From the Author
Dedicated to Mario Rinvolucri, mentor, providential encounter. Also dedicated to HLT Editor Hanna Kryszewska. Finally, Dedicated to all those who love the wonderful English language and culture, to those who love and perceive English as their own tongue, and infinitely more! Last but not least, dedicated to the British and American peoples, with respect and love.
Towards Rapport, Affect and Increasingly More Humanistic Teaching
Consuela Popa, Romania
Consuela Popa is an English teacher. In the past she used to teach English and French. She has taught in state schools, high schools and secondary schools, at all levels, and different profiles. She is interested in linguistic research, cultural studies and writing in English and in the study of other languages: French, Spanish. Christian theology, sociology, psychology are her other fields of interest. She cherishes a lot the opportunity of writing for HLT, since the attitudes and values discovered this way help grow and feed the spirit. As artists, linguists should be aware of the fact that interdisciplinary aspects are unavoidable and that we should touch a variety of fields through our writing.
E-mail: konskris2001@yahoo.com
Menu
Teaching culture, rapport, teacher roles, problem behavior
Teaching methods, class activities, affect, learner profile, learner autonomy, interaction
Experiencing learning, affect, learner types
Interaction in class, learner autonomy, passion for languages
References
In the article that follows I wish to draw attention upon one aspect that has been already commented upon in methodology, and over and over again dissected, discussed, by teachers, trainers, researchers, in foreign language pedagogy.
Depending upon the teaching culture of the country in which we teach, generally, there are slight (hopefully!) differences in the way that “rapport”, this magic ingredient in the teaching-learning process, is perceived by teachers and students alike. I have mentioned above the teaching culture globally, as a notion, but the other important tip is that the teaching culture engulfs many other matters that deserve special attention when we take into account the relationship that we need to establish with our students along the teaching-learning process.
These aspects, which I could define as being components of the previously mentioned notion of teaching culture are numerous and we can come up with varying nuances of them, we can call them slightly different, or we can add up more, as key words that define details of our psychology as teachers and pedagogy specialists/pedagogues.
Such key words that make up the components of the teaching culture, teaching culture that has been generically considered by me as the main factor that defines and influences rapport, are key words that are not new to our ears, nor are these words abstract notions in pedagogy, designed only for deeper research.
These key words could be listed as follows, not necessarily in the order of their importance: teacher authority and the perception of this authority individually by one teacher or by one teachers` community, learner profiles, (generically known in methodology, from a scientific point of view, as well as the learner profiles specific to a particular country or place, with a certain mother tongue and psychic structure, or psychological structure), teaching style of the individual teacher, within the frame, of course, of the history of methods and approaches that have been practiced in one particular country , place, school community; also, I could add up further on as component factors, the derived techniques and strategies, that teachers use along their teaching process, as organizational and managerial teaching skills that influence, on the path of teaching and learning, the way that acquisition and learning through teachers and what they have to offer are perceived by our students.
Again, listed not in the order of importance, since these key words or notions are rather seen by me as belonging to a vicious circle than being one prevalent over another, stand teacher personality profile, his or her creativity, originality, charisma above all; the teacher`s personal approach towards students, his teaching taken not only as a job, with special official requirements, but as an individual who wishes to create connection with every student in a human(-istic!) and special way, and not only as a teacher, but as a human being in a special connection with another human being. Teachers as personality profiles do not only have to be seen exclusively as the already known list of teacher roles, as resource for their students, class managers, organizers, prompters, tutors, participants, observers, actors, counselors, feed-back providers, controllers, testers, etc. The teacher should be able to go far beyond the barriers of these generally accepted roles, and become a bridge, an individual who, for the student individually, should represent a spiritual link, in every way one might choose to give interpretations to this expression; the teacher should be a spiritual master, or guide, if you do not like the idea of masters, a motivator, a guardian angel, a “torch” passer. The teacher is an empathy “filler”, a person with whom, as a student, one may choose to identify himself, as a passionate language acquirer/learner.
