John Jordan

C4 Position Paper 1

I remember when in one of my classes at MIIS the topic of content-based instruction came upthe 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 womens 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 everexpanding 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 Gees (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 womens 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; its what lets us have anything to do with one another; its 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

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper 2

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 Liers statement. Language usershumansmake 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 (Thats why I say what Im 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)

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper 3

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 Liers (2004) definition of language, interwoven amongst themselves (p. 53). So language is complex, and while this complexity is partly due to languages 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 languages 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

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper 4

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 phrases 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 interlocutors reasons or rationale. These forms of one phrase can greatly shape the meaning of the utterance. Merging van Liers (2004) view of language and Larsen-Freemans (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 (Thats why I say what Im 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 Liers (2004) definition of language, we see that this complex meaning-making activity is entwined with all aspects of physical, social and symbolic

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper 5

worlds (p. 54). To help understand how language weaves into the worlds around it, I will employ Gees 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 Cents Thats why I say what Im 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 aint changed). Listeners understanding of and interactions with this piece of language are tied to the Discourse it comes from.

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper 6

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 LarsenFreemans (2003) form/meaning/use paradigm to better view it. Finally, language is situated in the physical and social world, a fact reflected by Gees (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 Discoursescan 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 languages 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,

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper 7

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 themit 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 worlds 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 Widdowsons (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
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 capableand indeed willingto work with genuine texts if given proper support. Finally, the daily communicative needs of certain learner populationsimmigrants and foreign students immersed in the target languagemay 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 Ive spent on the Web this year.

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper 8

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

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper 9

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 otherswhen 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 languages 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

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper 10

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. Pragmaticshow to use the languageis 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 Gees (2012) big-D Discourses. The differences of learner Discourses help shape learning, yet those memberships and relations to Discourses are not static. People construe themselvesor in Gees (2012) terms, be/do themselvesamong Discourses in an emergent fashion. Not only does ones 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

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper 11

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.

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper 12

Learners, with individual differences, interacted with their present environmentin this case the school, their fellow-students, teachers, and assignmentsand this environment interacted with each learners 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 peopleor 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 learnedby 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 languages 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

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.

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper 13

practice to illustrate these concepts, and add how both content-based instruction and genre instruction can help learners acquire new Discourses. 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 removedwhen students finally explain to a faculty memberlearners must make their own talking points. They are given material that is made easier to understand via repetition, discussion, and vocabulary assistancebut 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

John Jordan meaningfulness and interaction level increased. Fostering Language Awareness

C4 Position Paper 14

Another of Kumaravadivelus (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 awarenesshelping 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

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper 15

acceptance and denial of access to Discourses. I admit that the charge of Critical Pedagogyto challenge the power relations language brings with itis 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 learnersbasically, that students must learn to write in the standard variety, however unfair or unjustultimately 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 its 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, youre going to have to communicate them in SWE. (p. 53) Wallaces point echoes Gees (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.
4

Click here to read Wallaces whole spiel, rationale, and the pitfalls of such an approach.

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper 16

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 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 languages 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 contentthe workings of the credit crisisis 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

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper 17

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

John Jordan References

C4 Position Paper 18

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-giantpool-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.

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper 19

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. 130). 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.

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper 20

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.

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper 21

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, 223234. 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. Harpers 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 universitys Liberal Arts undergraduate program. Classes meet five days a week for 50 minutes, and the year was broken into three 15week 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 lowadvanced. 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 Crisis Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Video, Crisis of Review. Discourse Credit Practice markers in Visualized explaining to expository (CCV). peers in class. speech. Discussion, Representing Practice clarification. crisis visually. explaining Written CCV video with other summaries with handout. class. (homework). Reflection on what worked, what was difficult.

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

Friday Quiz. Final assignment explaining credit crisis to a faculty member given with description.

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper: Lesson Plan 23

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 worlds savings (listen here, from 9:05

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper: Lesson Plan 24

to 12:36; for a transcript, click here and scroll to, Well, to help explain what happened, heres 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 worlds savings led to a giant demand for investment. Two reporters and an economist offer the explanation. The second text is a 10minute 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 programs 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

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper: Lesson Plan 25

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 students 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.

