Blog Post #12: Socially Sensitive Pedagogy

McKay and Bokhorst-Heng’s Chapter 7 summarized much of the information found in previous chapters and provided some principles for socially sensitive EIL pedagogy.  As I read these principles, I was particularly struck by the following: “EIL curricula should be relevant to the domains in which English is used in the particular learning contexts” (195).  Understanding educational context is important to providing students with effective language instruction.  A teacher must understand how English in used within a specific context and also find out what motivates students to learn English.  However, a teacher must also realize that his or her educational context is simply one of many.  For that reason, a teacher should be flexible enough to examine the ways that English is being used in a variety of contexts.  As educators become more and more aware of cultural and linguistic issues involving multilingualism, globalization, othering, and language ideologies, teachers will become more sensitive toward their students.  I think that one way teachers can become more sensitive is to simply observe their students.  Observation can provide insight into how students learn and interact with each other.  In addition, teachers can ask their students to share their stories and experiences.  This information could help teachers understand students’ expectations and motivations for learning English. 

The experiences of the authors of “Appropriating English” support McKay and Bokhorst-Heng’s principle about making EIL curricula relevant to learning contexts.  In fact, Lin et al. claim that English is “a resource for glocalized communication where the global and local divide dissolves in the situated appropriation of a global means by local social actors for local purposes” (312).  In other words, local context is just as important (perhaps even more important) than the global context in which English is used.  For that reason, I think context should dictate how English is taught in a specific place.  For example, the code-switching practices in Wendy’s classroom helped her develop confidence.  The reading and translation methods used by Nobu’s teacher helped him gain interest in English.  Angel’s English diary gave her an opportunity to explore her identity in a safe space.  As a teacher, I want to help students learn English in a way that can be meaningful for them.  I agree with Wendy that “helping learners relate to each other in the target language and develop the confidence to use the language as their own should be the primary objectives for second language teaching” (305).  In order to do that, I plan to make an effort to understand students and their educational contexts, as well as adapt my teaching methods to meet their needs. 

On a side note, I was intrigued by Lin et al.’s suggestion to change TESOL to TEGCOM (Teaching English for Glocalized Communication).  Lin et al. claim that TESOL “assigns dichotic Self-Other subject positions to teacher and learner…continuing the colonial storyline” (311).  Although I had not thought critically about the term TESOL before, I can now understand how it might not be the most accurate way to represent the field of English language teaching. 

Blog Post #11: Globalization's Influence on Language Education

As globalization and the use of World Englishes increase, an English instructor’s pedagogical choices also increase. Because so many different varieties and contexts for English exist, it is difficult for educators to choose which English variety (or varieties) to teach. Instructors must determine not only what is appropriate for the context in which they are teaching, but also which linguistic information their students must know in order to use English in other contexts in the future. With this issue in mind, I appreciate Matsuda and Matsuda’s suggestion to “teach the principles and strategies of discourse negotiation” (372). This focus on discourse negotiation can provide students with strategies to adjust their writing to fit a variety of different situations. By analyzing a rhetorical situation (including audience, purpose, and genre), students can develop an awareness of how the decisions they make as writers can affect a reader’s view of their writing. Students can then use this knowledge to either conform to or challenge the privileged discourses of the powerful.

Kubota’s article shed more light on the issue of globalization and its impact on language teaching. She describes how globalization has created the discourse of kokusaika in Japan, which “blends both Anglicization and nationalism” (27). This discourse promotes an essentialist view of cultures and encourages a strong Japanese national identity. However, it unfortunately fails to pay attention to ethnic and linguistic diversity in both Japan and other parts of the world. As a result, Japan’s JET program tends to favor white English teachers from North America or Britain, thus perpetuating the idea that native speakers, particularly those who align to stereotypes, are the best teachers. Although I believe that English education should focus on diversity within the English-speaking population, I find it interesting that the educational systems in Japan actually use English as a foreign language to promote nationalistic perspectives. Kubota reveals that kokusaika helps Japan “claim its power in the international community through Westernization,” as well as “express and explain unambiguously Japanese points of view in the world while maintaining Japanese identity” (17). I find it sad that this discourse does not allow multiple perspectives or focus on diversity, yet I think this Anglicization-nationalism hybrid is very creative. The Japanese seem to have recognized the power of discourse, and rather than challenge the discourse of the powerful (Western nations), they have embraced this discourse and used it to promote their own cultural and national identity.

Of course, the problem with this discourse is that it fails to promote any type of cultural or linguistic pluralism. As a language educator, I want my students to understand that language is never cut and dry. By teaching students to take a rhetorical approach to language, as I mentioned earlier, I hope that I can empower them to both critically analyze English and use it in a way that will empower them.

