POLE

Philosophy of Language Education

Language

​

Language is the channel/medium to a destination - communication. It provides a cultural backdrop for creating, transferring, and storing knowledge about social interactions that produce various communication contexts; thus enabling dialogue through community with others. Language provides an age-old opportunity to store knowledge (encode) and create access codes or key cards for the receiver to understand (decode) that knowledge, in the same way it was intended by the sender (Mägiste, 1979). “Language [is] seen not only as a formal system but also as a system for making meaning, not only in SLA but in linguistics and applied linguistics more generally” (Larson-Freeman, 2014, p. 205). Language is fluid and malleable, with users molding it as they see fit to share their thoughts, feelings, and cognition. In essence, the symbolic system of language affects thought because speakers of different languages think differently when speaking, and speakers of different discourses (across languages or in the same language) have different cultural worldviews too (Kramsch, 2014).

​

Language and Social Context

​

I believe the backdrop to the existence of any language today was born from the need to interact. Humanity cannot think alone; rather we think together, leveraging other people's ways of knowing in our construction of information. In this way, language works as an avenue to share, compare, and grow our knowledge as collective property to be used by all. According to Ho (2009), certain aspects of langua-culture are central to linguistic and communicative competence - i.e. culture learning, culture as dynamic, and culture as practice. In practicing the culture of the target language, these strategies for communicative competence can be applied to acquisition, comparison, and the occupation of a third place between both cultures, to placate the effects of ethnocentrism. Bringing this ideology into the teaching processes and curricula of the EFL classroom can help to bridge the gap between cultural differences, ensuring learners achieve their linguistic competence and cultural communication goals. 

​

General Framework Guiding Pedagogical Approach - Process 

​

A process-based curriculum guides my ideology on language teaching. I believe in the creation of a curriculum model that focuses on the interactions of teachers, students, and knowledge; and is built on a strong foundation of satisfying human interactions and learner relationships (Smith, 1996, 2000). In essence, experience and education are in a continuum that unites the past, present, and future (Gutek, 2004, p. 299). The advantage of a curriculum as a Process approach for students, is that it connects new information and skills to what learners already know; thus presenting opportunities for learners to actively “practice the new information and skills in a supportive environment, and get feedback on their performance” (Prevedel, 2003, p. 10). This progressive curriculum helps to foster awareness regarding the “cyclical nature of writing” because it is built on a strong foundation of satisfying human interactions and learner relationships (Coffin, 2003, p. 56). 

​

As a Writing Pedagogy professional, I see how “writing complexity can [...] be lessened if learners feel supported throughout the process of composition”. By effectively applying compositional scaffolding during the five stages of writing, I can facilitate an enabling environment for learners to experience the positive aspects of teacher and peer review. This is one of the latest insights gained from several universities’ writing labs about the significant effects of writing support on students’ academic discourse of writing tasks (Marulanda Ángel & Martínez García, 2017, p. 52-55). 

​

Learners and Learning

​

A competency-based syllabus guides my view of learners and their educational process because it focuses on specific outcomes in the learning continuum. It emphasizes what the students can do at the end of their course i.e. “competencies connected to other competencies with regard to real-world skills” (Bell, 2009, p. 258). My teaching methodology supports an individualized educational plan for each learner, focusing on what they can do and how they can receive the creative support they need to achieve writing independence at their own pace. The intelligence behind the application of this syllabus with students helps in developing learner autonomy and expanding their cognitive skills in an individually suitable way. This ecological perspective encourages teachers to “create lessons from the ground up”, where the teacher oversees “a dynamic process that involves interaction, negotiation, improvisation, observation, experimentation, and reflection” (Richards, 2017, p. 228, 237).

Ideology on Teachers and Teaching

​

Through my lesson objectives, I evaluate suitable syllabi and context-specific learning materials for achieving learners’ educational goals.  An understanding of the uniqueness of the institution, learner, and classroom goals warrants my choice to deploy any one, or a blend of syllabi in the learning continuum. As I transition into my post-degree career, I  am prioritizing continuous inquisition into technological advances in language education; and professional development that helps me flourish in a community of practice with other teachers in the field – conferences and symposiums, training accreditation, written publications, and research collaborations, are at the very top of my ‘professional development’ list. Creative story-telling, team bonding, digital vocabulary enhancement games, and a wide range of pull-in activities help my lesson flow smoothly, from a non-academic standpoint into the academic content (Paivio & Desrochers, 1981; Tedjaatmadja & Renandya, 2012). 

