Ricento and Hornberger have correctly identified and placed the teacher (i.e. classroom practitioner at the heart of the onion (symbollically, the most important and interesting part). They have succinctly illustrated how the classroom practitioner has been manipulated (cajoled), despite the fact that the "experts" have already pointed out or claimed that change begins in the grassroots level (Burns in Ricento and Hornberger, 1996). And the irony of it is that we the classroom practitioners are often viewed simply as implementers of the language policies. Ricento and Horngerber's have clearly pointed out that even the language policies can even be changed as it goes through several layers of the onion before it gets to the teachers (core of the onion). The point is that teachers can still implement these policies with broader social attitudes in contrast to implementing a specific policy by the school or government without the teacher consciously realizing it (Auerbach in Ricento and Hornberger,1993). To this extent, I do agree with what Ricento and Hornberger place the classroom practitioners that, despite their seeming unimportance in the process, being at the core doesn't mean that they are incapable of influencing it. Regarding this, It is also important to note that the classroom practitioners themselves are not just unconscious participants in the LPP process but that they can be primary policy-makers.
In line with the ideas of Ricento and Hornberger, the classroom teacher as a participant in developing language policy within their respective institution has been a reality in my experience. Though, our school's policy has been outright a mimic of DepEd's (Department of of Education) policy, at least, we in our language area were given free rein to do what we think is best for our students. My school's language policy is that English must be spoken on designated areas in the school (the classroom included) during class hours, on all subjects except Filipino and AP (Araling Panlipunan or Social Studies). However, my students are not used to conversing with each other using L2, and using English in that manner (conversational) in the class during class hours is fictional in our school. We have explained this to our academic coordinator and so far, we the English teachers have been flexible and tolerant in the constant code-switching that students commit. We, the teachers have decided that we will let students do this at a particular limit which is only when they (students) are trying to explain something. In that way, we were able to practice our independence as regards language policy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHello, Oliver. This is Tops. Thanks for the first blog. You're doing great here. "Tension" in the classroom to me is a good thing, and you articulated it here to a large extent. My question though has got something to do with the last paragraph. Why would you consider being tolerant with codeswitching a form of independence?
ReplyDeleteAlso, this is something that interests me personally -- after writing this blog and critically reflecting on the article assigned to you, would you consider yourself the "same" practitioner as you were before reading the article and reflecting on it? Hope my question makes sense.
Hey, how do i go back to Dr Lorente's page?
ReplyDeleteThanks Sir! Regarding the question the first question--"Why would you consider being tolerant with code-switching a form of independence?" I find the question very interesting--makes me reflect on what I learned in college (I took my bachelor's degree at PNU). During those years, we were taught to be very strict in implementing an "English only policy" in our class (supposedly that begins during our off-campus training). They knew that that's far from reality but ideally that's how it should be. Perhaps that's one thing that I've "unlearned" when I took my MA studies. Though is may sound ideal, it isn't what really happens in the class. I find it as a form of independence because I believe that the student being able to explain himself through code-switching is better than a student who is stupefied because he can't say his thoughts because of a language he is yet to master.
ReplyDeleteIt's quite startling to find out that every time I read a new article there is something in my thoughts--my own "philosophy of teaching" that changes. It's quite comparable to catharsis in literature. I do find myself now in an empowered position where despite that I am a teacher with no administrative position in my school, I do know that I can still influence the language policies implemented in our school and do things which I think are for the benefit of my students.
ReplyDeleteHi Oliver --- This is good stuff! You have many rich experiences which you will be able to draw from!
ReplyDeleteIn your post, you showed the different layers of the LPP onion and the interesting things that are happening there. One can already see, for example, how policy is being transformed from the DepEd level to your school (which "mimics" DepEd policy but where you in the language area are given 'free rein' to do what you think is best for your students) to you, the teachers (who are flexible and tolerant of code-switching especially when your students are trying to explain something). How else have you, as teachers, exercised your "independence" in the classroom? And (this is a question I also asked Len) what of your particular context has "allowed" you to be independent to a certain extent? What specific institutional ideologies and practices (if any) have "allowed" you to negotiate such independence? What have not?
Glad you have the freedom to "exercise your ELT rights" as a teacher!
ReplyDeleteHi Oliver! As everyone has said, this is good stuff. Like Topsie and Bea, I'm curious about your idea of independence. You've explained it somewhat but I'd like to hear more! I think your answer to this will be related to your own definitions of empowerment.
ReplyDelete