expanding the socio-cultural knowledge in tesol

8/12/2019 Expanding the Socio-Cultural Knowledge in TESOL

1/19


2/19

management of innovation in teaching; and (3) awareness of the sociopoliticalfactors surrounding the teaching of English as an international language. Inlight of classroom studies that both revealed crosscultural variation in norms of teaching and learning and showed how pedagogical innovations need to be

appropriated to local conditions and expectations to be successful, I rst arguethat greater emphasis needs to be given to raising teachers awareness of notonly crosscultural variation in pedagogy but also of the process of implementingmethodological innovations in language teaching. Then, I discuss why teachersneed a deeper understanding of sociopolitical issues surrounding the teachingof English as an international language and how we, as teacher educators, canhelp. Resources to help teacher educators to integrate these three areas into exist-ing teacher education programmes are also suggested throughout the paper.

Teachers Knowledge BaseFollowing Tedick (2005: xviii), the knowledge base of language teachers can be

dened as what it is that second language teachers need to know and understandto be effective teachers and how that knowledge is incorporated into secondlanguage teacher education. It was Shulman (1987) who offered us one of the best known conceptualisations of what teachers knowledge base needed toconsist of: content knowledge, general pedagogic knowledge, curriculum knowl-edge, pedagogical content knowledge, knowledge of learners and their character-istics, knowledge of educational contexts, and knowledge of educational ends,purposes and values. He thus showed the multiple perspectives needed for teach-ing effectively. In their reconceptualisation of the knowledge base of languageteacher education, Freeman and Johnson (1998: 397) argue for the foregroundingof the activity of teaching itself in teacher education and the inclusion of formsof knowledge representation that document teacher learning within the social, cul-tural, institutional contexts in which it occurs, therefore drawing attention to thesociocultural context of teaching. Grabe et al. (2000), on the other hand, name thefour disciplines that they believe should form the applied linguistics base of language teacher education: linguistics, psychology, anthropology and education(see Grabe et al., 2000 for a discussion of the components of each domain).Works of the above scholars, among others, show clearly that the knowledge baseof teachereducation should be muchgreater thanpedagogical contentknowl-edge and techniques of classroom delivery. This paper is intended to complementthe above frameworks by detailing the kinds of sociopolitical and cultural infor-mation teachers need in order to deal with the complexity of teaching English asan international language today. The need for a reconsideration of the scope of language teacher education comes from the changing roles and responsibilitiesof language teachers, especially those teaching English as a global language. Italso stems from the fact that the sociopolitical and cultural variables surroundingEnglish language teaching (ELT) have not received adequate attention untilrecently, as discussed below.

Changing roles of language teachersI th t d d h d f t d t h t i i

Knowledge Base of TESOL Teacher Education 279


3/19

learners, to a more bottom-up, reection-oriented teacher developmentapproach, grounded in language teachers exploring and reecting on theirclassroom experiences. Despite this positive development, asKumaravadivelu (2003) explains, a shortcoming of the reection-oriented

approach was its total focus on the classroom, with inadequate attention tothe sociopolitical and other contextual factors that shape a teachers practice.Derived from critical pedagogy, the most recent approach to teacher educationassumes such awareness in the teachers, however. This recent view of teachersas transformative intellectuals emphasises the teachers role in the sociopoli-tical emancipation and empowerment of learners. Teachers are expected to besociopolitically conscientious and able to maximise learners sociopoliticalawareness via problem-posing classroom activities. Yet, although recent con-ceptualisations of teacher education reinforce the acknowledgment of the actof teaching and learning a language as socioculturally grounded, many

language teacher education programmes still appear to focus on linguistictheory and methodology, usually at the expense of preparing teachers whoare adequately equipped for teaching in todays globalising world ( cf.Govardhan et al., 1999), especially in terms of their macro socio-cultural andpolitical awareness. Knowledge of the nature of language in general and theinternal structure of the target language in particular and competence in thetarget language should, undoubtedly, be an integral aspect of languageteacher education, as should teaching methodology that is informed bysecond language acquisition research. What is argued here is that this linguisticand methodological knowledge needs to be better contextualised within

discussions of language teaching in its sociocultural and political context. Itis teachers connecting and reecting on the interrelatedness of these areasthat will strengthen their professional knowledge base.

Lack of consideration of sociocultural and political factors inlanguage teaching

The lack of attention given in language teacher education programmes tosociocultural variables surrounding second and foreign language teachinghas long been pointed out (e.g. Coleman, 1996; Duff & Uchida, 1997;Holliday, 1994, 1997; Pennycook, 1994; Tedick & Walker, 1994). Indeed, a

review of course requirements of MA TESOL programmes listed in theDirectory of Teacher Education Programs in TESOL in the United States andCanada (Garshick, 2002) conrms that not much has changed since the pleasof the above authors, as indicated by the scarcity of courses that deal withthe sociocultural and political context of TESOL (Dogancay-Aktuna, 2005a).Though many programmes mandate courses in sociolinguistics, languageand culture, or intercultural communication ( cf. Nelson, 1998), such coursesusually focus on the basic concepts of the discipline, often with little discussionof their applications in real-life teaching contexts. In the meantime, languageteachers encounter teaching tips in scholarly publications, conferences, and

the World Wide Web, with little scrutiny of their appropriateness for differentteaching contexts and little guidance in in-service or pre-service programmes

h t i l t d i l i ti I i th t f l

280 Language, Culture and Curriculum


4/19

forms of teaching, Holliday (1997: 235) wonders to what degree cultural con-tinuity is addressed in many training courses, and to what degree it is inhabited by popular views of technique and method, which might cloud the issue andcreate a sociological blindness and a subsequently unused local knowledge.