Blog Post #10: Standard vs. Nonstandard English

As I read Lippi-Green’s chapters about the abstractions of non-accent and standard language, I was fascinated to learn that everyone speaks with an accent. There can be L1 and L2 accents, as well as accents that stem from linguistic varieties within the same language. Because language always changes, it is impossible to maintain a single standard variety of language. McKay and Bokhorst-Heng provide several examples of language variation, including idioms, discourse styles, hybridization, and grammatical features. However, Lippi-Green asserts that “in spite of all the hard evidence that language must be variable…people steadfastly believe that a homogenous, standardized, one-size-fits-all language is not only desirable, it is truly a possibility” (44). McKay and Bokhorst-Heng also recognize this issue and state that ideological assumptions guide the view of what is considered “standard” (139). I think that the value placed on “standard English” can frustrate and discourage English language learners, as well as devalue speakers of nonstandard English, such as James Kahakua in Hawai’I (Lippi-Green 44-45). As a teacher, my job is to encourage students to understand differences within a language rather than tear them down for using nonstandard variations in their speech.

I have taught several adult students who have told me that they hope to speak English like a native speaker someday. (By saying “native speaker,” they refer to someone who speaks standard English rather than AAVE or another dialectal form.) Although the desire to attain native-like language ability can motivate some students, it’s often quite frustrating when adult students discover that they no longer have the tools necessary to build the standard English Sound House that Lippi-Green describes. No matter how fluent their English becomes, these students will always speak with at least a slight L2 accent. I try to encourage these students to improve their pronunciation insofar as it helps them communicate clearly; I also tell them that they should not worry about having an L2 accent. Yet even as I say that, I know that they will be judged according to the way they speak. As Lippi-Green says, “the standard/non-standard dichotomy is so firmly entrenched both in the literature and in the minds of the speakers, it is not possible to simply replace it” (61). Even if a student’s L2 accent is not strong, some native English speakers may use it as an excuse to marginalize or misunderstand the student.

These issues surrounding the abstraction of standard language made me think of a conversation I recently had with a man from India. I had heard some people pronounce his name in two different ways, so I asked him how to pronounce his name. Instead of telling me the pronunciation, he simply told me that some people say it one way and some people say it another way. So I then asked him which way he preferred. He told me that either was fine, but because I felt the pronunciation of a name was important, I decided to push him to tell me which way he pronounced it. I was surprised to find out that neither pronunciation people used matched his pronunciation of his name! He told me that he thought his name might be too foreign-sounding to Americans, so he chose not to correct anyone who pronounced his name incorrectly. In other words, his pronunciation of his name did not follow what he viewed as the standard English pronunciation. Although this example deals with a name rather than a specific word or linguistic feature, I think it supports the idea that speakers of “nonstandard” English can devalue their own way of speaking in light of the emphasis placed on “standard” English. As a teacher, I think my challenge will be helping students recognize language variations and maintain an open-minded attitude toward speakers with these variations. Ultimately, I want my students to focus on communication without promoting hierarchies among language.

Blog Post #9: Politics and Language Education Policies

Chapters 2 and 3 by McKay and Bokhorst-Heng identify and discuss many of the issues that occur in English language education in many parts of the world. The authors specifically address concerns as they relate to Inner Circle, Outer Circle, and Expanding Circle countries. Inner Circle countries often see linguistic diversity as problematic, so they typically promote English without emphasis on learning or maintaining other languages. Outer Circle countries promote English proficiency for educational purposes; however, these countries often lack consistency in providing equal English learning opportunities. Additionally, Outer Circle countries, such as India and South Africa, may find themselves limited by diglossia, which affords English a higher status than other languages spoken in the country. Expanding Circle countries, on the other hand, struggle with motivating learners and teachers who lack confidence in their English proficiency.

