internationalizing teaching, localizing english: english language teaching reforms at a south
TRANSCRIPT
i
Internationalizing Teaching, Localizing English: Language Teaching Reforms through a
South Chinese University
By
Paul Robert McPherron
B.A. (University of Illinois) 1998
M.A. (University of California, Davis) 2004
DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in
Linguistics
in the
OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES
of the
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
DAVIS
Approved:
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
Committee in Charge
2008
iii
The dissertation is dedicated to my father
Robert McPherron
1944-2002
who taught me the importance of listening more than speaking, and who
will always be my role model of how to live a good life.
iv
Abstract
Based on ethnographic data collected over a three-year span at a university in the Peoples
Republic of China, named here China Southern University (CSU), the study adds a
practicing EFL teacher and Chinese university perspective to theoretical discussions of
communicative competence and globalization. Specifically, the dissertation presents local
forms of globalization in university ELT classrooms in China through two organizing
themes: 1) Teacher appropriation of west-based teaching roles and methods; and 2)
English language learner responses to internationalization reforms and new learning
goals.
CSU is located in southern China and closely tied to national attempts to increase
the number and spoken fluency of English speakers in an effort to ―internationalize‖
Chinese education and meet the growing need for bilingual Mandarin-English and
trilingual Mandarin-Cantonese-English managers. In recent years, the university
mandated that all students take English through a newly created English Language
Department (ELD), and it has recruited many ―foreign experts‖ to teach new courses
specifically using communicative language teaching (CLT) methods.
The data in the dissertation come from discourse analysis of university language
policies and web documents coupled with qualitative data from: 1) classroom
observations of participating local and foreign teacher English classrooms; 2) interviews
with all foreign and local English teachers at CSU; 3) case studies and interviews of
students in ELD courses; 4) student journals from my own classrooms; 5) my own
teacher and researcher notes over the course of three teaching semesters at CSU.
v
The study presents several tensions in the reform and internationalization policies
at CSU and found that students and teachers at CSU are maintaining traditional views of
Chinese culture and education while fashioning creative and international identities
through English language learning and teaching. In the drive to reform universities and
replicate international teaching methods, Chinese university English programs need to
more thoroughly incorporate these diverse voices and language practices and not simply
strive to replicate dominant discourses and methods in the ELT field. In this way, English
language programs at CSU and in the larger Chinese context can become truly trans-
national and more relevant to Chinese students and teachers of English.
vi
Table of Contents
Title Page i
Dedication ii
Abstract iii
Table of Contents v
Acknowledgements vi
Description of Discourse Markers vii
INTRODUCTION: Why study globalization through English language learning 1
and teaching?
CHAPTER ONE: Approaches to ideology, globalization and ELT pedagogy 13
CHAPTER TWO: Contexts, research methods, and grounded theory 48
CHAPTER THREE: CSU education reforms and teacher roles 73
CHAPTER FOUR: Interpretations and appropriations of Communicative 111
Language Teaching
CHATPER FIVE: English name choices and global identifications 144
CHAPTER SIX: Student self-assessment in writing portfolio assessments 185
CONCLUSION: Re-constructing English Language Teaching 212
REFERENCES 229
APPENDIX: Interview questions 240
vii
Acknowledgements
This dissertation would not have been possible without the patience, wisdom, and care
from my excellent committee. In particular, I would like to thank Vaidehi Ramanathan
for her unlimited time and abilities to talk with me about everything from the small
details to the big ideas, often at the same time. You are the model of how to advise
graduate students.
I would like to also thank Julia Menard-Warwick and Karen Watson-Gegeo for their
limitless time in editing and advising me on ethnographic methods and research writing.
Your comments and insights inspired me to closely look at my data and find the right
words to represent the students and teachers in my study.
I want to also thank my wonderful family and fiancée, Jessica Upson, for their support
and encouragement over the last years. You have always believed in me and this
research, often more than I have.
At its core, this dissertation is a discussion about what it means to learn English as an
International Language (EIL) at this particular point in time. I want to thank the teachers
and students of China Southern University (CSU) who shared their thoughts, classrooms,
and homes with me while conducting this research. Our discussion will continue as CSU,
China, and the rest of the world continue to define and debate the meanings and processes
of globalization.
viii
Description of Discourse Markers
(( )) = Description or summary of participant/s action
[ ] = My comment or translation
(?) = Question/ Rising tone
CAPS = Emphasis/falling tone
… = Short pause of less than one second
(1.0) = Pause of one second
(2.0) = Pause of two seconds
(3.0) = Pause of three seconds
1
Introduction
Why study globalization through English language teaching and learning?
During my first semester as an English instructor at a university in southern
China, called here China Southern University (CSU), a student with the English name
Guy wrote to me explaining his ambiguous relationship with English.
To be honest, I don‘t think many Chinese students really love English, include
me. I don‘t love learning English, I learn it just because I need it, sometimes----
maybe I need it more in the future----and because sometimes I found it interesting
to use a language which is different from my own, from which I can hide myself
and ―translate‖ myself to be a different person, another ego.
He went on to write about how many students were tired of the speaking focus of the
classes at CSU, and he suggested less classroom discussion and more writing help. I was
immediately challenged by Guy‘s unsolicited and direct comments on his reasons for
learning English and his problems with my focus on communicative competence
(primarily speaking skills). I asked myself many questions: Why did he write to me, the
foreign teacher, and not other Chinese teachers?; Did he want me to know something as
the foreigner in China about what students really thought of my classes? Was he resisting
my teaching or more widely the university‘s policies that require all students to advance
to a high proficiency in English? Finally, it may not be necessary to ―love‖ learning
English in order to do well in class (and Guy was a top student), but what exactly did
Guy mean by ―need‖? The email provided important insight into my classroom at the
time and Guy and I have since become good friends often discussing his ideas about
educational reforms in China and his desire to make studying ancient Chinese characters
a requirement for all university students, but the questions that emerge from Guy‘s email-
about globalization, ELT, and identity (both mine and Guy‘s) - remain.
2
English has been taught in China for over 500 years (Adamson, 2004), but recent
attempts to prepare the nation for hosting the Olympics and to broaden economic and
trade links have pushed learning English into the lives of even more Chinese citizens and
increased its value as cultural and symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1991; Kramsch, 2006b).
Judging from the explosion of private language schools, the increasing number of foreign
expert teachers, the numerous self-teaching programs such as Crazy English (Bolten,
2002), and the recent policy requiring English language teaching starting in 2nd
grade, it
would appear that mainland China is embracing English and west-based teaching
methods as an index of global identity and future superpower status. Guy‘s email and the
narratives and opinions of the students and teachers in the following dissertation serve to
complicate simplistic images of the growing acceptance of English language and Western
cultural dominance in China, of students who just want to memorize English phrases
without creativity, and of teachers who prefer grammar-translation methods and ignore
speaking skills. In fact, many of my students at China Southern University, similar to
Guy, are questioning why and how they learn English, just as the foreign and local
teachers (as they are called at CSU) are negotiating traditional and dominant discourses
and practices about the English language and English Language Teaching (ELT)
methods. Guy‘s email was an important catalyst in focusing my interest on these cultural
and personal negotiations of English learning, and the discussions, debates, and
appropriations among and between students and teachers at CSU form the backbone for
this research project.
3
CSU and the Chinese ELT context
Founded outside of a coastal city in Guangdong Province in 1981, China Southern
University was the first university to be built in the region, and its explicit goal, from the
start, was to provide a link between the city and the Hong Kong and international
business community. In fact, the initial funds for the university came from a prominent
Hong Kong businessperson and his philanthropic foundation, and he remains the
president of the board of directors and contributes at least half of CSU‘s operating
budget. Also, in the 1980‘s, the city where the university is located was named a Special
Economic Zone (SEZ) by the national government in order spur and control trade with
foreign governments and industries, and since then the city next to CSU has seen massive
industrial development and a growing migrant population. Attracted by the SEZ status,
many of the students like Guy who enroll in CSU are not from the local area and do not
speak the local Chaoshan dialect12
. In fact, most students at CSU speak a dialect of
Cantonese as a first language. Due to the language differences and often bigger
opportunities in other coastal cities, many students view CSU as an initial step in moving
1 According to Li & Thompson (1981) Chaoshanhua is a Min dialect, primarily spoken in eastern
Guangdong, near CSU. Most CSU students, however, come from major metropolitan areas around
Guangzhou, Foshan, and other cities in central Guangdong Province and speak a dialect of Cantonese. All
classes are taught in Mandarin Chinese at CSU with signs instructing students qing shou putonghua (Please
speak the common language of Mandarin) on the entrance to buildings. In residence halls and cafeterias,
however, dialects of Cantonese are the most commonly heard language spoken.
2 Linguists, Chinese government officials, and local language and culture preservationists have long
contested the terms ―dialect‖ and ―language‖ in the Chinese language context. In official government
policy and in the majority of the Han Chinese public opinion, Cantonese and Chaoshanhua are dialects of
Chinese (with Mandarin considered the ―standard‖). Linguists such as Li & Thompson (1981) often set
aside political aspect of these distinctions by referring to the popular quote ―a language is a dialect with an
army and a navy,‖ and they focus on cataloguing the differences in phonology, syntax, and semantics
between what Li & Thompson (1981) call Chinese dialect families. This dissertation is not investigating
these complex historical, social, and political definitions of Chinese languages, but the wide variety of first
and second dialects/languages spoken on the CSU campus does play a role much of the identity choices and
processes analyzed in the dissertation, and I will refer to students as Cantonese speakers or Chaoshanhua
speakers throughout the dissertation, avoiding referring to them as dialects or languages.
4
from smaller interior cities to larger and more successful urban areas in Guangzhou,
Shenzhen, and Shanghai after graduation, and in order to move to many of these areas,
English fluency and completion of the College English Test (CET) 4 or 6 is a
requirement34
. CSU does not keep records of where students eventually find employment
and in what ways they use their English skills, but statistics printed in a 2005 report to the
board of directors cited a 98% employment rate for 2005 graduates within a year of
graduation.
Clearly, from its inception, CSU has been tied to China‘s economic policies and
goals of integrating Chinese society within international business and trans-national
3 The CET test series tests the reading, writing, vocabulary, and listening skills of university students. Most
university students in China who have studied English will take at least the CET band 4 (Intermediate) in
order to qualify for certain jobs. Typically, English majors and students with a high English proficiency
will take the CET band 6 (Advanced) as a further marker of English ability. In addition to taking test
preparation seminars provided by local teachers, CSU students memorize lists of vocabulary words from
test-preparation books published by CET test writers. Many students have remarked to me that the test is
primarily a test of vocabulary.
4 Chinese citizens have a residence card, called a hukou, determined by where a person is born. Citizens are
only allowed to live temporarily and afforded no rights of residence outside of their hukou districts. The
process for a person to move their hukou place can be difficult, and Shanghai and Shenzhen require a high
score on the CET 4 or CET 6.
5
communities, and university graduates in southern China have many opportunities to find
jobs in the international businesses located in many coastal cities, making it a very
intriguing place to study the effects and responses of globalization in China, and more
specifically the effects of globalization on English language learning. As I am keen to
point out in much of the following dissertation, however, there is not a singular definition
of globalization that can reflect the complex economic and cultural processes occurring at
CSU or in any other context, but the student and teacher perspectives from CSU illustrate
local responses to economic and cultural globalizing surges that have affected China and
the world in recent years. In his study of the national curriculum and textbooks at Chinese
primary, secondary, and tertiary schools, Adamson (2004) links many of the reforms in
Chinese education that created universities such as CSU to the period of modernization
and opening under Deng Xiao Ping when English teaching in China become more
focused on ―independent learning‖ similar to the types of teaching reforms at CSU.
Table 1: Recent teaching methods in China (adapted from Adamson, 2004, p. 204)
Phase Pedagogical influences Pedagogical features
The Soviet influence
1949-60
Grammar translation;
Structural Approach;
Traditional Chinese; and
USSR pedagogy
Teacher-centered;
focus on accuracy and
written language; Five
Steps.
Towards quality in
education 1961-66
Traditional Chinese;
Grammar-Translation;
Structural Approach; some
Audiolingualism.
Reading aloud; oral
practice; memorization;
sentence writing;
independent learning
The Cultural
Revolution
1966-76
Traditional Chinese and some
modern Western influence
such as Audiolingualism.
Various: mainly
teacher-centered; focus
on accuracy and
written language; some
reading aloud.
6
Modernization
Under Deng Xiaoping
1978-93
Traditional Chinese;
Grammar-Translation;
modern Western influence
such as Functional/Notional
Oral practice in
context; independent
learning; accuracy;
memorization; written
language.
Integrating with
globalization
1993-present
Traditional Chinese;
Structural Approach; Task-
based learning;
Functional/Notional.
Oral and written
practice in context;
same as modernization.
In addition, he finds that even with the recent influx of foreign teachers and the focus on
functional/notional syllabi, traditional Chinese methods of memorized texts and
vocabulary building have remained as important influences. Adamson‘s (2004) work
shows that the preferred teaching methods in China have always reflected political trends
and a negotiation of the amount of outside influence on the Chinese school system, and
his study raises questions about what role recent reforms of language teaching introduced
at CSU would play in an already heterogeneous educational system. While Adamson
(2004) looked at national curriculum standards and textbooks, he writes that key
questions about what teaching methods have looked like in classroom practice in China
are too difficult to answer due to the large number of classrooms in very divergent
contexts in China. I argue, however, that this is exactly where an ethnographic and
teacher-researcher perspective is valuable. By gathering diverse data on student
appropriations of English and teacher interpretations of student-centered reforms, an
ethnographic study of a reform-university can illustrate the complex situation that
Adamson has presented in his work.
By ―traditional Chinese‖, Adamson is describing what Martin Cortazzi and Lixian
Jin in their diverse work have called a Chinese culture of learning (1998, 2002, 2006), or
the ―interpretative frameworks through which classroom events, other participants and
7
their educational identities are evaluated‖ (Cortazzi & Jin, 2002, p. 55). In their work, the
researchers have argued that while Chinese education is undergoing vast changes, some
of the basic tenets of western based pedagogies will not fit with a Confucian heritage that
places the teacher as the leader and expert in the classroom.
It is clear that many ELT classrooms are changing, and in such times of rapid
change in China, a description of classroom practices is hardly predictive. Still,
analyses of Chinese English classrooms show characteristic interaction patterns,
including clear teacher explanations and presentation of models; high-paced,
varied and vigorous questioning; organized learner participation with high
attention and strict discipline as teachers mediate the textbook. (Jin & Cortazzi,
2002, p. 52)
For example, a student in Jin & Cortazzi‘s (2002) study remarks, ―No questions can be
allowed when the teacher is talking to the class, so we should ask during break. We
should not interrupt the teacher‘s thought. This is a kind of respect‖ (p. 67), and in Jin
and Cortazzi (2006), they further argue that any reforms or changes in teaching practices
in China intended to incorporate communicative practices must take into consideration
Chinese text-centered and teacher-centered cultures of learning.
Kubota (1999) has correctly noted the tendency of this type of work to explain
classroom teaching and learning as essentializations of Chinese and Asian cultures, but I
argue in this dissertation that there is worth in investigating notions of culture and
learning, even as social constructions, particularly because culture means something to
the students and teachers at CSU. Like Guy‘s call for more emphasis on Chinese culture
in language teaching, students and teachers at CSU construct images and voice
characteristics of what is Chinese and what is foreign on a daily basis at CSU.
Complicating Jin and Cortazzi‘s view of Chinese culture but recognizing the power of
cultural affiliations, the following dissertation project is an investigation of student and
8
teacher negotiations and uses of culture, identity, and pedagogy at CSU that at times do
essentialize the ―East‖ and the ―West.‖ As markers of responses and effects of
globalization, these interpretations and essentializations are central to my work at CSU.
Studying globalization in ELT
Broadly speaking, in this dissertation project, I investigate the tensions in the
changing demographics of multilingual and transnational societies and the role English
education plays in shaping student and community investment in and imagination of
international citizenship. More specifically, I argue that these students and teachers at
CSU offer examples of the power of the English-as-an-international-language myth as
well as the complex practices of localization that defy easy categorization and simplistic
analysis, as English meanings and teaching methods index multiple traditions. Detailed in
Chapter 1, humanities and social science researchers have written extensively on the role
of globalization as an economic and cultural process reinforced with what Steger (2004)
calls globalism, the ideology of world markets as benefiting and connecting people from
divergent spaces and times. Additionally, many theorists have celebrated the emerging
trans-cultural and trans-national projections of people and communities, tied to new
global norms and ―landscapes‖ far from any immediate or local surroundings (Appadurai,
1996; Louie, 2007). These globalizing trends are apparent in the field of applied
linguistics as at recent conferences, in edited books, and through special issues of
journals, scholars continue to examine language policies, teaching methods, spoken and
written norms, and language ideologies from a global perspective (Block & Cameron,
2002; Canagarajah, 2005a; Ricento, 2006; Ramanthan & Morgan, 2007).
9
Recognizing the important trend towards viewing issues in language policy and
education as global and trans-national, Ramanathan & Morgan (2007), in introducing
their special issues of the TESOL Quarterly, mention the need for studies to move beyond
the level of description and deal with the messy details of how we can affect and change
our teaching contexts. They write:
It seems time that we go beyond documenting and describing how our current
language policies often sustain or create inequalities- we accept this as a truism
now- to spaces where we become cognizant of our agentive roles in their
enactments. In other words, we wish to go beyond asking, ―what do language
policies do,‖ to asking ―what can we do with language policies in our immediate
professional contexts?‖ (Ramanthan & Morgan, 2007, p. 450)
Following this call for a move from description to more personal analysis of what we can
do in our immediate educational policy and pedagogical practices, and attempting to
represent the intricate practices and processes of English learning at CSU in relation to
larger theoretical concepts, the dissertation is a study of both the foreign and local teacher
classrooms that I observed at CSU as well as my own classroom practices. For example, I
describe CSU student choices and uses of English names, and in addition, I analyze my
own role in their creation and discuss how curriculum and policy can respond to this local
creative practice. I report on the multiple and conflicting teaching roles for local and
foreign teachers in CSU classrooms, and I also detail my own negotiation of locally and
globally indexed teaching roles. In short, the following dissertation draws on
ethnographic data collection, grounded theory, and larger theoretical notions of identity
and globalization while contextualizing my own position as a teacher and member of the
CSU university community.
Returning to Guy‘s letter, he writes that maybe he ―needs‖ English in his future
but for him he is ambivalent about its role in his life as a journalism student aiming to
10
work as a journalist in China primarily in Mandarin, Hakka, and Cantonese. Indeed, he
and other students reported to me that while they liked my Advanced English class they
only enrolled because it was a requirement for their majors and they would probably not
study English again, but they often feel the ―need‖ to study English for pragmatic goals
of finding jobs as mentioned by Guy. Students, teachers (both local and foreign), and
administrators at CSU are struggling to define the role of English in their academic and
personal lives, and a pragmatic reading of the ―need‖ for English at CSU is simply that
English is recognized as an important marker of higher education and as an index of
sophistication. In other words, English is primarily viewed by students as a ―need‖ in
order to get a job. Thus, a diploma from a university such as CSU, with its high English
proficiency requirements, or a high score on an English exam such as the CET 4 or CET
6 helps the students secure a future job, even if the job requires little to no English use.
This instrumental role of English can clearly be linked to a new habitus (Bourdieu, 1991)
of being a professional and educated Chinese and international citizen, but throughout the
dissertation I tease out and further examine what other roles English serves and how it is
performed, outside of these practical and structural readings of English as a dominant
―money‖ language. Restating Ramanathan and Morgan (2007), I explore not just what
English as an international language does, but what are students- such as Guy, with their
ambivalence, playfulness, and new ―egos‖- doing with English, and what do they and the
teachers at CSU reveal about what we do with English in internationalizing contexts such
as CSU.
Drawing on the multiple perspectives of teachers, students, media, and policy
artifacts, the aim of the dissertation is not to design or point directly to grand, explanatory
11
answers to these and other questions posed here, nor will I propose a theory or framework
of language learning and global identities and teaching strategies in Chinese higher
education. Instead, the chapters and discussions in the dissertation point to ―what‖ we do
with the contingent conditions present in all universities and internationalized spaces,
offering detailed analysis of local classrooms and dialogues about English learning at
CSU. The image of contingency illustrated throughout the dissertation comes from what
Ramanathan (2006) calls the ―in-between‖ and ―free-floating‖ state of all identity,
language, and meaning-making processes (p. 239). She is drawing on Deleuze and
Guattari‘s metaphor of all writing and philosophical thought as a rhizome, a plant that
grows horizontally through shoots ―again AND again AND again‖ without a clear
demarcation of an original plant or root system. Ramanthan (2006) views both
researching and identity practices as similar to Deleuze and Guattari‘s rhizomes. Just as
any point on a rhizome could be ―the‖ original, this project explores the continual
positioning of students and teachers, myself included, as we take up English ―again AND
again AND again‖ each time drawing out and creating multiple and contested meanings
and uses for English. Throughout the dissertation, I will step back at points to draw
attention to these ―in-between‖ moments where simple distinctions between East/West,
research/practice, and ideology/discourse are deconstructed, and new attention to the ―in-
between‖ spaces can be made.
The structure of the dissertation
To summarize the multiple themes and perspectives mentioned here, the study
addresses two overarching questions.
1) (How) do teachers at CSU appropriate west-based teaching methodologies and
teacher roles?
12
2) What are the responses of English language learners to teaching reforms and
internationalization efforts at CSU?
The dissertation is organized around the following chapters. After this brief introduction,
Chapter 1 will address the connections between various approaches to globalization,
ideology, and ELT pedagogy in the academic literature. Chapter 2 will provide a more in-
depth description of the research setting, China Southern University (CSU), and the
ethnographic and classroom-based methods used in this study. Chapter 2 will also expand
on the key research questions that frame each chapter in the study. Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6
are the primary data chapters in this study, and each chapter addresses a unique aspect of
ELT and the internationalizing surges at CSU. Chapter 3 addresses the interplay of
traditional Chinese teacher roles and the student-centered teaching roles of the CSU
reforms, based primarily on interviews with local and foreign teachers and student
journals about teacher roles. Chapter 4 investigates the classroom practices of teachers
and students at CSU as they negotiate communicative language classrooms with the data
coming primarily from classroom observations. Chapter 5 focuses on how English name
choices and investment in English learning reflect shifting indexes of local and global use
of English as an international language. Chapter 6 also investigates appropriations of
English language norms through a close reading of student self-reflection writing on
portfolio assessments in my academic writing class. Finally, the conclusion draws
together the larger themes of identity, policy, ideology, and globalization in relation to
implications for teaching practices at CSU and in the wider Chinese and global ELT
context.
13
Chapter 1
Approaches to ideology, globalization, and ELT pedagogy
In the face of such complexity, it is tempting to in effect ‗give up‘ trying to find
larger theoretical constructs that might enable us to work through what in its
rawest form is and always has been a matter of cultural and linguistic ‗contact‘
mediated by unequal economic and political force. Indeed, there is much in
postmodern skepticism of grand narrative, in a sanctification of the local by
opponents of globalization, and indeed cultural essentialism of ‗voice‘ that would
discourage us from undertaking such a search. (Luke, 2004, p. xv)
The following sections detail connection points between recent work on ideology,
globalization, and ELT pedagogy as they relate to each other and the dissertation project.
The following sections are not exhaustive descriptions of each term or research field, nor
are they designed to provide a grand narrative that neatly connects the more theoretical
notions of ideology and globalization with the ―blue collar‖ (c.f. Ferris 2004) work of
pedagogy and English language teaching (ELT). Instead, the following chapter places
attention on how authors from divergent historical and disciplinary standpoints have
interpreted the incoherence of social practices and conditions, particularly in relation to
language learning and ―cultural and linguistic contact.‖ Following Luke‘s concerns about
the relevance of universal constructs and connections across unique contexts, the
following review- and to a larger extent the entire dissertation- picks up on a good deal of
post-modern skepticism, deconstructions of grand explanations of globalization, and one-
size-fits all descriptions of ELT teaching methods and practices. At the same time, the
following chapter and the entire dissertation point out common threads and mobilizations
that run through our work as language educators and researchers.
14
Ideology
A key term that underlies globalization and ELT pedagogy, ideology is a recent
notion explored by applied linguists in very different ways. For example, writers such as
Thompson (1990) and Blommaert (1999; 2005) have focused on how meaning making in
languages are constrained by societal assumptions and ulterior belief systems. As
Thompson (1990) who writes, ―to study ideology is to study the ways in which meaning
serves to establish and sustain relations of domination‖ (p. 12). Alternatively, other
writers and researchers such as Blommaert & Verschuren (1998), Kroskrity (2000),
Timm (2000), and Blommaert (2005b) have studied ideology more specifically in terms
of a notion of language ideologies, defined as the assumptions and beliefs about
individual languages, for example what Pennycook (2007) calls ―the myth of English as
an international language.‖ In drawing on the term of ideology and in exploring the social
and linguistic effects of ideologies, the dissertation draws on both research traditions. In
addition, at least three sub-fields or terms are relevant to expand on here in the context of
ELT at a Chinese university: myths, dominant discourses, and orders of indexicality.
Ideology: Myths and social constructions
In his influential book, Mythologies, Barthes (1957) studies the social
construction of ideological systems through the construction of linguistic and visual
myths. He argues that a system of arbitrary but widely understood myths circulate in all
societies, and they are able to give ―historical intention a natural justification‖ and make
―contingency appear eternal‖ (p. 142); thus, ideological beliefs are not seen as
―ideological‖ but just ―common sense.‖ Importantly, these myths typically serve the
15
interests of a bourgeois class, as in his classic example of the French-African soldier on
the cover of a French magazine.
On the cover, a young Negro in French uniform is saluting, with his eyes uplifted,
probably fixed on a fold of the tricolor. All this is the meaning of the picture. But,
whether naively or not, I see very well what it signifies to me: that France is a
great Empire, that all her sons, without any color discrimination, faithfully serve
under her flag, and that there is no better answer to the detractors of an alleged
colonialism than the zeal shown by this Negro in serving his so-called oppressors.
(p. 116)
For Barthes, the images that make up a myth are not logical arguments or reasoned proof;
instead, the myths operate outside of public debate and in turn limit people‘s opinions
along narrowly proscribed paths, the deeper ideological systems of meanings. In other
words, it just ―makes sense‖ that African states and people want to be and in fact are a
part of the French nation, or it just ―makes sense‖ that French people speak a unified,
standard French language, both myths that point to the ideological system of meanings
that support the notion of a French state. Barthes‘ early work on myths and ideology have
proven influential in various fields. For example, Benedict Anderson (1983)‘s Imagined
Communities specifically connects the promotion of one vernacular (i.e. non-religious)
language in colonial and post-colonial states to myths of individual nations and the
ideology of nationalism. Not specifically drawing on Barthes, in linguistics, writers such
as Kachru (1986) illustrate similar points about the social construction of meaning
through descriptions of standard versus non-standard English language norms.
Pennycook (2007) writes that Anderson (1983) and Kachru (1986) represent a
social constructionist interpretation of myth, in which foundationalist myths of pure
origins and meanings- be they of languages, nations, or the ruling classes- are shown to
be in fact social constructions. For Pennycook, the problem with this position is that
16
writers often only describe the myths and standardization processes without
complexifying the historical factors and complex affiliations of speakers. By abstaining
or ignoring the multiple indexes of an individual or community‘s language use and the
multiple and at times competing myths, a social constructionist argument implicitly
represents communities as uniform and the process of standardization of language as
neutral and natural. As the students and teachers at CSU reveal, communities of language
users are much more complicated than simple one-to-one relationships between language
and standard myths, and as Milroy (2001) points out, we need to investigate more
thoroughly the complex historical positioning of ―standard‖ and ―non-standard‖ language
use by learners of English. Mentioned in the introduction, Guy‘s ―needs‖ for English and
Chinese language learning are based on multiple myths, and instead of simply describing
the myths of English as an international language or of Chinese culture, we need to
explore how these essentializations are produced and strategically used (Spivak, 1990) at
a globalizing university such as CSU in relation to other myths of reform and English
language learning.
Ideology: Dominant discourses
Drawing on Appadurai (1996) and the problems with the descriptive orientation
of the social constructionist argument, Pennycook (2007) proposes a discursive
constructionist orientation to ideology research that incorporates how multiple discourses
on language have competed over time to frame our social realities. This position reflects
recent work in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) that has described ideologies as
instantiated through discourses, defined as specific combinations of myths, collocated
words and meanings, and representative metaphors (Gee, 1990, 1992, 2003; Fairclough,
17
2001, 2003, 2006; Blommaert, 2005b). Further, CDA writers have called attention to
dominant discourses as those that create ―a socially accepted association among ways of
using language, of thinking, feeling, valuing, and of acting that can be used to identify
oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group or ‗social‘ network‖ (Gee, 1990, p.
143). The key notion being ―socially acceptable,‖ and in this way, dominant discourses in
both small and large ways represent deeper ideological systems and limit the available
and acceptable communication performances for a community of speakers, in other
words our speaking, writing, and behaving in the world. Fairclough (2003) adds the
important point that discourses do not just name the world or aim to conserve current
social relations and hierarchies; instead, he notes that discourses are ―projective,
imaginaries, representing possible worlds that are different from the actual world, and
tied to projects to change the world in particular directions‖ (p. 124). In discourses,
ideologies are articulated through language and speaker communities as they imagine and
construct the possibilities of future realities and social relationships, and in examining the
aspects of certain dominant discourses, language analysts can begin to (de)construct some
key metaphors and myths found in ―common sense‖ assumptions.
As a key example of a dominant discourse at CSU, the rest of this section
examines a particular discourse, what I call the discourse of education reform, found in
much writing about Chinese educational reforms and part of a larger ideology of
globalization that influences polices and practices at CSU. To illustrate the discourse of
education reform, I present here a close reading of a recent New York Times special
report on Chinese educational reforms written by Hulburt (April 20 2007). I choose this
article as it is representative of many media reports on Chinese and global education
18
reforms such as a recent report in the international edition of Newsweek (Vencat, August
20 2007) and a special report on China in The Economist, ―Confucius makes a
comeback: Reassessing China‘s great sage‖ (May 17 2007). The Hulbert article illustrates
many of the key assumptions about globalization associated with the discourse of
education reform, including the notion that Chinese students should learn English as the
only practical option in order to acquire jobs in the global marketplace (Steger, 2005;
Pennycook, 2007).
As one of the leading news media sources in the United States, often reporting on
international education and globalization, the New York Times has offered many articles
in recent years on changing patterns and demographics of education around the world. In
Hulburt (April 17 2007), the newspaper‘s quarterly magazine on Education offered an in-
depth piece on charter schools in Chinese cities, in particular, profiling a school in
Shanghai that as the author writes is attracting, ―a new generation of Chinese students‖
who appreciate the ―charismatic, self-motivated breed of liberal-arts‖ found in North-
American universities (para. 8). In the article, the author and many Chinese students and
administrators state that traditional Chinese ideals of education, influenced by Confucian
philosophy, focus on memorization and place a large emphasis on university entrance
exams like the gaokao. The article repeatedly points out that this tradition may hinder the
move towards an international-style education characterized by instilling a ―liberating
individual initiative‖ in Chinese students and preparing them as ―global citizens.‖
This [Chinese traditional] kind of broader training is a legacy of the Confucian
focus on self-perfection, and it is in step with the Maoist notion of ―all-round
development‖; the emphasis is on practice and mastery, where American parents,
busy enrolling their young kids in arty extras, are likely to stress self-expression
and creativity.
19
For the reformist vision of more individualized, active learning, this ingrained
educational drive has been something of a mixed blessing. It is a great core to
build on: ―quality education‖ advocates are emphatic that they have no intention
of jettisoning a strong Asian heritage of discipline and humble, family-oriented
commitment to self-cultivation. At the same time, the traditional emphasis on
arduously conformist, adult-driven, hypercompetitive academic performance-
well suited though it is to a standard class size of 40 or 50- can get in the way of
liberating individual initiative and easing pressures. (para. 6)
Fairclough (2001) describes the collocations of certain words as a common way in which
texts communicate political or ideological ideas, and he notes that collocational patterns
through listing and repeated use of specific words, when viewed over an entire text or
texts reveal significant underlying notions of a discourse. He writes, ―In some cases, what
is ideologically significant about a text is its vocabulary items, per se…In other cases, it
is the way words co-occur or collocate (p. 94-95, original italics). In Hulburt (April 17
2007), the reforms in Chinese higher education and western-style learning are described
as encouraging ―individualized,‖ ―active,‖ and ―creative‖ learning. In contrast, Chinese
education is described many times as focusing on ―family,‖ ―mastery,‖ and ―self-
perfection.‖ Adding emphasis, Chinese education is not just ―conformist‖ but ―arduously
conformist‖ and it is not just ―competitive‖ but ―hypercompetitive;‖ Chinese educational
beliefs are not simply learned but ―ingrained.‖ Taken together, these collocations position
Chinese educational culture as conservative, limiting of expression, and the opposite of
the freedom embodied in Western-style teaching.
Collocations can often be stacked or listed for emphasis. For example, Hulburt
(April 17 2007) centered on a famous college student at Harvard, Meijie and her parents.
Meijie‘s parents have written a popular book in China about how to prepare your children
for entrance into prestigious foreign school, and in the following quote they describe her
education as a young child.
20
When Meijie was very young we controlled her a lot, watched her very closely
and guided her carefully. Luckily she was very cooperative and followed our
instruction. (para. 8)
This listing of verbs in the extended phrase reinforces the image of control and
dominance and is in contrast to the author‘s description of Meijie when she attends a
college preparatory school on the East Coast of the United States.
At Sidwell, Meijie was an exchange student standout — history buff, bold field-
hockey novice, social dynamo. And when she returned to China, she was
convinced that an American liberal-arts education was for her. (para. 9)
Instead of a list of controls and pressures, Meijie‘s experiences in the United States are
described throughout the article with lists of adjectives and nouns that reveal her new
freedoms of expression and ability to be ―bold,‖ a ―standout,‖ and a ―dynamo.‖ The
conclusion that she would want an American liberal-arts education appear as a natural
response once she has freed herself of the watchful eyes of her parents.
According to Fairclough (2003), a further key feature of discourse are the lexical
metaphors or ―words which represent one part of the world being extended to another‖
(p. 131), and in addition to collocation, he argues that metaphors are an important and
often unnoticed textual resources that allows discourses to produce ―distinct
representations of the world‖ (p. 132). An important metaphor invoked throughout the
article describes Chinese educational practices as producing physical or mental pain.
Zhan [a high school principle] also saw resistance to less rank-oriented, more
student-centered nurture. It is hard to loosen up, Vice Premier Li observed, in a
culture that still reveres ancient scholars like Su Qin, who is said to have poked
his thigh with the point of an awl to stay focused. (my italics)
Meijie, confronting the high-school-entrance ordeal in 2001, found herself in the
vise, too. Caught up as she was with Web-related activities when she took a mock
version of the four-day test, she didn‘t do well enough to get into Shanghai‘s best
schools. (para. 10, my italics)
21
The Chinese educational traditions are thus described through metaphors and images of
―a vise‖ or ―the point of an awl‖ and in need of ―loosening‖ through Western-based
education and creative pursuits such as Meijie‘s ―Web-related activities‖ which in this
passages represents her participation in international communities. One of the few
metaphoric descriptions of Chinese education that is not limiting is the image of Chinese
culture as ―as great core to build on.‖ In this metaphor of ―Chinese culture as foundation‖
there is a more positive view of the strong educational traditions the Chinese schools
draw on, and in some of the interviews with teachers at CSU, they also draw on a similar
metaphor, but Western teaching is still positioned as essential for students to become
international citizens and become ―well-rounded‖ and ―whole.‖
Through the metaphor of ―Chinese teaching tradition as physical impediment‖
versus the creative and student-centered education found in Western schools, reforms of
Chinese education incorporating critical thinking, small group projects, and self-
expression are the best (and only) option for an internationalizing China. Steger (2005)
argues that globalization advocates often claim that free markets are simply the only way
that everyone can benefit from the modernization and globalization processes, and in the
same way, the metaphor of physical burden and impediment promotes an unquestioned
position that student-centered and Western learning is the only effective pedagogy in the
modern, internationalized world. In other words, with the opening of the Chinese
economy in the 1980‘s and the promotion of information technologies, China has no
choice but to change to meet international standards. Despite this obvious choice, Hulburt
(April 17 2007) does provocatively note that ―Even as American educators seek to
emulate Asian pedagogy — a test-centered ethos and a rigorous focus on math, science
22
and engineering — Chinese educators are trying to blend a Western emphasis on critical
thinking, versatility and leadership into their own traditions.‖ In the context of the article
and the positioning of reform and Western-teaching as emancipating, the statement can
be read as a subtle critique of recent reforms in the United States such as No Child Left
Behind, and the statement, while reaffirming the distinction between West and East, does
implicitly point out that all education systems are influenced by ―outside‖ traditions and
cultures reforms and education reforms occur in all educational contexts.
The following data chapters, particularly Chapter 3, examine the multiple uses of
the discourse of education reform in the national and local policies affecting CSU and
through CSU English teacher narratives and classroom descriptions. Following
Ramanathan & Morgan (2007), the chapters focus on how students and teachers respond
and appropriate this dominant discourse and the underlying ideology of globalization.
