Reflections on the Virtual Classroom and Education under COVID-19*

Twenty-five years ago Deborah Britzman (1995) asked “what does education need to learn from the pandemic known as AIDS and from the political demands of those who live at or beyond the sexual limits?” Although much has changed in the politics of cultural knowledge and social fiction surrounding the AIDS pandemic, and some progress has been made on the political demands of those who live at or beyond the sexual limits in some parts of the globe; could there be a similar political and cultural crisis today in the current conditions and the local narratives associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and with the lives of those who live at or beyond the sexual limits? The current COVID-19 crisis is an opportunity to pursue better politics, economies, societies and pedagogies – in which sustainable, equitable and democratic solutions are central – and to critically confront unsustainable reproductions of socially and politically subjugated life and work norms that define our humanity. This crisis will continue to trouble and drive us to look more deeply into our hierarchical systems, institutions and relationships that sustain economic and social inequalities governed by heteropatriarchal regimes and nurtured by normative and heterocentric limiting practices in education.

As we replaced physical classrooms with virtual ones overnight, the COVID-19 pandemic has certainly forced many educators to reflect on the dynamics of teaching and rethink the limits of learning and knowledge (Britzman, 1995). Virtual modes of communication seemed to hold remote and polymorphous characteristics that came with techno-interactive pedagogical possibilities. It also required teachers to quickly adapt to these technologies and online classrooms while simultaneously struggling to navigate a variety of methodological challenges. This hybridized contorted landscape restructured the very ecosystem and nature of teaching. What changes in a virtual classroom? How do we negotiate and navigate our identities and/or “non-normative educational desires” (Fraser & Lamble, 2015)? How do we fully engage with one another, embrace critical and creative thinking to create language and discourses that challenge and critique hierarchical social relations and issues? During online sessions and discussions, some students navigated effortlessly, some expressed a preference for face-to-face classroom sessions, and others seemed to have lost motivation and made irregular appearances. Holding class discussions in which, much of the time, students had no faces (as many participated without turning their cameras on) was a distinct challenge. I wonder how we will navigate the limits of thinking, learning and knowledge if we remain, partially or not, in virtual learning communities. Many of us now wonder how education will continue to be impacted, and how these hybridized experiences will inform educational institutions: what will our classrooms look like going forward? How will we socially position ourselves and map our classroom communities in a post COVID-19 life?

To reimagine our teaching practices means to reflect on curriculum, theories, methods and praxis; to reconsider a curriculum design that solely focuses on academic language skills and the testing of those skills using course books/materials that configure language as an entity devoid from the social realities, experiences and identities of students and our societies; to critically interrogate texts/images incorporated into language practice activities that perpetuate hegemonic and heteronormative discourses and representations of people; to reflect on what is at stake when we come across gender stereotypes in the pages of our course books – or sometimes, from the people in the classroom – that reinforce gender based differences without studying “the risks of normalization” (Luhmann, 2009). It also means being self-reflexive of our own responses to and alliance with hegemonic discourses.

Educators can utilize Queer Theory to address the challenges of normalization. Queer Theory allows educators to actively participate in raising awareness for a critical consciousness around such hegemonic discourses that define normalcy (Zacko-Smith & Smith, 2010) and question the ways in which identities are historically and culturally constituted and positioned (Watson, 2005). Looking at some of the positive outcomes of applying Queer Theory as a lens through which to look at systems and institutions, Halperin (2003) mentions that Queer Theory allows for reexamination of the relationship between gender and sexuality – not only as analytic categories, but also as lived experiences. Luhmann (2009) states that utilizing queer pedagogy involves not only examining normalization, but also, examining teaching and learning, whether subversive or not, and the limits of its very own pedagogical practices. Queer pedagogy allows for the interrogation of hegemonic discourses, ideologies and heteronormative constructions of sexuality by deconstructing (Curran, 2006) and reimagining social norms and values that “keep people from gender and sexual self-determination” (Miller, 2015).

The political and cultural crisis today in the current conditions and the local narratives associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and with the lives of those who live at or beyond the sexual limits is similar to the cultural knowledge and social fiction that had surrounded the AIDS pandemic.

As we reimagine learning, teaching and higher education post COVID-19, we are more dependent on the radical solidarity between students, educators and administrators to radically queer^[1] the curriculum and address the challenges of normalization as a way to disrupt heterocentric discourses, “open up spaces for non-normative educational desires to emerge” (Fraser & Lamble, 2015) and to collectively engage in building a more just world.

^[1] Queer is used as a verb. Please see Fraser & Lamble’s (2015) Queer Desires and Critical Pedagogies in Higher Education: Reflections on the Transformative Potential of Non-Normative Learning Desires in the Classroom for an exploration of a queer approach in higher education.

In the Shadows of Existence/Reconstruction, pencil drawing on paper, 24 x 33 cm, 2018 by L. Alp Akarçay

*This article was published in the 5th issue of TESOL in TURKEY Professional ELT Magazine Online. Webpage link: tesolturkey.net

Acknowledgement

Thank you to Jessmaya Morales for taking the time to read this and offer suggestions for editing from across the ocean, time zones apart and while in the midst of projects.

References

Britzman, D., (1995). Is there a Queer Pedagogy? Or, Stop Reading Straight. Educational Theory 45(2), 151-165.

Curran, G., (2006). Responding to Students’ Normative Questions about Gays: Putting Queer Theory into Practice in an Autralian ESL Class. The Forum, Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 5(1), 85-96.

Fraser, J., & Lamble, S., (2015). Queer Desires and Critical Pedagogies in Higher Education: Reflections on the Transformative Potential of Non-Normative Learning Desires in the Classroom. Journal of Feminist Scholarship 7(8), 61-77.

Halperin, D. M., (2003). The Normalization of Queer Theory. Journal of Homosexuality 45(2-4), 339-343.

