Green Schools Don't Make the Grade, discusses how green schools built with federal money are failing to meet energy saving targets and have not resulted in greater student achievement ratings as expected. Myers argues that federal money should not be used to build more green schools because the cost for building and maintaining these shools is higher than expected, hasn't improved student achievement, and energy saving goals haven't been met.
Building green schools is a direct result of the political and economic global initiative to clean-up the environment by using more efficient alternative energy sources that will save society money in the long-run. This decision to go green impacts educational policy -- because like in all implemented school reform, policies are enacted within schools and communities in effort to change or reform society by educating its people and by giving the youth an opportunity to take part in the change. This initiative aimed to save 50% of school energy costs, reduce student absenteeism 10% by improving student health w/ fewer carbon emissions, and ultimatley increase test scores by providing better lighting and various other features. Myers goes on to explain how none of these goals have been met.
I think this is a fascinating article. I'm 100% behind building green schools in an effort to institute political and economic social reform on a national and global scale. However, by listing absenteeism and improving test scores as goals is what's probably making it fail and lose support. Students are not absent and not meeting testing standards because of carbon emissions and poor lighting. Most are absent and failing because their families, schools, communities, and teachers are failing them in different ways.
When I think about my students who are absent and failing, it's not because we don't recycle in the buliding as much as we should or that my classroom is a little bit too dark. I think that what we need to do is work to help them feel a part of something. When I give a student more positive attention, I immediately notice improvement and increased attendance.
Rather than just looking at the numbers, in order to really make an initiative such as this work, students need to be told that this has been done for them and that it is they who will ultimately make the scale changes in their own life and in society. This is what guarantees results. I know it's not that easy and maybe I'm just being naive, but it's proven to work -- atleast in my own classroom.
As for going green, I hope more federal money is found and spent to build more of these schools everywhere. The world is changing and America needs to join if it hopes to remain at a substantial level of power. We obviously can't stay depenedent on fossil fuels forever - these days are numbered. By making our schools green, we are educating our people with the tools necessary for competition in the future. I wish more people would start looking at the long-term gains and how less money now is more money in the future.
Showing posts with label SPSE 6810. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SPSE 6810. Show all posts
Monday, October 11, 2010
Monday, October 4, 2010
Multiculturalism in curriculum
Thinking back to my own primary and secondary years, I really don't remember the curriculum being integrated with any kinds of themes promoting multiculturalism or diversity --unless, Native Americans count. I attended a Catholic primary school with approximately 25 white students and my high school was relatively small. There weren't many minorities. I don't remember there being an ESL program. If there were, I wasn't aware of it.
For my undergraduate, I attended Cleveland State University (CSU). It is an urban university in downtown Cleveland, Ohio. One of the requirements was to take 2 African-American experience courses. I graduated from there in 2000. In 2001, I returned to CSU as a post-bacc for my teaching license. The curriculum for new practicing teachers had a lot of content geared towards "diversity." By diversity, it meant African-Americans. Our student-teaching experience included one semester in an urban school and one semester in a suburban school.
In 2004, I taught at a suburban middle-school. The curriculum was pretty standardized and we talked about diveristy -- usually, in the month of February in honor of Black History month. In 2005, I moved to Italy and taught at an Italian/English bi-lingual school. I suppose it's here when I discovered what true multiculturalism in education is and how wonderful such a program like that is. Multiculturalism didn't mean that there were minorities in the room, but that we lived in a global society made of many different kinds of people. We embraced all people - no matter the religion or the race. However, I guess the thing to point out here is that all of these people had money.
Today, in my graduate program, I read a lot about multiculturalism. Also, I'm an ESL teacher, so my students all fit into this category. I don't teach anything other than ESL, so in my own teaching, I have to be respectful of my students; however, not in terms of how I gear the curriculum to address the needs of multiculturalism, but in regards to their traditions and cultural practices. My students are also adults, so they have already completed their primary and secondary years of education.
