# data[].attributes.body
I was a little flabbergasted whilst reading this article, particularly when I came to read the portion where it mentions teaching English as an apolitical act, as my peers have commented on already. To me, the humanities are unquestionably political -because art represents the contexts it is created in, and English is an art (hence the name, English Language Arts). I was also a tad disappointed that the author did not speak of how the sciences themselves are political despite their quest of absolute objectivity. Research is always conducted with a purpose and, beyond that, Western science has largely denounced ancient practices that usually have a logical explanation as to why they really do work. Ignoring this frustration, I also found myself questioning nearly every bit of information given after the author stated that, "

there has been a series of language teaching methods over the ye each being succeeded by a better one until we reach the present." I do find myself agreeing with this point, but to me, a statement of that magnitude (which is later explained quite throughly), begs the question, "Is what we are learning now trivial if every other 'method' has been so far?" Perhaps the author did not intend for this, but it truly made me question just how much of this educational theory translates into individual student successes, and how much of a difference focusing on a new way to inform learning has on the students.

# data[].attributes.body
I saw this post, and I actually loved it. I had to share this photo with you all to bounce thoughts. Do you think this poem would be appropriate to show in the classroom? Do you think students would understand its meaning or take it out of context?
How could this post be used to break down the use of claiming a superior and minority group within society?

# data[].attributes.body
As a Canadian English speaker, I have grown up learning the “standard” form of English through general English classes, societal positioning, and social environments. Thus, growing up, I have been unconsciously learning and tweaking my language to stay current with the “types of Englishes valued or deemed as legitimate … by middle class white settlers” (Sterzuk, 2010, p. 103). Because of this, its often an assumption that other people understand language at the same variant and degree that you do. As teachers, we often bring these assumptions into our classroom which leads to students who are lost or scared to speak up when they do not understand; especially when it comes to teaching EAL students. EAL students not only have to try and understand the translations of the words, but also have to understand the unspoken syntax and intonation that comes along with speech. In relation to the visual Baudu added to the PPT, within voice comes tone, pitch and volume, diction, and pacing, pauses and silences. Students who have grown up in Canada their whole lives, generally do not struggle with understanding these unspoken rules, however, EAL students do not know these “rules” and often struggle understanding them. For example, in Canadian culture we understand that the tone of voice indicates the different between a statement or question. When someone’s voice goes up at the end of a sentence, that often indicates that a question is being asked. Contradictory, in Chinese culture, they speak very monotone all the time and when something is enjoyable or they are happy about something, their volume increases (Chen, D., personal communication, 2016). Therefore, immigrants need all the “rules” to be outlined to them or it may lead to miscommunication in translation.
Additionally, as an English speaker, oftentimes, “we” struggle to understand accents. While an EAL student, depending on what language(s) they know, it is often easier for them to distinguish what is being said because they are constantly trying to decipher meaning from an additional accent (being English), thus, their brains are trained further in that area.

# data[].attributes.body
Some questions I had, that may spark discussion:
1. How do we use the knowledge gained in this article to inform our teaching?
2. Do you think we need to be aware, as teachers, of the historical and political contexts of language and how it has been taught? (And if so, what difference does this make to our pedagogical approaches?)
3. Can we make more room in the curriculum for local context and knowledge about language and teaching?
4. Ultimately, can we (re)define what we mean by "English Language Arts" and talk about who that privileges and leaves out?

# data[].attributes.headline
Exploring and challenging whiteness (Julia)

# data[].attributes.subject
Exploring and challenging whiteness (Julia)

# data[].attributes.body
Like the Leonardo reading from a few weeks ago, this was a good and challenging piece about working to undermine the racism that underpins our society and relationships (I wish I had read this before handing in my internship reflection!)

I found this to be a really interesting study, focusing on white female teachers (who still (????) make up the majority of the profession). I fall into this category, and I saw myself in some of the participants.

A few things stood out to me:
1. The parallels between the situation in the US and here in terms of structural (yet often "invisible") racism, denial, white talk. Canadian hypocrisy in this area is a huge problem.
2. Prevalence of White Talk in particular. We have all engaged in this, I would imagine. Some more frequently than others. It's good to be aware that this is a thing and consciously seek to not engage.
3. This idea of Critical Cultural Therapy and the process of making denial impossible was really fascinating to me and I was impressed with the participant, Elizabeth, who was so open with her thoughts and feelings. I think we need to make more space for this to happen on a bigger scale if racism is to be addressed meaningfully.
4. Again like Leonardo, I liked the idea that Marx brought up about moving "past the impotence of white guilt"; that we need to develop as anti, not just "non" racists. Be active in disrupting racism at the core level (i.e. within us).

