Phase 2: Reflections
Throughout phase two, I employed many activities aimed to strengthen the connection between the students and the EIL information at hand. I sought to make this phase practical, applicable, and relatable. Although I wanted to continue to educate my students on EIL, this phase was focused on being interactive. Just as I named my first phase "Education' I named my second phase "Identification". This is due to the fact that I tried to facilitate the alteration of students' speaking goals, the raising of confidence levels, and the strengthening of feelings of membership through the discovery, and identification, of the many facets of EIL. Although my first phase debunked my hypothesis that in order for students' confidence levels and feelings of membership within the global English speaking community to be heightened their speaking goals must change, I continued to explore this hypothesis. I thought that if I reframed the information from the first phase in a more accessible manner the students would gain a deeper understanding and appreciation of what it truly means for English to be an international language.
General Instruction - Specific Instruction
Throughout my second phase I continued to provide EIL information that could be applied both locally and globally. I did this through the use of the World Maps activity, the World Englishes activity, and the listening comprehension activity where the students had to try and identify the different accents and then reflect on them. I believe this phase was successful in balancing information the could be provided locally and information that could be provided globally. The students seemed to really connect with the activities as they worked together to gain a deeper understanding of the different contexts that EIL is used in. The world maps activity was eye-opening as some students only identified countries within the "inner-circle" as countries who use English, while others circled as many countries as they could find on the map. This activity was meant to expand the students' thinking and interpretation of the fact that 70 countries throughout the world use English for official or special purposes. During the first phase the students opposed this piece of information, claiming that it could not be true. The results of this activity and the discussion that followed it was insightful as some students challenged the idea of what "official" and "special" purposes meant. This resulted in the expansion of my interpretation of this fact as the class debated what these words meant. The results of the World Englishes activity was similar in the sense that it created a discussion that I had not anticipated. When the students were done completing their lists and we were going over the lists together as a class, one group had identified a completely different set of World Englishes. Instead of listing Englishes such as "French English" or "Australian English" they listed "Formal English" and "Street English". Similar to the conversation the class had about the World Maps, the students debated all the different definitions and interpretations that could be made from the term "World Englishes". This made me reflect on how what I perceive as general instruction, can end up resulting in specific instruction. This desire for specifics, and the pushing of traditional ideas, was a theme throughout this phase. The students expanded the information I presented in a way that was completely unexpected. It deepened the whole class' understanding of EIL and resulted in critical thinking on the part of myself and all of the students. Although I had not planned this portion of the phase, it proved to be incredibly beneficial and I plan on trying to implement this form of specific instruction within my next phase.
Throughout my second phase I continued to provide EIL information that could be applied both locally and globally. I did this through the use of the World Maps activity, the World Englishes activity, and the listening comprehension activity where the students had to try and identify the different accents and then reflect on them. I believe this phase was successful in balancing information the could be provided locally and information that could be provided globally. The students seemed to really connect with the activities as they worked together to gain a deeper understanding of the different contexts that EIL is used in. The world maps activity was eye-opening as some students only identified countries within the "inner-circle" as countries who use English, while others circled as many countries as they could find on the map. This activity was meant to expand the students' thinking and interpretation of the fact that 70 countries throughout the world use English for official or special purposes. During the first phase the students opposed this piece of information, claiming that it could not be true. The results of this activity and the discussion that followed it was insightful as some students challenged the idea of what "official" and "special" purposes meant. This resulted in the expansion of my interpretation of this fact as the class debated what these words meant. The results of the World Englishes activity was similar in the sense that it created a discussion that I had not anticipated. When the students were done completing their lists and we were going over the lists together as a class, one group had identified a completely different set of World Englishes. Instead of listing Englishes such as "French English" or "Australian English" they listed "Formal English" and "Street English". Similar to the conversation the class had about the World Maps, the students debated all the different definitions and interpretations that could be made from the term "World Englishes". This made me reflect on how what I perceive as general instruction, can end up resulting in specific instruction. This desire for specifics, and the pushing of traditional ideas, was a theme throughout this phase. The students expanded the information I presented in a way that was completely unexpected. It deepened the whole class' understanding of EIL and resulted in critical thinking on the part of myself and all of the students. Although I had not planned this portion of the phase, it proved to be incredibly beneficial and I plan on trying to implement this form of specific instruction within my next phase.