Eventually, I might go back to teaching in a public secondary school. I used to teach 7-12 Social Studies. It seems the growing trend is to create a common curriculum nation-wide in respect to multiculturalism. I agree that with the changing popluation of the United States, it is important to know more about eachother in order to maintain a successful political system and economy. I agree with E.D. Hirsch that schools should "have a common curriculum so that they can share a common point of reference to enable further learning."
Adam Waxler in his article, Multiculturalism in School Curriculum, does a nice job addressing this goal. Waxler disagrees with incorporating multiculturalism as a separate entity (the way I learned it), for example: Black History Month or Women's History Month. Waxler calls this "intellectual segregation," and I agree. He believes "all cultures should be taught throughout all the units in order to be a truly multicultural education." He goes on to give examples of how he incorporates this into his own classroom.
I hope to model Waxler's ideas in the future. If schools ultimately plan to achieve the institution of a core curriculum, models such as Waxler's are the only way to do it. If not, immigration protests will inevitably end as sadly as predicted -- as a new Civil Rights Movement in our country. We would hope with all the opportunities for enlightenment and advancement in our country, we'd be beyond that.
For my undergraduate, I attended Cleveland State University (CSU). It is an urban university in downtown Cleveland, Ohio. One of the requirements was to take 2 African-American experience courses. I graduated from there in 2000. In 2001, I returned to CSU as a post-bacc for my teaching license. The curriculum for new practicing teachers had a lot of content geared towards "diversity." By diversity, it meant African-Americans. Our student-teaching experience included one semester in an urban school and one semester in a suburban school.
In 2004, I taught at a suburban middle-school. The curriculum was pretty standardized and we talked about diveristy -- usually, in the month of February in honor of Black History month. In 2005, I moved to Italy and taught at an Italian/English bi-lingual school. I suppose it's here when I discovered what true multiculturalism in education is and how wonderful such a program like that is. Multiculturalism didn't mean that there were minorities in the room, but that we lived in a global society made of many different kinds of people. We embraced all people - no matter the religion or the race. However, I guess the thing to point out here is that all of these people had money.
Today, in my graduate program, I read a lot about multiculturalism. Also, I'm an ESL teacher, so my students all fit into this category. I don't teach anything other than ESL, so in my own teaching, I have to be respectful of my students; however, not in terms of how I gear the curriculum to address the needs of multiculturalism, but in regards to their traditions and cultural practices. My students are also adults, so they have already completed their primary and secondary years of education.
Eventually, I might go back to teaching in a public secondary school. I used to teach 7-12 Social Studies. It seems the growing trend is to create a common curriculum nation-wide in respect to multiculturalism. I agree that with the changing popluation of the United States, it is important to know more about eachother in order to maintain a successful political system and economy. I agree with E.D. Hirsch that schools should "have a common curriculum so that they can share a common point of reference to enable further learning."
Adam Waxler in his article, Multiculturalism in School Curriculum, does a nice job addressing this goal. Waxler disagrees with incorporating multiculturalism as a separate entity (the way I learned it), for example: Black History Month or Women's History Month. Waxler calls this "intellectual segregation," and I agree. He believes "all cultures should be taught throughout all the units in order to be a truly multicultural education." He goes on to give examples of how he incorporates this into his own classroom.
I hope to model Waxler's ideas in the future. If schools ultimately plan to achieve the institution of a core curriculum, models such as Waxler's are the only way to do it. If not, immigration protests will inevitably end as sadly as predicted -- as a new Civil Rights Movement in our country. We would hope with all the opportunities for enlightenment and advancement in our country, we'd be beyond that.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Is "muticulturalism" wrong?
In Nasvhille Scene's article, Pithissippi Burning: Race, White Nationalionalism and American Culture, columnist PJ Tobias explores white supremacist non-acceptance to a multi-racial U.S. society stating that many Americans are not far from the old mind sets prevalent in the days of Ella Flitzgerald and the pre-Civil Rights Movement. He cites two white supremacist books, The Brigade and the Turner Diaries, as handbooks in support of the advancement of this movement and that people like himself, those against it, do not have the support necessary to live in the "post-racial" society President Obama has promised.
