# data[].attributes.body
The idea that language has different variations depending on who is speaking is not new to me, however, it is interesting to think of the ways in which we allow a difference in dialect to determine a persons’ class ranking within society. While there may only be slight differences in language within a specific group of people, such as slight changes to pronunciation, or grammatical structure which do not hinder communication, these variations often cause the social group to evaluate each variation as good or bad. The more I think about this, the more I realize that I myself have created my own conclusions about a person based on their use of language. I now find myself wondering why, if their use of language varies only slightly, and still gets the message across loud and clear, why am I judging the person? As the power point goes on, it discusses the fact that EAL speakers “within an English-dominant country vary in their use of language based on age, educational background, gender, geographical location, sexual preference, socio-economic status etc” ((Mahboob, 2014, p. 1) Baudu, 2019, p.7). Typically, all these factors are out of a persons’ control, so why have I caught myself attempting to locate a persons’ status based on their use of language? This leads me to my next point, the determinants of a persons’ accent. Accents are determined not only by geographical location, but, in some cases, by socio-economic status. To someone who speaks English as a first language, the repercussions of having an accent are not thought of. I am never worried that my use of language will reveal my socio-economic status to another person, as I am able to speak fluent English. The only example I can even think of, of a time when I worried about my own use of language, would be when I traveled to France. The odd time that someone would ask me if I was American, my stomach would drop. I felt uneasy because I knew that until I explained that I was Canadian, I was being perceived in a negative way. While reading through this section of the power point, I couldn’t help but to make connections to Pennycook’s article. I thought about how she gave the example of the US refugee programs, where English is taught, but in a way that continues the status quo. Once again, I am asking myself why we are using language as a form of oppression, when it should be an expression of freedom. A persons’ dialect/variations of the English language should not determine their worth, and yet, in an English dominated country, it does.

Baudu, C. (2019). "Linguistic Diversity." Power Point, 1-49.

# data[].attributes.body
The notion of opening EAL classrooms to Indigenous students was a new concept to me, however, I can see why this might be of value. As educators, we tend to assume that just because someone was born in Canada, they will then be able to speak perfect standard English. This is not the case. For many of our Indigenous students, English is not the first language spoken at home. For others, even if English is the first language at home, that does not mean it is standard English being used. At the time of colonization, the Indigenous people living in Canada had hundreds of variations of languages that they used. If we were to look at how many of those languages survived, the number would be few. This is because English speaking colonizers valued one form of language over another. The power point discusses how our use of language will change depending on who we are speaking to. For example, I will speak to my sister in a very different way than I would speak to my boss. Therefore, we are all ‘guilty’ of using different variations of English. If this is the case, why are we penalizing students for using ‘Indigenous English’ in the classroom? For many of our Indigenous students across Canada, the classroom may be the only place that they are required to use standard English. Why then, are there “assumptions and misunderstandings such as “the dialect spoken is mistaken for some type of language impairment” and “the dialect spoken is inferior and should be replaced by Standard English” ((Wilste, 2011, p. 64) Baudu, 2019, p.20). Why do we value one way of speaking over another, if language also varies greatly among standard English-speaking Canadians? The more I think about this, the more ridiculous it seems that we require our students to use standard English at the risk of losing their own culture. My biggest take-away from this power point would have to be the existence of language prejudices. I had an idea that this was a real concept previously but did not have the language to describe it. It doesn’t seem right to me that we live in a world that is willing to work towards equality in many other areas but refuses to accept the legitimacy of a difference in dialect.

Baudu, C. (2019). "Linguistic Diversity." Power Point, 1-49.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, Marx outlines the concept of “whiteness” in relation to a study that was done with preservice teachers in a Second Language Acquisition class. For this first post, I wanted to focus on the concept of “whiteness”, as I have a lot to say about it, and am unsure if my interpretation is entirely correct. I would love your feedback!

Because “whiteness” is difficult to define in its own terms, we tend to only understand what it is when we describe what it is not. When reading this statement in the article, my mind couldn’t help but wander to Donald Trump, and how he basically based his entire electoral campaign on the differences between “us and them” or “white and not white.” It’s sad that we like to think we have come so far in terms of acceptance when white privilege is still alive, well, and very much in our faces. Through whiteness, Trump was elected president. A bunch of white people (majority white people) thought he would be good for the country because he wanted to build a wall preventing people from crossing the border. When considering the concept of “whiteness”, power and privilege are defining aspects, and Trump certainly used his white privilege to gain a place of power, and with that power to maintain the dominant discourse of whiteness. Marx also discuses the factors that complicate this categorization of “whiteness”, as it is not one nice neat little package and instead far more complex. ““Socioeconomic status, religious affiliations, ideologies of individualism, opportunity, citizenship, nationalism, etc.” all contribute to one’s racial identity” (Winant 1997, p.48; Marx 2004, p.134). I might be wrong, but, my interpretation of this, if related back to my example of Trump, would mean that while Trump is working to maintain the dominant discourse of whiteness across an entire nation, due to the different factors that contribute to our racial identity, his version of whiteness only benefits upper-class, white, males. Therefore, while he is benefiting a larger white community, he is not benefiting the entire “white” community. This concept of “whiteness” can also be related back to Canada, in that, since colonization, our country has primarily held an “us vs. them” attitude when it comes to our Indigenous communities. I can’t even count the number of arguments I have gotten in with my family about the Indigenous communities living in Canada. While many of my family members are quick to “other” people living on reservations, I try to explain how the reservations came to be. We often get into arguments over residential schools as well, because my family, I’m assuming out of ignorance, feels that we “did them a service by putting them in those schools”; a statement that often makes my blood boil. As Marx has discussed in her article, “whiteness” is created by defining what it is not. In this case, what whiteness is not, would be our Indigenous population. Surprisingly enough, and I say this with sarcasm, the only Indigenous peoples my family take issue with, are the ones who are visibly struggling due to a long history of inter-generational trauma caused by colonization. If an Indigenous person “appears as a white person would”, meaning they function within society as any other middle-class white person would, my family has no issue. This brings me back to the concept of “whiteness” and how we are quick to accept a “them” if the person(s) in question can function as the larger white population does.

