|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AS ECONOMIC globalization accelerates, the next century will witness an increase in immigration worldwide. Modern societies are increasingly composed of people from diverse ethnic, cultural, and language backgrounds. The growth of technology, world trade, and cultural exchange, which is producing a global society, will make it difficult, if not impossible, for one language to remain dominant in social life. To prepare future American professionals to work effectively in an international environment, many educational institutions and programs have added international and multicultural components to their curricula. American higher education is going international.
We foreign language educators in the United States frequently hear other countries' language-teaching success stories—for example, that many students from Europe can converse with ease in two or three even more languages. A German student once told me a joke: “What do you call someone who speaks three languages? Trilingual. And someone who speaks two languages? Bilingual. And one who speaks one language? American.” We are relieved to see that this overgeneralized picture is changing and that the study of other languages and cultures has gained significance in our curricula. Given that second language acquisition (SLA) research has made considerable progress and that many innovative ideas, methods, and technologies, particularly in teaching English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL), have been applied to foreign language classrooms, why does the proportion of Americans who can use and understand a foreign language remain relatively small? Does the situation imply that we are somehow deficient in our jobs? Does it suggest that modern techniques alone cannot cure various ills?
To articulate these concerns, two language educators in France and I prepared a panel discussion for the 1994 MLA convention entitled “State of the Art: Language Teaching around the World.” Working on the panel led me to notice that state of the art has a rather narrow implication in our profession, because we tend to associate it with instructional techniques and educational technology. We have been trained to limit our discussion to such specifically technical phrases as proficiency-based curriculum, task-oriented syllabus, communicative approach, computer-assisted instruction, and so on. We have neglected the context and the content of foreign language education. We may not fully comprehend the philosophical concepts behind the terms and the broader context from which they arise, but if we want our departments to be marketable, we need to use or claim to use authentic materials, task-based learning objectives, the learner-centered approach, the communicative approach, the whole-language approach, the Natural Approach, and many more tools and practices. Language teaching has been gradually reduced to teaching functional skills; language learning, to mastering a list of tasks, which, we proclaim, is “appropriate” for our practical-minded students. The focus on the technical aspect of methodology has led us to slight culture, history, and politics. I do not intend here to question the positive effect that many widely accepted and adopted SLA theories have had on our profession. Instead, I want to point out the limitations of modern techniques and technologies. If we are to view language teaching from a social, cultural, political, and historical perspective and promote multiculturalism, we must accept and encourage a multicultural, perhaps multimethodological, approach in language education. It may also be necessary to question our assumption that language education has no goal besides communicative competence.
Instructional methods are the vehicles designed to convey learners to instructional goals. An automobile may be the most efficient way of travelling in the United States, because of well-connected and well-maintained highways, but a camel is more appropriate for crossing some parts of the Gobi Desert, where there are no roads. Furthermore, how well the automobile function depends on its condition, the driver's skills, the fuel supply, weather conditions, traffic, and many other factors. Similarly, multiple factors determine the suitability of a method. It is not wise to transfer without reflection and modification a successful method from one teaching environment to another. But because of our emphasis on functionalism and communication, we tend to accept that a method shown to improve communicative competence in one language (usually English, because most research is done in ESL) should also be adopted in the teaching of other languages. Some educators question wether improving students' communicative competence is the ultimate goal in language education. Alastair Pennycook, for example, sees in functionalism a “trivialization of content and an overemphasis on communicative competence” (13). 1 If instructional goals remain debatable, the methods used to achieve them are also in question.
The degree to which the dominant and state-of-the-art language-teaching method is adopted varies noticeably among nations. Within the United States, it also differs among language programs. A fundamental question for many is whether a single language pedagogy can be applied to all languages and in all learning situations. Findings from two research projects illustrate this concern: in our field, there seems to be no one-size-fits-all methodology.
A survey of China's English teachers conducted by Barbara Burnaby and Yilin Sun from Canada shows that because of significant differences among cultures in instructional goals, educational traditions, social attitudes, available facilities and materials, and teachers' skills, the attempt to transfer the communicative approach to China has not been successful. Burnaby and Sun find that most Chinese students, who will live and work in China want to learn to analyze English grammar and to translate in preparation for their future work, which usually involves reading technical articles and translating documents. For these students, the grammar-translation approach serves the purpose rather well. Chinese teachers also note that they are limited in the linguistic, sociolinguistic, and strategic abilities in English that are required for using communicative approach efficiently. Furthermore, the approach does not fit into the Chinese curriculum, since the national English examination primarily tests students' knowledge of grammar, vocabulary, and translation skills. Because of the Chinese educational tradition of “serious learning” teachers learners have little interest in using class time to play “games” which, in American schools, are called “interactive activities.” Teachers who adopt the Western method risk having colleagues think they lack the knowledge to provide students with a formal academic study of the language. Limited resources and an average class size of thirty to sixty students also make it difficult to use a more interactive method in classrooms. There is little reason to expect that the communicative approach will be widely adopted in China. The authors conclude that the successful method in ESL is not exportable.