# data[].attributes.body
1. What does Marx mean by creating a "positive white identity" (p. 145)?
2. What are some ways that we can enact anti-racism and anti-oppressiveness in our daily lives?

# data[].attributes.headline
Current issues in the teaching of grammar (Julia)

# data[].attributes.subject
Current issues in the teaching of grammar (Julia)

# data[].attributes.body
I thought some of the questions that Ellis's study asked, such as "should we teach grammar?" and "what grammar should we teach?" were great food for thought. Growing up in a house with 2 English professors, "good" grammar has always been part of my life, and I have always thought it important. However, I like that in my ELNG classes I have been asked to challenge the normative assumptions underlying these beliefs. In my ELNG 300 class, we read an article entitled "Whose English Counts?" which I still think about when I go to make a lesson plan or correct a student's work. It's not easy to shed years of cultural conditioning that MY English is correct and someone else's isn't. It still grates when someone misuses their/there/they're. But I am learning. I do still think in certain situations that correct spelling and grammar are important/useful, especially in professional settings but have never really thought about how that knowledge (of what is correct) gets transmitted.

What I thought was interesting about this article was its questioning of when to teach grammar (i.e. right away or after meaning-focused language instruction) but I wished it had gone further into the tension between grammar and meaning. I wanted to know more about where grammar fits in language mastery -- whether intentional teaching of it improves overall understanding of the language, or just distracts from usability with a bunch of out-dated (and sometimes seemingly arbitrary) rules.

I liked how this article reminded me of my own L2 acquisition (I was in French Immersion, K-8). I don't remember learning grammar but using it became second nature. One of my laments about learning languages later in life (university, and even high school) was the focus on tense, gender, case which actually detracted from my ability and confidence to speak the language in question. I was always thinking about noun and verb endings and placement. I think this confirms Ellis's opinion that immersion and a focus on communication and meaning are more important when first learning a language than grammar. That can come later.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Do any of you have experience with learning a second language? How did you feel about the grammar?
2. Do you think grammar is part of the essential "building blocks" of language, or a bunch of incidental rules that distract from overall meaning?

# data[].attributes.body
I am fascinated by accents and all the different ways that the same language can be delivered. I had never thought of accents as a disadvantage  -- another reminder of my relative privilege -- before I moved to the UK and realized that accents are used to demarcate all kinds of social and political backgrounds (class, ethnicity, region) whether accurately or not. My own accent ("American") was often benevolently ridiculed by my peers, along with individuals from Scotland, Ireland, Wales and parts of Northern England. Not so benevolent were the assumptions sometimes accompanying this teasing -- about lack of understanding, rural/urban origins, and especially class. However, I never felt disadvantaged by my accent, really. Only different.

I came home much more aware of how I, and others, speak. I hope that I have not had a negative reaction to the way that someone speaks. I think it's so important to consider the intimidation and disadvantages that language learners experience when it comes to the way they speak a second (or third, fourth...) language. This quotation by Derwing et al sums this up pretty well: “Although individuals can detect an accent immediately, they aren’t necessarily aware of their reactions to it. Therefore, an examination of attitudes towards accent, and how ethical those attitudes may be, is necessary” (Derwing et al., 2014, p. 66).
As ELA teachers, the ways in which we engage with language and teaching are obviously crucial. I liked some of the challenges at the end of the powerpoint with regards to how we actually can work as anti-oppressive/racist teachers juggling multiple language and literacy levels in the ELA classroom; to honour diversity whilst valuing communicative fluency. I especially liked Cook's 3 directives:
1. Hear Every Voice, the language strand, encourages peer appreciation of dialect and language diversity;
2. Preserving Voices, the composition strand, emphasizes the bond between writer and audience that leads to understanding self and others;
3. Affirming Voices, the literature strand, expands upon and enriches the traditional canon by dealing with literary selections that reflect the experiences of divers groups. (p. xi-xiii)

This gives me concrete things to focus on in the classroom to help ensure that all students feel like valued contributors. To me, I see this as an acknowledgement and celebration of the reality of our diverse classrooms.

