An Argument Against the Teacher-Centered Model for Both the ESL Teacher and the Tennis Coach
I often draw analogies between language acquisition and developing in tennis since they are both skills that can be developed. Similarly, coaching tennis and teaching ESL are similar roles. This post discusses the importance of conducting class/practice in a non-teacher/coach centered fashion. What is wrong with this teacher/coach centered model? The teacher and coach should try to engage the players/students as much as possible, and there should be an aim of reaching the highest number of quality-learning hits in practice as possible. If all of the attention is on the coach without engagement from the students, it is difficult to reach that goal.
Teachers many times like to talk and be the center of attention, and they want to feel like they are doing their job as a teacher by talking. But the students are not getting good practice that way. In fact, Dr. Ivannia Soto - who is a professor of education and who specializes in language acquisition and systemic reform for English language learners (ELLs) – says that “the average percentage of time that multilingual learners (MLLs) are speaking is often 5–10%. This is in contrast to what researchers like Pauline Gibbons (2015) tell us—that MLLs should be spending at least 30% of their school day in academic talk” (Learning from Long Shadows). Dr. Soto says that a dearth of student talking is not effective for language learning.
The ineffectiveness of this teacher-centered approach is similar to a tennis coach who lines up the tennis team on the opposite of one court, and the coach feeds the ball to one player at a time. Once a player hits a ball, he/she goes back to the end of the line. The player will wait for maybe two minutes before getting to hit the ball again for a second. That’s not effective practice. That is not rapid feedback, and that is why I was so against that kind of practice when my high school tennis coach implemented that kind of practice. It’s just not good for improvement when the number of hits on the ball is drastically reduced.
It’s not an easy to fail environment with a lot of opportunities to fail and engage the activity. Similarly, students cannot stretch their abilities when they are called on occasionally to give a short answer and then they go silent again for a prolonged time. Both the tennis coach and teacher want to feel like they’re doing their job, but a lot of the time the best way to get improvement out of your students and players is to create the right conditions for them to improve and get out of the way.
Instead of the coach having players line up in a queue to hit the tennis ball on one court, the coach should make use of all of the courts so that everyone is getting good hitting time. The goal as the coach is to get as many quality-learning-hits as possible for every player for that practice. If all of the players are lined up on one court to hit a ball coming from the coach, a player might have 30 hits for all of practice. On the other hand, if there are two players per court playing games, a player might get maybe 2,000 hits per practice. Teachers should want that same kind of high-engagement rate practice in the classroom. Teachers should want their students implementing English and not just waiting around. And they should want good feedback and immediate feedback for those students. Of course, it might not be possible to set up this arrangement perfectly on the tennis courts or in the classroom due to the number of students/players vs. the amount of support and courts. That is where the teacher can make use of structures to make it more possible. The teacher is not seen as much explicitly doing his/her job, but he/she is very much making the classroom experience effective under the scenes.
Structures that utilize small groups can effectively make use of this high-quality-hit count format. Dr. Soto lists some reasons for why this small group structure works well. These reasons can extend to any skill, like tennis. Some of the reasons include the following:
“They speak more language—a small group or pair represents a safer community where language risks can happen.”
This is true for tennis as well. If a player waits two minutes in line to hit a tennis ball for one second with all of the team’s eyes on him/her, the player is less likely to take a stroke that will be a stepping stone to improved performance. The player might take a conservative stroke to make sure the ball just goes in. Even if the player likes to show off and hits an aggressive shot, the player has been cold for two minutes waiting. Therefore, the player cannot develop an improvement rhythm with a true tennis rally. Similarly, ELLs are likely to shy away from talking in front of the whole class, especially newcomers. Even for confident newcomers who are fine answering in front of the whole class, a one-word or sentence response is not exactly academic language and conversation.
“They ask more questions—MLLs are more likely to ask for clarification, especially when in small groups or pairs.”
This is true for tennis as well. In small groups students can take ownership of developing their skills. In fact, tennis coaches can provide players the methods and structures for better improvement like encouraging players to take videos of themselves and discussing the videos after playing. The players can also implement certain drills. Moreover, the players can interact with each other at a much higher rate than if the teacher is directing the whole class. True rallies can happen on the court just like true conversations can occur in the classroom. ELLs will zone out if they are not getting comprehensible input. However, if they are in a small group, they are much more likely to ask a question or the speaker will recognize more easily that there is a disconnect.
“They are more comfortable about speaking—small and well-structured groups can represent a safe community.”
Similarly, tennis players are better able to hone their shots, get into a rhythm, play actual rally points, go for their shots, and feel more comfortable playing tennis when playing in small and well-structured groups. The same applies to the classroom. Imagine yourself in a classroom in China with a very basic knowledge of Chinese. The Chinese teacher has been talking for 30 minutes and then asks the class a question with the expectation that the response will be in Chinese. Do you think you will answer the question in Chinese in front of the whole class? Of course not. On the other hand, you will be much more likely to speak if small and well structured groups have been created with tasks that fit your zone of proximal development.