# data[].attributes.body
I think the best thing we can do as teachers is instill the growth mindset in our students. Students who think that they simply have a static level of skill or ability in any area are unlikely to think they will ever improve. I think that this issue is only made worse when it comes to language learners. Learning a whole new language is a long and arduous process that requires a lot of growth and determination. So how do we do this? Well we start by not praising students who are doing very well and instead focus on challenging those who excel and praising all of our students for the effort they put in and the improvements they make. Of course we also don't want to create an environment where it feels like everyone is getting a participation trophy because that can be demotivating in its own way. So we need to find a balance between encouraging our students and infantilizing them, after all we don't want to come off like we are patronizing them by praising every minor thing they accomplish. We should focus on giving them this encouragement in small doses at the right time. At least this is what I think would be a good start to balancing this out. What do you all think?

# data[].attributes.body
This week was pretty interesting. I think we take our own language and culture for granted quite a bit. For example, the TED talk mentioned how the sun might be masculine or feminine in certain languages and since I grew up learning spanish I did always think of the sun as masculine, but I never really even gave much consideration to that fact. I heard culture described as all the things that are taken for granted by those within it. I think I like this definition. Just like the sun being masculine is a mundane fact of life for spanish speakers so too is the hamburger for most americans. But to outsiders it must certainly be the most exotic strange thing. After all, if you only speak english you would probably think i'm crazy for giving the sun a gender at all.

Bringing this back to language acquisition, we have to be aware that these differences are incredibly obvious when you are on the outside looking in, but they are incredibly boring things that you've probably not put much thought into as a participant in your own culture. So I think the best thing we could do for our students is learn from them how best to teach them. We can work through the difference but only if we are aware of them first and are willing to figure out how someone who doesn't have personal pronouns in the L1 can come to understand them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lesson Plan 4 English 4800 - Google Docs

# data[].attributes.body
This topic is a big one but think I have two main takeaways from it overall.

The first is the importance of making the extra effort to understand the students culture. This needs to be done in order to help them feel more comfortable and also so that we as their teachers can better understand why they may do things certain ways. We can have open discussion with our students and not get frustrated when their cultural difference don't make sense to us at first glance.

The second idea I had about this topic is the importance of parent involvement and understanding. It can be really difficult to communicate with parents but this is even more so if there is a language barrier. Even so, if we can talk to parents we can maybe get a better understanding of how culture impacts student home life and we can perhaps make appropriate accommodations for our students.

Ultimately culture is complex and complicated, but that's just all the more reason to approach it seriously and put in extra work for our students sake. It all boils down to understanding our students and their unique needs for learning. As educators we must consider culture and work with students and parents in order to achieve a good learning environment.

# data[].attributes.body
It seems pretty straight forward that people are all different and so they will also learn things differently. This is perhaps even more so when dealing with second language learning since there are unique pressures that may lead to personally having a bigger impact than in other subjects.

As far as all the strategies that go into breaking down personality and development are interesting I do question how useful they will be in practice. Maybe it is a bit helpful to have this knowledge as a foundation but I think that ultimately getting to know your students and figuring out what they like and how they learn is an organic process that can't be quantified in terms of theory or scholarly work. I mean you can certainly try and maybe even succeed in doing describing all these different factors but I think that in the end it comes down to our human interactions with students as well as their families and culture to better understand how we can serve them.

I tend to think that walking the middle line between any two arguments is usually a good idea. So maybe the answer is to use the ideas set out by Myers, Briggs, Krashen, and Jung. But it's also important to keep ourselves grounded in the reality that will be our classrooms. What do you all think? Is theory super useful? Do we need to implement it and think about it all the time? Does everything we do need to be based in theory?

# data[].attributes.body
It seems like these concepts should be pretty obvious right? People have a hard time learning if they are stressed or nervous or lack confidence. It's hard to do anything when your under any kind of mental strain so it makes sense that trying to learn new things would be very difficult. Despite this it seems like many of us can recall times when teachers certainly did not lessen these factors and instead were directly responsible for increasing them. I've had my fair share of those experiences, and while its true that teachers are only human and make mistakes I think that as the next generation of teachers the onus is on us too better consider the importance of emotions when it comes to instruction. I'm not saying that we have to line our classrooms in safety padding and coddle our students, but I am saying that we at the bare minimum should not be a source of stress, fear, or intimidation for our students. If fact I believe that we owe to them to create an environment where they can prosper and that we should be the ones lessing these things for our students. The way I would want to implement this is to keep my focus away being overly critical and negative with my students and instead foster a class where mistakes are welcomed and learnt from.