In Why Multiculturalism is Wrong the author states that multiculturalism "limits freedom, its possibility, and possible futures" of native populations stating that it's basically just another name for "race." In the Challenge of Multiculturalism, author Samuel Taylor states the term is the "departure from the history America has always taught its children." He believes multiculturalism is another name for Affirmative Action and that it's against nationalism and assimilation. Multicultural groups are creating their own histories leaving white settlers out of U.S. history.
Mulitculturalism is a touchy subject. When I think about the word "multiculturalism," I think about the "have and have nots." In my experience, multiculturalism in educational settings means poverty and lack of available community resources provided to the school system for the students. I've also noticed how these words have changed. Lately, a lot of educational studies are putting that word out. In the late 1990s, when I completed my initial licensure the words being used were diversity and "classisms." The words might change, but the idea is the same: How do we as educators meet the needs of the lower socioeconomic and minority students?
I think the issue here is how do we address poverty, not multiculturalism. Poverty, lack of education, and opportunity result in works like The Brigade. These thoughts come usually from the uneducated classes. The year 1965 when the Civil Rights Act was finally enacted is not that long ago in our nation's history. We as educators need to work harder to eliminate those old ways of thinking. That type of behavior is learned, but can be unlearned. I agree that multiculturalism is an unnecessary term and promotes racial profiling.
By this definition, I probably teach in the most "multicultural" classroom of all the teachers I know. Since I teach ESL to adults, my students are from all over the world. They have different languages, cultures, traditions, and religions. As a teacher I keep in mind their cultural traditions and backgrounds. For example, my Asian students are not conversationalists by nature, most of my Arab women don't like standing in front of the classroom, my Italian students love to talk, they all have different religions, holiday schedules, etc. Multiculturalism is obviously an issue, but what we practice in my classroom is respect, acceptance, and a desire to learn. In my classroom, we practice multicultural theory in action.
However, I know that my classroom is the exception. I believe we need to stamp out words like multiculturalism and racism. I believe in the global plan for a post-racial society and am in support of any educational reform that will put more money into school systems in an effort to provide all students with equal resources.
In Why Multiculturalism is Wrong the author states that multiculturalism "limits freedom, its possibility, and possible futures" of native populations stating that it's basically just another name for "race." In the Challenge of Multiculturalism, author Samuel Taylor states the term is the "departure from the history America has always taught its children." He believes multiculturalism is another name for Affirmative Action and that it's against nationalism and assimilation. Multicultural groups are creating their own histories leaving white settlers out of U.S. history.
Mulitculturalism is a touchy subject. When I think about the word "multiculturalism," I think about the "have and have nots." In my experience, multiculturalism in educational settings means poverty and lack of available community resources provided to the school system for the students. I've also noticed how these words have changed. Lately, a lot of educational studies are putting that word out. In the late 1990s, when I completed my initial licensure the words being used were diversity and "classisms." The words might change, but the idea is the same: How do we as educators meet the needs of the lower socioeconomic and minority students?
I think the issue here is how do we address poverty, not multiculturalism. Poverty, lack of education, and opportunity result in works like The Brigade. These thoughts come usually from the uneducated classes. The year 1965 when the Civil Rights Act was finally enacted is not that long ago in our nation's history. We as educators need to work harder to eliminate those old ways of thinking. That type of behavior is learned, but can be unlearned. I agree that multiculturalism is an unnecessary term and promotes racial profiling.
By this definition, I probably teach in the most "multicultural" classroom of all the teachers I know. Since I teach ESL to adults, my students are from all over the world. They have different languages, cultures, traditions, and religions. As a teacher I keep in mind their cultural traditions and backgrounds. For example, my Asian students are not conversationalists by nature, most of my Arab women don't like standing in front of the classroom, my Italian students love to talk, they all have different religions, holiday schedules, etc. Multiculturalism is obviously an issue, but what we practice in my classroom is respect, acceptance, and a desire to learn. In my classroom, we practice multicultural theory in action.
