (which are themselves predicated on fundamental misunderstandings of frameworks such as the CEFR) – has imposed artificial limits on pedagogy that often seem to fly in the face of the available evidence, and act contrary to the essential nature of ESOL pedagogy which has to be innovative. I think its useful here to consider what ESOL would look like if it’s direction was unconstrained by policy: I would imagine that a diversity of teaching practices, strategies and approaches would emerge as principled, informed practitioners responded to local context. I would also imagine that a number of teaching practices imposed (ILP?) would disappear and approaches more characteristic of some non-mainstream practice (Helen referred to Teaching unplugged) would be more common. Because of this, I think that the informal vs formal, mainstream vs non-mainstream discussion is not something ESOL teachers should regard as a further possibility for fragmentation within our community of practice, but a continuation of research and practice within a cohesive whole. If ongoing research into the non-mainstream does unearth (good) homogenous, or innovative practice that is significantly situated there (and not in the mainstream), then this may suggest not a different pedagogy is in operation, but (in cases where that innovative practice arises from a principled informed base) that policy is failing to support the full potentiality of ESOL. I would suggest that approaches like Teaching Unplugged and the Reflect frameworks are illustrative of this. I don’t think that considering what ESOL would look like if unconstrained by policy is just a ‘thought experiment’. I think that current policy direction is driving ESOL toward a re-fragmentation and that in the ‘real world’ this may necessarily lead practitioners to the question of which (type of) practice to support in an era of funding cuts. If practitioners position themselves to support only mainstream classes staffed by paid professionals (a legitimate and understandable principled position), are we in danger of isolating good practice that occurs outside the mainstream and possibly narrowing the potentiality for our own pedagogy ?? Conversely, embracing the non-mainstream without criticality because of the potentials for pedagogy it may offer or because it ‘does some good’, veers perilously close to enabling the Big Society agendas of localism and cheap ESOL. For me, the thought experiment I offered “Liberating Pedaggy or Teaching without a theory” provides some antidote to this potential division because the key to answering those questions over what practice is legitimate or not lies not in whether a class is mainstream or non-mainstream, but in effective practice - informed and principled - rather than how that practice is funding supported (or how its outcomes are monitored by Government). I initially said I did not have the space to address questions raised by James, but if I may I would like to address one, which is whether the non-mainstream is valid if not supported by experienced or trained practitioners. As James indicated, the seminar seemed to be heading towards supporting the position that the non-mainstream was only valid if supported by experienced practitioners. But this raises a further question, which is to ask what that experience and training is based on? Under current conditions, policy agendas for ESOL are driving towards a narrow economically deterministic model and it is within this model that future ESOL practitioners will gain their experience and training. I would therefore suggest a qualification to the conclusion that was emerging which is that in addition to training and experience, criticality, even in its broadest sense, is essential not only to validate non-mainstream, but indeed any ESOL practice. Even in its most de-politicised, reduced form, criticality leads us to ask “Is this working?” and it is apparent to me, that by suppressing the inherent innovation required of language teachers, current policy agendas for ESOL are not working. A critical approach, informed by knowledge of good practice (wherever that practice may arise including the non-mainstream) helps us answer the question “Is this working?" and maybe the start of a liberating pedagogy. *********************************** ESOL-Research is a forum for researchers and practitioners with an interest in research into teaching and learning ESOL. ESOL-Research is managed by James Simpson at the Centre for Language Education Research, School of Education, University of Leeds. To join or leave ESOL-Research, visit http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ESOL-RESEARCH.html A quick guide to using Jiscmail lists can be found at: http://jiscmail.ac.uk/help/using/quickuser.htm To contact the list owner, send an email to [log in to unmask] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 17:09:04 +0100 From: Philida Schellekens <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Informal ESOL classes Hi Martin I agree with a lot of what you say. I would add that, in addition to looking at the needs of the learners, we should pay more attention to research-based evidence on language learning, both in the ESOL context and more widely in language teaching. There is so much out there that could inform our practice, standards setting and exams. Regards - Philida -----Original Message----- From: ESOL-Research discussion forum and message board [mailto:] On Behalf Of Martin Nickson Sent: 14 May 2012 15:42 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Informal ESOL classes This is a rather lengthy contribution, but the Seminar gave me a lot to think about. And as James mentioned, there are number of issues that the Leeds seminar highlighted. I started to try to answer some of the questions raised by James and the observations made by Helen and others, but it rapidly turned into an essay! So I would just like to address two issue which may be fundamental to many of the questions asked, and those issues are 1. Are mainstream and non-mainstream ESOL fundamentally different? 