Ideology: Language use and orders of indexicality
In connecting myths, discourses, and the multiple contexts of language use, a final
key term related to ideology is what Silverstein (1996) calls indexicality and Blommaert
(2005a; 2005b) expands into a model of polycentric orders of indexicality. Silverstein
(1996) argues that linguistic forms fluctuate as indexes of social meanings, but that most
speakers take what are contingent and changing indexes for granted and as stable
meanings. He calls the unquestioned acceptance of forms and meanings as first-order
indexicalities within a speech or linguistic community. For example in Taiwan, Liao
(2007) showed that before 2000 speaking Mandarin with a Taiwanese accent was
understood within a local context as indexing a strong Taiwanese identity; whereas,
speaking standard Mandarin was assumed to correspond with a Mainlander identity (i.e. a
23
person who supports close ties and eventual unification with the PRC). After the election
of 2000, in which the pro-independence party in Taiwan came to power, the features of
different varieties of Mandarin were not just markers understood between two speakers,
but the relationships between linguistic forms and meanings became rationalized and
intentional choices made by different political parties dependant on whether one
supported the reunification with China or not. According to Liao (2007) these more overt
linguistic choices illustrate Silverstein‘s second-order indexicality in which assumed
indexes between linguistic form and social meaning become noticed, appropriated and
intentionally used in media and party propaganda to further status and political intentions.
Blommaert (2005a; 2005b) stretches Silverstein‘s conception of first and second
orders of indexicality to describe global and local language practices. He describes
languages as amalgams of linguistic resources in which linguistic forms are used in a
variety of creative ways as indexed to smaller and larger orders of indexicality. The
important insight is the decisive move away from a view of languages as ―ontologically
given‖ (c.f. Pennycook, 2007) or existing outside of politics and power relationships.
Further, Blommaert (2005a) writes that the focus of sociolinguistic research should be on
what he calls voice or ―the capacity to make oneself heard‖ (p. 394). An individual‘s
voice is affected by two important factors: 1) differential access to the
linguistic/communicative resources associated with given orders of indexicality; and 2)
differential access to the spaces of meaning-making indexed by given linguistic forms (p.
395). The second factor in controlling a speakers voice relates to how communicative
acts are ―read,‖ interpreted, or recontexualized very differently from the initial intention
of the speaker, often based on the power of a centering institution that assigns meaning to
24
a speech act. For example, a statement or text may be labeled as sexist or racist by a
judge or politician far removed from the context of the initial speech act. Questions of
access to forms and the projection of voice are explored in the following chapters,
particularly in Chapters 5 and 6 on re-interpretations of English names and meanings.
Blommaert (2005a) offers an expanded example of the orders of indexicality in
his response to the Linguistic Rights Paradigm‘s (LRP) argument that English is a
―killer‖ language. He offers the following examples of street signs in Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania.
- Fund rising dinner party (on a banner in central Dar es Salaam)
- Disabled Kiosk (the name of a ‗kiosk‘ a converted container that serves as
a small shop operated by a disabled man)
- Whole sallers of hardwere (sign at a hardware shop)
- Shekilango Nescafe (the name of a cafe on Shekilango road in suburban
Dar es Salaam)
- new Sikinde tea (room) (the name of a cafe, note the brackets)
- Sliming food (in an advertisement for a health shop)
- Con Ford (written on a bus)
- ApproxiMately (written on a bus)
- Sleping Coach (written on a long-distance bus) (p. 403)
He writes that these signs reveal the distribution of linguistic resources along multiple
indexicalities. On one level, they reveal the incomplete access to standard varieties of
English by the producers of the signs due to a lack of post-secondary education. At the
same time, the signs also reveal a preference for English as an international language and
English as an index of transnational capital and prestige. In this way, the authors of the
signs appear to be using English signs to attract customers and create an image of high-
quality, but at the same time English is most importantly also indexed ―not in terms of
internationally valid norms (e.g. standard varieties of written English), but in term of
local diacritics. The man who commissioned the disabled kiosk sign probably did not
25
imagine himself as an international businessman, but he did imagine himself as a
businessman in Dar es Salaam (or even more specifically, in the Magomeni
neighborhood of Dar es Salaam)‖ (p.404). Thus, in order for English-language
professionals to come to some understanding of language learning, language contact, and
English as an international language, we must study these polycentric and both local and
international spaces of meaning-making and meaning-attribution.
For Blommaert, a view of language as polycentric and indexical complicates the
description of LRP writers- such as Phillipson (1992) and Skuttnab-Kangas (2000)- of
English as a ―killer‖ language because this metaphor of ―killer‖ ignores important
mobilizations and re-appropriations of both English and meaning-making by Tanzanians.
Most popular and academic writing about English learning in China has not described
English as a ―killer‖ language, and there is little to no overt resistance to learning
English. If anything, some CSU students consider Mandarin Chinese as an imperialistic
language in southern China as many Cantonese and Chaoshan speakers fear a
―Mandarinization‘ of their cultures, and as will be discussed in the following chapters, it
is mostly the foreign teachers who fear any ―killer‖ aspects of English. Blommaert and
Silverstein‘s notions of indexicality, however, are useful in this study as a theoretical tool
to examine English use and appropriations by students and teachers in more complex
terms than the native/non-native binary, particularly in Chapters 4 and 5.
The motivation for learners of English in both China and United States may come
from a variety of myths and discourses about English as an international language, and at
the same time, their English use is shaped by larger and smaller indexes and group
affiliations, sometimes causing conflicting orientations for an individual speaker. Thus,
26
this study aims to do the discursive (de)construction work of Pennycook (2007) points to
in showing how myths such as ―English will bring you out of poverty‖ are constructed, as
well as the indexical work pointed to by CDA studies such as Blommaert (2005a; 2005b).
Work in CDA such as these studies has opened new spaces to examine the myths and
indexes, but no study has examined the relation of ideologies and polycentric language
use in relation to grounded data from classroom observations of English language
classrooms, and this dissertation is attempting to fill this gap with a more complex view
of classroom practices from the perspective of a practicing teacher at CSU. This type of
examination can bring about more complex understandings of English language learning
and hopefully lead to more equitable policies and practices.
Globalization ideologies
In his influential book on the ties between globalization and a market ideology,
Steger (2004) points out some key academic approaches to studying the current era of
globalization:
1) Academics such as Paul Hirst and Graham Thompson argue that ―globalization
is ―Globaloney‖ since the world economy is still centered on Europe, East Asia,
and North America (Steger, 2004, p. 24). As a further example, Mignolo (2000)
offers a modified skepticism in arguing that globalization as an economic and
cultural process began at least in 1500‘s but in recent years has increased in scale
and speed.
2) Economists and many media commentators-- such as New York Times
columnist Thomas Friedman with his ―the world is flat‖ thesis-- point to
―globalization as primarily an economic process‖ and investigate the effects of
free trade, the outsourcing of production, and the removal of financial controls
through the privatization of banks and public institutions. Linguists have also
studied the economic relationships involved with globalization, particularly the
semantic connotations of the term itself. For example, Hasan (2003) notes that the
first appearance of the word ―globalization‖ in popular media and speech
occurred after the fall of the Soviet Union in the late 1980‘s, and she writes
globalization can thus be paraphrased as ―the worldwide promulgation of
principles governed by an ideology of capitalism‖ (p. 435).
27
3) Influential political scientists such as David Held and Richard Falk study
―globalization as a political process‖ in which nation-states are slowing losing
power to a ―cosmopolitan democracy,‖ and transnational legal and political
institutions are connecting local and global governance (Steger, 2004, p. 36).
4) Finally, a spirited debate is ongoing among academics about the effects of
―globalization as a cultural process‖. Steger writes that analysts of globalization
as a cultural process are interested in questions such as ―does globalization
increase cultural homogeneity, or does it lead to greater diversity and
heterogeneity?...And second, how does the dominant culture of consumerism
impact the natural environment?‖ (Steger, 2004, p. 38).
Noting that debates on globalization have occurred almost entirely in Northern
Hemisphere academic circles, Steger argues that the complex and conflicting processes of
globalization require drawing on all four of the above starting points as well as an explicit
emphasis on the language and discourse features that support ideas of globalization, in
other words the language ideologies of globalization. Towards this end, he differentiates
globalization as ―a set of historical social processes of increasing interdependence
defined and described by various commentators in different, often contradictory ways,
and globalism- a political ideology endowing globalization with market norms, values,
and meanings‖ (p. 18).
In order to study ELT and both globalization and globalism, it is instructive to
look into questions related to all of Steger‘s four approaches, but of particular importance
for English language learners are questions of cultural change such as: does learning
English as an international language promote or restrict cultural and linguistic diversity;
and, how closely is learning English tied to the desire to create new consumers and
markets in the ―developing world‖ as well as produce a new elite class of managers and
civil servants to fill outsourced jobs from Inner Circle (c.f. Kachru, 1986) countries?
Some examinations of these questions have already come from studies by linguists such
28
as Phillipson (1992), Pennycook (1994), Canagarajah (1999), and Ramanthan (2005) who
all investigate issues around Phillipson (1992)‘s now well known argument that English
learning and teaching is a form of linguistic imperialism in which ―the dominance of
English is asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstruction of
structural inequalities between English and other languages‖ (p. 47). Instead of viewing
English as overtly or covertly hegemonic, other linguists such as Crystal (1997) and
Kachru (1986) offer a practical position that learning English is simply beneficial to an
individual and society‘s political and economic future, and they cite the huge numbers of
English learners around the world (over 1 billion by Crystal‘s count) as evidence of this
reality. As Kachru (1986) writes, ―In short, English provides linguistic power‖ (p. 1).
Writing that the English language is itself metaphorically viewed as monetary capital in
Peru (―English is like the dollar‖), Nino-Murcia (2003) also connects globalization with a
very real desire to improve one‘s economic position- though she notes that the belief that
speaking English will automatically assure a person of better opportunities is largely
unfounded, and she points to the very specific motivations and ways of learning English
in Peru in arguing that globalization is inherently a plural process and thus should be
referred to as ―globalizations.‖
Clearly, an account of globalization and ELT must describe the complexity of
various local phenomena, simultaneously avoiding traditional binaries of good/bad and
local/global culture while analyzing the very real effects of change on the lives of
language learners. Paying attention to the contingent features of globalization, Appadurai
(1996; 2001) offers a theory of the cultural processes of globalization as an extension of
Anderson‘s (1983) imagined communities, instead proposing imagined worlds, defined
29
as ―the multiple worlds that are constituted by the historically situated imaginations of
persons and groups spread around the globe‖ (p.33). He describes how these imagined
worlds (not just communities) of ideas, languages, and capital ―in motion‖ are
constructed and imagined along at least five conceptual ―landscapes:‖ ethnoscapes,
demographic shifts of tourists, immigrants, refuges, exiles, and guest workers;
technoscapes, technological shifts that promote new movements of ideas and people;
financescapes, the movement of global capital; mediascapes, the distribution of news and
images through new collaborations of public and private interests; and finally ideoscapes,
―concatenations of images, but they are often directly political and frequently have to do
with the ideologies of states and the counterideologies of movements explicitly oriented
to capturing state power‖ (p. 36). Useful to the current study, Pennycook (2003) adds
linguascapes, ―in order to capture the ways in which the some languages are no longer
tied to locality or community, but rather operate globally in conjunction with these other
scapes‖ (p. 523-524).
Thus, for Appadurai and Pennycook, globalization is as much a collective
imagination based on multiple practices, economics, and discourses as it is state
domination and the creation of homogenous communities. Appadurai (2001) writes that
―it is in and through the imagination that modern citizens are disciplined and controlled-
by states, markets, and other powerful interests. But it is also the faculty through which
collective patterns of dissent and new designs for collective life emerge‖ (p. 6). This
collective imagination is echoed in Blommaert‘s (2005a) analysis of English on
advertisement signs in Tanzania, described above, in which English indexes both a global
identity and community and also serves to connect users to local communities and
30
meanings. Similarly, Adejunmobi (2004) argues that when West African charismatic
churches use English in their services, they ―address members and potential converts as
mobile people,‖ indexing an international identity outside of local communities (p. 195).
For these writers, English and globalization does not simply reflect Western imperialism;
rather, English use and study unites speakers of various languages into larger, imagined
communities, offers the hope of an identity outside of failed national institutions, and also
offers a space for the articulation of local and new imaginations and discourses on local
realities and social relations.
Similar to the view of imagined communities, Tomlinson (1999) describes
identity in a globalized world as being a process of ―deterritorialization,‖ defined as a
weakening of ties between culture and place. At the same time, groups and individuals
instantiate a process of ―reterritorialization,‖ in which cultural mixtures stabilize and
form new limits on normative behavior and belief. The important piece that Tomlinson
(1999) adds is that these dialectical processes are always mediated through power
relations and dominant institutions (i.e. centering institutions). Writing about the collision
of local and global mappings in a more direct way than Appadurai‘s nuanced view of
―scapes‖, Robertson (1992) coined the term ―glocalization‖ as the mixture of both
homogenizing and heterogenizing pushes in global culture. One must only listen to the
latest rap songs by the Sri Lankan artist M.I.A. or the Japanese group Rip Slyme to see
evidence of this process in which a cultural form associated with an Inner Circle culture
is refigured with more than local accents, but with entirely new meanings and functions
(see Pennycook, 2003; Makoni & Pennycook, 2007). As Pennycook (2007) writes, these
new and multiple attachments to global cultures and languages make studying English
31
language learning very important, ―since English is subject to a set of discursive
formations that are quite different from those at different historical moments‖ (p. 89), and
studying the inventions, disinventions, and reconstructions of language and identity
through ELT will offer insight into globalization as well as glocalizaiton and
reterritorializations.
As a point of caution, Canagarajah (2002), however, reminds us that a post-
structural or critical discourse view of globalization and English language learning may
offer exciting insights into the complexity of language and cultural change in an
increasingly connected world, but the idea that cultures are unstable and in a constant
state of flux may ―prompt a cavalier attitude towards domination.‖ (p. 134). Specifically
related to this dissertation project, he goes on to write that an unfettered acceptance of
globalization and ELT feeds the ―already flourishing trade in the production and export
of language teaching methods/materials in which the developed communities enjoy a
near monopoly‖ (p. 134). In investigating culture, learner identity, and teaching methods,
we must remember there is a delicate balance between re-appropriation and the
imperialist features of English as an international language. This is particularly important
in China where Chinese students and teachers almost universally view English as benign
and tied to national economic and cultural goals. In the following chapters, the serious
charges of linguistic genocide and ―killer‖ English from the LRP paradigm are not
directly voiced, but the question Skutnabb-Kangas (2006) asks directly (and rather
caustically if not also ironically) of all English teachers, particularly EFL teachers, is still
valid to explore in the Chinese university context: ―Have you yourself participated in
committing linguistic genocide in education? Discuss!‖ (p. 288).
32
Globalization, culture, and English language teaching (ELT)
Tsing (2001) writes that questions about the inter-connectedness of local spaces
with globalizing surges reveals the ―messy as well as effective encounters and
translations‖ that occur in all ―globalist projects and dreams‖ (p. 107). Similarly,
language classrooms may be the messiest examples of the impacts of globalization, but
with grounded observation and careful data collection, a study of globalization and ELT
can offer nuanced descriptions and analyses of global/local processes that often remain at
the theoretical level. As the following chapters illustrate, researching and pointing to
ambiguities does not mean that we should ignore or marginalize studying globalization in
ELT. On the contrary, Lam (1999) writes:
In view of the many changes that have swept across the globe- the ever increasing
need for cross-cultural contact, the inexorable movement toward a greater
recognition for difference, the growing hybridization of culture, and the constant
reemergence of cultural domination in various guises- it becomes all the more
important for foreign-language educators in general, and ELT in particular, to
critically reevaluate the cultural dimensions of both theory and practice of our
profession. (p. 393)
Similar to Canagarajah (2002), Lam points out that even in a hybridized world, certain
cultures, positions, or practices continue to dominate, and a goal of analyzing
globalization and ELT is to constantly question the accepted practices of English
language teachers, similar to what Pennycook (2001) calls adopting a problematizing
stance in the field of applied linguistics, and the next sections detail some further entry
points into this type of problematizing of ELT pedagogy and practices in the era of
globalization.
33
Identity and culture in ELT
Norton (1995; 2000) describes the process of identity formation in language
learning as a constantly renegotiated through participation in social communities, both
existing and imagined, whose standards are either in flux or non-existent. She argues that
the investment of learners in viewing themselves as part of these real and imagined
communities influences their motivations to learn. Similar to Blommaert (2005a)‘s
description of local merchant signs such as in Tanzania, Ricento (2005) points out that
indexes to imagined communities in the classroom may not always be to native-speaker
norms because English Language Learners (ELLs) in the world are primarily taught by
non-native speakers (NNSs), which means that spaces exist ―in which new/re-
articulations of our identities through linguistic and cultural contact experiences can be
explored‖ (p.906). Together, these perspectives are building a view of both culture and
personal identity as something to be ―performed‖ (cf. Butler, 1990), and cross-cultural
dialogue is investigated not as a binary between home and local culture but a reworking
of multiple identities through language. Atkinson (2003) points out that for good reason,
many post-structural writers want to replace any notion of ―home‖ or ―native‖ culture
with terms such as ―hybridity‖ and ―resistance‖ to norms (p. 49). However, are traditional
notions of culture and identity truly transformed in the global classroom? And should
foundationalist myths of unified subjects be replaced with a conception of ―hybridity‖
that may dialectically point to the existence of ―pure‖ or ―unhybrid‖ cultures (Bailey,
2007)?
Questions of hybridity are complicated by the fact that many English-language
educators and students around the world, and particularly in China, hold a structural and
34
essentialist view of cultural identity in relation to ELT classrooms. For example, Flaitz
(2001), a popular textbook for pre-service teachers, compares distinct features of
educational cultures in China, Taiwan, Japan, or Chile with North American classroom
norms. Although Norton argues that specific cultural or group features may be
constructions, the popularity of textbooks for pre-service teachers reveals that these
constructions matter do define conceptions of national learning cultures. Mentioned in the
introduction, Cortazzi & Jin‘s (2002, 2006) descriptions of a Chinese culture of learning
is an academic view and historical constructionist view of these cultural educational
traditions. In their work, Cortazzi and Jin argue notions of culture have very fuzzy
borders and that Chinese education is undergoing vast changes; however, some of the
basic tenets of western based pedagogies such as Communicative Language Teaching
(CLT) methods do not work well in Chinese classrooms that are based on a Confucian
heritage in which the teacher must remain the leader and expert. The researchers argue
that their data point toward a ―speaker oriented and teacher facilitated‖ principle of
classroom interaction in Western contexts, while in a Pacific-rim context a ―listener
oriented and teacher dominated‖ classroom is preferred (1998, p. 747). In one example, a
student remarks to the researchers, ―Why does the teacher want us to talk together? She
can‘t listen to all of us talking at once. How can I learn by talking to my friend? He only
knows what know. I may learn his mistakes. I want to listen to the teacher. She knows
more‖ (1998, p.744). Jin and Cortazzi (2006) further argue that any reforms or changes in
teaching practices in China intended to incorporate communicative practices must take
into consideration Chinese student text-centered and teacher-centered cultures of
learning.
35
Kubota (1999) offers one of the strongest criticisms of research into cultures of
learning and the overall search for definitions of Asian/Chinese/Japanese cultures in the
TESOL literature. She writes that these descriptions suggest a negative view of Asian
cultures by constructing a view of the ―Other as being what the colonizer is not, as having
negative qualities such as backwardness, opacity, and a lack of reason, constituting a
depersonalized collectivity‖ (p. 16-17). The practice of viewing Chinese educational
culture or traditions through western-based notions of critical thinking and creativity is
certainly problematic, but it is a practice that teachers (both from the ―home‖ culture and
not), textbooks, and students do on a daily basis. For example, descriptions of Chinese
students by Chinese teachers in the following chapters of this dissertation often draw on
many stereotyped and largely negative constructions of passive, uncritical, and collective-
focused learners. Dealing with culture and identity in the classroom, both as a teacher and
a researcher, is very complicated, both in terms of how to view students who self-identify
as belonging to a fixed cultural category, such as Chinese, and also in how to present
definitions and examples of culture and identity through English-language classroom
materials and curriculum.
In relation to these complex views of culture and identity in ELT classrooms that
aim not to essentialize common characteristics of learners but recognize the value of
shared, lived experiences, Gayatri Spivak comments:
The debate between essentialism and anti-essentialism is really not the crucial
debate. It is really not possible to be non-essentialist, as I said; the subject is
always centered…For example, you represent yourself when you speak as a
deconstructor. There‘s play between these two kinds of representations. And
that‘s a much more interesting thing to keep in mind than to say always, ―I will
not be an essentialist‖ (Spivak & Harasym, 1990, p. 109).
36
This understanding that all researching and discussing of culture at some point
essentializes learners, contexts, and knowledge is important to recall at all stages of
research in SLA, but Spivak makes the crucial point that the practice of essentializng
does not have to be entirely negative; rather, it can also be transferred into a strategy of
―strategic essentializing‖ in which the political or cultural distinctiveness of a
marginalized group is unified in the face of a dominant language or culture. In learning
English, often through Western-based teaching methods and text-books that primarily
draw on North-American and European narratives and cultural knowledge, Chinese
learners of English at China Southern University are faced with an overwhelming push to
assimilate ―foreign‖ or at least non-local cultures; and one conscious or unconscious
response may be to define and defend a Chinese culture of learning and knowing in order
to avoid losing control of their local knowledges and meanings.
As an example of the strategic essentialism of a cultural characteristic when
confronting reform discourses and impulses to internationalize higher education, Phan &
Phan (2006) analysed English teacher education students in Vietnamese universities,
faced with similar pressures found at CSU to implement Western-teaching reforms. They
wrote that despite and perhaps because of pressures to internationalize, the novice
teachers explicitly drew from shared Confucian and Taoist educational traditions,
particularly in leading students by example and providing moral education for their
students even in English language classrooms. One teacher describes her role as not only
teaching English in the classroom but as instructing moral behaviour.
Since I started teaching, I‘ve always been aware of my role as somewhat like a
moral educator. I often spend my break time to talk with students, listen to them
and try to understand their problems and why they behave in such a way. . . I also
tell them stories about how to become a good person. I don‘t know whether they
37
think of me as a young teacher who likes to teach morality, but I believe that
those who listen to me will become better. I tell them such stories to make them
realise that besides learning English well, they also need to know many other
things, like how to behave properly in different social situations. I often teach
them such things through the teaching of English. Through my teaching, I also
concentrate on moral education and teach them how to become a person with
good morality and personality . . . There are so many opportunities to do so
through teaching (p. 148).
For the teachers in Phan & Phan (2005) and for many of the teachers at CSU, drawing on
shared cultural traditions, particularly the teaching of morality and the position of
teachers as role models can be a source of pride and not a limiting or conformist view of
teaching, but there is little in the CSU policy documents that encourages this nurturing
role for teachers. However, tensions may arise about who has the right and ability-
foreign or local teachers- to take this moral role and some students may resist this view of
teachers as parents as out-dated and too traditional.
Drawing on Confucius and Chinese thought, although in very complex ways,
Phan & Phan (2006) and other work on Chinese and neo-Confucian educational traditions
(Scollen, 1999; Bell & Chaibong; 2003; Bell, 2008) still place a binary opposition
between Chinese and Western educational traditions that needs to be unpacked further. In
addition, much of this work, similar to other theoretical approaches to education and
teacher roles, does not deal with data or the personal opinions of teachers and students in
university contexts in China. In trying to problematize the East-West binary in teaching
traditions, we need to explore more thoroughly the multiple roles teachers, both foreign
and local, take as they may draw on various discourses of education and teacher roles.
This is not to say that the work of Jin & Cortazzi and the arguement for distinct
characteristics of a Chinese culture of learning or ―learning English with Chinese
characteristics‖ has not been helpful in providing many teachers of English some
38
important descriptions of classrooms and culture, and can even be empowering for
Chinese teachers of English in moving the description of theirs classes away from what is
often considered a ―sub-standard‖ culture of learning. Of more importance to teachers at
CSU, however, is an exploration of how multiple cultures of learning and discourses are
continually drawn on and appropriated in any social setting, particularly in
internationalizing spaces such as CSU.
As a final point on culture and identity in ELT classrooms, some recent work has
pointed out that if constructing cultural representations of learners, learning/teaching
methods, or other cultural features are inevitable, then descriptions of cultural knowledge
and features can become part of language pedagogy and curriculum and used to spark
critical evaluations of students‘ own cultures. Kramsch (1993) discusses using culture
like this in classrooms through her description of a ―sphere of interculturality‖ in which
differences between and within cultures are debated, examined, and reflected upon.
Similarly, Atkinson‘s (2003) calls for a re-appropriation of the term ―culture‖ in language
learning in which teachers recognize shared experiences of learners brought out through
migration and assimilation pressures; but at the same time, teachers push students to
understand that no two learners will share the exact same views and practices regardless
of socialized contexts. Further, Kramsch (2006) describes the multiplicity of cultures that
both unite and differentiate language learners as opening a new and creative mythic
potential for words and meanings in English. She writes, ―wheareas for monolingual
speakers words have become one with the world around them, for multilingual subjects
different words evoke different worlds they can play off one another…Learners can be
made more aware of their third place potential through a pedagogy of reflexion and
39
imagination, of translingual experience and poetic creativity‖ (p. 108). The following
chapters will explore specific examples of this type of meaning-making by learners
including an analysis in Chapter 6 of the re-appropriation of English writing conventions
through self-reflection essays.
Teaching approaches in ELT
An investigation of teaching methodology in TESOL perhaps most clearly
connects the various strands of thinking on globalization, ideologies, identity and culture
presented above, particularly questions about the appropriateness of Communicative
Language Teaching (CLT) and Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT), and the
development of post-methodology.
Further described in Chapter 4 within the actual classrooms at CSU, and in
contrast to many traditional Chinese teaching practices as described by Adamson (2004)
and Jin & Cortazzi (2002), CLT and TBLT have become dominant approaches in
language teacher education over the past 30 years (Savignon, 1983, 2001; Brumfit, 1984;
Richards & Rogers, 2001; Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2005). These approaches present teachers
as not the repository of all knowledge and facts for students, rather as guides who
structure meaning-making tasks to facilitate the specific purposes and needs of individual
and group learners. Nunan (2005) offers a typical construction of the role of teachers
from the skills facilitator perspective. In the following example, he lists implications for
teachers who adopt a task-based approach.
- Help learners to discover ways of learning that work best for them, for example
how they best learn vocabulary items.
- Develop ways for learners to organize what they have learned, through making
notes and charts, grouping items and displaying them for reference.
40
- Facilitate active learning by getting students to interact with fellow learners and
with you, asking questions, listening regularly to the language, reading different
kinds of texts and practising writing.
- Teach learners to live with errors and help them learn from their errors.
- Help learners not to be so concerned with accuracy that they do not develop the
capacity to be fluent. (p.66-67).
In the example above, a teacher should ―interact‖ and ―facilitate‖ students to learn
through ―active learning‖ and ―asking questions‖, and, though not stated above, class
syllabi should focus on the specific contexts and skills of learners. Holliday (1994) calls
this the ―weak version‖ of CLT in which student participation in group and pair tasks are
the center of classroom activities. Holliday contrasts this version of CLT with a ―strong
version‖ that places more explicit instruction on ―language as discourse‖ and analysing
English texts are constructed in specific contexts. He argues that this ―strong version‖ of
CLT may be more applicable to learners around the world who may not be as motivated
or in need of practicing English language use. In both versions, the functions and
meanings of language are systematic and to be acquired through practice and analysis,
and a primary goal of teachers is to develop student awareness of the specific
grammatical functions needed for their particular context.
From grammar translation to current reliance on CLT and TBLT, the thought
collective5 of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) has had
a tendency to quickly create and disseminate ―hot‖ teaching methods and theories of
language use, often tied to the prevailing linguistic theory (Celce-Murcia, 2001), but
sarcastically referred to by Richards (2005) as ―the theoretical flavor of the month‖ (as
cited in Hinkel, 2006). In addition to Canagarajah (2002)‘s criticism of such an unequal
5 Ramanathan (2002) defines thought collectives as ―a relatively stable disciplinary community‖ linked
through ―researchers, teachers, genres, texts, teaching practices, events, activities, lectures, hallway chats,
and student conferences‖ (p. 5).
41
privileging of west-based theories, Watson-Gegeo (2004a) writes that for too long ELT
pedagogy has been closely tied with dominant Chomskyian views on the innate principles
of language, for example Krashen‘s input hypothesis, or a functional view of language as
discourse which emphasizes communication events and a ―weak‖ CLT pedagogy.
Watson-Gegeo (2004a) writes that many of these methods offer little connection to real-
world teaching or the needs of speakers in divergent contexts. If these methods are so
hegemonic and disconnected from local realities, however, why have they enjoyed such
wide-spread distribution?
Tollefson (1991) writes that the spread of CLT is linked to modernization theory
in which ―Western societies provide the most effective model for ‗underdeveloped‘
societies attempting to reproduce the achievements of ‗industrialization‘ (p. 83). From
this theory, the ―weak‖ version of CLT was first developed and implemented in Western
English-language contexts and then passed to periphery and ―developing‖ countries as
the most scientific, up-to-date way to teach English. This modernization theory explains
many aspects of political, economic, and legal contacts between powerful Northern
Hemisphere countries and the ―underdeveloped‖ south. As mentioned earlier, Phillipson
(1992), Pennycook (1994), Canagarajah (1999), and Ramanathan (2005) are just a few of
the books that have examined aspects of the modernization theory in relation to the
spread of English language teaching and learning, and collectively all the books point to
the benefits for powerful English-language countries, what Holliday (1994) calls the
BANA countries (Britain, Australia, and North America), by maintaining the imbalance
of teaching methods moving from BANA countries to the ―rest of the world.‖
42
McKay (2002) suggests that the adoption of CLT methods is more complex than
simply linguistic imperialism. She counters that the spread of English and teaching
methods such as CLT is due to ―the promotion of Western specialists but also because
educators in these countries have advocated its adoption‖ (p. 109). She offers the
examples of Japanese and Korean Education Ministries which adopted CLT and
communication-centered approaches to teaching because each country wanted to improve
its students‘ speaking and listening skills in preparation for international careers and
further study abroad. From this perspective, China is no exception, and Nunan (2005)
describes the adoption of task-based learning goals in seven countries in the Asia-Pacific
region, but he warns that there is potential that schools are ―embracing the new
‗orthodoxy‘ in their public pronouncements, but adhering to traditional practices in the
classroom‖ (2005, p. 14). The conscious or unconscious resistance or adherence to
―traditional‖ practices is perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the spread of teaching
methods. Many teachers at China Southern University openly profess that their classroom
use CLT, but at the same time their classroom may still very much look like ―traditional‖
classes with primarily grammar-translation and rote-learning exercises. Are they
resisting, hybridizing, or simply not understanding CLT methods?
Regardless of reasons for and effects of the dominance of CLT and TBLT,
Watson-Gegeo (2004a) argues that a ―paradigm shift‖ is occurring in second language
acquisition (SLA) in which socio-cultural and critical perspectives are replacing a
reliance on ―natural‖ approaches to teaching languages. In Watson-Gegeo (2004b), she
goes on to describe applied linguistics research through the metaphor of limit
experiences. She writes that we live, act, and teach in a world in which our identifications
43
matter, and in many ways, we are continually trying to project coherent meanings and
identities as a reaction to the post-modern realities of contemporary life. Watson-Gegeo
(2004b) writes that our sense of unity and wholeness is challenged when we examine our
limit experiences, defined as ―an encounter or series of encounters through which we
unexpectedly but acutely become aware of the limits of our conceptions, perceptions‖ (p.
2), and these experiences should be central in our researching and writing as applied
linguists. Receiving the letter from Gary pushed the limits of how I viewed my Chinese
students, and the letter served to break down my cultural patterns and demarcations of
East-West, but what did I do with this knowledge? What were the former limits replaced
with? Watson-Gegeo (2004b) writes that these experiences challenge understood
conceptions, but they are always replaced with new definitions and re-fashioned
constructions.
An example of limit experiences as applied to teaching methods and pedagogy is
Kumaravadivelu (2003a; 2006a; 2006b) and his description of a post-methodology or an
ecological pedagogy. He writes that all language leaching must be awake to ―the
necessity of making methods-based pedagogies more sensitive to local exigencies,‖ and
―awakened to the vitality of macrostructures- social, cultural, political, and historical- that
shape and reshape the micro-structures of our pedagogic enterprise‖ (2006b, p. 75). He
lists the following ten macro-strategies as a framework for teaching in the post-method
era:
1. Maximize learning opportunities;
2. facilitate negotiated interaction;
3. minimize perceptual mismatches;
4. activate intuitive heuristics;
5. foster language awareness;
6. contextualize linguistic input;
44
7. integrate language skills;
8. promote learner autonomy;
9. ensure social relevance; and
10. raise cultural consciousness. (2006b, p. 201)
Kumaravadivelu‘s (2006) conception of post-methodology is rooted in his post-
structuralist and postcolonial reading of identity and culture in which as he writes, ―the
borders between the personal, the professional, and the political are indeed porous, and
that we are all constantly crossing the boundaries whether we know it or not, whether we
acknowledge it or not‖ (p. 200). At the same time, his project is not only a deconstruction
of myths and socially constructed meanings; instead, he is trying to build, or consciously
construct, a new frame for viewing classrooms and English-language pedagogy that may
not as easily serve hegemonic or modernizing trends. While recent TESOL conferences
and teacher-education materials have still been dominated by west-based learning
methods, Kumaravadivelu‘s argument that TESOL as a community is in the process of
moving toward the ―attainment‖ of a post-method situation appears possible, particularly
due to the numerous studies in applied linguistics which have revealed the importance
and complexity of local concerns on pedagogic practices (Morgan, 1998; Benesch, 2001;
Hu, 2005; Canagarajah, 2005a).
Similar to discussions of global and cultural scapes and orders of indexicality,
post-methodology and other alternative approaches to ELT have unfortunately remained
primarily theoretical discussions, and little work except for the short examples of
decontextualized lessons offered in Kumaravadivelu (2006a), has investigated how a
post-method conception of teaching methods could be taken up by teachers in diverse
contexts, such as the PRC and the United States. In China, schools such as CSU have
routinely brought ―foreign-expert‖ speakers to explain the benefits of CLT in attempts to
45
reform the language teaching methods of local Chinese teachers, but as Adamson (2004)
shows in the table from the introduction chapter, English language teaching in China in
recent years has always drawn on multiple sources from both China and foreign countries
and reflected political trends and a negotiation of the amount of outside influence on the
Chinese school system. It seems that if we want to move toward more nuanced
understandings of the post-method condition and orders of indexicality, we need more
grounded research into how faculty at universities such as CSU are positioned in relation
to west-based methods such as communicative teaching; and whether the further refining
of post-methodology or what Kramsch (2006) calls a ―pedagogy of reflexion‖ are
effective alternatives to current conceptions of methods in the TESOL literature and can
serve as better models for teacher education programs.
My argument about ideology, globalization, and ELT
Drawing on the above perspectives on ideology and globalization as well as
moving toward the goal of more equitable and complex understandings of local ELT
practices, the dissertation is first and foremost placing the argument- that English
language learning and teaching is about more than language learning and teaching- within
the Chinese university context. The dissertation chapters take ideas from much of the
above work on ideology, globalization, and ELT to illustrate how English classrooms at
CSU represent ideological, personal, and community struggles over language use,
identity, and cultural practices. Too often, both academic and popular writing about
education reforms in China have easily adopted the discourse of education reform and the
assumptions of globalism, and have only written about how teachers and students in
China are adopting new methods to create active students. The following dissertation
46
chapters, however, investigate the creative imaginations of teaching communities and the
divergent (re)appropriations of teaching methods not simply as evidence of a larger grand
narrative of globalization or the adaptation of ELT teaching methods, but as an ever-
changing discussion between global and local discourses, teaching communities, and
educational realities. As Luke (2004) pointed out from the start of this chapter, this
complicated reality of language classrooms- which the dissertation attempts to analyze-
renders many language teachers and analysts reluctant to theorize and imagine beyond
basic descriptions of inequality and powerful institutions. By positioning the following
chapters in relation to my own role as a teacher and researcher at CSU, however, the
chapters move beyond mere descriptions of tensions and point to the local understandings
and practices of English teachers and students at CSU. This space of possibility tempered
with skepticism is exactly the space into which the dissertation is entering.
Drawing on Spivak‘s strategic essentialism, the dissertation also argues that
English language teaching, learning, and researching in a global context inherently
creates essentialist meanings of cultures, identities, and languages. These constructions,
however, do not prevent us from working toward more equitable teaching and language
administration practices rooted in the desire to construct curriculums and classrooms that
draw on the multiple global and local linguistic resources of learners; in fact, the strategic
construction of cultural representations- and even essentialisms- can aid this hopeful
intention, as long as any approach to teaching is fully grounded in the local realities of
teachers and students. Similarly, the following chapters argue that universities in the
Peoples Republic of China regardless of the dominance of ideologies and the power of
economic globalizations, can and do create pedagogy and policies that step outside of
47
dominant power relationships and English as an imperialistic language rhetoric. Echoing
Canagarajah (2005b), the dissertation chapters argue for language policies and
curriculum that represent rather than ignore tensions; and drawing on Kumaravadivelu
(2006a; 2006b), the chapters underscore teacher and student identity within fluid and
multiple affiliations. If successful, the following chapters will reveal that the engine that
truly drives pedagogy at CSU are the teachers (both local and foreign), administrators,
and students who in working together are constantly (re)articulating new social and
political conditions and meanings, outside and inside given discourses and traditions of
ELT in China. These multiple stakeholders must be given a more prominent role in
shaping policy and curriculum at CSU and other English language teaching contexts in
China and beyond.
48
Chapter 2
Contexts, research methods, and grounded theory
I have been a teacher, researcher, and administrator at China Southern University
(CSU), and have taught advanced English (Level 4) and Academic Writing (Level 5)
during the three-year span that the dissertation data represent. This study is not a memoir,
but I weave traces of my own narrative as a teacher and researcher at CSU into the
following chapters. I make this point from the outset in order to contextualize the data
and methods used in the study and to point out how many of the themes of the
dissertation—the movement of people, languages, ideas, and teaching methods across
borders and nation-states—are connected to my own movement between divergent
contexts. As detailed below, I also draw attention to my own role as not simply as a
participant in the research setting; rather, I am a member of the community that I am
studying, intimately concerned with the way English is taught and used by students and
teachers at CSU.
