Position Paper

John Jordan C4 — Position Paper 1

I remember when in one of my classes at MIIS the topic of content-based instruction

came up—the idea that language should be taught by having learners study specific content. I

thought to myself, “Yeah, I know. I invented that.” I, of course, did not invent content-based

instruction; I had, and still have, much to learn about it. Yet I had come to the realization, while

teaching English at a women’s university before coming to MIIS, that content-based units

representing academic domains could be a much more effective way to prepare students for

undergraduate studies than, say, a skills-based approach. My learning in the MA/TESOL

program has involved much of this synthesis of my previous teaching experiences and my ever-

expanding understanding of teaching, learning, and language that graduate studies have given

me. This paper represents a summary of my current beliefs and understanding of what language

is, how it is learned, and how it can best be taught. This paper is divided into sections on those

three interrelated ideas, but throughout I have chosen to focus on these main areas: authentic

interaction; form, meaning, and use; and Gee’s (2012) concepts of Discourses. Also attached is a

lesson embedded in a unit which exemplifies many of the things I discuss in the paper. The

lesson plan is, quite fittingly, a modified version of content I taught at that women’s university.

Language

Language is not easy to define, partly because it is lots of things. Cook and Seidlhofer

(1995) wrote that language is everything from “a social fact” to an “electrical activation in a

distributed network” (p. 4). But first and foremost, language is what makes us human. David

Foster Wallace (2001) wrote, “Language is everything and everywhere; it’s what lets us have

anything to do with one another; it’s what separates us from the animals; Genesis 11:7-10 and so

on” (p. 41). Pinker (1994) wrote, “Language is so tightly woven into human experience that it is

scarcely possible to imagine life without it” (p. 17). Williams (1977) went as far as to say, “A


definition of language is always, implicitly or explicitly, a definition of human beings in the

world” (p. 21). As teachers, we must not lose sight of the fact that language is firstly a human

phenomenon, and that using and learning a language is means of expressing humanness.

Language is the defining characteristic of what we are as humans.

However, as teachers we often need to keep in mind a more operational and

pedagogically pertinent view of what language is, and what is important about language, to guide

our practice of teaching it. Van Lier (2004) offered this:

Language is meaning-making activity that takes place in a complex network of complex

systems that are interwoven amongst themselves as well as with all aspects of physical,

social and symbolic worlds. (p. 53)

Let us take a closer look at van Lier’s statement. Language users—humans—make meaning

through language in numerous ways. They exchange information (“Why are you studying

English?”), express opinions (“Why not!”), show politeness (“Why, how lovely…”),

philosophize (“Why indeed?”), entertain (“That’s why I say what I’m sayin’,” [“In da Club,” 50

Cent, 2003, track 5]), codify their thoughts (“Why I Write,” Orwell, 1946), and much more.

Speakers and writers use language to make meaning.

As van Lier (2004) stated, this meaning making activity takes place within “a complex

network of complex systems” (p. 53). Language has long been associated with complexity,

though Larsen-Freeman (1997) first connected it with Chaos/Complexity Theory. She said

language

satisfies both criteria of complexity: first, it is composed of many different subsystems:

phonology, morphology, lexicon, syntax, semantics, pragmatics. Second, the subsystems

are interdependent. A change in any one of them can result in a change in others. (p. 149)


Each example of language above embodies the systems Larsen-Freemen mentioned: they have

different phonological profiles, use different forms, contain different words and word orders,

impart different meanings, and require different situations to be uttered. Changes in any of those

systems also fundamentally alter the language. For example, a simple syntonic change of the first

example from “why are you studying English” to “why you are studying English” changes the

interrogative to a relative clause that acts as noun, and a lexical change switching “French” for

“English” gives a new semantic meaning to the clause. However, one cannot reduce what

language is to these subsystems. Larsen-Freeman (1997) wrote “the behavior of the whole

emerges out of the interaction of the subsystems. Thus, describing each subsystem tells us about

each subsystem; it does not do justice to the whole of language” (p. 149). These complex

systems and networks are, going back to van Lier’s (2004) definition of language, “interwoven

amongst themselves” (p. 53).

So language is complex, and while this complexity is partly due to language’s many

features and systems, language is not reducible to those subsystems. Larsen-Freeman (2003),

however, provided a framework for looking holistically at how language is used to make

meaning that still addresses language’s many subsystems, and she gave a defense for doing so:

“[I]t is undeniably methodologically convenient, perhaps even necessary, to attend to one part of

language and not to take on the whole in its many diverse contexts of use” (p. 9). She offered a

characterization of language as three non-hierarchal dimensions: form, meaning, and use. The

form dimension “consists of the visible or audible units: the sounds (or signs, in the case of sign

language), written symbols, inflectional morphemes, functions words (e.g., of), and syntactic

structures” (p. 34). Meaning is the “essential denotation of a decontextualized form, what we

would learn about a particular form if we were to consult a dictionary” (p. 34). The last


dimension is use, or pragmatics, “not the meaning encoded in language, but what people mean

by the language they use” (p. 35). These three dimensions interact dynamically, mirroring the

complex nature of language: “It is a truism,” Hymes (1986/2009) wrote, “but one that is

frequently ignored in research, that how something is said is part of what is said” (p. 590). For

example, the how a speaker says “why not” can greatly change the phrase’s meaning. Saying the

phrase with rising intonation gives it a note of agreement, yet adding strong emphasis to “not”

can show that speaker is unhappy with the interlocutor’s reasons or rationale. These forms of one

phrase can greatly shape the meaning of the utterance.

Merging van Lier’s (2004) view of language and Larsen-Freeman’s (2003)

characterization of three important dimensions of it, we can get a picture of how language works.

The examples of meaning making listed earlier (with the word why), can be examined through

the form/meaning/use paradigm. Form: The whys come in different constructions and forms

(e.g., a wh-question with an inverted copula, an interjection, an embedded noun clause).