Marx, S. (2004). “Exploring and Challenging Whiteness and White Racism with White Preservice Teachers.” Counterpoints, Identifying Race and Transforming Whiteness in the Classroom, 273, 132-152.

# data[].attributes.headline
Alyssa: Post #2 - Blatant and Hidden Racism

# data[].attributes.subject
Alyssa: Post #2 - Blatant and Hidden Racism

# data[].attributes.body
Marx outlines the steps used in her own critical cultural therapy: 1) Opening the Floodgates and Recognizing One’s Own Racism in the Torrent. 2) Calling Attention to Contradictions. 3) Sighting and Denying the Tip of the Iceberg. 4) Constructing and Challenging Easy Answers. 5) Drawing Attention to the Bigger Picture. 6) Recognizing and Accepting Responsibility for White Racism. 7) Moving Past the Impotence of White Guilt.

I feel this explanation of each step taken is necessary to understand the ways in which Marx peeled back the layers of racism that was inherently present in the study’s participants. I found it interesting that some participants were able to recognize the racism within their words during step 1. One would think that this would be a step towards progress, however, because we are told daily that racism is wrong, none of us want to accept that we are unwittingly inherently racist. What I mean is simply this, by being born and raised as white children in a society that systematically favours whiteness, many of us contribute to this racist system without even knowing that we are. We think that because we are not going out of our way to call someone racist terms, we are not actively racist. The problem with this, is that we are wrong. As Elizabeth found out during this study, she was making assumptions about the home life of one of her students, based on the color of his skin. By step 3 of this process, Elizabeth had “caught a glimpse of the ways in which whiteness and white racism influenced her own perceptions” (Marx 2004, p.142), and yet, she was still unable to admit to white racism. The study then goes on to describe how horrified Elizabeth was to realize that her own unintentional racism was being perpetuated despite her best efforts. Reading this reminded me of so many of my ECS classes, and even my Indig 100 class, when we discussed the effects of privilege, more specifically, white privilege. I will never forget my Indig 100 prof sharing with us that she had a group of girls walk out of class as soon as white privilege was mentioned. They never returned. This made me question why we are so hesitant to recognize our own white privilege within society. I realize that we have grown up being told that blatant racism is wrong, but we were never taught in high school the realities of hidden racism and privilege. It wasn’t until I got to university that I was made aware of the ways in which I was unintentionally contributing to white privilege. The outlining of these steps is important because they explicitly discuss the process one must go through to change the way they interact with the world. I really related to the statement Marx makes when she says, “They also tended to associate goodness with a lack of this kind of racism, so they tended to think of themselves as very good people in contrast to others” (Marx 2003b, Marx 2004, p.147). As long as we continue to associate badness with blatant racism and goodness with hidden racism, we will be unable to recognize the ways in which we contribute to white privilege.

Marx, S. (2004). “Exploring and Challenging Whiteness and White Racism with White Preservice Teachers.” Counterpoints, Identifying Race and Transforming Whiteness in the Classroom, 273, 132-152.

# data[].attributes.body
The idea that all "education is fundamentally political since it is constantly involved in the (re) production of social and cultural inequalities" (Pennycook, 1989, p.590) is not something that is new to me. We are taught in Education that teaching cannot be neutral because, whether we realize it or not, we have biases that come through in our teaching. What is problematic about teaching being a political act is that schools become "agents of social and cultural reproduction in a society marked by significant inequalities in wealth, power, and privilege" (Pennycook, 1989, p. 591). I think this ties into Kevin Kumashiro's idea of "commonsense" notions-- if teachers continue to reproduce commonsense notions, this serves to perpetuate the power and privilege of those belonging to the dominant discourse. While I do not think it is wrong for teachers to make "decisions about teaching based on their own educational experiences, their personalities, their... circumstances" (Pennycook, 1989, p. 606 and so on, I think it is important for teachers to think critically about how these experiences and circumstances may affect students.

Pennycook, A. (1989). “The Concept of Method, Interested Knowledge, and the Politics of Language Teaching.” TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), pp. 589-618.

# data[].attributes.body
To be quite honest, I found most of the section of this article dealing with method to be confusing. However, there were a few connections that I was able to make, and I hope that my interpretations of the text are not way out to lunch. Throughout the long history of teaching, there have been numerous different methods used. Pennycook offers a brief example of each method and the ways they relate or differ from one another. She makes a point of saying that while there appears to be many new and innovative methods of teaching English, one can find most of these methods throughout history. While some would argue that method has always been a creative and linear process, there is a part of this article that discusses the fact that method is a cyclical process. I find it interesting to think of method in relation to historical context as a cyclical process, because it means that all these people who claim to have created the next best thing are drawing from some form of method that has already existed in the past. It’s fascinating to think that educational theorists have been recycling ideas in one way or another.

Pennycook, A. (1989). “The Concept of Method, Interested Knowledge, and the Politics of Language Teaching.” TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 589-618.

# data[].attributes.body
Something that stood out to me while reading this article is that "all knowledge is produced within a particular configuration of social, cultural, economic, political, and historical circumstances and therefore always both reflects and helps to (re)produce those conditions" (Pennycook, 1989, p. 595). I connected this to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis or the idea that the language you speak determines or at least influences your perception and understanding of the world around you. In both cases, language influences the production of knowledge, and can therefore, work to (re)produce relations of power. For example, something I learned in an English class focused on gender is that in Japanese, women and men have separate words for objects, actions, etc. Female speakers are not allowed to use "masculine" forms because they are seen as being "too harsh" for a woman to speak. In this instance, language is working to uphold and continually (re)produce the patriarchy. This is one reason why it is important for us to understand the assumptions the English language holds and how we may be perpetuating power relations onto those we are teaching.