Luhmann, S., (2009). Queering/Querying? Or Pedagogy is a Pretty Queer Thing. In Pinar, W. F. (Ed.), Queer Theory in Education. (pp.120-133). Taylor & Francis e-Library.

Miller, S. J., (2015). A Queer Literacy Framework Promoting A(Gender) and A(Sexuality) Self-Determination and Justice. English Journal 104(5), 37-44.

Watson, K., (2005). Queer Theory. Group-Analytic Society (London) 38(1), 67-81. 

Zacko-Smith, J. D., & Smith, G. P., (2010). Recognizing and Utilizing Queer Pedagogy. Multicultural Education, 2-9.

 

 

Gender- and Sexuality-Inclusive Curriculum (GSIC), an ELT Initiative – Collaboration with local professionals

On Saturday morning, May 25, Gender- and Sexuality-Inclusive Curriculum Task Group (GSIC) in collaboration with SUGender launched the GSIC ELT Initiative by conducting a meeting at Karaköy Minerva Palace with local ELT professionals and graduate students. Ten attendees were present in this first meeting. The participants gathered from Bahçeşehir, Beykent, Koç, Medeniyet, Medipol, MEF and Sabancı universities.

The GSIC ELT Initiative aims to make university-level ELT gender- and sexuality-inclusive in Istanbul. Earlier this year, the initiative invited local ELT professionals who are either doing research and working in this area or are interested in gender and sexuality topics to join the initiative. The initiative plans to have monthly meetings for a year and encourage collaboration among academics, instructors and ELT graduate students to develop materials that are gender and sexuality inclusive.

Why the need for this initiative?

The desire to do active work on queer inclusion in education, particularly in ELT, began when the task group members found common ground after a presentation on intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989) that they both attended, which sparked a series of conversations on gender and sexuality, heteronormativity¹, personal educational experiences and histories, and the common concern for the general lack of legitimate gender and sexuality representation and inclusion in learning and teaching environments. Heteronormative constructions often present a narrow view of identity that permeates many aspects of pedagogical materials and practices. By privileging heterosexuality, heteronormativity leads to misrepresentation, marginalization, and/or an ignorance of queer identities which could have detrimental implications, pedagogically and otherwise on people who identity as queer. It is important to include explicit and complex representations of non-normative identities in order to combat discrimination and raise awareness on how heteronormativity interacts within institutional systems and creates inequalities and oppression.

Initially the GSIC task group was formed to analyze the degree to which route four materials of the foundations development year are gender and sexuality inclusive in order to determine relevant and/or explicit strategies and approaches for better inclusion in existing materials. The task group found the materials limited in  representation of a wide spectrum of identities. This catapulted the group, with a sense of urgency, to endorse better inclusion within their local context by adopting Queer Theory² as an approach following Cynthia Nelson’s (1999) guidance that proposes to utilize inquiry and problematize all sexual identities rather than assert minority identity categories in order to allow for the participation of a variety of viewpoints and an investigation of a more diverse set of experiences and perspectives. To gain a wider perspective and insight on student sentiments and perceptions, the group decided to involve route four students in the research and designed a mini-lesson on content analysis to help identify how students understand subordinated (in particular, gender and sexual) identities represented, or not, in course materials. Following Nelson (1999), the group chose an inquiry-based approach informed by Queer Theory to analyze course texts and asked students to look at the identities represented and hidden (Vandrick, 1997) or lacking in the text and the identities represented and hidden (Vandrick, 1997) or lacking as the audience for the text. Apart from GSIC task group members, some SL instructors also participated in this research and although there were other SL instructors who expressed an interest, due to scheduling constraints, they were unable to participate.

To further extend the project to include collaborations with teachers and student teachers working or studying in ELT departments in local institutions, the group has been collaborating with SUGender on the GSIC ELT Initiative. The overall aim is to raise awareness and make ELT more inclusive.

First meeting: aims, expectations and some terminology  

We started our presentation with an introduction to the initiative’s mission and aims and shared our story with the attendees. We then invited the attendees to write down their expectations regarding the proposed monthly meetings; effectively working together as a cohesive group and attending meetings. We followed this with a whole group discussion. To provide an opportunity for some team-building and have the attendees start thinking about sexual and gender identities, we used the sample class discussion questions in Nelson’s article* (1999) for a group mingle activity. The participants shared and expressed their thoughts with one another in a lighthearted and non-threatening way.

In order to better understand and identify the needs of the participants joining the initiative, we designed a needs analysis survey. As some participants did not get the chance to take the survey before the meeting, we asked them to spend some time answering the questions. The results show that all teachers who took the survey had no training on LGBTQIA+ inclusive pedagogies/practice. They all stated that they would like to have training on LGBTQIA+ terminology, themes and issues. 66.7% said that they had not used materials that are inclusive of LGBTQIA+ people, topics and issues in their lessons. Of the 33.3% who used inclusive materials before, five stated that they adapted their institution’s or outside materials while only two stated that they designed their own materials. 75% responded that they had raised LGBTQIA+ themes and/or issues in class without planning. Some said that the topics arose as a result of student initiative, while others said that they avoid heteronormative inquiry and use gender-neutral language, impart positive and inclusive thinking, raise students’ awareness of sexism and address discrimination.

We followed this with a presentation on basic terminology on sexuality, focusing on defining gender identity and sexual orientation as distinct categories. Our next topic was intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989). Intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989) is a helpful tool in investigating heteronormativity and systems of oppression and inequities. Elizabeth Coleman kindly accepted our invitation to give a brief introduction to Crenshaw’s concept of intersectionality. Coleman shared a short definition of the concept, talked about how the concept emerged and explained it with a few examples. She mentioned that an individual may experience multiple forms of oppression and/or discrimination. She added that by taking into consideration how these identities overlap within a person, an intersectional approach helps in understanding the complex and multiple forms of disadvantages a person may face. Lastly, we talked about the importance of allyship and what defines an ally.

