Author: mmyhal

Reading from the text book in a Tech Ed class is generally reserved for when the teacher is away. Shop time is valuable and reducing it so students can read from the class textbooks is a waste of that limited resource. There isn’t funding for each student to have their own text book anymore. There is some reading front loaded on the course to cover safety, but once that is done reading isn’t a large part of the learning anymore. Even subjects in Tech Ed that have more of a theoretical component, other forms of learning, rather than reading a text book, are what we have been trained to use while at BCIT learning to be Tech Teachers.

Questioning students to generate classroom discussion can be an effective learning technique and also allows the instructor to assess prior knowledge or reinforce what was taught previously. The assesment of knowledge and reinforcement is something I do already, however broader classroom discussions is something I have to work on. Admittedly such discussions have limited use in a Tech Ed classroom. There are not topics that lend themselves to that form of learning. Discussion can be used effectively when dealing with design problems. Then is a time when students are encouraged to free think and find creative solutions. I can see this potentially being a problem for me wanting to correct design flaws that the students need to find themselves.

This chapter got me wondering what language might be in Tech Ed that might cause trouble. Thinking back I don’t recall ever having difficulty with any related language. That might speak to the teaching of my teachers and their scaffolding ability or my facility with language terminology. Either or, keeping in mind that the students might not grasp the language is something important to keep in mind. There are few terms that I can think of that might be difficult. There are no really abstract concepts in Tech Ed , which is perhaps the appeal for many students.

This was an interesting read and I found the information on the break down of vocabulary into the four categories useful. Useful in a general knowledge sense that is. In a Tech Ed classroom there is little choice in the vocabulary that students must learn. This vocabulary will also not help their general literacy all that much as it is rather specific. There can be a link drawn between the actions performed with a tool and the tools name and things can be scaffolded through morphology that way. The development of word consciousness is well beyond the scope of a Tech Ed classroom. I realise that every teacher should be concerned with general language development, but that is a lower priority and unrelated to the development of the skills needed for Tech Ed, including it’s specific language. That said, I would prefer to have a student be able to use a tool with a great deal of competence then be able to spell its name correctly.

This article makes me wonder about it’s relevance to teaching shop. I found nothing that could be used in this article. It is a shame that students lack academic literacy skills. Ideally they should have that, I did, but then I didn’t have today’s students access to media. This is the root of my concern: as a shop teacher I am much more concerned about their lack technical skills. Academic language is not what some students of Technology Education are looking for. The shop is a refuge for them linguistically and those students have no desire to move on to post secondary and may go into the trades. It’s not that they are not smart, they just aren’t in that way.

The language of academic thinking is something that can be used in a shop class but can also easily be avoided as it is not needed for comprehension. There are brick words related to shop class but mortar words can be avoided entirely. There are some concepts say in electronics that would benefit from the use of academic language. It can be a little abstract. Of all shop subjects it is the one that has the most theoretical subject matter. Power Mechanics has some but it is stuff that can be seen with the naked eye. The movement of electrons, however, can not bee seen even with the tools available in public high schools making it more difficult to comprehend,thus the need for academic language.

While this was an interesting chapter, I see it having little relevance for me as a shop teacher. Language acquisition is largely associated with tasks. The tasks being more important,in general, than the language. This linkage though naturally would scaffold the language and repetition of exposure as the tasks are completed, instructions are read, and procedures discussed naturally reinforce the language acquisition. Shop class is not a lecture environment, if done right.

There are some useful things in there about rephrasing students responses though.

I just re-read the chapter to refresh myself on the content and again I am struck by how “lucky” I was to have been brought up in a well educated, middle class home.  Given my personality, that I tend to take the path of least resistance, if I did not have that advantage I may not have gone as far as I have in school.  Thinking back, I feel that sometimes the only reason I passed some courses was my understanding and ability to use academic language.

I agree with the author’s conclusion that accepting the students’ language and teaching them academic English should both be done.  Accepting their language will engage the students in class and their work, meanwhile the use of academic language should encouraged as it will be needed further on in their education.

Tying this into more current readings, I see no reason why this could not be done with ELLs, assuming the teacher is fluent in the mother tongue of the students.  Though, if done in a class setting, more time should be given to the subject as the class becomes both a class of what ever the subject is and a language course.