Rapport in language teaching and learning is not easy to be established or to be produced. I say “to be produced”, because it is both a necessity, a condition or prerequisite for the creation of a proper environment in class, which needs to have more factors realized in order to be achieved, as well as a result, a generated “product”, that comes naturally, or becomes a reality, or better said it increases or it “overflows”, once class management has become successful and things have gone their way in the right sense from the pedagogical point of view, from the point of view of our educational/instructional purpose.
Rapport means much more than, at a generally accepted level, the mere transmission of values, attitudes, from teacher to students. Rapport means that, no matter how indispensable, as teachers, we would prove to be, for students, in all our teacher roles, or in only some of the teacher roles at one time or another, as educators, we should provide for students/language learners, an awareness of the learner autonomy concept. We should make sure that they know that taking their own language acquisition and learning into their hands is actually the best way in which we could have fulfilled our task as teachers, and the mutual purpose of teaching and learning alike.
Concerning rapport, I have a lot of things to say from the point of view of my diverse experiences in class. However, I would like to speak about a paradox that I have lived. I have had, yearly, up until a number of 15 forms, or different groups to teach, and sometimes lesser, if the number of classes per week, in language profile classes, was more than 2 hours. Classes with lower interest in learning, with behavior problems, and thus, lower achievement, actually taught me more classroom experience than I would have ever thought as a teacher. I do not have to enter into deeper detail, (or maybe I do?), about how I found it a “must”, in some occasions, to slip over teacher authority. Teacher authority should have seemed necessary, even if more drastic or rigid, in such occasions, but I have been somehow forced to reduce it in favor of a “bargaining” in rapport, or concession making policy/behavior. This concession bent attitude was taken not only because, I have to admit, the “natural” order of the “events”, for the sake of my health and well being, asked me to adopt a wise, tolerant and health protective attitude; but also because this way, I had discovered that, even if more time consuming along the course, a more tolerant and vigilant, expectative behavior like this from my part as a teacher gave me the time and opportunities to “study” my groups of pupils and draw a benefit from knowing them better. It was not a “withdrawal” policy, in the sense of “dashing off” in front of the “adverse army”, army that was launching a continuous “onslaught” towards the English class and their teacher, but moreover a careful, reserved, attitude which made me able to actually control better, the hyperactive outburst of pupils who, in the end, puzzled by the lack of perplexed reaction in front of their bravado, slowly gave up their attitude. Teachers should “hit” back with good resource materials, technical and classroom language equipment, and also techniques and strategies, and tasks ready for every moment of the class; teachers should “hit” back, with good pedagogical resource and psychological tactics, towards every “hit” coming from students in either form, psychological, bravado attitude, reluctancy, hostility, aggressive behavior (psychological), and also physical, under the form of any “projectile” missiles and weapons of all kinds, like paper modeled ones, pens or pencils, and all kinds of different toys.
Of course, this process of observation and teacher intervention took place during the school semester, it did not take place overnight. Teachers who affirm that they were able to “quiet the difficult classes down”, instantly, or fast, are either unrealistic, or they exaggerate a bit about their teaching art, as it is known that one needs to have enough experience in order to deal with such situations, with rather extreme problem behavior circumstances, in a faster way, and not instantly. Or it may happen that, if there are such cases of “instant” obedience, the teacher`s previous reputation with respect to class authority in a certain school community or around it, (should) be able to quiet down the “onslaught” of pupils.
Not to mention that there are enough teachers, and I do not blame them, nor do I try to seem aggressive in any way, who really refuse the “offer of such classes”, from various reasons, which might even be quite reasonable, depending upon the situations in case: either they prefer to work mostly with classes they know better, classes with already proven good behavior reputation, either there are teacher-class incompatibilities that the teacher and the principals alike might come to consider as enough to brand collaboration as unworthy. There might be other teachers, on shorter or longer term, who may be able to lead the class to a certain acceptable point, and thus, strike a bargain between the students` difficult character and the more appropriate image of what a proper class behavior would eventually be like. Also, substitute teachers or new teachers in the school of any kind, might be “blessed” with taking these classes under their direct responsibility. Switching class from one teacher to another, in the case of problem behavior classes, based upon some obvious considerations about how students would deal better with somebody else, might be both a teacher and a managerial good way of dealing with hard situations.