# data[].attributes.body
1.      The following quote relates to the surroundings and situation that an individual has grown up as. Do you think language should be standardized within a school or is diverse language beneficial to a learning environment?

“For example, couple talk, sibling talk, or friend talk can be seen as language that is used between people have low social distance (and thus is localised) and may not be interpretable to an outside audience. On the other hand, when interacting with people with whom one has a higher social distance, one tends to use a more ‘standard’ or ‘global’ language—one that minimizes ‘local’ uses and is thus less prone to miscommunication. Thus, one cline of language variation can be based on ‘low’ vs. ‘high’ social distance” (Mahboob, 2014, p. 3)

2.      Do you think the following quote is true or false? Do you think that as teachers, we change our syntax, diction, intonation, word choice, way of speaking in general when teaching/talking to EAL students versus non-EAL students?

“Each wave had linguistic implications—that is, the immigrants influenced the way in which English is spoken in Canada to some extent” (Chambers, 2010, p. 12)

# data[].attributes.headline
Can you please turn on, "show author's name"?

# data[].attributes.subject
Can you please turn on, "show author's name"?

# data[].attributes.headline
First Nations Language withing Canadian Schools

# data[].attributes.subject
First Nations Language withing Canadian Schools

# data[].attributes.body
Teachers tend to disregard First Nations language within Canada, and only consider English and French as our main languages. What teachers do not realize is that students who have grown up still speaking their native tongue, are learning English as a second language as well, but because they are assumed to have grown up knowing the “standard” form of English that is spoken. The following quote from Wilste made me think about this topic and also made me think of the comment “There are other children here” (Denis, 2011, p. 306): “I guess because we happen to be born in Canada teachers seem to think that we should be able to speak perfect English. However, they don’t realize that for a lot of our students, English is their second language. There isn’t English as a second language program for Cree speakers, but their (sic) should be. So, I think that maybe when we’re doing language arts that we should not only have ESL for immigrants but also for native Canadians” (Wilste, 2011, p. 61). Is there a way to restore First Nations language within school? Do you think this should be something mandatory within schools?

# data[].attributes.body
Grammar is a troubling topic nowadays. As Ellis has discussed, there is a divide between those who believe in teaching grammar, those who question what parts of grammar to teach, and those who leave the grammar to be learned solely by individual students. The problem that often arises within teaching grammar is how much should be taught and what should actually be taught. The following quote from Ellis brings up a controversy left unanswered, “The general idea is that we should teach the marked features and leave the learners to learn the unmarked forms naturally by themselves. The problem is that, as the definition suggests, markedness remains a somewhat opaque concept, so that it is often difficult to apply with the precision needed to determine which structures to teach” (Ellis, 2006, p. 89); the problem I have with leaving the “unmarked” forms of grammar, is that we are leaving our EAL students at a disadvantage. Learning English as an additional language is a challenge because we have so many rules, yet so many of those rules can be broke for reasons x, y, and z. Therefore, leaving those “unmarked” grammar forms is unfair to students who have not grown up speaking, hearing, reading, and writing English for their whole lives. I am stumped on the what and how and how much of grammar myself, and I wonder where you all stand in grammar in your classroom? Do you want students to know all the terms and be perfect writers, or be somewhere in the middle teaching them tidbits here and there or the “marked” only grammar, or are you on the far end of the stick of leaving it up to the students to learn?

# data[].attributes.body
In both my pre-internship and internship, I learned ways to incorporate grammar into ELA without making a unit out of it. In my pre-internship, my co-op used to give five new vocab words to her ELA 30 students every Wednesday. Every second Friday, they would have a mini quiz where they had to define one word, write a synonym for another, and a sentence for a third. They had ten words to pick from. I thought that was a great idea to introduce a new vocabulary into the classroom. I liked the idea so much that I modified it and used it with my grade tens in my internship. Furthermore, in my internship, my co-op had “Writing Improvement Days” every Tuesday and Thursday where she had a quick mini lesson on grammar tips and tricks. This included comma usage, when to underline or italicize writing, whom vs. who, colon usage, and eventually led to a brief paragraph to proofread. Her lessons were very brief, as to not overwhelm students and she used the I do, We do, You do method when practicing. I really like the brevity of each lesson and some of them even helped me better understand my own grammar usage.