Meaning: The whys also have different semantic properties: for what reason or purpose? (“Why

are you studying English?”), the reason for which (“That’s why I say what I’m sayin’”), and

surprise (“Why how lovely!”). Furthermore, each of the phrases is utilized in different ways—

use. They whys are used for agreeing (“Why not”), requesting information (“Why are you

studying English?”), and even summarizing (“‘Why I Write’”). Looking at language through a

form/meaning/use lens can help us more clearly perceive how the complex networks of the

language subsystems work together.

Turning to the final part of van Lier’s (2004) definition of language, we see that this

complex meaning-making activity is entwined “with all aspects of physical, social and symbolic


worlds” (p. 54). To help understand how language weaves into the worlds around it, I will

employ Gee’s conception of big-D Discourses. Gee (2012) wrote,

A Discourse with a capital ‘D’ is composed of distinctive ways of speaking/listening and

often, too, writing/reading coupled with distinctive ways of acting, interacting, valuing,

feeling, dressing, thinking, believing with other people and with various objects, tools,

and technologies, so as to enact specifically recognizable identities engaged in specific

socially recognizable activities. (p. 151)

As humans use language to make meaning, these acts and their meanings are situated and

interpreted with regards to Discourses, which contain the objects, communities, and symbols van

Lier mentions with which language interacts. One of the why examples of language is 50 Cent’s

“That’s why I say what I’m sayin’” (“In da Club,” 2003, track 5). This utterance makes little

sense without an account of the Discourse it comes from, hip-hop. It is a rap lyric, and as such, it

has a distinctive way of speech, rhyming to a beat. Inherent in this Discourse are distinctive ways

of being. For example, 50 Cent dresses in a style of a subgenre of hip-hop (gangsta-rap), wearing

baggy jeans, bandanas, and even a bullet-proof vest. The track also contains some of the values

of the Discourse, including a sense of flow in the rap, and the topics of drugs and alcohol, sex,

and luxury. Also inherent in the sample is how the language is transmitted (e.g., via radio, CD,

mp3, or DJ in a club). Within the track are certain lexical items that reflect the Discourse (e.g.,

“Benz,” “Gs,” “homie,” “playa”), as well as morpho-syntactical patterns that reflect the largely

African-American English Vernacular variety of the Discourse (e.g., “I done came up and I ain’t

changed”). Listeners’ understanding of and interactions with this piece of language are tied to the

Discourse it comes from.


To recap what language is: Language is a human activity to make meaning. It is a

dynamic, complex system made up of other complex systems, but as teachers we can use Larsen-

Freeman’s (2003) form/meaning/use paradigm to better view it. Finally, language is situated in

the physical and social world, a fact reflected by Gee’s (2012) concept of big-D Discourses.

Using language to make meaning requires being in Discourses, which implies

being able to engage in a particular sort of ‘dance’ with words, deeds, values, feelings,

other people, objects, tools, technologies, places, and times so as to get recognized as a

distinctive sort of who doing a distinctive sort of what. (p. 152)

In short, a view of language as three things—(1) a complex system of making meaning that (2)

we can view in three dimensions (form, meaning, and use), and (3) is situated among Discourses

—can help inform how language can be learned effectively.

Language Learning

Having defined language, let us now look at how additional language varieties are

learned. In this section I will draw on personal experience teaching language, research and

writings from the field, and my definition of language. I say that language is learned by authentic

interaction with language drawing on language’s form/meaning/use dimensions and the

appropriate Discourses of learners, their learning, and the target language. The following

sections develop and exemplify these critical ideas: authenticity, interaction with language,

form/meaning/use, and the Discourses of learners and of learning.

“Language is learned by authentic…”

When I use the word authentic, I do not mean the traditional view of authenticity, which

is couched in terms of belonging to the world outside the classroom (Canale & Swain, 1980;

Nunan, 1989), and in terms of “materials not produced for second language learners” (Peacock,


1997, p. 146).1 Instead, I agree with Widdowson (2003), who said that authenticity for language

learners lies in their situated objectives. Widdowson wrote that for language to meet the

objectives of learners, and therefore be authentic, it must meet two conditions: (1) it must be real

to them—it has to engage the attention and interest of learners, and (2) it must serve the purpose

of learning. In the attached lesson plan, the materials and tasks meet this type of authenticity. To

the first point, both of the content sources are genuinely interesting: The This American Life

segment (Bloomberg, 2009), for instance, paints a vivid and engaging picture of the sheer size of

7 trillion dollars, the amount of whole world’s savings. It also explains the credit crisis through a

series of personal, frank, and sometimes humorous narratives, told in the voices of people

involved in different roles: borrowers, mortgage brokers, investment bankers. The video, The

Credit of Crisis Visualized (Jarvis, 2009), is equally engaging: clear, simple, and reoccurring

animations (with arrows, dollar signs, and visual metaphors) with simple yet informative audio

narration.2 Lastly, the topic itself is a mix of familiar (the credit crunch and following recession

were global stories) and new (exactly what caused it?), adding interest and engagement.

To Widdowson’s (2003) second point, the sources of content also engage the learners in

learning. In the attached lesson plan, both texts reiterate and contextualize the decontextualized

vocabulary learners first encounter in lists (e.g., borrow, lend, mortgage, investment banker,

etc.), improving students’ likelihood of retaining the vocabulary (Qian, 1996). The tasks of

explaining complex concepts also engages the students. I observed my students firsthand over

the length of the unit struggling with and finding ways to explain the difficult material to their

1 Certainly non-pedagogic texts are important. Van Lier (1996) makes some good points on their inclusion in the classroom: First, pedagogic texts are often linguistically distorted and “badly written and uninteresting” (p. 137). Also, learners are often capable—and indeed willing—to work with genuine texts if given proper support. Finally, the daily communicative needs of certain learner populations—immigrants and foreign students immersed in the target language—may necessitate the inclusion of genuine texts in the curriculum.2 Slate.com writer Farhad Manjoo (2009) wrote, “[Video designer] Jarvis uses simple diagrams and clear on-screen text to explain the roots of the financial crisis, for the most entertaining and informative 11 minutes I’ve spent on the Web this year.”


peers. In our in-class reflections I could see the tasks served the purpose of learning, too, as

students’ descriptions of how their sessions and their understanding of the content went echoed

the adage, “The best way to learn something is to teach it.” The task of explaining to peers

caused learning, both of language and content.