Others echo and add to Hollidays concerns when they discuss apparentdogmatism and negligence of the needs of international TESOL students inEnglish speaking countries (Govardhan et al., 1999; Liu, 1998) and cautionagainst ethnocentrism in MA TESOL programmes (Liu, 1998).

Fortunately, a growing body of classroom research reporting on problemslearners and teachers encounter in crosscultural teaching contexts (herebydened as when the teacher and / or pedagogical approaches used, on theone hand, and the learners, on the other, belong to different cultures of learningand teaching) is forming a powerful incentive to urge us to take a closer look atthe sociocultural diversity inherent in teaching and learning practices (see, for

example, Coleman, 1996; Holliday, 1994; Hu, 2002) In Duff and Uchidas (1997:476) words, cultural awareness and understanding are essential for languageteachers, whether they are working with relatively homogenous populationsin certain EFL settings abroad or with students from diverse backgrounds inESL settings. Given the fact that language education occurs in multiplecontexts and with diverse populations, it has become imperative that ESL /EFL teachers are adequately prepared to successfully transplant pedagogicalinnovations across contexts when desired, along with having the skills toexplore, question, and deal with the realities of the various teaching contextsin which they will function. This awareness needs to be grounded in a discus-

sion of the cultural politics of teaching English as an international language ( cf.McKay, 2002). It is with the aid of such knowledge that teachers will gain theability to assess the propriety, feasibility, applicability, and practicality of theirparticular language teaching methodology against a certain set of political,sociocultural, and pedagogic situations that they are going to be working in(Govardhan et al., 1999: 123).

Expanding the scope of language teacher education: A moreencompassing framework

A comprehensive guideline to show what language teachers need to learnto become critical educators can be adapted from Reagan and Osborn (2002),who, in trying to move us toward a critical foreign language pedagogy,argue that knowledge about language needs to accompany knowledge of thetarget language. They call this the metalinguistic knowledge base of humanlanguage whose components they delineate as follows (Reagan & Osborn,2002: 136).

(1) The social context of language.(2) The nature and outcomes of language contact.(3) The nature and implications of codeswitching and codemixing.

(4) Bilingualism and multilingualism as individual and social norms.(5) An awareness of the ecology of language(s).(6) Id l d l



5/19

(8) Realistic understandings of the nature and extent of language diversity indifferent societies.

(9) Language attitudes.(10) Issues of language standardisation.

(11) Issues of linguistic purism.(12) The nature and implications of linguistic variation.(13) The concept of linguistic legitimacy.(14) Language rights and language responsibilities.(15) The nature and process of language change.(16) The interrelationship of languages and language families.(17) The historical development of languages.(18) Language acquisition and language learning.(19) The relationship between language and culture.(20) The nature of literacy, and the concept of multiple literacies.

(21) Language differences versus language pathologies.(22) The nature and uses of language policy and language planning.(23) Critical language awareness.

The above items are areas language teachers need to know. Fortunately,many of the items on this list are already covered in the various courses inTESOL teacher education programmes. Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 12 and 19, forexample, are staples of sociolinguistics courses, as are 10 and 11; 9 and 18 aredealt with in second language acquisition courses, while 15, 16 and 17 arecovered in introductory linguistics courses. In the remainder of this paper, Iargue that the integration of the following three domains of study into languageteacher education can expose teachers to the remaining items and reinforce dis-cussions of the politics of language, as in language planning, language rights,and the like, that appear to be lacking in current TESOL programmes. 1

(1) Awareness of Crosscultural Variation in Teaching and Learningand Tools for Investigating this Variation

A discussion of styles of learning is now quite customary in second languageacquisition and methodology courses. During this discussion it needs to behighlighted that these styles can have a cultural component. As Oxford and

Anderson (1995: 201) maintain, for optimal language progress, languageinstructors need to understand their students learning styles and the culturaland crosscultural inuences that help shape those styles, in order to preventteachers tendencies to view learning difculties among culturally diverse stu-dents as problems inherent in the students themselves, rather than a lack of crosscultural or learning style understanding by the teacher. The authorsargue that many teacher education programmes do not adequately prepare tea-chers to develop their skills in identifying students learning styles and indealing with crosscultural differences. They therefore call for more emphasison the importance of situated cognition which holds that the setting and the

activity in which knowledge is developed are not separable from learning . . .Thus, in the foreign or second language classroom, the activities and culturali t b t d f h t i l d (O f d & A d



6/19

part of learning, then an activity that the learner is uncomfortable with or doesnot know how to utilise will be an impediment to learning.

A parallel discussion to the above is cultural variation in classroom behaviour. Two decades ago, Hofstede (1986: 305) lamented that scanning

the literature for information and advice for culturally mixed teacher / studentpairs, I found amazingly little, in view of the frequency of crosscultural learningsituations and of the perplexities they generate. Fortunately, in the past decadewe have accumulated a substantial body of literature not only reporting onissues encountered when teachers and students from different cultures comeinto contact in a classroom, but also showing what happens when there is amismatch between the norms and expectations learners bring to the classroomand the principles reinforced by the teachers pedagogy. Works by Holliday(1994, 1997), reports in Coleman (1996) and a series of articles, for instance,show how cultures of learning (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996) can vary across cultures

and how the way in which learners were socialised to behave in classroomsinteract with particular methodologies. Holliday (1997), for instance, showshow teaching methodology that fails to form cultural continuity with whatthe students expect can lead to tissue rejection or intercompetence. Hedenes these as the anomalous behaviour people display when they are outsi-ders to a new culture in which they are involved. He also shows that the learninggroup ideal, dened based on ESL classrooms in English speaking countries,is not universal. In a similar vein, Sullivan (1995) shows how overlappingand simultaneous talk in Vietnamese classrooms seems to be the norm,while this might look like chaos to outsiders. In a recent overview, Hu (2002)