2. Does non-mainstream ESOL offer a space for pedagogical innovation? My response is not particularly short, but some issues are difficult to address in a few paragraphs, ,even if convention says we should! In short, I think that the non-mainstream does provide a space for pedagogical innovation, but not because it is inherently distinct from mainstream in some way but because I think that ESOL policy seeks to narrow the scope of language pedagogy. My current understandings of ESOL teaching and learning, and SLA acquisition research, lead me to believe that because language learning is so context dependant across a huge range of variables, a top-down approach to ESOL provision is not viable, nor effective. I think that ESOL policy - with arbitrary legal requirements for attendance and politically constructed barriers to access, and its dependance on measurable outcomes (which are themselves predicated on fundamental misunderstandings of frameworks such as the CEFR) – has imposed artificial limits on pedagogy that often seem to fly in the face of the available evidence, and act contrary to the essential nature of ESOL pedagogy which has to be innovative. I think its useful here to consider what ESOL would look like if it’s direction was unconstrained by policy: I would imagine that a diversity of teaching practices, strategies and approaches would emerge as principled, informed practitioners responded to local context. I would also imagine that a number of teaching practices imposed (ILP?) would disappear and approaches more characteristic of some non-mainstream practice (Helen referred to Teaching unplugged) would be more common. Because of this, I think that the informal vs formal, mainstream vs non-mainstream discussion is not something ESOL teachers should regard as a further possibility for fragmentation within our community of practice, but a continuation of research and practice within a cohesive whole. If ongoing research into the non-mainstream does unearth (good) homogenous, or innovative practice that is significantly situated there (and not in the mainstream), then this may suggest not a different pedagogy is in operation, but (in cases where that innovative practice arises from a principled informed base) that policy is failing to support the full potentiality of ESOL. I would suggest that approaches like Teaching Unplugged and the Reflect frameworks are illustrative of this. I don’t think that considering what ESOL would look like if unconstrained by policy is just a ‘thought experiment’. I think that current policy direction is driving ESOL toward a re-fragmentation and that in the ‘real world’ this may necessarily lead practitioners to the question of which (type of) practice to support in an era of funding cuts. If practitioners position themselves to support only mainstream classes staffed by paid professionals (a legitimate and understandable principled position), are we in danger of isolating good practice that occurs outside the mainstream and possibly narrowing the potentiality for our own pedagogy ?? Conversely, embracing the non-mainstream without criticality because of the potentials for pedagogy it may offer or because it ‘does some good’, veers perilously close to enabling the Big Society agendas of localism and cheap ESOL. For me, the thought experiment I offered “Liberating Pedaggy or Teaching without a theory” provides some antidote to this potential division because the key to answering those questions over what practice is legitimate or not lies not in whether a class is mainstream or non-mainstream, but in effective practice - informed and principled - rather than how that practice is funding supported (or how its outcomes are monitored by Government). I initially said I did not have the space to address questions raised by James, but if I may I would like to address one, which is whether the non-mainstream is valid if not supported by experienced or trained practitioners. As James indicated, the seminar seemed to be heading towards supporting the position that the non-mainstream was only valid if supported by experienced practitioners. But this raises a further question, which is to ask what that experience and training is based on? Under current conditions, policy agendas for ESOL are driving towards a narrow economically deterministic model and it is within this model that future ESOL practitioners will gain their experience and training. I would therefore suggest a qualification to the conclusion that was emerging which is that in addition to training and experience, criticality, even in its broadest sense, is essential not only to validate non-mainstream, but indeed any ESOL practice. Even in its most de-politicised, reduced form, criticality leads us to ask “Is this working?” and it is apparent to me, that by suppressing the inherent innovation required of language teachers, current policy agendas for ESOL are not working. A critical approach, informed by knowledge of good practice (wherever that practice may arise including the non-mainstream) helps us answer the question “Is this working?" and maybe the start of a liberating pedagogy. *********************************** ESOL-Research is a forum for researchers and practitioners with an interest in research into teaching and learning ESOL. ESOL-Research is managed by James Simpson at the Centre for Language Education Research, School of Education, University of Leeds. To join or leave ESOL-Research, visit