Good and rather experienced teachers who do not bear the fault of simply not being able to cope with stressful situations and who would just waste time and waste themselves off with aggressive, rebellious and impertinent characters, can invest their teaching art better with other groups with whom they might be just welcome. Of course, this does not have to mean that problem behavior students should be left thinking that they are the “boogie” people who simply achieve that the school management change their teachers and thus, they are given satisfaction all the time and teachers surrender in front of them. I just want to say that, for valuable teachers and for groups of teachers belonging to the same taught subject department, giving up useless stress in favor of flexibility, ability to switch classes and levels and well being could mean that the school institution is able to value its teachers; it means that the school institution is able to protect them mentally and physically, and not waste off the important resource that teachers represent, out of ignorance. The reality is that too often, the principle of serving and meeting the students` needs is misunderstood, twisted, and so sadly and unfortunately taken and used as a policy against the teachers, turning the wrongly understood principle of meeting the students` needs into actually abusing teachers at their workplace, and humiliating them, in ways that will ask for, and deserve, careful surveys on such phenomena and non-educational vision and management. I hope to be the one able to pay careful attention, soon, towards pursuing and creating such a survey, which should treat important debate issues and polemics, realities, over the teaching- learning process, over students with behavior problems and over the way the teacher-student relationship and the school, school principals`, managers` visions, understand it and give it different meanings, wrong or right, and different dimensions.
Going back to the relationship I had with my difficult pupils, I should tell about the way I chose (and succeeded), to act with them and to love them. They were during their 8th grade, which is a finishing year, corresponding to the end of the gymnasium cycle in Romania, and they were preparing for high school entrance examination. Loving them, especially those with family background marked by economic and personal troubles, making them feel like I was one of them through my sympathy and even shared and recognized complaining about the reality of our suffering system, raised the cozy atmosphere and intimacy feeling in class, making them argue that we actually were a family, so there was no need for them to “lift” up their shields, like they used to do before, in company of teachers. I have learnt this way, how to manage mixed ability groups. I have learned how to deal with even bigger gaps, concerning mixed temperament in class, which would have otherwise, made the class atmosphere seem too inflammable and quite hard at times, if not impossible almost, to tolerate or to alter significantly, taking into account that there are enough teachers who simply turn down the principal`s “offer” of taking over the responsibility of such classes. (mostly out of health protective reasons).
Problem behavior classes, with naughty, noisy, and weaker students, are a paradox and a source of growing up for the teacher since the ego is humbled. In excellent and proficient, competitive classes, although there might be many cases with superlative experiences, which I have also had the benefit of having, the official “proper” atmosphere, for classes who conform to the rules of personal behavior and reaction to the taught subject in class, is also sometimes paradoxically, from the part of the class and the teacher alike, a source which does not provide enough knowledge of learner typology and versatile teacher psychology, since we expect only the best from them, and we also let learner autonomy, do its work in our best students, without enquiring for more, without further “drilling into” the areas underneath the surface.
But until even our best students, at one moment, should become accomplished academic English users or users of English for the specific purpose(s) of our training, it might also be the case that they should, along their way, encounter their own personal, psychological, barriers, unanswered questions, dilemmas, unsolved situations, inabilities, depressions, difficulties, untold ones!
Thus, in officially presumed ‘perfect’, or almost, classes, in very proficient groups, we might miss out, unless we become more cautious and versatile, also probable, unsolved problems, “mysteries”, parallel phenomena in the learning experience of our students. And unless we start an offensive by wishing to learn more about our proficient learners` profiles, through questionnaires, or other genuine means, we might still remain with the regret of not making the most out of our learners` varied typology. Thus, drawing an advantage out of the reality of mixed ability in class, we should stir and activate to the maximum, through brainstorming and other means, our proficient learners` presumed, already “achieved”, potential, and challenge it, only to discover that they should even push more and more, since there is really no limit to knowledge. And they should only realize how much they still have to find out, and how little they know!
