Language is characterized by its social construct
I view language as a rich system of linguistic communication, constructed and entwined in a social context in various forms of spoken and written exemplars facilitated with signs, and symbols, to learn and establish contact with others, define social roles, and negotiate meaning, which is dynamic and evolves based on our usage, experiences, and expectations (Wardbugh & Fuller, 2021; Cameron & Larsen-Freeman, 2007). During my internship, I lived this view because of the wonderful opportunity to interact with 19 learners from Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, India, Iran, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, and Venezuela. During the English for Academic Purposes (EAP) program, we shared various experiences, emotions, and learning which connected us to each other's culture and language as we worked towards a professional goal of embracing English as the target language for academics and professional purposes. I firmly believe and resonate with Derewianka (2012, p.129), who asserts that language is seen as a “resource for making meaning through which we interactively shape and interpret our world and ourselves” and context thus plays a crucial role in learning the language. I believe that language can be learned throughout one’s life and that it aids in creating stronger connections among multilingual communities and promotes cultural symbiosis.
When we learn any language other than our native language, it exhibits our desire to connect and communicate beyond our comfort zones. I came across the term “ Translanguaging” (The Douglas Fir Group, 2016), and exploring it has confirmed my faith in language learning, which is about embracing culture and communities as they adapt to learning English. The concept of immersion and how it affects the language-learning process is an extension of this belief. I as a non-native speaker have adapted to the Canadian culture and in the same manner, my Canadian colleagues have in our discussion imbibed the linguistic features and nuances of Hindi and Indian English. I understand the innatist perspective of the Critical Period Hypothesis (Lightbown & Spada, 2013) in context to age and language acquisition, the role politics plays in policy making which can either alienate a language or embrace it, and the role of additive bilingualism (Lightbown & Spada, 2013), which adds to new language learning without taking away from the learners L1 repertoire. The work of Garcia et.al (2011) has enlightened me regarding the progression of monolingualism to linear bilingualism to dynamic bilingualism to implement singular pluralities in a dynamic plurilingual education. Additive language and Translanguaging now change my approach to teaching English in the social context, where the idea is to embrace the learner's L1 instead of alienating it from them, as the learners in turn espouse English in their ways of life to varying degrees.
Learner-Driven Pedagogical Approach
My pedagogical approach hence is a ‘Learner-driven Approach’ discussed by Knowles (1984) as aligned with a process where learners’ learning is mostly “life-centered, task-centered, or problem-centered” instead of “for the sake of learning”(as cited in Prevedel, 2003, p.10). The theoretical perspective that most aligns with my pedagogical approach will be Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), where language is an interaction that consists of not mere sentences but the exchange of meanings and discourses between people in terms of context (Wells, 1999). Language development thus arises from social interactions (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). Vygotsky’s Socio-Cultural Theory (SCT) of learning is symbiotic with the SFL perspective of language learning (Mitchell et al., 2013). El Mahmoud & Galante (2020) encapsulate this when they say “Language is learned as an emergent process and not necessarily because it is overtly taught by the teacher” (p. 6). In terms of language instruction, SFL and SCT help me to focus on language for communicative competence and pragmatics. Learners are thus my main focus.
Learner and Teacher Relationship with a Focus on Learning and Teaching
All individuals are unique in their manner and how they learn is also going to be unique. These traits or characteristics which differentiate them from each other are termed individual differences (ID), which include cognition, affect/emotion, and motivation, which can come to bear on individual L2 learning processes and outcomes (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). Cognition in context to every individual will thus depend on what Ellis (2019, pp. 41-43) discusses as the “4E’s which are the embodiment, embeddedness, enactivism, and extended mind”. The system of motivation plays a key role in steering anxiety and positively broadening emotions, aligning itself to the possible future L2 self to enable perseverance in learning (MacIntyre & Gregersen, 2012). I strongly believe in learners being spiritual beings and that learning extends them into one another’s life. Kristjánsson (2019) mentions that social relationships are informed by the relationships the learner identifies with higher spirituality and “a space viewed as spiritual beings whose meaningful existence transcends the boundaries of physical existence” (p.45). As a teacher, I am inspired by the guidelines presented by Graves (2000) on questioning oneself as a teacher as we analyze the text, curriculum, and learners' identities and adapt teaching to the parameters of who is it really for and what the learners are thinking, what the institution we teach in is portraying as we are asked to use the materials and being realistic in our goals in context to the time. I admire teachers who design or engage with the curriculum, always keeping learners in context and at times engaging learners too in creation. They play a role to allow learners to shape, misshape, and reshape themselves and combine language learning with human ethics, values, hopes, needs, and cross-generational interactions (Smith, 2008). I hope to carve myself as one such teacher.