My research methods and questions fit within a long qualitative and ethnographic
tradition, drawing on a grounded theory approach first explicated in Glaser & Strauss
(1967) and developed in much of their later work such as Glaser (1992; 2002) and Straus
& Corbin (1987) on emerging themes in data analysis. Unlike their overall goal and
position of ―discovering‖ knowledge and themes emergent in the data and separate from
the scientific researcher, I draw on Charmaz (2005) and Bryant & Charmaz (2007) in
pointing toward my role in both the setting and the analysis of the data. As Charmaz
(2005) writes:
Unlike their [Glaser & Strauss, 1967] position, I assume that neither data nor
theories are discovered. Rather, we are part of the world we study and the data we
49
collect. We construct our grounded theories through our past and present
involvements and interactions with people, perspectives, and research practices.
(p. 10)
Similarly, the data presented in the following chapters do not portray a unified theory or
generalization about language learning in China. Instead, from my position as a teacher
and researcher at CSU, I present themes and tensions in the appropriation and uses of
English inside and outside CSU classrooms, particularly in relation to dominant teaching
methods and discourses in the Chinese ELT community.
The following chapter first provides more overall description and history of CSU
as a key reform-oriented and internationalizing university in southern China. Then,
drawing on Charmaz‘s constructivist approach to grounded theory, the research methods
and data sources are presented in detail. Finally, the chapter ends with a preview of the
specific research questions addressed in each chapter.
The construction of an international space in Chinese higher education
My introduction to CSU was indirect. In the M.A. TESOL program I attended in
California prior to arriving in China, I was trained in communicative language teaching
(CLT) methods but had also read widely in the broad field of critical applied linguistics
(Pennycook, 2001). Through Phillipson‘s (1992) book Linguistic Imperialism and many
similar studies that questioned the inherent political and business interests involved in
teaching English as a foreign language (EFL), I began to question a neutral view of
English teaching common in the TESOL literature. For example, I began to rethink the
status quo argument that I first heard in the Peace Corps, ―We only teach English in
countries where we are invited.‖ Reading in critical applied linguistics sparked many
questions about teaching English outside the United States: what political and business
50
interests are involved with teaching English as a foreign language (Phillipson, 1992;
Pennycook, 1998, Ramanathan, 2005; Edge, 2006)?; are native-speakers of English
afforded undue prestige and status in hiring decisions? (Davies, 2001; Kubota, 2001); and
do foreign teachers impose teaching methods that are not appropriate for the backgrounds
of students, or worse culturally hegemonic (Holliday, 1994; Canagarajah, 2003;
Kumaravadivelu, 1994; 2004; 2006a; 2006b).
During my MA program I did not know about the university in southern China
where I would eventually teach and return as a participant-observer to research English as
an international language and teaching methods, but these questions of EFL were my first
introduction to CSU because they are questions that became immediately salient the
moment that I stepped off the plane and into my apartment at CSU. After arriving at CSU
on complimentary air-tickets from the United States and Canada, university officials took
me and the other new ―foreign‖ English teachers, labeled as ―foreign experts‖ on our
visas and ―foreign teachers‖ by the English Language Department (ELD), to the campus
hotel in order to rest for a few hours before at dinner reception. Our rent-free apartments
that were also located on the university campus were not yet complete, but we learned
that the white-tiled apartment buildings that would become our homes had recently been
cleaned and renovated, with each apartment furnished with furniture from a Swiss-
German designer, a TV with English-language cable TV from Hong Kong, and a family
set of cooking utensils and tableware. At the dinner that evening, hosted by the ELD
direction but without the Chinese English-language teaching counterparts called ―local
teachers,‖ the first words I remember hearing was, ―Welcome to China, you have come to
reform English language teaching.‖
51
From that memorable yet perplexing first day, I was immediately positioned as a
―foreign‖ teacher and reformer and given amenities not available to most local teachers
and administrators, and I struggled with my earlier questions and thoughts about the
reasons why CSU, as a reform-minded and internationalizing university, places such a
high-emphasis on hiring foreign teachers. Explored in more depth in Chapter 3, the labels
of foreign and local teacher create some explicit and implicit divisions between the
teachers of the ELD. The main category in defining local or foreign is typically whether a
teacher was born in China and has a Chinese university education. Teachers not born in
China are labeled as ―foreign‖ teachers, and primarily come from English speaking
backgrounds and hold university and graduate degrees from the BANA6 countries.
Foreign teachers live in rent-free apartments and even enjoy complimentary maid-service
once a week. In addition to free round-trip airfare, foreign teachers all receive monthly
salaries of between Y4000 and Y50007 depending on years of service and an end-of-the-
year bonus of between $4000-$6000. The local teacher salaries depend on their rank and
number of classes taught, but they typically are under Y3000 per month with no end-of-
the-year bonus. Foreign teachers are expected to teach four courses a semester and work
with student groups and university programs that support English learning, such as
serving as judges at English speech contests, participating in English discussion clubs,
and giving lectures to the university on aspects of foreign culture. Local teachers teach
only two or three classes, and are not required to participate in extracurricular programs.
There is little to no outward hostility from local teacher towards the foreign teacher, in
6 Holliday (1994) defines BANA as Britain, Australia, and North America. I prefer this acronym to the
alternative Kachru (1993) and world Englishes terms ―inner‖ and ―outer‖ circle countries.
7 The exchange rate in the fall or 2004 when I first arrived at CSU was Y7.8=$1.
52
fact exactly the opposite, but I was surprised and anxious when I found out after six
months of teaching that I was actually living in the former apartment of my colleague. He
told me that he had to move out of the building because the university would make the
rent too high if he were to stay. He said that his new apartment was older and a bit farther
from campus, but actually bigger.
The physical location of CSU, next to a growing industrial and coastal city in
Guangdong, provides another layer of context and complexity. In the 1980‘s, the city was
named a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) by Deng Xiao Ping and the national government
in order spur and control trade with foreign governments and industries, and since then
the city next to CSU has seen massive industrial development and a growing migrant
population, but unlike other SEZs in the region, the local city has experienced more
difficulty in attracting foreign investment. Many buildings and factories in the downtown
and neighboring suburbs remain half-built as investors, particularly from Taiwan, left
after either running out of money or refusing to participate in the notorious corruption of
local officials that has been become well-known in this region throughout China and in
English-language media. While many of the students at CSU were initially attracted to
the campus because of its strategic position on the coast and as part of an SEZ, many
students desire to move to larger and more successful urban areas in Guangzhou,
Shenzhen, and Shanghai. As detailed in the introduction, in order to move to many of
these areas, English fluency and completion of the College Test of English (CET) 4 is a
requirement. As was apparent from the first reception, the international business
community and potential of the local SEZ region heavily influence the
53
internationalization aims of CSU, including a strong desire to produce business and
corporate leaders and managers to work in China‘s international business sectors.
In addition to the strong business and development focus, CSU represents the
national government‘s mission to promote a region of Guangdong that until CSU‘s
creation in 1981 did not have a university. The initial funds for the university came from
a prominent Hong Kong businessperson, Mr. Li, and his philanthropic foundation, and he
remains the president of the board of directors and contributes at least half of CSU‘s
operating budget. Mr. Li was born in a city near CSU, and with the support of the
national government, he wanted to promote higher education and business leadership in
this region of Guangdong Province. Mentioned in the introduction, the people in the local
region, including Mr. Li, do not speak Cantonese as a first language/dialect, unlike most
Guangdong residents, but instead they speak a Min dialect, called Chaoshanhua. While
there are some programs and a research institute at the university to preserve and study
Chaoshan culture and language, the clear focus of the university is to prepare students for
careers in Mandarin and English, with students admonished by teachers and signs on the
entrance to the teaching buildings to qing shou putonghua (Please speak the common
Mandarin language). In fact, a majority of the students at CSU are Cantonese speakers
and do not come from the local area. The relatively poor business climate around CSU
and the strong connection to Mandarin and Cantonese speaking areas may also contribute
to the desire for students to find jobs outside of the neighboring cities to CSU.
Student-centered learning and the ELD as the basis of education reform
Taking the above points together, it is not surprising that tensions inevitably arise
between the multiple stakeholders at CSU including: the diverse students with a variety
54
of language and culture affiliation, the local and foundation administrators with different
perceptions of reform and internationalization, and the local and foreign teachers both
instructed to ―reform‖ Chinese education but with Western teaching styles clearly
priviledged. In fact, it would be more surprising if tensions did not occur, but the vice-
chancellor, a Hong Kong native with degrees from British universities and an
administrative position at a university in California, often narrated a story of
perseverance in order to achieve the goal of student-centered learning at CSU. During
staff meetings and at conferences involving foreign media and teachers, the chancellor,
nicknamed ―the Queen of reform,‖ tells about when she first came to CSU the desks in all
of the rooms were bolted to floor making it impossible to rearrange the students into
groups with their desks facing each other instead of the teacher. Since from ―Day 1‖ she
has advocated the need for a student-centered teaching approach that fosters student
creativity and focuses on speaking practice, she argued to no avail to university
administrators and teachers that the desks should be unbolted. After much delay, she
reported that she threatened to enter the rooms herself and unbolt each desk by hand.
Finally, the university bought new desks without bolts for most classrooms and
completely replaced the older row-style desks. In our first teacher‘s meeting, the vice-
chancellor remarked that she still wants to remove the teacher‘s desk that is elevated at
the front of the class, but that the un-bolting the desks was the first-step toward wide-
spread curricular and teaching changes at CSU and should illustrate the perseverance
needed to reform Chinese education. It is interesting to note, however, that a visitor
walking through any teaching building during teaching sessions will most likely only see
students in the English and Journalism classrooms, which are also taught primarily in
55
English, arranged into groups with the teachers moving among the students. Most
Chinese teachers of subjects other than English or Journalism remain at the front of the
class addressing students seated in rows.
Picture 1: Movable desks in ELD classrooms
In addition to remaking the desks in the classrooms, CSU has implemented many
curricular reforms emphasizing English language learning including: the change to a
credit system in which students take English classes with other students outside of their
major classes, the requirement for students in all majors to achieve a high-proficiency in
English (demonstrated in an exit English exam and completion of coursework), and the
creation of the English Language Department (ELD) in 2002 to house all English
language classes (not English literature) and organize the foreign and local English
teachers (including myself). In 2005, the university‘s public report on programs and
services cited approximately 7,000 undergraduate students at the university, including
students who attend a medical school facility downtown. The ELD offers the following
courses:
Level 5 (Academic Writing)
Level 4 (Advanced)
Level 3 (Intermediate High)
Level 2 (Intermediate)
Level 1 (Intermediate Low)
Foundation (Beginning)
56
Depending on a student‘s major, they must take through at least Level 3 or Level 4. For
example, Art students were only required to finish Level 3 while most other students in
the colleges of Business, Engineering, and Liberal Arts would be required to finish
through Level 4.
Level 5 is now an optional course for most students and primarily Journalism,
English, and Liberal Arts majors take the class, but other majors such as Science, Law,
and Business also may enroll. Level 5 is subtitled ―Advanced Academic Writing‖ and the
coursework is focused on three research papers while Levels 2-4 are multi-skills classes
with a mid-term and final that tests the four skills of speaking, listening, writing, and
reading. The distribution of mostly female students in my Level 5 classes is similar to the
other two courses offered at CSU in the spring of 2007. In total, 51 female students took
advanced English writing during the spring 2007 semester in comparison with 18 male
students. The university does not keep gender demographic statistics from year to year,
but teachers at CSU report that this gender ratio is consistent with other years that Level 5
was offered. Most of the female students in my Level 5 classes were English or
Journalism majors and at that time were required to take the course. Other students,
mostly the male students, were from Math, Biology, Physics, and Computer Science
majors, and were taking the class as an elective to further their English skills. The gender
difference between male and female students is much different in Level 1-4 at CSU, as
most majors require students to take these courses, and the focus group interviews I
conducted for these levels approximate the more equal gender ratio in those classes. No
official statistics were available, but at CSU, there is a trend for English majors, and
hence Level 5 students, to be primarily female, while the sciences and business majors
57
are mostly male. Many male students in my Level 5 classes have remarked that their
female counterparts are simply better at English than they are.
Aside from the vice-chancellor‘s story of ―un-bolting the desks,‖ an unpublished
internal report about reform and internationalization efforts at CSU entitled ―Report on
the Status Quo of Pedagogical Practice of [China Southern] University-‖ that was written
in cooperation with local university and Hong Kong administrators- notes that CSU
teachers have now fully accepted the new communicative and student-centered teaching
practices. Drawing on the discourse of education reform, these teaching practices are
clearly collocated with the benefits of becoming an international university. As the
authors write:
The class size is no longer as big as before but usually reduced to the maximum of
30, wherein nearly every individual student is given full attention. Class activities
centered on student questions and questioning are varied with more vibrancy to
include group discussion, debate, presentation, collaboration, etc, and students‘
participation is highly emphasized.
As mentioned above, this report may not reflect what actually occurs in classrooms
outside of the ELD and Journalism departments, as from both personal observations and
discussions with students many local teachers do find value in the ―spoon-feed‖
techniques that are collocated with being backward and from the past.
The ELD also reports to follow the same student-centered trend and specifically
mentions standards of communicative competence, learning to use English outside of
classroom contexts, and international teaching standards. Based on discussions with the
director of the ELD, the vice-chancellor, and local teachers, the ELD appears to have
been used as a focal point for implementing the new curriculum and credit-based classes.
It as the first department to offer classes in which students choose the classes based on
58
their time preferences and were not directly assigned a class due to their major and year
in school. Similar to their overall goals of communicative competence, the syllabi for all
ELD classes mention the explicit focus on speaking and writing arguments and using
language creatively, focused on content not form. For example, all Level 4 teachers
included this description of their class in their syllabi during the Spring 2007 semester:
In particular, this course aims at developing learners‘ high-level communicative
competence by introducing, practicing, and discussing one topic per unit through
various tasks in integrative skills training. This course also provides learners with
different perspectives on unit topics, and enables learners to demonstrate what
they understand in taking sides, formulating ideas, and debating in both oral and
written formats. Moreover, this course will focus on reading/writing connections
by using reading as the basis for writing, particularly argumentative writing. By
encouraging students to speak up and to participate actively in class, this course
will develop learners‘ improvisational and public speaking skills through
presentations and public speaking simulations.
Classes in China typically have 50-100 students, but the ELD, in keeping with its focus
on speaking and participation, limits classes to 35 students. Analysis of class rosters over
the three-year period shows that local teachers typically have between 20-30 students
while foreign teachers typically have over 40 students. Discussed through the following
chapters, the difference in class sizes does not necessarily mean that all students at CSU
prefer foreign teachers‘ classes, but their classes remain a novelty for many new students,
and high enrollment reveals the overall interest in at least trying the ―new‖ methods that
foreign teachers are though to use.
A focus on extra-curricular programs
In addition to their in-class reforms of teaching methods and curriculum, the ELD
aims to align with international communities through its multiple extra-curricular
activities offered to students and professional development opportunities of English
teachers in the ELD. In a published guide to the English teaching curriculum and
59
activities at CSU, the English Language Department (ELD) writes that extracurricular
activities are ―an essential part‖ of English learning because ―students are challenged to
use their English, helping them to build their overall communicative competence.‖
Throughout the school year, the ELD offers many programs aimed at this goal including:
an open discussion space, entitled English Lounge; a monthly English newspaper written
by students; an English Festival in the fall semester that includes speech and singing
contests against other invited Chinese and international university participants; and
multiple lectures and films in which students can view and discuss a variety of topics.
Participation is generally high at the extra-curricular activities, with over 30 students
competing to be one of three representatives of CSU at the speech contest during the
English Festival, and over 30 singers vying for the three spots given to CSU at the
English Festival Singing Contest. In addition, over 100 students work as volunteers for
the English Festival, including two MCs.
Picture 2: English festival singing contest
Despite the overall success of the extra-curricular programs, some complaints
arose over the three years of the data collection. Some students have complained about
the large about of money and university resources given to ELD programs such as the
English Festival and the Lecture series, as Guy wrote to my ―why don‘t we have a
60
Chinese Language Center?‖ that could promote learning ancient Chinese characters and
knowledge. Other students have written pieces in the English language newspaper about
the need for translators to be hired for the famous guest lectures that come to CSU and
present only in English. A student once pointedly asked me, ―would a campus lecture
ever be given at your university only in Chinese?‖ Foreign teachers, while understanding
that part of their salary requires participation in extra-curricular activities, have often
complained about the large amount of time need to work on the multiple projects, as well
as the complete reliance on native-speakers and the foreign teachers, relegating local
teachers to observer roles in all extra-curriculum programs. The extra-curricular
programs, particularly the English Lounge, will be further explored in Chapter 5.
The second form of extra-curricular programs provided primarily for teachers are
the professional development meetings at the beginning of the school year, the monthly
teachers meetings during the school year, and the annual TESOL conference in which
well-known professors and speakers from the TESOL community are invited to speak
and hold workshops for both CSU teachers and teachers at other Chinese universities.
The organization of the conference has changed over the three years of data collection
depending on the schedule of the ELD director, but at each conference, plenary
presentations were given by the invited professors as well forums in which CSU foreign
and local teachers offered a discussion about the reforms and collaborations at CSU. The
main themes of each of the conferences have connected to the overall mission statement
of the ELD and the role of communicative competence and communicative language
teaching (CLT) in language learning. Local and foreign teachers have generally been
pleased with the chance to meet influential and well-respected professors from China and
61
the larger TESOL field, but as explored in Chapter 4, the conference presentations have
not always directly connected to the classroom practices of CSU teachers.
The sketch of the university and ELD program presented above provides some
overall context into the key tensions about the reform agenda, student-centered
classrooms, and the positioning of ―foreign‖ and ―local‖ teacher. The following chapters
will also provide context on CSU classrooms, policies and teaching methods as they
relate to the specific themes of each chapter. Moving from this introduction of CSU, the
next section of this chapter presents the data collection methods used and some key
themes that are explored in the data chapters.
Ethnographic methods and grounded theory in transnational educational contexts
The link between the imagination and social life, I would suggest, is increasingly
a global and deterritorialized one. Thus, those who represent real or ordinary lives
must resist making claims to epistemic privilege in regard to the lived
particularities of social life. Rather, ethnography must redefine itself as that
practice of representation that illuminates the power of large-scale, imagined life
possibilities over specific life trajectories. This is thickness with a difference, and
the difference lies in a new alertness to the fact that ordinary lives today are more
often powered not by the givenness of things but by the possibilities that the
media (either directly or indirectly) suggest are available. (Appadurai, 1996, p.
55)
Appadurai (1996)‘s call for an alertness to the possibilities and imaginations of
identity remains a trenchant reminder today that ethnographers must train their gaze and
analysis to the global linguistic and media ―scapes‖ that impact local lives and
experiences. Discussed in the previous chapter, Ramanathan & Morgan (2007) echo this
sentiment in their desire to push applied linguistics and language researchers to not
simply describe how policies create realities, i.e. ―the givenness of things,‖ but to
examine the responses of teachers, students, and administrators that index both dominant
tropes and ideologies but also create new worlds and possibilities. In investigating the
62
multiple tensions, relationships, and social practices of the participants in this study, these
themes of agency and global landscapes are evident and explored, but it is important to
begin such an analysis within the heterogeneous and contingent data that I collected in
the classrooms at CSU. Thus, while concluding with Appadurai‘s ―ethnography at large,‖
the dissertation starts with my own classroom and moves outward to examine the
classrooms of colleagues and the students at various levels and classes at CSU. This
framework is rooted in grounded theory and ethnographic methods as described in
language education research in Nunan (1992), Watson-Gegeo (1988, 1994), Holliday
(2002; 2005), Richards (2005) and McKay (2006), and in social-science and grounded
theory frameworks in Glasser & Strauss (1967), Glasser & Corbin (1992), Cresswell
(2005), and Charmaz (2005, 2006).
Described in tables 2.1 and 2.2 below, the data include were collected over a
three-period in which I was teaching at CSU for three semesters.
Table 2.1 Data collection time periods and my roles
Time period My role
August 2004-June 2005 Lived in teachers‘ apartments at CSU.
Taught four sections each semester of
Level 4 English and worked as co-
coordinator of Level 4 teachers
(including curriculum planning). Kept
teaching diary and notes on lesson plans.
Kept notes on conversations and events
at CSU, including emails and hallway
chats with students and teachers.
August 2005-January 2007 Kept notes on conversations and emails
with teachers and students at CSU while
living in California.
February 2007-June 2007 Returned to CSU in role as researching
teacher to collect further data for the
dissertation. Lived in teachers‘
apartments at CSU, and taught two
sections of Level 5 English.
63
Table 2.2 Data sources and description
Data source Description
My classrooms:
Classroom notes and diaries from
2004-2005 (Level 4) school year and
spring 2007 semester (Level 5).
I recorded notes and coded for themes
during the school year, first by hand and
later in word documents.
End of semester reports:
Participating instructors at CSU and
myself (n=22).
At the end of each semester, formal
reviews of classroom activities are
required of all teachers by the
university. This is a means of ensuring
that communicative teaching methods
are in place. I analyzed reports at the
end of fall 2004, spring 2005, and
spring 2007.
English teacher data:
1) One hour-long interview with each
foreign and local teacher at CSU
(n=22)
2) One interview with assistant
director of ELD.
2) Numerous discussions in hallways,
streets, and over meals with all English
teachers at CSU.
Interviews with participating instructors
took place during spring 2007.
Interviews focused on teaching
methods, student motivations, and
preparations for attending a TESOL
sponsored conference held at CSU in
the spring.
Classroom data:
1) Recordings from participating
instructor classrooms (n=30).
2) Classroom observation notes from
participating instructor classrooms.
I observed, took notes, and audio-
recorded five classes of two teachers
(one local and one foreign) at Level 2,
3, and 4 during the Spring semester
2007. I later transcribed the recordings
and coded them for themes. I also typed
up my handwritten notes from the
classroom observations.
CSU student data:
1) Email exchanges with my students
2) interviews with focal students
groups from Level 2, 3, 4, and 5 as
well as a group of former CSU
students.
3) informal discussions in hallways
and at meals.
4) Student journals from my Academic
Writing class (n=30)
I interviewed five students from
Cindy‘s classroom and five students
from Shirley‘s classroom during the
spring semester 2007. I also interviewed
my students Guy and Echo twice, once
in 2005 and once in 2007.
English Language teaching policies at
CSU:
1) Web-documents about the ELD
department
The ELD documents are located on the
center‘s website and are in English. The
university reports were prepared by an
internal review committed and written
64
2) Reports prepared by the
internationalization committee at CSU
3) Chinese national English curriculum
policies.
in English. The Chinese English
Curriculum policies are available for all
university English departments and are
written in Chinese and English.
Recordings at CSU:
1) Recording of my English Lounge
presentation, ―What‘s in a Name‖ on
June 7th
, 2007.
2) Recordings of guest speakers at
CSU during spring semester 2007.
I recorded and transcribed various
presentations of invited guests to CSU
and my own invited presentation to the
English Lounge as described in Chapter
5.
Through these multiple data sources, I argue that a representative picture of the
teaching and reforms at CSU is offered, and other researchers viewing the same data and
university context at CSU, while perhaps focusing on other analyses and data, would find
my analysis accurately reflect the data. Based in an ethnographic tradition, the study is
aimed, however, at alternative characterizations of reliability and validity such as Burns
(1999)‘s concept of catalytic validity, defined as ―the extent to which the research allows
participants to deepen their understanding of the social realities of the context and how
they can make changes within it‖ (p.162). In the following chapters, I draw attention to
the changes and understandings that have occurred at CSU for both the participants and
me as we work through the variety of issues manifested in teaching English as an
International Language in 21st century China. Additionally, I argue that if my work as an
ethnographer has been done well and conscientiously, the themes, issues, and tensions
that I pull out and analyze from the data will resonate with teachers and researchers in
other university contexts both in China and around the world. I have begun this process
by sharing the chapters with teachers and researchers at CSU and at academic
conferences.
65
Data analysis
The analysis of the data sources involved a systematic transcribing of classroom
and interview data and coding for themes related to the primary research questions about
ideology, identity, and ELT. I coded, memoed, and sampled themes in all of the
ethnographic data according to an open and axial coding scheme, building to themes and
theories to describe teaching perspectives and practices (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss
& Corbin, 1990; 1998; Glaser, 1992). Following Charmaz (2005; 2006), however, I also
draw attention in the following sections to my own questions and the incomplete
knowledge of my colleagues classrooms, and the data presented here is constructed
through my own subjective perspectives as researcher and ―foreign‖ teacher at CSU. In
addition, I performed close readings and discourse analysis of spoken data, news articles,
and policy documents, looking for metaphors, repetition, and collocations that frame
meanings and create dominant understandings of the world (Fairclough, 2003). Key data
analysis methods and terms are further explicated in each chapter when relevant to the
analysis, but the following sections explain some research and data analysis methods that
pertain to the entire dissertation.
Participant-Observer or Researching Teacher
In many ethnographic research studies, researchers often describe themselves as
participant-observers in order to highlight their role as active participants in the research
setting. My role at CSU was certainly participant-observer, but I feel that the term
participant-observer or participant observer notes may too easily split the roles into one
or the other, and I was never simply observing or participating. Instead, I began at CSU
as a teacher with many background questions and broad theoretical and political interests.
66
Later, when I returned in 2007, I had defined more specifically my research questions,
but these evolved throughout my time at CSU and the writing of the dissertation. To
highlight the continuous movement between my roles at CSU, I prefer to use the present
progressive ending –ing and the term ―Researching Teacher‖ to describe my role at CSU.
In addition, the term participant may signal that I was simply a part of the setting,
without an active role in shaping and determining the teaching and teacher community at
CSU. Instead, from participating level meetings about how to grade exams and writing a
companion book for a book series (the first year), to giving a lecture on English naming
practices and taking my students to the Cultural Revolution monument in a neighboring
city (detailed in Chapters 5 and 6). I was not just participating in CSU and the English
teaching department as a researchable, social context, but an active part of its history and
construction.
Data saturation, theoretical sufficiency, and elicited texts
Writing about grounded theory work, Dey (1999) criticizes the term ―data
saturation‖ since he writes that there is no way to provide sufficient evidence of this
concept unless the reader does the exact in the exact place him/herself. In addition, the
term creates an impression of scientific rigor that hides the presence of the researcher in
compiling and organizing the data, determining when saturation levels have been met.
Based on these problems with the term, I refrain from citing that I have saturated the data
or that my ―triangulation‖ of sources will ever be complete. But as noted earlier, I argue
that the following chapters do demonstrate enough experience with the data to gain
important perspectives, themes, and insights into the students, teachers, and language
learning process at CSU (including my own teaching).
67
Similarly, it is important to mention that all many of the quotes and dialogue used
in the following chapters come from elicited narratives during interviews and student
journal writing. Other data, where noted, were extant policy and curriculum texts, which
have been created for specific contexts and purposes. Attention is made throughout the
chapters to the original contexts of the data sources. In addition, the interview questions
were prepared in advance, translated into Chinese, and given to the participants before
the interview. In this way, the interviews were semi-structured and interviewees were
able to have some preparation to the topics of the interviews, adding a measure of
reliability and similarity to the interviews. At the same time, I used the interview
questions as what Richards (2005) calls an ―interview guide‖ and not as an ―interview
schedule‖, in which I only ask the same questions to each interviewee. Also described by
Richards (2005), in each interview I concentrated on asking reflection, follow-up, and
probing questions, drawing on particular stories and points brought up by the
interviewees, sometimes not getting to each question with each interviewee. In this way,
the interviews could be described as semi-structured in which, as Richards (2005) writes,
the focus was on ―the person, not the program‖ as ―all questioning is hollow unless
accompanied by attentive listening‖ (p. 65).
Note-taking, coding, and constructing conceptual categories
In their classic text, Glasser & Strauss (1967) recommend coding every line or
section of data in order to create axial codes and build themes out of the data, but later
Glaser (1992) disavowed line by line coding as ―helter skelter‖ and over-conceptualizing
the incident by generating too many categories. I coded much of the transcripts, but I did
not code every event or line of interviews and field notes. Instead, I relied more on
68
memoing and selective coding, as well on collecting rich and varied interview data from
many classroom contexts in relation to my research questions. In my note-taking process,
I audio-recorded each interview and classroom observation, and I also took notes during
the interviews and classrooms. I would later type these field notes write additional
thought as memos next to key features and passages. I also kept teaching entries
recording observations about my lesson plans and classroom interactions. As an example
of this process, the following text is taken from my classroom field notes of Lily‘s first
class from the 2007 semester, a class that is further detailed in Chapter 4.
2:15- on PPT- do you know these words? Volunteer to read words aloud (note-
this is similar to my Chinese classes)
- one student stands and reads list of words.
- Lily goes over the definition of the words- careful attention to the meaning
and dictionary definition.
- Lily uses Chinese to clarify meaning of ‗laid-off‖
- On board
prefix- multi
root- lingual
suffix- er –ee
- students are generally following Lily and writing down what she says.
2:30- take out textbook and turn to page 131
- use textbook (rare in Robyn‘s class)
- has one student read from the textbook
- all students follow reading from their books
After listening to the recording of her class and reviewing the above notes, I wrote about
key themes and interactions in her class as they related to other classrooms. For example:
During break, Lily told me that this was her most active class. She said that the
one female student in the front is the best at reading and often has her read for the
class. She says that her other students don‘t read as well. It seems that some of the
foreign teachers are very concerned with having everyone participate while Lily
will call on all students to read will allow certain students to speak the most and
perform for the class. This is similar in Cindy‘s class and Shirley‘s. I wonder if
this can be connected to the teachers knowing which students are interested in
learning and English and which are just there to get by. Why focus on having
69
everyone speak if only a few really want to learn? I wonder if this is connected to
Echo‘s overall unhappiness with ELC classes. If I would have catered more to
Echo and introduced deeper subjects and more complicated reading than the
textbooks, I would have lost some students/maybe many, but why shouldn‘t I just
leave the responsibility to the students to catch up with me? They need to pick up
the other three corners, right?
Perhaps a better description of my coding and memoing would be a movement
from initial impressions in which I circled, re-read and compared different elicited and
extant texts. From these impressions, I then built up themes from my journaling and note-
taking process. This process reflects what Charmaz (2005) calls moving from focused
codes to conceptual categories. A good example of this process is located in Chapter 5 on
student English names, in which I present the many reasons for name choices the
emerged from my focused coding including: Chinese sounds, translations, cool sounds,
foreign teacher role, the role of local and foreign teachers. I then, present the conceptual
categories such as ―quest for uniqueness, ―negotiation of English norms and standards‖,
and ―communicative competence as play‖. These codes were than further consolidated
into a larger theoretical discussion of second language learner identity as determined by
practices of ―resistance,‖ ―play,‖ and ―creativity‖.
Burawoy (2000) writes that researchers working with a grounded theory account
may move too quickly away from the context and the data and into decontextualized
generalizations, thus either losing or creating false links between global macro-structures
and the local context. This is a serious critique of grounded theory, but Burawoy (2002)
is pointing out exactly what grounded research is trying to avoid. As described in the data
collection and analysis methods above, I make clear that I came into the setting with
certain theoretical interests and the biases associated with my reading in critical applied
linguistics. At the same time, the process of grounded theory requires researchers to
70
remain as much as possible to the themes emerging from the data, not existent ideas in
the literature. In the following chapters, larger theories and constructs, as previewed in
Chapter 1, are brought in when appropriate to help explain the data, but are often
mentioned for how they do not adequately address the data, or too simplistically ignore
crucial events and narratives at CSU. In this way, the analysis is primarily a micro-
analysis situated in the complicated and messy examples of real-time learning. In this
way, my goals of problematizing larger theories of language learning and identity and
making connections between my data and my own narrative as a teacher at CSU are
different from the focus of classic grounded theory on theory building and prediction, but
I draw on similar tools of coding, memoing, and deconstructing/constructing
(deconstructing in order to construct) the everyday experiences and social relationships
between language, culture, and identity.
Preview of research questions
In addressing the overarching questions for the study- (how) do teachers at CSU
appropriate west-based teaching methodologies and teacher roles as significations of
global citizenship; and what are the responses of English language learners to teaching
reforms and internationalization efforts at CSU?- it is instructive to preview the following
specific questions which are to be explored in each of the following chapters.
Chapter 3: Education reforms and teacher roles at CSU
1) (How) do teachers (both local and foreign) at CSU draw on the dominant
discourse of reform while also articulating Chinese traditional teaching
roles?
2) (How) do these negotiations of discourses and traditions affect student-
teacher relationships, both inside and outside the classroom?
Chapter 4: Interpretations and appropriations of Communicative Language
71
Teaching (CLT)
1) (How) do English language classrooms at CSU reveal the tensions,
appropriations, and local teaching realities in defining and practicing
communicative language teaching (CLT)?
Chapter 5: Name choices and global identificaitons
1) What are the names?; How do they pick the names?; and why do they tend
to pick original and creative names?
2) What do student name choices reveal about student investment, resistance,
and compliance with English culture and pedagogical norms? How do
foreign and local teachers influence and react to student name choices?
Chapter 6: Student self-assessment writing in academic writing portfolios
1) What types of comments do students include in their portfolio reflection
and analysis statements?
2) What do these comments reveal about English language learning in the
Chinese university context?
In focusing on these research questions, my analysis and methods in the following
chapters may strike some as too post-structural or interpretive to come to clear
conclusions and implications for teaching, but I hope that the details in the chapters and
the voices of students, teachers, and administrators (however multiple and conflicting
they may be) will add to the argument that language learning and EFL teachers must take
seriously the complexity of our classrooms and teaching contexts. We must refrain from
moving to Appadurai‘s (1996) de-territorialized global imagination until a fuller
examination of the multilingual standpoints of EFL teachers and students who feel the
pulls of the local and global very clearly in their everyday classroom practices. If the field
of applied linguistics takes seriously the various calls for a ―paradigm shift‖ toward
socio-cultural concerns and the limit experiences of knowledge (Watson-Gegeo, 2004a)
and the incorporation of a pedagogy of reflexion (Kramsch, 2006) and post-methods
72
(Kumaravadilveliu, 2004, 2006), then our ethnographies of language learners must begin
and end in the contingency of our classrooms. This heterogeneity is why China Southern
University, with its multiple histories and participants, is such a particularly relevant
place to study English language learning in a global context and with a clearly grounded
data and theory framework.
73
Chapter 3
CSU education reforms and teacher roles
Introduction
From my first day at China Southern University (CSU), I heard arguments similar
to Hulburt (2007) that the reform of teaching through the introduction of international
and Western-based teaching methodologies would empower Chinese teachers and
learners by connecting teachers to international professional communities and by
teaching international business speaking and communicating norms. This assumption
about the positive benefits of globalization and the incorporation of international teaching
methods is central to what I call the discourse of education reform, and it is part of a
larger ideology of globalization or as Steger (2004) calls it globalism, as presented in
Chapter 1. To be clear, empowering Chinese students and teachers through reform and
development of English language programs, if the teaching methods do actually help
teachers and students progress in their professional and personal lives, is certainly a
positive goal. The focus on integrating English teachers to global teaching standards at
CSU, however, supports a very specific image of teachers as skills facilitators, not the
parents, experts, or mediators of knowledge inside and outside the classroom that are
commonly associated with a Chinese culture of learning (Cortazzi & Jin, 2002, 2006; Jin
& Cortazzi, 2002). The well known aphorism that a teacher should be a ―guide on the
side, not a sage on the stage‖ captures the image of a reform teacher at CSU, and this
chapter seeks to unpack some of the ways teachers and students negotiate and describe
their new roles in the English classrooms as ―guides‖ and skills facilitators. In narrating
their views on teacher roles, the teachers and students at CSU do more than re-articulate
74
teaching identities according to the discourse of education reform. Crucially, they also
draw on roles commonly associated with traditional Chinese and Confucian education
traditions, side-stepping tensions in the assimilation of the skills-facilitator model of
teaching and pointing toward complex global, local, and trans-national identifications
(c.f. Bauman, 2005) and teaching ―identity kits‖ (c.f. Gee, 1990).
The data presented in this chapter come primarily from interviews with teachers
and students as well as student journals and a digital narration project, while the
following Chapter Four deals more specifically with classroom observations and
student/teacher interactions. Specifically the chapter focuses on the following questions:
1) (How) do teachers (both local and foreign) at CSU draw on the dominant
discourse of education reform while also articulating Chinese traditional
teaching roles?
2) (How) do these negotiations of discourses and traditions affect student-
teacher relationships, both inside and outside the classroom?
The discourse of education reform is what Gee (1990) calls a dominant discourse in that
teachers at CSU use knowledge of this discourse to obtain positions of power and
prestige. For example, the director of the ELD, the vice-chancellor, and every teacher
interviewed for this project invoked the discourse‘s images and metaphors of ―freeing‖
Chinese students from their ―passive‖ classroom behavior and encouraging the creativity
associated with Western-based educational reforms. This chapter begins by situating this
dominant discourse within national and local policy statements that also call for teachers
as guides and skills facilitators at CSU and explicitly discount a traditional view of
teachers as moral role models or parents. After a review of teaching policies at CSU, the
main data sections connect this discourse to the teaching identities expressed by local and
foreign English teachers and to the expectations of CSU students. The chapter also
75
considers the complexity of student experiences and descriptions of teachers as it
incorporates points of view from various students, including from my own classroom
teaching experiences as a mentor and teacher at CSU. Among the many voices presented,
the narratives of local teachers- Pat, Ma, Wendy, and Irene- and foreign teachers- Kim,
and Ann are highlighted8. The chapter ends with some implications for teaching and
policy making at CSU.