However, I know that my classroom is the exception. I believe we need to stamp out words like multiculturalism and racism. I believe in the global plan for a post-racial society and am in support of any educational reform that will put more money into school systems in an effort to provide all students with equal resources.
Monday, September 20, 2010
On teaching GRAMMAR....
I LOVE teaching grammar, and I am completely opposed to people who believe it is unnecessary to teach grammar in the classroom. There are two methods behind teaching grammar: prescriptive and descriptive. Descriptive grammar "describes" the language as it is acutally used, whereas prescriptive grammar explains how people "think" it should be used. I have often been prey to the inquisition of intuitive students who obsess about the rules of presciptive grammar. "But teacher, you said no sentence never end in preposition? Your direction say: Describe something you are good at? Teacher, you lie." Oh, what's a teacher to do?
When I started teaching ESL, I really didn't know much more beyond the prescriptive. Honestly, I didn't know there was such a thing as the descriptive. I didn't think much about it because I just "spoke" English, I quit thinking about grammar in 6th grade. I thought, "I speak, spoke, have spoken, and will continue to speak it well. Teaching this will be easy." Wrong. The first thing an ESL teacher needs to know is: What is descriptive and prescriptive grammar, and how he/she is going to explain the variations in it when a student asks the type of question I just described?
I also think that there are two types of Standard English: American Standard English and British Standard English, but I think that wherever you are -- Standard English is business English. It is what you hear on the news (spoken -- including dialect), and it is how we read it in newspapers, books, and magazines. Those who argue that the standard cannot be defined, I think are those who just choose not to learn the formal rules of English grammar. I only differentiate between the English and British because the two vary in word choice and in the prescriptive rules. For example, in the U.S., we no longer have to know the rule for "whom." We just say, use "who," however, not in England. They use "whom" -- always, even in rock-n-roll.
Studying grammar gives the speaker control of how he/she shapes words and provides an understanding of how language works. Here are some examples of why I think it is important to know gramar: First, I will use my husband as an example. It is pretty funny (or sad), but he has absolutely no concept of the rules of grammar. We both grew up as bilinguals with a different L1 language; however, we went to two different schools. My school focused on teaching grammar, and his did not. He is 36-years-old and has absolutely no idea how to use the past participle. "I should have came." Modals? Forget it. For the longest time, he thought that "should have" was actually "should of." Crazy!
Next, the active and passive voice -- people should know why we use them and how to use each one. We use it to emphasize the subject, especially in news reporting. Think how differently the focus of the the articles would be if the subjects were different: Five Canadians blew up the Eifel Tower, or The Eifel Tower was blown up by five Canadians. It is important to understand why these sentences are structured this way.
I teach at ELS Language Centers here at MTSU. There are pluses and minuses working for a coporation. One of the pluses is that they are dedicated to the teaching of grammar. ELS uses the direct method approach, and students study academic English 6 hours a day Monday - Friday. My favorite class to teach is Structure and Speaking (SSP). No matter what level the student, he/she always takes SSP for 2 hours a day. The objective for all SSP classes is mastery of grammar. Language acquisition is demonstrated through utilization of spoken and written grammar.
I use both inductive and deductive method in my teaching. I always begin the class by demonstrating the grammar point and following it by some type of listening or visual exercise. For example, if I am teaching the past progressive, I might have them listen to the Tennessee Waltz. "I was dancing with my darlin' ... " After that, I focus on the grammar point through direct instruction. I write and demonstrate some examples and explain the method behind it. I then ask students to individually use of the grammar by providing them with some type of prompt. I normally don't have them raise hands. I just pick on them, and they know this. Therefore, they are usually keeping up. When I am confident they have good command of the grammar point, I finish the lesson with some type of group work. I like to use role play, and the students seem to enjoy it, too.