On the whole, I could resume that my discovered “paradox of less proficient classes” to call these classes like that, means that, even though these children might seem not to value genius or progress, or real proficiency, this actually leads to the teacher humbling his/her ego, in spite of all his previous success with really competent groups, and yet, through the humbling of this ego, teachers gain experience in their pedagogical work, exalting their potential in the longer run.
In order to activate pupils with knowledge gaps in classes like the above mentioned, the teacher must diversify his/her methods, and the more difficulties the class presents concerning study, the more seriously will the teacher have to operate with these methods and with the techniques, strategies, and activities chosen in order to surpass the students` shortcomings.
Activities will have to be diverse, tailored to the class specific and to the students` needs, and engaging. Activities are also, certainly, supposed to show not what they do not know, in a negative and judgemental way, but in a positive way, we should rather make the most of it in order to challenge them towards realizing how much they miss, and how wonderful a world opens up to them, a world that includes everything that they missed and became knowledge gaps; we should show them what they can do and most precisely, what they can work at as a group, in pairs, etc, while using these activities, in order to progress. Except for, maybe, diagnostic testing that we might set in order to know in detail about our students` pluses and minuses, questionnaires, etc, activities should be tailored so that they should learn and progress through a variety of methods, in an anxiety free, confident, constructive, challenging, engaging, palpitating, or pulsating with life, atmosphere. We should raise interest to the maximum, we should present mysteries to be uncovered. Thus, I can exemplify, without entering now into much detail on the matter, activities that are meant to improve level and fill up the gaps: group work and pair work strategies, all kind of communicative activities, task based activities, information gap activities, multiple choice items, multiple choice items designed for mixed level in class, transformation items, cloze items, etc.
And while it is true that activities for individual students could be quite useful, I believe that group work and pair work strategies are absolutely necessary and most likely to be efficient in these classes where we have to fill in considerable knowledge gap.
I could say that communicative activities of this kind, in group work and pair work strategies, fit in exactly with the type of class that needs an incentive to speak, if they find it difficult to put themselves together and go past their speaking deficiencies and their previous, failed, classroom experiences. The teacher will use such activities as the above mentioned in order to produce improvement, in order to revise and systematize whatever has been left aside from and in previous sessions, and in order to push students into wishing to find for themselves what their minuses are, to discover how to assess their level, their knowledge, through interactive ways, through collaboration and self-and group assessment. And here I mean reasonable kind of assessment or feed-back, that one which can be done either in a natural way by students upon their solving of the exercises and activities proposed, through reciprocal and group reaction, also quantifiable assessment, when, upon their activities` worksheets, they also have the opportunity to see the score that has been allotted to them per each item or requirement solved-that is when we give them the marking scale and grading means, or “the points” that are given and which correspond to each solved item.
Furthermore, from a humanistic point of view, in classes with problem behavior and with considerable or noticeable level gaps, we must be aware of the “affect” element, and we should use our students` affect, as well as ours, during the instructional sessions, in order to produce favorable teaching and learning results. We can use our awareness of the “affect” reality for our students, in order to delve deeper into our difficult learners` character traits. Our students must be provided favorable acquisition and learning environment, circumstances, and I dare say not just “favorable”, but, as much as this is possible, ideal or nearly ideal circumstances. Teachers and managers of the educational process alike, and our partners, institutions, sponsors, students themselves and their families, should work together in order to create excellent circumstances for language acquisition and learning, circumstances which involve the educational or instructional component, or the intellectual one, as well as the material or the “logistic” component.
