Arnel Francis

A semester’s worth of effort has finally been realized after handling my first ever English Speech and Communication class. Sixty students proved to be a challenge as I was wondering at first how is it possible for me to “listen” to all of them. A feedbacking program proved to be working. I found this very interesting article on Feedbacking by Maria Spelleri and tried it. Accordingly, there are four choices teacher can elect for correcting errors of students on utterances they make: Rising intonation question, Recast, Explicit, Meta-language. Giving it a thought, a rising intonation question has been the trademark of a teacher 's teacher. I call it as such because they are the traditional spoon-feeders, prescriptive in their approach and sometimes intimidating. A correction like “You go to the store YESTERDAY?!” for a student making a mistake over verb tense could bring further anxiety. Recast, aggravatingly, would be more direct putting the correction as “I WENT to the store

“Very Good!”...or if not satisfyingly correct, “Partly, you have an idea there. It’s good you tried”. These are supposed to be the best possible response a teacher could use in getting through steering students’ interest without frustrating them and getting their toes up every time they’re asked. But what really is MOTIVATION? Does it entail being ‘affective’ upon the accomplishment of tasks or the entire instructions? Or shall we put the blame on our lack of putting a dash of morale boosters on our comments? Motivation has been defined, conceptualized and given attention to by many educational psychologists and practiced by numerous educators trying to solve myths and misgivings in its employment inside and outside the classroom. Factors ranging from anxiety to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs were given equal attention. As a common person, specifically, a single parent, I do a lot of things everyday-from preparing breakfast early in the morning to making sure that my kids “can” go to

“Why didn’t you wake me up early?” is a regular rouser for your nerves- much stronger than the instant black coffee you sip at 6 in the morning. That awkward grumble comes from the croak of your 14-year old son as he rushes downstairs only to pause for 15 minutes more or so before munching on his oatmeal breakfast. Before he is seated, his 11-year old brother Miguel has already docked on the four-seater round table. Always the first bird- half-pecking, half-dozing still as the two both dally blowing and stirring their choco-oatmeals to get tepid. A typical start of your weekday, you continually remind them, “Hey! Keep moving, its already 6:30…then 6:45…” Woo! Papa, you’re lying, its still 6:20”, your loquacious and lately seemingly boorish youngest would always rebut. Sean gets ready for the bathroom –he’s the first on the list and always the longest to use it, while his brother would sneak back into one of the empty rooms to sleep again. Bang! You hear Sean pound on the door

“We can change”-was the favorite upsetting liner used in the movie “The Day the Earth Stood Still” which showed the condemning nature of man to bargain- an offshoot of his selfishness and an exhibit of his delaying tactics of accepting retributions. An embrace of sci-fi cum philosophical lash was what made “The Day the Earth Stood Still” an unlooked for upturn of current movie trends. It blared the idea clearly that “we don’t own this planet”. For truly an equating adage that says the “Earth doesn’t need us humans!” We never were PROTECTORS of it in the first place. Just like the biblical rebirth of the Earth, the great ark was brought to fruition in the movie by a cosmic intervention telling us that we don’t own THIS PLANET and that any decision is not within our grip. Unaware that its toll maybe the great Noah’s ark in disguise, global climate change, escalating biodiversity loss and population growth, natural calamities and even wars, continually ally our paths into sieving out the