Phase 1: Reflections
Phase one was a tremendous learning experience, as I had the opportunity to design and conduct my first research project. Putting into practice the action plan that I had carefully designed was exhilarating as I watched my students interact with the material and activities for the first time. I was also humbled by the enthusiasm my students had at participating in my project. They were supportive, interested, and curious. In fact, it was difficult keeping them on topic sometimes because they had to balance being my students and also being my participants. Some of the students I had had for many months prior to the research project, and others I had just met. While the familiarity of the students made me feel more comfortable, it also made me cautious as I anticipated there to be some bias in the students' answers. My first phase was completed without any significant issues and I was excited to begin designing my second phase with the knowledge I had gained through reflection on the experience and data.
Explicit Instruction - Implicit Instruction
At the end of phase one I reflected deeply on the strengths and weaknesses of what my action research project held at that point. The part of the intervention that was so uncertain for me was how I felt about the explicit teaching portion of my research. Although I deemed it necessary, and beneficial, for me to present EIL information in an explicit format, I did not feel as though the students connected to it in the way that I had hoped. Their reactions to the discussion we held after the True or False Worksheet reminded me of myself as a student when a teacher was explaining something I did not agree with or did not believe. Many of the students combatted my facts and explanations with personal stories that were supposed to disprove my rational. Although I showed them titles of articles and authors' names, some students' belief in the validity of the information I was presenting did not seem to get any stronger. As we transitioned into the PowerPoint presentation, I felt the students lose energy and focus. Although the True or False Worksheet had started the intervention off with curiosity and high-energy collaborative pair work, the PowerPoint allowed the students to take a backseat to their learning as I did all the work. Even though I had encouraged students to take notes, I had not required it, so many students sat idle as I presented the EIL information. It was my assumption that after an engaging activity such as the True or False Worksheet, which focused on collaborative inductive learning, the students would continue to be interested throughout the lecture portion of the lesson. There were a few students who were connected to the information and asked me questions, but for the rest it looked like PowerPoint was washing over them, as they did not have anything tangible to connect to. I do think this explicit teaching was able to provide a platform for my students to voice their opinions about the information, but I do not believe I will continue this form of teaching in phase two. Instead, I will focus on implicit instruction where the students will be "noticing" the information on their own instead of it being given to them directly. Implicit instruction will provide the information to the students but they will have to discover it, and make connections, on their own. I predicted this type of subconscious learning to be beneficial in phase two because the students now have a basic foundation of EIL information onto which they can begin applying information themselves. I also believe that internalizing new facts through self-discovery will heighten the students' enjoyment of the intervention and provide an environment where they will be more likely to make personal connections.
Explicit Instruction - Implicit Instruction
At the end of phase one I reflected deeply on the strengths and weaknesses of what my action research project held at that point. The part of the intervention that was so uncertain for me was how I felt about the explicit teaching portion of my research. Although I deemed it necessary, and beneficial, for me to present EIL information in an explicit format, I did not feel as though the students connected to it in the way that I had hoped. Their reactions to the discussion we held after the True or False Worksheet reminded me of myself as a student when a teacher was explaining something I did not agree with or did not believe. Many of the students combatted my facts and explanations with personal stories that were supposed to disprove my rational. Although I showed them titles of articles and authors' names, some students' belief in the validity of the information I was presenting did not seem to get any stronger. As we transitioned into the PowerPoint presentation, I felt the students lose energy and focus. Although the True or False Worksheet had started the intervention off with curiosity and high-energy collaborative pair work, the PowerPoint allowed the students to take a backseat to their learning as I did all the work. Even though I had encouraged students to take notes, I had not required it, so many students sat idle as I presented the EIL information. It was my assumption that after an engaging activity such as the True or False Worksheet, which focused on collaborative inductive learning, the students would continue to be interested throughout the lecture portion of the lesson. There were a few students who were connected to the information and asked me questions, but for the rest it looked like PowerPoint was washing over them, as they did not have anything tangible to connect to. I do think this explicit teaching was able to provide a platform for my students to voice their opinions about the information, but I do not believe I will continue this form of teaching in phase two. Instead, I will focus on implicit instruction where the students will be "noticing" the information on their own instead of it being given to them directly. Implicit instruction will provide the information to the students but they will have to discover it, and make connections, on their own. I predicted this type of subconscious learning to be beneficial in phase two because the students now have a basic foundation of EIL information onto which they can begin applying information themselves. I also believe that internalizing new facts through self-discovery will heighten the students' enjoyment of the intervention and provide an environment where they will be more likely to make personal connections.
Teacher Centered - Student Centered
Similar to the idea of switching the focus from explicit instruction to implicit instruction is the concept of changing phase two from a teacher centered environment to a student centered environment. After deep thought into why phase one was unsuccessful in altering 75% of the students' pronunciation goals, I theorized that maybe it was because they were unable to have any learner autonomy (Brown, 2007). With learner autonomy, students feel in control of their learning and benefit significantly by "taking charge" of their own learning through independent work (Brown, 2007, p. 70). Learner autonomy also has the potential to increase students' intrinsic motivation through excitement and interest. Instead of framing the subject matter traditionally, through a teacher-centered lecture, I predicted that activities where the students were working together to accomplish goals would hold students accountable for their learning as they have to work with others an be activity contributing together. I decided that in phase two I would create student-centered activities based on EIL to incite interest and enthusiasm through topics that provide intercultural exchanges. As McKay (2002) states, "The use of EIL involves crossing borders, both literally and figuratively, as individuals interact in cross-cultural encounters" (p. 81). However, I needed to be aware that the use of student centered intercultural activities has the potential to result in uncomfortable situations as not everyone has the same perception of each other's cultures. Additionally, being aware of your own culture in comparison to other cultures is a socially advanced phenomenon as not all students have the same access and exposure to other cultures. While creating student centered activities, I tried to identify any potential issues that could arise. I thought that perhaps, even though phase two was going to be focused on implicit teaching, that explicitly making students aware of the necessity of being culturally sensitive would set the tone for the rest of the intervention. It was my thought process that the students in my study were adults with some travel experience. Thus, reminding them of the "sphere of interculturality" (McKay, 2002, p. 82), where they needed to consider their own culture in relation to their peers, would be an appropriate and constructive method to prevent uncomfortable situations.