Effective Language Learning Processes
I believe that the teacher and learner learn from each other in the process of language acquisition. As a teacher, I will create linguistic spaces for students to feel comfortable enjoying language socialization and engage in developing their communicative competence. I wish to take my journey ahead as a teacher focusing on English for academic purposes amalgamating communicative competence. Contextual learning with an ecological approach incorporating a blended language learning environment is how I envision this process. Sanders and Albers (2010) counsel teachers to, “provide students with a range of opportunities that enables them to expand their repertoire of ways in which they can communicate what and how they know” (p.3). My contribution to building a relationship with my learners will be to adapt and design material based on my L2 user perspective, considering that they are adults and should be exposed to material that matches not only their age but also reflects their situations, roles, and language use (Cook, 2013). An effective language learning process transpires when the learners can take what they learn within a learning space and expand it into their daily lives as colleagues, parents, friends, and individuals voicing their opinions, emotions, challenges, and solutions. My endeavor will be to shape myself as a teacher who can scaffold language learning for her students and continue to learn during the process making language learning enjoyable, memorable, and transferable.
References
Cameron, L., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). Complex systems and applied linguistics. International journal of applied linguistics, 17(2), 226-239.
Cook, V. (2013) Materials for Adult beginners from an L2 User perspective. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (2nd ed.,pp.289-308). Bloomsbury.
Derewianka, B. (2012). Knowledge about language in the Australian Curriculum: English. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 35(2), 127-146.
Dörnyei, Z. & Ryan, S. (2015). Introduction: Individual differences - Then and now. In Z. Dörnyei & S. Ryan. The psychology of the language learner (pp. 1-13). Routledge.
El Mahmoud, A. & Galante, A. (2020). Complexity Theory and translanguaging as a pedagogy for ESL learner empowerment. Contact 46(3), 5-12. [link]
Ellis, N. C. (2019). Essentials of a theory of language cognition. The Modern Language Journal, 103(1 [Supplement]), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12532
Garcia, F., Sylvan, C.E., Witt, D. (2011). Pedagogies and practices in multilingual classrooms: singularities in pluralities. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 385–400. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41262374
Graves, K. (2000). Designing language courses: A guide for teachers.Heinle & Heinle.
Kristjánsson, C. (2019). English Language Teaching: Locating faith in the context of local and global dynamics. International Journal of Christianity and English Language Teaching 6 (5), 20-51. https://digitalcommons.biola.edu/ijc-elt/vol6/iss1/5
Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
MacIntyre, P., & Gregersen, T. (2012). Emotions that facilitate language learning: The positive-broadening power of the imagination. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2(2), 193–213.
Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2013). Sociocultural perspectives on second language learning. In Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. Second language learning theories (3rd ed., pp. 220-227). Routledge.
Prevedel, A. (2003). Focus on basics. Values and beliefs: The worldview behind curriculum. NCSALL 6(C), pp. 8-13.
Sanders, J., & Albers, P. (2010). Multimodal literacies: An introduction. In P. Albers & J.Sanders (Eds.), Literacies, the arts, and multimodality, 1-25. National Council of Teachers of English.
Smith, D.I. (2008). On viewing learners as spiritual beings: Implications for language educators. Journal of Christianity and Foreign Languages 8, 34-48.
The Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 19-47.
Wardhaugh, R., & Fuller, J. M. (2021). An introduction to sociolinguistics (8th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Wells, G. (1999). The complementary contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky to a “Language-based Theory of Learning.” Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education (1st ed., pp. 3-18). Cambridge University Press.