​

Relationships Between Teachers and Learners

​

Teachers and learners are sojourners on the same journey. Learning processes should prioritize the interactions of “teachers, students, and knowledge” (Smith, 1996, 2000). In an ideal sense, the teacher and the student collaboratively construct a symbiotic platform for cognitive improvement – students learning from teachers and teachers learning from students too. Building and maintaining trust is a very strong part of this journey because it encourages the presence of positive broadening emotions that allow the learning process to flow seamlessly (MacIntyre & Gregersen, 2012). A key ingredient in this relationship between the learner and the teacher is a Transformational Servant Leadership style, where teachers place the well-being and progress of the students on a balanced scale with theirs. In this way, trust grows through the actionable and non-actionable encounters between the teacher and the student, during the learning journey (Northouse, 2021).

​

Language Learning Processes Inside and Outside of the Classroom

​

My belief about effective language learning processes leverages and embraces technology and digital communication platforms. My checklists for evaluating online materials for learning within and outside the classroom reflect a communicative approach in synchronous and asynchronous environments. This checklist uses existing evaluation criteria for digital media and online materials, such as - the authority, functionality, technical functions, digital interface, pedagogical and psychological features, multimedia, interactivity, and educational context for Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) (Moncada Linares & Díaz Romero, 2016, p. 59; Moreno Fuentes & Risueño Martínez, 2018, p. 25).  My teaching style provides avenues for technology to “engage [students] in learning experiences in ways that [...] encourage them to practice language extensively” (Koraishi, 2023, p. 206). Through a participatory culture of teaching language, I leverage social media, digital games for vocabulary building, online video exercises, and various text-based and multimedia content development tools deployed for learning spaces. I am a teacher who is prepared for the future of technology because I integrate technology in my EFL teaching with intentionality – for improving material designs, fostering learning autonomy outside the classroom, and participating in existing scholarly discourse through the use of Open textbook collections used in other language classrooms across the globe. In this way, I am leveraging the collaborative intelligence of other teachers, with ease and efficiency; for the benefit of my learners (Kessler, 2018, p. 56).

​

References

​

Bell, D. M. (2009). Another breakthrough, another baby thrown out with the bathwater. ELT Journal, 63(3), 255-262.

​

Coffin, C. (2003). Teaching academic writing. London: Routledge.

​

Gutek, G. L. (2004). Progressivism. In Philosophical and ideological voices in education (pp. 294-308). Pearson Education, Inc.

​

Ho, S. T. K. (2009). Addressing culture in EFL classrooms: The challenge of shifting from a traditional to an intercultural stance. Electronic journal of foreign language teaching, 6(1), 63-76.

​

Koraishi, O. (2023). Teaching English in the age of AI: Embracing ChatGPT to optimize EFL materials and assessment. Language Education and Technology, 3(1), 55-72.

​

Kessler, G. (2018, February). Technology and the future of language teaching. Foreign Language Annals 51(1), 205-218. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12318  

​

Kramsch, C. (2014). Language and culture. AILA review, 27(1), 30-55. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.27.02kra

​

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2014). Another step to be taken: Rethinking the endpoint of the interlanguage continuum. Interlanguage: Forty years later, 203, 220. John Benjamins B. V.

​

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, 193-213. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=72835 

​

Mägiste, E. (1979). The competing language systems of the multilingual: A developmental study of decoding and encoding processes. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(1), 79-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90584-X

​

Marulanda Ángel, N. L., & Martínez García, J. M. (2017). Improving English Language Learners’ Academic Writing: A Multi-Strategy Approach to a Multi-Dimensional Challenge.GIST Education and Learning Research Journal, (14), 49–67. Retrieved from https://eds-s-ebscohost-com.twu.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=20&sid=03752377-2c2f-4b0d-9bd8-c11e313843a5%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=EJ1146679&db=eric  

​

Moncada Linares, S., & Díaz Romero, C. (2016). Developing a multidimensional checklist for evaluating language-learning websites coherent with the communicative approach: A path for the knowing-how-to-do enhancement. Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Life Long Learning, 12, 57-93. http://www.ijello.org/Volume12/IJELLv12p057-093Moncada2161.pdf

​

Moreno Fuentes, E., & Risueno Martinez, J. J. (2018). Design of a checklist for evaluating language learning websites. Porta Linguarum, 30, 23-41. http://hdl.handle.net/10481/54036 

​

Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage publications.

​

Paivio, A., & Desrochers, A. (1981). Mnemonic techniques in second-language learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(6), 780–795. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.73.6.780  

​

Prevedel, A. (2003). Values and beliefs: The worldview behind curriculum. NCSALL 6(C), 8-13.

​

Richards, J. C. (2017). Curriculum development in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

​

Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000). What is curriculum: Exploring theory and practice. The Encyclopedia of Pedagogy and Informal Education - Infed.org https://infed.org/mobi/curriculum-theory-and-practice/ Last updated: June 4, 2018.

​

Susser, B. (1994). Process approaches in ESL/EFL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(1), 31-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(94)90004-3.

​

Tedjaatmadja, H. M., & Renandya, W. (2012). When Simple is Beautiful: The Hook Book Look Took Lesson Structure (Doctoral dissertation, Petra Christian University). https://repository.petra.ac.id/16418/