logo

Teaching philosophy statement

My teaching philosophy is based upon the combination of my values and my beliefs of learners, language and learning and provides an excellent point to reflect on and organize teaching practice (Coppolla, 2002). My approach is eclectic and I draw on whatever method and means that will help my students achieve their goals and objectives in the most effective and efficient manner. Concepts that I regularly integrate into courses, include:

  • student-centred learning,
  • activity-based learning,
  • scaffolding through peer support,
  • autonomous learning,
  • blended learning and
  • flipped classrooms.

Two parallel teaching philosophy statements (TPS) are presented below. The first belief-based TPS was written based on introspective reflection for university administrators. The second research-based TPS was created based on actual practice and was created for purely self-developmental purposes.

1. Belief-based Teaching Philosophy Statement

I follow an essentially communicative approach based on humanistic views of education, cognitively-based views on the nature of language learning and sociocultural views on the nature of language.

Humanistic views of education

I adopt a learner-centred approach in which I teach each learner as an individual with differing needs, wants and lacks, which I try to meet. I view learners as a support network within which I encourage them to interact, help and evaluate themselves, each other and the learning process. To do this I try to develop self-reliance and a team spirit. I view learning as a process of self realization in which learners help select the methods and activities to achieve the objectives of the course. I emphasize meaningful communication. The texts I supplement courses with are either authentic or semi-authentic and the tasks are communicative. I see my role as a facilitator who is particularly concerned with creating a suitable class atmosphere. Although I follow a syllabus and use materials that are geared towards the students’ needs, where necessary I alter the syllabus and materials to ensure that an atmosphere conducive to learning is maintained. All interaction in the class is conducted in English. However, as a tool for raising awareness I encourage students to compare English with their first language. This is a way of attempting to reduce potential L1 interference by highlighting differences and so enabling learners to formulate hypotheses about English.

Cognitively-based views on the nature of language learning

I present tasks in a graded sequence from activities which demand less cognitive ability to those which are more demanding. I guide learners from context-embedded situations to context-reduced situations, enabling them to develop the necessary skills to use language in a variety of contexts. I incorporate both fluency-orientated work and accuracy work. The balance of this is dependent on the particular course. My expectations with respect to academic skills and fluency in English are based on the learners’ proficiency and general development in their first language. In short, poor communicators in their L1 are unlikely to be better communicators in their L2.

Sociocultural views of the nature of language

Not only do I help students learn the language code or the form of language, but also I enable learners to understand what to say to whom and how to say it appropriately in different situations. In short, I aim to develop their communicative competence rather than just their linguistic competence.

2. Research-based Teaching Philosophy Statement

Teaching philosophy statements are often declarations of beliefs interspersed with descriptions and metaphors. The disjuncture between the stated philosophy and actual teaching has been raised by numerous academics. To address this I created a research-based teaching philosophy statement through a systematic investigation of actual teaching practice. A retrospective think-aloud protocol was used to recount a lesson. The transcript was analysed, and teacher actions were identified, extracted and justified following pre-determined protocols. References to theoretical and empirical studies supporting or contradicting the justification were checked in the research literature. To counteract the potential self-bias, colleagues’ views on the reasons selected were surveyed. The discrepancy between the teacher’s justification of actions and the peer perspective revealed hitherto hidden idiosyncrasies and values. These values and the resultant teaching philosophy statement are summarized in the following sections.

Values
  1. Integrity: "zero distortion between words and actions"
  2. Inspiration: "spurring learners into action"
  3. Innovation: "always experimenting"
  4. Integration: "mixing management, eduction, computer science and linguistics"

My beliefs about language, learners and learning determine the choices made in the planning, preparation and delivery. Each of the following three sections lists specific actions that are part of my teaching repertoire and provides reasons and where available academic sources for the reason. The references given are ones that influenced me. My current teaching philosophy has evolved from this and when I make time for it, I will update this.