“…interaction with language…”

p We have seen how “authentic” can be understood; let us now turn to “interaction with

language.” The double play of the preposition is intentional. To learn language, learners must (1)

interact with the substance of language, and (2) interact with others using language. On the first

point, Ellis and Larsen-Freeman (2009) wrote:

Learning language involves determining structure from usage and this … involves the

full scope of cognition: the remembering of utterances and episodes, the categorization of

experience, the determination of patterns among and between stimuli, the generalization

of conceptual schema and prototypes from exemplars, and the use of cognitive models,

metaphors, analogies, and images in thinking. (p. 91)

Learners must use language to learn it. In the attached lesson plan, students are exposed to and

use language to comprehend concepts (via the texts and the teacher’s language) and explain

those concepts to peers and, later, university faculty. The warm-up has students match definitions

to lexical items. Also, the assessment tasks have students match vocabulary with pictures. These

tasks give students a chance to interact engage with language directly.

Second, meta-analysis research has shown that interaction with proficient speakers and

learners alike is an important part of language learning, particularly for acquiring lexical items

and grammatical structures (Mackey & Goo, 2007). Interaction provides opportunities for

negotiation of meaning, where speakers can clarify, recast, repeat, and even offer and get


metalinguistic feedback (Ellis, 2008). These processes are made possible by the interaction

component: Through speaking and writing with other language users, opportunities naturally

occur for reconsideration of form, lexical choice, and even pragmatic usage. In the attached

lesson plan, students are provided opportunities for interaction with fellow language learners—

both their classmates and others—when they explain the credit crisis. These tasks are designed

so learners can negotiate meaning and strategies while explaining the difficult concepts they are

learning. With this practice, students are then tasked to interact with fully-competent English

speakers, which again provides more opportunities for negotiation of meaning to help students

master both the content and forms of the language. Many of my students at AUW reported back

to me that this task resulted in long conversations with faculty in which they learned even more

about the credit crisis.

“…drawing on language’s form/meaning/use dimensions…”

To understand, be able to use correctly, and, ultimately, to learn language, learners must

attend to all three dimensions of language. I have seen how all three dimensions can pose

challenges for learners. For example, phrasal verbs’ meaning seems to trip up learners. To put

down can mean (1) to kill, (2) to insult, (3) to squash/put an end to, or (4) to place something

somewhere. The context of an utterance can be helpful to understanding the phrase, but English

compresses a lot of semantic meaning into a three-word phrase. The forms of indirect reported

speech can tax learners. Verb tenses/aspects/modals all mutate, punctuation marks abound, time

markers morph, and pronouns often get switched when English speakers indirectly report the

speech of others. In the attached lesson, learning takes place across all three dimensions,

although there is a primary focus on the meaning dimension. The video, audio recording, and

explaining students do with peers helps them learn meaning, both in content (the credit crisis)


and in language (specifically vocabulary). In the form dimension, hearing, repeating, and writing

new vocabulary items helps the learners acquire new pronunciations and spellings. For use,

learners are instructed on discourse markers of expository speech: the repetition of points, the

use of gestures and eye contact, and comprehension check questions. Pragmatics—how to use

the language—is learned through explicit attention to discourse patterns that make students’

explanations more cohesive, and therefore more understandable. These patterns give the students

formal discursive knowledge and strategies, which combine with the other actions and schemata

of the speakers (giving information, knowledge of specific content, awareness of audience and

goals) to build students’ pragmatics (Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000).

“…and the appropriate Discourses of learners, their learning, and the target language.”

The final part of my characterization of how language learning happens relates to the

Discourses of the learners, learning, and the language learned. Learning language does not

happen in a vacuum: It happens with specific people, who are already members of at least one of

Gee’s (2012) big-D Discourses. The differences of learner Discourses help shape learning, yet

those memberships and relations to Discourses are not static. People construe themselves—or in

Gee’s (2012) terms, “be/do” themselves—among Discourses in an emergent fashion. Not only

does one’s identity vary according to time and space, it also emerges in relation to the social

world it is embodied in (Norton, 2000). In the next section, I would like to illustrate how these

intersecting Discourses shaped learning among my former students at the Asian University for

Women (AUW) in Bangladesh, the setting of my attached lesson plan.

My students were 18- to 25-year-old women from 14 countries in Asia who had

scholarships to study at this new university. They were part of a one-year preparatory academy

of the university whose goal was to give students the language and academic skills they would


need in the undergraduate curriculum. The students were developing proficiency in English, the

language of the school. Yet along with the language, the university had a stated mission of using

education to develop empowerment, leadership, and other skills to improve their lives. In

addition, the students were young women, away from home for the first time, living with other

young women from other countries, cultures, and language backgrounds in a new country. They

all belonged to the Discourse of being a student at AUW and were all new to the Discourse of a

Western, broad-based approach to education. While acquiring these new Discourses, the students

performed acts of being bourgeoning students/academics within their new education style

(Pennycook, 2009).

As part of acquiring these new Discourses, students latched on to and reused academic

concepts and language in other genres. “Reflection/discussion,” “exemplification,” and even

“critical thinking” were phrases and concepts they used on status updates and comments on

Facebook. They were so involved with the writing processes they were learning that they would

plan parties by brainstorming, outlining, drafting, peer-editing, and finalizing a design. They

loaded their discourse with transitional expressions like moreover, conversely, and in sum. As

part of learning, practicing, and internalizing the Discourse of academia, they performed it in

other genres, reflecting what they knew, who they were, and who they were becoming. These

students were in the act of doing what Pennycook (2009) describes as using a language

performatively to create identity. The students at AUW used English (in standard, non-standard,

and Academic varieties) to be and become both AUW students and budding members of a larger

tradition of Western academic thought.