reports how communicative language teaching (CLT) failed to have theexpected impact on ELT in China because assumptions underlying CLT con-icted with the Chinese culture of learning and with teachers and learnersexpectations of teaching. Other studies show how Chinese teachers and theirstudents view explicit grammar analysis as being crucial to foreign languagelearning and believe that the teacher should dominate the classroom(Campbell & Yong, 1993). A teacher who does not do these is seen as lazy orincompetent. Subsequently, Chinese students hesitate to accept group work,debates and other interactive activities as meaningful or relevant to their learn-ing, valuing instead mastery through memorisation as this is perceived to be

the knowledge that would bring them condence and a feeling of success(Cortazzi & Jin, 1996), especially in standardised examinations. The promotionof autonomy in traditional Chinese classrooms also proved difcult becausewhile personal autonomy appears to be a universally desirable and benecialobjective, . . . learner autonomy is exercised within the context of specic cul-tures (Ho & Crokall, 1995: 236).

In addition to the above, scholars have shown that in many EFL contexts thegoals of language teaching and norms of classroom participation differ fromthose in ESL contexts. In Japan, LoCastro (1996) reports how the mostpopular activity for students is the whole class working with the teacher and

how the mother tongue is used heavily in the lessons. Li (1998) shows howKorean teachers prefer discrete-point grammar tests to CLTwhile their studentsh i t t l ti i ti S h i t d t t b



7/19

students in a Pakistani university also resisted interactive classroom partici-pation, hence making the introduction of changes in classroom behaviourquite difcult for the teacher. In South Africa, students rate the more mechan-ical aspects of language study highly on enjoyment and benet (Barkhuizen,

1998), while in Indonesia some educators and administrators viewed the intro-duction of communicative language teaching as socially pollutive because itstenets countered the traditional norms of school culture (Tomlinson, 1990).These examples show how norms of teaching and learning, including expectedteacher and student roles and classroom activities, can vary across cultures andhow innovations that reinforce behaviour quite different from students andteachers previous experiences and expectations can lead to problems. Thiscrosscultural variation needs to be explored as teacher trainees analyse andevaluate alternative approaches to language teaching and engage in coursedesign projects.

On the other hand, scholars such as Guest (2002), Littlewood (2000) andKubota (1999) among others, argue that such studies as those cited above canfurther reinforce stereotypes and the othering of non-Western cultures. It ispossible that individual variation and the inherently dynamic nature of culture might not always be adequately foregrounded in studies of cross-cultural variation. This necessitates that classroom studies are carefully contex-tualised and scrutinised by teachers and teacher educators. We cannot,nevertheless, ignore problems that can and do occur as we export teachersand methodologies across contexts, as evidenced by many reports to thiseffect. Furthermore, as Coleman (1996: 13) maintains, a non-universalistic

approach to study of classrooms does not need to imply cultural stereotypingor simplistic labelling. Awareness of possible problems and their informed dis-cussion will aid teachers more than the avoidance of these issues for fear of stereotyping. A culture-general approach that outlines the role of culture incommunication and the way it can be reected in classroom communication(vs. the culture-specic study of particular groups) can lead to awarenessraising and sensitivity on the part of the teachers that will then facilitate theirengaging in pedagogy that will be locally appropriate for particular learnergroups (see Dogancay-Aktuna, 2005b, for details). It is important to note thatour goal is not for teachers to learn lists of items about different cultures,

which would indeed lead to stereotyping, but to become more sensitive tothe cultural diversity in teaching and learning experiences that students bring to the classroom.

Exposing teachers to works exemplifying crosscultural variation in class-room cultures can show them the culture-pedagogy link and trigger discus-sions of multiple views on literacy (Street, 1984) and discourse styles ( cf.Reagan & Osborns list, items 8 and 20) that can then lead into investigationsof the pedagogical expectations in a particular teaching context. Holliday(1994: 3) says that the literature (of ELT) is full of models and checklistsabout how to do and what to do; but hardly anywhere is there advice on

what we need to know about people and how we can nd this out (empha-sis original). One eld that can offer teachers and teacher educators insightsi t h t d t k b t l d h di t l



8/19

from ICC into TESOL programmes will also ll an important void in suchprogrammes because:

without a course that increases both students self-awareness and theirawareness of other cultures, TESOL graduates are more likely to enterinto intercultural teaching situations from an ethnocentric perspective,evaluating (often negatively) what they experience in terms of theirown culture. (Nelson, 1998: 27)

Awareness of cultural variation will then be supplemented by ethnographicskills that teachers can use to nd out about different learner groups, as dis-cussed below.

Having a good grasp of the components of culture and understanding howcultural norms, often working subconsciously, underlie most of what we do ona daily basis, including in the classroom, will be the start of a discussion of ICC.Scollon and Scollon (1995: 126127) dene culture as:

any of the customs, worldviews, language, kinship systems, social organ-ization, and other taken-for-granted day-to-day practices of a peoplewhich set that group apart as a distinctive group . . . . By using the anthro-pological (vs. high culture) sense of the word culture, we mean to con-sider any aspect of the ideas, communication, or behaviors of a groupof people which gives them a distinctive identity and which is used toorganize their internal sense of cohesion and membership.