Both Justin and I chose three foundational articles each as suggested reading for the next meeting in June and gave short summaries of them. We also shared with the participants our online literature folder so that everyone could have easy access to the articles and invited all to share their own articles to add to the folder for future suggested reading. We proposed summer reading and invited everyone to make contributions to the reading list.

Future meetings will begin with discussion of literature to provide everyone foundational knowledge on queer topics in ELT and inspire ideas for developing materials. We found that this first meeting was very promising and productive. We are eagerly looking forward to our second meeting in June.

¹According to the European Institute for Gender Equality, heteronormativity refers to the assumption that everyone is heterosexual, privileging heterosexuality as the only natural sexuality and superior to others. Accessed May 2019.

²Queer Theory asks for an interruption of the limiting structures and forms of thinking created by heteronormativity to broaden the experiences of perception, interpretation, representation and imagination. (See Sumara & Davis, 1999)

References

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. The University of Chicago Legal Forum: Vol. 1989: Iss. 1, Article 8.

Homophobia and Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the EU Member States, European Institute of Gender Equality, 2009. http://www.eige.europa.eu/thesaurus/terms/1237. Accessed May 2019.

Nelson, D. C. (1999). Sexual identities in ESL: Queer Theory and classroom inquiry. TESOL Quarterly 33(3), 371-391.

Nelson, D. C. (2002). Why Queer Theory is Useful in Teaching: A Perspective from English as a Second Language. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 14(2):43-53

Sumara, D. & Davis, B. (1999). Interrupting Heteronormativity: Toward a Queer Curriculum Theory. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(2), 191-208

Vandrick, S. (1997). The Role of Hidden Identities in the Postsecondary ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly 31(1), 153-157.

*Guess the Question activity: We are including the activity instructions and the set of questions here for those who might be interested in using them in their classes.

Each participant receives a slip of paper with a question to stick to another person’s forehead. The task is to mingle for ten minutes and guess the question by listening to how people are responding to their question. Some two or three part questions were separated and some were adapted to also include gender. Thus, there are more questions than those provided in the article.

• In this country, what do people do or say (or not do or say) if they want to be seen as gay [lesbian] [straight]?
• In this country, people may do or say (or not do or say) certain things if they want to be seen as gay [lesbian] [straight]. How is this different in another country?
• In this country, people may do or say (or not do or say) certain things if they want to be seen as gay [lesbian] [straight]. How is this similar in another country?
• Why do people sometimes want to be seen as straight [bisexual] [lesbian]?
• Why do people sometimes not want to be seen as straight [bisexual] [lesbian]?
• Why do people sometimes want to be able to identify others as straight [gay] [bisexual]?
• When is it important to identify someone as straight [gay] [bisexual]?
• When is it not important to identify someone as straight [gay] [bisexual]?
• Is it easy to identify someone as gay [straight] [lesbian]? Why or why not?
• Does it make a difference if a person is old or young, a man or a woman, someone you know or someone you only observe to identify them as gay [straight] [lesbian]?
• What things can make it easier or more difficult to identify someone as gay [straight] [lesbian]?
• Are there people who think their sexual identity is more [less] important than another part of their identity? Explain.
• In this country [in this city], which sexual identities seem natural or acceptable?
• In this country [in this city], which sexual identities do not seem natural or acceptable?
• How can you tell which sexual identities seem natural or acceptable in this country [in this city]?
• How can you tell which sexual identities do not seem natural or acceptable in this country [in this city]?
• After people move to this country, do they change how they think about sexual identities? If so, how? If not, why not?
• Are there people who think their gender identity is more [less] important than another part of their identity? Explain.
• What things can make it easier or more difficult to identify someone as trans [non-binary] [cisgender]?
• Is it easy to identify someone as trans [non-binary] [cisgender]? Why or why not?
• When is it important to identify someone as trans [non-binary] [cisgender]?L
• When is it not important to identify someone as trans [non-binary] [cisgender]?

Link to Sabancı University School of Languages blog post:

https://sl.sabanciuniv.edu/sl-blogs/gender-and-sexuality-inclusive-curriculum

GSIC* at TEVITÖL on LGBTQIA+ Terminology

“Why do pronouns or gender and sexuality issues matter?”

Learning is about disruption and opening up to further learning, not closure and satisfaction. -Kevin Kumashiro

One student in the middle row raised her hand and asked, “I don’t understand why these issues, like the pronouns people use, are so important and that we need to take these seriously. I mean when there are so many problems in the world that need addressing, why do we have to think of gender and sexuality issues as important?” Justin and I looked at each other briefly after the student posed this question. It was disheartening to hear someone exerting almost a resentful opinion. The voice was indignant, asserting a  stance against LGBTQIA+ issues being everyone’s issues. “We are certainly not saying LGBTQIA+ issues are more important than other issues. There are many problems in the world that indeed we should be aware of and address. What we are saying is that LGBTQIA+ people have historically been a minority group in the world who have systematically been discriminated against and whose voices have repeatedly been silenced; that LGBTQIA+ people constantly have to fight for their basic human rights, and in some places they have been criminalized for being who they are. There are so many problems in the world, we are not saying this is the most important problem, what we are saying is that discrimination against LGBTQIA+ people is real” Justin replied. After our talk, the student approached Justin and apologized for sounding aggressive and stated that they themself had questioned their sexual orientation and requested a certificate and wanted to stand in solidarity as an ally.

There were many inquisitive questions that TEVITÖL high school students asked us, questions that ranged from why there is a need for the word queer since the acronym LGBTQIA+ stands to mean the same, to what it is like to transition in Turkey legally. Our audience was engaged, very attentive and eager to share their thoughts and perspectives with us when we posed them questions. We were thrilled to openly discuss gender and sexuality categories with them.