Pennycook, A. (1989). “The Concept of Method, Interested Knowledge, and the Politics of Language Teaching.” TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), pp. 589-618.

# data[].attributes.body
Before reading this, I never thought that "that the expectations tutees [have] for children [differ] dramatically depending on the cultural, ethnic, and linguistic background of the tutor" (Marx, 2004, p. 133). As someone who has tutored and worked with EAL students of diverse ethnic backgrounds, I found myself questioning whether I have ever held a student to a lower standard solely based on their culture, ethnicity, or language. Marx (2004) says that "ELLs and children of color are typically labeled 'at risk of failure' no matter their academic grades, nor the quality of their home lives" (p. 135). While I do believe that EAL students are labeled as "at risk of failure," our focus in Canada is not necessarily children of colour, but Indigenous students. With that being said, graduation rates for Indigenous students are lower than for non-indigenous students, and the reasons for this are not as simple as saying they're "'difficult' and 'challenging' to the 'normal curriculum'" (Marx, 2004, 135). Education in Canada is based on a European model and serves to perpetuate Eurocentric beliefs-- it was built for white students, not for Indigenous students. So, is it really shocking to think that Indigenous students, on top of the ongoing affects of colonization, aren't able to learn fully through this model of education?
Marx, S. (2004). “Exploring and Challenging Whiteness and White Racism with White Preservice Teachers.” Counterpoints, Identifying Race and Transforming Whiteness in the Classroom, 273, pp. 132-152.

# data[].attributes.body
Another concept that stood out to me in this article was "White Talk" as this was not something I had heard of before. The idea that someone who is expressing racist sentiments in one way or another is just "'honest/thoughtful/too hard on [their] self'" (Marx, 2004, p. 139) is prevalent in our society. Rather than being racist, people see themselves as "speaking the truth." I discussed this in Part C because I had several white male students who would make comments about Indigenous people being "lazy" or deserving of their circumstances because they "just don't work hard enough." These students did not think they were racist, they just thought they were speaking the truth. It scares me to think that the teachers in this article did not notice their racism or think that what they were saying or doing was racist. If teachers don't notice they're own privilege and their own racist thoughts, how are they to challenge students who express the same sentiments that my students did?
Marx, S. (2004). “Exploring and Challenging Whiteness and White Racism with White Preservice Teachers.” Counterpoints, Identifying Race and Transforming Whiteness in the Classroom, 273, pp. 132-152.

# data[].attributes.body
Before reading this article I did not realize there was so much debate around the teaching of grammar, but I understand why it is important to deliberate, especially in the teaching of EAL learners. My experience with grammar in school was not positive or particularly helpful. I don't remember learning about more complex grammar until grades 4 and 5, when my teacher would photocopy worksheets from a grammar book and expect us to complete them with little instruction. I remember struggling to teach myself several concepts a day because the teacher had little idea what he was doing -- English was not his forte. With that being said, I think the majority of the time I was learning proper grammar through reading and writing (trial and error). As a result, I think it is possible for students to learn grammar through "discovering grammatical rules for themselves" (Ellis, 2006, 84).

Ellis, R. (2006). "Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar: An SLA Perspective." Tesol Quarterly, 40 (1), pp. 83-107.

# data[].attributes.body
During internship I spent an hour or two a day in an EAL classroom. In this situation, the teacher "emphasized meaning-focused instruction to begin with" (Ellis, 2006, 90) and was not at the point of teaching grammar. Although the students were of varying abilities, some had only been in Canada for a few weeks by the start of the semester. Their knowledge of English was limited and so it was important for them to learn words and phrases needed for communication in the school and community, rather than teaching grammar. One of the most important things for these students was learning to pronounce words correctly, understand their meaning, and also understand what is and is not acceptable to say or discuss in Canada (ex. weight, money). While grammar is important, I don't think EAL students at the beginning of their English education, should be expected to learn it. If you don't yet know the words for basic greetings, how are you supposed to understand grammar, especially when it differs drastically from your country's? It would be easier if it were a French person learning English because the rules are similar, but it is very different for a person who speaks Arabic. Because of this, I can't agree with N. Ellis (2005) when "he suggests that teaching grammar early is valuable because it provides a basis for the real learning that follows" (Ellis, 2006, 90). While this may vary, I don't think it is realistic when the majority of EAL learners in Canada are coming from countries that don't follow the same grammatical rules and structures that ours follow.

Ellis, R. (2006). "Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar: An SLA Perspective." Tesol Quarterly, 40 (1), pp. 83-107.

# data[].attributes.body
I have very little experience teaching students who are EAL learners, however, I am going to try to relate this article to my own experience teaching students with disabilities. The article places great emphasis on two methods for teaching grammar. One way to do so, is to place great importance on learning grammatical rules right away, while the learner is still trying to learn terminology and meaning. The other method is to allow students to learn basic words and their meanings before attempting to teach grammar. The thought behind this is that students naturally learn some grammar structure while learning the language. From my own experience, I would have to say I am in favour of the second method. Teaching in a FIAP classroom, I focused heavily on teaching the basics of language – pronunciation, meaning, context, etc. My students needed a great deal of practice when it came to putting sentences together. I think if I would have focused a great deal on proper grammar rules in the beginning, I would have confused my students. I know they are all incredibly bright, but I feel it is important for them to have a basic understanding of language before trying to learn complex grammatical rules. The same can be said in terms of an EAL classroom. The students need to be able to understand the meanings of words before they can function in the larger society. They would need to know what words are acceptable, which are not, and the context with which to use the language. The article also brings up the fact that most EAL learners will almost naturally pick up basic grammatical rules, as they already understand the grammatical rules associated with their first languages. Therefore, it seems to me, it is more important to focus on language in a broader sense, rather than focus in on grammar initially.