What I learned from Ellis is that what I was doing in my internship and what my co-op did was an “extensive” way of presenting grammar because it was many lessons in a short amount of time rather than the same thing over and over. The following passage indicates that intensive is more effective? Would you agree or disagree? Do you think students would learn more of the repetition of the same structures, or bursts of different ones?

“There is little doubt now that intensive grammar lessons can be effective. Though earlier research showed that learners do not always learn what they are taught, especially when learning is measured in terms of spontaneous production (e.g., Kadia, 1987), more recent research (e.g., Spada & Lightbown, 1999) indicates that even if learners are not ready to learn the targeted structure, intensive grammar teaching can help them progress through the sequence of stages involved in the acquisition of that structure. In other words, teaching a marked structure intensively can help learners learn associated, less marked structures even if it does not result in acquisition of the marked structure. Intensive instruction also helps learners to use structures they have already partially acquired more accurately (e.g., White, Spada, Lightbown, & Ranta, 1991)” (Ellis, 2006, p. 94).

# data[].attributes.body
Personally, I think we are doing our students a disservice if we do not provide them with grammar instruction. If we are not helping students to learn and apply grammar, how will they learn and progress their writing skills? Researchers in the article such as Corder (1967) suggested “learners had their own built-in syllabus for learning grammar” and Krashen (1981) argued that “grammar instruction plays no role in acquisition” (85). I’m not totally sure how legitimate this could be for students to suddenly comprehend grammar without any outside instruction. What do you all think about this? The article goes on to say that students who learned grammar naturally were far less proficient in it than learners who were instructed. Does that right there not debunk the above claims? Maybe students can learn grammar partially on their own but if they are not instructed by someone who has more expertise and training to teach it, would they not be at a disadvantage? I’d love to hear your opinions.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should grammar teaching be intensive or extensive? (Riley)

# data[].attributes.subject
Should grammar teaching be intensive or extensive? (Riley)

# data[].attributes.body
To me, grammar teaching should be a mixture of both of these approaches. Especially for L2 or additional language learners, the opportunity to be able to practice the specific grammar structures for a designated time and apply them to the language through practice is beneficial, but so is being able to apply it in practical ways such as during communicative activities and other daily applications. The intensive acquisition will help them later on in the extensive application. I cannot say for sure that this is the correct way to go about teaching grammar structures to L2s or if one of the approaches is more beneficial than the other, but I do believe personally that it would be most beneficial to the language learners to have a combination of both approaches

# data[].attributes.headline
Exploring and challenging white racism (Riley)

# data[].attributes.subject
Exploring and challenging white racism (Riley)

# data[].attributes.body
While reading this article, it occurred to me that no matter how and what we do, white privilege and the social construction of whiteness and power will ALWAYS be at the forefront of our classrooms as the majority of us are white and only English speakers. My biggest question deriving from this article is how do we as educators address white privilege and avoid or overcome the tendencies to see our diverse students through the deficit lens that we, as a white society, continually place on them?

# data[].attributes.body
I love how the teacher in this research example agreed to be observed and critically evaluated in regards to how culture influenced his teaching in ways which were both visible and invisible to him previously. I think it should be mandatory for all teachers to participate in this type of observation as it can be extremely helpful in pointing out things the teacher may not have been aware of but that are visible to others. They can then use these observations to inform their teaching and influence their future practice in a way that would not have been possible before. A lot off the time we unconsciously suggest that we are greater than and more superior than others because of our whiteness and being able to recognize these moments and ways in which we unconsciously do these things and be able to consciously change those situations. I’m interested to hear what you all think about implementing this type of observation in all classrooms? Do you think it would beneficial to the teacher? The students? Schools as a whole?

# data[].attributes.body
In the article it describes Comenius’ (1592-1670) sensory principle which emphasizes the need for students to “learn through the direct experience of their senses. The presentation of each new object must be linked to the appropriate sense” (599). A couple of years ago I took an ELNG class as an elective that was Teaching English as a Second Language and this was a concept that was heavily talked about and used in teaching and lessons. The tactile stimulation or visual representation of an object is so beneficial for students who are learning a new language. Even the feeling of hot and cold, the tastes of sweet and bitter, help students better understand and associate language to experienced sensory stimulation. I think this principle is essential in teaching secondary language acquisition as it gives connects language to familiar experiences and qualities of things they already know, but are still acquiring the new language for.