Non-Native Speaker Content - Native Speaker Content
Phase two was created with the purpose of providing EIL information to students in an applicable and relatable way. Therefore, I included activities that were focused on non-native speaker content so that the students would be able to relate to it. Although native-speaker information was included in each activity, it was not the focus. Supplying the students with non-native speaker content was successful in including the students in the activities and providing them information that they could directly implement into their own EIL framework, however this had a negative affect as well. Due to the specific information that the students were exposed to from the non-native speaker content, it allowed students to continue to generalize about native-speaker pronunciation. I received oral feedback from the Accent Identification Activity that the native accents were "cool", "clear", and "understandable". These sentiments were also found in the Post-Intervention Questionnaires. This social aspect of native-accents being "cool" had appeared in my research a few times prior to this, but I had never considered it a serious factor. However, I had also hypothesized that the data from the Listening Comprehension Worksheet would show prove that the students were not able to distinguish a native-speaker from a non-native speaker. The data debunked this hypothesis, as it was clear from the findings that the students were able to tell the difference. At this point in my research I had information telling me the my students could not only tell the difference between native-speakers and non-native speakers, but they also continued to consider native-accents to be "cool", thus implying that non-native accents are not cool. Due to this, I decided to create my third phase with the intention of exposing the students to native speaker content in detail. I theorized that if the students were made aware of the many different accents within native-speaker countries then perhaps their definition of what an American accent or a British accent is. Perhaps with this new information the students would redefine the idea of a native-speaker accent, adjust their perceptions, and their speaking goals may change.
Phase two was created with the purpose of providing EIL information to students in an applicable and relatable way. Therefore, I included activities that were focused on non-native speaker content so that the students would be able to relate to it. Although native-speaker information was included in each activity, it was not the focus. Supplying the students with non-native speaker content was successful in including the students in the activities and providing them information that they could directly implement into their own EIL framework, however this had a negative affect as well. Due to the specific information that the students were exposed to from the non-native speaker content, it allowed students to continue to generalize about native-speaker pronunciation. I received oral feedback from the Accent Identification Activity that the native accents were "cool", "clear", and "understandable". These sentiments were also found in the Post-Intervention Questionnaires. This social aspect of native-accents being "cool" had appeared in my research a few times prior to this, but I had never considered it a serious factor. However, I had also hypothesized that the data from the Listening Comprehension Worksheet would show prove that the students were not able to distinguish a native-speaker from a non-native speaker. The data debunked this hypothesis, as it was clear from the findings that the students were able to tell the difference. At this point in my research I had information telling me the my students could not only tell the difference between native-speakers and non-native speakers, but they also continued to consider native-accents to be "cool", thus implying that non-native accents are not cool. Due to this, I decided to create my third phase with the intention of exposing the students to native speaker content in detail. I theorized that if the students were made aware of the many different accents within native-speaker countries then perhaps their definition of what an American accent or a British accent is. Perhaps with this new information the students would redefine the idea of a native-speaker accent, adjust their perceptions, and their speaking goals may change.
Absorption - Creation
One of my goals for the second phase was for the activities to be engaging and interactive. This phase was created to be student-centered with the hope that this would produce student autonomy, thus raising interest and excitement. I considered this phase to be successful in this, however there was still room for improvement. Although the activities were student-centered, I felt as though I led most of the class discussions and was acting like a traditional teacher instead of a facilitator more than I wanted to be. The students were absorbing the information being provided for them through the interactive activities, but they were not doing anything new with the information. By giving the students the ability to create something with what I gave them, I predicted that they would be able to connect with the information even more and feel more confident in their knowledge. I predicted that by involving students in projects where they had to take control of the information and make it their own, their understanding of the content would rise and their personal investment in the subject matter would be strengthened. I reflected on what type of activity I could create for the students to continue to focus on specific instruction, native-speaker information, and a form of creation.
One of my goals for the second phase was for the activities to be engaging and interactive. This phase was created to be student-centered with the hope that this would produce student autonomy, thus raising interest and excitement. I considered this phase to be successful in this, however there was still room for improvement. Although the activities were student-centered, I felt as though I led most of the class discussions and was acting like a traditional teacher instead of a facilitator more than I wanted to be. The students were absorbing the information being provided for them through the interactive activities, but they were not doing anything new with the information. By giving the students the ability to create something with what I gave them, I predicted that they would be able to connect with the information even more and feel more confident in their knowledge. I predicted that by involving students in projects where they had to take control of the information and make it their own, their understanding of the content would rise and their personal investment in the subject matter would be strengthened. I reflected on what type of activity I could create for the students to continue to focus on specific instruction, native-speaker information, and a form of creation.