Ellis, R. (2006). “Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar: An SLA Perspective.” TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107.

# data[].attributes.body
I never thought about Indigenous students whose second language is English being placed in an EAL classroom. In fact, I didn't think about English being an Indigenous person's second language, and its unfortunate that Indigenous English is seen as an impediment to "acquring literacy skills and mastering subject material" (Sterzuk, 2010, p. 103). We see English as being something set in stone and that any variations are "wrong" or "inferior and should be replaced by Standard English" (Wilste, 2011, p. 64). I think it's important that we consider how valuable it can be to recognize and utilize different forms of English. What does, after all, make one better than the other? Culture is enveloped within language and if we destroy or disallow a variation of a language, we're destroying something greater within it.

# data[].attributes.body
When talking about an intensive approach to teaching grammar, Ellis says the idea behind this is that practice makes perfect, however, that practice must involve drills and tasks. The teacher must give students opportunities to practice the target structure in a communicative context (Ellis 2006, p.93). I think this idea of allowing opportunities for students to practice is crucial. I remember a few grammar lessons in elementary in which we were told about the grammatical structure we were learning about, given one example and then expected to remember it. Personally, my brain typically does not retain information well that way. I need opportunities to use what I am learning to be able to remember it. I also think the example about the school in Zambia is important in understanding effective ways to teach grammar. Instead of waiting until the end of the task to address the errors made by learners, Ellis explained the common errors students were making as they were making them. To me, this makes the most sense. I would rather explain to my students the correct grammatical form right away, so they have more opportunities to practice. The other option being that I wait until the end, when they will have 0 opportunity to practice the correct form and instead have spent time practicing the wrong form. In this instance, the wrong grammatical form is more likely to be remembered, as it is what they spent the most time practicing.

Ellis, R. (2006). “Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar: An SLA Perspective.” TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107.

# data[].attributes.body
It's interesting to think about just how many varieties of English can exist within a small area. For example, even between male and female speakers of English there is a difference. Women tend to use more of the features associated with the prestige "standard" English and men tend to use "non-standard" English, which is associated with the working class and masculinity. Gender isn't the only determinant-- education, the socioeconomic opportunities of a person's family, and interactions within speech communities (home, work, etc...) all influence the way a person speaks. The fact that  “language change inevitably leads to variation, and variation within a speech community often leads to social valuation of particular features as 'good' or 'bad'” (Linguistic Society of America, 2012)  is dangerous and it resembles the same binary thinking we have for gender and race. For instance, women use the "standard" dialect more often because it is a way to boost our standing in a patriarchal society. Women use more hedges (you know/ well/ kind of), intensifiers (very/ so much), tag questions (don't you?/ isn't she?), rising intonation, and referential tags (signalling uncertainty)  in our conversations. These work to weaken the force of conversation, check accuracy, and ask for approval-- something men are not trained to do in conversation.

**Information on gender and language was taken from ENGL 367 Notes

# data[].attributes.body
A lot of times we discuss how we should be incorporating Indigenous Ways of Knowing into our classroom.  At a glance, this is often interpreted as bringing Indigenous concepts into the Western education system.  I think that it is very interesting that, as teachers who study language, we consider the traditional ways in which Indigenous peoples learn, but we seem to miss the fact that they learned this content in their native languages.  These native languages have their own set of rules that can contrast those of the English language, so when trying to learn English these students may use their native languages as a base for their learning: “If people are learning English as an additional language, they may be trying to use their home language’s grammar rules and applying them to English. This doesn't really work if their rules do not translate to English grammar, thus creating a variation of the language” (Keenan & Stabler, 2010, p. 2683).  As someone with English as their first language, I take for granted how easy it is for me to use one of the most complex languages.  However, when I came to university I had to take a French language class where I struggled immensely.  My struggles came from the fact that, like mentioned earlier, I was trying to use my knowledge of the English language to support my learning of French.  This was not an effective strategy for me because the two languages were too different, so my French marks were not that good.  Although I excelled in the English language, if someone were to evaluate me on my understanding of French, I would have scored very, very low.  This did not mean that I was illiterate or struggling in terms of language as a whole, but rather I was struggling with learning a language that differed immensely from my own.  When I look at it like that, I can see how unfair it really is.  However, this is what we are doing to Indigenous students in our classrooms; we are overlooking the fact that English is likely an additional language for them, and evaluating them solely on their English abilities.  Where are the supports for Indigenous learners in English classrooms? How are they supposed to translate languages – that oftentimes cannot authentically translate back and forth without losing meaning – and then implement them on their own?  But then the question falls on us.  As English teachers, how do we support the varying languages in our classes?

# data[].attributes.body
I found the Indigenous language portion of this PowerPoint very interesting because it had never occurred to me that, to Indigenous people, English is often a second or additional language.  Although this should be obvious, it has been lost in the years and years of the systematic breakdown of this aspect of culture.  This overlooking of this key aspect of Indigenous culture is the long lasting product of residential schools in Canada.  One of the key goals of these schools was to eradicate Indigenous culture as a whole, so that Indigenous peoples could become a part of Canadian culture.  These schools in addition to the policies that were put in place by the government were so successful, that we are still seeing their effects years after the last residential school closed.  Survivors of residential schools were taught that speaking their own languages would only result in punishment, so they learned English as a way of survival.  Similarly today, all of the schools in Saskatchewan – in accordance to legislation – have French and English as their two official languages.  As a result, Indigenous students are once again being forced into a mold where they are required to learn in English rather than their native language.  Although the situation Indigenous peoples find themselves in today is not near as forceful or violent as it has been in the past, it is still a situation where they are having to adapt to Canadian culture.  This innate language preference has led to Indigenous peoples not using their own language, which is resulting in the further loss of this language: “British Columbia, home to approximately half of the Indigenous languages spoken in Canada, has the greatest linguistic diversity. However, most Indigenous languages spoken in British Columbia are considered endangered” (Ball & Bernhardt, 2010, p. 229).  When we think about the dominant discourse, we don’t really think about the language of the dominant discourse – we usually jump to the other cultural and socioeconomic indicators.  However, in Canada, the dominant discourse is the English language, and schools are giving this discourse the ability to wipe out the languages that are not a part of it. If Indigenous languages do not have a place in our schools, then where is their place in society? How do we ensure that we do not lose these endangered languages and the resulting culture if we are not supporting the use or learning of these languages?  Where does language preservation fit into truth and reconciliation?  Where does the task of preserving language fall in terms of education?