Similar to the idea of switching the focus from explicit instruction to implicit instruction is the concept of changing phase two from a teacher centered environment to a student centered environment. After deep thought into why phase one was unsuccessful in altering 75% of the students' pronunciation goals, I theorized that maybe it was because they were unable to have any learner autonomy (Brown, 2007). With learner autonomy, students feel in control of their learning and benefit significantly by "taking charge" of their own learning through independent work (Brown, 2007, p. 70). Learner autonomy also has the potential to increase students' intrinsic motivation through excitement and interest. Instead of framing the subject matter traditionally, through a teacher-centered lecture, I predicted that activities where the students were working together to accomplish goals would hold students accountable for their learning as they have to work with others an be activity contributing together. I decided that in phase two I would create student-centered activities based on EIL to incite interest and enthusiasm through topics that provide intercultural exchanges. As McKay (2002) states, "The use of EIL involves crossing borders, both literally and figuratively, as individuals interact in cross-cultural encounters" (p. 81). However, I needed to be aware that the use of student centered intercultural activities has the potential to result in uncomfortable situations as not everyone has the same perception of each other's cultures. Additionally, being aware of your own culture in comparison to other cultures is a socially advanced phenomenon as not all students have the same access and exposure to other cultures. While creating student centered activities, I tried to identify any potential issues that could arise. I thought that perhaps, even though phase two was going to be focused on implicit teaching, that explicitly making students aware of the necessity of being culturally sensitive would set the tone for the rest of the intervention. It was my thought process that the students in my study were adults with some travel experience. Thus, reminding them of the "sphere of interculturality" (McKay, 2002, p. 82), where they needed to consider their own culture in relation to their peers, would be an appropriate and constructive method to prevent uncomfortable situations.
Theoretical Application - Practical Application
Once I had decided that my second phase would be student centered with an implicit teaching approach, I knew that the logical next step for me was to take the information out of a theoretical framework and immerse it into the next phase through practical application. While thinking about how to do this successfully, I kept on coming back to something McKay (2002) said, "Think globally, act locally" (p. 118). I remember reading this motto in her book and thinking, that makes sense. I believe in that statement. So I considered how I could implement this idea into my second phase. How could I frame the information I wanted to provide my students in a way that would encompass what it means for English to be a truly global language, yet make it accessible enough so that the students see value in the information in relation to their own lives, locally here in San Diego? At this time, I sought to identify the different contexts in which my students would be interacting with others using English. I thought about the city of San Diego, and how international it felt to me. I reflected on the different restaurants, events, and people with whom I have come into contact with and realized that the students had plenty of places to interact with EIL. Additionally, the school itself was an environment that provided ample EIL interaction, seeing as though there were 32 different countries represented. Even within the participant pool of my project, out of the twenty students there were ten different countries. I realized that my students were interacting with EIL on a daily basis, even walking through the halls of my school you can overhear accents from almost every continent in the world. Thus, I decided that the practical application of the EIL information in my second phase would be based on material the students came into contact with regularly - the accents of those around them. Although I was unsure of how I would go about implementing this idea, I continued to brainstorm the ways in which I could connect my students deeply and personally to the EIL framework. If I could do this, I theorized, than their pronunciation goals would change therefore increasing their confidence levels and feelings of membership.
Once I had decided that my second phase would be student centered with an implicit teaching approach, I knew that the logical next step for me was to take the information out of a theoretical framework and immerse it into the next phase through practical application. While thinking about how to do this successfully, I kept on coming back to something McKay (2002) said, "Think globally, act locally" (p. 118). I remember reading this motto in her book and thinking, that makes sense. I believe in that statement. So I considered how I could implement this idea into my second phase. How could I frame the information I wanted to provide my students in a way that would encompass what it means for English to be a truly global language, yet make it accessible enough so that the students see value in the information in relation to their own lives, locally here in San Diego? At this time, I sought to identify the different contexts in which my students would be interacting with others using English. I thought about the city of San Diego, and how international it felt to me. I reflected on the different restaurants, events, and people with whom I have come into contact with and realized that the students had plenty of places to interact with EIL. Additionally, the school itself was an environment that provided ample EIL interaction, seeing as though there were 32 different countries represented. Even within the participant pool of my project, out of the twenty students there were ten different countries. I realized that my students were interacting with EIL on a daily basis, even walking through the halls of my school you can overhear accents from almost every continent in the world. Thus, I decided that the practical application of the EIL information in my second phase would be based on material the students came into contact with regularly - the accents of those around them. Although I was unsure of how I would go about implementing this idea, I continued to brainstorm the ways in which I could connect my students deeply and personally to the EIL framework. If I could do this, I theorized, than their pronunciation goals would change therefore increasing their confidence levels and feelings of membership.