Perhaps it would be more fruitful to look at what works in foreign language teaching at home as a possible model for export to China. Indeed, English-speaking countries might look to the Chinese foreign-language-teaching model, which is undoubtedly successful on its own terms, for ideas to use domestically. (236)
In an investigation of the widely adopted whole-language and writing process in literacy instruction to linguistically different students, Maria de la Luz Reyes emphasizes the role of teachers. Teachers who lack adequate training in teaching philosophies apply them narrowly, often without thorough understanding and appropriate modifications to meet the needs of diverse learners, making instruction less effective. 2 Many well-meaning teachers who believe in a one-size-fits-all approach to instruction do not realize that merely implementing methods that have worked for mainstream students does not necessarily produce authentic, natural, or effective experiences for nonmainstream students. Reyes states that one important reason teachers experience difficulties adjusting teaching techniques is that most of them are members of the dominant culture, which tends to treat nonmainstream students as exceptions to the norm who should be assimilated, not accommodated. Educators and policy makers in classrooms and schools, like their counterparts in larger social structures, are conditioned to treat nonmainstream individuals as deficient. They continue to adhere to the misguided assumption that minorities will automatically profit from programs designed for the dominant group.
Although we in academia understand in theory that one approach cannot work in every sociopolitical situation, in practice teachers of less commonly taught languages in the United States sometimes are viewed as exceptions to the “norm”. Many of us feel the pressure to adapt to the norm—that is, the techniques and philosophies created for European languages. Indeed, there is a tendency to advocate standardizing instructional and evaluation methods in the teaching of all languages. The field of Chinese language teaching has repeatedly debated whether the functional view of language has actually improved the quality of teaching and learning. 3 Students learning Chinese often have to adopt a different way of learning and thinking. In accounting for the differences between Western and Chinese philosophies, Youlan Feng notes that because of geographic, historical, and socioeconomic conditions Chinese philosophy is rooted in a more pragmatic outlook that conditions its content and its methodology. It focuses on what is immediately apprehended; metaphysics is usually not the subject of inquiry. In contrast with Western philosophies, which start with the concept by postulation, Chinese philosophies are more intuitive, indistinct, and suggestive. I cite this oversimplified account to help explain the origins of the written symbols in Chinese language. One major difference between European and Chinese languages can be seen in the following formulas:
European languages: Spelling = meaning = pronunciation
Chinese language: Shape = meaning
The separation of meaning and pronunciation in Chinese (because the shape of a character does not directly indicate its pronunciation), and in some other non-European languages, divides the learning of reading and speaking into two processes. The learning of Chinese characters usually depends on repetitive drills and memorization. Much of the work does not include “interaction,” and accuracy is essential. Because the language is suggestive and intuitive and because it has rich historical and cultural content, students cannot possibly achieve a high level of proficiency if they have merely learned a host of functional skills.
Our discussion of language education has so far been somewhat disconnected from the complex issues involving the larger society. I might very well argue that our fields has formed its teaching philosophy primarily on the basis of theories of psychological, particularly cognitive, development. As Robert Phillipson points out, those of us working in language teaching tend to confine ourselves, by choice and training, to linguistic, literary, or pedagogical matters. But, he says, language education “is an international activity with political, economic, military, and cultural implications and ramifications” (8). 4 We should be aware that the inequalities among nations, cultures, and languages also influence our evaluation of language instruction. Some notions and principles that we are accustomed to and have accepted as truth may, sometimes, not apply to other cultures.
Let us reconsider the joke that those who speak one language are called Americans. It reflects a time when American prosperity depended little on the world economy. In recent decades, it has become increasingly imperative for the United States to adapt its political and educational policies to the realities of a global economy. The widespread use of English and its dominance in international media, science, education, and business have historical bases and will change. When we advocate multiculturalism, we must acknowledge that the promotion of English as an international language has involved an ethnocentric attitude toward the developing world. Well-intentioned language-teaching professionals, as James Tollefson observes, often seek pedagogical solutions to hegemony and inequality. Language educators assume that pedagogy can separate language from power and domination. While improved teacher training, new methods, better testing, and other measures may affect instructional quality, they do not confront historical and structural inequalities. We need to see classrooms as complex cultural arenas where diverse forms are constantly in struggle.