Language teaching policy at CSU and the discourse of education reform
The creation of a community of language teachers at CSU as part of a larger,
imagined community of teachers and researchers is presented in CSU policy through
important norms for teacher behavior. In policy and official statements, the ELD follows
the student-centered, teacher as guide model found in the discourse of education reform,
specifically mentioning learner autonomy and creativity as goals for teaching practice.
We believe that a high-level of communicative competence (i.e., grammatical,
pragmatic, discourse, and strategic competencies) is the ultimate goal for our
students. We also believe that teaching innovation is informed by research, and
students‘ critical thinking strategies and learner autonomy should be developed
through both curricula and co-curricula activities.
The statement repeats ideas found in media on Chinese teaching reforms and in
descriptions of CLT and TBLT (Savignon, 2001; Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2005) through
collocating terms such as ―teacher innovation‖, ―informed by research‖, and ―curricula
and co-curricula‖ activities with a student-centered approach. These collocations assume
that learning through ―action‖, a central goal of CLT, is the most effective, and teachers
as understand this research will take an active role in guiding students in their own
8 All students and teachers in the study agreed to the use of their English first names. Throughout the
dissertation, however, pseudonyms are used to ensure confidentiality of teachers. If a Chinese teacher uses
an English name in class, an English name is used as the pseudonym. The chosen English names of
students, however, are used to represent their personality and highlight their creative name choices.
76
personal development. It is a bias toward procedural knowledge of English and away
from the rote memorization and declarative knowledge associated with traditional
English teaching in China. This change aligns with the CSU goals of preparing students
for jobs in international firms in which they need productive skills of interacting and
speaking in English, not just reading and vocabulary knowledge.
In reforming teaching practices and roles, the ELD document later refers to its
goal of aligning teaching with an ―international community,‖ a claim furthered in an
internal report on internationalization efforts written by administrators at CSU in the
spring of 2007, called ―Report on the Status Quo of Pedagogical Practice of [China
Southern] University‖ (2007).
The Pedagogical Reform at [CSU] is based on such higher-education notions as
―Student-Centered Concept‖ and ―Self-Autonomy and Self-Responsibility‖ in
students‘ management of their own study, which begins to tie up with the world
practice. By utilizing all of its possible teaching resources and global connections
backed up by the generous [omitted] Foundation, the University has endeavored
to keep its promise to create for its students an ideal learning environment. While
aiming at addressing students‘ needs, [CSU] also takes on the mission of
nurturing students’ initiatives in self-learning and self-responsibility for their
academic results. Students are bound to invest their time and energy, no matter in
class or after class, in the quest for a wider scope of knowledge and deeper
understanding.
The University has rid itself of the obsolete spoon-feed teaching methodology and
renewed with an ―Instructive Elite Education‖ method to train elite students with
a broader vision and international knowledge and raise their level of creativity.
In the Hulbert (April 17 2007) report on Chinese education, reform and
internationalization are collocated with student ―creativity‖ and individualist ideals of
―self-autonomy‖ and ―self-responsibility.‖ Here, Chinese methods are described using the
common ―spoon-feed‖ metaphor, invoking the parental control and limits of traditional
learning. In the CSU text, ―student-centered‖ is presented as breaking away from teachers
77
as parents and preparing students for the individualism demanded when working in
international business. As many students at CSU do graduate and take careers that require
more individual work and personal responsibility, the focus on procedural knowledge of
English and speaking skills is useful but the phrases ―world practice‖ and ―broader vision
and international knowledge,‖ similar to Hulburt‘s (April 17 2007) description of a
―flexibly skilled work force that best fits an international knowledge economy‖ (para. 5),
vaguely define the type of work responsibilities found in international business contexts.
More importantly, the report ignores the many students who, because of desire or
available positions, work exclusively in Chinese or East Asian contexts where English is
primarily required for reading manuals and web-content. Finally, the reports, coupled
with the ELD‘s guidelines, reinforce an unclear connection between creativity, student
autonomy and self-expression. Does reducing the amount of teacher-centered lectures
with student-centered projects necessarily lead students to create original work,
uninfluenced by teacher or peer expectations? In addition, much of the work on Task-
based learning (TBLT) (Ellis, 2004; Nunan, 2005) and individual language learning have
noted the cultural differences and resistance to student-centered learning reforms that are
not addressed anywhere in CSU policy except to mention that the old teaching styles are
gone. Snow (2008) further complicates the definition and realization of creativity in
student-directed learning by noting that students may simply follow a textbook or
alternative guide, other than the teacher, thus, providing an allusion of creativity that is
similar to teacher-led activities. Again, a complexity not addressed in CSU policy.
The above internationalization report was written in regards to the entire
university teaching reform policy, but ELD administrators have also adopted the
78
standards from the Chinese Ministry of Education‘s College English Curriculum
Requirements (2006) as guidelines in creating its curriculum. These descriptions provide
additional examples of how teachers at CSU should take roles as facilitators in order to
help modernize English teaching and lead to China‘s participation in international
communities.
The objective of College English is to develop students‘ ability to use English in
an all-around way, especially in listening and speaking, so that in their future
work and social interactions they will be able to exchange information effectively
through both spoken and written channels, and at the same time they will be able
to enhance their ability to study independently and improve their cultural quality
so as to meet the needs of China‘s social development and international
exchanges. (p. 5)
Changes in the teaching model by no means call for changes in teaching practices
or approaches only, but, more important, consist in changes in teaching
philosophy, and in a shift from the teacher-centered pattern, in which knowledge
of the language and skills are imparted by the teacher in class only, to the student-
centered pattern, in which ability to use the language and the ability to learn
independently are cultivated in addition to language knowledge and skills. (p. 25)
Again, it is important to note that the collocations, images, and myths presented in the
above texts are not necessarily wrong or damaging, and many students, teachers, and
higher education administrators around the world draw on reform discourses in
describing educational realities. The point here is that, taken together, the discourse
projects a certain reality of the world that only names one type of teacher at CSU, and
alternative teaching practices and identifications based on alternative or local traditions
are missing from all of the policy statements at CSU and the speeches of administrators.
In addition, the discourse assumes what types of jobs students will have in the future,
something most students enter university unclear about, as evidenced in Guy‘s statement
that he ―needs‖ English but he is not sure about where, when, or how.
79
In summary, the policies affecting teaching roles at CSU repeat many of the
metaphors and collocations in the discourse of education reform that are also found in
media articles on English learning, teacher education textbooks, and academic work on
policy and reform in Chinese education. In addition, the discourse fails to present the
complex teaching roles found in Chinese and Confucian traditions as described in Scollon
(1999) and the teachers in Phan & Phan‘s (2005) study. As with any discourse analysis,
the close reading of dominant themes is useful when situated within the social realities
and narratives of a community in order to examine the ways the dominant discourses
affect the language practices of community members. The next data sections add this
layer of complexity through and examination of the teaching roles narrated by local and
foreign teachers and ELD students at CSU. The data presented were primarily collected
in the spring of 2007 and come from: 1) interviews with students and teachers; 2) student
journals collected in my academic writing courses; 3) teacher narratives as presented
through a Digital Storytelling Project; and 4) notes from multiple hallway chats, dinners,
and faculty meetings with foreign and local teachers.
“But in class I give them just like a playing stage”: Local teachers negotiating
teaching roles in an era of education reform
Pat
Pat is a local teacher who began teaching at CSU in 1983, two years after its
founding, and she is the second most senior English teacher at the ELD. Many local
teachers at CSU describe her as an exemplary teacher and a good model of a traditional
teacher who has changed her teaching in accordance with the new reforms. Pat comes
from the local community and speaks the local chaoshan dialect as well as Mandarin. Her
80
initial training was as a Russian teacher, but she switched to English as political relations
between China and the Soviet Union soured through the 1970‘s and English became the
most prominent foreign language (see Adamson, 2004). In our interview in March 2007
and in many discussions about teaching during office hours and meetings, Pat often
praises the new teaching styles that she has learned, in comparison to what she calls her
previous traditional style before the reforms of 2002.
Pat: When I start teaching, before 2002, just like my former teacher I taught in
that way. In class I give a big lecture and give an explanation and analyze
the sentence and the sentence structure and deal with the language points
and so on, and to deal with the meaning, the definite meaning and the
definition, and to try to explain the text from the very beginning and to the
end. And some questions during the explanation, and ask the students to
give me the answers and check their understanding. That is the traditional
way. Anyway, I am always the boss in the class
Paul: ((laughing)) did you find that way effective?
Pat: The students can find some knowledge of grammar…but the students
cannot communicate in English in speaking.
In interviews, many teachers at CSU explicitly criticize what they call the traditional,
teacher-centered methods, and praise the way students respond to the new CLT methods.
Pat specifically describes her former style of teaching by using a ―teacher as boss‖
metaphor that echoes the description of Chinese traditional teaching in Hulburt (April 17
2007)‘s text and Meijie‘s parents need for control and limiting creativity and student
expression. Eliminating the ―boss‖ or ―parent‖ metaphor of teaching is also one of CSU‘s
goals as described in the CSU internationalization report as ―nurturing students‘
initiatives in self-learning and self-responsibility for their academic results.‖ In our
interview and conversations, Pat does note the knowledge of grammar skills that students
acquired before the reforms, but the focus on the ―definite meaning‖ of English words in
81
the traditional teaching methods did not permit students to freely ―communicate in
English.‖ She describes this new freedom to communicate, typically through practice of
speaking skills, as a primary benefit of the new methods.
In a longer description and comparison of the two teaching methods, Pat further
repeats a focus on ―communication‖ and speaking skills, and she repeats the phrase ―to
show themselves‖ four times in response to my question, ―How have you changed your
teaching style since 2002?‖
In the traditional methods, during the class we have to give out a lot of
explanation and to ask the students to analyze the sentence and pay much
attention to the structure of the sentence. The students just learning, no more
chance for them to show themselves. After this year, 2002, we change the teaching
methods. Then, we put the students then like the central show in the class. Let
them to speak a lot. So, I ask them to read aloud and write a lot after class. But in
class I give them just like a playing stage. Let them to show themselves. And ask
them to speak a lot and listen to other and try to understand and to show
themselves and to try to talk, to communicate with others and answer my question
and invite their classmates to try and…have a brainstorm. I just want to ask them
to struggle hard and open their minds and show themselves and don‘t be afraid to
make any mistakes. Really, I can see that the students really make a lot of
progress every semester.
In addition to metaphors and collocations that connect speaking with freedom, repetitions
of the phrase ―to show themselves‖ are an important feature of this passage. Pat and other
teachers at CSU, including the ELD director and vice-chancellor often use this phrase ―to
show themselves‖ when describing the new methods. In addition, she twice invokes the
metaphor of a ―stage‖ or a ―show‖ in which her students are to perform. This
performance and creative aspect of learning in which students show their individual
personalities connects to Hulburt‘s (April 17 2007) description of Western education as
―liberating individual initiative‖ and valuing ―creativity and self-expression.‖ By
focusing on speaking and creative performance of English, primarily through speaking
82
tasks, Pat and other local teachers rarely emphasize reading comprehension as a goal of
their classroom. When asked about this omission, Pat and other teachers mention that
students can practice reading in their dormitories and have had good reading instruction
in their high schools.
Ma
Ma, also an experienced local teacher who started her career in 1981, offers
further examples of the collocations and stage metaphors of the discourse of education
reform and her sense of agency in developing a student-centered style. Ma is very well-
respected by the local and foreign teachers, and she teaches a Mandarin class for foreign
teachers and often inviting foreign teachers to her home. In our interview at her home,
she repeats the metaphor of reform teaching as putting students on a ―stage.‖
I think through the practicing of teaching I kind of figured out what would work
for the students. I didn‘t really study the methods but by sense. Also this program
they [ELD], they invite scholars and give us workshops and example and
presentations and how to let the students be the focus on stage, not the teachers.
In this short quote, Ma begins by describing her own agency in finding out ―what would
work for the students‖, and the scholars and workshops only supported her beliefs about
the need for students to be creative. In a way, this remark is an implicit critique of
importing methods as they are only reinforcing what she already knows about students
and teaching. At the same time, Ma draws on the dominant ―stage‖ metaphors associated
with the discourse of education reform to describe her classroom, and it would be
interesting to have noted what metaphors Ma and other teachers would have used to
describe their students before the CLT reforms. Chris, a younger teacher than Ma who
began teaching English in the late 1990‘s, also describes his earlier teaching with a
similar agency of discovering the student-centered teaching style.
83
When I first started teaching, we mainly follow the so called traditional style of
teaching. Mainly we do drill, maybe it‘s the 70‘s theory. Until the middle of the
90‘s. I began to think about the problem. At that time, we did not have any reform
or any conversation. I used more questions but we didn‘t have discussion, but I
used more questions. Students should devote themselves more in my class and
they have to answer questions more frequently. I found that they are more active.
I kept doing this for 4 or 5 years, and I kept doing this until the reform.
Ma and Chris‘s stories connect through a description of a personal realization of the
importance of conversation and questioning techniques, but this personal knowledge is
now co-constructed through the dominant metaphors of the teaching discourses of reform
and internationalization.
Despite the sense of empowerment the new teaching methods may bring to Ma,
Pat, and Chris, many of the teachers, at least in some aspects, consider foreign teachers as
better teachers of English than local teachers, as Ma states.
I encourage them [her students] to take foreign teachers class. It‘s not only
because their language is better but it‘s part of their culture. I think that it‘s one of
the benefits of coming to [ELD]. You can have exposure to the culture that comes
here….. [Students say] ―Teacher, why you don‘t like us.‖ I say ―just go to the
foreigner‘s classes.‖ If they are good person, I‘m sure that they are all qualified as
a teacher. If they are open, friendly, responsible, they could give more then
Chinese teacher give.
Ma does not come out and say that local teachers are inferior, but in her opinion, the
―teacher as skills facilitator‖ model of teaching is the right way to teach English and
foreign teachers are better at teaching in this way. In her words, ―they can give more than
Chinese teacher give.‖ Ma‘s position reflects a myth that circulates through many English
language programs in China about the inherent ability of native-speakers of English as
teachers because only native speakers can claim ownership and true knowledge of a
linguistic culture and practice.
84
Similarly, Annie, a first year Chinese teacher of English at CSU, does not directly
state that native-speakers are better teachers, but she points out that she does not have the
―personality‖ to teach in the open and communicative style of teaching associated with
Western-style teaching. In the following passage, she describes the teaching reforms at
CSU and her impression of the local and foreign teachers.
Foreign teachers can organize lots of different activities. Chinese teachers are
changed a lot, here. Some local teachers try to change the traditional methods. It‘s
up to individual likes and dislikes. I try to be easy-going and communicate with
my students. For body language I can‘t use it well because of my personality. I
can draw them into different groups and do the activities together. For this point I
cannot do it like foreign teachers.
As Blommaert (2005a) and Pennycook (2007) note, myths about the ―way things are‖
become ―common sense‖ and unnoticed ideological systems. From the interviews with
Ma, Annie, and other local teachers, the belief that native-speakers are inherently better
teachers become an implicit truth, along with the student-centered role of teachers in the
English classroom. Annie specifically expands upon this myth to describe her own ―body
language‖ as unable to perform the teaching roles required by the new teaching methods.
She also echoes the metaphors that Chinese educational traditions are a ―restriction‖ and
Western teachers are ―guides,‖ and she implies that her physical body, her Chinese-ness,
―restricts‖ her ability to be as good a teacher as a foreign teacher. In the way that Annie
points out the value of certain teaching practices, and even ―body language‖, she is
drawing on the discourse of education reform, but she and most local teachers of English
can never fully acquire the type of teaching associated with this discourse.
Annie and Ma‘s attribution of a privileged status to foreign teachers and native
speakers is perhaps not surprising as dominant ideologies of native speakers in
international English contexts have been pointed out in much other work (Phillipson,
85
1992, Pennycook, 1994; Canagarajah, 1999; Ramanathan, 2005), and from the first day I
arrived at CSU, native-speakers were at least outwardly considered experts and better
teachers than local Chinese teachers of English. Despite Ma‘s strong command of both
Mandarin and English, including trips to teach Mandarin at universities in the United
States, and Annie‘s M.A. degree from a British university, they and many other Chinese
teachers of English consistently position themselves as sub-standard in comparison to
foreign teachers. A fellow teaching colleague would even greet me in the teachers office
with, ―Hello Professor‖ and ―I hope that I can learn from you one day.‖ The value
afforded to native speaker teachers by the teachers at CSU are related to Phillipson
(1992)‘s description of linguistic imperialism and Pennycook‘s (1994) discussion of the
business interests involved in promoting native-speakers abroad, but these authors set up
binaries of an aggressor and an oppressed group. Ma, Annie, and other teachers at CSU
do not, at least outwardly, resist the position of native-speakers in the ELD, and in fact,
they openly support and state the inherent worth of foreign teacher as being better than
local teachers. Thus, an effect of the discourse of education reform in CSU policy is to
empower teachers and support their membership in international teaching communities,
but at the same time, to ultimately connect good teaching with foreign teacher models.
Put another way, the discourse of education reform at CSU both expands and limits the
imaginations of CSU English teachers in terms of what quality education is and who can
provide it.
In addition, just because local teachers adopt the discourses and metaphors of
international teaching practices, this does not ensure that foreign teachers will interpret
them as equals. One foreign teacher, who taught for four years at CSU and other Chinese
86
universities, remarked that in most department and grade-level meetings both local and
foreign teachers will agree to specific lessons plans that are communicative and
discussion-based, but the Chinese teachers will ―do what the hell they want anyways.‖
While a crude and perhaps negative assessment of the methods of Chinese English
educators, the comment also reveals some of the agency that local teachers express
through non-compliance. Many teachers at CSU may be using and restating the dominant
discourse of reform teaching and the effectiveness of the classroom as a ―stage‖ while
keeping their preferred teaching methods and views of teaching from before 2002. In this
way, the discourses of educational reform and the continuous push for
internationalization at CSU is not necessarily imperialist or overtly hegemonic. The local
teachers at CSU draw on the dominant discourses and ―current‖ teaching methods in
dialogue with foreign teachers and in faculty meetings, but these discourses do little to
change local teacher views on teacher practices in the ELT classroom, an issue explored
further in Chapter 4.
Wendy
In an environment such as CSU, where the discourse of educational reform is
enshrined in policy and the speeches of administrators describe English as a practical tool
in obtaining jobs in the global economy, it is not surprising that most local teachers
describe their roles as teachers as adopting the skills facilitator role and supportive
―guide‖ of CLT methods. However, two local teachers at CSU in particular, Wendy and
Irene, offer more complex narratives of their classroom roles, intertwining multiple
discourses on Chinese cultural traditions and educational reforms. Wendy and Irene are
both experienced teachers, who came to CSU in the mid-1980‘s soon after the founding
87
of CSU, and both have received numerous teaching awards over their many years of
teaching. In interviews and discussions, many colleagues mention both teachers as
exemplary and as model teachers who have adapted their teaching in accordance with the
reform methods. In different ways, though, their teaching narratives draw the most on the
metaphors, images, and collocations associated with the Confucian traditions noted by
Scollon (1999) and Jin & Cortazzi (2002).
In our discussions and interviews, Wendy describes mostly admiration for the
new teaching reforms and her role as a CLT teacher. She states that she is happy to have
changed her teaching style to match the learner-centered orientation of the ELD, and she
makes distinctions between the different teaching traditions.
C: Both methods have advantages and disadvantages. Now they [her
students] are free to speak and open their mouths, but they make a lot of
mistakes. They always use the vocabulary from high school. In the former
method, they are not free, but what they say is grammatically correct.
They would speak less but what they say is correct… [In the past] every
time I give them a certain amount of vocabulary and they have to practice
and practice. But now they learn a lot of vocabulary but we don‘t ask them
to use them in any situation.
P: Which do the students like?
C: Depends. If they are brave enough they like the present method
Perhaps due to her experience of seeing many fashionable reforms in Chinese education
over the last 25 years, it is interesting Wendy chooses the words ―former‖ and ―present‖
when describing teaching methods. She seems fully aware that the ―present‖ fashion may
soon become the ―former,‖ perhaps a subtle critique of the reforms and CSU but also
evidence of how teachers are always responding to dominant methods well aware of their
limits, a post-method orientation that recognizes the power of methods. Regardless, she
88
restates the common assumption that the CLT methods ―free‖ students to be active,
similar to terms and collocations made throughout CSU policy
At the same time, Wendy does not simply accept the new methods and reforms as
only having advantages, and later in our interview, she describes her role in the class as
one of an expert and boss of student learning, subtly critiquing the reform policy.
I want to make sure that my students learn something at each of my class. Make
sure that the students have learned some skills. For example, this time I would
make sure that the students can learn some words, and really use it. And also
writing style, grammatical structure. Be sure in my teaching plan that they learn
something, not just have fun.
Wendy is implicitly bringing up some of the criticisms of the students at CSU who
comment that foreign teachers are too easy and lax in their teaching role, and while not
advocating an alternative approach to CLT, she is adopting similar criticisms of a ―weak‖
CLT that is only concerned with production of English mentioned in Holliday (1994), in
which the focus is on the grammatical structures of key communication events. I watched
Wendy‘s class every other week during a 16 week semester in the spring of 2007, and her
role in the classroom and with students after class is more than just a facilitator of student
learning. I often noticed the way students talk with her before class and the affection they
feel towards her. In her interview, she specifically calls attention to her role as a mother
in her classroom. She comments:
For Chinese people, especially they will take responsibility. I will take special
care with them [her students]. If I see them and they do something wrong, I will
tell them. Because I am a mother, I will see my student as the way I will treat my
child. If my child has the same problem, I will treat them the same way. Many of
my students call me ―Mother.‖
Wendy‘s students are not alone, as Pat and Irene both report that their students will often
call them ―mother‖ inside or outside classrooms. The depiction of Chinese teachers as
89
parents is often used as a metaphor for the traditional teaching styles that the reform
movement aims to replace, but Wendy and the other teachers go further to actually take
up the term in English and allow their students to call them ―mother‖, a communicative
practice that seems rare in North-American contexts and to my knowledge has not been
described in the literature on English teaching in China.
A further example of how Wendy takes the role of parent and director of student
learning while also encouraging spoken communication and creating a space for students
to practice their language skills in a non-threatening environment is through her use of
the phrase ―I love you‖ to express her feelings toward her students.
C: In English it‘s easier for us to express our emotion that in the local dialect
or language. In other language it is easier. Many of the boys say ―I love
you‖ One student in class says, ―When the first time I see Wendy, I came
to love her‖ Everyone laugh. ―O.K.,‖ I say, ―I love you too.‖ I‘m not
joking, and they start laughing.
P: You would never say that in Chinese?
C: I never say that to anyone. For you [English speakers] it is easy for you to
say ―I love you.‖ You never say teng [trans. ―need‖ or ―love‖] to an adult,
[I would say] wo xi huan xue sheng [trans. ―I like students‖] I would never
say that to an individual but to the whole class. I always follow with I am
a mother. I tell you as my friend or my children.
In the interview, she clarifies to her students that her love is as a parent and toward the
entire class and not one particular student, but she allows her students to continue telling
her that they love her and that they can call her ―Mother.‖ Other teachers at CSU also
describe students that use the words ―I love you‖ with them, and similar to Wendy, Pat,
another experienced local teacher introduced earlier, notes that she would rarely use
Mandarin terms for ―love‖ teng (need) or ai (love) with friends or family members and
certainly not with students. Pat, Wendy, and their students are using an English
90
expression, ―I love you,‖ based on their perhaps erroneous interpretation that it is used
easily between English-speakers, but more importantly they are doing this in order to
establish a parental relationship between teachers and students- something that is
typically associated with traditional Chinese teaching roles and discourse on education. In
this way, the classroom interactions between students and teachers such as Wendy and
Pat are not just about learning to use English and gaining knowledge of a new culture, but
classrooms become sites where teachers provide care for students.
It is particularly interesting that Wendy and the other teachers use English to
enact care-giving roles that are more often associated with Chinese traditions. Wendy and
Pat certainly did not begin taking a more parental role with students after the reforms of
2002, but in describing their English classes before 2002, they mention that they mostly
spoke in Mandarin during class. Due to the reforms and the focus on spoken
communication, more classroom time at CSU is used for student and teacher interactions
in the classrooms in English, and students and teachers are using English to enact
teaching roles and relationship that are not necessarily aligned with a student-autonomy
view of teaching. In many ways, Wendy and her students are re-articulating aspects of a
discourse of Chinese educational tradition as a counter to the assumptions that classroom
activities should be only oriented to skills preparations for future jobs. At the same time,
they also reference the discourse of education reform, thus, offering a complex
assessment of their classrooms that resists simple classification into one discourse or
perspective.
Irene
91
Irene, also a local teacher with many years of teaching experience at CSU,
provides a further example of a teacher as moral guide and expert through the narrative
that she wrote for a digital storytelling group at CSU. During the spring semester of 2007,
a small group of teachers and students participated in a group called the ―Digital
Storytelling Club.‖ As part of the group, participants wrote narratives of specific events
in their lives and the lessons they had learned. The group members then created short
movies of their narratives with music, pictures, and drawings. For her digital story, Irene
shared how she became a teacher and how she views her relationships with students
inside and outside the English classroom. It is particularly interesting how she frames her
story as one of over-coming struggles and inspiring her students to do follow their
dreams. She never overtly instructs students to work hard or be diligent in studying, but
through her story, themes emerge about expressing yourself creatively through hard
work.
I was born in Beijing. When I was four years-old, my father was denounced as a
rightist, and my family was forced to move to the intra Ningxia Hui autonomous
region. There I got my primary and secondary education. Then, as millions of
high school graduates did during the Cultural Revolution, I became a farmer
working in the field. Two and a half years later I managed to find a job as a high
school teacher. In 1977 after 12 years of being closed, universities resumed their
examinations and opened the doors to the young students who wanted to study.
Fortunately, I seized this chance and went to a local university. I could not enter
the famous university that I had chosen because of my father‘s historical issue.
And then, I became a teacher here at [CSU]. If you ask me what is life? I would
say life is a journey; you develop new eyes during your journey.
Later in the narrative, she talks more explicitly about her role in the classroom and with
students.
Teaching English always bring fun to me. I love to see those adorable young
students staring at me, questioning me, and laughing with me. Xiao Ru, one of
my favorite students now is a wonderful English teacher in New Zealand. Yun
Qian once he wrote a lovely poem made me thrilled and excited for one month.
92
Jing Xuen, a gifted and talented art student gave me a portrait of me, drawn by
himself. Students always show their shining potentials in my classroom. One of
my strong points is I can always ignite their sparks into big flames. As a language
educator I have met many distinguished language professors, and I wrote many
academic papers and text books. My students love of my books, make me feel
proud of myself. And I also feel so proud of my students.
Irene portrays herself first and foremost as a hard-working, dedicated scholar and model
for her students, an image that Jin & Cortazzi (1998, 2001) and Scollon (1999) have
directly associated with Confucian teaching roles. The first half of the narrative details
her problems in entering university, and she points out her perseverance and strength in
finally achieving her dream of becoming an English teacher. During this first half of the
narrative, images of herself as a young child with her parents in Beijing appear on the
screen, followed by pictures of the desert landscape where her family moved. Then, she
shows pictures of her classmates at university laughing, and she ends this part of the
narrative ends with a picture of a train, underscoring the metaphor of life is a journey.
In the second half of the narrative, she speaks directly about her position in the
classroom as inspiring students to reach their full potential, and she is clearly the center
of the classroom as students are ―staring at me, questioning me, and laughing with me.‖
These three verbs index the divergent teaching roles of being an expert, a care-giver, and
a role-model, and she show her comfort in this teacher-centered classroom while
mentioning three distinct activities that students have accomplished of which she is
particularly proud: 1) becoming an English teacher in a foreign country; 2) writing a
poem in English; 3) drawing her picture. These three examples do emphasize student
expression and creativity, but importantly they were able to reach these potentials
because she, as the teacher, was able to light their ―little sparks‖ into ―big flames.‖ In one
way, this metaphor and emphasis on student expression of talents is common in other
93
ELD teacher‘s descriptions of their classes as facilitating student expression, and part of
the larger discourse of reform. In the next sentence of her narrative, however, Irene
reminds listeners of her own expertise and work as an author, implying that her position
as an expert teacher has helped to inspire her students. In the video, viewers see a picture
of ―distinguished language professors‖ standing with her followed by a picture of her
books and articles. In addition to being an expert and facilitator of the lighting of ―big
flames,‖ the multiple examples of Irene‘s devotion to her students and her enjoyment of
her students‘ achievements and membership in international communities can be read as
a parental aspect similar to Wendy‘s explicit use of ―Mother‖ with her students, or as the
director and inspiration of students learning, as mentioned in the description of traditional
Chinese teaching methods in the Hulburt (2007) text. In interviews and conversations,
though, Irene never mentions any use of ―Mother‖ or herself as a parent, but her students
in her digital story and in interviews and conversations are inspired by her example of
hard work.
Drawing on multiple discourses and images, this short narrative emphasizes the
pragmatic and individualistic goals Irene has for her students as articulated in the
teaching reforms at CSU while also stating her role as a role model for her students,
similar to the Chinese and Confucian educational tradition, and also similar to the
teaching narratives in Phan & Phan (2005). In addition, the repeated metaphor of life is a
journey- that ends the first section of her narrative and that she repeats at the end of the
Digital Story with the same sentence, ―If you ask me what is life? I would say life is a
journey, you develop new eyes during your journey‖- embodies beliefs central to both the
reform and traditional teaching ―identity kits‖ (c.f. Gee, 1987). From one frame, the
94
journey of life can be an individualistic journey of self-discovery and self-expression.
Through personal reflection, one finds the ―truths‖ of life, and Irene has presented her
journey as a personal one. This may be in part due to the purpose of the Digital Story
Project of collecting personal stories and narratives in English to show to the CSU
campus and use as materials in ELD classrooms. From another frame, the journey
metaphor does not represent independence and self-expression, but a journey implies a
movement over time and space that typically requires perseverance and the ability to
adapt knowledge and insight to new contexts, and as she says, see the world with ―new
eyes.‖ Scollon (1999) and Berthrong & Berthrong (2000) both describe Confucian
teaching as primarily concerned with teaching correct action and the ability to perform
morally in multiple situations, while Socratic and Western educational traditions have
typically emphasized education as a process of determining ―truth‖ and knowledge
through critical reflection and reasoning. In this way, the metaphor of the journey for
Irene and her students is not a path to a particular goal or knowledge endpoint. Instead,
the journey represents common beliefs, such as the importance of higher education and
the wisdom of experts, which Irene and her students draw on in their academic and
personal lives. Similar to Wendy‘s description of her role in the classroom, Irene‘s digital
story does not fit neatly into one discourse of education or exactly within Jin &
Cortazzi‘s features of a Chinese culture of learning; rather, she articulates a teaching
identity that is Chinese, local, reform-oriented, and international.
“I don’t really want to be their mother or father”: Foreign teachers negotiating
relationships with students in the era of reform
95
As the education reforms as CSU are drawn almost exclusively from images and
beliefs associated with Western-based teaching methods, the narratives of the local
teachers typically reveal multiple and at time conflicting stances on their roles as teachers
in ELD classes. The foreign teachers, however, are also struggling to determine the
correct role for themselves as models of reform teaching styles but often confronted with
students at CSU who explicitly view foreign teachers as moral role models and parents as
well as friends and equals, naturally more personable and willing to be friends than local
teachers. For example, CSU students often ask foreign teachers for very personal advice
and may directly ask teachers to become friends, even if foreign teachers have not sought
that role. For example, over the course of one semester at CSU, Cadan, a 3rd
year student
in Mathematics, came to my office hours at least once a week often just to practice his
English and talk to me about various personal issues such as his application to graduate
schools in the U.S., the performances of his soccer team, and his search for a girlfriend.
After the semester ended, he sent me an email asking for further advice and describing
his feelings of isolation and loneliness.
Sometimes I am really confused with my future, sometimes I will imagine
the scenes which probably will happen on me in the future. That makes me very
excited. Whatever road I choose, they're all long runs during which I need
to overcome so many difficulties and go beyond myself. I really want to
find someone who understands me and can share with me the feelings. Will
you be the right person? I hope so.
Few, if any, local teachers find this role of care-giver and friend as explicitly difficult as
many of foreign teachers did. The strong cultural tradition of teachers as roles models in
China clearly contributes to this, as one local teacher commented to me, ―You know in
China the teacher. Lots of restrictions. You will be the model, yeah, because the students
will imitate. They [Chinese teachers] will be easy guides. It the restriction of the
96
traditional Chinese idea.‖ Regardless, the following descriptions of student/teacher
relationships between foreign teachers and CSU students offer examples of the different
types of tensions and complications felt by foreign teachers as they articulate skills
facilitator and reform teaching roles inside and outside the classroom, also drawing on the
discourse of education reform as the local teachers did in their narratives.
Kim and Mary
Kim is a 24 year old first year foreign English teacher at CSU also sees herself as
scaffolding learning experiences, not as an expert, parent, or caregiver.
I don‘t see myself as authoritarian. For me, the language is about communicating.
And, that‘s like the beauty of language, to me, is being able to communicate with
other people. I think my biggest goal as a teacher is to inspire them to want to
communicate in English. I don‘t really want to be their mother or father. I just
want them to see ―hey it‘s useful.‖ You should learn another language. It can help
you in your life. You can meet other people.‘ I don‘t really see myself as wanting
to buddy-buddy with them. Kind of set an example for them that it can be fun to
learn another language. It‘s cool.
She goes on to note that some of the local and foreign teachers take a more parental role
in their relationships with students, but she focuses on the teacher as a guide in classroom
interactions and repeats the internal motivation mentioned in CSU policy.
I tend to try to create opportunities for them to use the language and practice,
whenever possible. But I‘m not going to coddle them and be like ―you didn‘t do
your homework, I‘m taking 5 points off.‖ You know like ―if you want to do it, do
it.‖ You‘re an adult now, you have your own priorities, you got to take care of
them. I tend not to be parent like in that way.
Similar to Kim, Mary is a 24 year old foreign English teacher at CSU who is also in her
first year as an English teacher at CSU. She also describes a similar individualism
required by CSU learners in her classroom.
P: I‘ve had students who want me to inspire them
M: Hmm, Inspire them to learn English?
97
P: They want the teacher to guide them in the right way to learn and
be a good person. They feel lost.
M: I guess that goes back to the idea that I think in terms that it should be
internally motivated. I guess that I could inspire you by making things
interesting. It is my job to make things interesting, but if you are not
interested in learning English there is only so far I can inspire you. This is
not the Dead Poet‘s society here. I do think that the teacher should have
lessons that make you think.
Both Mary and Kim specifically position their teaching roles away from the role models
and parents that they have seen Chinese teachers of English become with their students.
Their descriptions of their role as a teacher focuses on practical goals of creating
―opportunities to use the language‖ and inspiring students to use English in
communication by ―making things interesting,‖ both aspects of a skills facilitator and the
model found in the CLT literature and CSU policy. They also both specifically mention
that students must be self-motivated and self-directed in their learning, something that the
university and national English education reforms have both promoted.
While primarily drawing on the discourse of education reform in describing her
class as inspiring creativity and individualism, Kim does, however, mention that she has
changed the way that she teaches since coming to CSU, sometimes away from the
abstract notions of a learner-centered curriculum.
I think since I‘ve come here I‘ve been taking Chinese classes and it has put me
back in touch with being a student, like actually learning a language. It had been a
few years. In my graduate program, there is a lot of really touchy-feely stuff like
abstract stuff, like ummm, like the learner-centered model. I mean that‘s
wonderful…I mean a lot of things I‘ve learned in theory sound great but I‘m like
a lot of it is not really concrete, and it‘s not really helping to learn the language.
I‘m not convinced that everything new is great. I mean when I got out of college I
was trying lots of new things, but since I‘ve gotten here, like there are some stuff
has worked some hasn‘t. If it ain‘t broke don‘t fix it.
98
It is interesting that Kim prefaces her evolving opinion about teaching English by
mentioning learning Chinese. Local teachers of English teach the Chinese classes for the
foreign students at CSU, and they involve memorizing a short text and repetition
exercises associated with traditional Chinese teaching methods. Interestingly, later in our
interview, Kim mentions that one specific technique that she uses in her own English
class now is recitation. She considers repetition as one of the techniques that ―ain‘t
broke‖ but was not encouraged in her graduate program in the US or by CSU policy.
In addition to determining the most comfortable teaching role in the classroom,
foreign teachers such as Mary and Kim often express discomfort and confusion in the
numerous encounters they have with students outside of the classroom. For example, Kim
describes invitations to dinners with students and hosting cooking parties in her
apartment, but she questions her position as a woman in the community and as a foreign
teacher, particularly when asked to join her students in drinking alcohol.
I‘m always, what do they [her students] expect from us. I feel like I notice that not
many girls here ever go out drinking, or whatever, but yet, whenever Ann and I
will walk by [the cafeteria or local restaurant] they really want us to come join
them. They are very respectful they really want us there. There‘s like kind of a
double-standard there. How the women here act and how they expect us to act.
It‘s kind of weird. I don‘t really understand it sometimes
Similar to many university campuses in China, a strip of restaurants and bars is located
just outside the gates to the university, primarily catering to students from CSU. Since
most foreign teachers do not have children or extended family to eat with and cook for at
home, they often eat lunches and dinners in these local restaurants, often running into
their students. Kim describes a common dilemma faced by foreign teachers from the
United States in which it feels comfortable and, in a way, freeing to be away from the
strict rules and social expectations that govern student/teacher relationships in the United
99
States. At the same time, Kim fears that she will further a stereotype of Westerners and in
particular Western women as casual and less serious than Chinese teachers of English.