Considering high school age an important time when many youth might begin to explore or question their own sexual and gender identities, but are rarely afforded the affirming resources or opportunities to do so, being invited to give a talk on LGBTQIA+ terminology was indeed a great opportunity to help provide an avenue to discuss gender and sexuality topics with the students. Many educational systems and institutions exercise and augment heteronormative structures and reinforce limiting beliefs of categorizing and seeing the world we live in. Societal and cultural heteronormativity expands into curricula in restrictive analyses and definitions of the concepts of gender and sexuality and often deprives youth from even a fair exposure to non-normative information on the fundamentals of human existence, on topics relating to understanding one’s relationship to the self and to others while exploring gender and sexuality as a spectrum rather than a binary. For those students who may identify as LGBTQIA+, the lack of legitimate representation can be deeply damaging and may easily result in an all-consuming internal struggle not only to sustain and affirm their identities, but also to cope with the feeling of exclusion and injustice as subjects vulnerable to discrimination or oppression.

Yağmur, a TEVITÖL student, invited us to give the talk at her school. Yağmur got in touch with us through Sibel Şimşek, an SL instructor. Yağmur is Sibel’s daughter and she had heard about the workshop we gave at SL on LGBTQIA+ common terms and was interested to have us give a similar talk on the same topic at her school. TEVITÖL is a boarding school for gifted and talented students, located in a beautiful lush green landscape by the sea in Gebze, Kocaeli. Once we arrived on campus, Yağmur, a very welcoming student, took us on a tour, sharing with us bits and pieces of history and stories relating to the people and various buildings along with the current issues and ensuing changes at the school. As we arrived at the building the auditorium was located in, she showed us an art exhibition in the gallery where some of her very creative artwork was on display.

We structured our talk, LGBTQIA+ Terminology, Common Terms in Use, in two parts: Sex vs. gender and sexuality. Closing with the importance of allyship, we invited students to make a pledge. This involved giving away postcard-sized cards that contained the words “I’m an Ally.”  The idea behind this was that students could take away something physical to remind themselves of what it means to be LGBTQIA+ allies. Students could sign their names on these and pledge to be allies. The high level of interest in these pledges showed us that the reception to our talk was overwhelmingly positive. We wished we had prepared more pledges to give away as we rapidly ran out of them and did not have enough to give to all those who wanted one.

LGBTQIA+ Terminology, Common Terms in Use

Our talk was centered mainly around definitions on some common LGBTQIA+ terms. Opening the talk with the category of gender identity, I shared with the audience my gender identity, communicating the fact that I am a trans person who identifies as male and followed this with definitions for trans man and woman and continued with an explanation of the process of transitioning and the importance of pronouns for trans people. Afterwards, I talked about the difference between sex and gender, gender identity and gender expression, and finally about concepts such as cisgender (not transgender), before speaking about transphobia and LGBTQIA+ bullying. In the second half, Justin shared his own coming out story and what this experience was like for him. He then talked about the difference between sexuality and sexual orientation and gave a variety of examples of sexual orientations. He explained what the letter Q in LGBTQIA+ stands for before talking about heteronormativity and how it may manifest. He then shared some ways in which oppression may function and the semantics of microagression, using an example to demonstrate how some common phrases may be insulting on an unintentional or subtle level. We then invited students to ask questions.

We asked students to share their thoughts on how they found the talk by filling out an online feedback form. It is worth noting what some students said in response to the question: In what ways has this workshop helped you in your understanding of inclusivity or diversity?

Hearing about LGBTQIA+ from LGBTQIA+ people is quite an opportunity to get rid of all the question marks about the LGBTQIA+ community; I learned about the gender spectrum and LGBTQIA+ terminology, I learned how to be an ally!; I noticed that I had known nothing about gender; I figured out that I am not the only one who gets in trouble with his/her/zer pronouns; The emotional aspects regarding the lives of LGBTQIA+ people; It made me understand the terminology which I had no idea about before.

It was wonderful to be invited to such a unique high school to talk about LGBTQIA+ terms with students and equally wonderful to have an audience who was attentive and asked inquisitive and insightful questions. We found the experience to be rewarding and enjoyed our time with the exceptional TEVITÖL faculty and students.

Many thanks to Yağmur Şimşek for recognizing the importance of LGBTQIA+ issues and striving to do proactive work on educating her peers on LGBTQIA+ people and issues as well as to the school’s counselor Betül Büyük and TEVITÖL for acknowledging the significance of creating a supportive learning environment that is accepting of and safe for queer students by providing a platform to discuss LGBTQIA+ topics and inviting us to give the talk.

Reference

Kumashiro, K. K. (2000). Toward a Theory of Anti-Oppressive Education. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 25–53.

*GSIC (Gender- and Sexuality-Inclusive Curriculum)

April 23, 2019

Link to Sabancı University School of Languages blog post:

https://sl.sabanciuniv.edu/sl-blogs/gsic-tevitol-lgbtqia-terminology

 

A Review: On Intersectionality and Academic Drag

The abstract for Elizabeth Coleman’s presentation, “On Intersectionality and Academic Drag,” stood out from the SL Pathways that Inspire Us conference program. It was not your everyday conference presentation title in ELT, and a topic, rarely, if ever, explored in EFL teaching contexts in Turkey. I had the opportunity to both attend the presentation and later interview Ms. Coleman as part of our SL conference May 4-5, 2018. I offer a review here of her presentation for those who were not in attendance, recognizing a need and an urgency to be part of creating opportunities for the discussions started in Ms. Coleman’s presentation to continue.

