What do you bring to the table?

What Do You Bring to the Table? or, A Cheesy Extended Metaphor (that, while cheesy, is still helping me to envision and articulate my goals)

“What do you bring to the table?” is an idiomatic expression in English meaning “What do you provide that will be beneficial to this group?” It is often used in a business setting or an interview scenario to determine a newcomer’s potential role in the office.

I don’t know its origins, but I like to think of the expression as coming from a potluck dinner party. What will you bring to the table? I’ll bring plates and napkins. I’ll bring a side dish. I’ll bring dessert. Maybe some people also show up with flowers or a bottle of wine. Ideally, every guest brings something that contributes to the overall enjoyment of the meal.

This week, as my classmates and I have discussed the definition of applied linguistics and the concept of “funds of knowledge”, the phrase “bring to the table” keeps entering my head, and I’ve been exploring the extended metaphor of my classroom as one big dinner party. I, the teacher, will provide the table and some of the food, but my students need to bring something to the table, too.

As I have mentioned before, my definition of applied linguistics broadens with every course I take. This week, I have been attempting to hone my personal definition of applied linguistics down to a single sentence. As Vivian Cook (2004) wrote, even “the applied linguists themselves” can’t agree on a definition. Perhaps every university program focuses on a slightly different aspect of this broad discipline. Here at UMass Online, in our introductions, most of my classmates and I shared that we are all here for education-related purposes. We either are or want to be teachers, or we want to get involved in curriculum development or assessment. Our “particular horse” (Cook, 2004) is clearly second language education. We want to learn more about linguistics so that we can help others learn a language. Given this and based on the readings this week my new personal definition is as follows:

Applied linguistics is applying wisdom from the fields of sociology, psychology, anthropology, and linguistics to the educational setting.

My courses in applied linguistics are assisting me in building my table (deepening my funds of knowledge) in preparation for holding a feast (a successful classroom). I will have a tabletop of German, balanced on the table legs of sociology, psychology, anthropology, and linguistics.

I believe that every student has something they can bring to the table that could potentially benefit the entire class. I think a large part of teaching is figuring out how to help students recognize their own personal funds of knowledge and then incorporating that knowledge into the classroom to make it a richer, more educational space for everyone.

In the introduction to one of our textbooks, the authors had us do a quick survey about our preconceptions of language acquisition. One of the statements I disagreed with in the Lightbrown & Spada (2013) survey was: “Once learners know 1,000 words and the basic structure of a language, they can easily participate in conversations with native speakers” (p.3).  This statement is an oversimplification. It narrows language learning down to vocabulary and grammar. It doesn’t take into account all of the cultural nuances that are also key to successful communication. Language is not just words and rules; it is intricately tied with culture, and we need to study the social, cultural, and psychological aspects of language to teach it effectively.

Students are not empty vessels waiting to be filled with knowledge. They come to us as people with prior knowledge, experiences, beliefs, and cultures. They bring so much with them to the classroom that can be either a hindrance or a help to learning, depending on how it is used. Our students and their families and communities have great “funds of knowledge” that can be accessed to benefit the classroom. Funds of knowledge refers to the knowledge that households have accumulated via their labor, their origins, and their social histories. These funds are “historically accumulated and culturally developed” (Moll et. al, 1992, p. 133). Educators should take advantage of these rich funds, not merely act as a narrator trying to fill students with information (Freire, 2009, p. 52). It’s a lot of work for one person to host a dinner party and provide all the food. And isn’t a dinner party a richer, more enjoyable experience when you get to sample several people’s cooking?

Moll, et. al refer to students’ familial relationships as “multi-stranded” (1992, p. 133-134), which lead to my initially envision everything in web or weaving metaphors. Just as familial relationships are multi-stranded, the study of linguistics is also a complex web of interdisciplinary strands. My goal is to learn about all those different strands and weave them into my practice, along with strands from my students’ funds of knowledge, to create a strong network in my classroom. Or to go back to my original metaphor, my goal is for my classroom to be the best potluck dinner ever. I hope to encourage students to dig deep into their own funds of knowledge and bring those scrumptious “dishes” to the table. I’ll provide the table, the safe classroom, balanced on the table legs of linguistics, anthropology, psychology, and sociology. The kids will bring those side dishes. And we will feast on the smorgasbord of learning together.

References:

Cook, Vivian (2004). What is applied linguistics?.  Retrieved from http://www.viviancook.uk/Writings/Papers/WhatIsAppliedLinguistics.htm

Freire, P. (2009). From pedagogy of the express. In A. Darder, M. Baltodano, & R. D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (2nd ed., pp. 52-60). New York, NY: Routledge.

Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned, (4^th ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. 


Moll, L.C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132-141.