I take a great deal of comfort from the question asked by many new TESOL students:

“Please show me the best method so that I can teach” and the response. I frequently find myself

feeling overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information and how little of it is familiar territory.

I know my own preferred learning style. I’m a sequential learner, I like to have a clear

foundation on which to build before launching into new things – preferably one at a time. Large

volumes of unfamiliar material are intimidating. It’s good to know that there isn’t a

‘methodology’ but that much of what I’m absorbing in reading will help me develop a personal

TESOL practice adaptable to different teaching contexts.

I’m also feeling a little ‘lost’ due to my lack of on-line study skills. I like paper! It’s

easy to make marginal notes, use hi-lights and other study techniques. I haven’t found a

computer/internet based study system - yet. At other times during my readings I’ve able to slot

new content into existing ‘brain files’, which is comforting, but I often forget to note the source

for future reference. A lot of time is wasted having to revisit things which should have been

noted in the first place.

Computer based learning raises a number of issues for me. Firstly the issue of access and

equity concerns me. Until recently I used a very elderly PC. It was slow, couldn’t perform the

tasks required, and Windows 95 was the latest programme it could use. Finances discounted the

purchase of a more modern unit. Had I still been using this computer participation in this course

would have been impossible. In ESL learning on-line or via computer based materials, financial

limitations will exclude a number of people. Their exclusion may exacerbate the educational

(and therefore financial) gap between rich and poor. There is also the issue of computer literacy.

For older learners dealing with PCs can be daunting, add this to learning English and it could

amount to an insurmountable obstacle for some. On-line learning also raises the issue of cultural

imperialism. Many programmes are produced in native English speaking nations, will this lead to

an unnecessary focus on Anglo (particularly North American) culture? Conversations with a

1
number of Asian people have convinced me that values of consumerism and low morality are

permeating English language material be it literature, entertainment, or education. I suspect that

this may be as much of an issue in ESL learning no matter what medium is used.

I recognise that adapting TESOL methodologies to the sociocultural context is vital to

sound teaching practice. Part of the difficulty stems from not having a definite TESOL teaching

context. I know I’ll be teaching in Asia, initially in Vietnam, but whether they will be adults or

children, their levels of literacy/education, in what context and for what purpose is not clear. The

only certainty is there will be opportunities to develop TESOL curricula for the children in the

orphanages. Perhaps for the time being I need to seek to absorb a wide band of learning in

TESOL and allow things to fall into place on the journey. It seems I’m also going to have to

develop a new learning style on the way!

GRAMMAR-TRANSLATION ORIENTATION

The Grammar-translation Orientation with its focus on traditional grammar appeals to

me probably because it suits my preferred learning style and is the way I’ve learned other

languages. However I recognise that my preferred learning style is not everyone’s. My five

family members are all primarily experiential learners. Watching the way in which my husband

and daughter are jumping straight into the Vietnamese course is very frustrating for me. It’s a

salutary lesson for future second language teaching – learning style differences are always

applicable!

A questions in this regard: In my (acknowledged very limited) experience of teaching in

Asia, it appears that most student want to be ‘front end loaded’. In Australia I teach using a

variety of styles, usually focussed on discovery learning. In India, with students of limited

secondary education, it was very obvious that students did not want or expect to be asked

questions, or have interactive classes In Asia this didn’t work. So I lectured, they listened and

took notes. It was similar in Chiang Rai where most of the students had some college experience.

2
Pear confirmed this to be true in Bangkok where there were numerous students from other Asian

nations in the university. Is there such a thing as an ‘Asian’ learning style and how does/will this

impact upon TESOL? Certainly aspects of my preferred learning style stem from early

experiences in the classroom. Are learning styles ‘learned’ or are they innate? Can ESL students

effectively learn using an unfamiliar learning paradigm?

Returning to the issue of the grammar-translation method , the comment that many ESL

teachers have a poor knowledge of English grammar and few being bi-lingual interested me.

This statement encouraged me to check out my own knowledge of grammar. I was shocked.

Having studied four languages and having a thorough grounding in English language studies at

school I thought my grammar skills would have been okay. They weren’t. I used the Language

and Learning Awareness Course from the NEC. My language skills left a lot to be desired. I

guess the issue comes down to the context in which I will teach English. Obviously the context

doesn’t effect the fact that ‘good’ English should be taught, but who defines what is good?

COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE

I like the idea of “communicative competence”. This philosophy of learning sits very

well with me, even with other contexts in which I teach. For me the bottom line is that what is

learned has to have an application or a use somewhere in the learner’s experiences of living.

Especially in the Bth, there was a great deal of ‘stuff’ which had no real application to lived life.

Having said that I did gain critical thinking and biblical research skills which are now of such

value to me. However if what is learned is able to be effectively communicated or transferred to

other contexts, it really learning or is it something else – memorisation of facts for instance. I

can still recite all sorts of paradigms for verbs, nouns, adjectives, participles and other

grammatical niceties in a splendid array of tense, voice, and mood, but communicative

competence there ain’t! To be fair, two of the languages have no oral form [Koine Greek and

3
biblical Hebrew] so communication in either of the languages is not necessary, an ability to

translate into a dynamic equivalent is sufficient for linguistic competence.