# data[].attributes.body
What strategies do you think are more effective for you as a learner?
I think compensatory strategies are the most helpful for me to learn. Being able to apply the L2 in more intuitive ways seems like it would result in a better grasp of the language than other strategies like hard memorization. Also, these strategies simply seem to be more fun and engaging than taking notes or studying charts.

How can you help students use a variety of strategies?
I think the only way to get students to use multiple strategies is to teach using multiple strategies. Use many strategies and help students get comfortable with many of them.

How can you help students use a strategy that they are not as comfortable with?
I think that speaking with them about how they are struggling with it and trying to identify ways to improve would be a good start. Aside from that repetition always makes things easier so that's another simpler route to go.

Think about the list of traits for good language learners. How can you as a teacher help students develop these traits?
From the article it mentions that a sign of a good language learner is that they will be actively thinking about how to use each strategy as needed. Meanwhile, lesser performing students seemed to pick strategies at random without much thought put into it. So to encourage the better end I would need to teach them multiple strategies and then get them really comfortable. I would also try to encourage that use of strategies so that they would be confident in switching between each with meaning. Could probably develop some activities that get them to start using them in that way.

# data[].attributes.headline
Cognitive Considerations of Language Learning

# data[].attributes.subject
Cognitive Considerations of Language Learning

# data[].attributes.body
Some of the topics that jumped out at me this week were the left/right brain idea, accent, and inductive/deductive learning.

The left and right brain split are pretty interesting to consider since I've know about that idea for a long time. I've also always been told I was left brained, which I can agree with for the most part. However, I think that categories like this oversimplify the complexity that is how people operate within their own minds. In addition, our fascination with making sure that everyone fits into a category is ultimately putting unnecessary restrictions on our students.  For example, sure I was never good at art or more creative projects as a kid, but since I was told that's "just how my brain was wired" why would I ever try to do well in my creative endeavors. Of course I'm older now and know better, but that kind of categorization had an undeniable impact on my development as a kid.

I have less to say about accent and deductive vs inductive, but I'll say it anyways. Accents are interesting, and I never knew that accents would only be developed by language learners that are past puberty. However, when I think back on friends and family who learned English as a second language it does add up. Finally my only thoughts about the deductive and inductive split is that I won't have to be too careful about using inductive learning since I plan on teaching high school, but it's nice to know about the differences anyways.

# data[].attributes.body
It seems like the topic most people are focused on this week is direct vs indirect corrections. They both have pros and cons but it seems like indirect is the favorite amongst the class based off of some of the comments on the voice thread. So I'd like to make my blog this week about these two different methods of correcting mistakes.

Before getting into the teacher side of things I just want to briefly discuss the student perspective. I never had to learn a second language while growing up so I can only speak to my experience in learning japanese in a college foreign language class. My experience here was mostly receiving direct feedback that was very explicit. Even towards the end of the semester when we all had a better grasp on the language, corrects were swift and to the point. So how did I feel about 'direct' criticism? Well to be honest it didn't bother me, I'm confident in myself and if I mess up it's no big deal since every other student is in the same boat as me. We all started learning japanese at the same time. (well aside from a few that took japanese in high school somehow?!) Either way, it was a low pressure environment so it didn't really matter if I got corrected in front of the whole class, it was a little embarrassing the first time but I got used to it pretty quickly.

All of that being said, looking at this from a teacher's perspective, I think there is a time and place for each method depending on the fluency, age, and classroom set up. If people are really new to the language, a bit older and more mature, and the classroom is filled with people of very close skill levels. Then, like in my Japanese 101 class, direct correction is probably okay to use if not preferred. I think I might have been a bit annoyed or confused if my professor or the TAs kept repeating things back to me like that instead of just clearly pointing out what I did wrong.