Beliefs about language

  1. Contextualise language: Cognition and context quadrants (Cummins, 1984), Language in context (Omaggio, 2001)
  2. Prioritise authentic language: Increased motivation (Peacock, 1997), Cooperative learning in Japan (Hart, 2001)
  3. Pitch language appropriately: Comprehensible input (Krashen,1985) cf. White (1987)
  4. Select language with coverage: 3000 words for 95% coverage (Liu Na and Nation, 1985)
  5. Emphasize academic language: Academic word list (Coxhead, 2000) Needs updating!
  6. Harness word lists: Vocabulary acquisition (Nation, 2002)
  7. Highlight grammar in context: Consciousness-raising activity (Thornbury, 1999)
  8. Use tasks: Interface hypothesis in task-based learning (Ellis, 2003)
  9. Focus on communication: Performance vs competence (Chomsky, 1965), Skill-getting and skill-using (Rivers, 1972), Communicative competence (Hymes, 1973), Usage and use (Widdowson, 1978), Communicative competence (Swain, 1985), Communicative syllabus (Yalden,1987)
  10. Focus on meaning: Speech Acts (Searle, 1975), Meaningful communication (Swain, 1993)
  11. Focus on form: Necessity of form in Communicative Language Teaching (Norris and Ortega, 2000)
  12. Focus on pronunciation: Suprasegmental importance (Munro and Derwing, 1999)
  13. Focus on appropriacy: Contextual appropriacy (Brown and Yule, 1983)
  14. Maximize usage of L2: Goal setting (Hollanders and Modell, 2011)
  15. Avoid teacher-induced errors: Interlanguage theory (Selinker, 1972)
  16. Anticipate common learner errors: 151 common errors (Webb, 2006) Needs updating!
  17. Show cultural differences and similarities: Post-method condition (Kumaravadivelu, 1994), Teaching by principles (Brown, 2001), Local perspectives (Murphy,2001), Japanese language policy (Butler and Iino, 2005), Reframing EL Education (Mantero and Iwai, 2005)
Beliefs about learners