Learners, with individual differences, interacted with their present environment—in this

case the school, their fellow-students, teachers, and assignments—and this environment


interacted with each learner’s life history, experiences, intellect, and affect. These learners were

claiming new Discourses by being/doing something new, even when their applications were

outside of traditional academic topics. One could argue that students’ successful integration of

academic thought with non-academic topics in this case shows both a high engagement with their

learning and a critical eye towards the processes and products they were going through. In doing

new things, the students of AUW were being/doing new people—or at least restructuring

themselves into a new Discourse, academic English. In turn, these acts became part of the new

Discourse of being/doing a student at AUW.

Language Teaching

Now we have a view of how language is learned—by meaningful, authentic interaction

with language that explores the form, meaning, and use dimensions while keeping in mind

learner, learning, and target Discourses. Teaching language effectively is then a matter of

facilitating meaningful interaction; focusing on language’s form, meaning, and use; and being

mindful of both learner and target Discourses.3 Still, the question remains: how can teachers best

facilitate this learning? Kumaravadivelu (2003) proposed ten macrostrategies teachers can adopt

to teach in a “post-method world,” and for the final section of this paper, I examine two of them

to illustrate how teachers can ensure that learning takes place. I refer to examples from my own

practice to illustrate these concepts, and add how both content-based instruction and genre

instruction can help learners acquire new Discourses.

3 Of course, much of the art of actual teaching is more than simply teaching language. Acker (1999), writing of teachers in general, wrote, “They mark papers, keep records, and plan lessons … They attend courses, meet parents, decorate walls, assess learning materials, photocopy worksheets, sew costumes, organize school events, run assemblies, order supplies and peruse government documents. Intricate relationships between the head teacher and staff are, like the teacher-pupil relationship, negotiated and renegotiated” (p. 5). For the sake of this paper, however, I will deal with the aspects of effective language instruction.


Facilitating Negotiated Interaction

Kumaravadivelu (2003) wrote that teachers can help provide meaningful interaction by

letting students guide their own interactions. In the attached lesson, the tasks where students

explain the housing crisis are scaffolded. Hammond and Gibbons (2005) wrote that scaffolding

“refers to support that is designed to provide the assistance necessary to enable learners to

accomplish tasks and develop understandings that they would not be able to manage on their

own” (p. 9). In the attached lesson, learners are aided on the content of the credit crisis and in

how to explain it by instruction, content sources, handouts, and practice. Yet when the

scaffolding is removed—when students finally explain to a faculty member—learners must make

their own talking points. They are given material that is made easier to understand via repetition,

discussion, and vocabulary assistance—but they negotiate the meaning of the concepts in guided

practice and on their own. This type of interaction makes students more aware and autonomous,

which van Lier (1996) said gives the tasks (and learning) authenticity.

Kumaravadivelu (2003) also wrote that topic management can better facilitate

negotiated interaction. He drew on an oft-cited study by Slimani (1989) that found that leaners

acquire more language when they nominate their own topics in discussion. The liveliest

discussion I ever saw in one of my classes was when I told my AUW students that we were

having a discussion on the theme of gender and development, but that I would not talk at all:

they had start and guide their discussion, choosing their topics along the way. After some initial

confusion, the students had the most spirited, heartfelt, and even contentious class discussion I

had ever seen, and I simply watched. As the students guided their own discussion, both the

meaningfulness and interaction level increased.

Fostering Language Awareness


Another of Kumaravadivelu’s (2003) macrostrategies is fostering language awareness.

Fostering language awareness can be a way to increase learners’ understanding of the

form/meaning/use dimensions of language and also help learners socialize into discourses.

Kumaravadivelu (2003) wrote that language awareness can generally be seen in two types:

general and critical. General language awareness focuses on the linguistic and sociolinguistic

features of language. When teachers foster general language awareness, they can focus on the

form, meaning, and use dimensions of language. In my Principles and Practices course, a partner

and I used a Barack Obama speech to make a task to build learners’ awareness of English

prosody. My revised project shows how teachers can foster an awareness of sociolinguistic

variation, guiding students to capture natural speech in their environment as suggested by Alim

(2007, 2010). Such critical awareness can ultimately lead learners to investigate how power and

language are intertwined. Concentrating more on learning the forms of language, promoting

language awareness through guided Focus on Form activities can help learners see the interplay

of different dimensions of form and meaning (Nassaji & Fotos, 2011). For example, providing

learners with dialogues in which speakers use the present perfect progressive to inquire about

recent happenings lets students make inductive connections among all three dimensions: form

(have auxillary + been + verb-ing), meaning (a habitual, ongoing recent activity), and use

(conversational catching up).

Fostering critical language awareness—helping learners understand and ultimately

challenge the power relations and ideological nature of language (Fairclough, 1992)—on the

other hand, can help learners better understand how language usage and choices affect

acceptance and denial of access to Discourses. I admit that the charge of Critical Pedagogy—to

challenge the power relations language brings with it—is a daunting one in which I have not


fully engaged. However, I have tried to make my students at least critically aware of language

choice and use. Wallace (2001) offered the example of explaining to predominantly non-white

students about how non-standard usage can block educational access. Wallace exemplified how a

“straight truth” spiel to learners—basically, that students must learn to write in the standard

variety, however unfair or unjust—ultimately serves the student. I quote an excerpt at length

because I believe it captures making students aware of how language choices matter, and uses

that lesson to empower students.4 Wallace explains that Standard Written English (SWE) is

perceived as the dialect of prestige in our culture, and that knowing it well can be a perquisite for

success in America. He explains,

You can be glad about it or sad about it or deeply pissed off. You can believe it’s racist

and unjust and decide … to spend every waking minute of your adult life arguing against

it, and maybe you should, but … [i]f you ever want those arguments to get listened to and

taken seriously, you’re going to have to communicate them in SWE. (p. 53)

Wallace’s point echoes Gee’s (2012) claim that one must master a Discourse to challenge it.

I offer a much less charged example from my own teaching, trying to teach students that some

learner errors, e.g., the omission of third-person singular “s” or improper article use, can deny

someone standing within a Discourse. The fact is that academic genres have standards of what is

socially, rhetorically, and linguistically acceptable (Devitt, 1997) that learners are bound to

discover (Hyland, 2009). Instruction must foster a critical awareness of how language choices

matter.

