This blog contains a wide range of curriculum materials and course designs, ranging from EFL Business English

in Taiwan, to an entirely CALL based real-world task, to an ESL creative writing course. I feel this range first articulates my belief in trying many different approaches, genres, and modalities to language instruction. Regardless what the course name stipulated, I found myself pulling from widely varying subjects and schools of thought. For instance, just because a course is designed for EBP does not mean it lacks an aspect of creative writinghow else could we teach the nuances of openings, closings, and register in e-mails? There are always lines to be drawn when choosing appropriate materials to a particular teaching context, but what Ive learned most from this experience is that you are better off preparing a flexible syllabus with room for change, student-input, and a range of subject areas than assuming all the materials based on course title alone. That is the role of the textbooknot the instructor. Before coming to this program I worked for two years as a special needs associate and general substitute in elementary education. I do not think I realized it at the time, but my teaching beliefs began forming as soon as I walked into the classroom. The benefit of having experience working with Autism and developmental disabilities is that individualized education, learner autonomy, and learning styles are at the core of my pedagogical practices and teaching beliefs. Adaptability, flexibility, and patience are beyond necessary for working in special education. In a sense, this was akin to boot camp for TESOLat least in terms of classroom management and the skill sets listed above. However, special education did not prepare me for everything. I had no knowledge of curriculum development outside IEP reports (Individualized Education Program), not the slightest idea on how to conduct needs assessment for language learners, and felt incredibly

ill-equipped for navigating CALL technology. Those were, indeed, the requirements asked of me this semester. For the curriculum design project, my partner and I chose an EFL/EBP context. Neither of us had ever taught Business English, but keeping possible professional prospects in mind, we decided to move entirely outside our comfort zone. Business English represents a major market in language instruction, but also a major field for pedagogical study and second language acquisition theory. The foremost aspect that tied all the research used to articulate our teaching context and approach was task design. It seems almost too straightforward now to relate: present students with real-world goals and objectives, where language is the vehicle that drives the process and necessary for completion, not the object of the process, and students will be able to use language in a meaningful, contextualized fashion. Task design, in my opinion, is the post-approach path after CLT (Communicative Language Teaching). It is not enough to present and practice forms, authenticity and real-world application need to be considered. Both of these components are clearly identified in well conceptualized tasks. In this sense, task design relates directly to my teaching beliefs about learner autonomy that began back in special education. If I want to prepare my students for interaction outside the classroom then I must present them with real-world language and situations. For instance, if I want my student with Autism to learn how to order food at a restaurant, then we have to practice language components involved and, ultimately, order food at a restaurant. The same can be said for task design in language instructionthe end goal is learner autonomy outside the classroom.

Task design also manages to cater to a range of learning styles. In the real-world, students have to process visual, auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic input simultaneouslyso why not posit activities through task-design to do the same. By structuring tasks to present multiple learning styles, students can navigate subtasks based on their learning preference. This is, ultimately, how individuals navigate real-world interaction. Some students depend more on repeated auditory input, so they will need to practice techniques for clarification and comprehension checking. Other students depend more on visual input with facial and body language, so attention to sociocultural norms within English and those components will need to be navigated. All of these can be addressed as a real-world aspect of a task. Task design also lends itself to CALL applications. While scaffolding technology in the classroom also depends on the learners computer literacy, a larger pool of adults than ever before are sound in email, social networking, and digital applications or gaming. As outlined in the Task Design project in this blog, CALL technology activates several core intelligences (Berk 2009) within learners: verbal/linguistic, visual/spatial, and musical/rhythmical. CALL theory suggests that if information can be stored in multiple intelligences, then it may aid in information retention and recall (Mayer 2001). While the idea of having to produce so many CALL teaching materials at the beginning of the semester daunted me, I am now a firm believer in utilizing technology in the classroom whenever possible. Classroom and learner contexts hinge upon the type and amount of CALL implementation, but if my peers and instructors in this program provide any insight into this venture, it is that CALL not only aids instruction and learning, it is also really, really fun for the participants. I hope to continue my exploration of CALL technology and professional development this summer at the 2012 CALL conference at San Diego State

University. Until then I am developing my Chicago Planner Task used for the CALL TESOL course (LING 487) in hopes of presenting the design at a conference next year. The task can be viewed here: chicagoplannertask.weebly.com.