Affect in language acquisition and learning means not only everything about the acquisition and learning atmosphere which is directly related to, but also values, attitudes, feelings, that are not only supposed to already exist within our students` spirit, minds and hearts, but also values, attitudes, and feelings that should lead, following the teacher-student relationship and their “acquisition and learning” collaborative process, to the “ego enhancing”, in a positive way. Of course, the “ego enhancing” which has been so spoken about and mentioned in English methodology, goes together with elements like dignity and self-respect for every learner, with the idea of a competitive atmosphere, with psychological rewards that constitute an engine for pushing on and on.
Indeed, as psychologist Carl Rogers used to explain, since the idea and expression of “ego enhancing”, was originally his, (though, of course, later on, dissected and developed in their own way by numerous other researchers in related and interdisciplinary fields of linguistics and psychology), students learn better, they learn optimally, when a set of conditions are fulfilled.
Thus, reproducing the ideas of Rogers, students are able to learn optimally when the “learning” they are subject to can be considered as personally relevant to them, when they “experience” learning (as opposed to the “taught” subject phenomenon to them), and when their ego is enhanced as a result of this learning. (Jeremy Harmer-The Practice of English Language Teaching-fourth edition).
Awareness of the existence of affect in language teaching and learning means a lot of things, which come to mind when this issue is brought forward : it means not only the three aspects previously mentioned, namely relevant learning, learning (personal) experience, and ego enhancing, but also a lot other elements. It means student centered teaching and humanistic teaching, learner autonomy, cooperative learning, language acquisition in favorable conditions, (otherwise, I would say we could not even speak about language acquisition as a notion, without the existence of proper conditions); affect also brings to the forefront notions like, not only “cuddling effect”, of words, for successful learning, from the rather lexical sphere of linguistics, but also spontaneity, during the course of acquisition, (or while language learners are on the path to successful acquisition); I mean here, spontaneity in speaking, not only casual communicative, conversational, kind of spontaneity, but also spontaneity of expression of complicated ideas(up to perfectionist level, academic, near native or native like) (…writers!) within the discourse pattern/structure; we are supposed to be demonstrating thus, with our language groups, a higher or more sophisticated linguistic ability, fluency and an ability of transposing discourse structure, fluency of ideas and fluency of words/ lexical fluency, appropriateness, creativity (maybe the most important and cherished “treasure”) and the list may continue as per other suitable suggestions from teachers.
Further on, when speaking about the variety of learner types and about rapport, another issue comes to the foreground, namely the degree of conformism that classes and our learners in general prove to have towards learning and teaching at the same time, and implicitly towards their relationship with the teacher. Again, as elicited in methodology books like Jeremy Harmer`s “The Practice of English Language Teaching”, there are apparently four generic types of learners, upon one classification: conformist learners, convergent learners, concrete learners and communicative learners. I say “apparently, because certainly, there is the need that eventually, we should shape our learners into the type of learner that comes closest to what I would call as the ideal or the required combination of these previously mentioned features or characteristics, or into the most suitable one, designed for the circumstance or main purpose, or for the type of course that we are teaching or delivering as teachers in state or private schools, or for specific purposes, like business, adults, etc.
These preciously mentioned patterns, however, are most likely to be encountered in our learners either as a dominant, if there is really the case that, for instance, we should meet in our groups real conformists, that are most unlikely to change very much during the course; or these patterns may appear either as features that are not so hard to be changed by us and modeled as towards the fulfillment of our teaching and learning goals. For instance, we might have conformists who are keen on following the type of course that we are teaching, and thus, learning might be successful; and here I mean that, especially for certain lesson stages, or tasks, or language course stage, we need the positive trait of conformism, not the negative one, in order to make use of the “obedience” trait in our students for the purposes of our teaching and learning, thus, precisely, turning whatever it is supposed to hinder us, into something beneficial for learning. Surely, there are situations in which conformism as such, with its deficiencies or shortcomings proves to be a negative factor in our teaching and learning. Since I have exemplified Jermey Harmer`s book “The Practice of English Language Teaching”, the four learner types above should be defined briefly.