Coleman based her presentation on Kimberlé Crenshaw’s theory of “Intersectionality” and shared a brief introduction to the concept. She pointed out that although this is a theory unfamiliar to most educators, an intersectional approach could really help us unpack and understand the tensions that arise between groups. By understanding how multiple identities interact and/or combine within one individual and how our needs to assert those identities come into play in group politics, educators are better equipped to address the sociocultural needs of our learners. While Crenshaw’s theory of Intersectionality was feminist critique of legal theory and the inadequacy of anti-discrimination laws to address the particular and complex ways that women of color were discriminated against (both as women and as black women); Crenshaw’s concept of intersectionality has been adopted in various academic disciplines and movements to explore a range of intersecting and overlapping identities, and how our identifications create a set of unique experiences and inform our individual needs and perspectives on the world.

Coleman defined the term “academic drag” as a constructed image of professionalism teachers don and perform. As employees of institutions that value an image of teacher devoid from individuality and/or uniqueness, we must convincingly perform the role of teacher in ways that fit the rules of appropriate identities as determined by the academy. Putting on this academic drag, we deny the multifaceted nature of our identity, and learn to silence and/or subdue those dimensions deemed unacceptable to the academy. Drawing a connection between Intersectionality and academic drag, Coleman pointed to how an intersectional approach can provide ways to help us bring our whole selves, or full identity, as Coleman put it, into our professional contexts.

To stress the importance of the expression of a full identity, Coleman mentioned researchers Cynthia Nelson — who examined queer students’ experiences, and the effects that hiding parts of their identities had on them, and Gust Yep — who looked at the harm caused by heteronormativity and used the term “soul murder” to describe the suppression and denial of the many parts of ourselves. Coleman pointed out that adhering to academic drag might mean that teachers choose not to deal with or address problematic gendered social attitudes and situations when they arise in our classrooms, but continue teaching instead, effectively forcing compliance with heteronormative hegemony.

Taking the present sociopolitical climate in Turkey into consideration, Coleman reflected on her own experience of teaching in a post-Gezi, pre-coup Turkey and how much she enjoyed giving students the task to write stories for imaginary couples that included more homosexual than heterosexual couples. From the positive reactions and the tone in which students wrote their stories, Coleman’s conclusion was that we can trust our learners to investigate norms they are told to comply with, and we can also trust ourselves to subvert those narratives. While I am in agreement that it has become more difficult and uncomfortable to challenge hegemonic/oppressive narratives, there is no time like the present. It is important to persist in raising consciousness in ways that call into question the academic drag we simply assume that we have to wear in order to be professionals.

To help her presentation attendees reflect, Coleman posed the question “Who are you?” to the audience. She then asked us to make a list of our identities, and to find points of both intersections and diversions in an effort to guide us into noticing the ones we hide as part of our academic drag. She talked about some of the identities she herself hides, and how all of her identities and experiences affect her interactions with students. As a minor point of critique, I think Coleman might perhaps have facilitated this list-making process differently in order to make it more accessible to all the participants in the audience (some people may not be accustomed to categorizing themselves with identity labels). For instance, asking participants to consider the various roles they play in life, and then perhaps facilitating the rest of her steps in ways that were experiential. I am stressing this not because I do not believe in asserting our identities, but because of the need to consider the existence of a broad spectrum of knowing and knowledge on the subject that the audience may bring.

Coleman ended her presentation with the suggestion to us educators to find ways to blend our identities with our academic drag, and challenged us to make our everyday academic drag more representative of us.

My take away? Hiding parts of our identities as teachers results in a denial of the pieces of our human existence not only to ourselves but to our students and colleagues. As long-time educator and writer Parker J. Palmer has passionately pointed out, if teachers are not supported to explore their own inner life, they cannot bring their full selves to the learning environment (2007, p.6). This creates what Palmer (p.65) calls a “culture of disconnection,” if we look at it from the perspective of a culture that places a higher value on analyzing by ‘thinking the world apart’ instead of ‘thinking the world together.’ Palmer explains that the latter would mean to “develop a more capacious habit of mind that supports the capacity for connectedness on which good teaching depends.”

It is exciting that SL was willing to open up space for discussion on queer topics in the Turkish EFL context. Acceptance and a ground for inclusiveness of all of the parts of our intersecting identities — in both ourselves as teachers and administrators, as well as our students — creates smarter, funnier, kinder, more human institutions that we can all thrive in. Having these conversations is integral to learning and teaching.

Many thanks to SL for acknowledging and recognizing the importance of discussing these issues, and to Elizabeth Coleman for starting the conversation. Here is to the hope that the ripple effect of inclusivity will continue to widen, wave, and ripple out some more.

Lukka (S.) Akarçay
May 2018

Reference

Palmer, J. P. (2007). The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass.

______________________________________

Link to Sabancı University School of Languages blog post: A Review: On Intersectionality and Academic Drag

Cultural Awareness Workshop at Putney*

ESOL Workshop and Teacher Orientations at The Putney School Summer Program

This summer, I’m going to be teaching an ESOL workshop to a small group of international high school students at The Putney School Summer Program in Southern Vermont. The ESOL workshop aims to provide international students an immersive language learning experience. They will take various art studio classes with American students during the afternoons and have English language classes in the mornings to practice and work on developing their English language skills.

The summer faculty, bringing a diversity of experiences and art practices, arrived at The Putney School from a variety of locations: California, Maryland, North Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Northampton, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont. While some of the faculty will be teaching at the Summer Programs for the first time, others are returning for another summer.

The Putney School is a private high school located in a peaceful, green and inspiring hilltop at Putney, Vermont that houses its own working dairy farm, horse barn and several gardens which some of the food on campus is supplied from.

Cultural Awareness Workshop

I recently attended two days of the orientation for faculty where I had the chance to explore the Putney hiking trails, meet and chat with most of the faculty, and enjoy delicious food both on campus and at the Putney Mountain trail head. Hiking to the summit, much to my happy surprise momentarily reminded me of the Mediterranean landscape features on the Lycian Way in the South of Turkey. I was transported, in one instance, by stepping on largish rock structures right near the summit!