In light of the above denitions, teachers can explore the dimensions overwhich cultures as a whole tend to vary by looking at models and conceptsfrom ICC. The four-dimensional model of cultural differences across societiesoffered by Hofstede (1986), Halls (1966) conceptualisation of variationsacross cultures, and Scollon and Scollons (1995) model of discourse variationacross cultures can all be discussed in this domain, with a view to understandinghow these dimensions can be reected in teacher-student roles across class-rooms. An understanding of concepts such as individualism vs collectivism,power distance ( cf. egalitarianism and hierarchy), weak vs strong uncertaintyavoidance, masculine vs feminine orientations, and other dimensions over

which cultures tend to vary, such as monochronic and polychronic time orien-tation; action vs being orientation; and views of change and tradition, will helpthe teachers realise why certain problems can arise during crosscultural teachingencounters. A good way of contextualising the above dimensions is to linkthem with teacher trainees analysis of reports from different classrooms,such as those cited above, or show them videos of crosscultural teachingencounters that include miscommunication or pedagogical confusion.

It is crucial that this overview of ICC includes a discussion of the dynamicnature of cultures and the inherent individual variation in each group. Weneed to ensure that teacher trainees do not use the above listed dimensions

as part of a checklist to pigeonhole learners. Indeed, this would defeat thewhole purpose of ICC training by shifting the emphasis from awareness

i i t li i d t t i d h t t d



9/19

The study of classroom research from different contexts, awareness of dimen-sions of ICC, and a crosscultural view of learning styles would reinforcetrainees understanding of external and internal contexts, dened byGudykunst and Kim (1992) as the two types of context characterising any situ-

ation. External context refers to the various settings where communicationoccurs and the social meanings society attaches to them. Societal norms onwhat constitutes appropriate teacher and student behavior in a classroom orhow language teaching should be carried out are examples of external contex-tual factors. Internal context, on the other hand, refers to the cultural norms andexpectations that the participants bring with themselves to an encounter. Assuch, both views of the context of learning and teaching are inuenced bylearner cultures and can lead to serious misunderstandings when undermined,ignored, or simply not met because pedagogy is culturally and contextuallydetermined.

As aforementioned, the above knowledge base needs to be complemented byskills teachers can use to explore the particular norms their students and col-leagues follow in a given context. This is where practical ethnography can beintroduced to teacher trainees as a tool to gather information on the socio-cultural backgrounds of the learners. Many scholars (Coleman, 1996;Holliday, 1994, among others) suggest that teachers engage in some sort of interpretive (as opposed to a normative) research project, as embodied in eth-nography or ethnographic action research, to develop their skills of observationand gain a deeper understanding of classroom culture and factors shaping it.Holliday (1994: 218) maintains that through ethnographic action research we

can develop appropriate methodology and curricula via a process of gradualinteraction with the relevant features of the host educational environment.Consideration of the host culture of learning is needed in order to avoid thecultural invasion or the methodological chauvinism of ESL-oriented peda-gogy over other contexts. This would in turn ensure that the different socialcontexts encountered in different educational environments thus becomemore than simply backdrops for the practice of English language education:they become a signicant input to the process. (Holliday, 1994: 218).

Hollidays (1994) classroom-oriented approach, comprehensive accounts of ethnography, like those of Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) and Saville-

Troike (1989), can be used effectively in TESOL training programmes to givetrainees an in-depth understanding of ethnographic research. An importantissue to convey in teacher education, however, is that ELT educators engagein applied or pragmatic ethnography (vs pure), as in ethnographic actionresearch (see Holliday, 1994: 192193). For this reason Watson-Gegeo (1988)and Damen (1987) are good sources for ELT practitioners. Damens (1987:6469) description of the steps involved in pragmatic ethnography (that is,choosing a target group and informants to work with, types of descriptive ques-tions to be asked of them, analysing the data, and the making and testing of emergent patterns, while looking in the mirror to understand the teachers

own interpretation of events under scrutiny), seems the most appropriate forthe kinds of classroom research proposed here for language teachers.Eth g hi ti h i i l t i f ti f t h t i t



10/19

subsequent pedagogical reection. Coupled with knowledge on the man-agement of change and the sociocultural factors surrounding their teaching,this knowledge can form a forceful move towards a more ecological, socio-culturally appropriate pedagogy.

(2) Knowledge of Management of Innovation inLanguage Teaching

During their education and subsequent professional development, ESL / EFLteachers will encounter pedagogical innovations whose feasibility, practicalityand sociocultural appropriateness they need to evaluate for their own teachingcontexts. Failure to scrutinise the feasibility of innovations can lead to the kindsof problems revealed by the above mentioned classroom studies. A body of work in ELT that can help teachers and teacher educators in understanding

better the dynamics of change implementation is work in managing curricularchange / innovation. Markee (1994: 1) denes curricular innovation as aphenomenon that involves managing developmental change in the design,implementation, and maintenance of teaching (and / or testing) materials, meth-odological skills, and pedagogical values that are perceived as new by individ-uals who comprise a formal (language) education system. Dened as such,success of curricular innovations require the cooperation of various groups besides an understanding of how the spread of innovation can offer languageteachers and course designers the tools to manage change more effectively.Highly accessible works by Kennedy (1987), Markee (1993) and White (1987)

can be integrated into teacher education programmes to be discussed alongsidethe implementation of various methodological approaches to language teaching.Kennedy (1987) adapts Chin and Bennes (1976) strategies for implementing

change to the context of ELT and teacher development. After distinguishingamong power-coercive (top-down), rational-empirical (based on providing infor-mation to receivers), and normative-re-educative strategies (where the complex-ity and multifaceted nature of change implementation are recognised), Kennedyargues that the normative-re-educative strategy is the only viable one for changein ELT because teaching is essentially a cognitive, behavioural and attitudinalactivity. Kennedy further argues that the collaborative, problem solving feature

of normative-re-educative strategies shares commonalties with action researchand places the responsibility for degree of change and acceptance or rejectionon the teacher, who is the insider, so that a lip service effect is less likely to occur.

