Reflection

We know that language is a dynamic system, but then the question of how to address this for learners arises; what exactly does this mean for language learning? In my own course of education within the LTS program, I’ve learned that this means that we can discuss language in non-finite terms, and present learners with situations in which language use may differ or act dynamically. I’ve also come to understand that language is not only dynamic in social spheres and across relationships and contexts, but it is also dynamic in terms of the individual learner and learner circumstances and choices. To demonstrate my growth in this area, I present the following four artifacts from my time in the LTS program that I believe represent my understanding of and adaptability to the dynamic system of language. These are a pragmatics-learning activity regarding the usage of idioms, a comparative context analysis paper, a video presentation about learner anxiety, and a lesson plan about two Japanese grammar points that impact meaning. In this way, the artifacts that I have selected demonstrate an understanding of this and an attempt to teach this dynamicity to learners and strategies to adapt. This is seen through the usage of multiple context roleplays in my pragmatics activity, the analysis of differing contexts in my context analysis paper, the consideration of learner-internal factors in language learning in the video presentation, and a choice in form in the Japanese grammar lesson.

In the pragmatics course, LT 538, I had the opportunity to work with two of my peers in developing an activity that attempts to teach students strategies to navigate dynamic social discourses. I worked with Anthony Delsanter and Ryan Wozniak to create an idiom-learning and practice activity. This activity aimed to teach students when and how to use idioms in workplace contexts where one has to accept or refuse working on a new project. Here, the IPIC model (AELRC, 2020) is used to raise learner awareness of idioms and their usage before learners are engaged in roleplay scenarios. These scenarios differ in the relationships that students will be roleplaying (e.g: boss-worker, coworkers, etc.) and whether they accept or refuse new work. In this way students are asked to participate in the dynamic world of language and to make decisions based on certain factors. For example, students might use an idiomatic expression when denying work with a coworker, but not with a boss. This activity demonstrates an attempt to teach learners how different contexts impact language usage as well as some strategies to function within these contexts. So, in attempting to teach students strategies to navigate dynamic language contexts, my group demonstrated competency in the area of language as a dynamic system.   

Within my comparative context analysis paper (CCA) from the language and context class, LT 534, I further demonstrate my understanding of the fluid nature of language by analyzing practices between an adult ESL context and university Indigenous language classes. My CCA paper compares these two contexts in terms of their affordances, constraints, and potential teaching/learning approaches. Within this paper, I take into account how these different contexts impact learning environments as well as learner goals, and I attempt to provide one with appropriate approaches for each context. For example, an Indigenous language learning context may benefit more from place-based learning (Brown & Lee, 2015; Smith, 2002) than an ESL course would, depending on the goals of the community and students within the class. In this way, I attempt to display the dynamicity of language learning and teaching, and how contexts impact the ways in which we teach, learn, and approach languages. 

The video presentation takes a more learner-centered focus to the dynamicity of language systems, and shows a more internal perspective of the dynamics of language systems. This presentation is a collaborative research project from LING 444, Second Language 

Acquisition (SLA), with Cameron Teubner-Keller about learner anxiety, willingness to communicate (WTC) (McCroskey & Baer, 1985) and how this impacts learning. Another driving focus of this project was how to address learner anxiety and lessen it to improve one’s learning experiences. This project addressed how learners’ anxiety and feelings towards using and learning a language can change based on one’s own feelings, experiences, and learning environment; in this way, this project demonstrates my consideration of an internal dynamic language system that varies between learners. We also provided some suggestions for how to account for student anxiety in one’s own classroom, and approaches to increase WTC. In this way, this project shows an understanding of how language can be dynamic within individual learners, and how one might address this in their own teaching. 

Similarly, my Japanese grammar lesson plan from LT 536, Design for Learning Language Systems, also shows a more individualized perspective of language as a dynamic system, but also considers more general fluidity as well. This lesson plan asks learners to consider using “could” and “should” (roughly translated) in different contexts, and to consider these cross-culturally. In this way, students are being asked to make choices in regards to their own subjectivity (Peirce, 1995) about what language they would use to describe or respond to certain situations. The individual learner choice here demonstrates the flexibility of language use and the internal dynamic language system. This lesson also requires students to think about these same statements cross-culturally, which further expands the realm of dynamic language contexts. In this way, this lesson plan demonstrates my ability to teach learners to adapt to new contexts and ways of discussion when the conversation requires it.

These artifacts demonstrate both my understanding of language as a complex, dynamic system as well as an application of this. I have also demonstrated an awareness of the fluid nature of language in regards to both learner-internal external factors, and I believe that these artifacts show my new skills in working within the dynamic systems of language. However, in the nature of language it will continue to change, and in order to effectively teach it I will have to monitor that change and re-address my methods as needed.

Artifacts