Implementing the Mutually Adaptive Learning Paradigm

1. Implementing • the Mutually Adaptive Learning Paradigm Nan Frydland and Judy Zivan Long Island University, Hudson Graduate Campus nanfrydland@gmail.comjudyzivan@gmail.com Guiding the Autonomous Mind: Perspectives in TESOL and Applied Linguistics NYS TESOL Applied Linguistics Winter Conference 2014 Teachers College, Columbia University New York City

2. Mutually Adaptive LearningParadigm: Culturally Responsive Teaching • Ways of Learning: • Western-style v. Informal • Ways of Being: Individualistic v. Collectivistic • The Intercultural Communication Framework: Relationships, Priorities, and Associations

3. Mutually Adaptive Learning Paradigm (MALP)

4. MALP Teacher Planning Checklist A. Accept conditions for learning: 1. Immediate relevance 2. Interconnectedness • Combine processes for learning: 1. Shared responsibility/individual accountability 2. Oral transmission/written word • Focus on activities for learning: 1. Introduce new/academic tasks 2. Make tasks accessible with familiar language and content.

5. Judy’s Class: Northeast Suburban High School • Ages: 14-17 years • Education: 9th--12th grades in U.S. • Origins: Brazil, India, South Korea, China, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Honduras, U.S. • U.S. residency: 3 months--14 years • English proficiency: high beginner--advanced • Class size: 9 students

6. Suburban Public High School • Socio-economically middle-class • 25 ESL students in a population of 2,500 students • 1 ESL teacher • Multi-level classroom • High beginners-advanced level ESL proficiency

7. Teacher • Student teacher • TESOL graduate student • 1 year teaching experience in a Hebrew school and ESL adult education • MALP trained

8. MALP Step 1: Project-based Survey is Immediately Relevant and Creates a Sense of Interconnectedness

9. MALP Step 2: Students’ Surveys Allow for Shared Responsibility & Individual Accountability

10. MALP Step 3: Students’ Tabulations and Analysis of the Data Focus on Academic Tasks Using Familiar Language and Content • Academic objectivesfor critical thinking: • Students conduct, analyze and quantify the results of a survey; • Students draw conclusions and report on a survey.

11. MALP: Project-based Curriculum Meets All the Criteria: • Immediate Relevancy • Interconnectedness • Shared responsibility • Individual accountability • Focus on academic tasks • Tasks made accessible.

12. Nan’s Class: Northeast Urban/suburban CBO • Ages: 17-60 • Education: none--college (in home countries) • Origins: Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras, Peru, Ecuador, South Korea • U.S. residency: 1—16 years • English proficiency: beginner--intermediate • Class size: 4-10 students

13. Teacher • Volunteer • TESOL graduate student • 3 years’ IEP and CBO teaching experience • MALP trained

14. MALP Step 1: Using a Scroll-based CurriculumLearners’ Texts Are Immediately Relevant and They Create a Sense of Interconnectedness

15. MALP Step 2: Students’ Scrolls Allow Shared Responsibility & Individual Accountability

16. MALP Step 3: Students’ Scrolls Focus on Academic Tasks Using Familiar Language and Content

17. MALP: Using Scroll-based Curriculum Meets All the Criteria • Immediate Relevancy • Interconnectedness • Shared responsibility • Individual accountability • Academic tasks • Tasks made accessible

18. MALP Resources • Website: http://malpeducation.com • Wiki: http://malp.pbworks.com • Book: Marshall, Helaine, and DeCapua, Andrea. Making the Transition: Culturally Responsive Teaching for Struggling Language Learners. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2013.

19. References • Amanti, C., Gonzalez, N., and Moll, L., eds. Funds of Knowledge: theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. New York: Routledge, 2005. • Auerbach, E. Making Meaning, Making Change: Participatory curriculum development for adult ESL literacy. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1992. • Bowers, C. A. Educating for an ecologically sustainable culture: rethinking moral education, creativity, intelligence, and other modern orthodoxies. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1995. • DeCapua, A., and H. W. Marshall. Breaking new ground: teaching students with limited or interrupted formal education in U.S. secondary schools. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2011.

20. References continued • Dewey, J. Democracy and Education. NY: Simon and Brown, 2011. • Gay, G. Culturally responsive teaching theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press, 2000. • Greene, M. The dialectic of freedom. NY: Teachers College Press, 1988. • Hooks, B. Teaching to transgress: education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge, 1994. • Marshall, H. W., and DeCapua, A. Making the transition: culturally responsive teaching for struggling language learners. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2013. • Norton, B., and Toohey, K. Critical pedagogies and language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print. • Shor, I., and Freire, P. A pedagogy for liberation: dialogues on transforming education. South Hadley, Mass.: Bergin & Garvey Publishers, 1987.