Both the fostering of language awareness and the socialization into Discourses are greatly

assisted by content-based instruction that draws on the texts and genres associated with the target

situations of language learners (Kramsch, 1993). Content- and genre-based instruction help

4 Click here to read Wallace’s whole spiel, rationale, and the pitfalls of such an approach.

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html#backfromnote38


learners on several fronts. First, in content-based classrooms students are exposed to authentic

genres through texts and materials that convey content information. Learners must respond to the

authentic language’s form, meaning, and use (Wesche & Skehan, 2002). Further, Hyland (2004)

noted that “genre-based teaching can help reveal to students the assumptions and values …

implicit in those genres and help them understand the relationships and interests in that context”

(p. 100). The attached lesson plan is situated in a content-based course that explored different

academic domains (e.g., hard sciences, economics, and religion) students would study in the

undergraduate curriculum. The students’ task to explain an academic concept in an informal way

is itself an academic genre, albeit a “homely” one (Johns, 1997). Throughout the semester,

students also produced academic presentations, short written summaries, and even lab reports of

science experiments. All are genre-based texts and activities that are a necessary part of the

academic Discourse they were entering.

Conclusion

Overall, I think the following lesson plan nicely reflects many of the things I discussed in

this paper, and the tasks and materials in it can be used to help me summarize my positions on

language and the teaching and learning of it. Specific and engaging content—the workings of the

credit crisis—is used to both help students learn language and to promote their interaction with

others. This interaction lets students attend to form, meaning, and use. It also serves as

apprenticeship and work within a specific Discourse, being an academic at the Asian University

for Women. My experience of teaching this unit and seeing the students work to understand and

then explain these foreign and difficult concepts to their peers and faculty has always meant a lot

to me. I think it is fitting that I am now able to use it as an exemplar of my position on language

learning and language teaching.


Word Count: 5,059


References

Acker, S. (1999). The realities of teachers’ work. London, UK: Continuum.

Alim, H. S. (2007). Critical hip-hop language pedagogies: Combat, consciousness, and the

cultural politics of communication. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 6(2),

161-176. doi:10.1080/15348450701341378

Alim, H. S. (2010). Critical language awareness. In N. H. Hornberger & S. L. McKay (Eds.),

Sociolinguistics and language education (2nd ed., pp. 205-231). Bristol, UK:

Multilingual Matters.

Bloomberg, A. (Producer). (2009, September 27). This American life [Audio podcast]. Retrieved

from http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/390/return-to-the-giant-

pool-of-money

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cent, 50. (2003). In da club. On Get Rich or Die Tryin’ [CD]. New York, NY: Aftermath.

Cook, G., & Seidlhofer, B. (1995). Principles and practice in applied linguistics. Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press.

Devitt, A. (1997). Genre as language standard. In W. Bishop & H. Ostrum (Eds.), Genre and

writing (pp. 45-50). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.


Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Constructing a second language: Analyses and

computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage.

Language Learning, 59, 90-125.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Introduction. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical language awareness (pp. 1-

30). New York, NY: Longman.

Gee, J. P. (2012). Sociolinguistics and literacies: Ideologies in discourse (4th ed.). New York,

NY: Routledge.

Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). What is scaffolding? In A. Burns & H. de Silvia Joyce

(Eds.), Teachers voices 8: Explicitly supporting reading and writing in the classroom

(pp. 8-16). Sydney, NSW: Macquarie University.

Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan

Press.

Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse. London, UK: Continuum.

Hymes, D. (2009). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In N. Coupland & A.

Jaworski (Eds.), The new sociolinguistics reader (pp. 583-597). New York, NY: Palgrave

MacMillan. (Reprinted from: ‘Models of the interaction of language and life,’ by D.

Hymes, 1986, in J. J. Gumpertz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The

ethnography of communication (pp. 35-71), Oxford, UK: Blackwell)

Jarvis, J. (Producer). (2009). The crisis of credit visualized [Online video]. Retrieved from

http://vimeo.com/3261363

Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.


Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University

Press.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied

Linguistics, 18, 141-165.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston, MA:

Heinle/Cengage.

Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research

synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in Second Language

Acquisition (pp. 407-452). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Manjoo, F. (2009, April 7). Youtube for artistes. Slate.com. Retrieved from

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2009/04/youtube_for_artistes.html

Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating

form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York, NY: Routledge.

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and learning language: Gender, ethnicity, and educational

change. London, UK: Pearson Education Limited.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Orwell, G. (1946, August). Why I write. Gangrel, 4. Retrieved from http://orwell.ru/library/

essays/wiw/english/e_wiw

Peacock, M. (1997). The effect of authentic materials on the motivation of EFL learner. ELT

Journal, 51, 144-156.


Pennycook, A. (2009). Refashioning and performing identities in global hip-hop. In N. Coupland

& A. Jaworski (Eds.), The new sociolinguistics reader (pp. 326-340). Houndsmills,

Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York, NY: W. Morrow & Co.

Qian, D. D. (1996). ESL vocabulary acquisition: Contextualization and decontextualization.

Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 120-142.

Slimani, A. (1989). The role of topicalization in classroom language learning. System, 17, 223-

234.

van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and

authenticity. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.

van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural

perspective. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Wallace, D. F. (2001, April). Tense present: Democracy, English, and the wars over usage.

Harper’s Magazine, 302(1811), 39-58.

Wesche, M. B., & Skehan, P. (2002). Communicative, task-based, and content-based language

instruction. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 207-228).

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

John Jordan C4 — Position Paper: Lesson Plan 22

Lesson Plan Commentary and Rationale

Setting

This unit and lesson are modified versions of a unit originally designed in 2010 for the

Access Academy at the Asian University for Women in Chittagong, Bangladesh. The Access

Academy is a one-year intensive English for Academic Purposes program that builds both

language and academic skills students need for the university’s Liberal Arts undergraduate

program. Classes meet five days a week for 50 minutes, and the year was broken into three 15-

week trimesters. This lesson was for the Academic Listening and Presentation course that

developed students’ listening and presentation skills. The class size was 14 (from five countries:

Bangladesh, India, Bhutan, Nepal, and China), and these women (aged 18-25) were in the

highest-level class of the Access Academy; their proficiency varied from intermediate to low-

advanced. This unit took place in the second trimester, during week 2 (see Appendix A for class

syllabus).