Conformists, as generally agreed and as upon Jeremy Harmer`s description, are learners who are generally shy, withdrawn, rather uncommunicative, that is, they are seen as somewhat opposed to the type of communicative learners also mentioned within this classification. They are seen as interested in learning the language rather than “acquiring” it, or in language study rather than in the actual language practice within communicative type of teaching and activities. They like doing what they are told, and they might be hardworking and diligent, yet, lacking the conviction and ambition for intensive and sustained language use. They take “learning about the language” as actually meaning the learning of that particular language. Their image or vision upon teachers is not necessarily a complex or sophisticated or genuine one, but they prefer to see methodical and well-organized teachers, or teachers that “work well” (not that all good and excellent teachers would not be hardworking as well!), rather than teachers who challenge language teaching with genuine approaches or styles and analytic or creative outlook upon it, or with especially proficient or competitive aims and ambitions.
Conformists could of course, be defined in different and varying ways by teachers and researchers, since often, the interpretations that everyone, depending upon teaching culture and experience, understand to give, may open the path for further, fruitful, debate. The degree of conformism can vary upon one class or group to another, upon class type, type of syllabus or curricula and schedule practiced, school institution vision and teaching (individual) style.
Convergent learners are described (by the same source above mentioned, Jeremy Harmer), as being the type of learners that are centered upon themselves, meaning that they might have a more solitary nature, more reserved, analytic, or a reflective nature or a contemplative one. Whatever other characteristics you might choose to give when you hear about convergent learners, this type has got as a dominant a more individualistic tendency, as well as, according to the analytic profile that they are endowed with, a calmer, or cooler and withheld temperament, as well as pragmatic. Pragmatic means a lot of things, within this particular learner description. It may mean that such learners are able to direct the teacher`s attention towards some imminent practical realities, with respect to class and especially student development (for learner centered teaching).
Also, pragmatic might also involve a kind of skepticism and reluctancy from our students` side with respect to some class and language development realities that the teacher knows, from research sources and more abstract theories, that work better than that seemingly “here and now”, expected class routine. “Fancy” or more extravagant ideas that are somehow not very pleasant for our convergent (and conformist) students, might be exactly what a quality language class needs in order for language acquisition to be strongly fostered.
On the whole, however, it is true that there is a variety of learner types according to other classifications, like the multiple intelligences theory, for instance. When we speak about personality in language learning, there is a major division between what I could call “conformism” and “non-conformism”; there is a division in the way students perceive what is being “served” or offered to them, in the way they perceive teaching and the demands of teaching and learning alike, demands that are especially tailored for them.
These demands are a natural part of a process, of the teaching-learning process. I do not mean “non-conformism”, in the way most rebellious and extreme attitudes of extravagant students often behave, and I am sure that at this point, teachers from everywhere can come up with various and picturesque examples of such attitudes. Although this kind of extreme attitude is also included in my classification, what I was thinking about, when I chose the word “non-conformism” here, was that there are students with a certain degree of adaptation to the course that is being taught. They come with their own personality, reactions, more genuine or not, and depending upon that, teachers should devise, a certain course and activities pattern and schedule so as to encompass both their conformism in the way that should help the purposes of learning, and the more genuine, original, and creative side of their personality, the one that may even appear as more rebellious. Also our attention should not only be targeted towards discovering creative and special potentials that surpass the limits of average abilities, for very proficient and efficient, performance able students, but we should also help those with certain difficulties in learning, by dwelling on their pluses in character and personality, and even upon their denial or reactions towards teaching and learning(negative or positive), upon their traumas, psychological barriers, etc. In fact, in is known that even in the case of children or subjects with disabilities, they might prove above the average skills or natural endowment in other areas of their cognitive or affective sphere, like artistic gifts, or others, and as teachers, we are bound to discover these hidden zones in our students and to make the most of them, becoming “Pygmalion” teachers for them.
Another important aspect is that rapport does not only have to mean the relationship that the teacher has got with his or her pupils/students, but also the relationship that students have with one another, the relationship between students. This comes as a consequence of their previous education, that they gained from their teachers and from their particular teacher of the subject matter in case. As language teachers we must train our class to act like a living body, collaboration and rapport between each member of this living body, being vital.