As part of the orientations, I was asked to lead a twenty – thirty minute workshop on cultural awareness for teachers and staff. To understand cross-cultural contact and competence, it is helpful to reference the iceberg metaphor for culture. Many cultural elements are easily visible and sit at the tip of the iceberg while several are hidden from plain sight, living deep below the water/surface of the iceberg. Cross-cultural contact can occur by means of language such as in intonation, idiomatic expressions, register (formality versus informality), pronunciation, direct or indirect style of communication, and listening. Social norms, relationship to personal space, relationship to time and schedules, non-verbal interaction and cues such as facial expressions and levels of eye contact are some other ways by which cross-cultural contact, differences and communication breakdowns may emerge.

The main aim of this workshop was to provide participant teachers and staff ways to explore cross-cultural contact by utilizing three experiential activities¹ focusing on the areas of language and social norms that explore encounters with names, expressions and cross-cultural differences.

The following is the outline for the workshop:

Experiential Activity 1: Encounters with Names and their Meanings

Participants are divided into groups of five/six and are asked to imagine a scenario where they are at the grand opening of an international art exhibition, a biennial. Some artists are exhibiting at the biennial, while some are perhaps aspiring artists and are eager to meet other artists.

Each participant takes a slip of paper that has an English translation of the meaning of a Turkish name. The participants are not told this fact until the whole group reflection session.

Names on slips of paper
Waterfall	War	Leaf	September
Island	Hope	May I always be remembered	Loved from the heart
Thunderbolt	Loving moon	Revolution	Cute like a child
Ruler of the seas	Invitation	Mystery	The queen of roses
Dew	Offshore breeze	Flood of light	Full moon
Story	Early morning wind	Volcano

The task is to mingle for four-five minutes and meet as many artists and to remember as many of those names as possible.

Reflection: In order to help make the interactions a little challenging and move beyond just exchanging names, one thing that could have been helpful was to include an extra set of instructions. One way this could have been done was by giving talking points. Talking points such as the following could be included and participants could be asked to utilize at least one talking point before moving on to another interaction:

• Ask/describe what his/her work is about.
• Share thoughts on the exhibition in general.
• Ask/describe what her/his art process is like.

Feedback: Once the mingle ends, participants get back to their initial groups and spend three-four minutes talking about:

• who they met, what their names were
• what they observed about these interactions

Experiential Activity 2: Encounters with Expressions

In this activity, participants stay in the same groups or form new groups of five/six. One volunteer from each group receives a slip of paper with a French expression² translated into English. The volunteers are the only people who should know what is written on their papers. In this four-five minute conversation activity, the volunteer’s task is to initiate a conversation with her/his group on a topic of his/her choice. S/he should use the expression during the conversation, but should not translate the meaning.

Expressions on slips of paper

Use this expression in conversation. Don’t explain the meaning. “I’m not in my plate.” (Meaning: to feel bad)

Use this expression in conversation. Don’t explain the meaning. “It’s taking my head.” (Meaning: It drives me crazy)

Use this expression in conversation. Don’t explain the meaning. “I’m struck by lightning.” (Meaning: falling madly in love)

Use this expression in conversation. Don’t explain the meaning. “I have bread on the board.” (Meaning: I have a lot on my plate)

Use this expression in conversation. Don’t explain the meaning. “I have a blue fear.” (Meaning: to be afraid of something)

Use this expression in conversation. Don’t explain the meaning. “I have a bowl full of it.” (Meaning: fed up with something)

Feedback: Once the conversation ends, participants reflect on the experience by sharing their observations with one another in their small groups.

Experiential Activity 3: Meeting Cross-Cultural Differences

This time the participants are split into two big groups. One group is given a set of instructions reflective of a low context culture while the other group is given a set of instructions reflective of a high context culture.

Group A’s Set of Instructions	Group B’s Set of Instructions
A.   High Context Culture	B.   Low Context Culture
·A meeting needs to start with connecting. Offer some tea, make chit chat before talking about anything work related. ·Make little or no eye contact. ·Sit or stand very close to the other person. ·Things don’t need to be spelled out explicitly. Communicate in indirect ways.	·A meeting needs to start on time and end on time. ·Make direct eye contact. ·Maintain an arms length of distance. ·Things need to be fully spelled out. Communicate in direct ways.

They are asked to imagine a scenario where they need to have a short meeting (four-five minutes) with a new colleague. In the Putney School context, I asked the participants to think about the teacher and apprentice teacher meetings they were going to have later on that day.

Once everyone understood their role, they were given the option to choose to role-play one or all four of the norms listed in the instructions. Each person is to then pair up with one person from the other group and start his/her meeting.

Feedback: Once the conversation ends, participants get into groups of five/six and

• reflect on the experience by sharing their observations with one another and
• brainstorm top three strategies for dealing with cross-cultural contact.

In the wrap-up, participants share with the whole group the feedback discussions they had within their smaller group.

Variation 1: The workshop could end with a discussion about the culture iceberg and locating these cross-cultural contact experiences within the iceberg.

Variation 2: The workshop could end with a written component asking participants to share strategies for dealing with cross-cultural contact and/or provide feedback on the workshop.

Observations and Reflection

Overall, the activities flowed well and allowed the participants to engage in cross-cultural contact in lighthearted and non-threatening ways. Verbal feedback from participants regarding the activities was positive. One feedback about the ‘Encounters with Expressions’ activity was that all group members organically started using the translated expression in their conversation.

The meaning of a name could presumably carry many sociocultural layers and provide a deeper understanding of a culture, the society and possibly the naming traditions of that culture. In a cross-cultural experience, these layers may not be immediately noticeable. A name, highly visible, sits on the tip of the iceberg. Perceiving the meaning of a name, through further connection and dialog, allows us to see what may be hidden and below the surface of the iceberg.

One point to consider is the inclusion of a set of reflection questions for the final whole group discussion in order to give the group enough reflective time to discuss strategies for dealing with cross-cultural contact.