# data[].attributes.body
This article highlights that teaching the English language cannot be separated from politics, because language in itself is political.  When looking at the PowerPoint, I discussed how Indigenous languages had been put on the shelf until the English language decides to make room for them in our education system – this dominance makes language anything but neutral.  Language is a way of bonding a culture; it’s how we communicate with one another, how we distinguish ourselves from one another, and how we write our histories.  Therefore, when we see a dominant language, such as English, rise, we see others be pushed to the side and viewed as lesser by the dominant majority.  This ability to rise above – for a lack of a better term – other languages shows that language is not neutral: As Peirce (1989) argues, we must go beyond views of language as "neutral," since "English, like all other languages, is ... a site of struggle over meaning, access, and power" (p. 405).   Being the dominant language translates into having power.  This power originates from the fact that the majority will speak the dominant language, and therefore it will become universal in an area.  When a language gets to this point, people are often left to adapt to the use of this language, or struggle in the society that it dominates.  Pennycook cites Ndebele in this article to comment on this phenomenon: “English brings with it: "The spread of English went parallel with the spread of the culture of international business and technological standardization. From there, the jump towards the standardization of international thought becomes easy to make" (Ndebele, 1987, p. 4).  I found this very interesting, because I had never really considered the imperialistic nature of language that is pointed out by this article: “The role of language teaching in this process has received little criticism in the West, so that "ELT is largely perceived . . . as being a technical business which is unconnected with cultural imperialism, linguicism, or the global power structure which maintains the Periphery in a state of dependence on the Centre" (Phillipson, 1988, p. 348).   In reality, language is a by-product of imperialism, it that it now functions as a something that divides the other from the majority.  The politics of language are very clearly mirrored in classrooms as English is valued over other languages that do not come from the same position of dominance and power.

# data[].attributes.body
Another part of this article that I found very interesting was when Pennycook stated, “While it is clear that language teaching has undergone many transformations over the centuries, a thorough examination of the past suggests that these changes have represented different configurations of the same basic options rather than some linear, additive progress toward the present day, and that these changes are due principally to shifts in the social, cultural, political, and philosophical climate” (Pennycook, 1989).  This stood out to me because it made me consider how many transformations language teaching in regards to the English language has undergone.  When you take out technological advances that changed the ways in which we are able to teach, and the audiences that we are able to reach, it makes us wonder how much language education really has evolved in Canadian history.  When I think of the evolution of language in this context, I would assume that the obvious progression would be the inclusion of more Canadian-centered literature to study that reflects current Canadian issues.  However, this is not always the case.  Yes, in Saskatchewan, we have English A30 that ties to Canadian writers and prose, but the icon for English works is still largely Shakespeare.  Even though our teaching of the English language has evolved to adapt to new technology, it has not – in my opinion – adapted to fit the new face of Canadian classrooms.  Although Indigenous content and writers are getting more room in the English classroom, there are still so many voices that are left out. When will this transformation of language teaching come for Canadian classrooms? And, when it does, what will English classrooms look like?

Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 589-618.

# data[].attributes.body
The first thing that stood out to me in this article was when Marx spoke about children of colour learning English as being problematic to the flow of things: “Children of color and those learning English are frequently de- scribed as "difficult" and "challenging" to the "normal" curriculum; fre- quently, they also are viewed and described through negative stereotypes (Solorzano 1997)” (Marx, 2004).  I found this very interesting, because when we think of students who are taking French classes in the middle years areas (as some schools offer), we never think about them from a deficit position.  Instead, we encourage them to continue going, even when things are difficult.  We do not consider them challenging or difficult, because we understand that they do not have experience with this language; they are in the process of learning it.  However, when you switch things around and have English as the language that is being learned, we seem to discount that they are in the process of learning the language that they need to complete the assignments and activities that we have for them.  Where is the acknowledgement of achievement and effort we give English speakers when they are learning a second language?  I cannot understand how these students can be viewed as a challenge, because they are often functioning at a higher level than the English speaking students in the room, because they are learning how to understand the learning that is trying to take place.  Unfortunately, this additional effort is not recognized within many classrooms and schools.  Instead of highlighting the difficult situation that these students are working through, we label them as challenges and obstacles in the classroom.  This labelling is not malicious, but rather it is simply a part of the norm: “This is not hate mongering, nor is it violent. Rather, it is the "passive" (Derman-Sparks & Phillips 1997; Tatum 1999), everyday, "business as usual" (Tatum 1999, p. 11) that serves to reinforce, reproduce, and reiterate racial inequality on a daily basis” (Marx, 2004).  This aspect of the article demonstrates just how valued “commonsense” is in a society when compared to the unknown that does not align.  To make things worse, when you look at situations such as this in terms of student motivation, what does it tell students when they are working admittedly much harder than the English speaking students in the room, but they are being labeled as challenges and difficult students?  How are we motivating these students to succeed when we are not even acknowledging their daily successes?

Marx, S. (2004). Exploring and challenging whiteness and white racism with white preservice teachers. In V. Lear & J. Helfand (Eds.), Identifying race and transforming whiteness in the classroom (pp. 132-152). New York: Peter Lang.