# data[].attributes.headline
Validating local forms of knowledge (Julia)

# data[].attributes.subject
Validating local forms of knowledge (Julia)

# data[].attributes.body
I enjoyed this week's readings and the new perspectives they offered on EAL, SLE, and language acquisition. I think there is a tendency to think of EAL and SLE learners as afterthoughts in ELA classrooms. However, increasingly, students who have multi-lingual backgrounds or who speak primary languages other than English are part of our classrooms. This reading offered a great reminder that language -- and the way that we teach it -- matters. Pennycook argues that "SLE is involved in a complex nexus of social, cultural, economic, and political relationships involving students, teachers, and theorists in differential positions of power." I am embarrassed to admit that in thinking about critical pedagogical theory, anti-oppressive ed, and anti-racism throughout this degree -- and being challenged by many professors to consider these issues in the social studies/ELA classroom and school environment --  I have tended to unconsciously assign language learning and acquisition to the realm of "apolitical". This couldn't be further from the truth. If we think about it, language and the way we think about it -- like so many other things in our society -- has been constructed and molded over time by the same political and social processes that underlie our being in this space today: namely, colonialism. Pennycook points out that we have to see language and language teaching as political because it has been integral to (among other things):
-the creation of the nation-state (and the expansion of empire)
-differences in dialect/discrimination based on way of speaking
-formation of grammatical norms and rules/standardization
-expansion and hegemony of English as the language of trade/business, education, entertainment, tourism, etc.
All of this, claims Pennycook, forms part of the liberal scientific investment in progress/positivism, and patriarchy. Finally, Pennycook warns us that relying on the (social) scientific objectivity of "Method" in language teaching -- which he points out often has little to do with teachers' daily practice -- local knowledges and understandings tend to be ignored. Standard, or correct, grammar and language is imposed in contexts where it doesn't belong or work, disempowering teachers to do what is right for their classrooms and communities. There are obvious implications in this article for teaching in a Saskatchewan context, with new arrivals to Canada (many of them, recently, refugees) as well as Indigenous students -- whose natural way of speaking may not line up with standardized English language teaching -- making up greater and greater percentages of schools and classrooms.

# data[].attributes.headline
“Teachers make a whole series of decisions about teaching based on their own educational experiences, their personalities, their particular institutional, social, cultural, and political circumstances, their understanding of their particular students’ collective and individual needs, and so on.” (606) (Riley)

# data[].attributes.subject
“Teachers make a whole series of decisions about teaching based on their own educational experiences, their personalities, their particular institutional, social, cultural, and political circumstances, their understanding of their particular students’ collective and individual needs, and so on.” (606) (Riley)

# data[].attributes.body
This quotation stood out to me because it does a great job in encompassing many of the things teachers must decide for their students. There could be extensive research proving one method to be the absolute best and most effective but should we be expected to conform when there may be another method or characteristics of several methods that work more efficiently and effectively for our unique set of students? What do you think? I think we should be catering to our students’ collective and individual needs rather than going with the newest methods or systems. Being able to take the positives from multiple methods and apply them in different ways for different learners would be far more beneficial and authentic in my opinion.

# data[].attributes.headline
Using language to match your audience (Riley)

# data[].attributes.subject
Using language to match your audience (Riley)

# data[].attributes.body
I think this is very important for ALL students to understand. They need to know that there is a time and a place to use specific dialects. One of the quotations on this slide discussed recognizing language that belongs to specific texts/conversations, love letters, job interviews/applications, etc. A lot of English speaking students do not completely grasp the concept of formal and informal uses of language and catering your language to specific audiences in both spoken and written language. How do we as teachers help both our English speaking students and our additional language learners to understand and apply this concept to their language. How do we ensure we are meeting the needs of both English and ELL students? Are there approaches that work for one group and not the other? Both groups?