Whites (1987) step-by-step approach to managing innovation uses principlesfrom the eld of management for introducing innovations. White emphasisesthe crucial importance for the receivers to have a clear understanding of aims of innovations because no proposal for change occurs in a vacuum. In asimilar vein to Kennedy (1987, 1988), White maintains that in general, inno-vations which are identied by members of an institution and arise within itstand more chance of success than those which are imported or imposed

(White, 1987: 212). This would explain why power-coercive strategies willnot work, as evidenced by the failure of some ELT aid projects ( cf. Rubdy,2000) d h th lt f th h l h ld b t k i t t i



11/19

suggests considering six steps while evaluating the appropriateness of intended innovations: (1) Dening aims what is the innovation? What dowe mean by the terms that we use? (crucial in ELT when there can be con-fusion of terminology) Why are we carrying out this innovation? What is it

for? Who is it for? and do we actually need it? (2) Dening end results what do we want to achieve? What does it mean for those affected by thechange? What will they be doing differently after the change has beenimplemented? In short, what does change mean in practice for them? (White,1987: 214). (3) Gathering information based on analysing the reasons forpresent practices; discovering what people want that is different from whatthey are doing; making tentative decisions about the priority of proposedchanges; planning the innovation carefully in terms of teacher preparation,student preparation, procedures to be followed, and the anticipated effectsof the innovation; and, determining the times and techniques for evaluation.

(4) Dening what has to be done making up a detailed list of actions, dead-lines and responsibilities. (5) Action where it is important to monitor what is being done. (6) Reviewing and evaluating the process of change implemen-tation to get a comprehensive understanding of a complex reality.

The above approach can benet ELT professionals greatly because, as White(1987: 217) maintains:

the content of a course, the methods employed, and the materials used arepedagogic and professional concerns; but choosing, using, and evaluatingall of these involve management and the application of reasonably sys-tematic ways of organizing and running a complex network of social, per-sonal, and professional relationships.

A nal reading of Waters and Vilches (2001) description of the implemen-tation of ELT innovations within a needs analysis framework and followingthe hierarchy of familiarisation, socialisation, application and integration of the innovation will reinforce the above ideas for teachers in training.

Combined with further readings from Markee (1993), Kennedy (1999), Rea-Dickins and Germaine (1998) and Trappes-Lomax (2000), knowledge on mana-ging innovations as detailed above can raise teachers awareness on the natureof the diffusion of innovation that would come into play when they decide to

make changes in their pedagogy. As Waters and Vilches (2001) maintain, weshould not forget that innovations generate a need for teacher learning.

Any attempt to change the curriculum whether indirectly throughchanges in teaching materials, for example, or more directly, throughchanges in teaching methodology implies a need for teacher learning,i.e. opportunities for the teacher to learn about the rationale for the newform of teaching, to critically evaluate it, and understand how to get the best out of it. (Waters & Vilches, 2001: 137)

Awareness of possible crosscultural variations in norms of teaching and

learning, skills in ethnographic inquiry, and knowledge of how innovationscan be managed will enable language teachers to evaluate in a more informedf hi h th th d i ti i i lt ll d d ti ll



12/19

Discussions on crosscultural variation in learning can begin in a secondlanguage acquisition course and can be reinforced in methodology courseswhen teachers review approaches to language teaching and design languagecurricula. Completing and strengthening teachers awareness of the socio-

culturally situated nature of language teaching would be a macro view of thesociopolitical context of ELT that forms the third domain of inquiry to be inte-grated into the proposed knowledge base of TESOL teacher education.

(3) Awareness of Sociopolitical Factors Surrounding Teachingof English as an International Language

An informed discussion of the sociopolitical factors surrounding TESOL isnecessary in teacher education today, given the sometimes controversial roleof English as an international language and the economic, social, politicaland cultural concerns stemming from this global presence. The sociopoliticaland cultural context of TESOL is dened as the macro domain of Englishlanguage teaching that includes political, cultural and social issues such asovert and covert language-in-education policies, the status of New Englishes,the ideology and politics of TESOL education, language identity, critical peda-gogy and the like. Knowledge of these macro issues is required in order toengage teachers in issues and dynamics of the sociocultural context of schools and schooling (Freeman & Johnson, 1998: 409) and to give them theopportunity to engage critically with sociopolitical concerns. As Pennycook(1994: 167) asserts, ELT practices cannot be reduced to a set of disconnectedtechniques but rather must be seen as part of larger cultural, discursive or ideo-logical order. This sociopolitical engagement will, in turn, facilitate teacherscritical appraisal of their social roles and responsibilities and lead to socio-culturally and politically contextualised pedagogical decisions.

Unfortunately, this sociopolitical domain has been the most overlooked one inteacher education programmes ( cf. Garshick, 2002). A review of courses offeredin MA TESOL programmes in the US and Canada, as listed in Garshick (2002),shows that courses dealing with the macro sociopolitical context of TESOL areindeed scarce. Only about 30 (around 20%) institutions out of 155 list courseswhose titles indicate some coverage of these macro sociopolitical issues asdened above (Dogancay-Aktuna, 2005a). As Crookes (1997: 71) says in outliningthe special problems of foreign language teacher education,

even relatively innovative S / FL (second / foreign language) teacher prep-aration programmes, including ESL programmes, usually reect a moregeneral tendency in education: a technocratic orientation that makes it dif-cult to provide new teachers with an understanding of their sociohisto-rical context, of themselves as political actors, and of the idea that theclassroom is not a given.