I think it's really important to teach grammar when teaching ESL. I know that sometimes the rules seem too overwhelming and confusing to the students, especially when they're ready to start talking. Often times, grammar seems like a big road block for them and busts their confidence when they get it wrong; however, with persistence and dedication, they always overcome it. Grammar is essential for proficiency and fluency. Otherwise, their language just becomes fossilized, and they will forever be making the same mistakes.
When I started teaching ESL, I really didn't know much more beyond the prescriptive. Honestly, I didn't know there was such a thing as the descriptive. I didn't think much about it because I just "spoke" English, I quit thinking about grammar in 6th grade. I thought, "I speak, spoke, have spoken, and will continue to speak it well. Teaching this will be easy." Wrong. The first thing an ESL teacher needs to know is: What is descriptive and prescriptive grammar, and how he/she is going to explain the variations in it when a student asks the type of question I just described?
I also think that there are two types of Standard English: American Standard English and British Standard English, but I think that wherever you are -- Standard English is business English. It is what you hear on the news (spoken -- including dialect), and it is how we read it in newspapers, books, and magazines. Those who argue that the standard cannot be defined, I think are those who just choose not to learn the formal rules of English grammar. I only differentiate between the English and British because the two vary in word choice and in the prescriptive rules. For example, in the U.S., we no longer have to know the rule for "whom." We just say, use "who," however, not in England. They use "whom" -- always, even in rock-n-roll.
Studying grammar gives the speaker control of how he/she shapes words and provides an understanding of how language works. Here are some examples of why I think it is important to know gramar: First, I will use my husband as an example. It is pretty funny (or sad), but he has absolutely no concept of the rules of grammar. We both grew up as bilinguals with a different L1 language; however, we went to two different schools. My school focused on teaching grammar, and his did not. He is 36-years-old and has absolutely no idea how to use the past participle. "I should have came." Modals? Forget it. For the longest time, he thought that "should have" was actually "should of." Crazy!
Next, the active and passive voice -- people should know why we use them and how to use each one. We use it to emphasize the subject, especially in news reporting. Think how differently the focus of the the articles would be if the subjects were different: Five Canadians blew up the Eifel Tower, or The Eifel Tower was blown up by five Canadians. It is important to understand why these sentences are structured this way.
I teach at ELS Language Centers here at MTSU. There are pluses and minuses working for a coporation. One of the pluses is that they are dedicated to the teaching of grammar. ELS uses the direct method approach, and students study academic English 6 hours a day Monday - Friday. My favorite class to teach is Structure and Speaking (SSP). No matter what level the student, he/she always takes SSP for 2 hours a day. The objective for all SSP classes is mastery of grammar. Language acquisition is demonstrated through utilization of spoken and written grammar.
I use both inductive and deductive method in my teaching. I always begin the class by demonstrating the grammar point and following it by some type of listening or visual exercise. For example, if I am teaching the past progressive, I might have them listen to the Tennessee Waltz. "I was dancing with my darlin' ... " After that, I focus on the grammar point through direct instruction. I write and demonstrate some examples and explain the method behind it. I then ask students to individually use of the grammar by providing them with some type of prompt. I normally don't have them raise hands. I just pick on them, and they know this. Therefore, they are usually keeping up. When I am confident they have good command of the grammar point, I finish the lesson with some type of group work. I like to use role play, and the students seem to enjoy it, too.
I think it's really important to teach grammar when teaching ESL. I know that sometimes the rules seem too overwhelming and confusing to the students, especially when they're ready to start talking. Often times, grammar seems like a big road block for them and busts their confidence when they get it wrong; however, with persistence and dedication, they always overcome it. Grammar is essential for proficiency and fluency. Otherwise, their language just becomes fossilized, and they will forever be making the same mistakes.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Multicultural Education
Prior to reading Paul Gorski's The Challenge of Defining "Multicultural Education," I thought that to define my own working definition of multicultural education would be easy, but then I realized that my initial definition was elementary at best. Naively, I would have defined it in the following: multicultural education is accepting, promoting, and understanding diverse populations throughout the world, most effectively expressed by school systems providing a right to equal education for all. However, after reading the links pertaining to multicultural education, I realize that it's much more complex.