However, that is one specific circumstance that I think won't really apply to classes I teach. I don't plan to do ESL teaching primarily, I plan on teaching english to english speakers at the highschool level. So that means my language learners won't be surrounded by other learners of similar fluency level. I also wouldn't expect even a class of high school juniors or even seniors to be as mature as a college class. So I would most likely stay away from more direct correcting, but ultimately it's on me to talk to my students and ask them what they prefer and do my best to help them.

# data[].attributes.body
Looking back at the multiple ways language has been taught and how effective each strategy is as well as how it affects language learners, I think it's very clear that some approaches are a lot better than others.

So let's talk about what worked and what didn't so we can use it in our classrooms in the future. First things first I think we can all agree that submersion (sink or swim) is probably the single worst way to to help our students. They are going to more than likely struggle and face a lot of scrutiny from their peers.

However, we also shouldn't just remove our learners from the rest of our students into their own special classes. This just further separates them from others who they might form bonds with. These friendships are invaluable in getting our students to use the language they are  learning. Historically these separate classes are put off to the side in portables behind the school or in old unused storage areas which only furthers issues of making these students feel welcomed. So while the sheltering way of doing things is better than just tossing them into the deep end, it's still not ideal.

Given all of this it is my opinion that immersion programs are the way to go when they can be done. It's a way for our native english speakers to get exposed to new culture and a second language, and it is also for our second language learners to be around to hear what native speakers are saying and so that they can make friends. By keeping them included they can learn in a more holistic and natural way, while also having a much higher chance of feeling like this is a place they belong. However, this kind of immersion program isn't always possible and it has it's flaws too, so what do you think? Is immersion the end all be all of good approaches, or is there a different way you think is better? Also what do we do when this isn't an option for whatever reason, can we improve on submersion or sheltering? Let me know in the replies :)

# data[].attributes.body
The sample class I have in mind would be a high school english class. More specifically, I would prefer the 11th or 12th grades so we'll say ages 16-18 will be what I'm expecting. I don't have any preference for campus type or anything like that, so I'll just model my sample class of off my own high school, Delhi High School. So that means a public school that has an outdoor campus and a large latino community. Aside from these facts I'd like to try and make my class a place where students can get excited about english and not view it as a boring class, since that's usually how the subject comes off as to most kids. So the main goal of my lesson plans should be to get my students as engaged as possible with the material and have them enjoy the lesson and have a little bit of fun with it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Three Historical Methods of Teaching Language & More

# data[].attributes.body
The first historical method of teaching a language comes from the french Gouin in the mid to late 1800s. Gouin focused on the grammar of languages. This lead into the grammar translation method that also found its roots in the Roman teaching methods of long ago. While this method is easy to teach since the teacher doesn't even need to be fluent in the target language, it seems that students have a hard time learning this way.

The next model came around as a result of World War II needing people to speak instead of just read and write foreign languages. It's called the Audio Lingual Method. This method focuses on oral drills and on the behavioral side of things. Basically students do oral drills and then are given positive or negative feedback and eventually, with enough repetition, they are much more likely to be able to develop the ability to communicate in the target language by talking.

The final method was developed in Britain during the 1960s as a response to the Audio Lingual Method. It was called the Communicative Approach. Chomsky developed this approach and decided that language learning should be focused on competency and the ability to actually communicate effectively instead of on grammar or accuracy. It is also a more holistic take instead of a behavioral take on learning. So instead of running drills, students will learn the grammar through a more natural way via playing games, roleplay, and group work.

Aside from these methods it is also important to take a look at the natural order hypothesis. Which states that we learn languages in this order: listening, speaking, reading, and finally writing. This hypothesis comes from Stephen Krashen of UCLA. He also puts forth that the listening part of those steps is a really key step that can't be skipped, but it often is. A final point he makes that I want to touch on is that you can't really learn how to communicate. That is to say, you can't sit down and read a book on it. Instead he makes the distinction between learning and acquisition by stating that acquisition is how we do learn communication via actually using the language in speech. This is an interesting idea, and honestly I tend to agree with this final point, but what do you all think of it? Can we learn how to communicate just by listening to a teacher lecture or by doing page after page of grammar worksheets? I have my doubts...

# data[].attributes.body
This week we took a look at some of the basic foundational ideas regarding how babies and children learn their first language, from babbling simple sounds to first words and eventually complete sentences.