The rationale for gaining an understanding of the macro issues surroundinglanguage teaching are succintly summarised by Hall and Eggington (2000: 1)who maintain that

l li i b th f i ll d f i ll ti d lt l



13/19

in terms of, for example, gender, race, ethnicity and nationality at thesame time inform and constrain what we do in the classroom. Ouractions, in turn, both shape and constrain the social, academic and lin-guistic consequences for our learners. Thus, as important to the develop-

ment of English language teacher expertise as knowledge of effectiveclassroom practices may be our understanding of these more macrodimensions of pedagogy and how they shape both our roles as teachersand our students roles as learners.

Such a goal would then necessitate a reconceptualisation of language teachereducation towards critical pedagogy where teachers are led to see the broadsocial, historical, cultural, and political contexts of teaching and learning(Wink, 2000: 44). This move would empower teachers to engage in a pedagogyof possibility (Kumaravadivelu, 2001) and situate themselves better into the

sociopolitical context of language teaching. It will give them critical languageawareness and exposure to the remaining components of the metalinguisticsof human language (Reagan & Osborn, 2002: 136) such that they will learnabout ideology and language, the relationship between language and power,issues of linguistic legitimacy, language rights and responsibilities, and aboutlanguage planning (items 6, 7, 13, 14, 22 and 23).

The discussion of the sociopolitics of language teaching can be achieved bycritically engaging TESOL teachers with authors who have raised our con-sciousness about the power and politics, ideologies and inadequacies that beset English language education around the world. Discussions of auton-

omous and ideological views of literacy (Street, 1984); critical applied linguis-tics (Pennycook, 2001); globalisation of English language teaching and theprofessional demands this makes on teachers (Block & Cameron, 2002;Holliday, 2005; McKay, 2002); ideology and politics of language policies(Canagarajah, 1999; Hall & Eggington, 2000; Pennycook, 1994; Phillipson,1992; Ricento, 2000) including the politics of TESOL education; (Ramanathan,2002); language and identity (Norton, 1997); the role and status of non-nativeEnglish speaking professionals in TESOL (Braine, 1999, 2005; Gnutzmann,1999; Gnutzmann & Intemann, 2005; Kamhi-Stein, 2004; Llurda, 2005); theethics of ELT (Johnson, 2003); the ecological approach to language teaching

(Tudor, 2001), and World Englishes (Kachru, 1992) would give teachers a realis-tic, socioculturally grounded perspective. In this way, teachers can learn to linkthe micro aspects of English language teaching with the macro context. Theywill learn to problematise and contextualise their practice and engage inpraxis. As scholars like Kramsch (1993) and Pennycook (1994) argue, criticalpedagogy means teacher awareness of the global context of their work,coupled with local knowledge and respect for various approaches to pedagogy.An awareness of the sociopolitical ramications of their work and the powerrelationships involved in it will help teachers situate themselves in debateswhere they might be seen as imperial troopers of the Empire, to borrow

Edges (2003) term, or as agents of linguicism who are destroying the ecologyof languages ( cf. Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). In recent years, there has been a pro-lif ti f h l l bli ti th i liti l t t f ELT f



14/19

linguistics away from purely methodolocial concerns. Integration of thesematerials into TESOL teacher education programmes will help teachers become more analytical of their professional roles, while forming an importantstep towards critical pedagogy.

ConclusionIn this paper, I have discussed three main areas of inquiry to be integrated

into language teacher education programmes in order to prepare teachers better for working in diverse contexts. I argued that in response to the changingrole of teachers, the nature of problems encountered in the transfer of pedago-gical innovations across contexts, and recent attention to the macro context of language teaching, TESOL curricula need to integrate greater discussion of crosscultural variation in learning and teaching and expose teachers to the

managementof pedagogical innovation and the sociopolitical context of teachingEnglish on a global scale. The goal is to facilitate teachers recognition of thecomplex and situated nature of English language teaching that will helpthem in making socioculturally appropriate pedagogical decisions. Anothergoal is to help teachers deal with bandwagons that are abundant in TESOL.As Clarke (1982: 444445) says:

As a profession we appear to have a strong propensity for bandwagons,an inclination to seek simple, nal solutions for complex problems. Asindividuals we need to resist the assumption that there is one Truth. Weneed to recognize the fact that the dynamic nature of our professionwill continue to produce new insights into language, language learningand language teaching, and that these insights will make it possible forus to improve the way we do our jobs.

Inclusion of the above discussed domains in TESOL teacher education canlead to teachers who are better equipped to deal with bandwagons. Thismove can also aid in the paradigm shift towards training culturally andsociopolitically sensitive TESOL professionals who can design a pedagogy of particularity, practicality and possibility in the Kumaravadivelu (2001) senseof the post-method pedagogy and foster the ecological perspective of language

teaching as informed by local realities at multiple levels (Tudor, 2001, 2003).Finally, such modications would

enhance the teachers geographical and anthropological literacy andrespect for other countries and communities, their cultures, their edu-cational systems, and their conditions and ethics of work, includingthose that provide the socio-cultural exibility to cope with unfamiliarliving and working conditions. (Govardhan et al., 1999: 123)

Several points need to be kept in mind in integrating these three domains intoteacher education curricula. First of all, it needs to be noted that the suggested

curricular expansions for TESOL programmes are not envisioned to be mereadditions to existing courses, but viewed instead as a comprehensive paradigmhift A d d l t b tl d t i t h d ti i th l i l



15/19

within the totality of the lives of the various participants involved, instead of asa sub-part which can be examined in isolation. As Tudor (2003: 6) explains:

Adopting an ecological perspective requires us to look for the reality of language teaching beyond the ofcial version we nd in academic pub-lications and curriculum descriptions. It also requires us to look beyondthe concept of rationality as a single concept and to acknowledge theexistence of different rationalities, i.e. different understandings or waysof perceiving situations and choices. In essence, it assumes that teachingand learning will be effective only if they acknowledge and work with thevarious understandings and perceptions which participants bring withthem to the classroom and to the teaching-learning experience. This, inturn, calls for an open acknowledgement of diversity as a fundamentalcomponent of language teaching.