# data[].attributes.headline
On Indigenous Language Speakers:“I guess because we happen to be born in Canada teachers seem to think that we should be able to speak perfect English. However, they don’t realize that for a lot of our students, English is their second language” (Wilste, 2011). (Riley)

# data[].attributes.subject
On Indigenous Language Speakers:“I guess because we happen to be born in Canada teachers seem to think that we should be able to speak perfect English. However, they don’t realize that for a lot of our students, English is their second language” (Wilste, 2011). (Riley)

# data[].attributes.body
This quotation actually surprised me as I had never considered this perspective before. What our Indigenous students are taught as English could very well be a variation of “traditional” English in their culture. I can easily see why many teachers think that these students are simply less proficient as others in the language rather than connecting with the fact that English could be their second language, and the version of English they have learned is not identical to others. This is a real eye-opener to me and I hope the rest of you caught on to this statement as well. How do you think we should address these language variations in the classroom? Should we be including our Canadian-born First Nation students in early level EAL courses to better understand their concept of the English language as we see it? Should we let them advance and continue using their variations of English? Isn’t forcing them to conform to mainstream English another form of decolonization of First Nations people as we, yet again, force them to be rid of their language?

# data[].attributes.body
“Whiteness” and white privilege is a topic that often came up in my ELA 20 class. As a white, preservice teacher, I definitely struggled in dealing with the topic in a way that students understood the why and how of privilege. As said by Marx, “whiteness is most often understood when it is described as what it is not, rather than what it is” (Marx, 2004, p. 134); which is often true. When describing privilege, it is often compared or contrasted to that of a person of color, or by saying “what it is not” rather than giving is a definition. But how would one define it? How can we bring this topic up and into our classrooms without causing discomfort? The Critical Race Theory, as defined in Marx writing, suggests that "race continues to be a significant factor in determining inequity (Ladson-Billings & Tate 1995, p. 48)” thus, if we take as a society start seeing and teaching equality among everyone would it resolve the problem or create an assimilated “white” community?

As further said, “Through this framework, racism is described as "endemic in American life" and something that is "deeply ingrained legally, culturally, and even psychologically" (p. 52). Much more than individual acts of hatred, racism is described as a condition of American life. It is "a system of advantage based on race" that benefits whites in the United States as it disadvantages people of color” (Marx, 2004, p. 135). Here, Marx define racism as a condition; a condition can be defined as an “illness or medical problem” (dictionary.com); racism is acquired to social conditioning which leads to similar beliefs among families, communities, and populations. Therefore, if children were taught to respect and seek interest in other cultures, then racism would not be considered a condition, but rather it would not occur or occur less. Do you think there is a way to overstep racial turmoil within a classroom through being open about privilege and teaching about “whiteness”?

# data[].attributes.body
Grappling with the idea of racism and being good is a hard topic to consider in yourself. While one can say and consider themselves non-racist, it all comes out in their body language and thoughts. However, while that does not make you a bad person, it all stems from social conditioning. As per the people who participated in Marx’s study, “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). Through our conversations, however, their own white racism slowly emerged, and when they finally saw it, most participants were shocked and disappointed in themselves” (Marx, 2004, p. 147); while the participants were disappointed in themselves, the important part is that they were able to recognize their fault and make a change from it, and potentially change the minds of students whom are the biggest influencers of society.

# data[].attributes.body
I am now going to be a little hypocritical in my second post (which is how I felt the author was whilst reading). I have never found myself agreeing with an article more than I did with this one. First, Pennycook argued with the belief and movement surrounding an 'object English', and why this is utter hogwash. She then went on to mention various other 'methods' that have been developed over the years. And, although this made me question my own personal philosophy on English education, it echoed something my mother (also a teacher) told me when I first entered the profession. She said I would grow tired of old content popping up in new ways, only to be replaced by the next old/new way of teaching. I have not experienced that back-and-forth shift quite yet, but Pennycook's examples of multiple educational researchers and their various descriptions of how learning best takes place only solidified the position. I also full-heartedly agree that there is a movement to 'standardize teaching'. Again, my mother worried me that soon, there might not be any teachers at all. A bit extreme but, if the curriculum was boiled down to a day-by-day instruction sheet on what to teach for every class and how, it really isn't the far off the mark. However, there was one comment that really stood out for me, and I raise it up now for my classmates to respond to: "...teachers make a whole series of decisions about teaching based on their own educational experiences, their personalities, their particular institutional, social, cultural, and political circumstances, their understanding of their particular students' collective and individual needs, and so on." This is in reference to how theory rarely translates into practice. For me, this is a bit worrying to see, because I do believe there should be some parameters on what is and isn't allowed. Do you agree? And if so, what do you think those boundaries should be?