To be continued

  1. Set high expectations: Expectancy effects (Cooper 1979), Self-fulfilling prophesy (Boehlert 2005)
  2. Clarify aims, objectives, assignments, materials and methods: Expectancy-value theory in education (Elkof, 2006)
  3. Identify and analyze needs: Target vs. Present Situation Analysis (Munby, 1978), Needs perception (Allwright, 1982), Goal- vs. process-orientated needs (Widdowson, 1987), Objective vs. subjective needs (Nunan, 1988)
  4. Individualize learning: Learner-centred curriculum (Nunan, 1988), Language learning beliefs inventory (Horwitz,1988), Learner differences (Skehan, 1991)
  5. Create positive learning environment: (Duffy & Jones, 1995), Acculturation model (Schumann, 1978; Zolt´n, 1998), Increase teacher immediacy (Gorham, 1988), Strive for flow via high-support, high-challenge (Csikzentmihaly, 1996), Integrative orientation (Noels, 2001)
  6. Inject humour: Lighthearted atmosphere (Hill, 1988), Relaxed atomsphere(Warnock, 1989) , Silly examples (Schwarz 1989), Importance of laughter (Walter, 1990), Lower language anxiety (Young,1991), Risk-friendly environment (Ames, 1992), Face saving(Ohata, 1995), Language games(Wright, Beteridge and Buckby, 2005)
Beliefs about learning
  1. Maximize interaction: Vocab acquisition and group rapport (Ellis, Tanaka and Yamazaki, 1994), Group dynamics (Dörnyei and Malderez, 1997), Interactive approach (Brown, 2001), Integrate grammar into skills work (Burns, 2009)
  2. Encourage critical thinking: Questioning techniques (King, 1995)
  3. Develop autonomy :Learner directedness (Dickinson and Carver, 1980), Sustainability doctrine (Swidler and Watkins, 2008), Incidental vocabulary acquisition (Laufer and Hulstijn, 2001), Feedback mechanism (Genessee and Upshur, 1996), Habit formation (one-a-day tasks) (Larson and Smalley, 1972)
  4. Assess and act on results: Authentic, Clarification, Focus (Scrivener, 1994), Formative assessments (Bachman and Palmer, 1996), Effective and ineffective praise(Hitz and Driscoll, 1989), Sugaring the pill (Hyland and Hyland, 2001), Uptake and learning (Allwright, 1984)
  5. Raise self-esteem and confidence: Encourage error-making behaviour using error-feedback cycle (Edge, 1989), Communicative drills (Rivers, 1987), Pygmalion effect (Rosenthal and Jacobsen, 1968), Self-fulfilling prophesy in higher education(Rhem, 1999)
  6. Integrate technology: Harness the novelty effect (Clark and Sugrue, 1991), Efficacy of media (Koumi, 1994), Stretch tasks and limits (Hill and Ford, 2000), Concordancing and vocabulary (Cobbs, 1997), Harness unique support capabilities online (Hastings and Tracey, 2005)
  7. Scaffold learning: Zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1934 cited in Yasnitsky, 2011), Development zone (balancing support and challenge (Gibbons, 2009), Collective scaffolding (Donato, 1994)
  8. Experiment: , Hawthorne effect(Olson, Verley, Santos and Salas, 1994), Demonstrate risk-taking behaviour by walking the talk (Crichton and LaBonte, 2003), Experiential learning (Rogers and Freiberg, 1994)
  9. Develop writers: Create learner support networks (Elbow, 1973), Focus on writing process (Zamel, 1982), Product-driven writing (Casanave, 1998)
References
  1. Allwright, D. (1984). Why don't learners learn what the teachers teach? The interaction hypothesis. In D. Singleton and D. Little (Eds.). Language learning in formal and informal contexts (pp.3-18). Dublin. IRAAL.
  2. Allwright, R. (1982). Perceiving and Pursuing Learner’s Needs. In M.Geddes and G. Sturtrigde (Eds.) Individualisation. Oxford: Modern English Publications.
  3. Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In J. L. Meece & D. H. Singleton and D. Little (Eds.). Language learning in formal and informal contexts (pp.3-18). Dublin. IRAAL.
  4. Bachman. L.F. & Palmer A.S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford University Press.
  5. Brown, D. H. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (3rd ed.) New York: Longman.
  6. Boehlert, M. (2005). Self-fulfilling prophecy. In S. W. Lee (Ed.), Encyclopedia of school psychology, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  7. Brown, G.A. & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the Spoken Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson.
  9. Burns, A (2009). Grammar and communicative language teaching: why, when and how to teach it. CamTESOL conference, Cambodia. 21-22 February, 2009.
  10. Butler, Y. G., & Iino, M. (2005). Current Japanese reforms in English language education: The 2003 Action Plan. Language Policy, 4, 25–45.
  11. Clark, R.E. & Sugrue, B.M. (1991). "Research on instructional media, 1978-1988" in G.J. Anglin (ed.) Instructional technology: past, present, and future ch.30 pp.327-343. (Libraries unlimited: Englewood, Colorado).
  12. Casanave, C. (1998). Procedural and conceptual parallels between student and teacher product-driven writing projects. JALT Journal, 20 (2) 90-103.
  13. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  14. Cobbs, T. (1997). Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing? System, 25 (3) 301-315.
  15. Coppolla, B. (2002). Writing a statement of teaching philosophy: Fashioning a framework for your classroom. Journal of the College of Science Teaching, 31 (7), 448-53.
  16. Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL quarterly, 34 (2): 213-238.
  17. Crichton, S. & LaBonte, R. (2003). Innovative practices for innovators: Walk the talk. Education, Technology and Society, 6, 1.
  18. Csikszentmihalyi, M . (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Perennial.
  19. Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
  20. Dickinson, L. & Carver, D. (1980). Learning how to learn: Steps towards self-direction in foreign language learning. ELT Journal, 35 (1), 1-7.
  21. Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. In J.P. Lantolf & G. Appel (eds) Collective scaffolding in second language learning. (pp.33-56). Ablex:Westport, CT.
  22. Dörnyei, Z & Malderez, A. (1997). Group dynamics and foreign language teaching. System 25 (1), 65-81.
  23. Duffy, D. K., & Jones, J. W. (1995). Creating magic in the classroom. In Teaching within the rhythms of the semester, (pp. 27-54). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  24. Edge, J. (1989). Mistakes and correction. London: Longman.
  25. Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York & London: Oxford University Press.
  26. Eklof, H. (2006). Development and validation of scores from an instrument measuring student test-taking motivation. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 66, 643-656.
  27. Ellis, R (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  28. Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y. & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449-491.
  29. Genesee, F. & Upshur, J.A. (1996). Classroom-based Evaluation in Second Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  30. Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviours and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53.
  31. Hart, N. (2001). Intra-group autonomy and authentic materials: a different approach to ELT in Japanese colleges and universities. System 30 (1), 33-46.