Secondly, it needs to be noted that many teachers, particularly the local ones,may already have the kinds of crosscultural knowledge as outlined above.What is suggested here is to dedicate more time to the above issues in pre-and in-service teacher education so as to facilitate teachers linking their knowl-edge with their classroom practices in a more sociopolitically and culturallyinformed manner. The suggested modications will empower local (non-native) teachers of English by legitimising their pedagogical concerns andexpertise, which can, in turn, increase teacher motivation that can benet thelearners. Expatriate (native) teachers will also benet from these discussions by virtue of learning to function with greater efciency in unfamiliar contexts

of teaching and by learning to utilise better what learners bring to the class-room. Understanding the sociopolitical and cultural connotations of teachingEnglish as an international language can also help native and non-native tea-chers collaborate to explore the linguistics of English as a global communi-cation tool.

Finally, teacher educators need to keep in mind that some of the aboveproposed issues are already covered in various courses traditionally offeredin TESOL programmes, such as sociolinguistics, methodology and secondlanguage acquisition. Their goal should be the facilitation of teachers linkingthe above three domains to what they already know by laying the foundation

for more sociopolitically and culturally informed discussions.Correspondence

Any correspondence should be directed to Seran Dogancay-Aktuna,Department of English Language and Literature, Southern Illinois UniversityEdwardsville, Peck Hall, Box 1431, Edwardsville, Illinois 62026-1431, USA([email protected]).

Note1. Inspiration for these three domains of inquiry comes from various sources: works by

Pennycook (1989, 1994), Phillipson (1992), and others writing on the sociopolitics of English language teaching; research in intercultural communication, includingresearch on culturally different learning styles; concepts from the elds of manage-



16/19

teaching (Kumaravadivelu, 2001) and foregrounded the need for an ecological(Tudor, 2003), socioculturally appropriate methodology (Coleman, 1996; Holliday,1994; Kramsch 1993), and critical applied linguistics (Pennycook, 2001).

ReferencesBarkhuizen, G.P. (1998) Discovering learners perceptions of ESL classroom teaching /

learning activities in a South African context. TESOL Quarterly 32 (1), 85 108.Block, D. and Cameron, D. (eds) (2002) Globalization and Language Teaching. London /

New York: Routledge.Braine, G. (ed.) (1999) Non-native Educators in English Language Teaching. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Earlbaum.Braine, G. (ed.) (2005) Teaching English to the World: History, Curriculum, and Practice.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.Campbell, K.P. and Yong, Z. (1993) The dilemma of English language instruction in the

Peoples Republic of China. TESOL Journal 4 (2), 4 6.Canagarajah, S. (1999) Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. New York:

Oxford University Press.Chin, R. and Benne, K.D. (1976) General strategies for effecting changes in human

systems. In W.G. Bennis, T.D. Benne, R. Chin and K.E. Corey (eds) The Planning of Change (pp. 2245). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Clarke, M.A. (1982) On bandwagons, tyranny, and common sense. TESOL Quarterly 16(4), 437448.

Coleman, H. (1996) Autonomy and ideology in the English language classroom. InH. Coleman (ed.) Society and the Language Classroom (pp. 1 15). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Cortazzi, M. and Jin, L. (1996) Cultures of learning: Language classrooms in China. InH. Coleman (ed.) Society and the Language Classroom (pp. 169206). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Crookes, G. (1997) What inuences what and how second and foreign language teachersteach? The Modern Language Journal 81 (1), 6779.

Damen, L. (1987) Culture Learning: The Fifth Dimension in the Language Classroom.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Dogancay-Aktuna, S. (2005a) Increasing socio-political awareness in TESOL teachereducation. Paper presented at the 39th Annual TESOL Convention, 30 March2 April, 2005, San Antonio, TX.

Dogancay-Aktuna, S. (2005b) Intercultural communication in English language teachereducation. ELT Journal 59 (2), 99 107.

Duff, P.A. and Uchida, Y. (1997) The negotiation of teachers socio-cultural identities andpractices in postsecondary EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly 31 (3), 451486.

Edge, J. (2003) Imperial troopers and servants of the Lord: A vision of TESOL for the 21stcentury. TESOL Quarterly 37 (4), 701709.

Freeman, D. and Johnson, K. (1998) Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of languageteacher education. TESOL Quarterly 32 (3), 397417.

Garshick, E. (ed.) (2002) Directory of Teacher Education Programs in TESOL in the UnitedStates and Canada, 20022004. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.

Gnutzmann, C. (ed.) (1999) Teaching and Learning English as a Global Language: Native andNon-Native Perspectives. Tubingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.

Gnutzmann, C. and Intemann, F. (eds) (2005) The Globalization of English and the EnglishLanguage Classroom. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Govardhan, A., Nayar, B. and Sheorey, R. (1999) Do U.S. MATESOL programs preparestudents to teach abroad? TESOL Quarterly 33 (1), 114125.

Grabe, W., Stroller, F.L. and Tardy, C. (2000) Disciplinary knowledge as a foundation forteacher preparation. In J.K. Hall and W.G. Eggington (eds) The Sociopolitics of EnglishLanguage Teaching (pp. 178 194). Clevedon / Toronto: Multilingual Matters.



17/19

Gudykunst, W.B. and Kim, Y.Y. (1992) Communicating with Strangers: An Approach toIntercultural Communication (2nd edn). New York: McGraw Hill.