Unit Background (The Lesson plan below covers the 50-minute periods on Wednesday and

Thursday).

Unit Plan: The economics of the Credit CrisisMonday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

Intro to the unit and Final Assignment. Financial Crisis of 2008Vocabulary.This American Life segment on The Giant Pool of Money and the mortgage chain.

Video, Crisis of Credit Visualized (CCV). Discussion, clarification.Written summaries (homework).

Review.Practice explaining to peers in class.Representing crisis visually.CCV video with handout.

Discourse markers in expository speech. Practice explaining with other class.Reflection on what worked, what was difficult.

Quiz. Finalassignment—explaining credit crisis to a faculty member— given with description.


A form of Content-Based Instruction (CBI) was chosen for the syllabus because students would

need both information and practice dealing with a range of content areas in their undergraduate

curriculum, and Wesche and Skehan (2002) say, “CBI may be seen as particularly relevant to

learners who are preparing for full-time study through their second (or weaker) language” (pp.

220-221). The unit has a one-week content-based plan on the topic of the economic crisis of

2008. On Monday and Tuesday, students listen and watch materials on the causes of the credit

crunch, and as a class we discuss the factors behind it. Students are also exposed to vocabulary:

loan, lend, borrow, borrow, borrower, to default, a mortgage, a broker, mortgage broker, property

value, to foreclose, foreclosure, bank, investment bank, interest, interest rates, the Fed (Federal

Reserve Bank), to invest, investors, the Global Pool of Money, pension funds, insurance money.

They write written summaries of the crisis’ causes on Tuesday. The lesson plans presented (two

50-minute lessons) follow what happens on Wednesday and Thursday. On Wednesday, students

use resources to practice explaining the content in class to a peer. On Thursday, students visit

another Listening and Presentation class to explain the crisis to a student who has not studied it.

These two lessons set up part of the final assignment for the unit: students are to explain the

housing crisis to a faculty member and get feedback on their explication (see Appendix B for

assessment for this assignment). When I did the unit in 2010, students were nervous about this

assignment, and took it very seriously.

Texts

The texts were chosen both for their content and their stimulation, as “one goal of CBI is

to generate interest in content information through stimulating material resources” (Grabe &

Stroller, 1997, p. 3). The first is a segment from a This American Life podcast (Bloomberg, 2009)

that summarizes the Giant Pool of Money, the sum of the world’s savings (listen here, from 9:05

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/390/return-to-the-giant-pool-of-money?act=1#play


to 12:36; for a transcript, click here and scroll to, “Well, to help explain what happened, here’s

my partner for the hour, Adam Davidson”). The text begins with an explanation of the Global

Pool of Money that describes the vast increase in the world’s savings led to a giant demand for

investment. Two reporters and an economist offer the explanation. The second text is a 10-

minute video animation, The Credit Crisis Visualized (Jarvis, 2009; click here to view), that

summarizes how the housing crisis happened. The text uses animations, arrow, lines, and visual

representations of financial instruments like Credit Default Swaps. The video walks the viewer

through the factors and processes that led to the proliferation of subprime mortgages, the creation

of Collateralized Debt Obligations, and the ensuing housing bubble burst.

Goals, Objectives, and Assessment

The unit has two main goals that fit in with the overall course goals. As part of the

content-based curriculum, students must demonstrate that they understand what caused to

financial crisis of 2008. Vocabulary and an understanding of the causes and factors are the two

main parts of this content. The second major goal of the unit is for students to develop skills to

synthesize information about complex issues and explain those to both peers and faculty. The

type of presentation here is informal and conversational. Both of these goals fit into the

program’s goals of giving students the skills necessary to succeed in their undergraduate

program. Economics is an area of study students may choose as their major, and all programs in

the university will require students to master and explain complex ideas, a process often begun at

the university through conversation.

The main objectives of the two lessons presented here are (1) to have students develop a

strategy to explain what caused the housing crisis (done through a task where students use a

handout [see Appendix C for the handout] to create a visual representation), and practice that


http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/390/transcript


model out with a class peer; (2) to explain the housing crisis to an outside-of-class peer who has

not studied the material; and (3) to reflect on what was successful and what was challenging in

that explanation to better describe the crisis to a faculty member.

The unit has two main forms of assessment to measure how well students meet these two

unit objectives. The final assignment (explaining the housing crisis to a faculty member) has a

handout where the listener rates the student on how clear and informative the student’s

description is (Appendix B). This sheet is not graded, but it serves to verify that students

completed the task, and the evaluative measures are for the student to gauge their successfulness

and motivate them to be as clear and informative as they can be (and to act as a sort of “quality

control”). The second form of assessment is a quiz that covers the content of the two sources (see

Appendix D for assessment tool). This tool tests vocabulary using a matching exercise. To assess

main idea and details from the two texts, it uses short, open-ended response items. Finally, it

contains another vocabulary matching exercise that connects images (similar to those in the

credit crisis video) to vocabulary items.


References

Bloomberg, A. (Producer). (2009, September 27). This American life [Audio podcast]. Retrieved

from http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/390/return-to-the-giant-

pool-of-money

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (1997). Content-based instruction: Research foundations. In M. A

Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives and

integrating language and content (pp. 1-15). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Jarvis, J. (Producer). (2009). The crisis of credit visualized [Online video]. Retrieved from


Wesche, M. B., & Skehan, P. (2002). Communicative, task-based, and content-based language

instruction. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 207-228).

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.