# data[].attributes.body
"Whiteness" is a very difficult construction to define. Its parameters are rarely articulated in this country that whiteness is most often understood when it is described as what it is not, rather than what it is." To me, this sounded very similar to other readings in their course (I believe it was Kumoshiro who said when we identify ourselves, we subsequently identify what we are not). Looking at Marx's spin, whiteness is then still the default. And because whiteness is so hard to define rather than being pinned down, "The neutrality that typically characterizes whiteness is evidence of its power." But this is not really a revelation. What was interesting was one of the last points she made. Going through this process, I was shocked when Marx stated, "...the first step to becoming a truly antiracist white must be admitting one's own white racism." I felt that someone who had gone through such lengths to show others their misconceptions would challenge the very idea of ever becoming truly anti-racist. I know for myself, it is something I grapple with on a daily basis now. I constantly re-evaluate why I did or didn't do something, and if it may have been a result of my whiteness. I don't foresee a time when that will ever change. And her suggestion that yes, one day, white people can completely become free of racism was a little 'Eat, Pray, Love' to me. Let's go spend some time in a third world country, learn about the culture, and find ourselves? Yeah, okay then Julia Roberts. Does this mean it might never be a possibility? Her suggestion earlier of permanent racism' would say so. My personal belief is that I have learned far too many racist behaviours (both explicit and implicit) to ever truly break free of them. I can absolutely continue to try and disrupt these thoughts and patterns. But until whiteness is not automatically the default in my way of thinking and in our society, I will not ever be an antiracist white.

# data[].attributes.body
The time this particular article was written is what worries me about some of its information. A particular quote that stuck out to me is “What is most striking in these histories is the same contrast reoccurrence of the same teaching techniques and debates about teaching” (Pennycook, 1989, p. 599); this debate about teaching techniques is still relevant in 2019, thirty years later. While there are new teaching methods and techniques, it is often harder to incorporate them into lesson plans, especially for unwilling teachers. What also baffles me is that preservice teachers are lectured about what not to do while teaching, yet we are literally taught the way we are told not to; how does that benefit us?! If we know students do not learn in these ways, then why do we continue to teach such a way?

# data[].attributes.body
I did find a lot of merit to this article. One thing I noticed was her study with the male teacher and his patterns of teaching more to the white students was very similar to studies on teachers and their habit of catering more to the boys in the class. That study noted that even small things such as eye movement tending to fall more to the boys, and some reported that it felt like a great deal of effort was spent trying to focus just as much on the girls. This study also reminded me of my internship, where I was always battling between giving my indigenous students more vs less time than everyone else. It seemed I could never quite get it right, and that moderation is what I also noted struggling with in regards to my EAL student. Furthermore, the analysis of White Talk was spot on. I know I've been guilty of sitting back, even in our education classes, and listening to someone comment about this or that and how it's not 'our' fault. I've always fallen into many situations where my apparent apathy is taken as consent to become progressively more racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I am finding my relatively quiet nature becoming disrupted due to the fact that I no longer feel comfortable being quiet. I can no longer be like Marx and sit back while the -ism of my friends' speech becomes more aggressive. I do feel the need to speak up, because I know that's what I'd want someone to do for me. And I suppose that little bit is a positive step forward.

# data[].attributes.body
Where I often struggle in my own teaching path is putting the concepts I have learned into practice. Clearly this has been a common topic for a long time, and still continues to be a common topic. While there is “a close relationship between the academic thought and textbook publications, but little between these and the knowledge produced by teachers in their daily practice” (Pennycook, 1989, p. 606); but it is hard to put that knowledge into practice because of the reason that not all students are the same, and not all teachers carry the same or right energy to portray a specific method of teaching. What I would like to gain for myself is a chest of inclusive and engaging activities that I can pull from whenever my class is in a dull moment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Do I ever struggle with moderation or what

# data[].attributes.subject
Do I ever struggle with moderation or what

# data[].attributes.body
Echoing my peers once more, I really struggled with how I felt about this article. In one of my first-year English courses, rigorous grammar sheet was given for homework. The professor handed it out to us and said that the native-English speakers would most likely do far worse than the EAL learners. And he was right. I barely passed that assignment, even though I have relatively fair grammar when I write. He explained to us that EAL learners tend to score higher because they've spent a great deal of time learning these skills, whereas native-English speakers have grown up around them. Even so, I still find myself hesitant to teach too much grammar, because I'm definitely more of an art-focused kind of guy. Is this hurting my students? Is it helping?