In order to benefit from a vital, I should say, not only necessary, environment for the teaching-learning process, both the teacher and the class should have favorable relationship, between the teacher and the class and between the individual students and/or groups. Generally, when we see “rapport”, so often mentioned in methodology books, articles, it is moreover the relationship between the teacher and students, that we see highlighted, (almost) exclusively, probably out of habit, or out of the impeding necessity of emphasizing the teacher-student or teacher-class relationship. It is not that “rapport” cannot involve also the relationship between the individuals of the living body, which is the class. This relationship is also of equally vital importance, especially once we have acknowledged the importance of language teaching approaches and trends such as the communicative one, with its emphasis not only on speaking, but also on interaction as key words. To me, in language acquisition/learning, it is almost blasphemy and nonsense to conceive, even within the frames of other teaching approaches/previous ones, rather “prehistoric” and backward, language acquisition/learning without placing exposure to language through listening and speaking practice as primordial, and in the absence of which we cannot speak about language acquisition and learning at all!
On the other hand, academic practice leads to more acquisition, but provided that listening and speaking are not neglected either.
Interaction means not only interaction between teacher and class, teacher-student, teacher-working-groups, but also student-student interaction, which encompasses, of course, the student-group and group-group(s) interactions, depending upon the ways of grouping that are practiced within a class/group. The teacher can also practice grouping for the purpose of better exchange between students from different classes or forms, not only grouping within the same class/form.
Thus, we can ask students from other form(s) to come and take part in joint activities, which may and should include a wide range of methods, techniques and strategies. We can have two forms with fairly the same level, or forms with different levels, like a higher one for challenge and for progress; such exchange might be highly successful, provided, of course, that forms are not too different in terms of level, for in such case, our attempt might result in demotivation.
High(er) discrepancies with respect to language level may prove unproductive and unbeneficial. Nevertheless, situations on place, with respect to experiences of this kind, can be relative: when we wish to practice speaking within communicative and academic English classes, it might be the case that, due to personality and temperament compatibilities, we can have, for example, two forms or classes, one with lower level, and the other with considerable higher level than the previously mentioned.
Yet, (and I am thinking here about a concrete case that I have personally witnessed as a teacher), the class which needed improvement, upon meeting their peer fellows, challenged themselves a lot and their ambition was at highest quota, realizing, during and after the speaking sessions, that they should push harder in order to be able to speak the way (“and better than”, as per their own words,) their colleagues from the other form! Some of them clearly manifested their enthusiasm in speaking with their mates, and the words that otherwise, would not have come so easily, were simply flowing. Of course, because of the Anglo-Saxon character of English, with different structure as when compared to Romanian, as a Latin language, for example, as their mother tongue, the lexical chunks and phrases that they were uttering were sometimes also wrongly employed. It was either word order, or some other linguistic uncertainties, like linking words and the chaining together of more elaborate sentences within the phrases, that needed feed-back from the teacher. And there was need for explanations more elaborate than just the mere answering to conversational or interview like questions.
Students are very keen on knowing other mates in different forms, with the same of different profiles, of the same age or slightly different, and their enthusiasm grows as they perform communicative activities ideally in this way, they have the chance to practice speaking and other skills (if we set the right kind of integrated skills activities), they have to opportunity to exchange information about the lives of other young people like them, and to expand their universe and increase their motivation.
Rapport, from the teacher-student(s) relationship perspective, is optimal when there can be noticed a number of facts/factors in our environment in class, as well as in our teaching-learning process in an obvious way. Thus, we have good fruits and results in our language acquisition and learning process, when we see a number of things accomplished. For all the dichotomy that some of you might choose to invest these two elements, acquisition and learning, with, while others might see these elements like joint, things go on their right way when we can see and feel the following: passion for language, respect, enthusiasm, on both sides, good cooperation and communication, both teacher-student(s) and between the individual students in one class/group, empathy, emulation, diligence, affection. This particular order does not have to mean that one element prevails over another, for they are all important, and placing interest over one of them to the detriment of another proves futile. All elements are in close interdependence. Also rapport means spontaneity, in both interpersonal relations as well as in the flow and exchange of ideas, of creativity.
