One of the readings we were assigned to read this week is a chapter called ‘Adapting courses: A personal view.” It is from a book called ‘Developing materials for language teaching” and was written by Claudia Saraceni. I was surprised by how much I took away from reading this chapter. It compares a teacher-centred approach for adapting courses to a student-centred approach. This chapter also includes several principles to guide the adaptation of courses and materials.

One of the concepts that resonated with me is the use of provocative topics and tasks in English language teaching. It is inevitable that students will encounter provocative written and spoken texts in their everyday lives. However, there is a disagreement about whether those texts should be included within the learning materials used in the classroom.

In previous readings I have learned that some people think that provocative texts should not be included in the classroom. They argue that the classroom is not an appropriate place to present and discuss controversial materials. Doing so is not necessary because it can provoke negative reactions in students and damage the rapport built between students and teachers. This is particularly true for my classroom context since many of the students have experienced trauma and come from difficult situations. As such, I do not want to upset my students or trigger traumatic memories. Materials can be meaningful and help students consider different perspectives without trying to elicit strong and opinionated answers from them. Similarly, the readings argued that provocative and controversial topics might not be conducive to building language skills and not be worth the trouble.

I have also read that some people think that not including these texts in the classroom is a form of censorship. They argue that teachers who do not use them are not allowing their students to encounter materials that could be meaningful to them or facilitate learning. In doing so, teachers filter materials according to their own values and perceptions about what students should learn and what is appropriate, similar to how teachers decide what to teach to children. As a result, people with this opinion believe that teachers are infantilizing the students by excluding these materials and that they are not respecting their students as mature and responsible adults. I can understand why people would have this opinion because I do not think that it is the role or responsibility of teachers to choose what topics that students should be exposed to. This comes too close to telling people what they should think or believe. In addition, editing and/or excluding materials that could be provocative limits the types of authentic texts that can be used in the classroom.

However, Saraceni (2013) puts forth an understanding of provocativeness that differs from mine and contrasts the perspectives I have described above. She does not equate provocativeness with controversy. Instead, she views provocative topics and activities as those which provoke an emotional response from students. An emotional response increases the level of engagement that students have with learning materials and is not necessarily positive or negative. It also makes the materials more meaningful for students and relevant to their personal identities and experiences. In the chapter, the author writes “in my experience, however, certain topics related to personal life, family, parents, relationships, emotions, inner self can achieve this aim more effectively, rather than those topics very often associated with controversy such as politics, war, racism, drugs, etc.” (Saraceni, 2013, p. 59). As such, in the eyes of the author, provocative materials are simply those which try to connect with students by relating to their identities, knowledge, and experiences and by appealing to their emotions.

This concept resonated with me because it challenges my previous notions about the use of provocative materials in the classroom. It also gives me new information to consider when trying to determine what materials would be meaningful to my future students. Before reading this chapter, I was not comfortable with the idea of including provocative materials in my teaching. I felt that doing so was probably inappropriate and could result in difficult and/or unpredictable situations in the classroom. However, I strongly connect with the ideas that the author puts forth about appealing to students’ individual knowledge, beliefs, interests and personal experiences to make language learning more engaging. Doing so does not require the use of controversial materials. Rather, it recognizes that each student brings their own knowledge and experiences to the classroom and that effective teaching means that students will learn language that they connect with. This language builds off of what they already know, which makes it is personally relevant.

Another concept that resonated with me is critical language awareness. It teaches students how to analyze how language is used and to reproduce, reinforce, or challenge ideologies and the constructs of power and dominance in society. The author explains that teachers support the development of critical awareness learning by acting in the role of a facilitator, coordinator, and monitor in their teaching and while adapting and evaluating courses. As students develop their language and critical thinking skills, they become more involved in providing input inside and outside of the classroom. Students gradually become the main input providers in their own language learning and become less dependent on their teachers. This is particularly beneficial for students with traditional views of education who see teachers as knowledge givers because it encourages them to be more autonomous and the primary agent in their learning (Saraceni, 2013).

This concept resonated with me because it extends the control of the learning process to students. When students first start to develop their language skills, the topics, activities, and learning materials used in the classroom are chosen by teachers. As language knowledge and use increase, students are better able to communicate their needs and interests, along with seeking feedback about what they do not understand. This helps teachers to adapt courses so that the lessons are more suitable for students. Teachers cannot cover every topic, task, or language feature in the classroom. As such, it is important for students to transition from being receptive learners to become active learners who seek learning opportunities outside the classroom to continue to develop their language skills. Critical language awareness presents another dimension of the language knowledge that develops as part of the language acquisition process. As students become aware of how language is used in different contexts, they discover more learning possibilities and become more proficient language users.

The concept of using materials to promote learner empowerment also resonated with me. The author says that learning materials should “enable learners to express themselves in a foreign language rather than simply communicate” (Saraceni, 2013, p. 60). The readings that I have completed over the course of the TESL certificate program have encouraged my peers and I to focus on the communication aspect of English language learning because communicative language teaching is the foundation of several common teaching curriculums. Teachers focus on presenting language that students can use in their everyday lives to complete tasks and communicate with other English language speakers. As a result, the idea that we should focus on self-expression is new to me and it is interesting to consider the impact that it would have in the classroom.

I think it is important to differentiate between communication and self-expression. Communication allows people to share their needs and ideas with others and to interpret information that they receive. Communicative language teaching focuses on communication because it recognizes the importance for students to be able to use what they have learned in their interactions with other people. Self-expression differs from communication because it is personal. Students can learn how to use language properly in different tasks and situations. However, this does not mean that they are able to use language in a way that reflects their personalities and unique understanding of the world around them. As such, it is possible for students to be able to communicate effectively in a target language without having the same fluency and understanding that they have in their L1s. This sentiment is shared by Saraceni (2013) when she states that the ultimate goal for language teaching is “to enable learners to use the target language in the same way as they would use their native language” (p. 60).

In conclusion, I want to make sure that I incorporate these concepts into my future teaching. I want to create lesson plans and use materials that are relevant to my students and that are personally engaging. This kind of connection encourages students to explore texts and other materials outside the classroom to continue developing their language skills. As a result of doing so, students become active participants in their learning. I also want to equip students with the language that they need to express themselves and for my classroom to be an environment where they feel safe doing so. I am aware that some of these ideas might be difficult to implement when teaching lower level students who require help building literacy skills and have limited knowledge and abilities to use language. However, the chapter has helped me to think of new teaching strategies and possibilities for learning that I had not considered and in doing so has helped me become a more effective teacher.

References

Curriculum updates [Image #74253]. (2016). Retrieved March 8, 2019, from http://clipart-library.com/clipart/58776.htm

Saraceni, C. (2013). Adapting courses: A personal view. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (2nd ed., pp. 49-62). London: Bloomsbury Academic.