http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ESOL-RESEARCH.html A quick guide to using Jiscmail lists can be found at: http://jiscmail.ac.uk/help/using/quickuser.htm To contact the list owner, send an email to [log in to unmask] *********************************** ESOL-Research is a forum for researchers and practitioners with an interest in research into teaching and learning ESOL. ESOL-Research is managed by James Simpson at the Centre for Language Education Research, School of Education, University of Leeds. To join or leave ESOL-Research, visit http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ESOL-RESEARCH.html A quick guide to using Jiscmail lists can be found at: http://jiscmail.ac.uk/help/using/quickuser.htm To contact the list owner, send an email to [log in to unmask] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 13:46:54 -0700 From: dominic mccabe <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Informal ESOL classes Hello All I used to be a discussion list facilitator for an IATEFL group called the global issues special interest group (GISIG) and the issues Martin appears to be pointing towards were (and still are) dealt with on this list many times. The concept of 'criticality' or a range of realisations of critical linguistics or critical discourse analysis seems to tease out the political elements of what we call education. Are political steers stopping good teaching and learning? What is done about this in our classrooms? I talk to all my classes about exams responding, really, to queries, and inconsistencies the students themselves have raised. The discourse we engage in with regard to formal external assessment mirrors how we, as teachers and even some managers, talk about Ofsted and the inspection framework, i.e. that it is a game, a kind of pretence that we all collude in. What can we do (as teachers and students) to realise freer teaching and learning or is this only possible in a non-mainstream setting? Cheers Dominic McCabe Derby ESOL tutor ________________________________ From: Philida Schellekens <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Monday, 14 May 2012, 17:09 Subject: Re: Informal ESOL classes Hi Martin I agree with a lot of what you say. I would add that, in addition to looking at the needs of the learners, we should pay more attention to research-based evidence on language learning, both in the ESOL context and more widely in language teaching. There is so much out there that could inform our practice, standards setting and exams. Regards - Philida -----Original Message----- From: ESOL-Research discussion forum and message board [mailto:] On Behalf Of Martin Nickson Sent: 14 May 2012 15:42 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Informal ESOL classes This is a rather lengthy contribution, but the Seminar gave me a lot to think about. And as James mentioned, there are number of issues that the Leeds seminar highlighted. I started to try to answer some of the questions raised by James and the observations made by Helen and others, but it rapidly turned into an essay! So I would just like to address two issue which may be fundamental to many of the questions asked, and those issues are 1. Are mainstream and non-mainstream ESOL fundamentally different? 2. Does non-mainstream ESOL offer a space for pedagogical innovation? My response is not particularly short, but some issues are difficult to address in a few paragraphs, ,even if convention says we should! In short, I think that the non-mainstream does provide a space for pedagogical innovation, but not because it is inherently distinct from mainstream in some way but because I think that ESOL policy seeks to narrow the scope of language pedagogy. My current understandings of ESOL teaching and learning, and SLA acquisition research, lead me to believe that because language learning is so context dependant across a huge range of variables, a top-down approach to ESOL provision is not viable, nor effective. I think that ESOL policy - with arbitrary legal requirements for attendance and politically constructed barriers to access, and its dependance on measurable outcomes (which are themselves predicated on fundamental misunderstandings of frameworks such as the CEFR) – has imposed artificial limits on pedagogy that often seem to fly in the face of the available evidence, and act contrary to the essential nature of ESOL pedagogy which has to be innovative. I think its useful here to consider what ESOL would look like if it’s direction was unconstrained by policy: I would imagine that a diversity of teaching practices, strategies and approaches would emerge as principled, informed practitioners responded to local context. I would also imagine that a number of teaching practices imposed (ILP?) would disappear and approaches more characteristic of some non-mainstream practice (Helen referred to Teaching unplugged) would be more common. Because of this, I think that the informal vs formal, mainstream vs non-mainstream discussion is not something ESOL teachers should regard as a further possibility for fragmentation within our community of practice, but a continuation of research and practice within a cohesive whole. If ongoing research into the non-mainstream does unearth (good) homogenous, or innovative practice that is significantly situated there (and not in the mainstream), then this may suggest not a different pedagogy is in operation, but (in cases where that innovative practice arises from a principled informed base) that policy is failing to support the full potentiality of ESOL. I would suggest that approaches like Teaching Unplugged and the Reflect frameworks are illustrative of this. I don’t think that considering what ESOL would look like if unconstrained by policy is just a ‘thought experiment’. I think that current