Rapport also means learner autonomy, which has been cultivated as a value and attitude, to students, while at the same time making sure that the teacher is an important resource for students, as an excellent professional, a good class manager, who can make teaching memorable in the minds, souls, and hearts of students. We can, at the same time remember as memorable the relationship that he or she was able to establish with his students, beyond the frames and barriers of his job, in a human way. In a class or group where we have rapport established and it is optimal, we see good organization, and teacher and students alike are able to spend quality time together, in both curricular as well as extra-curricular activities. Rapport means the existence of good and meaningful feed-back to students.
Concerning the relationship between rapport and learner autonomy, the good teacher will, as stated above, inculcate values and attitudes to students. Formation can and should be done through excellent teachers, but the best values we could give to them is that we should teach them how to learn, and how to deal with whatever they need to learn, how to deal with wisdom, independently of their teachers. Maybe the hardest, and the most advanced step, is when the students, novices or trainees, are left alone to make their own steps. This should also be practiced as a sub-phase, or technique, to call it like that, during each important session of our teaching and training. One important step towards someone`s achievement as a student is the realizing or fulfillment of the commandment “Now, after all these tasks and things we have worked together on, you should forget about the teacher! Learn how to fly, and take off to the skies by yourself!”
The ability of self-managing successfully their intellectual resources is, for students, along with, of course, the related activities and everything concerning their educational management, an important feature deriving from the learner autonomy concept. Students should be able to set their own goals in language acquisition, and they should be able to discover for themselves, not only facts related to the way their mind works and the way their learning is influenced by a multitude of factors, psychology related, but scientific details, or the “core” of their learning of the specific subject being taught, namely, in our case, languages. This comes in time, certainly, and there are circumstances in which they are not aware of this reality until quite late in their adolescence or even later, in college, depending upon the personal development and the evolution of every student within the context of a specific country`s teaching culture. Still, I believe that, western countries` system and I mean British and American institutions of culture, universities and schools/language schools, are very well equipped, and are dwelling on a prodigious history on the matter. They have a history of teaching values and attitudes of learning, they have a history in the subject matter of teaching thinking and even more, in debate and free, creative thinking. Reactions, questioning, doubting, contradicting, challenging, are facts, in the western linguistic research and teaching and in learning languages practice tradition and history. These were instead, so obliterated in the Eastern block countries. I cannot say other thing, regarding myself, as a language addict, as a teacher and researcher (I hope, with the same degree of addiction!), that, in the British and American school of thought, with languages and teaching methodology and everything related, I feel at home! It is not an exaggeration, but I feel, obviously, more at home than in my own culture. Generally, linguists, researchers and artists, just like any other passionate professionals are able to understand this perfectly, that there is an absolute must for someone, to get “transferred” totally into the realm that they are supposed to be studying and approaching, that there is need for psychic transposing to other dimensions, that in the world of letters, words, like in other artistic worlds, we need to feel more “at home” than everywhere, if we wish to achieve something and to make a difference). Personality transfer is a reality when we enter the realm of languages, just like the processes of empathy and identification.
Rinvolucri, Mario, Davis, P., Confidence Book: Building Trust in the Language Classroom, Longman Publishing Group, October, 1990.
Arnold, J. (1999), Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge University Press
Arnold, J (1998), Towards more humanistic English teaching, ELT Journal
Gadd, Nick (1998), Towards less humanistic language teaching, ELT Journal 52:3, 223-234
Harmer, Jeremy, The Practice of English Language Teaching, Pearson Longman, fourth edition, 2007
Canale, M&M, Swain, 1980(b). Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing, Applied Linguistics
Please check the How the Motivate your Students course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Building Positive Group Dynamics course at Pilgrims website.
|