  32. Hastings, N. B. & Tracey, M. W. (2005). Does media affect learning: Where are we now? Tech Trends, 49 (2), 28-30.
  33. Gibbons, P, (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in the challenge zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  34. Hitz, R. & Driscoll, A. (1989). Praise in the Classroom. Eric Digests.
  35. Hollanders, E, & Modell, C. (2011). Goal setting in the Freshman English Classroom. CELE Journal, 19,1-14.
  36. Hill, D. J. (1988). Humor in the classroom: A handbook for teachers and other entertainers. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
  37. Hill, L. G. C., & Ford, K. (2000). Cross Conversations: To What Extent Should English Teachers Embrace Technology?. English Journal, 22-26.
  38. Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. Modern Language Journal, 72, 283-94.
  39. Hyland, F. & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 10, 185-212.
  40. Hymes, D. (1973). On Communicative Competence, in J.B. Pride and J. Homes (Eds). Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  41. King A. (1995). Inquiring Minds really do want to know: using questioning to teach critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22 (1): 13-1.
  42. Koumi, J. (1994). Media Comparison and Deployment: A Practitioner’s View. British Journal of Educational Technology, 25(1), 41-57.
  43. Krashen, S.D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman.
  44. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The post-method condition: (E)merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (1), 27-48.
  45. Larson, D. N., & Smalley, W. A. (1974). Becoming Bilingual: A Guide to Language Learning. William Carey Library.
  46. Laufer, B. & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: the construct of task-incuded involvement. Applied linguistics, 22 (1), 1-26.
  47. Liu Na and I.S.P. Nation. (1985). Factors affecting guessing vocabulary in context. RELC Journal 16, 1: 33-42.
  48. Mantero, M., & Iwai, Y. (2005). Reframing English language education in Japan. Asian EFL Journal, 7(2).
  49. Cooper, H. (1979). Pygmalion grows up: A model for teacher expectation communication, and performance influence. Review of Educational Research, 49, 389-410.
  50. Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. London: Cambridge University Press.
  51. Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1999). Foreign accent, cmprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 49 (1), 285-310.
  52. Murphy, J. (2001). A time for local perspectives. In J. Murphy & P. Byrd (Eds.), Understanding the courses we teach: Local perspectives on English language teaching. (pp. 3-10). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  53. Nation, P. (2002). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
  54. Noels, K.A. (2002). New orientations in language learning motivation: Towards a model of intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations and motivation. In R.C Gardner & D. Zolt’n (Eds.) Motivation and second language acquisition (pp.43-68). Honululu: Hawaii University of Hawai Press.
  55. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
  56. Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus design. Oxford; Oxford University Press.
  57. Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum: A study in second language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
  58. Ohata, K. (2005). Language anxiety from the teacher’s perspective: Interviews with seven experienced ESL/EFL teachers. Journal of Language and Learning, 3 (1), 133-15.
  59. Olson, R., Verley, J., Santos, L. & Salas, C. (1994). What we teach students about the Hawthorne studies: A review of content within a sample of introductory I-O and OB textbooks. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist 41 (3), 23-39.
  60. Omaggio, A. C. (2001). Teaching language in context: Proficiency-oriented instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
  61. Peacock, M. (1997). The effect of authentic materials on the motivation of EFL learners. ELT Journal, 51 (2), 144 -156.
  62. Rhem, J. (1999). Pygmalion in the classroom. National Teaching and Learning Forum, 8 (2), 1-4).
  63. Rivers, W.M. (1972). Talking off the tops of their heads, TESOL Quarterly 6, 71-81.
  64. Rivers, W. M. (1987). Interactive language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  65. Rogers, C.R. & Freiberg, H.J. (1994). Freedom to Learn (3rd Ed). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Macmillan.
  66. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  67. Schumann, J. H. (1978). The Acculturation Model for Second Language Acquisition. In R. C. Gingras (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching, (pp. 26-50.). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
  68. Scrivener, J. (1994). Learning Teaching. Macmillan Education.
  69. Schwarz, G. (1989). The importance of being silly. Educational Leadership, 46 (5), 82-83.
  70. Searle, J.R. (1975). A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts, in: K. Günderson, (Ed.), Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Volume 7. Minneapolis.
  71. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-241.
  72. Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Learning, 13, 275-298.
  73. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In: S. Gass & C.Madden (Eds.), Inputin second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  74. Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-164.
  75. Swidler, A., & Watkins, S. C. (2009). Teach a man to fish: the sustainability doctrine and its social consequences. World Development, 37(7), 1182-1196.
  76. Thornbury, S. (1999). How to Teach Grammar. Harlow: Longman.
  77. Walter, G. (1990). Laugh, teacher, laugh! The Educational Digest, 55 (9), 43-44.
  78. Warnock, P. (1989). Humor as a didactic tool in adult education. Lifelong Learning, 12 (8), 22-24
  79. Webb, J. (2006). 151 common mistakes of Japanese students of English. Japan Times.
  80. Widdowson, H.G. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  81. White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: the input hypothesis and the development of second-language competence. Applied linguistics, 8(2), 95-110.
  82. Widdowson, H G. (1987). English for Specific Purposes: Criteria for Course Design. In M. Long, and Richards, J.C. (Eds.), Methodology TESOL: A Book of Readings. Newbury House Publishers.
  83. Wright, A., Betteridge, D., & Buckby, M. (2005). Games for language learning (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  84. Yalden, J. (1987). The communicative syllabus: Evolution, design and implementation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  85. Yasnitsky, A. (2011). Vygotsky circle as a personal network of scholars: Restoring connections between people and ideas. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 45(4), 422.
  86. Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does the language anxiety research suggest? Modern Language Journal, 75, 425-439.
  87. Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The Process of Discovering Meaning. TESOL Quarterly,16 (2),195-209.
  88. Zolt´n, D. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31, pp 117-135.