Philosophy of Teaching

I strongly believe that classrooms should be interactive.

“What makes differences in students’ attitude toward English learning?”

I asked myself after hanging up the phonecall from one of my students’ parents.

She said that her kid was always looking forward to the days

she went to her English academy class.

My first workplace was an academy which was well-known for its burdensome homework and lots of tests in teacher-centered teaching environment. Students there hated English since English brought about pain to them. However, things are totally different in the second academy I moved to. Students there were eager to learn English and seemed to acquire English with ease. The second academy was known for being students-centered and classes were run using various activities and tasks, which means the classroom was full of interaction created by teacher and students. In this interactive classroom, students used their language and get some from others unconsciously. According to Krashen’s comprehensible input hypothesis (1982), interaction is considered as a provider of input and output that is critical for L2 development. As a result, in doing so, they ended up enjoying learning the language, and were motivated to keep learning. In short, in an interactive classroom, students can have chances to get input and produce output, which is the key to improve students’ language.

Teachers should think about when and how to give assistance.

“Every student just looks at my mouth, expecting the correct answers.”

One of the new teachers asked me for some help, complaining that her students never try to do their tasks

without her assistance. I said to her, “they might be tamed with your quick and correct assistance.”

I think teachers should be careful when they provide students with help. While working as a head teacher, class observation and giving feedback was my top priority. During the class observation, I found that there were different types of giving assistance. Some teachers didn’t have the patience to wait for students’ to come up with their own answers or language, so they were likely to directly throw assistance to students. Others tended to wait until students had enough time to think and help them little by little. Obviously, the latter type of giving help showed more positive effects since with teachers’ careful assistance, students’ language improvement and initiative of language speaking were seen more often. In terms of proper help for students, Saenz et al. (2005) mentioned that at first, the assistance is likely to be narrow in focus. As the students’ comprehension and skills improve, teachers should begin to make simpler help. If the shortened help fails to assist students, teachers offer additional hints that are needed at minimum level Also, according to Aljaafreh & Lantolf (1994), a proper level of assistance should be offered when needed. In a nutshell, when I give students’ assistance, I have to take their abilities in language into consideration and think about when to give assistance.

Teachers should be warm and open-minded.

Most importantly, all classes should be based on teachers’ care and warmth towards students. From my experience, students have a special sensitive power to recognize whether teachers love them or not and decide on whether they will enjoy class or not. When I taught students in a bad mood due to my personal matters and didn’t show them care and energy while teaching, students soon got that mood and seemed to concentrate less on class and lost their interest to learn. Therefore, teachers should be ready for the class with a warm heart and an open mind to bring about students’ better language improvement.

Reference

Krashen, Stephen D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

Sáenz, L. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies for English language learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 231-247.

Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-483.