John Jordan References

C4 Position Paper: Lesson Plan 26

Bloomberg, A. (Producer). (2009, September 27). This American life [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/390/return-to-the-giantpool-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 http://vimeo.com/3261363 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.

John Jordan Lesson Plan Outline Lesson Length: Two 50-minute periods over two days

C4 Position Paper: Lesson Plan 27

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)

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper: Lesson Plan 28 Lesson Script (Wednesday)

Time 5 mins

Stage Warm-up, review

Tasks/Teacher Instructions 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. Play Credit Crisis video (from 3:4410:44). 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). 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, anythingto explain the content in the handout. Model an example, drawing from the video, of CDOs and the boxes of mortgages.

Student Work Work in groups to match vocabulary items to definitions.

10-15 mins

Review of text from Tuesday

Watch video to review, listen for vocabulary just listened to

10-15 mins

Handout, visual representations.

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 Describe the cause of the going to visit another class and explain credit crisis to a classmate 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. 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.

2 mins

Homework

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper: Lesson Plan 29

Lesson Script (Thursday) Time 5 mins Stage Warm-up, review Tasks/Teacher Instructions Student Work One student narrates, others listen

15 minutes

20 minutes

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. Strategizing Ask students what they noticed from discourse presenter that made their speech more work to clear. Give handout on discourse markers give better in expository speech (Appendix F), and explanation 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. Peer Take students to the other class. Have explanation 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. Reflection, wrap-up

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

Explain mortgage/credit crisis to a peer.

10 mins

In four groups of three and one pair, have Students reflect on what students discuss what went well with the worked well and what did discussion, and what they noticed they not. 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 textsthe This American Life segment and the credit crisis videoand to study for them they can review the texts (they will have links) and the handouts in class.

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper: Lesson Plan 30 Appendix A Class syllabus

Academic Listening and Presentation (A) Syllabus Term 2

Faculty: John Jordan E-mail: jordan.auw@gmail.com Office: 20/G Office hours: 3:304:20 pm Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday Additional questions If 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.

Access Academy

Course Structure
Structure: Times & location:
Days: Sunday - Thursday

Combination of lectures, activities, in-class discussions and presentations.

Time: 1:30-2:20 Location: 20/G 402

Additional information Students 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 students 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

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper: Lesson Plan 31

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 Description
This 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 Objectives
After 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 individual conferences 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

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper: Lesson Plan 32

Content
Note: The instructor reserves the right to make alterations to this schedule at his discretion. Week # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Topic The environment Business and economics Development Natural Science Physical Science Health Spring Break Review/Presentations/Midterm tests/Conferences Review/Presentations/Midterm tests/Conferences Politics Religion Arts and Literature The Asian University for Women Power Point Review/Presentations/Final exams/Conferences Review/Presentations/Final exams/Conferences

Instructional Strategies
This 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 inclass 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 greater B 80% or greater C 70% or greater D 60% or greater F 59% or less

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper: Lesson Plan 33

Activity and assignment point values: Students grades will be based on the following: Homework: Quizzes: Tests/Presentations: Midterm: Final: 20 percent 15 percent 25 percent 15 percent 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.

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper: Lesson Plan 34

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

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper: Lesson Plan 35 Appendix C Credit Crisis Outline Handout

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper: Lesson Plan 36 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 worlds 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? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper: Lesson Plan 37

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper: Lesson Plan 38 Appendix E Vocabulary matching activity

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

to default

a loan taken out to buy a house

to borrow

an opportunity for money to grow

to foreclose

to take something with an agreement to give pay it back

the Fed the ability to borrow money a lender to stop making payments on a loan credit all the money the world is saving a mortgage a person or institution who loans investments money

the Global Pool of Money

the central bank of the United States

interest

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

John Jordan

C4 Position Paper: Lesson Plan 39 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 dont understand. 7. Be active Use eye-contact, facial expressions, gestures, and visual representations to engage your partner and read if they understand you.