Local teachers, who typically only eat out on special occasions and not in the restaurants
near the university, do not mention difficulty in deciding when and how to eat and drink
alcohol with their students.
Ann
Mary and Kim are in their mid-20‘s and quite a bit younger in comparison with
Irene and Wendy, and in addition to the cultural differences in taking a role model and
parenting role with students, age may have played a more important factor in their
student-teacher relationships. For example, Ann, a 35 year-old first-year foreign English
teacher at CSU is more comfortable in parenting her students, as noted by Kim and Mary
in their interviews. Ann describes her students as part of her family, ―I don‘t have my
own family. This is my life. They are my kids. I really get involved with them
emotionally. I found my perfect student. As close to perfect as they can be.‖ Ann
routinely helps students pay for medical and dental bills, and allowed one student to live
in her extra bedroom for two months while studying for a graduate school entrance exam.
Ann‘s relationships with her students are more intense and close than other Chinese or
foreign teachers, but she is respected by her students and is routinely invited to eat meals
with students and give guest lectures to student groups. Ann does not, however, allow
students to call her ―Mom.‖ Ann‘s description of herself as a teacher and as more than a
skills facilitator invokes Noddings (2002)‘s ethics of caring in the classroom as well as
Phan & Phan‘s (2006) description of teaching as moral education in Vietnam.
100
It is interesting to note that no Chinese male teachers at CSU mentioned allowing
their students to call them ―Dad,‖ but male teachers all mention playing basketball,
soccer, and other sports with students and eating meals with students. The close living
arrangements of most teachers to the residence halls facilitate these interactions, and it is
common to see male teachers and students sharing a cigarette or beer at local restaurants
or after sporting matches. The close relationships often expected of students and teachers
at CSU raises questions about how much care to offer students, and in what forms, as
traditionally teachers were held accountable for student test scores as well as the personal
well-being of students. In addition, some foreign teachers may be crossing norms and
expectations of foreign teachers by positioning themselves as caregivers.
Ann‘s close relationships, while contributing to her popularity and the comfort
students clearly had in her class, also at times led to some misunderstandings and student
mis-readings of her role as a friend, parent, and teacher. In our interviews, she describes
an experience in the English lounge, a room on campus near the main cafeteria where
students come during evenings to read English books and have conversations in English.
The first two weeks that I was here. I was in the English lounge and I was
surrounded by 5 or 6 people who were really good [in English]. One of my
students came and sat down with us and she said ―Are you going to be studying
teaching methods that you can use to improve your teaching in our class, because
other foreign teachers had us talking more and in your class we basically just
listen‖ We had been having this high level conversation, [and] I said ―Excuse me,
I‘m new here so I‘m just getting to know you. A lot of what we are doing is just
getting to know each other.‖ I went home and cried as I was so embarrassed. The
other girls were also so embarrassed. The other girls were like ―Oh we need to
go.‖ After that, I was a little bit irritated with her and I called on her everyday and
there were times she wasn‘t prepared, and I would jab back at her. And after a
while she just warmed up to me
Ann‘s student is framing her in two ways. First, she feels that foreign teachers must be
student-centered and base their classes on discussions, otherwise they are not effective
101
nor performing as ―foreign‖ teachers are expected to perform in the classroom. Second,
just as Wendy is re-interpreting English-speakers use of ―I love you,‖ Ann‘s student
interprets the interaction style of foreign teachers as valuing direct comments and she
speaks to Ann as she might speak to a friend offering a specific request and comment.
“The global economy requires diversifications not just moral disseminator”:
Student perspectives on teacher roles in the era of reform
Unlike the instrumental reasons local teachers have in adopting a skills facilitator
role or the familiarity that foreign teachers have in remaining a ―guide on the side‖, CSU
students in interviews and journal writing appear more open in calling for teachers to be
the role models and experts that they are familiar with from their high schools. The
student responses come from their written responses for a class assignment and our
subsequent classroom discussion of the famous adage wei ren shi biao (a teacher instructs
the right path)9. The divergent teaching images presented by the students further
complicate CSU policy statements about student and teacher goals of personal autonomy,
creative expression, and communicative competence. For example, Bruce, Krya, and Jay
offer three overlapping but distinct views on the roles of English language teachers.
Bruce, a 3rd
year student in business, writes that more than anything, a teacher
must be knowledgeable in the grammar and usage of English. He writes:
There are two parts of a good English teacher: a lot of knowledge and a good
personality to make class interesting. As everyone knows, ‗If you want to give
your students a bowl of water, you should own a bucket of water‘.
9 Prompt for the journal on the role of the teacher written on by 35 students in my academic writing classes:
In your opinion, what makes/constitutes a good teacher of English? What do you expect to learn from a
good teacher of English? Do you agree that English teachers should also be moral role models for their
students? For example, there is a saying in Chinese ―Wei Ren Shi Biao‖ (correct me if my pinyin is wrong).
Do you agree with this? For both foreign and local teachers of English? Please provide details, examples,
and comparisons of teachers you have had before (no need to give names).
102
Kyra, a 3rd
year English major, similarly writes that ―When concerning to be a good
teacher, one should be firstly qualified in his or her specialized field and have a vast
scope of knowledge in different fields.‖ She continues, however, to note that English
students already have large amounts of knowledge of English language and literature
from high school courses, and she recommends that they need an appropriate model of
how to use English correctly in speaking and writing. She does not point out that foreign
teachers are necessarily the best English teachers, but she does describe the need for
teachers to model not just reading and grammar skills but also spoken ability in English,
as she writes that Chinese students have only learned ―mute English‖ and ―dumb
English.‖ Kyra and other students focusing on teachers as models of speaking are keenly
aware of the expectations of CSU educators and the larger business community that
forefront speaking as essential for their future careers, and they expect a teacher to be a
perfect model of good speaking skills and knowledge of English in order to inspire them.
For some students, such as Jay- a 2nd
year Art student from Macau- the need for expertise
in speaking means that only native-speaker teachers with experience in ESL can be
effective teachers of English. He writes:
In my opinion an English teacher must be a native speaker for non-native speaker
would never have the same intonation or tone like native speaker. Moreover,
he/she should have experiences for teaching ESL students.
Echoing teachers Ma and Annie, these students are calling for teacher-experts associated
with traditional Chinese models of teaching, but also reinforcing assumptions about the
need for spoken practice and the inherent worth of native-speakers.
In addition to experts in English, Windy, a 3rd
year student majoring in English,
voices a desire for teachers to criticize her English since they have more knowledge of
103
English than students. She writes that a good teacher should have ―professional
knowledge, excellent English skills and critical thinking,‖ and she feels ELD teachers are
too easy in these respects.
[ELD] teachers just take English classes too easily. Their easy-going style makes
Chinese students think they can be lazy or do work not seriously. Playing games,
watching movies and other entertainment are good for students in some situations.
To tell the truth, I‘m not an excellent or smart student. As a result, I will hope my
teacher help me improve my English skills. Also, I‘m a little lazy and too proud
sometimes. So I expect my teacher make some comments on my work directly,
even negative. I think many Chinese would be affected by their teachers‘
activities.
I first heard this critique of the easy standards of ELD teachers from Guy who wrote the
email that spurred this study, and Windy‘s complaint is common at CSU, particularly in
relation to foreign teacher classrooms. In interviews, many of the senior students stated
that the ELD does not prepare them for important exams such as the CET 4 and CET 6.
Windy describes Chinese students as too ―lazy‖ to study on their own, especially to speak
on their own, similar to local teachers, such as Wendy, who mention the need to ―take
special care‖ with Chinese students who expect teachers to encourage them through
explicit correction and evaluation. In a way, the students and teachers offer a negative
depiction of Chinese students who are used to being ―force-fed‖ knowledge through
traditional teaching methods, an image also found in the CSU review of its ―obsolete
spoon-fed method.‖ The ELD students I interviewed and taught, however, do not
advocate a complete acceptance of CLT methods; rather, they demand speaking practice
as well as the explicit guidance and expertise described by teachers such as Irene and
Wendy in their narratives. In fact, many students describe effective teachers they have
had who have taken a central position in classrooms in order get the attention of students
and allow students to feel that they are acquiring important knowledge, and unlike the
104
famous learner Meijie (Hulburt, 20007), these CSU students do not view this teaching
role as a ―vise.‖
In addition to the teacher-centered classrooms expressed above, many students in
their journals wrote specifically about how teachers can demonstrate morality through
leading by example in the way Irene and Wendy do. For example, Echo, a 3rd
year
student in English, writes:
What kind of teacher you are speaks louder than what you teach and how you
teach. What I mean here is that a teacher‘s behaviours and personalities are more
important than his or her career success.
She adds a description of the Korean scientist defamed for plagiarism as an example of a
failed role model for students, and she agrees that in making choices, teachers and
researchers should think not just about their careers but how they are viewed by their
students. She makes one qualification: ―A teacher is allowed to make mistakes. Even a
good teacher is not necessary to be a sage.‖ Other students, such as Julie, a 2nd
year
English major, also comment on how ―teachers should teach the students both by saying
and acting‖, and Joyce, a 2nd
year English major, describes a good teacher as someone
who ―sets himself as a hardworking image, and encourage us to learn more.‖ Students in
journals and interviews mention that all teachers, both foreign and local can be moral role
models and as Joyce writes, all teachers should teach ―good qualities such as hard-
working, goodness, critical towards our study, and life, and so on.‖ Joyce interestingly
comments on the how the position of teachers as moral role models is mostly a social
construction. She writes, ―The old saying, ‗wei ren shi biao‘ has existed in Chinese
people‘s mind for thousands of years, it is a truth in many people‘s mind.‖ A truth that
105
may be an historical construction, but one that many students at CSU appear grounded in
and united through.
Perhaps not surprisingly, not all take pride or happily accept this cultural tradition.
After members of the Digital Story group showed Irene and the other videos to the entire
campus at a large screening at the end of the semester, I showed them to students in my
academic writing classes. Students at the campus presentation and in my class
commented on Irene‘s ability to overcome adversity and her deep respect for academic
work and professors. Many students in my class wrote about Irene as a model teacher in
their journals, and they described similar aspects of teachers as role models in their
journals. One student, a 3rd
year business major named Joe, however, noted that teachers
should not be viewed as role models anymore or explicitly teach moral education. In
class, he said that the story of overcoming the Cultural Revolution and struggling to learn
at universities is ―something we‘ve heard many times before‖ from teachers and has
become ―boring.‖
In addition, Serena, a 2nd
year Journalism major, specifically questions the teacher
as moral role model in a globalizing world.
I am not going to say it [teachers as moral role models] is an outdated criterion,
but I think this criterion is unfitting for today‘s teachers. In the past of China, the
teachers were not expected to teach maths, science, foreign language, etc. Those
teachers were great thinkers. They lived with the students and taught them morals
or political strategies. In that case, the teachers would have greater influence on
the students. However, today, they students should be diversified to adapt to the
changing world. The global economy requires diversifications not just moral
disseminator. In addition, some English teachers are from foreign countries. They
may show much respect for freedom. They may have different acknowledgments
about morals. So I don‘t think it is a good idea to judge a good English teacher by
―wei ren shi biao.‖
106
In calling for students to ―be diversified‖ through the abandonment of traditional moral
education of the past, Serena describes teachers as having less influence on students in
China today in comparison to the past, and she appears to be calling for the skills
facilitator teacher not the parental role or dominant expert that her peers describe.
Similarly, Mitchell, a 2nd
year student in English from Guangzhou, describes teachers as
professionals and not anything more. She writes, ―Teaching is a simply kind of
occupation. Teachers are responsible to what they teach to students, besides which
everybody has his own life.‖
Student critiques of traditional teaching roles use similar terms and images of
teachers as ―professionals‖ and often appeal to the images of the business and global
world also found in CSU polices. These student critiques are what CSU administrators
expected in reforming the language teaching at CSU, and many teachers and
administrators have told me that students who prefer traditional teaching roles are ―just
not well-acquainted with the new teaching styles.‖ Teachers and administrators also
argue that the students with low spoken proficiency cannot appreciate the strength of the
new teaching styles and relationships between students and teachers, but in the future all
CSU students will have a high level of spoken proficiency.
Qing he li
As a final note on the expectations and constructions of teacher-student
relationships at CSU, two ELD students, Sam and Echo, and one local teacher, Iris,
summarize a notion that is common in all of the interviews and journals that I analyzed
on the topic of student-teacher relationships and teacher identity. In discussing the
definition of the term 亲和力 qing he li, the group came to a consensus definition of an
107
―effective‖ teacher at CSU, a definition that incorporates aspects of many roles and
discourses found in student and teacher narratives throughout this chapter.
1) S: 我觉得,这个问题,就是要善于引导学生去讲,就是善于沟通,
亲和力要强 (I think, this question, [a teacher] is good at conducting
students to speak/talk. That is [teacher] should be good at communication,
and qin he li)
2) L: 这个亲和力 (this qing he li) I don‘t know how to translate.
3) E: Easy-going 亲和力 (qing he li). A charm with the students.
4) L: The teacher should easily dominate the class, lead the class, lead the whole
students to do what he or she expect them to do. The teacher is very nice
and knowledgable. The teacher is the model or is the facilitator.
5) E: Want to follow. Students want to follow the teacher. Oh, my teacher is so
wonderful.
Qing he li cannot be just broken down compositionally into the sum of its individual
character meanings, and as implied from the discussion, understandings of qing he li
appear to be context and situation dependant. It can be noted, however, that alone as an
adjective qin 亲 can mean ―close‖ or ―intimate‖ or as the noun ―parent‖ or ―relation‖ and
is used in terms such as qin’ai ―dear,‖ as a formal letter greeting, and qinqi ―relative‖
(Oxford English-Chinese Pocket Dictionary, 2005). In the same way, li 力 stands for
―power‖ or ―strength‖ alone as a noun, and is used in two-character terms such as nengli
―ability‖ and liqi ―physical ability‖ or ―energy‖ (Oxford English-Chinese Pocket
Dictionary, 2005). Also, he 和 in this phrase is a conjunction meaning ―and‖ or
―together‖ (Oxford English-Chinese Pocket Dictionary, 2005). Taken together, Iris‘s final
statement in 4) appears to be a common definition of qing he li as it incorporates a
teacher who ―easily dominates the class,‖ ―is very nice and knowledgeable,‖ and ―is the
model or is the facilitator‖, a description that incorporates many of the roles of teaching
at CSU discussed in this chapter. This broad description of qing he li, however, sets a
high standard for local and foreign teachers at China Southern since -as Echo mentions in
108
5)- students will just ―want to follow‖ a good teacher, implying that good teaching may
somehow just come naturally to the most effective teachers.
Conclusion
It used to be a problem of ―how to get there‖ and now it is ―where could I, or
should I go? And where will this road I‘ve taken bring me?‖ (Bauman, 2005, p.
441).
In their descriptions of teacher roles and their narratives of student-teacher
relationships, the teachers and students at CSU are not unanimously abandoning the roles
that teachers have traditionally taken in Chinese educational settings (Cortazzi & Jin,
2002, 2006; Jin & Cortazzi, 2002), nor are they rejecting CSU policy and the
expectations of spoken proficiency and student individualism articulated in discourses of
education reform and internationalization. Instead, in articulating Chinese educational
traditions while indexing international norms, the teacher-student relationships at CSU
illustrate what Bauman (2005) describes as the multiple identifications available in the
globalizing era. This metaphor of multiple roads with multiple endpoints describes well
the divergent narratives on teaching roles in Pat, Irene, Wendy, Ann, and Kim‘s student-
teacher relationships and the different discourses and images of teaching in their varied
teaching contexts
As illustrated in many of the chapter‘s narratives and classroom descriptions,
however, CSU policy and many administrators and teachers do not expect these multiple
identifications and ways of performing teaching roles. For example, in faculty meetings,
the Director of the ELD often praises the local teachers since they ―know the
backgrounds and abilities of Chinese students well‖ while mentioning that the foreign
teaches ―know how to teach using the new communicative methods.‖ In contrast,
109
Wendy‘s performance as a parent and director of student learning reveals a different type
of knowledge about the local students then often portrayed by administrators and
teachers. In addition, the use of ―I love you‖ between students and teachers is a different
type of communicative competence than intended by the reforms. In further discussions, I
told Wendy that from my perspective not every one I know easily says ―I love you‖
especially not to students, and that many teachers in English would not allow their
students to call them ―Mother‖ or ―Father.‖ Understanding this aspect of English,
however, Wendy plans to continue to tell her students that she loves them, and she is
happy when they call her ―mother.‖
In addition, the use of ―I love you‖ opens up the internationalization reports at
CSU to perhaps unintended interpretations. The authors describe the closer relationships
that students and teachers have since the reforms of 2002. They write:
What deserves our mention, students are welcome to have talks with teachers at
any time after class about problems and issues encountered in their study. This
has created a more equitable teacher-student relationship. It has also contributed
to a huge positive impact on the students‘ character development and attitude
toward learning.
The report draws on ―character development‖ and ―attitude toward learning‖, notions that
may be more closely associated with Chinese educational traditions and not the
internationalized curriculum, and it also mentions the new teaching methods as bringing
students and teachers closer together and making ―a more equitable teacher-student
relationship.‖ This equality of students and teachers is central to a discourse on education
reform and its projection of democratic classrooms, where students can investigate and
discover knowledge on their own, but the type of parenting in teacher-student
110
relationships maintained by Wendy and even Ann is also part of these equal relationships
in the English classroom.
Regardless of the specific teaching practices that local and foreign teachers at
CSU develop, the multiple articulations and negotiations of the education reform
discourse and local traditions at CSU challenge policy written primarily from a teacher as
skills facilitator model of student-teacher relationships. It appears imperative that
teachers and students at CSU be encouraged to view their classrooms and their own
identities as evolving and changing through their personal and collective classroom
practices, perhaps using the metaphor of a rhizome as described in Ramanthan (2007).
This is not just the situation at CSU, however, and to the detriment of teachers at
universities from China to the United States, policies often reify teaching roles as stable
entities that do not change over time and place. Finally, if policy makers and reform
educators want to inspire creativity and self-expression in students and teachers in both
China and other university EFL contexts, we need to look toward writing policy and
expecting student-teacher relationships that do not assume the same linguistic and
cultural goals for all students and teachers, instead of re-articulating discourses that view
globalization and internationalization as inevitable and uniform processes.
111
Chapter 4
Interpretations and appropriations of Communicative Language Teaching
Introduction
Before accepting the offer to teach English at China Southern University (CSU) in
2004, I asked many questions about the university and the region. The more complex
questions involved the teaching methods used by the English Language Department
(ELD) at CSU. I had training in communicative language teaching (CLT) methods and
systemic-functional syllabus construction through my M.A. in TESOL program, but
attracted to the field of critical applied linguistics (Pennycook, 2001), I had wondered
about the assumptions involved in language education (McPherron, 2005). Specifically, I
wondered about the political implications of my teaching English as a foreign language
(Phillipson, 1992; Pennycook, 1994; Edge, 2006), and I feared that I would not be able to
choose the appropriate teaching methods for the backgrounds of my students (Holliday,
1994; Canagarajah, 2003; Kumaravadivelu, 1994; 2004; 2006a; 2006). Despite many
unanswered questions, I took the job at CSU in part because the university emphasized a
collaborative teaching community of equal numbers of foreign and local teachers and an
environment that fostered reflective teaching and professional development.
With my pre-departure questions still fresh in my mind and the instructions of the
vice-chancellor to ―reform teaching in China‖ serving as my first impression of the ELD,
I received the email from Guy introduced earlier. In addition to remarking on his
ambivalence toward English learning, Guy comments on some of my classroom teaching
methods.
It is about the classroom teaching and learning. I am of kind of disappointed or
pessimistic about the future conducting of our ELC English class, according to
112
what I saw and felt, and experienced after the class. One typical response is the
ELC class is getting more and more boring, and lack of enthusiastic, interactive
atmosphere. The complaints from the students are mainly about they couldn‘t
learn what they had expected to learn. To most of them, classroom discussion and
presentation and powerpointation might have lost their attraction and
interestedness since students have already had enough in the past two years.
It had been two years since the CLT reforms had been introduced with the techniques of
encouraging classroom discussion and small group work (often with Power-Point slides,
what Guy calls ―powerpointation‖). At the time, I felt that Guy was resisting both my role
as a ―foreign expert‖ and the CLT teaching methods that I represented. I thought that I
was now participating in the linguistic imperialism (c.f. Phillipson, 1992) that I had
questioned before leaving. During this initial period of teaching at CSU, however, I also
heard from local teachers about how much they appreciated the new ―freedoms‖ that
students had in CLT classrooms and from my first day of teaching, many students did
comment to me that they preferred the open, discussion style of my classrooms. Perhaps,
I thought, there is not such a clear division between the Western, CLT methods and the
expectations and desires of students and teachers. In this way, I reasoned that I should
stay and engage with these conflicting desires and explore what Guy and other students
mean by ―an enthusiastic and interactive‖ environment.
Based on these early introductions to the debates over teaching methods at CSU
during my first semester of teaching, the following chapter is further examination of these
complex attitudes toward CLT teaching practices, and it continues the exploration of
teacher roles and teaching methods in ELD courses from the previous chapter by
explicitly examining classroom transcripts from ELD classrooms. The chapter presents
data from local and foreign teacher classrooms along with student interpretations of
reform teaching methods, highlighting the cross-cultural discussion of students and
113
foreign teachers over teaching methods that began with my Guy‘s first email to me about
classroom teaching. Specifically, the data for the chapter cover the three-year period of
the study and include: 1) classroom observation notes, 2) classroom transcripts, 3) many
conversations with local and foreign teachers at CSU; and 4) student journal writing on
classroom methods. As a point of entry into the complex questions of pedagogy that have
developed over the courses of the study, the chapter is framed around the following
research question: (How) do English language classrooms at CSU reveal the tensions,
appropriations, and local teaching realities in defining and practicing communicative
language teaching (CLT)? In responding to the research question, the chapter adds the
perspectives and teaching practices of practicing teachers and students in the Chinese
ELT context to studies of localization and appropriations of pedagogy and policy around
the world (Holliday, 1994; Morgan, 1998; Adamson, 2002; Block & Cameron, 2002; Hu,
2005; Canagarajah, 2005; Ramanthan, 2005; Lin & Martin, 2005; Edge, 2006;
Ramanathan & Morgan, 2007).
Organizationally, the following sections of the chapter first focus on the
classrooms of three experienced and highly respected local teachers, Sue, Wendy, and
Iris. Their classrooms offer a variety of perspectives and interpretations of CLT by local
teachers at CSU and illustrate key responses to the research question and the re-
interpretation of CLT as an index of internationalization. The next data section contains
observations from the classrooms of foreign English teachers, including my own, as well
as the perspectives of CSU students and their framing of foreign teachers and responses
to reform teaching methods. The paper concludes with a discussion of some implications
for teachers, teacher education, and theories of language learning in ELT.
114
“Raise your hand. I just want you to open your mouth”: Local teacher classrooms
Sue
Sue, a local teacher who came to CSU in 2002 when the reforms in English
language teaching were first introduced, readily accepts her new position in the
classroom as a skills facilitator teacher, a positive view shared by many teachers at CSU.
Over the three years of the study, Sue and I have often discussed the characteristics of
Chinese learners, and in our one formal interview, she discusses how she is changing the
way students view teachers in China.
S: So that in Chinese culture in students mind teachers should be resourceful,
knowledgeable just like a living dictionary. If you are not sure of the
meaning of the word, the teacher will be very embarrassed.
P: Do you think that is changing in china?
S: For me, I think that I change. If the students ask me some questions, I will
turn to the dictionary or turn to other foreign teachers and often share my
frustration with the students. And, it seems that they respect me more than
before.
Sue turns to dictionaries or foreign teachers as authorities at CSU instead of trying to
present herself as an expert in front of her students, and in this way she notes that she is
modeling for her students how they should become resourceful on their own, a goal of the
teaching reforms at CSU. In addition, a theme for Sue and many local teachers is that
CSU students are ―too passive‖ and worried about being correct when they speak, and
many local teachers work to create a relaxed atmosphere in the classroom where students
can feel comfortable to make mistakes.
From the first day of class, Sue illustrates this ELD focus of getting students to
speak more openly and express their personalities, in Sue‘s words to ―open their mouths.‖
On the first day in all of her courses, she presents three Power-point slides, one
115
describing ―Why English is very important‖ and two listing points on ―What is a
successful learner?‖
Slide 1: ―Why English is very important‖
1. English has become an international language for communication around the
world.
2. Over 1 billion people use English in the world today.
3. Many companies around the world require English for job positions.
4. Find a better job with good English.
Slides 2: What is a successful learner? (unnumbered on the slide)
- Having their short and long-term goals.
- Grasping every opportunity to practice with native speaker or other people
both in and outside of class.
- Think critically and positively.
- Not afraid to make mistakes in public
- Reflecting on their learning frequently.
Slide 3: What is a successful learner? (unnumbered on the slide)
- Assuming the responsibilities for their own learning.
- Never rely on the teacher all the time.
- Self-confidence and willingness to take risk
The class that I observed was a Level 2 class, the lowest level represented in the project,
an in presenting these slides, Sue feels that especially at the lower proficiency levels her
goal is to teach her students to be self-motivated and take responsibility for their own
learning. In addition, Sue informs the students that the slides represent summaries of
students needs analysis surveys that she has completed in recent years, and they echo
many points in the CLT literature (Savignon, 2001; Ellis, 2004; Nunan, 2005) and writing
about English as a global language (Kachru, 1986; Crystal, 2000).
In order to reinforce these points from the 1st class meeting, during the 2
nd day of
her Level 2 class, Sue asks the students to remember the main points from the first day
with a clear emphasis on getting students ―to open their mouths.‖ Transcript 4.1 below
details this interaction from her classroom.
116
Classroom transcript 4.1
1 S: ((at front of the room addressing entire class))
Why is English important(?)
2 Ss: ((Heads looking at desks or at windows)) (3.0)
3 S: ((Opens PPT slide that was shown last class; 1st slide lists four reasons for
learning English))
4 Sts: ((reading slide)) (4.0)
5 S: ((Moves to 2nd
slide which lists aspects of a ―successful learner)
6 Sts: ((reading slide)) (4.0)
7 S: ((Moves to 3rd
slide with further aspects of a ―successful learner‖))
8 Sts: ((reading slide)) (4.0)
9 S: ((closes the slide show))
This is a possible answer to a test that you will take, such as the CET 4 or
CET 6 [College English Test]. Will you be able to respond? ...Why is
English important(?) (3.0)
10 S1: English is use around the world
11 S2: English is an important tool
12 S3: English as an international language and with English many things are
possible.
11 S: I feel a little…maybe you can say a little disappointed at your reaction.
Because last time I remember very clearly that everybody hold these ideas
clearly in your minds…But not Friday Saturday Sunday Monday…four
days have passed and you forget them. So you don‘t remember them
well… I‘m a little disappointed… The next question what is a successful
learner(?) There are eight points. You came up with how many (?) O.K.
one point is O.K. raise your hand…I just want you to open your mouth.
12 S4: Have short and long term goals
13 S: YES having short and long term goals
14 S5: think critically
15 S: think critically(?)
16 S6: and positively
17 S: YES think critically and positively
The above classroom activity is similar to many teacher-initiated and directed
activities in Sue‘s classroom and many local teachers also begin their classes with a
similar activity about learning English. Both the content and the group memorization
activity offer interesting examples of how local teachers at CSU are interpreting a
communicative approach to teaching. Sue and the teachers at CSU appear to embrace a
―weak‖ model (c.f. Holliday, 1994) in which students primarily are encouraged to ―use‖
language and ―open their mouths‖ and not focus on specific grammar or academic
117
language. At the same time, the recitation of previously learned texts in Sue‘s classroom
may not be truly communicative according recent CLT literature (Savignon, 2001; Ellis,
2004, Nunan, 2005). The students, however, are still using English to communicate and
appear to be gaining confidence in these recitation and display exercises, and in
conversations with me, Sue‘s students note the comfort and fun they have in her class.
As a further example of Sue‘s insistence on ―opening your mouth,‖ compare the
above transcript with a similar activity from later in the semester, in which Sue is
beginning a class discussion of a reading assignment on the medical practice called
―laugh therapy.‖
Classroom transcript 4.2
1 S: ((at front of classroom, opens Power-Point slide containing 2 questions:
What is laugh therapy?; Why should we laugh?))
2 S: So let‘s move to our reading two, laugh therapy. OK. Laugh therapy. So
what is laugh therapy(?) What is laugh therapy(?) Have you read reading
two(?)
2 Sts: ((Nodding))
3 S: Yes, also that is our homework. So, what is laugh therapy? (3.0) who‘s
volunteer to tell us(?) What is laugh therapy? If you have read reading
two, you should know. Right(?) (2.0)
4 S: What is laugh therapy? Qing hua(?) Can you(?) O.K. (2.0)
5 QH: ((shaking head))
6 S: What IS laugh therapy(?)…
7 S1: [Speaking quietly to self. Sue cannot understand]
8 S: What(?)…There are a lot of therapies. Right (?) So, what is laugh therapy
in our textbook(?) So what is laugh therapy(?) OK. Yes.
10 S1: Do some activities that will bring out laughter and positive emotions.
11 S: Yes, very good. So, this is a kind of treatment. So why should we laugh(?)
Why should we laugh(?) Why(?)
12 Sts: ((looking down))
13 S: Tong Xue Yuen. Just read it. Read it here. [changes Power-point slide to
reveal answers] Read it here. Why should we laugh(?) And the others try
your best to learn from heart. Then I will ask you how much you can
remember.
15 S2: I can‘t see it.
16 S: OK. I just want you to read it.
17 S2: I can‘t see it.
18 S: You can‘t see it.
118
19 S2: Yes. I forgot my glasses.
20 S: O.K. Now ((points to another student)) Yes.
21 S3: ((reading from slide)) Lower blood pressure, strengthen immune system
and improve mental wellness. Emotions are helped.
22 S: OK. So, here are the advantages of laugh. If you laugh you then you will
gain these advantages. Lower blood pressure, strengthen immune system
and improve mental wellness. Do you have any problems understanding
this(?) O.K,
23 Sts: Immune system
24 S: Immune system is lian xi.
25 S: OK. So, can you remember this(?) I will call ahead of you
26 S: ((closes ppt))
27 S: Song Ting Hua.
28 STH: What is the question(?)
29 S: OK. What are the benefits of laugh therapy(?)
30 STH: I do not have my book.
30 S: So, just do not just look at your textbook. So just now, I want you to what.
When the other people just read it, the others try your best to remember it
by heart. Right(?) And then you have to remember it. OK. So anyways
when the people just talking about laugh therapy. You just take the
national band 4 of oral test. And when people ask what is it about laughing
and what is the function of laughing in our daily life. Then you have some
brilliant ideas of what to tell them. That is here. OK? Got it. Song Hua,
can you(?)
31 STH: Low blood pressure, strengthen immune system. Improve mental wellness.
And positive emotions are felt by laughing.
32 S: OK. Very good. So, positive. Here, positive emotions are felt by laughing.
So, here are three positive things. Positive emotions are felt by reading.
Now, I go to the questions here. As to the reading two.
In both transcripts, Sue feels that her students‘ immediate needs are not
grammatical or text-based; rather, she appears to want her students to practice the habits
and postures of speaking English and gain confidence in using English without fear of
correction. In both transcripts, she specifically links this ease of communicating orally in
English (even if the answers are prepared) with success on the state CET test (see line 9
of transcript 4.1 and line 40 in transcript 4.2). In this way, focusing on speaking and
―opening your mouth‖ combines two dominant goals in the CSU context, the adoption of
CLT teaching goals of ―opening‖ student mouths with the need to perform well on the
119
CET tests that students take in order to find jobs in the growing international business
sector. By focusing on these two goals, she does not offer a critical discussion of English
meanings to her students, and she appears accepting of the myths about English as an
International Language (Pennycook, 1994, 2003) and the ability of English to assure
global citizenship (Pennycook, 2007). Instead of Pennycook and other critical
pedagogist‘s critique of English as an International Language, Sue‘s agenda for her
students is grounded in her perception of the realities of their backgrounds and needs as
many students want to work in international companies at large cities in southern China
and may primarily use their English skills when speaking to international clients. While
Kramsch (2007) criticizes teaching English only based on the perceived needs of global
markets and smooth business transactions, Sue feels that her students both desire and
need the confidence to ―open their mouths‖ if they are to gain the employment and jobs
that they desire; and communicative language teaching is simply the best way for
students to prepare for work in international workplaces. Many of the students from CSU
do look for jobs in the many international companies in Guangdong Province, but as
noted earlier since the ELD is such a new program with the first class of students to be
required to complete through Level 4 classes graduating in 2006, it is unclear exactly
what connection exists between reform teaching at CSU and their future careers.
Regardless, Sue is preparing her students for her view of ―international‖
citizenship and work through a version of CLT in which confidence is just as important
as displaying correct English grammar, and she herself feels confidence through these
teaching techniques, particularly when calling on students by name to speak and speaking
about her classroom to foreign teachers and even when being evaluated negatively by
120
local teachers. In observing the other local and foreign teachers classrooms, foreign
teachers were much more likely to randomly call on students to respond without first
asking for volunteers. Similar to the other foreign teachers, Sue directly asks students to
be ready to respond to her questions at all times, and she is very concerned with including
all students in any classroom discussion. In fact, she narrated a story to me of how she
was upset because a colleague had once reviewed her classroom and told her that she had
not criticized her students enough and instead had let them talk to freely. She felt that that
this was the opposite of her goals for her teaching, and she demanded that a foreign
teacher or visiting professor from North America observe her classroom and evaluate her
teaching, showing her sense of agency as a reform teacher and her explicit acceptance of
CLT methods. Eventually, a visiting professor from Canada viewed her classroom and
praised her use of Power-point slides and group seating arrangement to the entire faculty,
even suggesting that other teachers should replicate her use of Power-point slides.
Wendy
Similar to Sue‘s classroom, I watched eight of Wendy‘s Level 3 classes over the
course of the spring semester in 2007, and I often found a mix of CLT, student-centered
activities combined with Wendy‘s positioning of herself as an authority and parent in the
classroom. For example, it was common for Wendy to require her students to read to
each other or silently in class, and she reminds students before class to use their time
wisely by reviewing the chapters in the book. The following excerpt from my classroom
notes describes this practice.
Wendy is at the desk at the front of the room talking with a fellow ―local‖ teacher
who has a class in the next room. Students begin to enter the class and sit in their
work groups. Desks are arranged in groups four pointing toward each other and at
a 90 angle away from the front of the class. Some students move about and talk in
121
Mandarin, Cantonese, and the local dialect. Wendy notices that students that have
arrived and says ―Use your time wisely and practice while you have a few
minutes before class.‖ Most students move back to their seats and in groups read
aloud to each other from the assigned reading and lists of vocabulary.
In our interview, Wendy states that she feels that students do not have good study habit
and do not make the most use of her time. She states, ―I just want them to make good use
of their time because they won‘t use the time in their dormitories, because this is a chance
to read aloud. They won‘t in the dorms because they will be embarrassed. This is a study
habit.‖ It is striking to see Chinese students, sitting at desks arranged for the group tasks
that Wendy will use during the class, reading word lists and reading passages to each
other in unison, mimicking the types of exercises that they had used in their high school
English classes. Wendy never uses this type of group recitation during classes, but
comments that this is a necessary ―study habit‖ for students since ―they will not do this in
the dorms.‖ Similar to the teachers in Phan & Phan (2006) in these interactions before the
class starts, Wendy is scolding her students to ―use their time wisely‖ and giving them
advice on proper behavior and morality. This is similar to Sue‘s admonition of her
students for their forgetfulness and her emphasis on making students ―open their mouths‖
even if only reciting prepared texts. Wendy offers a more skeptical view of the ―present‖
methods then Sue, but both teachers use the moments before and during class in order to
re-instate traditional and reform relationships and practices between a teacher and her
students.
The following classroom transcript- from an activity in which Wendy starts the
class and reviews vocabulary related to the day‘s topic of alternative education- offers a
further illustration of her blending multiple teaching methods. She is also performing the
multiple roles of expert, parent, and skills facilitator, common in many of the classrooms
122
at CSU. In the following classroom interactions, the students have already discussed the
answers to the warm-up questions in the previous class, and Wendy displays the
questions on a Power-point slide.
Classroom transcript 4.3
1 W: This is the warm-up questions. The first one is ―what is traditional
education?‖ ((points to Power-point slide)) As we learned in a previous
day. XXX. Now anyone is able can tell us WHAT a traditional education
is. Give us definition or your understanding of this.
2 S1: The kids receive education in the traditional schools not at home.
3 W: Uh huh. Children receive education in public school, private school but
not at home. They study(?)…
4 S1: They study for several hours. Maths, Physics and Chinese, in China, and
English because teacher talk and with several peers.
5 W: OK. They study with their peers under the same curriculum. They take
the same courses at a similar college. They listen to their teachers all the
time in class. Now, what is alternative education. You told us some words
about the traditional one but what about alternative. Can anyone tell us(?)
(2.0) Don‘t worry about whether you can convey the very correct or
perfect.
6 S2: I think I can‘t give you a very excess concept of alternative education. I
can maybe…tell you some things.
7 W: Yes
8 S2: Alternative education is the modern model of school now. It‘s different
from the format of traditional education. It doesn‘t require students to just
listen to teachers and take notes in the class. It encourages students to
develop their own opinion and share them with others. It‘s not necessary
to sit in the classroom and listen to the human teachers. Students can learn
through the internet or in their small hobbies.