A JOKE [found in Fromkin and Rodman p80, Copyright  by S. Harris]

A pre-historic man and woman sitting on stones, eating. Man says to woman “I miss the

good old days when all we had to worry about was nouns and verbs.” I understand their

sentiment! I wonder how much focus on linguistic ‘stuff’ (sl) a word with a broad meaning

encompassing everything possible within the sphere of the sentence topic; is necessary? Have we

become too sophisticated – Sophisticate 1.involve (subject) in sophistry; mislead (person) thus. 2.

deprive (person, thing) of natural simplicity, make artificial by worldly experience etc.;(Concise

Oxford Dictionary definition)? Does our jargon, analytical paradigms and other linguistic ‘stuff’

make us better teachers or help learners learn English? Perhaps this reflects my current angst

with regard to the complexities I observe in many areas of life which should really be quite

simple. Have we ‘complicated ourselves’ into stressful environments in many areas of life

including language acquisition?

GRAMMAR-TRANSLATION

As a mono-lingual ESL teacher it seems teaching using a grammar-translation method,

especially as my grammatical knowledge is somewhat deficient, is not an option. Even though

my own preferred learning method would be to have grammar principles firmly in place in the

early stages of L2 acquisition. However, as a mono-lingual English teacher that is not an option

so it will be very necessary for me to adopt other teaching methods. I wonder why my preferred

learning style seems to be quite different from my teaching practise? In teaching I’m inclined to

use learner-centred, interactive, and collaborative discovery based teaching sessions, yet as a

learner I like lectures, I hate group work, preferring to work alone! Weird.

The courseware stated “The communicative orientation tends to favour a learner-centred

curriculum.” Again one returns to the context and purpose of ESL. Communicative competence

4
has many facets. If the learner’s need/desire is to gain the ability to effectively communicate with

tourists in a market for example, then the need for a sophisticated knowledge of grammar is nil.

But if the learner needs to write assignments in a formal academic style their communicative

competence requirements are of an entirely different nature. I’m glad I won’t be teaching English

for academic use!

The Courseware states “Underwood pointed out, 'communicative teaching methods leave

the learner scope to contribute his/her own personality to the learning process. They also provide

teachers with scope to step out of their didactic role in order to be 'humans among humans'

(P.94).” The idea of teaching English using this paradigm excites me! Many years ago I taught

drama and I can visualise all kinds of scenarios for learning English. I do wonder how such

methods would be perceived in cultures where ‘front-end loading’ is expected and where teachers

are regarded as ‘high status’ such as India? India was an experience, both for me and for our

hosts. Although I wasn’t teaching English, some cultural issues arose with regard to my being a

woman and a theology teacher. Firstly they didn’t really know quite where to put me. We were

working with low-caste people [I hate the term and the caste system. I know it’s supposed to be

dead but it’s alive and kicking in the towns and villages] and my ‘status’ was problematical.

Women almost have their own community and outside of the home don’t ‘mix’ with males. They

sit apart, eat apart and all sorts of other cultural conventions apply. Nor, in the community we

visited, do they teach. I didn’t ‘fit’ into their world-view of female roles. I’m a woman and a

teacher so they ignored the woman factor and I sat with the men, ate with the men and generally

was included in male world despite wearing a sari – an interesting experience! It makes me

wonder how the communicative teaching methods as visualised by Underwood would ‘work’.

Perhaps there will always be some tension for ESL teachers between cultural sensitivity and

teaching methods.

An interesting aside with regard to India, I was informed all Indian children must learn

English until grade 9 or 10 yet few of the students in the bible school we taught in were

5
communicatively competent. These students were aged between 16 and 23 so should have had

some oral English competence after what amounts to at least 5 years of English learning. What

was the problem? Was the focus on grammar-translation? If so, then use of a communicative

competence method of ESL teaching is warranted.

STYLES, SLANG, JARGON, AND SEXISM

The use of different styles in different contexts is thought provoking for teaching ESL.

Pear has commented that she often finds academic English quite difficult even though her English

language skills are very good. With reference to the above comments regarding teaching context,

the style of English taught in TESOL will obviously depend on the use for which it is intended.

In Thailand the need in the orphanages will be for conversational English to be used to

communicate with visiting teams from USA, Canada and Australia. An issue which arises here is

that of cultural conventions. In Thailand politeness and esteem is very important therefore

sensitivity in teaching/learning forms of address and styles of speech will need to be taken into

consideration in oral English. Are there taboos which need to be observed? Is it more

appropriate to teach euphemisms than words like urinate, testicles and menstruation? I guess

before venturing into unknown territory it might be advisable to find a bi-cultural friend to

provide guidance through this particular mine field.