Fostering a critical awareness of cultural and linguistic inequalities will help our profession view language education in its sociopolitical context. Methodology, materials, and technology, in addition to educational research, are only some of the variables affecting success in language education. No matter how we emphasize learners' cognitive development as the basis of scientific ways of teaching, the long-neglected aspects of cultural and political history still exert their influences. We need to be more tolerant of alternative ways of teaching, to extend our discussion beyond the sphere of methodology, and to be aware of the broader context within which we conduct our work.
The author is Head of Chinese Studies in the Graduate School of Languages and Educational Linguistics at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. This article is based on her presentation at the 1994 MLA convention in San Diego.
1 Bronwyn Norton Peirce too notes that the teaching of English for communicative competence is an inadequate goal if teachers are interested in exploring how language shapes the subjectivities of their students and how it is implicated in power and dominance.
2 Other researchers point out that teachers' search for a universally effective method is unrealized and unrealizable. When an elsewhere-successful method fails after being implemented on a large scale, one major reason is that teachers have followed the method mechanically. N.S. Prabhu notes that teachers' subjective understanding of their teaching is more influential than the choice of a method. Ron Sheen also comments that the frequent paradigm shifts in language teaching have not resulted in significant progress, because of the “overstatement of criticisms directed at existing paradigms and the failure to challenge the validity of the advantages imputed to replacements” (127). What the profession needs to be concerned about is not how many new and elaborate techniques and technologies it can use in language classrooms but how much learning these techniques and technologies can yield.
3 The May 1994 issue of the Journal of the Chinese language Teachers Association is dedicated to the discussion of the effectiveness of standardizing instructional goals and methods across languages. Directly adopting, without essential modification, goals and methods derived from English teaching has not significantly improved Chinese language teaching. The field cannot reach agreement on the meaning of the term proficiency-based curricula. To begin with, the ACTFL Chinese proficiency guidelines, used by many college Chinese language programs in the United States, were drafted in conscious imitation of their European predecessors, not on the basis of Chinese language-acquisition research or any study of compatibility among the language-specific guidelines (Cui). It is also noted that Chinese language teaching in the United States has always followed a two-legged approach, a balance between infrastructure building and development of functional skills (Ling). Given that learning Chinese is a long and arduous process, infrastructure building, which usually consist of seemingly tedious and repetitive drills to achieve accuracy, is crucial for teaching a higher level of language proficiency.
4 Norman Fairclough points out that the study of language use, such as pragmatics or discourse analysis, has concentrated on the individual and on microstructures instead of exploring how language relates to social power. Pennycook notes that the field of applied linguistics needs to address “the fundamental limitations of asocial, ahistorical, and apolitical modes of inquiry for the highly political domain of second language education” (8). One major problem with the predominant paradigm of applied linguistics is that it offers no framework for exploring the politics of language education.
Burnaby, Barbara, and Yilin Sun. “Chinese Teachers' View of Western Language Teaching: Context Informs Paradigm.” TESOL Quarterly 23 (1989): 219–38.
Cui, Songren. ”Taking ACTFL Guidelines as Curriculum Objectives: Some Considerations.“ Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 29 (1994): 31–46.
Fairclough, Norman. Language and Power. London: Longman, 1989.
Feng, Youlan. A Short History of Chinese Philosophy. New York: Free, 1948.
Ling, Vivian. “The Proficiency Issue—Why All the Fuss?” Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 29 (1994): 1–12.
Pierce, Bronwyn Norton. “Towards a Pedagogy of Possibility in the Teaching of English Internationally: People's English in South Africa.” TESOL Quarterly 23 (1989): 401–20.
Pennycook, Alastair. “Toward a Critical Applied Linguistics for the 1990s.” Issues in Applied Linguistics 1 (1990): 8–28.
Phillipson, Robert. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford UP, 1992.
Prabhu, N. S. “There Is No Best Method—Why?” TESOL Quarterly 24 (1990): 161–76.
Reyes, Maria de la Luz. “Challenging Venerable Assumptions: Literacy Instruction for Linguistically Different Students.” Harvard Educational Review 62 (1992): 427–46.
Sheen, Ron. “A Critical Analysis of the Advocacy of the Task-Based Syllabus.” TESOL Quarterly 28 (1994): 127–51.
Tollefson, James. Planning Language, Planning Inequality. London: Longman, 1991.
© 1996 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