9 W: OK. Thank you very much. You answered two questions.
10 Sts: ((laugh))
11 W: Let‘s review. OK. Alternative education is different from the traditional
one. Right(?) Students can form a small group of their own in group of
several families or within one family. They can choose the courses
according to their interests, according to their own talent, according to
their own needs. They don‘t have to listen to the human teachers all the
time. OK. Seven [English name of S2] has taught us the characteristics of
alternative approaches. Now let‘s go back to the first one. What are the
main teaching approaches in the traditional education(?) Do you know the
word approaches(?)
12 Sts: Yes.
13 W: What exactly are the teaching approaches we have in the traditional
education(?) I mean all of us SHOULD be very familiar with this kind of
teaching because all of us all our lives we have experience. We have this
123
kind of school. But now we are required to express in your words in
English. You know the content, but the challenging this is that you have to
put it in English this time. Anyone have a try.
14 S3: I think the main teaching approach is order. If some guy says to you
you have to do it or you will be punished, so we have to do something we
don‘t like to do, and we can never do something we like to do. It is
terrible. I hate it.
15 Sts: ((laugh))
16 W: You can hear his voice. In the traditional school we have to listen to the
teachers all of the time. We have to do whatever the teacher requires us to
do no matter how painful, how hateful, they are. OK. It seems that Qing
Wu [Name of S3] hates the traditional school. So, this is things we talked
about in a previous lesson. What is traditional school, what is alternative
school. And we also know some details of these two kinds of educational
programs. Now let‘s have a quick read of the vocabulary words.
((Wendy asks students to read silently at desk for three minutes. After silent
reading, students as a group repeat each word after Wendy. All words are on the
overhead in English and Chinese))
17 W: Now read the words after me twice…Comprise
18 Sts: ((in unison)) Comprise
19 W: Comprise
20 Sts: Comprise
21 W: Compromise
22 Sts: Compromise
23 W: Compromise
24 Sts: Compromise
((Students continue to repeat each word in the list after Wendy reads them))
Similar to Sue‘s classroom interactions in transcripts 4.1 and 4.2, in Wendy‘s
class, the focus is on having students speak responding to questions that she had already
introduced in the previous class and she accepted spontaneous and prepared responses.
For example, the speaking ability of Seven (S2 above) is very different between line 6
when she volunteers to respond and line 8 when she recites from memory part of the
article in the textbook. In line 8, Seven ends up answering Wendy‘s next question
because she had prepared answers to all of the warm-up questions. Seven did not read
from her book or a text, but her response was very rapid and with a monotone intonation
that gave the appearance of recited a memorized text. Similarly, in line 4, the student only
124
needs a small prompt of ―They study‖ to offer more information since he is ready for the
next part of the question. However, his response is confusing as he connects multiple bits
of information from the previous class and textbook into one sentence. For Wendy, these
responses fit her goal of warming up and speaking in a communicative classroom.
Similar to Sue‘s classroom, the students tell me that they ―love‖ Wendy‘s class, and they
appear to view her classroom as ―alternative education‖ since they are often in groups
and not only listening to the teacher. The classroom is, however, never entirely student-
centered nor and there is little evidence of the spontaneous and creative speech that is
expected in the communicative classroom. In addition, in going over vocabulary, Wendy
becomes the clear leader and expert in the classroom, as students mimic her
pronunciation, with the clear focus on memorizing the words and the pronunciations, not
practicing how to use the words.
In considering Wendy and Sue‘s classrooms, it is clear that both teachers take on
care-giving roles and create an environment in which students feel comfortable to speak
and try on new identities and meanings in English, what Kramsch (2007) calls the
―communicative trust‖ that produces local and imaginative uses of English. At the same
time- outside of the stronger students in both classrooms and the use of ―mother‖ in
Wendy‘s class- interactions and English use in the classroom is directly from passages in
the textbook, Power-point slidses, or student-prepared texts. There is little of the creative
or critical use of language described in the critical pedagogy, but some students, such as
S3 do begin to speak spontaneously as emphasized in much of the communicative
competence literature.
125
Iris
Like Sue and Wendy, Iris, a 42 year-old teacher who came to CSU in 2000, prides
herself on adopting the CLT methods advocated by the ELD. I began participating and
observing Iris‘s classes in 2004 when we were co-coordinators of the Level 4 classes at
CSU. She has also watched my classes, and we often talk about what methods will work
best with CSU students and ask each other for teaching advice. She has also spent one
year in England with her husband, and in conversations, we often talk about the
differences between British, North-American, and Chinese schools. Similar to other
teachers, Iris often asks her students to speak more and refers to their future jobs in
companies where they will be required to speak English though this is probably not true
for all of the students in her classes.
An example of the repeated invocation of business careers and business interests
occurred in one of her classes I observed during the spring 2007 semester. In this class,
Iris‘s students had just given group presentations based on a fictional company that they
had created. After the presentations, Iris gave the class, as a whole, feedback on their
presentations. In her 20-minute lecture on presentation tips, she refers many times to the
classroom as a stage and speaking English as a performance, such as in the following
transcript.
Classroom transcript 4.2
1 I: So you when you are standing here
2 I ((points to front of the classroom where presentations took place)) (1.0)
3 I: You…should know you are not only speaking English …You are an actor
or actress. So I can remember a famous sentence… that is ―Life is a
stage everyone is an actor or actress‖ Do you think so(?)
4 Sts: ((Nodding and smiling; laughing quietly; Look at the front of the
classroom)) (1.0)
5 I: So…in the future maybe just in two years or three years or one year,
you will be a real manager or C.E.O. or the shop-owner. At that time
126
what are you going to do (?)
6 Sts: ((Nodding. Look at front of the class; Some looking down at textbooks.))
(1.0)
7 I: So…you are an actor or actress in the real life so how to play your role.
So…here my suggestion my is when you are standing here I give this
stage to you. This stage belongs to you.
8 I: ((points to the front of the classroom)) (1.0)
9 I: You can try your best to show your abilities, your skills, your potentials,
your acting. Right (?)
10 Sts: ((nodding; still looking at front of the class)) (1.0)
11 I: You are an actor. And I‘m sure everyone of us has the potential to be a
good actor or actress…to show your acting. So why not show your
imagination…creativity. To show your creativity.
12 Do you think so (?)
13 Sts: Yes
14 I: YEAH
Iris invokes acting, the stage, or actors/actresses at least eight times in this short
transcription. In addition, in line 5 she specifically references future business careers and
the need to ―perform‖ in English. In this example, CLT classrooms as creating a ―stage‖
is an important metaphor not only as a description of teacher roles, as Pat and Malan used
it in the previous chapter, but for Iris it is an instructive metaphor to push students toward
imagining their future jobs and attaining the communicative, spoken fluency that the
ELD desires.
In spring 2007, I participated and took notes during eight of Iris‘s two-hour Level
4 classes. Similar to Sue and Wendy‘s classes, I participated by helping students with oral
presentations and group work. A typical class began with an agenda displayed on a
Power-point slide, a practice used by Sue and Wendy as well. The following notes are
abridged versions of the notes I took during a class from the second week of the semester.
2:05 pm
- Iris starts by going over a PPT slide titled ―What‘s Up‖ for today.
- Students are already sitting in groups around the room. 9 female students and
20 male students. There is on female student in every group.
127
- Air conditioners are on, but the windows are open.
2:10 pm
- One student does a warm-up presentation- ―How to express your love‖ – One
student does this every class at the beginning to practice speaking.
- This student uses microphone but still uses arms and is very expressive. At the
end of his presentation, the class claps, and he receives one question from a
fellow student, ―How many girlfriends do you have?‖
- The speaker says that he got info from www.24en.com
2:15 pm
- Iris shows the class the second PPT slide entitled ―Do you know these words?
- She asks for a volunteer to read the words aloud.
- No student volunteers, so Iris picks a student (named Shadow) from the front
of the class to stand and read list of words. (Later, Iris tells me that Shadow is
her best student and she often asks her to read word lists to the class. Shadow
is the only student in the class with an English name.)
- Iris goes over the definitions of each word, paying careful attention to the
meaning and dictionary definitions. She often asks, ―Does that make sense?‖
or ―Do you think so?‖
- Iris speaks in Mandarin to clarify meanings of some words such as ‗laid-off.‖
- On board, Iris writes:
prefix- multi
root- lingual
suffix- er –ee
- Students are generally following Iris and writing down what she says.
2:30 pm
- Students take out textbook and turn to page 131.
- Iris asks another student to read a paragraph from the textbook
- All students follow reading from their books
- At the end of the paragraph, Iris asks, ―Any questions for this paragraph?‖
- No student questions.
- Iris calls people ―you‖ and does not use student first names except for
Shadow.
- Iris has each group of four students read a sentence from the next paragraph to
the together while the rest of the class listens (This reminds me of Sue‘s class)
- Other groups follow and add translations in their books for words that they do
not know.
2:40 pm
- Iris asks everyone as they have understood the reading, and she asks, ―does
that make sense?‖
- Iris asks students if they have read the article that she passed out at an earlier
class. Many students answer honestly by saying ―no‖ and shaking their heads.
Iris says that it doesn‘t matter and that they will read it in the next class.
128
The activities on this day are typical in Iris‘s classroom, and as I wrote in the
notes, it is reminiscent of Sue‘s and Wendy‘s class recitation exercises, and the overall
desire for students to ―open their mouths‖ with correction or comment by the teacher. In
interviews, many foreign teachers mention that they are very upset with CSU students
because they do not prepare well for classes. In focusing on getting students to open their
mouths, Iris does not care if students are prepared, and she primarily asks students to
respond by using prepared answers or texts, rarely asking a student an open-ended
question in front of the class. In addition, she focuses on having the best students read as
models. In this way, similar to Sue and Wendy, she focuses on the better students and
ignores the unprepared students, though Sue was much more concerned with calling on
all students and using their first names. Also similar to the other local teachers, Iris uses
Mandarin in her class to explain difficult words and restate important directions. The use
of Mandarin in classrooms is a highly controversial practice both locally at CSU and in
the CLT literature in general. Many foreign teachers at CSU become annoyed when
students speak to each other in Mandarin or Cantonese, and textbook authors such as
Brown (2006) reinforce the belief that use of a native language should be avoided in the
communicative classroom.
Iris, Wendy, and Sue often ask me as the ―foreign expert‖ if their class activities
are ―communicative‖ and following the reform methods. I am always tentative about
stating directly my opinion about their classrooms which the local teachers refer to as
―being diplomatic.‖10
It is clear, however, that Iris, Wendy, and Sue‘s practices open CLT
10
In fact, many of the local teachers assumed that I had returned to CSU in order to become the director of
the program, and they often assumed that my hedges were an attempt to stay on good terms with all
teachers.
129
to a host of new practices that could also be considered ―communicative‖ if only because
the students are comfortable in these classrooms and excited by what is perceived as
―alternative‖ and ―reform‖ methods, even if student responses to these interpretations of
teaching primarily include preparing speeches and presentations that are read or
memorized.
“Do I really achieve the ultimate goal of gaining a high-level of communicative
competence?”: Foreign teacher classrooms
As a comparison to the local teacher interpretations of reform teaching and CLT,
the interactions between foreign teachers of English and CSU students in the English
language classroom also illustrate the multiple roles that teachers and students imagine
and take in the reform classrooms at CSU. In addition, the following classroom
observations and transcripts reveal the expectations that both students and teachers have
of each other. Similar to the local teacher classrooms presented above, these classrooms
and discussions represent the study‘s three-year span of teaching and researching at CSU.
Ann
Introduced in the previous chapter, Ann is an experienced high school teacher in
the United States and a first year teacher at CSU. Similar to the local teachers, she
mentions that her main classroom goal is to encourage students to speak and to feel
comfortable in English. In order to do this, she explains that she tries ―to spend as little
time as possible in front of the class‖ and to provide fun and challenging activities. For
example, she often begins her Level 4 class by having students listen to a song and follow
along with the lyrics on a Power-point slide, followed by a discussion of the song. In the
130
fourth week of class, she played the Jack Johnson song ―Traffic in the Sky‖ and then led
the following discussion.
Transcript 4.4
1 A: Alright, so remember the first song that we listened to from Jack Johnson
was…just about life in general, wasn‘t it. About the cycle of life. The ebbs
and flows, and fast and slow, stop and go and romance and all of those
things. So, what is he talking about in this song. Try to think about him as
an artist. What images is he painting in your mind? What do you see when
you listen to his words and read his words? (2.0)
2 S1: Nothing
3 Sts: ((laughing))
4 A: ((laughing)) OK. That‘s an option. Absolutely. If you are being honest.
That‘s an option. Does anyone see anything(?)
5 S2: Sunshine
6 A: OK
7 S3: A Boy
8 A: What(?) I can‘t hear you.
9 S3: A boy
10 A: OK. a kid. What are the kids doing?
11 S3: Playing games
12 A: OK. Where?
13 S3: On the computer
14 Sts: ((laughing))
15 A: On the COMPUTER Where did you see that(?) PLAYING games
You are quite the comedian Heiro [student‘s name], quite the comedian.
Alright. Where are they playing games?
16 S4: On the pavement
17 A: What is pavement?
18 S3: Ground
19 A: The ground. What kind of ground?
20 S3: The grass
21 A: Not grass…Is it soft or hard, pavement?
22 S4: Hard
23 A: Very hard, like this floor. Concrete, cement, like the sidewalk. The kids
are playing where there is not grass. Is that good(?)
24 Sts: ((shaking heads))
25 A: Maybe not. Maybe the kids should be playing in the grass but it has been
covered up by pavement. What is traffic in the SKY? Is it really traffic in
the sky or is it a figure of speech(?)
26 S5: Not real
27 A: Not real, right, OK, so when he looks up what does he see(?)…Many(?)
28 S4: Many clouds
29 A: Clouds(?) you think, maybe.
30 S6: Stars
131
31 A: Stars (?) I don‘t know. I think that maybe he sees some other things, man-
made things, such as...
32 S5: Airplanes
33 A: OK... Man-made things.
34 S5: Buildings
35 A: Buildings. Many, many tall buildings. We call them sky-scrappers
because they are so tall that they almost scrap the sky. So(?), why does he
want to cry(?) Why does he want to cry(?)
36 S6: There are many buildings on the ground. People have no interesting
or marvelous places where they can play.
37 A: GOOD
The discussion continues for another five minutes as Ann asks more questions about the
themes and words in the lyrics, and she often stops to call on students if they are not
paying attention. Like many other foreign teachers, Ann is very careful to make sure
everyone participates, and later in this class period she stops to tell a student who is text-
messaging on his cell phone, ―I can‘t do this without you.‖
Ann is often frustrated with these group discussions because students rarely offer
long responses, and she feels that she does most of the talking and elicitation, a feeling
confirmed in analyzing the transcripts from her classrooms. She reports that this student
reticence is a key factor in her extensive use of group work. Unlike many of the local
teachers, even when reviewing homework exercises, vocabulary, or a reading passage,
however, Ann first has students work in their assigned groups, determining the answers
and coming up with any questions for her. For example, later in the class that began with
the Jack Johnson song, Ann has students review the vocabulary before discussing a
reading assignment, a similar task as in Wendy‘s classroom transcript 4.3 above, but
instead of silent reading, she has students work in groups with assigned roles.
Transcript 4.5
1 A: I want you to take the next 15 minutes to get into your groups and to
discuss these vocabulary exercises. If you have not yet done them, now‘s
132
your time. You are responsible for this vocabulary, we are going to discuss
it, just after break, so please familiarize yourself with it, or RE-familiarize
yourself with it. Into your groups now, Thank you.
2 ((Students work in groups to go over exercises and practice vocabulary. On the
Power-point slide is written, ―Any questions or further explanation needed?‖
Students have roles such as: Reporter, Group Leader, Secretary, and Time
Keeper. As they work, Ann circulates throughout to answer question and keep
them on task. At one point she admonishes one group, ―Hey, this isn‘t Chinese
class!‖ After a short break the class resumes))
3 A: Alright, you guys asked some really good questions about pronunciation.
HELLO.
4 Sts: ((Talking in the back of the classroom stops))
5 A: Thank You. One group wanted to know this verb
((writes ―soothe‖ on the board)).
Let‘s practice the adjective form first and then it will be easier. The
adjective form of this word is this.
((writes soothing on the board))
6 A: Soothing
7 Cl: soothing
8 A: soothing
9 Cl: soothing
10 A: There‘s no f in there. Remember, tongue between your teeth.
11 A: Music soothes your souls. Soothes. Soothes. It is a hard word to
pronounce. I‘m having difficulty pronouncing it myself. Music soothes
our souls. Music is soothing, especially to I think babies. When I was a
baby, it was SOOTHING for me to ride in the car. I always cried because
my stomach hurt me a lot when I was a kid. My parents would put me in
the care because it was soothing. So even now I have a hard time staying
awake. Oh, good for me. I think there is another word there I recall.
Unassuming. Unassuming.
12 Cl: Unassuming
13 A: OK. There is no h in that word. Just make the s sound. Unassuming.
14 Cl: Unassuming
15 A: Is it a good thing or a bad thing to be ―unassuming‖
16 Cl: good thing.
17 A: It‘s a GOOD thing. You want to be modest or humble. It is not good to be
arrogant or rude, or to have too much self-esteem. Self-esteem is
important but if you have too much people do not want to be your friend.
OK one more word.
18 ((One female student in the back repeats everything Ann is saying to
herself, even Ann‘s questions and statements. The student does not speak to the
class.))
133
Like Sue, Iris, and Wendy‘s classrooms, students in Ann‘s classroom sit in groups
from the start of class periods, but Ann, unlike most local teachers, Ann monitors all
group work very closely, often changing group members after the completion of a unit in
order to have students interact with other partners. In addition, Ann never asks students to
memorize or repeat a text verbatim, and she never provides time for silent study or
reading before a discussion or activity. Ann is frustrated by the short answers many
students provide, as evidenced in both transcripts, but she feels that students in her class
practice speaking and ask questions of her while in their small groups. Ann‘s use of
groups to perform a clear task and encourage students to interact with each other, not
only the teacher, is a fundamental tenant of the CLT and TBLT approaches to language
learning, and in this way her interpretations of CLT in her classroom differs from the
local teachers reliance on memorized and prepared texts. Also unlike the local teachers,
many of the foreign teachers are concerned by the use of Cantonese and Mandarin in
their classrooms, and as evidenced in line 2 above, Ann repeatedly moves around the
classroom saying, ―This is not Chinese class‖ and ―English only, please.‖
Paul
Unlike many of the local teacher classrooms, foreign teacher classrooms often
become sites in which CSU students interpret the teaching methods and activities of
foreign teachers as representative of ―American‖ or ―Western‖ cultures, and foreign
teachers have similar expectations about CSU and Chinese students. Over the three years
of the study, I recorded many examples of these cross-cultural discussions and
negotiations often rooted in stereotypes and assumptions. For example, my very first
class at CSU illustrates well the way in which my students came to class with
134
expectations of my classroom as informal and student-centered, just as I had my own
beliefs about them as text-centered and formal. I recorded the following passage in my
notes after my first day of teaching:
Noting that teachers dressed rather formally in buttoned-down shirts and slacks,
but most without ties due to the humid weather, I went to the first class in my best
business casual look. I also noted how university professors were called ―Wang
lao shi‖ or Teacher Wang and was prepared to be Mr. McPherron or even better
Professor McPherron. As I entered the classroom on the first day, the director of
the English language center was present to watch my first class, wearing shorts
and sandals. I should write that he has a dual appointment at a university in the
U.S., which may influence his wardrobe style. Regardless, I started my class from
the front of the room where an elevated lectern looked down on 40 new faces.
After I wrote ―Mr.McPherron‖ on the board I turned around to hear 40
students say in almost unison, ―Hi Paul!‖
This was just the first of many situations where I intended to fit into a Chinese culture
that I had viewed as more formal and deferent to authority than my own, but my students
were also attempting to ―fit in‖ to what they had experienced as Western-style teaching as
well. Alternatively, they may have been indexing a larger translation of their own
identities as ―international‖ and prepared to act like what I would consider good students
from my background. Many of my students had Sue, Iris, and Wendy as teachers in
previous years, and they had perhaps internalized the need to be informal and ―open their
mouths‖ in English class. From my first day of class as a teacher at CSU, I had to wonder
if I could do more lecturing and teacher-centered activities as it appeared that students
expected informality and friendship from the foreign teachers.
In my second semester of teaching at CSU, an email from an out-going and very
confident student, Echo, further illustrates how students interpret what reform teaching
entails and how foreign teachers should teach. In this case, the student is not fixing my
135
identity as being loose and easy-going, but she is questioning my ability to develop the
critical thinking topics demanded by CSU policy. She writes:
Firstly, please forgive my frankness. After the class of yesterday‘s English class, I
really think the topic named should the woman‘s place be at home is not valuable
and insignificant to discuss from the speech in class, you also know that almost
[all] the students disagree with it. When a topic is not controversial, it is not a
good choice, I think…is it you that thinks the topic is a controversial one, or you
might think the woman‘s role should be at home?
During the unit on ―women in the military,‖ I had placed students into groups of 4-5
students and assigned them as either for or against the following topic, ―Given the
financial security of a family, it is better for women not to work and stay at home.‖ After
each group developed reasons to support their position, I had the groups present their
work to the entire class, and then we opened the discussion to the entire class. From my
perspective at the time, the class was lively, with some students even passionately
arguing for what they later told me was the opposite of how they felt. After class, I wrote
in my journal how happy I was that students were able to focus on arguing and not
―producing‖ language instead of worrying about being completely correct.
From the email, my use of topics from the book, such as if women should be in
the military or at home, were not controversial, and it is interesting that by not
mentioning my opinion of the topic and even directing some students to argue in favor of
women as housewives, Echo interprets me as endorsing this opinion. In later
conversations, she argued that from Chairman Mao‘s writings, all students in China know
that women and men in China are equal11
, and thus this topic was a non-issue and
11
Students in my class about women‘s right often quoted Chairman Mao‘s famous statement ―Women hold
up half of the sky.‖
136
unimportant. For Echo, teachers should provide content that is both complex and models
good morals, and her belief that I thought women should remain at home disturbed her.
In later years, she told me of other foreign teachers who had discussed pornography in the
classroom in a unit on censorship, and she and other students were similarly offended. In
contrast, my classroom goal at the time was to encourage students to speak and be
―active,‖ and the topic itself mattered little as long as it engaged students.
Living up to expectations
I did not audio-record my classrooms discussions, but from my teacher‘s notes
and email discussions with students, I had similar difficulty as other local and foreign
teachers, detailed above, in defining the needs of students and interpreting the definition
of CLT for the CSU context. Following the above classroom observations and transcripts,
a student journal from my Level 5 writing class offers a final example of the complex
expectations of CSU students about the classroom teaching methods and reforms at the
ELD.
In her journal, Erin, a 4th
year law student, from Guangzhou, draws on both the
practical assumptions of CLT as focused on informal, spoken tasks and her desire for a
more authoritative figure in the classroom. In addition, she picks out the language of
communicative competence found on the ELD website and in school policy statements,
and connects it directly to her need to gain employment in her future.
Usually, foreign English teachers are enthusiasm and full of youthful spirit, good
at creating vivid and vigorous class atmosphere. But sometimes they do not know
what problems Chinese students will come across in learning foreign language.
They encourage students‘ free discussion in class. It is good to stimulate students’
brainstorm and provide chances for students to exchange their ideas. However,
foreign teachers seldom correct student‘s errors and students discussed in wrong
English each other, but they don‘t know...
137
I am thinking about some questions these days. Do I really achieve the ultimate
goal of gaining a high-level of communicative competence (i.e. grammatical,
pragmatic, discourse, and strategic competencies) as ELC requires me? Am I
qualified enough to enter the profession? If you want to encourage me like ―don‘t
worry, you are fine‖, I want to raise one more question, ―If you are a boss need
some employees proficiency in English, will you employ a student like me always
make errors in writing and whose English still need to be improved?‖ I don‘t
think so.
Erin praises the student-centered classrooms and open exchange of ideas and
brainstorming, but she questions what Nunan (2005) lists as an important goal of CLT
classrooms, ―help learners not to be so concerned with accuracy that they do not develop
the capacity to be fluent‖ (p.67). In this way, she is also criticizing the weak version of
CLT (c.f. Holliday, 1994) and the usefulness of not correcting a student‘s English
because her future boss will not hire her if her English is not perfect (probably to an
assumed native-speaker standard). Erin and many of her classmates are requesting both
an expert teacher who will guide them like a parent as well as a skills facilitator who will
use CLT methods, inspire them through the appropriate topics, and make connections to
the diverse globalizing world, a high requirement for both local and foreign teachers to
meet.
Conclusion
We are aligning ourselves with international communities and standards by
offering numerous opportunities for teacher professional development. (ELD
webpage)
Savignon (2000) points out that from its inception CLT was not a fixed set of
methods but rather ―came to be used in language teaching contexts to refer to learner
ability to convey meaning, to successfully combine a knowledge of linguistic and
sociolinguistic rules in communicative interactions‖ (p. v). Similarly, teacher education
books from Richards & Rodgers (2001) to Brown (2006) call CLT an approach to
138
teaching and not a method. Sullivan (2000) notes, however, that even if CLT is open to
local interpretations and values, the discourses of teaching that underlie CLT- including
terms such as ―interaction‖, ―meaningful communication‖, and ―group work‖- are
linguistically and historically tied to Western values and the global marketplace. This is
clearly the case at CSU through attempts to align to the perceived ―standards‖ of
international teaching communities, but it is also ironic because southern China has
become central to the global marketplace. Despite being central to the global production
systems, however, Sullivan (2000) instructively writes that ―classroom activities
espoused by CLT have come to represent Anglocentric culture and Anglocentric goals of
communication‖ (p. 118), and she insightfully points out that even if we call CLT just an
―approach‖ to teaching, it is still connected to Western cultural assumptions about
effective teaching. As a response, she calls for a return to broad definitions of CLT that
circulated when the term first become well-known in the early 1980‘s, focusing on ―the
many ways that CLT is being appropriated throughout the world‖ (p.129).
In examining the recent appropriations of CLT at an internationalizing university
such as CSU, the data presented here make a similar case for the continued need for
broaden definitions of CLT, not limit teaching to one standard or notion of an effective
teaching method. Instead of holding teachers accountable to a fixed interpretation of CLT
presented, administrators at CSU can make personal reflection and re-articulation of CLT
methods as the basis for teacher professional development, instead of the current reliance
on outside experts brought in to teach local teachers the best methods. In this way, critical
engagement with reform teaching will become the central part of curriculum and practice
at CSU, and administrators can require teachers to reflect on their own classroom
139
teaching practices and perceptions of effective teaching in relation to dominant notions of
―communicative competence.‖ In this way, teachers at CSU will explore their classrooms
according to Watson-Gegeo (2004b)‘s notion of the limit experiences that are central to
our teaching and learning languages.
Holliday (1994) writes, ―we still do not know enough about what happens in the
classroom between people,‖ and practitioners need ―the capacity to look in depth at the
wider social forces which influence behavior between teachers and students, and to take a
broad view of how these are in turn influenced by social forces from outside the
classroom‖ (p. 17-18). Over ten years later, English language programs, teachers, and
classrooms at CSU attest to the continued relevance of investigating the outside
influences on classrooms. Perhaps more importantly, the classrooms and teachers at CSU
also point out that we, as teachers and researchers in TESOL, will never know ―enough‖
about what happens inside and outside our classrooms, particularly if our goal is to build
a common theory of teaching or learning. Are Sue‘s, Wendy‘s, Iris‘s or my own
classrooms representative of a distinct method, style, perspective, or theory of learning
English?
Our theories and methods in ELT typically try to put learning, intelligibility, and
identity into static categories to be checked off, even when we are well aware of the
incipient nature of all learning projects. Instead of developing a more refined global
perspective or post-method strategy, perhaps the field of ELT and administrators of
language programs should begin to embrace the inevitability that our theories and
methods are incomplete. As a teacher of English, I have tried for years to generalize the
knowledge that I have gained from observing my own and colleagues‘ classrooms, in
140
order to add to a larger theory of English learning or teaching, be it a critical pedagogy or
language socialization view of language learning. Instead of rushing to generalize at the
end of our data collection activities and classroom learning experiences, perhaps the
ethnographic depictions of classrooms, such as those offered here, can remain rooted to
the local level, and teachers and readers can draw their own conclusions from the
tensions, appropriations, and re-workings present in Sue, Wendy, and my own
classrooms.
In his popular and often used teacher-education book, Brown (2006) writes, ―we
are all practitioners and we are all theorists. We are all charged with developing a broadly
based conceptualization of the process of language learning and teaching ―(p. 309).
Unfortunately, as Brown himself notes, the ELT community has for too long been
divided by researchers who theorize and practitioners who teach, and I wonder if the
charge should not be to develop one, unitary conceptualization of language learning. In
many ways, having a broad a conceptualization of both Chinese students and language
learning, even from a critical and post-structural perspective, limited, or at least biased,
my ability to view the language teaching and practices of local teachers in China and the
United States. In terms of teaching methods, the local and foreign teachers detailed in this
chapter appear to have similar interpretations of communicative language teaching as
simply requiring students to ―open their mouths.‖ At CSU, what is called CLT is
anything that involves oral production on the part of the students. The above transcripts
represent the many times in CSU classes in which students are called on to answer
questions about a text or repeat previous stated information. Since oral production has not
been traditionally emphasized in the Chinese ELT context, this is a new method and one
141
that does help prepare students to find jobs in the local economy of Southern China. This
situation is very different from the other ELT context that have revealed the large
differences between the teaching of English and the needs of the local population
(Ramanthan, 2005; Canagarajah, 2005). The main problem evidenced in some of the
above transcripts is that teachers, and at times students, at CSU appear too focused on
simply on oral production and interpreting CLT in their classrooms, ignoring the complex
motivations and identities of the students in their classrooms, a point to be explored in
more detail in the following Chapter 5.
Since the first year of teaching at CSU, I have moved back and forth between
teaching as a ―local‖ teacher of international graduate students and Teaching Assistants
(ITAs) at a university in the United States and returning to teach as a ―foreign‖ teacher at
CSU. Through my movement between both contexts, it has become clear that questions
of appropriate methodology, communicative competence, and linguistic imperialism in
any context are not simply about acceptance or resistance. Instead of examining if CLT
or the related Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT) are or are not appropriate methods
for students in China- something I was tempted to do over the three years in which I
taught at CSU- the chapter points out that CLT and TBLT are more than dominant
methods or approaches that teachers either resist or assimilate. Rather, through the on-
going dialogues and interpretations of effective and reform teaching at a CSU, CLT has
become a sign itself that students and teachers give meaning to, equate with other
realities and processes- such as globalization and international identity- and alter
depending on the context. Viewing CLT as a socially constructed sign with context-
specific meanings locates it as what Gee (2003) calls a semiotic domain or a ―set of
142
practices that recruits one or more modalities (e.g. oral or written language, images,
equations, symbols, sounds, gestures, graphs, artifacts, etc.) to communicate distinctive
types of meanings‖ (p. 18). The semiotic domain of CLT contains multiple key terms
(student-centered), discourses (the discourse of education reform), and metaphors
(classrooms are stages), but these practices and meanings are not stable or unchanging.
Rather, though each teacher at CSU may pick out specific traits; instead, the semiotic
domain of communicative language teaching at CSU is shaped by students and teachers
as a community, learning to read CLT as part of local, global, and trans-national
communities (Louie, 2004). A key proviso is that in order to have power to voice your
interpretation and affect the way the community reads CLT as an internationalizing sign,
teachers and administrators must first be knowledgeable and have command of the
dominant discourses and practices. It is in this way that CLT has become the dominant
teaching ―approach‖ in many ELT contexts.
Before leaving to teach in China, I had expected to view English and the teaching
methods that I had learned in my M.A. program, particularly CLT, as contested and
examples of the effects of an ideology of internationalization and modernization
(Tollefson, 1991; Philipson, 1992; Pennycook, 1994). In the transcripts and observations
presented above, the English classrooms at CSU resemble more closely the complexity
described in recent work by McKay (2002) and Ramanthan (2005), and it is clear that not
all flows of ideas, languages, or teaching methods present learners and teachers with an
either/or rejection or assimilation choice. In fact, I seemed to be the one most upset about
the ―linguistic imperialism‖ of teaching methods at CSU. The practices in local and
foreign teacher classrooms reveal that teachers are positioned by and forced to respond to
143
dominant policies and discourses in our field, but this does not necessitate a binary choice
of either resisting them or assimilating them. While I was familiar with Morgan &
Ramanathan‘s (2005) work before leaving to teach at CSU, in concluding this
examination of local appropriations of language teaching, I return to their important
reminder that all contexts hold counter and side-stepping practices.
We feel that it would be more pedagogically productive to suppose that all
realities, Western and non-Western, have versions of oppositional readings, cross-
examinations, and self-conscious, self-analytic orientations in them. While these
may not transpire in the same ways as they do in the West- in classrooms, on in
English…we applied linguists, Western and non-Western alike, need to not only
be open to recognizing and interpreting them as such, but to reflecting on and
revising our own assumptions and practices (p. 162).
Encounters in language classrooms are always tension ridden, and we should not shy
away from both exploring them and remembering that they will never look alike across
contexts. By locating TESOL squarely in the practices of teachers and their responses and
cross-examinations of global and structural discourses on teaching, particularly the
communicative language approach, we can have a pedagogy in TESOL that is not so
much representing the local but asking, ―what are the local meanings here?‖ and ―how
are they changing?‖
144
Chapter 5
Localizing learning: English name choices and global identifications
Introduction
In a published guide to the English teaching curriculum and activities at CSU, the
English Language Department (ELD) writes that extracurricular activities are ―an
essential part‖ of English learning because ―students are challenged to use their English,
helping them to build their overall communicative competence.‖ Throughout the school
year, the ELD offers many programs aimed at this goal including: an open discussion
space, entitled English Lounge; a monthly English newspaper written by students; an
English Festival in the fall semester that includes speech and singing contests; and
multiple lectures and films in which students can view and discuss a variety of topics.
Open seven nights a week throughout the school semester, the English Lounge is the
most well-known and well-attended co-curricula English program on campus. In the
guide, the Lounge is described as ―a student-run organization designed to provide
students with an all-English environment‖ that is ―inviting and comfortable, yet engaging
and lively.‖
Encouraged by national reforms efforts to focus on speaking skills, many
universities in China offer similar programs to the English Lounge where students can
practice speaking and reading in an informal atmosphere. CSU‘s lounge has six
computers where students watch one of the over four-hundred movies and documentaries
that the lounge stocks. It also has a large selection of foreign English-language
newspapers (mostly donated by teachers and visitors), board games, and magazines. Each
weekday night, one or two foreign teachers come to the lounge to spend an hour in the
145
lounge as a conversation partner for students. The foreign teachers are specifically asked
by the ELD to sign-up for one night every two weeks as students often come if they know
that foreign teachers will be present.
The English Lounge staff is entirely composed of CSU students, and they have
administrative posts such as President, Vice-President, and Secretary in addition to
twenty or more volunteer workers who open the lounge and maintain the video,
newspaper, and game collection. Each year, one foreign teacher acts as a liaison for staff,
and he/she helps the students develop programs and increase attendance. The university
allocates a small amount of money toward maintenance of the room and equipment and
special programs, such as a Halloween Festival and guest speakers. Toward the end of
my second year of teaching at CSU in late May, one of my students in Academic Writing,
with the English name Nashville, asked me to come to the lounge to give a presentation.
She said that the staff wanted to learn about how to write grant applications, but I could
choose to present on any topic. Already wondering why students spend so much of their
free time in the evenings studying English and reasoning that most students would not be
interested in another of my lectures on academic writing and how to organize paragraphs
and reports, I asked Nashville if I could give a talk about English names in China. She
checked with the lounge staff who said that my topic ―sounds very interesting‖ and that
they would be happy if I talked about whatever interested me. Nashville added, ―And you
seem so interested in our English names.‖
One of the reasons that I am so interested in English names and wanted to talk
about English name choices in China was because earlier in the semester, I had attended a
discourse conference in the coastal Chinese city of Hangzhou, where one of the Chinese
146
presenters had given a talk about her students‘ use of English names. She was from
Beijing and used some of her students‘ journals about their English names to describe the
phenomenon. Her overall recommendation was that her students should not choose
―exotic‖ or non-traditional names but she sympathized with her students‘ desires for
uniqueness. During the discussion that followed her, the audience members who were
primarily foreign English teachers at universities in China offered some of the more
interesting names their students had chosen including one teacher who noted, ―I‘ve had
an Osama and a Saddam in the same class.‖ A few English teachers from Japan and
Korea noted that their students generally do not choose English names, either creative or
traditional, and that in the East Asian ELT context the practice of choosing English
names is primarily located in Chinese classrooms. Through similar interactions with
foreign teachers of English in China, I have participated and witnessed many teacher
discussions about the most ―weird‖ and ―outrageous‖ names of our students. Most
evenings when the foreign teachers meet at a local barbeque stand near the CSU campus,
the talk will at some point move toward the curious names that we have heard, or a group
of CSU students will stop by our table, and all of the teachers will question them on the
origin of their English names. One of my favorite names to add to these conversations is
―Sayyousayme,‖ a student that my girlfriend taught years ago and named after the Lionel
Richie song with the same title.