Lesson Plan Outline

Lesson Length: Two 50-minute periods over two days

Materials and Equipment: Credit Crisis video, vocabulary envelopes (Appendix E), Credit

Crisis Outline Handout (Appendix C), handout on discourse markers in expository speech

(Appendix F), paper and pens

Goals and Objectives: I have indicated which days from the two lessons these objectives are

mainly situated; however, they relate to the overall unit too and the achievement of them is a

process that begins Monday and finishes with the completion of the final assignment

Students will

(Performative goals)

be able to explain how the housing crisis and ensuing financial crisis happened to a

peer; be able to use vocabulary relating to topic correctly (Thursday)

be able to use discourse markers to guide a clear explanation (Thursday)

(Cognitive goals)

know the causes and processes of the housing bubble and financial crisis

(Wednesday)

know vocabulary associated with banking and the housing crisis (Wednesday)

understand the factors and processes that led to the subprime mortgage crisis

(Wednesday)

(Metacognitive goals)

understand how explaining and teaching a topic helps one understand it (Thursday)

reflect on successful and unsuccessful strategies for explaining the mortgage crisis to

peers (Thursday)

(Affective goals)

feel confident in their ability to explain a difficult concept (Thursday)

be enthused in the challenge of explaining this topic to faculty members (Thursday)


Lesson Script (Wednesday)

Time Stage Tasks/Teacher Instructions Student Work

5 mins Warm-up, review

Divides class into two groups of four, and two groups of three, careful to mix nationalities proficiency levels. Give each group an envelope that contains vocabulary words and definitions (Appendix E). Instruct groups to match definitions with words.

Work in groups to match vocabulary items to definitions.

10-15 mins

Review of text from Tuesday

Play Credit Crisis video (from 3:44-10:44). Instruct students to listen for where the words they have just used are found in the audio and video. After video, ask students what questions they still have from the video, and lead discussion to find answers (preferably from other students).

Watch video to review, listen for vocabulary just listened to

10-15 mins

Handout, visual repre-sentations.

Pass out Credit Crisis handout (Appendix C). Divide students into pairs and have each pair get a blank sheet of paper. Tell students that they are to review it, and then make visual representations—drawings, lines, graphs, anything—to explain the content in the handout. Model an example, drawing from the video, of CDOs and the boxes of mortgages.

Read the sheet with partner, use paper to make visual representations of the material presented as they explain it.

15 mins Initial explaining practice

Tell students that the next day they are going to visit another class and explain how the mortgage crisis happened. To practice they are going to explain to a classmate. Divide students into new pairs, and give each student five minutes to begin describing process.

Describe the cause of the credit crisis to a classmate

2 mins Homework Tell students to take the visual representations and go home and again practice explaining to their roommate the housing crisis. Tell students to note what concepts are critical for explaining it, and what concepts do roommates have a hard time understanding.

(Homework) Explain concepts to a roommate, note what is successful and what is not.


Lesson Script (Thursday)

Time Stage Tasks/Teacher Instructions Student Work

5 mins Warm-up, review

Ask one student (who you think will be able to do a decent job) to explain the housing crisis. Ask listening students to note strategies narrator gives that make presentation clearer.

One student narrates, others listen

15 minutes

Strategizing discourse work to give better explanation

Ask students what they noticed from presenter that made their speech more clear. Give handout on discourse markers in expository speech (Appendix F), and lead discussion on strategies from this handout applied to task at hand—explaining financial crisis. Have students share with the class examples for each strategy to the content they are dealing with.

To apply strategies and discourse of explaining to their explanation of financial crisis to peers. Develop examples of this use in practice.

20 minutes

Peer explanation

Take students to the other class. Have each student partner up with a student from the other class, and let them give a trial run of explaining the financial crisis. Students may use paper, drawing, even white boards to explain. Tell them their goal is to give the student from the other class as clear a view of what caused the housing crisis as possible. With two minutes left, tell students to wrap-up then return to our classroom.

Explain mortgage/credit crisis to a peer.

10 mins Reflection, wrap-up

In four groups of three and one pair, have students discuss what went well with the discussion, and what they noticed they need to improve on. Have each group come up with strategies they think will help be more successful. With two minutes left, let students know that there will be a test over vocabulary and the concepts in the two texts—the This American Life segment and the credit crisis video—and to study for them they can review the texts (they will have links) and the handouts in class.

Students reflect on what worked well and what did not.


Appendix A Class syllabus

Access AcademyAcademic Listening and Presentation (A)

Syllabus Term 2

Faculty: John JordanE-mail: [email protected]: 20/GOffice hours: 3:30—4:20 pm Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday

Additional questionsIf you have any questions or concerns about this course that are not covered in this document, contact the instructor directly. Remember, the instructor is here to help you but ultimately it is your responsibility to make sure that you understand and complete all the requirements of this course.

Students should keep this syllabus to note changes as the occur during the term.

Course StructureStructure: Combination of lectures, activities, in-class discussions and

presentations.Times & location:

Days: Time: Location:

Sunday - Thursday 1:30-2:20 20/G 402

Additional informationStudents are expected to attend all scheduled lessons. Regardless of the reason, students may have no more than 3 unexcused absences before their grade is affected. Each unexcused absence after 3 will lower the student’s course grade by one letter grade. This is mandatory policy--there will be no exceptions to this rule and attendance will be taken on a daily basis.

A student will receive an excused absence only if she goes to the Health and Wellness Center and is added to the form of sick student at the time of or before she has class.

Being late to class twice will result in one unexcused absence.

Additionally, students are expected to come to class prepared to participate in the lesson and take notes. At a minimum, students should bring to every class a notebook and a pen or pencil. Cell (mobile) phones and similar electronic devices such as MP3 players, laptops, and so on should be switched off and put away at the beginning of class. Students whose phones or similar devices disrupt class due to excessive ringing or similar behavior will be


asked to leave the class and will be marked as absent for the day (will receive no credit for the lesson).

Finally students who have special needs related to poor eyesight, learning disabilities, or any similar issue should contact the instructor at the beginning of the term so that arrangements can be made to provide the necessary assistance.

Course DescriptionThis course will develop the academic skills required for success in the classroom. Students will practice and improve listening and note-taking skills with short weekly lectures and other recorded materials related to an assigned topic that students will take notes on. Students will demonstrate their understanding of the lecture and course content through short written summaries, and class discussions. Students will practice and develop presentation skills, to improve both presentation content and form.

