education

3 Approaches to the Study of Language 

/ / Leave a comment
Photo by JACQUELINE BRANDWAYN on Unsplash

 

 3 Approaches to the Study of Language 

Freeman & Freeman (2014) present three approaches to the study of language. The first one discussed is language as structure. Those who follow this approach   want to learn the grammar and mechanics of the language. The second one discussed is language as a mental faculty. Those who follow this approach believe that the human brain is preconditioned to learn language. They believe there is a connection between one’s cognitive abilities and language acquisition. The final approach is language as a functional resource. Those who follow this approach view language as a way to function. They are more concerned with the social interactions to develop language. What are the key ideas of each of these approaches and what are the implications for teaching each approach?  

Language as a Structure 

Language as structure refers to grammar. Those who follow this method are concerned with various parts of language, for example they would teach sentence diagrams and have students identify words according to their part of speech such as a noun or a verb and so on. They study the Syntax of the language. The problem is we assume that all languages have the same parts of speech. This however has been the way many Americans have been taught language in the past and still currently in many cases. This method does not allow students to learn how to communicate in the language they have chosen to learn.  

Language as Mental Faculty  

Language as a mental faculty deals with the connection between language and cognition. Language is something that is innate to all humans and part of our cognition. It is something that is preconditioned it us. Humans have an innate ability to learn langue. Does this mean that humans only have this ability at an early age, or does this mean that we can learn language at any age? Does this mean that other species do not have the same ability? People who follow this method try to use this innate ability to teach language.  

Language as Functional Resource 

Language as a functional resource means language is about communication. Many have talked about how language should be inclusive. Which means when you study language you should be fully immersed in the language and the culture. This approach focuses on, “engaging in social interactions, humans develop the language they need” (Freeman and Freeman, 2014 p. 12). There are three aspects of this approach the field, the tenor, and the mode. All three of these aspects work together to in social interactions. However, things might be perceived differently in different cultures. What is accepted in one culture may not be accepted in another.  

Conclusion 

All three of these approaches have merit and all add something to the study of language, however on their own they are missing key components. While grammar is important when learning language, it cannot be taught as the only way to learn language. The same goes for language as a mental faculty. Even if language is an innate human ability, that does not mean that we can’t learn using the other approaches. Finally, language as functional approach is wonderful, but it does nothing to help someone read or write in that language. In conclusion all approaches have merit, but it would be better for teachers to combine them.  

Page BreakReferences 

Freeman, D. E,. & Freeman, Y. S., (2014). Essential Linguistics: What Teachers Need to Know to Teach (7th ed.). Heinemann. 

The Interactive Framework of Literacy Coaching and Guiding Inquiry  

/ / Leave a comment
Photo by Yan Krukau on Pexels.com

“Coaching seems to be the right term to use for this supportive work with teachers, especially if we think about the definition of a coach as an individual who provides guidance and feedback that enables someone else to become more proficient,” Bean and Goatley (2021). Reading Specialists are often asked to coach teachers and other professionals. There are two schools of thought in the realm of Literacy Coaching as presented by Bean and Goatley (2021) and Rodgers & Rodgers, (2007). Bean and Goatley (2021), identifies Interactive Framework for Instruction Coaching whereas Rodgers & Rodgers, (2007) discuss Guiding Inquiry. How do these two approaches compare to each other? In this paper, I will discuss if these two approaches affect my own Teacher Leadership Project. 

Bean and Goatley (2021) identify Interactive Framework for Instruction Coaching. This consists of three important components: The coaching model, the context, and the coach. This process relies on many different aspects of each component. How much experience does the coach have, what coaching model is the school using, and in what context is the coaching occurring?  

Rodgers & Rodgers (2007), discuss guiding inquiry as a coaching approach. The coaching is based on asking questions or investigation. In this approach, teachers learn how to change and evolve their teaching practices though asking questions and exploring their own skills. According to Rodgers & Rodgers (2007), change cannot be mandated. There are times when certain things are mandated, such as government policies and reforms, but changing how someone teaches needs to come from within.  

“In Fullan’s reasoning, simple changes such as using new, updated forms or revising the dates for ongoing monitoring of student progress probably can be mandated without too much trouble, but changes to how and what we teach are much more complex and likely to fall if simply mandated,” Rodgers & Rodgers, (2007). Changes such as these, need to come from within. It is difficult to get seasoned teachers to accept change. This is one of the reasons why Guiding inquiry is used in these cases. When the teachers lead the change and are invested in it, their ideas will have a better chance of being accepted.  

In my experience as an English Teacher, the only person who was involved in the coaching aspect was our curriculum specialist. She would observe us teaching 3 times a year. Then then we would meet with her to discuss the areas we performed well and areas we needed to improve on. These 3 observations are required by the State of New Jersey, but an individual teacher could request more observations if they wanted. I did this my first few years of teaching. I knew I needed more help and that I could become a better, more effective, teacher. Sometimes it’s difficult to hear the negative, but we need to be able to put that aside so we can grow as a teacher and reach our students.  

The Interactive Framework for Instruction Coaching breaks down how coaching is done. Whereas guided inquiry is a coaching model. There are many other coaching models that schools can choose from. My school uses the guided inquiry method. 

Recently at my school we implemented Professional Learning Communities. All teachers are in PLC and each group gets to decide what they want to present. This follows the Guided Inquiry model as the teachers are deciding, asking questions, and researching. The issue I see in this is that some things that need to be addressed are not being addressed because the teachers decide what gets explored. Instead of the teachers coming up with a list of things to discuss, this should be open to everyone who works with students such as classroom aides, personal aides, therapist and Reading Specialist.  

References 

Bean, R. M., Goatley, V.J. (2021).  The Literacy Specialist. Leadership and coaching for the classroom, school, and community.  4th ed (374 pgs) Guildford Press.  

Rodgers, A., & Rodgers, E. M. (2007). The Effective Literacy Coach: Using Inquiry to Support Teaching and Learning. Teachers College, Columbia University.