Our conversations about student English names is similar to Hessler (2003)‘s
popular account of his time teaching at a university in Sichuan province in which he
describes a student named Money that he began calling Mo‘ Money. In many ways, the
teacher discussions at CSU are similar to conversations held in expatriate communities
147
around the world, dealing with culture shock and local cultures. Despite this need to find
humor in new and unrecognizable practices, I wonder about what students such as
Nashville feel about the amazement of foreign teachers and the disdain of many local
teachers toward their English names. I often feel uncomfortable at my own laughter when
the discussion of names continues for long periods and leads to depictions of peculiar
classroom habits of Chinese students and pronunciation features of our students. I
wonder, in laughing at the names of Chinese students, are we both orientalizing and
othering (c.f. Said, 1975) our students as different and uncultured in comparison with our
unmarked and ―normal‖ naming practices? At the same time, the interest, perhaps even
obsession that many English teachers have about the English names of Chinese students,
also points to a slight insecurity about who controls English and the linguistic norms
associated with naming practices. The popular website engrish.com employs a similar
humorous take on English use in East Asia by posting t-shirts and public signs found in
Japan in which conventional rules of English syntax and semantics are altered12
. In
addition to websites and multiple foreign journalists documenting the creative use of
English on everything from billboards to restaurant menus in China, the fact that many
Chinese teachers of English also appear to dislike the untraditional names, such as the
presenter at the conference in Hangzhou as well as many teachers at CSU, reveals the
pressures students already feel to conform to naming conventions even before foreign
teachers arrive and ask questions about the student names. It seems that this most basic
communication choice of ―what to call oneself‖ is tied to larger tensions in the
appropriation of linguistic practices in teaching English in China.
12
As noted in the introduction, Blommaert (2005a) analyzes similar phenomena in Tanzania from a more
respectful and sociolinguistic perspective.
148
Similar to my concerns about teaching practices at CSU and my attempts to fit in
with local teaching practices, as described in the previous chapter on CLT, I was often
pulled in two directions. I wanted to respond honestly to students and teachers who asked
if their names were appropriate in the United States, but I also wanted to respect local
name choices and appropriations of English culture. As I prepared for the English lounge
presentation, I aimed to present the topic of English names as an open question about
identity and language learning, not as a joke in which student names were the punch
lines. I constructed a slide show based on some journals that my students had written in
my academic writing class about their English names, and I listed some questions for
students to consider, such as: what English names do North-Americans pick?; what
English names do Chinese students pick?; how do North-Americans pick names?; how do
Chinese students pick names?; why do Chinese students pick such original names?; and
finally, what‘s in a name?
Thirty students were present as I started my talk and more came in throughout the
talk, reaching forty students by the end. I sat on a long wooden couch with black leather
cushions, and the students crammed around me, as the English lounge does not have an
open space to hold presentations, but is organized into small clusters of chairs and tables,
designed for small conversations. My talk began rather dryly with a description of
popular names in the United States and a discussion of growing trend of names such as
Neveah (heaven spelled backwards). Some students nodded their approval of this name
and smiled at its growing popularity. After I concluded my first description of how
students pick their English names, I opened the presentation up to comments.
149
Transcript 5.1
1 Paul: Do you have any other ways that you pick your English names(?)
(1.0)
2 S1: By your major.
3 Paul: By your major(?)
4 S1: I know some one who choose their English name by their major
5 Paul: So, like what(?)
6 S1: Like ―business‖
7 Paul: They…He named himself ―business‖
8 Sts: ((laughing quietly))
9 Paul: Liberal Arts(?)
10 S1: No, I know one guy named ―lawman‖ because a law student is a man who
studies law and so he‘s a ―law-man.‖
11 Sts: ((laughing loudly))
12 Paul: He‘s a LAWMAN
13 S1: In that direction, I should call myself ―Businessman.‖ O.K.(?)
14 Sts: ((laughing loudly))
15 Paul: Or, English MAN
One minute later, I ask one of my students about his similar reason for choosing his
name.
16 Paul: Joseph, your name used to be ―C.E.O.‖(?)
17 Sts: ((laughing loudly))
18 J: Yes, I have two names before [his previous names were ―C.E.O.‖ and
―EFG‖]
19 Paul: Did you want to be a C.E.O.(?)
20 J: Yes, I want (.) ed (.) wanted to be a C.E.O. Someone will present you…
your dream.
21 Paul: So you pick your name on what you want to be.
22 J: Just a good pronunciation. EFG…I think it‘s a really good pronunciation.
In the transcript from this English Lounge discussion, the students articulate a few
of the main factors in choosing English names, including pronunciation, future goals, and
the uniqueness of names. Edwards (2006), in one of the few applied linguistic studies on
Chinese learners English name choices, notes that unlike European and North-American
names, Chinese children are often given names that have a meaning related to an event at
the time of their births rather than an etymological meaning. The names given to Chinese
150
children are typically composed of any combinations of characters and morphemes in the
Chinese language, and thus few children in China have the exact same written names. For
example, many Chinese names- such as my student Ou Jieyun whose name refers to
―newly fallen snow‖ because she was born in winter during a snowstorm- have meanings
that are very personal and related to life experiences. Edwards (2006) also notes that
many Chinese change their names throughout their life often connected to an important
transition from youth to adulthood or other related personal growth experiences. She
contrasts Chinese naming practices, which she argues represent a fluid and contingent
view of identity, similar to post-modern theory, with British naming practices, which she
considers as strictly humanist, ―whereby the subject retains an essential self across time
and space‖ (p. 93).
In considering the complex dialogue and discussion over English names that my
students and I had begun at the English Lounge, and one that occurs in many elementary
and high school English classrooms across China and continues when Chinese students
transition to English-medium universities, the following chapter investigates in depth the
claims that in choosing their English names, Chinese students are projecting a more fluid
notion of identity, in comparison with the humanistic culture of British and North-
American English cultures. In addition, since names are such an integral part of
communication, identity, and language learning, the chapter will examine in more detail
the reasons students choose their English names at CSU and the roles foreign and local
teachers play in this identity construction. Specifically, the chapter will focus on the
following two sets of research questions:
1) The processes through which the students pick English names at CSU:
151
What are the names? How do they pick the names? Why do they tend to pick
original and non-traditional names?
2) The resistance, compliance, and power relations of name choices for students
and teachers at CSU:
What do student name choices reveal about student investment, resistance, and
compliance with English culture and pedagogical norms? How do foreign and
local teachers influence and react to student name choices?
For this chapter, the data come from student journals, interviews, and
transcriptions of the English lounge presentation introduced above. As with earlier
chapters, multiple perspectives are presented in an attempt to represent the complexity of
the research questions as well as capture the many perspectives and attitudes towards
names at CSU. In particular, the English Lounge presentation and student journals are
central in revealing attitudes and reasons of name choices. The students who visit the
Lounge are perhaps more motivated to learn English and acquire the habits and customs
of international citizenship than others at CSU, and the student in my class are taking the
highest level English classes offered at CSU. Their use of traditional and non-traditional
names and playful appropriation of English offer revealing comparisons with students at
other proficiency levels and are markers of how students are socialized into learning
English language and negotiating perceived norms and customs, similar to the
investigations of teaching methods and teacher roles presented in previous chapters. In
addition, the interviews with focus groups from the classrooms that I observed offer
insights into students from a variety of proficiency levels who are all equally invested in
learning English and circulating in international communities.
Before exploring the data and research questions in more detail, the next section
offers more discussion of some recent work on naming practices in sociolinguistics as
well as a summary of recent articles from popular media about creative naming in the
152
United States and abroad. Then, the data sections address the research questions and offer
an analysis of student journals, interviews, and further conversation transcripts from my
night at the English Lounge.
Media and sociolinguistic accounts of English naming practices
Media and popular culture accounts of English names
Writing about the effect of names, particularly ―bad‖ and unusual names, Sherrod
& Rayback (2008) document what many social psychologists have argued for years
(Ford, Miura, & Masters, 1984; Steele & Smithwick, 1989), that many English speakers
with untraditional names exude pride and few ill-effects of unusual names. After
interviewing North-Americans with the names Candy Stohr, Mary Christmas, and Cash
Guy, the authors told the New York Times that ―They [the people with untraditional
names] were very proud of their names, almost overly proud‖ (Tierney, 2008). In his
book on popular and unusual names, Evans (200?) analyzed census reports to find that
the top 50 names for boys account for less then 50% of the names in America, showing a
growing use of non-traditional names that he attributes to a reaction against the rise of
homogenous, suburban culture in the United States. Evans (2006) reports that female
names may be even more creative, with the top 50 names only accounting for 40% of all
girls names in his study, and he further cites the rise of names that are brand names, such
as Lexus, Jaguar, or Armani as signifying a trend in American culture that views children
as accessories and projections of social and material wealth, very similar to trends in the
1890‘s to name daughters Opal or Ruby. The use of untraditional names is clearly
growing in the United States for a variety of social reasons, and the process of choosing a
name for a child has fostered a huge industry of books and name consultants.
153
At the same time, there is still wide-spread interest and surprise when non-
BANA13
English-speaking countries and English learners adopt their own naming
traditions and begin assigning non-traditional names to themselves and their children. In
2007, the New York Times reported the use of creative English names in Zimbabwe such
as Enough, Godknows, and Hatred that were chosen based on the weather, political, and
personal circumstances at the time of a child‘s birth (Wines, 2007). The author reports
that some Zimbabweans, similar to local English teachers in China, feel that these names
will cause problems for children, and she cites the Financial Gazette in Harare who
opines, ―These names amount to a form of child abuse‖ (para. 5). Similar to the names
chosen by students in China but not explored in the limited space of a newspaper article,
the English names in Zimbabwe may also be markers of creativity, playfulness, and local
community English-language culture.
The New York Times represents the large interest in English naming practices,
both in the United States and overseas, and in addition to recent articles on creative
names in the United States and Zimbabwe, Lee (2001) wrote in the paper about students
in Taiwan choosing untraditional names similar to students at CSU. Describing students
named Medusa, Skywalker, and Satan, she quotes Medusa Wang who states, ―'I'm not
saying I'm evil, but I'm a bit cold. I also like the feeling of having a name which has the
connotation of great power, the power to change people into stone‖ (para. 3). Similarly,
in Beijing, a recent video series hosted by Danwei TV and found on Internet websites
presented an episode entitled ―Lost in Translation‖ in which the host, Anna Lowenberg
from the United States, interviewed local Beijing residents about their English names.
13
Holliday (1994) defines BANA as Britain, Australia, and North America
154
During the five-minute video, she talks in Mandarin and English with Beijing residents
who have names such as Smacker and Frog as well as with a woman who named her dog
Samanfar. On the video-hosting site youtube.com, comments ranged from ―I think it's an
interesting topic, but at the same time time, I feel she is kinda of making fun of chinese
ppl‖ to ―It's not really shallow, it's funny, and it is still funny as a chinese person, there
was nothing in the video that insulted chinese ppl, instead it showed how comical chinese
ppl are.‖14
The comments on the website are overwhelmingly positive and complimentary
but do point to some tensions in laughter that is aimed at how Chinese learners of English
are using English names15
.
Choosing creative English names is not limited to Chinese students, but unlike in
Zimbabwe where family members give children untraditional English names from birth
and throughout adolescence, Chinese students often pick a name for themselves based on
a variety of reasons from Western popular culture to personality traits. Based in news and
internet media, these reports have documented this general trend in Chinese education,
but more in-depth sociolinguistic research and ethnographic interviews can add depth to
this both humorous and complex cultural practice in English classrooms in China. In
addition, an ethnographic approach can incorporate and analyze the attitudes of both
foreign and local teachers in China and position the role of student naming practices
within larger theories of language socialization and learner identity.
14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3U5u3D2L9Q accessed June 5th
2008.
15
Some foreigners who laugh at Chinese English names are likely perplexed about whether to laugh with
or laugh at the Chinese who have named themselves in this way. Many foreigners are uncomfortable
because they are not sure if this is accidentally or on purpose. There is a stereotype of Chinese as
humorless, which would lead to the conclusion that the humorous name choices are accidental and
embarrassing. Much of the consciously humorous names used my CSU students and in videos like ―Lost in
Translation‖ run counter to this stereotype.
155
Recent work in applied linguistics on identity and names
Although language socialization models tend to imply that the appropriation of
target culture norms and practices is always desirable, virtuous, inevitable, and
complete, a greater range of possible intentions and outcomes actually exists,
including non-conformity, partial and multiple community memberships and
linguistic repertoires, and social exclusion. Seen in this way, knowledge and
participation in educational activities are co-constructed and are crucially linked
with issues of identity, agency, and difference. (Duff, 2002)
In her study of the naming choices of Korean immigrants in the United States,
Thompson (2006) notes that much research into naming practices has focused on the
psychological perspectives of L1 name choices ranging from work on self-esteem,
personality disorders, and the effects of uncommon names on child development. She
echoes Duff (2002) in arguing that for second language learners and immigrants, the
practice of keeping a name from your first language or adopting an English name is a
complicated decision that involves the co-construction of identities linked to communities
of practice in a second language. She writes that ―names are elements of language fraught
with complicated social implications,‖ and second language learners, in particular
immigrants ―negotiate not only bilingual and bicultural identities, but also binominal
identities, which are far more complex than may be imagined‖ (p. 180).
Citing Rymes (1986) as pointing sociolinguistics toward a theory of naming as
social practice in which names are closely tied to the ―identity concerns‖ of speakers and
communities, Thompson (2006) further points out that the study of English name choices
is connected to work in applied linguistics on investment in linguistic communities
(Peirce, 1995; Heller, 1987) and imagination (Wenger, 1998). She concludes, ―I found
that although the participants in my study did index different social identities, it was not
necessarily invoked by language, but often by the context that the language is a part of,
156
and, most important, an investment in membership within desired communities of
practice‖ (p. 203). In a similar way, the name choices of students at CSU also index
participation in not just English speaking communities and contexts but in a larger
imagination of an international community in which English and certain cultural habits
are valued, including having an English or non-Chinese languages name, and the
following chapter presents the same identity processes in EFL students in China as
evidenced in Korean immigrants.
Unlike the choice of the three participants in Thompson (2006)‘s study between
Korean names and more traditional English names such as Ellen and Kelly, students at
CSU choose very creative and untraditional English names. She analyzes her
participants‘ names according to degrees of assimilation of Anglo naming practices
versus maintaining Korean name traditions in various contexts, and this is certainly the
case in many students at CSU. However, the use of very creative names used by students
at CSU and in many Chinese universities appears to illustrate much more than
assimilation or adaptation, and in analyzing the data below, I argue that these names
require more complex readings of identity and local culture, as students side-step the
processes of assimilation and adaptation.
Mentioned above, Edwards (2007) is the first, and to my knowledge only, study
of Chinese students choosing English names, and similar to Thompson (2006) she draws
on language socialization and post-structural perspectives to analyze English names and
the identity processes of language learners. She too focuses on the compliance of Chinese
students‘ English names at British universities, and adds more analysis of English names
as resistance to British culture.
157
It is my contention that the tensions experienced with regard to names and their
use in the classroom is an example, at a fundamental level, of strategies of
compliance and resistance adopted by students vis-à-vis British culture and
learning English; strategies which may well be evident in other areas of their
studies. (p. 95)
Using questionnaires and some interviews, she reports that many of the Chinese students
first used English names in their English classrooms in China because of the
communicative teaching methods that emphasized an equal relationship between teachers
and students. She further notes that many of her participants were required to have
English names while students in China, and certain names were considered inappropriate
for certain students. She writes that the adoption of English first-names by Chinese
students in Britain serves at least two purposes. First, students are able to perform a new
identity and ―belong to a cultural group in a society in which they can perceive
themselves to be, and in some cases are, treated as Other‖ (p. 101). At the same time, the
English name allows the students not to use their given Chinese personal names that they
would never use with teachers and professors in China, thus maintaining a sense of
cultural practice and comfort. From this perspective, taking up an English name entails
literally performing another identity separate from your ―home‖ language. Edwards
(2006) makes an important connection between student-teacher power dynamics, cultural
assimilation, and the very personal issue of choosing a name, and more follow-up
interviews and observations of students and teachers in China, as I attempt to offer here,
could add to her analysis.
Related to classrooms teaching practices of teachers in China, Edwards (2006)
mentions two important practices explored in depth in the following examples from CSU.
158
First, she writes that the use of English names by Chinese students may serve to ―other‖
both teachers and students.
The problem created here for native speakers of the EFL profession is obvious.
The teacher is being constructed by students as a stereotypical Other who is
incapable of getting to grips with even the most basic aspects of Chinese culture.
For the lecturer, who sees that Chinese learners are so willing to adopt English
names and forgo their own names, the hazard is that the Chinese learner is
constructed as an Other who does not have a strong sense of identity. (p. 96)
The teachers at CSU express similar ambivalence about the use of English names by the
students. On one hand, they desire to use their Chinese names if the students will help
them pronounce them, but they also feel that students should be allowed to present
themselves as freely and creatively as possible. Edwards (2007) also mentions that the
non-traditional name choices of students, primarily taken by male students in her study,
signal an even greater resistance or mocking of English standards, particularly when
students retain the names despite a teacher‘s insistence to change.
I agree with Edwards (2007)‘s main points that the practice of using English
names is more complicated than simply saying ―Chinese people always take new names
for new situations‖ or that Chinese ―don‘t see their names as ‗real‘ names;‖ however, I
also see the practice, particularly the reasons for why Chinese students in China choose
their names and the influence of foreign and local teachers on their choices, as part of a
more complicated dialogue than simply ―compliance‖ or ―resistance.‖ Much of the name
choices at CSU can be analyzed as related to the power dynamics that she mentions,
particularly Foucault (1976)‘s points on the presence of resistance and power in social
and linguistic relationships, just as they can be connected to Thompson‘s (2006)
discussion of investment and imagination of English speaking communities. In the
narratives and discussions presented here, however I argue that student decisions about
159
English names are more importantly a dialogue with teachers, administrators, and fellow
students as well as with their own constructions of western-culture and international
citizenship. This dialogue moves between local and global spaces articulating personal
identities outside of the power and influence of western cultures. The personal and
community naming practices offer a playful outlet that is an attempt to side-step overly
determined relationships between global and local culture.
Through this analysis, I draw on Blommaert (2005a, 2005b) in showing that
student naming choices are intended and indexed to foreign norms or foreign teachers,
and at the same time, the choice of names is crucially linked to the student communities
and local meanings given to English names. Often in our rush to theorize a
communication or linguistic practice, researchers place too much focus and interpretation
on a prevailing theory or popular generalization about identity or social communities,
losing the nuance present in the immediate social situation and linguistic utterance. The
naming practices at CSU can be viewed as support of theories of cultural capital (c.f.
Bourdieu), power/discourse (c.f. Foucault), or investment (c.f. Pierce), but they must also
be read as the immediate production of creative and playful students, outside of a specific
theoretical lens or analytical tool.
Findings: Playing with English names
English names at CSU16
This section will primarily present the data collected and organized from student
journals and focus group interviews at multiple proficiency levels at CSU. Some key
16
The English names presented in the data sections are the students‘ chosen names. Their Chinese names
are omitted to protect confidentiality, except where permission was granted. The participating students
agreed to allow me to use their English names.
160
quotes and interactions from the interviews will be presented, and then further analysis of
the themes in the student name choices will follow in the next sections. Table 5.2 below
lists the names provided by the Chinese Ministry of Education in their curriculum
guidelines for university English teachers in China. The teachers at CSU do not
necessarily give this list to their students, but the list represents other similar lists given
out by teachers throughout China when students are looking for names. Despite the
mostly traditional English names in the following list, the names do not represent most
recent popular names in the United States nor the wide variety of names that students at
CSU pick.
Table 5.2: List of names as recommended by the College English Curriculum
Requirements (2004).
Male names Female names
Adam
Alan
Andrew
Ben
Benjamin
Bill
Brian
Charles
Christopher
Cliff
Clifford
Daniel
David
Douglas
Edward
Eric
Frank
Fredrick
Geoffrey
George
Henry
Hugh
James
Jeremy
John
Jonathan
Joseph
Kevin
Mark
Martin
Mathew
Michael
Nicholas
Patrick
Paul
Peter
Philip
Raymond
Richard
Robert
Roger
Sandy
Smith
Stephen/Steven
Stuart/Stewart
Thomas
Timothy
William
Alison
Amanda
Amy
Angela
Ann, Anne
Barabara
Carol/Caroline
Christina
Clare
Deborah
Diana
Dorothy
Elizabeth
Emma
Helen
Isabel
Jacqueline
Jennifer
Joanna/Joanne
Judith
Julia/Julie
Karen
Kitty
Laura
Linda
Lynn
Margaret
Mary
Pamela
Patricia
Rebecca
Rosa
Ruth
Sally
Sandra
Sarah
Sharon
Sheila
Shirley
Suzan
Theresa
Tracy/T
racy
Victoria
Wendy
According to the Social Security Administration (SSA)17
, only 12 of the male names in
this list were on the list of the 50 most popular names in the U.S. for boys in 2006, and
only 4 of the female names above were on the list of 50 most popular girl names in the
17
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/ accessed April 30th
2008.
161
same year. Some of the names on the list are more common in the U.K., but this
discrepancy reveals the great variety and changes in naming practices in English speaking
countries and the perhaps out-dated names proposed for students by teachers and
curriculum in China.
The next two tables, 5.3 and 5.4, display the English names chosen by the
students in my Level 5 classes along with their classroom name preference and their use
of English names outside of class. In the far-right column, a short summary or quote from
their journal is included to explain how or why they choose their name. From the table,
students at this advanced English level tend to pick more traditional names, with some
notable exceptions. At the beginning of the semester, my class roster did not include the
students‘ Chinese names, and I asked students to fill out an attendance sheet from the first
day of class in which they listed their name preferences. Some students omitted writing
their Chinese names, and I, therefore, only knew them through their English names.
Table 5.3: Female names in the Advanced Academic Writing Classes at CSU.
Englis
h Name
Use outside of
class
Classroom
Preference
Reasons for name choice
Wanda Yes, with
friends and
teachers.
English Given by foreign teacher; similar to
Chinese name; ―I still keep this name in
honor of him.‖
Vivien Yes, with
friends and
teachers.
English From Vivien Leigh in ―Gone with the
Wind‖; ―not only [for] her beauty but her
faculty in movie.‖
Mitchell Yes, with
friends and
teachers.
English Read ―Gone with the Wind‖ and
―appreciated Scarlett‘s strong spirit of
human beings;‖ name is similar to
Chinese name.
Echo Yes, with
friends and
teachers.
English Names in textbooks were ―so common
that I couldn‘t stand them;‖ name Echo
appears in Greek mythology; name of a
Taiwanese writer.
Megin Yes, with English Adaptation of Chinese movie star‘s
162
friends and
teachers.
English name ―Maggie;‖ ―It would be
ungraceful to copy other‘s name.‖
Nashville Yes, with
friends and
teachers.
English
Searched in the dictionary; Name is
unique and memorable and an easier
conversation starter.
Ivy Yes, with
friends and
teachers.
English
From dictionary: ―I turned over one page
after another with no idea of what kind of
English name did I want until I saw
‗ivy.‘‖; symbolizes power to grow and
never die.
Joyce Yes, with
friends and
teachers.
English Comes from the word ―joy;‖ ―I choose
this name by myself with the wishes that I
will be happy everyday.‖
Yuki Yes, but
seldom.
English
High school English class requirement;
―Yuki stands for snow, it represents
purity.‖
Erin Yes, with
friends and
teachers.
English
Had to pick an English name in high
school; chose ―Erin‖ because it means
peace.
Kyra Yes, but
seldom
English
From the heroine in the movie ―Riddick;‖
―she‘s a tough and strong-minded
woman.‖
Julie Yes, with
friends and
teachers.
English
Too many students had first name,
―Tracy;‖ her second name, ―Lemon,‖ was
not memorable to other students; ―Julie‖
seemed more traditional.
Fun Yes, but
seldom.
English
Sounds like part of her Chinese name;
Likes the meaning.
Serena Yes, with
friends.
English
Found the name on the internet; ―It
attracted me for its rhythm…It sounds
very beautiful.‖
Rainbow No Chinese
Based on Chinese saying, ―after the
shower, the rainbow appears;‖ means that
one should overcome difficulties; Has not
used English name since high school.
Jessie Yes, with
friends and
teachers.
English
Sounds like Chinese name; ―I think it
isn‘t as good name as [I had] imagined‖
because it is too common.
Ava Yes, but
seldom.
English
Had name ―Tommy‖ but teachers at CSU
considered it too ―boyish;‖ Ava was given
by high school teacher.
Windy No English
Sounds like Chinese name; Used name
since she learned the word ―wind‖ in
grade school and loves the soft and strong
nature of the wind.
Shooin Yes, with English Created it because it has a nice sound.
163
friends and
teachers.
Joyce Yes, with
friends and
teachers.
English Wanted to be distinctive in high school
and write an English name on her books
instead of a Chinese one like everyone
else; means ―joy.‖
Susan Yes, with
friends and
teachers.
English Had two names staring in 5th
grade;
chosen from textbooks; ―Susan‖ was in a
textbook and was ―an able girl…lively
and filial to her families.‖
Alice Yes, with
friends and
teachers.
English
(No response)
Lily Yes, but
seldom.
English
Classmate in high school gave her the
name; At first, ―it was common and not
distinctive‖ but ―my classmates
remembered and called my name easily
out of class.‖
Emma Yes, with
friends and
foreign
teachers
English (No response)
Ice Yes, with
foreign
teachers
English
Chinese name ―bing‖ means ice; ―I like
something cool except the weather;‖
simple and easy to remember.
The table below lists the same information about the male students in my
Advanced English courses.
Table 5.4: Male names in the Advanced Academic Writing Classes at CSU.
English
Name
Use English
Name outside
of class
Classroom
Preference
Reason for name choice
Cadan Yes, with
friends and
foreign teachers
English Had a foreign teacher; ―was chosen randomly
by the first impression from a name list.‖
Tim
Yes, with
friends and
foreign teacher
English Previous name ―Freeze‖ was considered
strange by a foreigner; Heard ―Tim‖ on a T.V.
show; short and easy to remember.
Joe
Yes, with
foreign teachers
English Similar to Chinese name; Simple and well-
known name.
Bruce
No English (No response)
164
(None)
No Chinese Likes his Chinese given name San yuan; easy
for foreigners to pronounce.
Jay
Yes, with
friends and in
Macau
English Picked for high school entrance exam in
Macau; simple name is easy to remember, and
―the name with initial J would be very
beautiful in signature.‖
Jenson
Yes, with some
friends.
English Wanted a creative name; ―I like the sound ―-
son‖ and ―jen sounds like my Chinese name.
Login
Yes, mostly
with foreign
teachers.
English Sounds close to family name; ―I am glad to
‗log in‘ your world and bring you a lot of
fun.‖
Joseph
Yes, mostly
with foreign
teachers.
English Became a Christian and Joseph is a name in
the Bible; replaced his earlier name ―C.E.O.‖
Of the 33 students, only two choose not to use English names in class, and only
one student had never picked an English name. The reasons for both male and female
student names are various, but a desire for uniqueness and simplicity, and a tendency to
replicate sounds in their Chinese names, are common reasons. Some of the students have
chosen names that are popular in the United States or the U.K., but few chose names
from the national curriculum standards list, instead preferring to find their own names
from the Internet and popular media programs. In fact, many names such as Ava and
Login (although spelled differently) are in the 2006 SSA list of popular names in the
United States. Unlike Edwards (2007), the names chosen by females are also
untraditional and creative, often chosen for their dictionary meanings, such as ―Ivy,‖ or
their unique pronunciation, such as ―Shooin.‖ Most of the names were traditional English
names but often the students desired a unique spelling or pronunciation to make it
personal such as Login and Megin. Also, many students were on their second or third
name. Joseph was formerly ―C.E.O.‖ and ―EFG.‖ Perhaps, his increased competence and
exposure to the naming practices of foreign teachers changed his choice of names, but he
also mentioned that he changed his name because he became a Christian.
165
The students in the Level 2-4 English classes that I watched were predominantly
male, and the focal group interviews reflect this ratio. Most students in these groups did
have English names, but fewer used them in classes in comparison to the advanced
English classes. In addition, many students, particularly at lower proficiency levels, used
untraditional and creative names in comparison to the advanced learners, and these
students often felt that they would keep these names in future classroom and professional
contexts.
Table 5.5 Names of Level 2 students in focal groups.
Gende
r
English
Name
Use English
name
outside of
class
Classroom
Preference
Reason for name choice
M (none)
No Chinese No interest; Feels that he can use
Chinese family name, Long, if he
ever has a foreign teacher.
M Benson Yes, with
friends
English ―I find in a bookstore… I find that
Benson means someone who can
rely on.‖
M Money
No English Likes money; ―Just think. I think
that the future I may be rich.‖
M Castor Yes, with
family and
friends
English Father was an English teacher;
Castor is the brightest star in
Gemini; ―I want to be the
brightest one in Gemini.‖
M Chopper
No English Chopper is a character from a
Japanese cartoon; Also uses
Macross, another cartoon name.
M X-boy
Yes, often
with friends
English From a Science fiction book;
means unknown boy; many
friends call him X-boy and do not
know his Chinese name.
F (none)
No Chinese Has never had a foreign teacher;
Does not like learning English.
For the male students in this class, they clearly find pleasure, creativity, and a
sense of ―coolness‖ in choosing an English name. When asked why students choose
166
English names, Benson remarks, ―they feel cool. Some people say to me that they feel
cool if they have an English name‖ and X-boy says, ―Some people choose the name
Michael Scofield from Prison Break. So cool.‖ He adds that his English name is a way to
become distinctive and memorable to his friends, ―maybe it is just fun. My Chinese name
is hard to pronounce. People just remember that I am x-boy, not my Chinese name.‖ In
the interviews, the Level 2 students also describe the process of choosing an English
name as both serious and meaningful. Benson looked for a long time through lists of
names in books to find the name that suited him the best. Chopper has thought much
about his English name and notes that he switches between two names, ―I will use
Macross next term. I love Chopper this period of time, but I love Macross all the time.‖
All of the students agreed that they would use their English names if they moved abroad
or worked in an international company in the future. Similar to Edwards‘s (2006)
description, primarily male students in Level 2 took unusual names.
The ratio of male to female students at Level 3 was more balanced, as evidenced
in the focus groups described below.
Table 5.6 Names of Level 3 students in focus groups.
Gender English
Name
Use English name
outside class
Classroom
Preference
Reason for name choice
M Henry Yes, with friends English Famous French soccer
player named Thiery
Henry; similar to Mandarin
name.
M (none)
No Chinese ―Many people have the
same names. I don‘t find
some special names… I
like my Chinese name, so I
don‘t want to be called
some English name‖
M Chris
No Chinese Character from a Japanese
video game; easy to write;
167
rarely uses.
M Sure Yes, online and with
friends
Chinese Friend gave him the name;
Uses English name on the
Internet; Likes the joke
―maybe somebody ask ―are
you sure?‖ yes, ―I‘m sure.‖
F
Shadow Yes, online and with
friends
English Likes the sound, easy to
pronounce, and uses as her
online name.
F
Sunny
Yes, with friends English Foreign teacher could not
pronounce her name; ―I like
to smile. I want other
people to feel comfortable
when they meet me.‖
F
Seven Yes, all of the time at
university
English Sounds like her name in
Cantonese; Lucky number;
Previous name was
―Swim.‖
F
Wendy
No English It was the last name left on
a list given by teacher in
elementary school. Teacher
choose it for her.
Similar to the Level 2 students, not all of the students in the Level 3 focus group
used English names in class, but some of the students really enjoyed having an English
name and took time to find names that represented their personality- such as Sunny-
replicated their names in Mandarin and Cantonese- such as Seven and Harry- or revealed
a funny joke or popular culture reference- such as Sure and Chris. Seven had chosen her
name in high school, earlier than most other students, perhaps due to her strong desire to
live abroad and study in the United States. She mentioned that she loves hearing her
English name used by her classmates and asks her friends to use it as well. After Chris
mentioned that he only uses his English name in class, she comments that she is ―lucky‖
because ―all my friends call me Seven‖ and ―my name can be used more times, more
possible.‖ For many students, like Seven, an English name is a chance to be creative, and
it becomes an integral part of their membership in imagined international English
168
speaking communities. For others, such as Sure and Wendy, their names can be fun
jokes, but they show much more ambivalence about the use of their names.
Table 5.9 lists the name choices of students in the Level 4 focus groups, one level
below the advanced English students. All the students at this level have chosen and used
English names before although many of them do not use their English names with
friends. Similar to the previous classes, many of the students use creative and
untraditional names, with male students taking the most usual names such as Masgo and
Bluewave.
Table 5.9 Names of Level 4 students in focus groups.
Sex English
Name
Use English
name outside
of class
Classroom
Preference
Reason for name choice
M Sunny No English Likes the meaning; ―I
think that every day is a
sunny day‖
M Bruce No English From the movie star Bruce
Lee; ―I don‘t think that I
can be king of boxing, but
I can be a king of study.‖
M Seventeen No English Last number of college
I.D. card; Cannot find a
more ―suitable‖ name.
F April (not stated) English Had a foreign teacher for
the first time; She was
born in April.
M Gabriel
Yes, with
friends
English From the story of the
angel Gabriel; ―It means
the angel that protects
somebody.‖
M
Masgo Yes, but rarely. English He is always in a hurry
and so combined ―Must
go‖ into one word for
simplicity.
M
Bluewave No English Choose in high school;
―When I was young I
wanted to see the sea.‖
169
F Irene
No English, only with
foreign teachers
―My English teacher is a
foreigner so I think that I
must choose an English
name.‖
F
Yumiko Yes, with
friends and
online.
English From a music star from
Hong Kong; likes the
sound.
During the interview, Masgo and Yumiko‘s names were particularly interesting
for the group to discuss. Masgo comments that he does not spell his name M-U-S-T-G-O
because ―I think that it is too long.‖ In addition, once he used Masgo his friends all know
him this way and he comments that ―Masgo won‘t die‖ even if he wants to change his
English name which he is considering. Yumiko also felt that she could not change her
name, even though she is disenchanted with it. She chose her name based on the name of
a famous music star, but she did not realize that the name was Japanese. She now would
prefer a more English sounding name because she actually does not like having a
Japanese name in English classes, but her friends and teachers all know her as Yumiko.
In many Chinese universities, students take their major classes together and have the
same professors for multiple classes, and the choice of English names, while both serious
and playful, can often last for the entire four years of student life.
The final group of students that participated in the focus group interviews had
taken ELD classes through Level 4 and many had taken advanced English. They were
now senior students or CSU graduates working in their first year after graduation. By the
time they graduate, each student had had at least one English name and, with the
exception of Harry, all of the students, including the seniors, are working in international
trading and manufacturing companies in Guangdong or neighboring provinces in
internship or full-time positions, and they use their English names with work colleagues
170
and foreign clients. Some of the students changed their first English names after entering
the work world while others kept their creative names, though all were aware that their
English names were perhaps different from those used in the U.S and U.K.
Table 5.10 Names of former ELD students in focus group.
Gender English
Name
Use English
name outside
of class
Classroom
Preference
Reason for name choice
M Lyle/Andy Yes, with
friends and at
work
English Chose Lyle in high
school because of the
sound; uses Andy at
work because it is
easier to pronounce.
M Lucky Yes, primarily
known as
Lucky at CSU;
also uses at
work
English Chose because he was
going to study English;
Feels that he is lucky to
be in university despite
poor high school
exams.
M Felix Yes, with
friends and at
work.
English First name chosen was
Dick; Friends made fun
of him, and he changed
to Felix.
M Harry
Yes, with most
friends and
sometimes at
work.
English In high school had
name ―Hobby‖;
changed to Harry when
he first had a foreign
teacher; picked from a
list.
M No/Noah Yes, at school
(in U.K.) and
with friends.
English Did not have an English
name when entering
CSU and wrote ―No‖
on form; kept name for
one year and then
changed to Noah.
F Celery/Serene Yes, with
friends and at
work.
English Picked Celery at CSU
because is sounded
unique and she likes to
eat it; uses Serene at
work because it sounds
more professional.
F Dodo Yes, with
friends and at
Both,
depends on
Picked in high school;
liked the way it sounds;
171
work. context switched to Doe when
attending a speech
contest.
F Kate Yes, with
friends and at
work.
English Many stories in high
school had a character
named Kate.
F Rain Yes, with most
friends, and
always at
work.
English A teacher gave her the
name Jennifer in high
school; changed to Rain
at CSU because friend
was Wind.
Dodo, a senior student who was working at an internship with a Swiss elevator
company at the time of the interview, retold the story of her English name as a series of
tensions, negotiations, and co-constructions of her English speaking identity. She first
picked her name when she was in high school because of the way it sounds and she was
mimicking the name Coco. At that time, she only used the name with friends as a
nickname but not in English classes. During her first English class at CSU, Dodo reports,
―an American teacher told that it could be you know stupid. She mocked my name in her
class and I was you know so upset.‖ Despite this comment, Dodo kept the name and most
her friends began using her English name to the point that they did not know her Chinese
name. In her second year at CSU, she won a competition to represent the university at a
speech competition, and the foreign teacher who was her speech coach recommended that
she drop the second ―do‖ and change the spelling to Doe. After the speech contest, she
went back to Dodo since that was how everyone knew her. The next time she changed
her name was when she won a scholarship to study abroad as a student on a semester-at-
sea program in which students travel around the world on a boat, taking classes on board
and then visiting various countries. Discussing her semester abroad she comments, ―You
know I went on semester at sea, and I never told my friends about my English name.
172
When I go on serious occasion, I only use my Chinese name. Dodo is only for friends.‖
Unlike the student described in Edwards (2006) who uses her Chinese name in more
informal contexts and her English name in the formal context of the classroom ―as a
screen between herself and the teacher‖ (p. 99), Dodo uses her Chinese name in formal
speaking contexts as well as on her resume and job applications. The final episode Dodo
recounted was her use of both her Chinese and English names in the Swiss company
where she works. Despite listing Shufen as her professional name on her resume, her first
Swiss friend at the company learned her English name and told the other foreign
employees who all have begun calling her Dodo. She comments that she does not mind
using Dodo, but fears that she may never escape this name in her current company even if
she tries to use Shufen, which she now mostly prefers. It seems to her that her French
speaking colleagues are attracted to the sounds of Dodo, just as she was in high school.
How do students at CSU choose their names?