Gorski states that the underlying challenge in defining multicultural education is that teachers and institutions rarely share a common view on multicultural education. More commonly, definitions are defined and practices are implemented institutionally to fit individual contexts and disciplines. He states that some see it as a shift in curriculum, others as a reference to teaching styles and testing practices, while others view it as method for social transformation in order to "explore and criticize the oppressive foundations of the world around us and how education serves to maintain the status quo -- foundations such as white supremacy , global socioeconomic conditions, and exploitation." No wonder it is so confusing and impossible to define.
Multicultural education is a current trend in creating educational policy and setting standards for curriculum in education. The foundations of the American education system and its institutions were built in response for a need for change from society. Multicultural education is a response from society for a need for change.
I've recently heard many people say that the U.S. is more diverse than ever. Our population might be growing, but is it really more diverse? I think that's a funny statement since the nation itself was built on an Open Door Immigration Policy. The Statue of Liberty has been holding its torch for the "hungry, tired, and poor"since the late 1800s. In the early 1900s and again in the late 1940s after WWII, waves of immigrants came to this nation in search of opportunity, freedom, and the American Dream. We ranted, raved, and branded ourselves a "melting pot." During that time, immigrants were encouraged to give up their cultural traditions and languages in order to take part in creating a single American identity and share a common national pride.
During that time, special programs in education to address these new immigrant populations did not exist to the level they do today. ESL instruction was not provided for most, and they learned English on the streets through immersion. Many became frustrated and dropped out.
Today, the American education system prides itself on a right to an equal education for all of its people. I think this is where multicultural education comes in. We are less commonly using words like "melting pot," but instead use"kaleidescope." In order to provide equal opportunities, more programs have been instituted and developed to make sure that this right is guaranteed.
The trouble is that this definition can be realistically defined depending on where you live and what the needs of the local society are. For example, when I lived in Chicago, I noticed more and more bilingual schools were being built in order to address the needs for the growing Hispanic population. New teacher applicants in many schools were required to speak Spanish for employment. Here multiculturalism might be defined differently. In other places, educational practice is about exposure and knowledge to new cultures from around the world. More and more IB schools are being built focusing on globalization.
So, the challenges teachers are facing as they strive to implement multicultural practices in their classroom are many. They must consider the needs of the local society, the students, and the school. How can they as individuals meet the needs of their students to provide them with an equal opportunity to education in respect to their linguistic, cultural, and societal needs?
I teach ESL at ELS Language Centers here on the campus of MTSU, so I address multiculturalism in my classroom everyday. For all of my students, the objective is the same: academic english proficiency. I have a diverse group of students. Most of my students come from Brazil, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, and Germany. They come from different types of education systems, have different cultures, traditions, religions, languages, etc., but we get along, and we all learn from eachother. We learn about eachother's countries and cultures, we learn how to make conclusions based on interaction, not from what we see on tv., we learn about different religions, and we make new friends. We are all different, but we are a community of one. I think that's what multicultural education is more properly defined.
Gorski states that the underlying challenge in defining multicultural education is that teachers and institutions rarely share a common view on multicultural education. More commonly, definitions are defined and practices are implemented institutionally to fit individual contexts and disciplines. He states that some see it as a shift in curriculum, others as a reference to teaching styles and testing practices, while others view it as method for social transformation in order to "explore and criticize the oppressive foundations of the world around us and how education serves to maintain the status quo -- foundations such as white supremacy , global socioeconomic conditions, and exploitation." No wonder it is so confusing and impossible to define.
Multicultural education is a current trend in creating educational policy and setting standards for curriculum in education. The foundations of the American education system and its institutions were built in response for a need for change from society. Multicultural education is a response from society for a need for change.
