Exercise 4.1

1. My present research question is what is the process of using limited shared communicative resources to reach learning objectives in a higher education setting for native English speaking content instructors?

Setting that aside, I would say my present conceptual framework (as I understand it) is the combination of three theories: ICC (intercultural communication competence), CS (communicative strategies) from the field of second language acquisition, and intelligibility studies. If I were to represent it visually, I would probably use a Venn diagram. 

I don't think any of these concepts really address the phenomenon that I want to look at, which is the process of communicating cross-culturally that is both strategic and behavioral (versus knowledge and attitudes in ICC), and oriented toward non-linguistic learning objectives (not necessarily the focus of CS or intelligibility studies). I want to look at communication strategies that do not include traditional forms of language acquisition (such as vocabulary, accent, and grammar). I'm still struggling with how to describe this concept. For now I call it limited linguistic resources, but most people don't get that and I have to break it down every time. Maybe I should adopt the term "Communicative strategies" but what I really want to focus on is the resourcefulness of being able to achieve learning goals with few of the conventional tools of language (extensive vocabulary, shared accent, standard grammar of some kind). 

Honestly, I've thought about this a lot and I still like my research question.

2. I want my study to outline the natural strategies that teachers have come up with. I don't want to be limited by what three separate concept have told me might be those strategies, because I don't think the research that established those concepts were looking at quite the same thing.  

3. I am hoping to identify strategies that are used by teachers, determine whether those same strategies help students (different study), further define those strategies (grounded theory study??). Develop an instrument to measure those strategies. Test whether those strategies really aid learning objectives (quantitative study)... and maybe some day far down the road establish a theory and establish training for teachers in these kinds of skills. However, I can't do any of that until I've conducted this study first. 

4. I only have one question so far, but I suppose if that question is too simple, I can proceed to the next step (I think the step after a phenomenological study would be trying to do a grounded theory study...). 

5. I think I need the phenomenological approach, unless I got really ambitious and wanted to try to do a grounded theory approach. I plan to interview teachers and ask them to share their strategies with me. I expect I will also find epidemiological implications for why and how teachers choose to use those strategies. 

6. I come into this study with several strong biases. I believe that language is a tool rather than an ideal. I think I am naturally motivated to be strategic about the way I communicate which informs my research interests. This may mean that I am over emphasizing the importance of the phenomena I am looking for. Further, there is some questions about my data sample. If I interview teachers that I know, I might bias their answers because they know what I think about the topic.  

Exercise 2.1

Goals: I want to formally define and acknowledge a skill set that non-native English speakers possess in much greater abundance than native speakers—a valuable skill that in vital for global citizens to possess—both for reasons of efficiency and justice. I think, to some extent, these skills can be taught separate from actual language acquisition, that in education, teachers should be taught and evaluated on these skills so that ultimately they can pass these skills on to their students.  

Background: I am a native English speaker, a native English speaking instructor who teaches non-native English speaking students. I didn’t really start learning a second language until I was an adult and the dynamics of it fascinated me. I became aware of a skill that is not defined or taught by SLA literature—the resourcefulness and intuition that is required to speak in a non-native language. Later, as a teacher, I found that these skills really helped me to communicate with my students—not only making me more self-aware of how I was being received but also helping me to be more intuitive about what my students were trying to say.

Experiences: Two distinct experiences. My host mother’s Georgian versus the neighbor’s Georgian—how it was so much easier to understand my host mother. Then watching my parents interact with non-native English speakers—and seeing my Georgian neighbor in them. Also, later, watching them acquire (rather quickly) the ability to understand Chinese English that had a strong accent. This, along with my experience teaching Chinese students has convinced me that learning to understand diverse accents is a lot easier than learning how to completely conform to a “native” standard accent (it is easier for the native speaker to accommodate the learner than it is for the learner to accommodate the native speaker). In this matter, I began to see cultural power and imperialism being reinforced in this vigorous “scrubbing” of the non-native English users’ English—required for standardized test that give access into western institutions and in some English language immersion classes. By contrast, no credit was given in these gate-keeping tests for the resourcefulness and intuition that I had discovered was necessary for learning to operate in a second language.

Assumptions: Language is a malleable tool, not a static construct. Language is socially determined. The use of language upholds or undermines power structures. It is futile and even counterproductive to dismiss those power structures or assume that those with less power will be able to do so. Power structures only change when it is in their best interest to do so. Power structures need to change in response to the increased globalization of the world. Education and “modern” society need people who are skillful and flexible communicators in non-native English speaking settings.

The acquisition of language and knowledge are not synonymous. The skill of using a language does not hinge on how closely the speech act resembles some arbitrary “native” standard, but on how well it accomplishes the communication act. Education should be about pragmatics communication skills that students can use in their future life. Not everyone who needs English for their work life needs to be an English scholar. Skills should be taught in education with an eye to what they accomplish and not just for their own sake.  

Feelings: This topic is very interesting to me, and I think it is important. However, I am not overly invested in my agenda. I think if people don’t read or pay attention to my research, they will come around to my way of thinking eventually. It just may take a lot more time, and a lot more people will be hurt (waste of human resources/inefficiency).

Values

I tend to fall between a pragmatic worldview—do what works and don’t waste effort—and an idealized desire for equity and justice. I believe the best systems are the ones that are transparent. Complete equity is impossible, but false inequity (inequity based on lies, ignorance or unjust manipulation of power) is destructive and hurts everyone in the system—high and low.

Connections to

Topic: I am very closely connected to this topic. It has to do with my primary work as a teacher and with the work that my colleagues do.

Purpose: Formalize a phenomenon that is generally known and accepted by most of my colleagues so that hopefully it can be examined and taught in a broader context. I have very little doubt that the phenomenon exists or that I understand it to some extent (although not completely).

Setting: I have lived in the setting I wish to examine for a long time. I don’t have much power to determine it, but I have spent much of that time trying to understand and define it for myself.

Advantages and Disadvantages

I know a lot about this topic just from personal experience

It will be hard to stay open minded to people who disagree with me. (But I am just the documenter of their ideas, so I don’t really think that is one way or the other).

I may be too close to the topic. A lot of the people I might interview may already be familiar with my opinions on the topic (which could influence their ideas).