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.