During this experiential activity, the participants did not know that they were sharing the meanings of some Turkish names translated into English. Most Turkish names have meanings and a lot are nature-based such as a name meaning ‘offshore breeze.’ As a Turkish person facilitating this workshop and coming from what could be considered a high context culture, the aim was to raise awareness and noticing of the meanings and cultural layers involved in names/name giving in a fun way. A set of reflection questions could follow this activity:

• What happened when you exchanged names?
• How did people react / respond to your name? How did you react / respond to other people’s names?
• What did you notice about the names you heard?

At the end, I shared with the participants that one of these names was the translation of the meaning of my own name (loving moon) and that all were translations of meanings of Turkish names. One way to conclude could have been to ask everyone to share with the group their assigned name and invite reflections:

• What did you notice about the meanings of these names?
• How could this insight help you in cross-cultural contact?

To conclude, as a bilingual Turkish person living in the US for now almost two years and exploring my own linguistic and sociocultural experiences, this has been a self-reflexive process, adding another cross-cultural dimension to the workshop.

*A shorter version of this article was published in IATEFL’s Voices magazine, January-February 2018, Issue 260.

¹This workshop was collaboratively developed with my former SIT classmate and teaching colleague, Jessmaya Morales, who generously  brainstormed with me, posed great questions and reflected with me on cross-cultural differences prior to the workshop, all of which inspired and contributed a great deal to the reflective planning process and to the design of this workshop.

²The expressions are gathered from the list “Twenty-one French expressions that will make you laugh” by Jonathan Ducretot.  Available from https://matadornetwork.com/read/21-french-expressions-will-make-laugh/

TPR and reflections from a learner’s perspective

Language teaching and learning has seen a variety of methods and techniques since the The Grammar-Translation Method. There are so many methodologies and innovations to language teaching and learning. In this post, I’d like to go back in time method-wise and focus a little on TPR (Total Physical Response developed in the 60’s and 70’s) and share a recent experience I had as a learner in a beginner Spanish language class.

Total physical response came about from the belief that a foreign language could best be learned by lots of exposure to the target language. The emphasis is on a great deal of listening in the beginning stages of learning the target language. The argument put forward for this was that if you observe the way babies learn their mother tongue, they actually spend a long time soaking in the sounds and words before they are ready and can begin to reproduce the sounds and words they hear around them. This stress free low anxiety listening/exposure period allows the learner enough time to internalize the foreign language without being pressured to speak it right away.

Much like Desuggestopedia there is a sense of importance placed on a reduced affective filter to boost learning. Both methods are similar in the idea that learning is made easier when students are relaxed and when attention is given to using the language without a focus on grammar, and that eventually and gradually students would naturally absorb the forms and linguistic rules of the target language.

I’ve never taken a formal Spanish language class before and upon hearing that a language course nearby would be offering a beginner demo lesson, I immediately was interested and decided to have the experience. My Spanish language learning experience up to that point has been very irregular. It is an ongoing venture, an on and off practice and an effort to learn it mostly on my own. I often take long breaks which can last for several months. This is just to give you an idea of my Spanish learning endeavor. I would say I’m at beginner-elementary stage.

The lesson was very interactive right from the beginning. Engagement of the learners was built in the lesson with an emphasis on learner presence, enjoyment and physical actions. Grammar was not the focus. The teacher used a great deal of realia, repetition, humor, and a kinaesthetic / TPR approach. The students participated with physical actions, laughter, exclamations, and with a lot of repetition of words, phrases and simple questions. The lesson ended with volunteer students enacting a teacher led fun skit as the other students described and talked about the actions and feelings in the story being enacted.

From a language learner perspective, I realized as a beginner Spanish language learner, especially in a language class where you are with a group of other learners, it is important to feel relaxed. When students were called for an answer to a question for instance, this was not anxiety producing at all due to the questions requiring simple answers in words or phrases and the comprehensible repetitive focus on the language at hand. Another helpful factor for me was the meeting of visuals with the physical actions. This seems to me to have aided the learning experience and made it memorable.

From a language learner viewpoint, would a TPR approach be just as exciting and helpful, if I were an intermediate level learner, for instance? From a teaching perspective, I do wonder whether it is really necessary to carry around and utilize so much realia to teach a language?

I’d like to end this post with the following photo (from April 2015) I took by the Gelidonia lighthouse on the Lycian Way in the South of Turkey.  Located between Adrasan and Kumluca, the lighthouse was built around 1934 and overlooks this amazing, breathtaking and peaceful Mediterranean seascape. I feel this photo quite represents one of the principles of the TPR approach that learning is enhanced when there is low anxiety, don’t you?

References

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000) Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Second Edition. Oxford University Press.

Negative Prefixes & Cuisenaire Rods: A Recent Teaching Demo

Recently, I was asked to do a thirty minute demo lesson for a language institution in the U.S. I didn’t know much about the students I was going to teach, but was told that there would probably be about 5 to 10 students ranging from A2 – B1 language level (according to CEFR*). Because the institution heard about my interest and research on utilizing Cuisenaire Rods** in language teaching, they requested I do a demo around the rods. I decided to revisit a lesson I did years ago which became the departure point for this demo with some revisions. On demo day,  representing probably more than three nationalities, a diverse group of six university students showed up.

This lesson focuses on the subtlety of using four negative prefixes (im-, in-, ir-, un-) to change the meaning of a word.

My main aim:  students will be able to use Cuisenaire rods to associate words with negative prefixes by talking about a personal experience using a few negative prefixes.

My sub aims: Students will be able to

1. utilize Cuisenaire rods to form visual/color associations with four negative prefixes.
2. differentiate between four negative prefixes when matching them with a set of 20-25 words.
3. talk about a personal experience using at least 3 words with negative prefixes.
4. correctly identify the negative prefixes for selected words from the lesson’s story.