As I read these chapters, I was struck by the differences in how English education can be approached. I also found it sobering to realize how heavily politics and government initiative influence the actual teaching and learning that take place in schools. For example, extreme differences exist in how England and the United States handle English education. England promotes mainstreaming of EL students and does not support bilingual education. Language policy makers believe that they can encourage a pluralistic society by avoiding the segregation of minority students. Although I can understand this desire for student integration, I also believe that some problems could arise from the desire for linguistic assimilation. Students, particularly new arrivals, could feel forced to give up their native language. Because language is associated so closely with one’s identity, students may feel identity conflict and end up resisting use of either English or their native languages. Additionally, educators could view students as lacking linguistic competence, rather than recognize them as already highly proficient in one language and in need of help transferring their skills to another language. The United States, on the other hand, approaches English education differently. American policy makers worry less about segregation and focus more on an EL student’s language develop prior to entering a mainstream classroom. Although I can agree that students need at least some basic understanding of English to feel confident in a mainstreamed classroom, I can also see some problems with removing students from their peers. Pull-out ESL classes could further stigmatize or encourage otherizing of EL students. So, in conclusion, I cannot agree fully with either country’s approach to English education. I think that, ideally, English education would cater to students’ individual needs. For some students, that may could a pull-out class. For others, that could mean full mainstreaming. However, in reality, problems exist no matter what type of educational system is in place. As a language teacher, my job is to be as sensitive to students as possible in spite of inequalities or disadvantages presented by the educational system. I believe that I can respect students’ linguistic and cultural background, as well as support student English language learning. Because I am not familiar with every language and culture, I cannot actively help every student maintain his/her native language and culture; however, I can learn from my students and encourage them to develop an identity that integrates multiple languages and cultural influences.

Blog Post #8: The Power of English

This chapter by McKay and Bokhorst-Heng deals with English and its role in a globalized society. English originally spread as a result of colonialism and is now the most common second language in the world. McKay and Bokhorst-Heng emphasize the power of English, mentioning that it is the “most valuable linguistic capital” (8). People can choose to learn English for a variety of reasons, including economic and educational advancement, as well as mass media reasons (music, advertising, movies, etc.).

As I read about this phenomenon, I was struck by the fact that English holds such a powerful and dominant status among other world languages. Many English language learners believe that no matter which other languages they speak, fluency in English is necessary to be successful. I experienced this attitude first-hand when I lived in South Korea and taught conversational English for adults. Some of my students worked for international companies, others were university students hoping to study abroad, and still others were recent graduates who desperately hoped to improve their English (and their TOEIC scores!) in order to gain an edge in an extremely competitive job market. Few, if any, studied English for fun. My students told me that English skills are necessary for them to advance in society. People with fluent English are admired, and more and more English words are being adopted into Korean, particularly in relationship to pop culture (for example, “sexy,” “star,” and “coffee”). English immersion preschools and kindergartens are gaining in popularity, and students feel a lot of pressure to develop English fluency at an early age.

As an English teacher, I am excited about the opportunity to provide students with linguistic capital that will help them succeed; however, teaching English (particularly EFL) seems more complicated when I consider the potential societal ramifications. In many places, including South Korea, effective English language instruction may be limited to the socially elite or those with money. As McKay and Bokhorst-Heng explain, “participation in this English-education market is not within the reach of those with fewer economic assets” (24). Could my teaching simply reinforce the class barriers and economic divides caused by English education? Or could my teaching challenge these issues by making students aware of how privilege and language can shape society? Hopefully, my teaching will tend toward the latter. I truly believe that my goal in teaching English is to help students develop as not only successful users of language, but also as socially and culturally aware human beings.

I think it’s also interesting and important to note that individuals may choose to accept or reject English for political or cultural reasons. For example, people in previously colonized countries may try to actively eliminate linguistic imperialism by promoting local languages rather than English. McKay and Bokhorst-Heng consider this phenomenon to be due to the “agency of individuals” (7). As an English teacher, I obviously recognize the value in learning English; however, I hope that I can also respect the choices and autonomy of those who choose not to promote English education. I believe that linguistic diversity is a beautiful thing, so I want to support people who try to preserve their native languages in order to reject the linguistic influences that threaten their ways of life. However, on the other hand, I also recognize that globalization does not give advantage to remote or unpopular languages. So English language development (or development in other popular world languages) may be necessary for these individuals to participate on the world stage. As with any other aspect of life, balance is crucial, and there must be some way for societies to balance the local language(s) with English as a lingua franca.

Blog Post #7: The Power of Images

As I completed the readings for this week, one important concept stood out to me: the power of visual text and imagery. Some people say a picture’s worth a thousand words, and given the evidence provided by Taylor-Mendes and Holliday et al., I think I agree with that saying. Taylor-Mendes’s article shed light on the use of images in EFL textbooks to perpetuate racial and cultural stereotypes. She claims that these images show race as divided by continent, often offering favorable portrayals of wealthy white people and displaying black people as poor and powerless. These images help comprise the dominant discourse of power that Holliday et al. define as “ways of talking and thinking about something which have become naturalized to the extent that people conform to them without thinking” (46). Holliday et al. provide multiple examples of how the media promotes essentializing and othering through their use of language and images in news reports, cartoons, etc. So, I can only imagine how difficult it must be for EFL students to develop accurate impressions of English-speaking countries. As educators, I think we have to do our best to help students become critical consumers of information. We can provide counter discourse to challenge the cultural and racial misconceptions that get passed on through our textbooks and media resources.