# data[].attributes.body
This article did help to better align me to what my true goal of teaching grammar should be. Ellis stated, "Establishing connections between form and meaning is a fundamental aspect of language acquisition. Thus, any reference grammar that fails to describe the form-meaning connections of the target language must necessarily be inadequate." I think that was why I never personally understood most grammar lessons I was taught. For me, the purpose was never there. If I was corrected on my actual writing, I could immediately foresee where the issue may arise again. I found example sheets quite useless. This helps to instruct my teaching because if I introduce grammar with the goal of giving my students a sense of purpose behind the instruction, perhaps it will become more natural in their own writing. Furthermore, Ellis also gave me a huge revelation (the remarkable nature of which I find to be a tad embarrassing): EAL learners will struggle with different concepts depending on their first language. Mind = blown. I now feel more confident in addressing certain needs of my students. If I can pick out why they are having trouble, or what might not be computing for them, I can explain the English equivalent in a way they may better understand. I don't know why it took reading that portion of this article for me to clue in, but I finally did.

# data[].attributes.headline
Okay so my comments aren’t posting because technology hates me but I took screenshots of the ones I made. My apologies for the difficulty in connecting to the original posts. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Okay so my comments aren’t posting because technology hates me but I took screenshots of the ones I made. My apologies for the difficulty in connecting to the original posts. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Reading 3 comments. Technology warfare continues. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Reading 3 comments. Technology warfare continues. 

# data[].attributes.headline
I’m really sorry you can’t see which post these are replying to, my screen wouldn’t let me move the thread to see the poster. 

# data[].attributes.subject
I’m really sorry you can’t see which post these are replying to, my screen wouldn’t let me move the thread to see the poster. 

# data[].attributes.body
“Although individuals can detect an accent immediately, they aren’t necessarily aware of their reactions to it. Therefore, an examination of attitudes towards accent, and how ethical those attitudes may be, is necessary." Wow, that is very true. I've never thought of the ways I might be responding to someone's accent. I have noticed my dad, because he immediately expresses his frustration and annoyance with a varying degree of small noises and off-hand comments. But the fact that I could be doing something similar? That made me pause immediately. I also agree with the points made that there truly is no 'one way' to properly speak English, yet people are judged for not doing so. If they have the slightest difference in pronunciation or in phrasing, others immediately clue in. But we (or at least I) fail to recognize our own shortcomings. The only thing I can compare this to is my hyper-awareness at having a more 'feminine' lisp. I could say it doesn't bother me, but it does...and why should it? Because I've been told it's not proper and not right. I get looks from a lot of people, or at least, I feel that they silently judge me. And if they don't, I judge myself. Knowing that this is possibly what many others are also consciously aware of is disheartening, particularly in a place where there is such grand difference in how English is spoken.

# data[].attributes.headline
Once again, I hope you can tell who I am replying to based on the end of the previous post or comment. I know it’s  not at all ideal. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Once again, I hope you can tell who I am replying to based on the end of the previous post or comment. I know it’s  not at all ideal. 

# data[].attributes.body
To continue on the thought of accents being noticed and discriminated against, I would find it hard to believe that someone has not noticed how often indigenous voices are judged based purely on how they sound. Indigenous voices are absolutely seen as inferior, as uneducated, as drunk, or a number of other bad stereotypes. They are ridiculed and taunted. This is even more infuriating when also relating the English language to colonization. FNMI people were perfectly fine with their languages, yet we mock them for not speaking ours (forced upon them) 'correctly'. That is utter rubbish, but how can we as teachers break this cycle? Thanks to a previous course, I am now more in favour of letting students be fluid in their use of English. I would have no problem if an EAL student wanted to write their assignment first in their language and then translate in to English, nor would I object to an FNMI student breaking conventional grammar rules to emphasize their culture. But what more could I do as an educator?