This field of study seems simple enough at first, simply listen and watch children to try and find patterns that explain how exactly they learn language and then try to make out why they learn in that way.

However, it turns out that there has been a lot of disagreement over the years on how and why children learn language with several prominent theories being pushed forward.

One of these theories that makes sense to me at least at a basic level is the idea of Behaviourism. This theory states that children learn the basics of language through positive reinforcement. Basically children are generally praised for speaking when they begin to use certain words for the first time, so they associate using words and speech with positive attention and they keep doing it.

One of the most important people looking at this issue is Noam Chomsky, aka the father of modern linguistics. His theory is that humans have the innate ability to learn language. He calls this ability the Language Aquisition Device. His logic states that languages all have some things in common, like parts of speech and grammar structures. All languages have verbs and nouns but they might just order them differently. This similarity combined with the fact that babies are able to differentiate between language sounds and the random sounds of the environment supports the idea that language may be a unique innate ability that humans have. It might seem a little obvious or silly but I also think that the fact that no other species on earth has developed language also supports his theory. The name of his theory is Nativism.

Yet again, things are never so simple. Russian born Vygotsky proposed the Interactionist theory. This idea was centered on a genetic explanation of language acquisition. Although it might seem like this theory goes hand in hand with Nativism, it kind of doesn't, at least in some ways. Mainly, Interactionism stated that unless exposed to language a lot as a child, people would not be able to acquire language. Instead it was exposure to language at a young age and the desire to communicate which was the driving force behind language acquisition.

These were the two theories that really stuck out to me as the most important this week since I think that both are fairly accurate, but that either one its own probably is not 100% correct. I think that the idea behind simply innately having the ability to pick up language is wrong, but I only say that based on anecdotes I've heard about "feral" children who never learn how to speak even after years. But I do think that the commonalities between languages are an important factor to consider, since it may explain a lot about how people (when they came up with language and when they learn it) think about the world and how they describe it. I also liked the idea of that the desire to communicate is a main driving force behind language acquisition, because I think that's very true. We are a social species and we all depend on each other and on our social groups, whether it be through family, friends, or society at large. So the need to communicate and the desire to do so just makes sense in my head.

# data[].attributes.body
Syntax- Word order and how we structure our language. For example, in English we do things Subject - Verb - Object. Other languages do it in different orders which can make learning a new language very difficult if the person's native language uses a different default order.

Semantics - Is the understood meaning of language. It's how the same thing can mean something different based on the context. It also can depend on tone when it comes to something like sarcasm.

Morphology - It's how we put our words together. For example, how the word dogs is related to dog but made plural by the S at the end. These pieces of words are called morphemes, or units of meaning. So dog and s would be the two morphemes that make up the word dogs.

Phonetics - How our words and language sound. It's the little differences between words like pay or bay. This can be hard for native speakers to hear but non native speakers can notice it.

Lexicon - The different vocabularies that people learn. For example we have casual speech for use with friends and then more formal speech for use at work or school.

Pragmatics - Is how we use words and knowing it is appropriate to use specific words and when not to. I think of it as a way of reading the room, but it can vary a lot depending on cultures so it's not quite that simple.

Non-verbal Communication - Every part of communication that is not words. This includes how close or far we are from someone we are talking to as well as body language, talking with your hands, eye contact, tone, and a lot more.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi, my name is David Castillo and this is the first semester of my senior year at Stan State. Something interesting about my time at the university is that I haven't attended any classes since I transferred here from MJC about a year ago. Maybe I'll get to graduate without ever setting foot in a classroom, that would be funny but a bit sad at the same time.

What led me towards a career in education was my own teachers. A handful of them were very passionate about what they taught and they inspired me to engage with the subjects and made learning about it actually enjoyable. However, that was only 4 or 5 teachers out of the dozens that I've had over the years, so I basically want to help increase the amount of cool and fun teachers that can actually teach in an engaging way.

I hope to learn a lot of valuable skills in this class that will help me reach my goal of being a teacher that doesn't put kids to sleep with 50 minutes of reading out of a textbooks every single day. And of course more specifically I want to learn how to teach English to those who don't already understand it, that's the main point of this class after all, right?