# data[].attributes.body
Another aspect of this article that stood out was the statistics that were presented in the beginning of the article.  In my high school experience, I was surrounded by all white teachers.  Even the admin in the school were all white.  Until university, this was not something I would have noticed or even put any further thought into.  However, after university, I can see how problematic this would be for “children of colour.”  In all of our classes, we always talk about how we are supposed to be a role model for our students, but what happens when the only role models for students of colour are white teachers? How big of an impact does this have on the identity of students?  How strong are the effects of this lack of identifying with the teacher?  How different would the teaching demographic be if students of colour had teachers who they could relate to and identify with?  I cannot help but wonder how different the teaching demographic would be if white racism and privilege were not a dominant characteristic of the workforce?  Furthermore, I wonder how the teaching faculty is going to respond to the changing face of the classroom: “In the United States today, nearly 50 percent of the school-age population is composed of children of color (Lara 1994) and one child in five is estimated to be the child of an immigrant (NCES 2002). Overall, the number of English language learners (ELLs) in this country is increasing faster than "two and a half times the rate of the general student population" (Claire 1995, p. 189)” (Marx, 2004).  If we stay within the same constraints of the current teaching demographic, then how are we going to teach teachers to acknowledge the efforts of the students who do not fit into the English-speaking norm?  Furthermore, one has to wonder whether the dominant discourse is strong enough to outweigh the needs of the classroom when English is no longer the dominant language in a classroom.  If we cannot find an effective way to answer this question, then we are going to be stuck in a cycle that condemns students for having different linguistic roots.  This system will continue to establish and perpetuate white dominance, privilege, and racism, because it will fail to acknowledge English language learners as anything but challenging and difficult barriers in the classroom.

Marx, S. (2004). Exploring and challenging whiteness and white racism with white preservice teachers. In V. Lear & J. Helfand (Eds.), Identifying race and transforming whiteness in the classroom (pp. 132-152). New York: Peter Lang.

# data[].attributes.body
Teaching grammar is something that I have always viewed as a crucial aspect of any English classroom; I went through this in my own schooling experience, and it has been very useful to me in my journey.  However, like I had mentioned in previous posts, I was in a school that was dominated by English language speakers, so the question of what grammar to teach was fairly straight forward.  Although at the time I was very resistant to the content due to its difficulty in higher levels, I was able to get through it because school worked for me.  The hundreds of grammar sheets that were handed my way in high school were in a very traditional format that fit a limited number of learning styles.  As an English speaker since birth, even I found these worksheets quite challenging at times.  So I cannot imagine how difficult it would be for an EAL student to try to tackle these confusing rules and exceptions to the rules that make up English grammar.  I struggle with the idea of letting students “[discover] grammatical rules for themselves” (Ellis, 2006) because I know that even as someone who is comfortable with the English language and motivated to learn, I would struggle to try to tackle these concepts on my own.  However, this could simply be a result of me relying on what was safe for my style of learning and own experience, so I pose the following questions with hopes that our group can help me challenge my thinking: If we fall back to an exploratory system of trial and error for learning grammar, then how to we monitor or regulate it? Furthermore, how do we constrain that learning period to fit the structure of the schooling system? How do we provide the structured format that some students, like myself, need without constraining the others?

Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An ASL perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-106.

# data[].attributes.body
If you cannot tell already, I am a traditional stickler when it comes to grammar.  That being said, I can see and appreciate how difficult and, in some cases, unfair learning grammar would be for students who do not speak English as their first language.  That being said, as English teachers, how do we combat the obvious decline of grammar skills that we are seeing all around us? In my internship, I had a student write me an essay that looked and read more like a text message than an essay; her work was filled with letters to replace words and initialisms that made her work in its entirety difficult to read.  Internet slang was her go to grammar, which was not effective for this assignment, or any professional scenario when writing is involved.  However, it left me wondering how important are grammar skills really going to be twenty years from now? With the already evident relaxation of grammar standards, it is easy to question whether grammar will be significant in the future when technology has gone even further.  With this in mind, is it really important to demoralise EAL students by adding the potentially unnecessary task of learning grammar when it may not be relevant?

When it does come to teaching grammar to EAL students – or really all students – I think that it is very important that we use the intensive method outlined by Ellis: “Intensive grammar teaching refers to instruction over a sustained period of time (which could be a lesson or a series of lessons covering days or weeks) concerning a single grammatical structure or, perhaps, a pair of contrasted structures” (Ellis, 2006).  I believe that this is the most authentic and effective way of teaching it, because then students will be able to work with and explore the content rather than being overwhelmed by it.  I think that this approach, paired with additional supports and considerations, would be the most effective way to be considerate of both the importance of grammar and the differing abilities and levels of exposure to the language of the students.

Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An ASL perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-106.

# data[].attributes.body
This presentation struck a particular chord with me due to experiences throughout my Internship. Although I was not expecting it, teaching in a rather rural area, I had the opportunity to work with multiple EAL learners in every one of the classes that I taught. In one of these classes, ELA 9, I had students reflect upon an experience that they felt was challenging to them but also helped them to grow. One of my students, for the purpose of this post I will call him Eddie, was originally from the Philippines but has been a Canadian citizen for a number of years now. In his reflection, Eddie spoke of an experience that rings true to the concept of an "initial Silent Period" (Krashen, 1985) that L2 learners experience. In his reflection, Eddie recalled how he would not speak to anyone because he felt very unsure of himself and his skills in English. He spent hours practicing in the mirror at home, and eventually became confident in his ability to converse in English. By the time that I met him, Eddie was very good conversationally and I would have never considered how he may have struggled with learning the English language originally. In reading this powerpoint, I began to reflect upon Eddie's experience and posed the following question to myself: how will I, in the future, recognize when L2 students in my classroom are struggling through their own "silent period" (Krashen, 1985) and formulate a plan to help them through this initial period of unsureness? Firstly, the idea that "people speak to L2 learners in special ways" is something that I have struggled with when considering this question - I do believe that language skills must be built through constructing understanding, but I also struggle with the idea of belittling EAL learners through simplifying my language too much. Michael long hypothesized that "interaction between a non-native speaker (NNS) and a native speaker (NS) . . . creates a naturalistic Second Language Acquisition environment where the NNS learns through negotiation of meaning and / or becoming aware of their gaps in their target language knowledge" (Long). I believe that this direct interaction can be effectively employed alongside proper instruction and support in order to help the L2 learner grow. I do believe that the support and instruction portion of this paradigm is very important, especially at the younger level - we must guide our students in the recognition of "gaps in their target language knowledge" (Long).