Similar questions arise with the issue of sexist language, particularly with the use of

written texts. In both my theology and education degrees the use of gender inclusive language

expected, however many texts used the generic he, man, mankind and other exclusive forms of

language. In conversation I use inclusive language as a matter of course but many of my friends

and acquaintances, particularly those over the age of 35, still use exclusive terminology. How

can one prepare ESL learners, especially in the early days of learning, for the possible use of both

forms particularly where the L1 has no gender differentiations?

Anarchy in the English Language: Letter to The Times:

6
 The letter writer is lamenting (and excoriating) the ‘shrinkage’ of the English language

caused by the loss of “the original meaning” of two words, ‘man’ as a generic and ‘queer’ as in

peculiar. It is the former which most irritated me. It is interesting that the writer of this letter has

a different view of the origin of the term ‘man’ from the Fromkin and Rodman text. S/he (Kim

can be either gender, funny in light of the topic!) implies the word ‘man’ came from the ancient

Sanskrit manu, the first man-woman, later being associated with the male as well as a generic

term. The gender inclusively named writer asks “Who came up with the idea of dropping the

word “man” in its primary and ancient meaning?” I wonder where Ms/Mr Peart obtained their

information? Fromkin and Rodman state that in the 16th and 17th centuries masculine pronouns

didn’t have generic usage. The pronoun ‘they’ was used in the singular as well as plural unless

the meaning was gender specific. It fascinates me that my inclination is to refer to the writer of

this letter as ‘he’ – probably because the letter reflects a lack of understanding of the way in

which male-oriented language can promote sexism, which is most likely a male problem! And

that statement reflects my own gender bias. Until I read a feminist theology book where the

language was exclusively feminine I had little understanding of the way in which language use

can promote gender bias, it was quite an eye-opener. Fromkin and Rodman also argue that

language “reflects sexism in society” and that derogatory/sexual connotations with regard to the

way in which men refer to women go far back into history. I agree with Fromkin and Rodman’s

thesis! Letters like the one in the Times remind me of the power of language. In teaching

English I will also have to take care that my feminist leanings, although quite mild, do not

contravene cultural conventions. It will beneficial to do some further study into this whole area.

REFLECTIONS FROM LEARNING A SECOND LANGUAGE

In the AUA Thai course the focus is on phonetics and morphemes. Syntax is not even

mentioned in this early stage. It is most disconcerting given my love of grammatical foundations!

The aim of the tapes in the AUA course is to get the learner speaking at normal conversational

7
speed right from the beginning using an audio-lingual approach of focussing on what matters and

practicing correct performances rather than correcting wrong ones. I found it very helpful to read

about the difference between the English ‘ear focus’ and the Thai ‘ear focus’. In listening to Pear

one can hear the Thai ‘ear focus’ on the centre of syllables in her English speaking. She speaks

very rapidly each word flowing into the next missing many consonants at the end of words.

Finding out the way in which learners ‘ear focus’ is tuned will help in TESOL.

There’s a certain irony connected to this learning TESOL journey. Having begun the

course as an unconscious incompetent, feeling quite confident that I’d gain the skills necessary to

teach ESL, then reached the conscious incompetence stage – and freaked out! – I seem to have

arrived at a place where I can live, for a time, accepting incompetence as a staging post on the

journey. I don’t have to ‘camp out’ here, but pass through until I reach the more comfortable

stage of conscious competence, or at least begin to formulate my own TESOL practice based on

the learning gained on the never-ending journey, constantly changing and growing in new skills

and recognising where different methodologies and the fruit of continuing research may be

utilised Re-reading the first paragraph of this journal makes me realise that the journey is

possibly more important that the destination. In many ways the destination, (unconscious

competence) should never really be reached. If growth and change stop then so does life.

Atrophy will quickly set in if we stop being dynamic in our teaching practise. There will always

be new ideas, methodologies, and other developments which can inform our teaching practise.

Even in my own area of ‘expertise’ I have not remained static. I constantly revise and revisit both

content and practise, so why should I presume that TESOL should be any different? What has

brought about this great ‘revelation’ – a book! Instead of relying on web-based learning I

returned to my familiar abode, books. Yes, in the struggle to lay a foundation for learning in this

course I raided the library and found the above text. With this, what I first felt as a regressive,

step came the realisation it’s not either/or, on-line learning doesn’t necessitate the abandonment

8
of books, silly me. Just because this course uses a new technology (new for me anyway) doesn’t

mean I have to abandon the ‘old’. This is a valuable lesson for the whole of teaching endeavours.

The first section of Bowen et al’s text reminded me that it’s all about process and the journey.

We never stay in one place! Strange how such a simple, obvious thing got lost in the early stages

of the journey. The realisation that I don’t have to have a clear cut destination, the foundation

will take some time to build, and the process of continual learning is the main game gives me a

great sense of relief! I seem to have to go through this ‘panic phase’ with each new adventure.

Some of us just never learn!