The following is my lesson outline:

1. Teacher writes the following words on the board and checks their meanings with students:

convenient / necessary / pleasant / possible / sure / usual / visible / adequate / responsible

(Checking meaning could potentially take a while, but the key is to keep it short. Students could be asked to think of a synonym and the teacher could point to each word going around the class asking a different student each time to offer a guess for each word. These guesses could go up on the board. Another way to keep this stage short could be by having an equal number of synonyms on the board and asking students to match the synonyms to the words.)

2. Teacher tells/reads a story*** and asks students to listen very carefully to see if they can spot any of the words on the board, and asks how much of the story they remember later with questions like:

• What were the feelings being expressed in the story? / What feelings does the story evoke?
• Did I use all the words listed on the board? / Which of these words did I use?
• Did you like/dislike anything about the story?

3. Teacher introduces a box of Cuisenaire rods and asks a student to have fellow classmates pick one of each of the following colors:

light green / red / yellow / blue

4. Teacher writes the following prefixes on the board and assigns each prefix a color:

im- / yellow

in- / light green

ir- / blue

un- / red

5. Teacher asks students to hold up the right color rod every time she calls out a prefix. E.g.:

• For the prefix im- we’re going to use the ____ rod?
• What color rod are we going to use for the prefix im-?

(More practice in prefix-rod-color association could be made by the teacher holding up random rods one at a time with increased speed and varying order and having students say the prefix associated with each color)

6. Practice (form): Teacher shows a bag/box full of paper slips**** (with a word written on each) and asks students to pass it around. Each student pulls out a paper slip and reads the word out loud. Everyone guesses the correct prefix by holding up and showing the rod/color associated with their guesses.

7. Practice (form & meaning): Teacher asks students to think of a negative experience they had and share this story with the person sitting next to them.

Teacher asks students to share that story

• using at least 3 of these prefixes
• in at least 5 sentences

(The teacher could provide a short example here)

8. Students (volunteers) share with the whole group the story they listened to from their friend.

9. Review/Test: Teacher hands out a text of the story she shared in the beginning of class. Students work in pairs and use rods to fill the gaps for the missing prefixes in the story.

10. Checking answers: One student reads the whole story but whenever s/he comes to a gap, s/he reads the word without the prefix. The other students listen and hold up the rod they think is associated with the word.

The students were eager and greatly enjoyed the lesson. Some were using the rods for the first time so it was really exciting for them. One student found using the rods in place of the prefixes really helpful and an eye-opener into a tool that really focused her to see the change in the meaning of a word.

*CEFR is the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages is a framework of reference for learning, teaching and assessment of languages.

**Cuisenaire rods are small pieces of blocks (usually made of wood) of varying lengths from 1 to 10 cm with a 1cm² cross-section. Each length is a different color. These rods are flexible and versatile tools utilized by the language learner. They can easily represent many different situations,which the students themselves produce or interpret models, prepared by other learners or the teacher. As Roslyn Young (1995), an educator and English teacher states, rods “allow the teacher to construct non-ambiguous situations which are directly perceptible by all.” Due to their generic representation they “are easy to manipulate and can be used symbolically…they lend themselves as well to the construction of model houses and furniture, towns and cities, stations….” (Young, D. The Rods section, para. 1, 2).  – This is taken as is from my MA thesis titled, Cuisenaire Rods: Pedagogical and Relational Instruments for Language Learning. You can read it online here:

http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1522&context=ipp_collection

***The story told/read:

An Unusual Rock

She reached out to get the _____ usual piece of rock on the edge of the sea. At first, the waves got in the way and she picked up another rock instead. She looked at it and threw it back in the sea. That was not the rock she wanted. How _____ necessary, she thought, for the waves to behave in such an _____ convenient way. The waves were making it hard to see. “This is so _____ pleasant, it is too windy,” she complained. The rock was suddenly _____ visible. As the waves drew back, she spotted the _____ usual rock again and quickly bent down to grab it. She looked at the green sparkly rock. It was beautiful. As soon as she held it up in the air, it disappeared. “What happened?” she wondered, “where is my rock? Where did it go?” she started asking herself. “Is it _____ possible? No, no, it’s _____ possible!” She started looking around. She looked at the sea. It was not there. “Did the waves blow it away?” She felt _____ happy and decided to walk by the sea. Not very far from where she was, she saw a bird playing with something. Could it be her rock? She was _____ sure and walked closer to the bird. Yes, it was her green sparkling _____ usual rock in the bird’s beak!

An Unusual Rock –with Answers

She reached out to get the _un_ usual piece of rock on the edge of the sea. At first, the waves got in the way and she picked up another rock instead. She looked at it and threw it back in the sea. That was not the rock she wanted. How __un_ necessary, she thought, for the waves to behave in such an ___in__ convenient way. The waves were making it hard to see. “This is so ___un_ pleasant, it is too windy,” she complained. The rock was suddenly ___in_ visible. As the waves drew back, she spotted the ___un_ usual rock again and quickly bent down to grab it. She looked at the green sparkly rock. It was beautiful. As soon as she held it up in the air, it disappeared. “What happened?” she wondered, “where is my rock? Where did it go?” she started asking herself. “Is it _____ possible? No, no, it’s __im__ possible!” She started looking around. She looked at the sea. It was not there. “Did the waves blow it away?” She felt ___un_ happy and decided to walk by the sea. Not very far from where she was, she saw a bird playing with something. Could it be her rock? She was __un__ sure and walked closer to the bird. Yes, it was her green sparkling __un__ usual rock in the bird’s beak!

****words listed on paper slips:

usual                                  necessary                            convenient                            pleasant

visible                                possible                               content                                   sure

complete                           considerate                         experienced                          edible

adequate                           polite                                    mature                                   perfect

practical                            patient                                 healthy                                   important

common                            comfortable                       dependable                            reliable

responsible                       reversible