This term will be organized into different topics. For each topic, students will listen to and watch various materials, discuss in class, give presentations and take tests over content and vocabulary. Students will be responsible for both the content (for example, vocabulary for the environment) and the skills (for example, Power Point or pronunciation).

This class will attempt to expose the students to topics that they will be studying next year in the undergraduate program in the four core areas of the curriculum: the humanities, social sciences, natural sciences and quantitative reasoning.

Course ObjectivesAfter finishing this term, students will be able to:

Listening for Academic Purposes:• identify the topic of a lecture and follow topic development• distinguish between the main idea and supporting details of a lecture• follow, comprehend and engage peers during discussions• take listening-based notes• use those notes • deduce meaning of words from context• predict while listening

Speaking for Academic Purposes:• organize and present ideas clearly in Standard English• engage critically and constructively in class discussions and individualconferences with instructors• ask and answer questions• exchange ideas with peers using appropriate language• present oral summaries and presentations (formal/informal)• report accurately• use discourse markers


ContentNote: The instructor reserves the right to make alterations to this schedule at his discretion.

Week # Topic1 The environment2 Business and economics3 Development4 Natural Science5 Physical Science6 Health7 Spring Break

8Review/Presentations/Midterm tests/Conferences

9Review/Presentations/Midterm tests/Conferences

10 Politics11 Religion12 Arts and Literature13 The Asian University for Women14 Power Point

15Review/Presentations/Final exams/Conferences

16Review/Presentations/Final exams/Conferences

Instructional StrategiesThis class will use a variety of different instructional strategies. There will be teacher instruction, student practice, discussion, interviews, group work, pair work, individual work, and out-of-class work. The class will have different types of listening actives—lectures, dialogues, songs, video. Students will also be responsible to give short informal in-class presentations based on the notes they will have taken. There will be other formal and informal presentations, and individual and group presentations. Each student will research and give a 5-7 minute presentations on various topics.

There is no text for this class. The teacher will bring in various handouts, listening materials and lessons from various sources.

Evaluation and Grading:

The grade percentages are mandatory and are as follows:A 90% or greaterB 80% or greaterC 70% or greaterD 60% or greaterF 59% or less


Activity and assignment point values:Students’ grades will be based on the following:

Homework: 20 percentQuizzes: 15 percentTests/Presentations: 25 percentMidterm: 15 percentFinal: 25 percent

Academic Honesty:All work and materials that you submit to the instructor for a grade must be your own work. Copying the work of others, using unapproved materials during exams and quizzes, or taking credit for work that you did not actually do is considered cheating and will not be tolerated. Students found copying/cheating during homework/tests will receive a grade of zero, and additional disciplinary measures may be taken by the Access Academy or the University.


Appendix B Feedback from for faculty explanation of credit crisis

Thank you for listening and talking to ___________________. I would like you to take a second and tell how she did.

Please rate me in the following two areas:

How clear was our conversation?

1-------2-------3-------4-------5-------6-------7-------8-------9-------10 (not at all) (completely)

How much did you learn?

1-------2-------3-------4-------5-------6-------7-------8-------9-------10 (nothing) (everything)

Please add any comments:

______________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________ _________________

Your signature Date


Appendix C Credit Crisis Outline Handout


Appendix D Financial Crisis Quiz

Financial Credit Quiz Name: ____________________________

Match the vocabulary word to its definition. Write the correct letter in the blank.

_______ 1) to default

_______ 2) to borrow

_______ 3) to foreclose

_______ 4) the Fed

_______ 5) a lender

_______ 6) credit

_______ 7) a mortgage

_______ 8) investments

_______ 9) the Global Pool of Money_______ 10) interest

a) a loan on a house

b) an opportunity for money to grow

c) to take something with an agreement

to give pay it back

d) the ability to borrow money

e) to stop paying a loan

f) the world’s savings

g) someone who loans

h) the central bank of the United States

i) the penalty for borrowing money

j) when a lender takes away a home

from a borrower

Answer each question in one complete sentence.1) What was the new idea or connection that led to the world financial crisis?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

2) Very simply put, what is a Collateralized Debt Obligation or C.D.O.?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

3) When interest is low, who benefits? When interest is high, who benefits?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________


Appendix E Vocabulary matching activity

Cut the individual words and phrases into small pieces of paper and put into an

envelope.

to default

to borrow

to foreclose

the Fed

a lender

credit

a mortgage

investments

the Global Pool of Money

interest

a loan taken out to buy a house

an opportunity for money to grow

to take something with an agreement to

give pay it back

the ability to borrow money

to stop making payments on a loan

all the money the world is saving

a person or institution who loans

money

the central bank of the United States

the price one pays for borrowing

money, expressed as a percentage

to take away a home from a borrower

because they borrower is not making

payments


Appendix F Discourse strategies for expository speech

Strategies for Explaining

These are some strategies you can use when you have to explain a difficult or complex issue or event.

1. Plan the organization of what you will say.

Start with easy concepts and things. Explain all your technical terms and new words first. Set the stage: explain the background, start with things people already know. Once key terms have been explained, begin describing the process or steps. Choose logical or chronological explanations. Start with the beginning.

2. Make connections clear.

When you make connections between two different things, you must be very obvious. Say, “Because of this…” or “This/that is the reason for…” “That is why…” Use your hands or pen and paper to connect different things.

3. Compare new things to known things

Sometimes you need to explain new concepts by using familiar concepts. For example, “A personal check is like a little letter that says ‘I have money, but it is in my bank. Give this letter to the bank, and they will give you the money.”

5. Check that your listener understand

When you are explaining things, stop every once in a while and ask if the person listening understands. You can say, “Is this clear?” “Does that make sense?” “Do you have any questions?” or “You got it?”

6. Have the listener tell you what you just said

A good way to check comprehension is to have your partner explain what you are saying back to you. If someone says they understand something, ask them to tell it back to you. This way you can check what they know and help them if they don’t understand.

7. Be active

Use eye-contact, facial expressions, gestures, and visual representations to engage your partner and read if they understand you.

Position Paper

Documents

Transcript of Position Paper