# data[].attributes.body
In agreement with Alyssa's previous post, the concept of opening EAL classrooms to Indigenous students was something that I had never considered before. I fear that I had fallen into the belief that if a student has grown up with English being spoken in the home, that the version of English that we teach in schools would be the same English that they are familiar with. Ironically, for someone from a French family who has experienced Francophone dialects of English, English is not a language that I have associated with having "dialects", although it absolutely does. Indigenous English has distinct differences from "standard English" that may make it difficult for students to grasp and understand concepts presented standard English classrooms. This is something that EAL learners struggle with as well - the only difference is that, oftentimes, EAL students are presented with skills and tools necessary to forge their way through the English Language. Perhaps, if we were to provide these same opportunities to speakers of Indigenous English, we would see a lessening in the gap of graduation rates of Indigenous students and a higher morale among Indigenous students overall.

# data[].attributes.body
Within the first page of this article, Pennycook had already brought to light a concept that I have struggled with throughout my years as an education student - the feeling of being "frustrated at being told what to teach, sensing that there is little cocordance between what the content purpotes to describe and what is actually happening in their classrooms" (Pennycook, 589, 1989). This is something that I struggled with especially during Internship - although the methods and techniques I have learned throughout my schooling have been useful in preparing myself for the classroom, I felt extremely unprepared as to how to impart knowledge onto my students without seeming clinical or removed. This is where the concept of "interested knowledge"(Pennycook, 590, 1989) comes into play in my world. As a Biology minor, I am well aware of the difference between science education and language education - when I think of these two different subject areas science seems to be so much more fact-based, objective and cold, whereas language is fluid, meant to be lived and felt. However, in my own teaching I can see patterns of rigidity in not only the science classroom, but also the language classroom - texts being read methodically in order to gain one intended meaning, structure, analysis, and "true" meanings. This fully contradicts the comparison that I had made earlier - the language classroom has adopted the idea that "knowledge . . . [is] produced in neutral and objective has been the removal of the personal and the political from the investigation of human issues" (Pennycook, 594, 1989), when in fact knowledge, especially knowledge regarding language, is not only highly politicized but also extremely human. This lead me to question how I, as a future educator, can open up not only my language classrooms but also my science classrooms, and whatever other classroom spaces the future has in store for me, to view knowledge as something meant to be not necessarily universally applicable or linear but something that is firmed through "a particular configuration of social, cultural, economic, political, and historical circumstances" (Pennycook, 595, 1989) and is therefore not only not universal, but also not the same to every one person.

# data[].attributes.body
Like many of my classmates have already stated on this forum, the idea that education is political is not something that was new to me. However, I was absolutely shocked to read that "Tollefson (1988) suggests that there is a covert policy to ensure that immigrants will have enough English to perform adequately in minimum-wage jobs while avoiding any welfare dependency, yet not enough to move beyond these levels of employment" (Pennycook, 593, 1989). In reading this I was shocked and abhorred - I am someone who tends to look at the world through rose-coloured glasses, and it had never occurred to me that programs that appear to have the intentions of helping immigrants succeed in North American society may actually be holding said immigrants back in their growth as members of English-speaking societies. When this realization hit me, I began to extend this line of thought into the ELA classroom - what if we, as ELA educators, are also holding our EAL students back in similar fashions? Perhaps not with this malicious intent in mind, but subconsciously, through a lack of proper research into EAL learning and techniques for helping EAL learners to grow and thrive within our classrooms. I have certainly left this article with the intention to dive into research about what I can do to assist not only EAL learners in my future classrooms, but also all learners in building a successful relationship with language that allows them to understand and move past the discourses of the world and into thriving, successful lives as citizens.

# data[].attributes.body
Language is inherently political. Whether we realize it or not, “language and language teaching are always inscribed in relations of power” (Pennycook, 1989, p.594). Education, from the time of colonialism forward, has been “involved in the (re)production of social and cultural inequalities (both within and between nations), and of particular forms of knowledge” (Pennycook, 1989, p.590). The first segment of Pennycook’s work (Interested Knowledge and The Politics of Second Language Education) stood out to me immensely, as it discusses the ways in which we contribute to the domination of minorities. I think that many of us enter the field of education with the hopes of breaking down barriers and making learning an inclusive experience for all students. However, this first segment of the article points out the ways we are in fact maintaining the status quo through language education. As an English teacher, I generally don’t view ELA as a way of maintaining dominant discourse, instead, I have always thought of it as a way of fighting back against inequalities. Pennycook (1989) points out how the use of language was a “crucial tool in the colonization both of the subjects already within the kingdom and of those in the new lands being discovered” (p.592). The purpose of language and grammar all those years ago was to impose only one form of correct English upon people, thus maintaining the existing hierarchy. When looking at Canada’s own history, the English language was also used to colonize the Indigenous peoples already living here. For a more recent example, Pennycook (1989) uses the English programs run by the United States for refugees and the way in which such programs “ensure that immigrants will have enough English to perform adequately in minimum-wage jobs while avoiding any welfare dependency, yet not enough to move beyond these levels of employment” (p.593). The fact that these programs are essentially doing a disservice to the people they are supposed to be helping is ignored because if acknowledged, ELA education could no longer be used to maintain the status quo, and as a tool to eradicate minority children’s culture. Being that I have grown up in Canada, born into a white, middle-class family, whose first language is English, I have never given much thought to the privilege I am awarded simply for my use of language. Once I came to university, it became clear to me exactly how lucky I am to speak proper English, as it means that I can succeed without great effort in most cases. While reading the first segment of Pennycook’s article, I couldn’t help but think about the implications of my own teaching practices in relation to EAL students. How can I decide what dialect of English is the “correct” one to be used in my classroom, when a person’s dialect is determined by their place of origin and socio-economic class; both of which a young child has zero control over. If “language and language teaching are always inscribed in relations of power” (Pennycook, 1989, p.594), how do we move away from this? How do we ensure the success of ALL students, whether they be EAL students or not, in a system that favours the dominant English language?