I view language as a rich system of linguistic communication, constructed and entwined in a social context in various forms of spoken and written exemplars facilitated with signs, and symbols, to learn and establish contact with others, define social roles, and negotiate meaning, which is dynamic and evolves based on our usage, experiences, and expectations (Wardbugh & Fuller, 2021; Cameron & Larsen-Freeman, 2007). During my internship, I lived this view because of the wonderful opportunity to interact with 19 learners from Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, India, Iran, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, and Venezuela. During the English for Academic Purposes (EAP) program, we shared various experiences, emotions, and learning which connected us to each other's culture and language as we worked towards a professional goal of embracing English as the target language for academics and professional purposes. I firmly believe and resonate with Derewianka (2012, p.129), who asserts that language is seen as a “resource for making meaning through which we interactively shape and interpret our world and ourselves” and context thus plays a crucial role in learning the language. I believe that language can be learned throughout one’s life and that it aids in creating stronger connections among multilingual communities and promotes cultural symbiosis.
When we learn any language other than our native language, it exhibits our desire to connect and communicate beyond our comfort zones. I came across the term “ Translanguaging” (The Douglas Fir Group, 2016), and exploring it has confirmed my faith in language learning, which is about embracing culture and communities as they adapt to learning English. The concept of immersion and how it affects the language-learning process is an extension of this belief. I as a non-native speaker have adapted to the Canadian culture and in the same manner, my Canadian colleagues have in our discussion imbibed the linguistic features and nuances of Hindi and Indian English. I understand the innatist perspective of the Critical Period Hypothesis (Lightbown & Spada, 2013) in context to age and language acquisition, the role politics plays in policy making which can either alienate a language or embrace it, and the role of additive bilingualism (Lightbown & Spada, 2013), which adds to new language learning without taking away from the learners L1 repertoire. The work of Garcia et.al (2011) has enlightened me regarding the progression of monolingualism to linear bilingualism to dynamic bilingualism to implement singular pluralities in a dynamic plurilingual education. Additive language and Translanguaging now change my approach to teaching English in the social context, where the idea is to embrace the learner's L1 instead of alienating it from them, as the learners in turn espouse English in their ways of life to varying degrees.
Learner-Driven Pedagogical Approach
My pedagogical approach hence is a ‘Learner-driven Approach’ discussed by Knowles (1984) as aligned with a process where learners’ learning is mostly “life-centered, task-centered, or problem-centered” instead of “for the sake of learning”(as cited in Prevedel, 2003, p.10). The theoretical perspective that most aligns with my pedagogical approach will be Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), where language is an interaction that consists of not mere sentences but the exchange of meanings and discourses between people in terms of context (Wells, 1999). Language development thus arises from social interactions (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). Vygotsky’s Socio-Cultural Theory (SCT) of learning is symbiotic with the SFL perspective of language learning (Mitchell et al., 2013). El Mahmoud & Galante (2020) encapsulate this when they say “Language is learned as an emergent process and not necessarily because it is overtly taught by the teacher” (p. 6). In terms of language instruction, SFL and SCT help me to focus on language for communicative competence and pragmatics. Learners are thus my main focus.
Learner and Teacher Relationship with a Focus on Learning and Teaching
All individuals are unique in their manner and how they learn is also going to be unique. These traits or characteristics which differentiate them from each other are termed individual differences (ID), which include cognition, affect/emotion, and motivation, which can come to bear on individual L2 learning processes and outcomes (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). Cognition in context to every individual will thus depend on what Ellis (2019, pp. 41-43) discusses as the “4E’s which are the embodiment, embeddedness, enactivism, and extended mind”. The system of motivation plays a key role in steering anxiety and positively broadening emotions, aligning itself to the possible future L2 self to enable perseverance in learning (MacIntyre & Gregersen, 2012). I strongly believe in learners being spiritual beings and that learning extends them into one another’s life. Kristjánsson (2019) mentions that social relationships are informed by the relationships the learner identifies with higher spirituality and “a space viewed as spiritual beings whose meaningful existence transcends the boundaries of physical existence” (p.45). As a teacher, I am inspired by the guidelines presented by Graves (2000) on questioning oneself as a teacher as we analyze the text, curriculum, and learners' identities and adapt teaching to the parameters of who is it really for and what the learners are thinking, what the institution we teach in is portraying as we are asked to use the materials and being realistic in our goals in context to the time. I admire teachers who design or engage with the curriculum, always keeping learners in context and at times engaging learners too in creation. They play a role to allow learners to shape, misshape, and reshape themselves and combine language learning with human ethics, values, hopes, needs, and cross-generational interactions (Smith, 2008). I hope to carve myself as one such teacher.