After doing the readings this week, I decided to test Taylor-Mendes’s claims about images in textbooks, by examining a variety of English textbooks that I currently use as resources for my teaching. Even though I don’t teach in an EFL context, I was curious to find out if the books I have reflect Taylor-Mendes’s findings. Approximately half of the books did indeed match what she had described. I saw pictures of African Americans standing outside of a homeless shelter, Asians walking through a crowded subway station, and white men involved in an official business meeting. Some of these textbooks even showed pictures of people in segregated settings (for example, African Americans interacting with each other instead of with a mixed racial group). However, I was happy to find that the other half of my books seemed to portray a wide variety of races interacting with each other in a wide variety of settings. For example, I noticed pictures of African Americans graduating from college and Southeast Asians enjoying fine dining in a fancy restaurant.

Later, after looking at my textbooks, I thought about all the video clips that I use to teach. (I often show students short clips from TV sitcoms, movie trailers, and/or news programs.) Even though I consciously try to choose clips that portray racial groups and cultures in an equitable way, I realize that I am also a victim of naturalized discourse. For example, I recently taught a lesson on fashion and showed my students a short clip from a Project Runway fashion show. I paused the clip frequently, and students practiced using new vocabulary to describe what the models were wearing. All in all, it was a successful lesson; however, I realized later that all of the models were white—and I didn’t even think about their race as I chose to use the video in class! I wonder what kind of message that sent my students (none of whom are white) about beauty in the United States.

As a teacher, I want to follow Holliday et al.’s advice to “take a critical stance towards our taken-for-granted ways of understanding the world (including ourselves)” (191), and I think carefully choosing images for students to see is a good place to start. I may not be able to replace all the textbooks I use, but I can make students aware of what the images portray and how those portrayals may or may not be accurate.

Blog Post #6: ELF - Teaching Implications

As I completed the readings this week, I was struck by all the potential implications that English as a lingua franca (ELF) can have on English language instruction. In “The Cultures of English as a Lingua Franca,” Baker points out that English has moved beyond a single target language and culture to encompass a variety of cultures and communicative skills. In fact, “English-native-speaker pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary choice are inappropriate in lingua franca settings” (568)! Baker also claims that English is no longer strongly connected to the culture of traditional English-speaking countries. For this reason, it’s important for English teachers to recognize that English language learners often use English as a medium of communication with people who are members of multiple cultures and discourse communities. Baker gives the example of Nami, who does not follow native English speaker conventions but instead constructs her own conventions as “those of a ‘new generation’ in Thailand” (579). This example made me think of my Korean friends who have adapted English to allow them to express their culture through what they term “Konglish.” They might directly translate titles of respect, saying “my senior” to refer to an older classmate, or address a teacher as “Teacher” instead of “Ms. So-and-so.” Sometimes they might even create non-standard English vocabulary, such as “skinship” (the act of being “touchy-feely”). I think it’s important for English teachers to recognize these non-standard uses of English as serving specific communicative purposes. We can’t label these uses of English as definitively right or wrong because they depend on cultural communicative practices; however, we can help students critically analyze the language they are using and determine which types of language might be appropriate in various settings.

Marra’s article, “Recording and Analysing Talk Across Cultures,” sheds light on how the teacher as researcher can function in an ELF classroom. Marra’s research methodology reflects the importance of “insider knowledge when interpreting interaction” (316). In addition, Marra recognizes that effective communication depends heavily on the context; therefore, her research has to be conducted in “a way which is culturally framed, and which acknowledges a Maori worldview” (309). Just as an understanding of culture is necessary for Marra to interpret her data, I believe an understanding of students’ cultures and unique uses of English is necessary for teachers to interpret communication with students.

McKay and Bokhorst-Heng address further implications of ELF, stating that grammatical and phonological features of ELF differ from those of traditional standard English (160-162). ELF speakers are beginning to abandon small parts of English grammar that do not affect meaning. For example, they might drop the third person present tense –s, omit articles, overuse common verbs, etc. These grammatical changes don’t usually affect understanding; however, ELF speakers are more likely to have communication breakdowns due to pronunciation differences. For this reason, McKay and Bokhorst-Heng suggest addressing language functions, such as asking for clarification or repetition. I agree that these types of language functions are foundational for English language learners, and I hope to incorporate them into the first few lessons of English courses that I teach—particularly the classes with students who speak a variety of L1s.

Question: Keeping in mind that English is a lingua franca, does anyone have any ideas about how we can practically adapt lessons to meet different language goals of students? (For example, in a single classroom, there could be students who want to learn English for international business with other non-native speakers, students who want to study abroad, students who want to use English to travel internationally, etc.)