Pennycook, A. (1989). “The Concept of Method, Interested Knowledge, and the Politics of Language Teaching.” TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 589-618.

# data[].attributes.body
I want to start this post of by saying that I am extremely grateful for classes such as this one that have helped me to go through a similar experience to the one described by Marx in her research. When I first began at the University of Regina I was a participant of passive racism. At the time, I was unaware of this - much like the women portrayed in this study, the mental image that I associated with racism was characterized by outwardly horrific acts of violence and hate towards people of colour. I was unable to recognize the silent institutions that perpetrate racism throughout our society - institutions that I was partaking in. As my whiteness was continually called into question more and more by professors, I became more defensive, as we see Elizabeth doing in the beginning of this process - I was "reject[ing] the responsibility that was quickly falling on [my] shoulders (Marx, 144, 2004). Through various classes and discussions with my peers, however, I have had multiple breakthroughs (and breakdowns) much like Elizabeth's - while I may not have publicly sobbed upon recognizing my own whiteness and racism, I have done so behind closed doors, coming to terms with all of these things. I believe that this is an incredibly important step in any white educators process - male or female - and that without having this breakthrough I would not be capable of teaching students of colour without participating in prejudice. I will not say that I am perfect - I still occasionally catch myself off guard with a thought or even a comment - but I believe that the important thing is that I do catch myself, and in catching myself am able to correct myself and monitor not only my behaviour but also my deepest internal thoughts and processes, and am able to reflect and grow as an anti-racist through this recognition.

Marx, S. (2004). "Exploring and Challenging Whiteness and White Racism with White Preservice Teachers". Counterpoints, Identifying Race and Transforming Whiteness in the Classroom, 273, 132-152.

# data[].attributes.body
The second thing that I would like to comment on in this post is the fact that originally Elizabeth interpret's Marx's questioning as implying that "minority teachers should teach minority children" (Marx, 144, 2004). This was a concept that had honestly never occurred to me - and I may be twisting this in a way that the article did not intend - but I wonder what the impact of a larger percentage of minority teachers would have not only on minority and EAL student population, but also on native English speakers and our school communities as a whole. As I have mentioned in my previous post, I had to struggle with my own passive racism and whiteness in the beginning of my university career. Like Dana mentioned above, I was also surrounded by white teachers my entire school career. Every administrator, teacher, EA, facilities manager that I had ever encountered throughout my thirteen years of schooling pre-university were white. I wonder now whether or not my tendency towards passive racism would have been different had I had the experience of having minority teachers present in my schooling. This is just something that I found to be interesting, and I had wondered what the members of my Padlet group would think also!

# data[].attributes.body
Much like Dana says in her post above, I have always been a traditionalist when it comes to grammar. If someone texts me with a grammar mistake, I will correct them. I had not, prior to reading this article, considered the impact that the rigidity of grammar would have on EAL students and how it may affect their learning of the English Language. English is commonly recognized as one of the most difficult languages to learn - together with the complications of grammar, I, too, would feel overwhelmed if I were learning this language for the first time over again. The question that stuck out to me the most was the question of "when should we teach grammar? Is it best to teach grammar when learners first start to learn an L2 or to wait until later when learners have already acquired some linguistic competence?" (Ellis, 84, 2006). In this question I found a tie to my previous post from the powerpoint section - if I feel unequipped and unsure as to how far to push L2 learners in my classrooms regarding language, how will I know when to begin adding grammar to the mix? Ellis answers that "there are two competing answers to this question . . . [one which specifies the importance of] emphas[izing]  the teaching of grammar in the early stages of
L2 acquisition [and another which states that]  it is best to emphasise meaning-focused instruction to begin with and introduce grammar teaching later, when learners have already begun to form their interlanguages" (Ellis, 90, 2006). Personally, I agree with the second statement - when students are better able to articulate meaning, they will be better able to understand the constructions of grammar.

Ellis, R. (2006) Current issues in the teaching of grammar: an ASL perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-106.

# data[].attributes.body
The second point in which I wish to discuss in this forum is the idea of "massed" teaching of grammar versus "dispersed" (Ellis, 92, 2006). During my own school experience I certainly received a "massed" teaching of grammar - exactly one week at the beginning of every school year where our teacher would throw a grammar quiz at us once he or she realized we didn't remember anything from the year before. This pattern continued all the way until I entered my first year of university when I realized I still did not have an adequate understanding of grammar and had to take it upon myself to learn. Since then, I have been obsessed with grammar - and perhaps out of a desire to teach others, have taken to correcting them as I mentioned above. Due to my own negative experience with the "massed" teaching of grammar, I can only imagine that an EAL student would struggle even more with this concept - even if it were to be splayed out over a period of five months. According to Ellis, "nothing definitive can be said at the moment" (Ellis, 93, 2006), and so I stand with my own conclusion that a dispersed method of teaching grammar would be much more beneficial to an EAL learner.