Effective Language Learning Processes
I believe that the teacher and learner learn from each other in the process of language acquisition. As a teacher, I will create linguistic spaces for students to feel comfortable enjoying language socialization and engage in developing their communicative competence. I wish to take my journey ahead as a teacher focusing on English for academic purposes amalgamating communicative competence. Contextual learning with an ecological approach incorporating a blended language learning environment is how I envision this process. Sanders and Albers (2010) counsel teachers to, “provide students with a range of opportunities that enables them to expand their repertoire of ways in which they can communicate what and how they know” (p.3). My contribution to building a relationship with my learners will be to adapt and design material based on my L2 user perspective, considering that they are adults and should be exposed to material that matches not only their age but also reflects their situations, roles, and language use (Cook, 2013). An effective language learning process transpires when the learners can take what they learn within a learning space and expand it into their daily lives as colleagues, parents, friends, and individuals voicing their opinions, emotions, challenges, and solutions. My endeavor will be to shape myself as a teacher who can scaffold language learning for her students and continue to learn during the process making language learning enjoyable, memorable, and transferable.
References
Cameron, L., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). Complex systems and applied linguistics. International journal of applied linguistics, 17(2), 226-239.
Cook, V. (2013) Materials for Adult beginners from an L2 User perspective. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (2nd ed.,pp.289-308). Bloomsbury.
Derewianka, B. (2012). Knowledge about language in the Australian Curriculum: English. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 35(2), 127-146.
Dörnyei, Z. & Ryan, S. (2015). Introduction: Individual differences - Then and now. In Z. Dörnyei & S. Ryan. The psychology of the language learner (pp. 1-13). Routledge.
El Mahmoud, A. & Galante, A. (2020). Complexity Theory and translanguaging as a pedagogy for ESL learner empowerment. Contact 46(3), 5-12. [link]
Ellis, N. C. (2019). Essentials of a theory of language cognition. The Modern Language Journal, 103(1 [Supplement]), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12532
Garcia, F., Sylvan, C.E., Witt, D. (2011). Pedagogies and practices in multilingual classrooms: singularities in pluralities. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 385–400. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41262374
Graves, K. (2000). Designing language courses: A guide for teachers.Heinle & Heinle.
Kristjánsson, C. (2019). English Language Teaching: Locating faith in the context of local and global dynamics. International Journal of Christianity and English Language Teaching 6 (5), 20-51. https://digitalcommons.biola.edu/ijc-elt/vol6/iss1/5
Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
MacIntyre, P., & Gregersen, T. (2012). Emotions that facilitate language learning: The positive-broadening power of the imagination. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2(2), 193–213.
Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2013). Sociocultural perspectives on second language learning. In Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. Second language learning theories (3rd ed., pp. 220-227). Routledge.
Prevedel, A. (2003). Focus on basics. Values and beliefs: The worldview behind curriculum. NCSALL 6(C), pp. 8-13.
Sanders, J., & Albers, P. (2010). Multimodal literacies: An introduction. In P. Albers & J.Sanders (Eds.), Literacies, the arts, and multimodality, 1-25. National Council of Teachers of English.
Smith, D.I. (2008). On viewing learners as spiritual beings: Implications for language educators. Journal of Christianity and Foreign Languages 8, 34-48.
The Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 19-47.
Wardhaugh, R., & Fuller, J. M. (2021). An introduction to sociolinguistics (8th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Wells, G. (1999). The complementary contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky to a “Language-based Theory of Learning.” Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education (1st ed., pp. 3-18). Cambridge University Press.