I've recently heard many people say that the U.S. is more diverse than ever. Our population might be growing, but is it really more diverse? I think that's a funny statement since the nation itself was built on an Open Door Immigration Policy. The Statue of Liberty has been holding its torch for the "hungry, tired, and poor"since the late 1800s. In the early 1900s and again in the late 1940s after WWII, waves of immigrants came to this nation in search of opportunity, freedom, and the American Dream. We ranted, raved, and branded ourselves a "melting pot." During that time, immigrants were encouraged to give up their cultural traditions and languages in order to take part in creating a single American identity and share a common national pride.
During that time, special programs in education to address these new immigrant populations did not exist to the level they do today. ESL instruction was not provided for most, and they learned English on the streets through immersion. Many became frustrated and dropped out.
Today, the American education system prides itself on a right to an equal education for all of its people. I think this is where multicultural education comes in. We are less commonly using words like "melting pot," but instead use"kaleidescope." In order to provide equal opportunities, more programs have been instituted and developed to make sure that this right is guaranteed.
The trouble is that this definition can be realistically defined depending on where you live and what the needs of the local society are. For example, when I lived in Chicago, I noticed more and more bilingual schools were being built in order to address the needs for the growing Hispanic population. New teacher applicants in many schools were required to speak Spanish for employment. Here multiculturalism might be defined differently. In other places, educational practice is about exposure and knowledge to new cultures from around the world. More and more IB schools are being built focusing on globalization.
So, the challenges teachers are facing as they strive to implement multicultural practices in their classroom are many. They must consider the needs of the local society, the students, and the school. How can they as individuals meet the needs of their students to provide them with an equal opportunity to education in respect to their linguistic, cultural, and societal needs?
I teach ESL at ELS Language Centers here on the campus of MTSU, so I address multiculturalism in my classroom everyday. For all of my students, the objective is the same: academic english proficiency. I have a diverse group of students. Most of my students come from Brazil, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, and Germany. They come from different types of education systems, have different cultures, traditions, religions, languages, etc., but we get along, and we all learn from eachother. We learn about eachother's countries and cultures, we learn how to make conclusions based on interaction, not from what we see on tv., we learn about different religions, and we make new friends. We are all different, but we are a community of one. I think that's what multicultural education is more properly defined.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Welcome to my blogspot!
I started teaching ESL in 2005 when I worked as a Social Studies teacher in Rome, Italy at AMBRIT (American British International School). I picked it up for extra money.
When I retured to the States, I moved back to Cleveland and started teaching Social Studies again in the inner city, but I missed my international life. I missed the international students. I liked history and still do, but wasn't particularly interested in just teaching about the Oregon Trail anymore. I wanted something more.
Later, I moved to Chicago and started working in publishing again. (I used to work as an editor for Thompson and Gale before becoming a teacher.) I also went back to tutoring ESL for extra money and started teaching ESL courses at Xilin Chinese School to Chinese speaking students. I loved it! I loved my students! I loved the curriculum. I loved the rewards in teaching someone how to understand and communicate in a different language from their own.
Currently, I teach ESL at ELS Language Centers at MTSU. All of the students are academic bound. Classes range from beginner to masters. It is such a great thing to run into a student who had spoken little to no English upon arrival that is now a proficient and fluent English speaker. I got to take part in that journey.
My students are older. They are expats basically, and often times they need help adjusting in this new world. For example, I just had a man come in here whose wife is studying here. She is depressed, and he asked me if maybe I could talk to her. Another student asked me if I could go to the hospital with her because her husband is there, and she doesn't understand what the doctors are telling her.
Is all of this a drag? Sometimes. Is teaching them frustrating? Sometimes. However, I love it.
I love this program I am studying in now because it's teaching me how to be a better teacher. It's making me more aware of my students and their situations. It's helping me practice patience when I feel I have none.
Teaching ESL is really the only thing I can imagine doing anymore. I still travel, but I prefer living stateside and vacationing elsewhere in my freetime. I like the international students and the rewards it brings. I like when I close the doors to my classroom, not much else matters. I have an important job to do. I feel the students need the skills that I am teaching them in addition to the basic knowledge they learning about the Oregon Trail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)