Hall, E. (1966) The Hidden Dimension. New York: Doubleday.Hall, J.K. and Eggington, W.G. (eds) (2000) The Sociopolitics of English Language Teaching.

Clevedon / Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (1983) Ethnography: Principles and Practice. London:Tavistock.Ho, J. and Crokall, D. (1995) Breaking with Chinese cultural traditions: Learner auton-

omy in English language teaching. System 23 (2), 235243.Hofstede, G. (1986) Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations 10, 301320.Holliday, A. (1994) Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge / New York:

Cambridge University Press.Holliday, A. (1997) Six lessons: Cultural continuity in communicative language teaching.

Language Teaching Research 1 (3), 212 238.Holliday, A. (2005) The Struggle to Teach English as an International Language. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Hu, G. (2002) Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum 15(2), 93 105.

Johnson, B. (2003) Values in English Language Teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Kachru, B. (ed.) (1992) The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Urbana / Chicago:

University of Illinois Press.Kamhi-Stein, L. (ed.) (2004) Learning and Teaching from Experience: Perspectives on Non-

Native English-Speaking Professionals. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.Kennedy, C. (1987) Innovating for a change: Teacher development and innovation. ELT

Journal 41 (3), 163170.Kennedy, C. (1988) Evaluation of the management of change in ELT projects. Applied

Linguistics 9, 329 342.Kennedy, C. (ed.) (1999) Innovation and Best Practice: ELT Review. London: Longman.Kramsch, C. (1993) Context and Culture in Language Teaching. London / New York: Oxford

University Press.Kubota, R. (1999) Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied

linguistics research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly 33 (1), 935.Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001) Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly 35 (4),

537560.Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003) Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching.

New Haven: Yale University Press.Li, D. (1998) Its always more difcult than you plan and imagine: Teachers perceived

difculties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOLQuarterly 32 (4), 677703.

Liu, D. (1998) Ethnocentrism in TESOL: Teacher education and the neglected needs of international TESOL students. ELT Journal 52 (1), 310.

Littlewood, W. (2000) Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? ELT Journal 54(1), 3135.

Llurda, E. (ed.) (2005) Non-Native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges andContributions to the Profession. New York: Springer.

LoCastro, V. (1996) English language education in Japan. In H. Coleman (ed.) Society andthe Language Classroom. (pp. 4058). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Markee, N. (1993) The diffusion of innovation in language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13, 229 243.

Markee, N. (1994) Curricular innovation: Issues and problems. Applied Language Learning5 (2), 130.

McKay, S.L. (2002) Teaching English as an International Language: Rethinking Goals and Approaches. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.

Nelson G (1998) Intercultural communication and related courses taught in TESOL



18/19

Norton, B. (1997) Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 31(3), 409429.

Oxford, R.L. and Anderson, N.J. (1995) A crosscultural view of learning styles: State of the art article. Language Teaching 28, 201215.

Pennycook, A. (1989) The concept of method, interested knowledge, and politics of

language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 23 (4), 589618.Pennycook, A. (1994) The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language.London /New York: Longman.

Pennycook, A. (2001) Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Earlbaum.

Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. New York: Oxford University Press.Ramanathan, V. (2002) The Politics of TESOL Education: Writing, Knowledge, Critical

Pedagogy. New York / London: RoutledgeFarmer.Rea-Dickins, P. and Germaine, K. (eds) (1998) Managing Evaluation and Innovation in ELT:

Building Bridges. London: Addison Wesley Longman.Reagan, T. and Osborn, T.A. (2002) The Foreign Language Educator in Society: Toward a

Critical Pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ricento, T. (ed.) (2000) Ideology, Politics and Language Policies: Focus on English.Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Rubdy, R. (2000) Dilemmas in ELT: Seeds of discontent or sources of transformation?

System 28 (3), 403418.Saville-Troike, M. (1989) The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction.Oxford: Basil

Blackwell.Scollon, R.S. and Scollon, W. (1995) Intercultural Communication. Oxford, UK / Cambridge,

USA: Basil Blackwell.Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) Linguistic human rights and teachers of English. In J.K. Hall

and W.G. Eggington (eds) The Sociopolitics of English Language Teaching (pp. 2243).Clevedon / Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

Shamim, F. (1996) Learner resistance to innovation in classroom methodology. InH. Coleman (ed.) Society and the Language Classroom (pp. 105121). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Shulman, L. (1987) Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. HarvardEducational Review 57 (1), 122.

Street, B. (1984) Literacy in Theory and Practice. London: Cambridge University Press.Sullivan. P. (1995) Sociocultural inuences on classroom interactional styles. TESOL

Journal Autumn, 3234.Tedick, D.J (ed.) (2005) Second Language Teacher Education: International Perspectives.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.Tedick, D. and Walker, C. (1994) Second language teacher education: The problems that

plague us. The Modern Language Journal 78 (3), 300312.Tomlinson, B. (1990) Managing change in Indonesian high schools. ELT Journal 44 (1),

2537.Trappes-Lomax, H. (ed.) (2000) Change and Continuity in Applied Linguistics. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.Tudor, I. (2001) The Dynamics of the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Tudor, I. (2003) Learning to live with complexity: Towards an ecological perspective on

language teaching. System 31 (1), 112.Waters, A. and Vilches, M.L.C. (2001) Implementing ELT innovations: A needs analysis

framework. ELT Journal 55 (2), 133141.Watson-Gegeo, K.A. (1988) Ethnography in ESL: Dening the Essentials. TESOL

Quarterly 22 (4), 575592.White, R.V. (1987) Managing innovation. ELT Journal 41 (3), 211218.Wink, J. (2000) Critical Pedagogy: Notes from the Real World. New York: Longman.



19/19

expanding the socio-cultural knowledge in tesol

Documents