policy direction is driving ESOL toward a re-fragmentation and that in the ‘real world’ this may necessarily lead practitioners to the question of which (type of) practice to support in an era of funding cuts. If practitioners position themselves to support only mainstream classes staffed by paid professionals (a legitimate and understandable principled position), are we in danger of isolating good practice that occurs outside the mainstream and possibly narrowing the potentiality for our own pedagogy ?? Conversely, embracing the non-mainstream without criticality because of the potentials for pedagogy it may offer or because it ‘does some good’, veers perilously close to enabling the Big Society agendas of localism and cheap ESOL. For me, the thought experiment I offered “Liberating Pedaggy or Teaching without a theory” provides some antidote to this potential division because the key to answering those questions over what practice is legitimate or not lies not in whether a class is mainstream or non-mainstream, but in effective practice - informed and principled - rather than how that practice is funding supported (or how its outcomes are monitored by Government). I initially said I did not have the space to address questions raised by James, but if I may I would like to address one, which is whether the non-mainstream is valid if not supported by experienced or trained practitioners. As James indicated, the seminar seemed to be heading towards supporting the position that the non-mainstream was only valid if supported by experienced practitioners. But this raises a further question, which is to ask what that experience and training is based on? Under current conditions, policy agendas for ESOL are driving towards a narrow economically deterministic model and it is within this model that future ESOL practitioners will gain their experience and training. I would therefore suggest a qualification to the conclusion that was emerging which is that in addition to training and experience, criticality, even in its broadest sense, is essential not only to validate non-mainstream, but indeed any ESOL practice. Even in its most de-politicised, reduced form, criticality leads us to ask “Is this working?” and it is apparent to me, that by suppressing the inherent innovation required of language teachers, current policy agendas for ESOL are not working. A critical approach, informed by knowledge of good practice (wherever that practice may arise including the non-mainstream) helps us answer the question “Is this working?" and maybe the start of a liberating pedagogy. *********************************** ESOL-Research is a forum for researchers and practitioners with an interest in research into teaching and learning ESOL. ESOL-Research is managed by James Simpson at the Centre for Language Education Research, School of Education, University of Leeds. To join or leave ESOL-Research, visit http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ESOL-RESEARCH.html A quick guide to using Jiscmail lists can be found at: http://jiscmail.ac.uk/help/using/quickuser.htm To contact the list owner, send an email to [log in to unmask] *********************************** ESOL-Research is a forum for researchers and practitioners with an interest in research into teaching and learning ESOL. ESOL-Research is managed by James Simpson at the Centre for Language Education Research, School of Education, University of Leeds. To join or leave ESOL-Research, visit http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ESOL-RESEARCH.html A quick guide to using Jiscmail lists can be found at: http://jiscmail.ac.uk/help/using/quickuser.htm To contact the list owner, send an email to [log in to unmask] *********************************** ESOL-Research is a forum for researchers and practitioners with an interest in research into teaching and learning ESOL. ESOL-Research is managed by James Simpson at the Centre for Language Education Research, School of Education, University of Leeds. To join or leave ESOL-Research, visit http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ESOL-RESEARCH.html A quick guide to using Jiscmail lists can be found at: http://jiscmail.ac.uk/help/using/quickuser.htm To contact the list owner, send an email to [log in to unmask] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 23:13:35 +0100 From: Elaine Williamson <[log in to unmask]> Subject: London ESOL Research Network (LERN) March Seminar Presentations *********************************** ESOL-Research is a forum for researchers and practitioners with an interest in research into teaching and learning ESOL. ESOL-Research is managed by James Simpson at the Centre for Language Education Research, School of Education, University of Leeds. To join or leave ESOL-Research, visit http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ESOL-RESEARCH.html A quick guide to using Jiscmail lists can be found at: http://jiscmail.ac.uk/help/using/quickuser.htm To contact the list owner, send an email to [log in to unmask] ------------------------------ End of ESOL-RESEARCH Digest - 13 May 2012 to 14 May 2012 - Special issue (#2012-119) ************************************************************************************ *********************************** ESOL-Research is a forum for researchers and practitioners with an interest in research into teaching and learning ESOL. ESOL-Research is managed by James Simpson at the Centre for Language Education Research, School of Education, University of Leeds. To join or leave ESOL-Research, visit http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ESOL-RESEARCH.html A quick guide to using Jiscmail lists can be found at: http://jiscmail.ac.uk/help/using/quickuser.htm To contact the list owner, send an email to [log in to unmask]