Drawing on the data presented above and returning to the first key research
questions, several themes emerge in how and why the students at CSU pick their English
names including: 1) translating the sounds of their Chinese names into English; 2)
looking for words that represent their personalities; 3) seeking names that stand apart
from other students. In her journal, Echo, a student in my Level 5 class, describes the
typical scene of a student looking for an English name.
They sit in front of an Oxford dictionary, place a blank sheet of paper next to it
and then start their trip of seeking a name. At first, they read through the
dictionary and pick up some with a glance, sooner or later, the piece of paper is
filled with dozens of names of different kinds; nouns, verbs, adjective words, are
treated equally.
173
In addition to the dictionary, teachers, both in high school and universities, play a
centering role in determining students‘ names. X student in Level 5 describes how
attaining an English name was a competition for her roommate in high school.
One of my roommates who named Karen said that her English name was given by
her teacher when she was in Grade 6 in Primary school. Before one English exam,
her teacher promised to give an English name to the students who reached the
goal she set. My roommate got her English name as a prize from her English
teacher after that exam as top 1 in her class.
Finding a novel word in the dictionary or wining a prize in school illustrates a key desire
for students in choosing their English names: displaying uniqueness.
In her journal, Megin, a Level 5 student, describes why even after picking a
traditional name, she made changes to her name.
I got my English name Megin on TV in 2003. I noticed a Chinese movie star had
an English name of Maggie. It sounded great. I was fascinated by this name.
However, it would be ungraceful to copy other‘s name. I wanted my name to
represent myself only. It should be unique and special. I thought over to make a
similar one. Suddenly, ―Megin‖ struck my mind. That was a simple, short and
grace name. I spoke one hundred times in my heart. I seem I‘d got some gold. The
next week I told my name to the class and I could hear ―Megin‖ called sweetly.
Some changes of an English name made my unique name.
Drawing on multiple processes of name selection, the students clearly focus on finding a
name that will set them apart from other students. This is probably not surprising in
classrooms of 35-40 students and in a crowded university.
Inventing, reconstructing, and appropriating English names: The quest for uniqueness
The quest for uniqueness through the reconstruction of English connects to a post-
structural view of multiple identities co-constructed and articulated through different
social contexts and power relationships and described in recent work in critical applied
linguistics (Pennycook, 2003; 2007), language socialization (Duff, 2002) and critical
discourse analysis (Menard-Warwick, 2007). In addition to the expression of different
174
and multiple selves, the English names described above also simply reveal a deep sense
of humor and playfulness with the English language. In her journal, Nashville describes
well this process of self-discovery and identity construction through her experience of
choosing an English name.
I will strongly insist that an English name means much, as a second
language learner. If you‘re going to have one for yourself, find a wonderful one
that fixes you. I had my previous name ―Carry‖ before going to university. It was
given by my cousin who studies in USA when I was 10 years old. With little
knowledge of English I was satisfied about my name. Can a verb be an English
name? It‘s informal. But at least, it can be a unique name because it‘s a verb.
I am a person who is always looking for differentiation with others. By
emphasizing to be special, I began to search for a new name which it‘s able to
represent myself and make myself easily remembered. I looked up the dictionary
and was fond of a place name ―Nashville‖, especially its pronunciation. Thanks to
it, American friends would like to start a chat with me.
When I first met Nashville, I asked her if she liked country music, and I was surprised to
discover that she actually was not familiar with country music. When I described country
music, she informed the class that she would have to change her name since she did not
like country music at all. The interaction, however, is typical in that I was not trying to
mock or look down on Nashville‘s name, nor get her to change her name. Quite the
opposite, I had intended to support her decision to choose the name Nashville as I
associate the name with the capital of country music. Nashville had chosen her name to
enter into conversations with Americans and as an entry marker to English speaking
communities and as an authentic member. Our different interpretations of her name
reveals the difficult negotiation and balancing of cultural perspective that occur between
foreign teachers and their Chinese students. Drawing attention to student naming
practices may appear a simple way to meet and learn about a new group of students, and
as Edwards (2006) advocates, bringing the practice of English name choices into
175
classroom discussion and curriculum can empower students in their view of themselves
as English speakers. Teachers must be very careful, however, as many students at CSU
take these names and their cultural symbolism very seriously as summarized in Windy‘s
journal entry below.
Windy sounds more softly and attractively than ―wind‖. It makes me think about a
pretty and lovely girl in my dream. I want people to call me with this name,
because it sounds like my Chinese name too. Sincerely, I have used this name for
several years. Thanks to god, I haven‘t met some trouble with it. Frankly, a name
isn‘t just a name, it could bring good or bad affection to you. Choosing an English
name can be very serious.
In interviews and informal chats, local and foreign teachers typically have
different opinions on the use of original and creative names as seen in the two examples
of Mary and Ma. Although Dodo mentioned that American teachers had mocked her
name and asked her to change for a formal occasion, the foreign teachers interviewed
during the spring of 2007, expressed opinions of comfort and interest in the student
names. Mary, a first-year foreign teacher at CSU expresses her enjoyment with her
students‘ names and even mentions that the stranger the name, the easier it is to
remember the student in a class of 35 students, a key goal for many of the students.
It‘s harder to remember her as Tanya. I think if they have a strange name its easier
to remember the students. And in the long run it doesn‘t matter. There are plenty
of hippies in America with strange names. It‘s not going to hurt anyone.
In the same interview, she notes that if students ask her what name to pick, she will give
them traditional English names based on the sounds of their Mandarin names, but she
notes that many of her lower performing students often have the most creative names.
One of my kinda lowest skilled students who never talked was in Art last semester
who never talked was named ―Mr. Anderson.‖ I assume that he got it from the
Matrix, and it just cracked me up, because I was like ―Mr. Anderson‖ and he
never had the answer. ―Mr. Anderson!!‖
176
Ma, an experienced teacher at CSU since it was founded in 1981, feels differently
about her students‘ English names. She admits that they can be funny, but she asks me to
hold a program to educate them on English names.
They don‘t have real English names. They have real funny ones. I think we should
give them a lecture. Or maybe at English lounge or something. They make their
names a ‗laughingstock.‘ I have a student called like ―yamaha‖ like really silly
name and ―Easy girl‖ I can‘t remember many (…) Very funny.
Later, she notes the similarity between my choice of Chinese names and the absurdness
of choosing funny English names.
I think that we should have traditional. It‘s better. Like when you come to China
you don‘t want to be Paul. You want to be Bao Loa, more Chinese.
As many of the local English teachers at CSU have lived or traveled outside of China,
they often express similar feelings as Ma, and they are particularly concerned with the
reception that the students will receive when moving abroad.
What’s in a name?: Culture, resistance, and play
Writing about the refusal of some students to change apparent inappropriate
names even after British university teachers have asked them to change, Edwards (2006)
writes:
In one sense, the adoption of an English name which is not a personal English
name, but merely an anglicized one, might be seen as the ultimate form of
resistance in that it parodies the very process of taking on an English name, but
manages to hide itself as compliance and more often than not is interpreted as
ignorance. (p. 100)
It is tempting to place a theoretical and political interpretation of resistance onto student
name choices, particularly if the students are consciously choosing English names and
openly resist teacher pressures to comply with English naming customs, but for the most
part this was not the case at CSU. The name choices of students at CSU certainly index
177
complex intersections of identity, difference, and multiple community and cultural
membership, and these relationships evolve and change through the different proficiency
levels. At the same time, students such as Dodo or Masgo appear to feel more
ambivalence and lack of control toward their creative names than an overt resistance to
English-speaking norms.
In discussing English names at the English Lounge, my student from Level 5
English, Joseph, points out that the process of inventing English names may have much
to do with side-stepping dominant Chinese naming traditions than a resistance of English.
Chinese people. Chinese names. Our chinese names Almost all Chinese names
have meaning. So when we are choosing English names, we will think about its
name, like Fish, has meaning. But your names have no meaning.
Although he is somewhat mistaken in saying that English names lack all meaning, this is
his interpretation and use of English names, and his holds great utility for students at
CSU. A similar view of English names leads Harry in his interview to describe the power
of having an English name, even when speaking with friends in Chinese languages,
because of its informal connotations, outside of the formal and fixed meanings inherent in
Chinese names.
David [his Chinese friends and co-worker] calls me Harry and some friends call
me Harry. When they call me Harry we feel that we are friends and just friends,
you know the Chinese name always means something behind that, and that‘s
complicated…Harry is simple, we are friends so you can call me Harry, we are
equal.
It seems that English names are used not simply to perform or construct new identities in
English or in English speaking contexts but also Chinese selves, as Pennycook (2003)
writes about the use of English in global hip-hop to ―perform, invent, and (re)fashion
identities across borders‖ (p. ???).
178
Concluding this section with a further view of the English Lounge discussion, the
negotiation of identity and difference in name choices is also apparent in my own use of a
Chinese name. In my discussions with students at CSU about their English names, I often
discussed my own Chinese name. When I arrived to teach at CSU, my students and
Chinese teacher immediately gave me the name Bao Loa, based on the pronunciation of
Paul in Mandarin Chinese. The first character can roughly be translated as ―protect‖ or
―care for‖ but together the characters do not convey a particular meaning. After a year of
meeting students named Fish, Apple, and White Rice, I began to ask my students if I
could change my name to bo loa, which is still phonetically related to Paul, but means
―pineapple‖ in Mandarin Chinese. The following transcript from the discussion at the
English Lounge was similar to many of my discussions over the semester with students in
class and interviews. The students in the transcript are Tomato, Dodo, Joseph, and
Shadow.
Transcript 5.2
1 P: Can I be bo loa would you think that it is funny if you met someone and
they said ni hao wo jiao bo loa [Hello my name is Pineapple]
2 T: It is a kind of food.
3 P: But people are called Fish (?)
4 D: You laugh at Fish and people will think that you are so funny.
5 P: What about bo loa bao (?) [pineapple bun]
6 Sts: ((laughing loudly)) (5.0)
7 J: Paul is from the English bible, according to the Chinese bible you are bao
loa.
8 P: It‘s not bo loa (?)
9 D: When Paul is translated into Chinese it is Bao Loa.
10 P: But I want to be bo loa
11 Sts: ((laughing quietly))
12 S: We have another name for bo loa, you can also be feng li
13 Sts ((laughing loudly) (5.0)
14 S: It sounds better feng li
15 Paul: But I like bo loa …But if you were hiring for a job (?)
16 S: I would fire bo loa
17 P: Well that‘s what may happen in America.
179
18 S: If we go abroad we will pick a traditional English name.
My desire to change my name to bo loa was of course primarily a joke to start discussion
of names, but just as many students changed their name after our discussions of English
naming norms, the students interpreted our playful discussion as a critique of
untraditional names as Shadow‘s final comment suggests.
The discussion shows my attempt at playfulness in Mandarin Chinese as well as
the power given to native speakers and cultural members, through the control of English
name choices afforded to me and the students‘ projection of their own stable Chinese
norms to me. As a foreign teacher and L1 speaker of English, it is difficult not to engage
in discussions about names with university students in China without students
interpreting my position as representing the ―right‖ way to choose names, and they take a
similar position toward my Chinese name. These relationships of power that dicatate
many interactions between Chinese and English speakers is a large factor in the
movement toward more traditional English names as students progress from Level 2-
Level 5. It is also why Bo Loa never became my Chinese name except with other foreign
teachers, outside of the prescriptions of Mandarin Chinese speakers. The predominant use
of untraditional names at the lower-proficiency levels also reveals not the ignorance or
resistance of students to naming practices, but more importantly the playful attitude many
students at CSU and China take toward learning English. At the same time, some high-
proficiency students such as Dodo or Rain are resisting or confronting the norms of
English, by asserting their right to choose non traditional names. Their narratives,
however, reveal more of an ambivalence toward their name than an overt resistance, and
180
if anything they Dodo‘s resistance is not revealed in her use of an English name, but her
desire to be Shufen in her company after her Swiss co-workers have deemed her as Dodo.
Conclusions: Implications for ELT in China
Yet for both the first and second language learner, language play is much more
than merely a potential means. As a widespread, highly valued use of language, of
social and cognitive importance, it is also an end. Knowing a language, and being
able to function in communities which use that language, entails being able to
understand and produce play with it, making this ability a necessary part of
advanced proficiency. (Cook, 2000, p. 151).
Cook (2000) reminds us that unfortunately play in language is often ignored in
second language acquisition research (SLA) and applied linguistics since it is not viewed
as not part of a communicative task, ―real-world‖ language event, or innate grammatical
structure. He goes on to write that ―despite their different starting points-
psycholinguistics/sociolinguistic, innatist/relativist, discipline/practitioner- they all
converge to promote a view of language teaching and learning which is quite antithetical
to play‖ (p. 179). Drawing on Cook (2000) focus on play in language learning, the
student negotiations of name choices presented throughout the chapter offer some
important implications and complications for teaching and theorizing English language
learning. First, almost all students at CSU have an English name, often first choosing a
name because of enrolling in their class with a foreign English teacher but then using it
for multiple purposes with various friends, teachers, and work colleagues. After the initial
impetus to either make things ―easy‖ for a foreign teacher or gain acceptance in English
speaking communities, many students change their names for a variety of creative and
playful reasons. Their reasons for picking names reveal that the use of English names is
not a simple dichotomy between assimilation and resistance of English language cultures.
Not all language teaching and language socialization is a bifurcated choice of compliance
181
or resistance, and while power is implicated in relationships and interactions between
foreign and local teachers, many student names- particularly when the names are used
between students, online, and outside of formal professional or work situations- represent
a playful expression of personality and not an overt call to reject English norms.
In the discussions and interviews with students at CSU, certain common reasons
for picking names emerged, and the theoretical constructs of investment, imagination,
and communities of practice were clearly revealed and well-worth analyzing and
critiquing, but the choice of names at CSU is tied to very specific communities and
classrooms as much as it a marker of global language norms or theories of learning. As
Cook (2000) points out, the names are an ―end‖ in themselves. Writing about the use of
English on signs in Tanzania, Blommaert (2005) writes about the ―here‖ of English
meanings.
There is an orientation to English as a code associated with core values of
capitalist ideas of success: entrepreneurship, mobility, luxury, female beauty. The
use of English is sensed to index all of this. But at the same time, it indexes this
not in terms of internationally valid norms (e.g. standard varieties of written
English), but in term of local diacritics. The man who commissioned the disabled
kiosk sign probably did not imagine himself as an international businessman, but
he did imagine himself as a businessman in Dar es Salaam (or even more
specifically, in the Magomeni neighbourhood of Dar es Salaam). And at this
point, a new space of meaning-attribution is opened. We have an act of
communication which at once orients towards transnational indexicalities and to
strictly local ones, and the effect is that the English used in these signs has to
make sense here, in Magomeni, but as English, that is as a code suggesting a
‗move out‘ of Magomeni and an insertion into transnational imaginary networks.
In interviews, students such as Masgo and Bluewave mention that they do not particularly
desire to use English in their future jobs and will not necessarily look for work in
international companies or travel abroad in the future. Regardless, they enjoy creating
and using English names, particularly in class. This suggests the importance of English as
182
revealing an orientation towards transnational identities and communities, but the fact
that their names are understood as humorous and mostly used between friends and other
Chinese languages speakers suggests that the names primarily make sense ―here‖ at CSU.
Resistance to international norms may be part of some student name choices, but most
students change their names or at least alter them slightly as they move into higher
proficiency classes such as Level 5 as well as enter positions at international companies,
but when names are purely intended for use between students, the choices index more a
desire for uniqueness and creativity than resistance or compliance with English language
cultures.
Mentioned earlier, a second implication for teachers is the delicate position
needed in bringing the topic of naming practices into classroom discussion, journals, and
research projects. Most university students at CSU, and probably elsewhere in China,
have an opinion and experience with choosing English names, and thus, the topic is easy
for students to relate to and draw on personal experiences. There is always the danger of
students reading the teacher‘s position as a prescription as Tomato told me at the end of
our English Lounge discussion, ―I will take my name more seriously now.‖ In addition,
foreign teachers in particular must be aware of the difficulty of discussing student names
without appearing to laugh at students. I knew Dodo‘s first teacher at CSU personally,
and while Dodo interpreted the teacher as mocking her name choice, it is possible that the
teacher was trying to laugh with the student, just as I did when a student in English
lounge told me about Lawman, but Dodo, in her first experience with a foreign teacher,
felt that her name was not taken seriously. For foreign teachers, the discussion of English
names in the classroom and the accompanying laughter may extend the view of Chinese
183
students as ―strange,‖ ―other,‖ and uncultured. It can also potentially fix foreign teachers
as obsessed with English names and preferring creative names since they are unable to
use or understand Chinese names or local Chinese student naming practices. The topic of
student English names may not be relevant for local English teachers in China, as many
students use their Chinese names at the lower proficiency levels. In addition, many local
teachers expressed dislike for the creative English names, and for them a discussion of
English names may become normative and focused on altering student preferences.
Despite difficulties, however, drawing attention to the practice of names in China
is almost inevitable for many foreign teachers, as it is very difficult to call on a student
named No or But without a smile and some confusion. As with all sensitive topics, a
teacher must take great care to establish trust with students in order to prevent as many
unintended readings of both teachers and students, and while the use of my own Chinese
name brought out most laughter than reflection in most informal discussions, in
classroom discussions, I was able move the conversation with students beyond the
laughter at my name towards a more nuanced discussion of who owns any particular
language and culture.
Finally, the topic of English names in Chinese university education appears to be
an intriguing area that deserves more sociolinguistic and ethnographic attention. Many
students change their names as they advance in proficiency and experience but others do
not. More longitudinal views of a students English names, similar to Thompson (2006)‘s
research into Korean immigrant names, could be particularly revealing. In addition, larger
survey and interview projects could garner more data as well as comparisons across
university contexts within China or between university English learners in multiple
184
countries. Theorizing about post-structuralism and the identity construction of language
learners is important to help researchers provide explanation and interventions in social
process and educational practices, but much of what goes on when students pick English
names is more complicated and outside of current theoretical perspectives.
185
Chapter 6
Student self-reflections in writing portfolio assessment
Introduction
In their varied and influential work on changes in English language teaching
(ELT) in Chinese primary, secondary, and university classrooms introduced earlier,
Cortazzi & Jin (2002) and Jin & Cortazzi (2002; 2006) define Chinese culture of learning
as the ―interpretative frameworks‖ through which Chinese students view ―classroom
events, other participants and their educational identities‖ (Cortazzi & Jin, 2002, p. 55).
The scholars argue that any reform program in Chinese higher education must take into
consideration the text and teacher-based traditions of Chinese education. Previous
chapters explored this notion of a Chinese culture of learning and other contested notions
of identity, culture, and identification in relation to teacher roles, CLT pedagogy, and
English name choices. In this final data chapter, these theoretical concepts are further
contextualized in relation to the use of portfolio assessment, specifically the self-
reflection statements, in my academic writing course (Level 5) for advanced English
learners.
The use of portfolio assessment has gained popularity in writing classes in
English as a Second Language (ESL) programs in the United States in recent years, but it
is still a relatively underused practice in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) settings.
For example, Hamp-Lyons (1991; 1994), Hamp-Lyons & Condon (2000), and Macaro
(2001) all report on how portfolios encourage student-teacher dialogue and student
reflection in ESL writing classes, arguing that portfolios force students to self-direct their
own learning. In addition to student-autonomy, Elbow (1993) reports on the usefulness of
186
portfolios as an efficient model of the process approach to writing- the widely used
approach to writing in L1 and ESL classrooms, and Ferris & Hedgcock (1998) detail the
practical application of using writing portfolios in ESL department-wide assessments. In
these ESL settings, portfolios typically include the following pieces: 1) student-selected
writing documents; 2) student analysis of samples and previous work; 3) revision of
previous work; 4) reflection on learning goals; 5) portfolio writing assignments (Crockett,
2001).
In one of the few studies based in an EFL setting, in this case a university
academic writing class in Portugal, Nunes (2004) specifically examines her students‘
analysis of previous work and their reflections on learning goals. She notes that students
were able to learn the language of reflection and that her role in the classroom became
that of a guide instead of the traditional center of knowledge. To my knowledge, no other
research or writing has explicitly examined the use of portfolios in an Asian EFL context
nor performed an in-depth typology of the content of student reflection writing. Thus, a
key purpose of the chapter is to further Nunes (2004)‘s investigation of EFL student
reflection writing in a Chinese university setting and connect student reflections to
processes of teaching reforms, in this case communicative language teaching and its clear
emphasis on student autonomy. Further, examining portfolio assessments at CSU will
add to the analysis in previous chapters of the notion of a Chinese culture of learning.
Considering the characteristics and critiques of a Chinese culture of learning as
well as the numerous problems with CLT and other Western-based pedagogies in EFL
settings, the implementation of portfolio approach is a contested practice and not a simple
matter of adoption and replication of student-centered teaching. As an English teacher at
187
CSU, labeled by the local administration as a ―foreign teacher‖ due to my U.S.
nationality, I am particularly interested in how students frame me as a ―foreign teacher‖
and how they negotiate the CLT reforms that I was explicitly hired to implement at CSU.
Specifically, the chapter investigates the use of portfolio assessment by addressing the
following question: what types of comments do students include in their portfolio
reflection and analysis statements, and what do these comments reveal about English
language learning in the Chinese university context?
The chapter takes the following forms. The next sections further ground the study
in recent research on portfolios and teaching methodology and describe CSU and my
academic writing students. Then, data sections present a typology of student comments as
well as some unexpected responses in their personal writing reflections. In their written
reflections, included in their year-end writing portfolios, the students reflect on the
construction of their portfolios and their overall learning goals throughout the spring
2007 semester. The chapter ends by returning to the research questions and pointing out
the unique aspects of portfolio assessment at CSU as well as the broader implications of
portfolio assessment in a Chinese EFL setting. As in previous chapters, I weave traces of
my own narrative as a teacher and researcher at CSU throughout the following chapter.
Recent writing on portfolio assessment
Portfolio assessment is a writing activity that directly relates to a communicative
language teaching (CLT) or task-based language teaching (TBLT) approach to writing
and language learning (Rogers & Richards, 2001; Brown, 2006; Nunan, 2005). The
conventional understanding of portfolios is that they help students learn to work
independently, provide samples of student work for future employment, and lead to
188
department-wide comparison of multiple student writing pieces. Ferris & Hedgcock
(1998) describe five steps in the portfolio process that replicate the process approach to
writing: 1) collection; 2) selection; 3) reflection; 4) communication; 5) evaluation (1998,
p. 247). They write that the process of creating portfolios offers more opportunities for
formative assessment, i.e. assessment of students while they are still developing a skill or
competency, instead of the summative assessment that are typical of academic writing
classes, i.e. final grades on projects and papers. In addition to teaching student autonomy,
Ferris & Hedgcock (1998) stress using portfolios primarily to determine reliable
measurement standards and encourage student-autonomy. No studies or examinations of
portfolios have seriously examined the differences in student backgrounds and cultures of
learning, or looked into student reflections as a space to appropriate new meanings and
forms in English.
Nunes (2004), one of the only studies of portfolios in an EFL setting, does
investigate student reflection statements found in her student portfolios. In her analysis,
she describes two features of student portfolio writing: dialogue (both interpersonal and
intra-personal) and reflection. She considers the dialogic comments found in her students‘
reflection writing important as these are comments in student writing that reveal
interactions between the student and teacher, the student and himself/herself, and the
student other classmates. She offers the following examples of dialogue comments from
her sample data.
Interpersonal dialogue:
―Dear Teacher,
Finally, I have cable TV at home. My father bought it in Christmas, and I can
watch more programs in English without legends, programs about nature, etc.‖ (p.
330)
189
Intra-personal dialogue:
―I sometimes am very angry with myself. For example, I know very well that we
use the infinitive (would to-) after the modal verb, but I wrote it wrong on the
test!‖ (p. 330)
Nunes (2004) counts the number of reflection comments, but she does not count the
number of dialogue comments or state if the dialogue and reflection categories overlap.
Overall, she focuses on the types of reflection comments, only offering the examples of
dialogue comments in her student essays.
In counting the reflection comments, Nunes (2004) lists the topics of students
reflections in the following categories: 1) Syllabus, ―reflections on the contents of the
syllabus including the relevance for the students‖ (p. 331) ; 2) Instruction, ―the students
reflections on teaching aids and materials, teaching methods, instructional activities,
strategies and tasks‖ (p. 331); 3) Learning, ―reflections on the contents dealt with in class,
on the students strengths, weaknesses and needs, and learning strategies‖ (p. 331); and 4)
Assessment, ―reflections on the students‘ competence and skills, their performance in
classroom tasks and conventional tests, as well as reflections on the portfolio itself‖ (p.
332). The following are examples from her student writing samples.
Syllabus comment: ―I liked English and the themes discussed in class, specially
the topic Space Exploration.‖ (p. 331)
Instruction comment: ―In this class, I liked most the debate in class about the
advantages of tourism.‖ (p. 331)
Learning comment: ―When a text had some comments that I didn‘t understand, I
tried to infer the meaning from context or I asked my colleagues.‖ (p. 331)
Assessment comment: ―I think my portfolio is complete. It has many texts, many
reflections about grammar, themes, and also many exercises‖ (p. 332).
190
In her study, she counts the number of comments that students make under each
reflection category and notes that students feel the most comfortable reflecting on class
instruction and their own learning, but they do not offer many critical comments on
classroom assessments or their overall competence- listed under the assessment category.
Nunes (2004) concludes that EFL learners in particular need help in mastering the
language of reflection in order to learn how to demonstrate the meta-cognitive skills
required of portfolio reflection and analysis.
The following data sections in this chapter draw on Nunes‘ (2004) typology of
reflection topics and her descriptions and examples above. I compare the types of
comments found on my student self-assessments with her results, but I renamed her
category of assessment as assessment/assignments and changed learning to learning
goals to more clearly differentiate the topics and accurately reflect the type of comments
that students made on classroom assignments and the portfolio assignment itself. In
addition, I counted the number of dialogic comments as a separate category form the
reflection comments. As revealed below, these dialogue comments introduce new
content, not specifically found in the reflection categories listed by Nunes and reveal
particularly creative interpretations of the norms of English language writing and student-
teacher relationships. Learning the language and organizational norms of reflection in
English can be an important skill to address in using a portfolio assessment in EFL
writing classes, but in addition to ―what‖ they are reflect on I am also crucially interested
in exploring ―how‖ CSU students are reflecting (often through creative dialogues with
teachers and students) and what this shows about language learning in a Chinese
university setting.
191
Level 5 academic writing classes at CSU
The portfolio reflections collected and analyzed in this chapter come from the
essays written by 36 different students during two of my academic writing classes during
the spring semester 2007 (n=36). The syllabus for the class contains the following
description of my academic writing course, written by ELD administrators.
This course is designed for advanced learners of English (High Advanced) who
have completed the integrated skills training required in lower [ELD] course
levels. Unlike these previous courses, [academic writing] will focus almost
exclusively on the development of the advanced writing skills that are required in
academic English environments. Reading, listening and speaking activities will
also play a role although they will mainly serve to enhance composition activities
and assignments. As is the case at all [ELD] levels, the coursework is designed to
stimulate students‘ personal expression, critical thinking and interpersonal
communication skills.
In the two classes used in this study, the students‘ majors were as follows: 15 English, 8
Journalism, 4 Business Administration, 3 Law, 1 Engineering, 1 Math, 1 Art Design, and
1 Chemistry.
Portfolio assignment
Student construction of the parts of the portfolio took place throughout the
semester. During the class, the students wrote three formal writing assignments and five
informal journal writing responses. Each of the three writing assignments had multiple
drafts and revisions and I gave a final grade to the student‘s third draft. For the portfolio,
I asked students to include the following:
1) A revised, typed, final draft of essay 1, 2, OR 3 (your choice), including
all intermediate drafts, a peer response worksheet, and all written
instructor feedback;
2) A revised, typed, one-page, piece of informal, personal, or self-selected
writing (e.g., a journal entry, a reading response, a letter to your instructor,
etc.) that you wrote at some point this semester;
3) A one-page, typed, self-assessment of your performance and progress over
the semester. In other words, ―what did you learn this semester?‖ This can
192
include a reflection on why you picked the essay and journal selections for
your portfolio, and what changed over the process of revising your essay
for a third time.
As this was the first time for all students in the class to put together a writing portfolio
and write a self-reflection on their learning, I presented in class some of the reasons for
portfolios, adapted from the literature on portfolio assessment presented earlier, and I
listed some potential questions for students to respond to such in their reflections such as:
what have you learned about academic writing from this class?; what have you learned
about writing in general from this class?; what are you still curious or worried about?;
how do you think you can address these concerns?; how were the portfolio selections
created?
Following this introduction of the classroom portfolio assignment and the
categories for analysis, the following data sections will first reveal the numbers and types
of dialogue and reflection categories in relation to Nunes‘ (2004) study. The following
data section will then address the creative organizational patterns and content of the
student writing.
Typology of portfolio content at CSU
In total, I recorded and categorized 201 separate comments from 36 refection
essays written by the 36 students in my two academic writing classes. Comments ranged
from one to two sentences, to full paragraphs. Some paragraphs contain two categories as
students began with a comment about their work on assignments and then moved on to
comment on learning goals. Table 1 below lists the number of times a certain comment
type appeared in student papers.
193
Table 1: Typology of student comments (n=201)
Dialogue Reflection
Inter-
personal
Intra-
personal
Learning
Goals
Syllabus Assessment/
Assignment
Instruction
28 27 75 13 43 15
In comparison to Nunes‘s (2004) data, my academic writing students had a larger
percentage of assessment/assignment comments in relation to the total number of
comments (22% of the total compared with 12% of the total in her study). In one way,
this reflects my own coding decisions under the assessment category and the specific
questions I asked students to consider on their reflections about classroom assessments. It
also points to student familiarity with assessing their abilities on graded assignments and
comparing their skills with other students. By the time they reach university, most
Chinese university students have taken many high-stakes tests and assessments and have
little difficulty in describing their competence in a wide-variety of tasks particularly in
relation to other students. In addition, teachers and departments in Chinese high schools
and universities typically rank students in relation to each other, and many students in
their portfolio compared their grades and performance on classroom assignments in terms
of how well they did in comparison to their classmates.
My students had a similarly high number of comments on their learning goals
(37% to 43% in Nunes, 2004) and low number of comments on the syllabus topics (both
were 7% of the total), but unlike Nunes (2004), my students had fewer specific comments
on the instruction methods (8% of the total compared with 36% of her total responses).
My students syllabus and instruction comments were typically compliments about
classroom teaching and my classroom instruction. Some students took the opportunity to
offer suggestions on the organization of the entire class or the ELD department as a
194
whole, but no students openly disagreed with any topics or methods of instruction, only
asking for more attention to a particular topic, such as reading instruction. Nunes (2004)
did not keep statistics as to the number of dialogue-type comments, but out of the total
number of comments coded (both reflection and dialogue), the 55 dialogue comments
made up 27% of the total, revealing that students placed an emphasis on writing the
formal reflection comments, but they did not avoid the more informal comments that
directly address the reader or other students and texts in the classroom. The next sections
offer examples of each type of dialogue and reflection comment and further analysis.
Dialogue comments
The comments from students that were directly addressing me or continuing a
dialogue with other students or topics from the class were somewhat surprising as on
formal writing assignments, students had worked to take a professional and distanced
stance, but many of the interpersonal comments directed to me as a teacher were in the
form of giving thanks and hoping to stay in touch. For example, JS18
ends her self-
reflection stating, ―How I wish to share my English learning with you now and again!‖
Other students gave thanks to classmates for helping them learn throughout the semester,
as ML does in commenting, ―I should be more serious on study as Echo does, and read
more books like Vivian does.‖ Some students used the space of a self-reflection essay to
open a dialogue with the ELD and offer overall suggestions for future courses as WL
does in writing ―I have one piece of advice for the ELC, which probably could be helpful.
I hope ELC could set up a reading course before students get down to academic writing.‖
18
Student names are represented with initials to protect anonymity, and I use student English names where
relevant if they gave me permission to use these names.
195
In terms of intra-personal comments, the students at times would analyze their
own efforts and abilities, often offering frank comments on their own short-comings and
needs for improvement. For example, PP comments on the dialogue he had throughout
the semester.
―Writing is not easy because Dr. Liu, a great English speaker, also finds it
difficult to write.‖ I still remembered what I spoke to myself after learning the
essay about Dr. Liu‘s writing experiences in the second class. After that, I
determined to write more and write better. (PP)
Some of the intrapersonal comments tied the academic writing lessons students had
learned to their personal beliefs about life. For example, AI writes, ―I really appreciate
that I have already started the real writing- the academic ones. It tells me what has to be
precise is not only writing but also your thinking of life.‖ There were about the same
amount of interpersonal and intrapersonal dialogues, and in addition to their
shortcomings, students articulate their future plans and mention their overall feelings
about the class. Of the dialogue comments, the intra-personal comments about personal
characteristics are probably the closest to the student-autonomy and self-reflection skills
advocated by CSU. The large number of interpersonal comments, however, reveal the
comfort students find in writing informally about their learning, and these comments
illustrate student desires to reflect in dialogue with the broader audience, particularly
teachers and fellow classmates, making self-reflection for my students a community
discussion not just a personal one.
Reflection comments
Most comments on classroom instruction itself were lists of activities that
students liked and overall comments on ELD classes in general. For example, one student
comments:
196
Moreover, the revisions and writing conferences are also very useful. The revision
is like a mirror, knowing that where my weakness is. Some kinds of mistakes are
always happened to me, such as word choices, non-idiomatic words and clause
errors. The writing conference gives me face-to-face chance with instructor,
which helps me make an improvement in my writing skills. (RA)
PH even writes that other Chinese teachers should learn to use the peer-review and
process approach to writing.
It‘s a good method to let students turn in several drafts with peer review and
teacher‘s instruction. By that, we learn how to improve an essay step by step.
Chinese teacher should learn to use this means in teaching. (PH)
Many of these comments feel almost like a pitch for why my class was useful, and I
began to question if students were truly reflecting on classroom instruction or just
attempting to say what the teacher wanted to hear. It seems that some students viewed the
chance to reflect on their learning as a time to show the instructor how hard they worked,
and how much they appreciated the class. Of course, I was happy to read about the
benefits of my teaching, but since the main idea of portfolio assessment is to help
students focus on personal assessment of the own abilities, the large number of these
comments appears to distract from more personal reflections and also reify the role of the
teacher as expert and central to student learning. In fact, determining what kinds of
comments are truly ―reflective‖ or ―critical‖ is one of the most difficult decisions for
teachers in adopting a portfolio approach in academic writing classes. Particularly foreign
instructors in EFL contexts may have different notions of ―critical‖ reflection and have
expectations about ―guiding‖ students toward self-reflection, and they may be surprised
as I was by students who use the reflection assignment to praise teachers not as a display
of self-autonomy.
197
In comparison to praising the modes of instruction, discussion of classroom
topics, coded as syllabus comments, were both lists of topics that students liked as well
more personal reflections on the topics we had learned about. For example, AW lists the
topics that she enjoyed.
Moreover, I benefited a lot from [academic writing] because of the topics
covered. In classes, we discussed a lot interesting and complicated topics with
which I opened my eyes to a more academic world. Through discussing the topics
with other students and searching for more information about the topic, I knew
more about plagiarism, about Hit-Hot [Hip-hop], about English names and signs,
about Cultural Revolution, just to name a few. (AW)
In contrast, one of the classroom topics that students did choose to reflect in more detail
upon was plagiarism and the characteristics of academic writing in English, both part of
classroom readings and mini-lectures. In particular, we had read some contrastive
rhetoric studies and I had led a classroom discussion in which we examined the various
and changing definitions of plagiarism and academic writing. KA voices some frustration
with the inexact ideas about plagiarism that I presented.
However, up till now. I still don‘t make clear that what kind of things is
plagiarizing exactly. There may be different between China and United States.
Americans are focus on the specific information and individual. If they use other
people‘s work or ideas, they will quote it specifically, in order to respect the
original work. While in China, most of people do not remember the original
author, they just quote the sentence they needs. Especially when they are
describing some beautiful things. They may quote some poems or some sayings.
It is normal and common that using beautiful sentences which are not their own
work. Is it plagiarizing? It is just a technique for writing, for using some beautiful
poems or sentences to express your own idea. (KA)
In addition, CL writes that he finds English academic writing rather simple.
Actually, Chinese writing is different from English writing in some facets. And
academic writing makes me feel a little bit mechanical- the same frame filled with
different content. (CL)
198
It is not surprising that these two syllabus topics garnered reflection, as they are both
rather abstract ideas and in some ways go against received ideas of writing students had
received in Chinese composition classes. As a teacher, I was happy to see students
challenge the ideas that I had presented in class and articulate opinions of how academic
writing makes them feel ―mechanical‖ as well as some skepticism about quoting famous
lines as plagiarism. While these comments for me reveal the types of critical thinking on
issues of academic writing that I have been trained to value, I again wonder if these were
the types of self-analysis comments the CSU administrators envisioned in their adoption
of communicative language classrooms. Regardless, the portfolio reflections appear to
offer a space for students to voice these comments on classroom topics that some students
may not have found in classroom discussions.
The reflections on learning focused on student reflections about the skills they
learned in the course of the semester. The comments were a mix of lists containing things
the students felt that they had gained from the class as well as detailed narratives about
how much they had changed over the course of the semester. For example, SL writes
about learning how to organize essays and become critical of her writing.
My academic writing skills improved a lot. Before this semester, I kown nothing
about the English academic writing. I have learened several kinds of writing, such
as the comparison writing, the CV writing and the book-review. Some of them are
very usefull for us, especially in our future time. For example, how to write a CV
is very important for us, because we will go to find our own job in nearly future,
and a perfect CV is very important. Also, I have learened some different styles of
English academic writing, such as APA style. From the practice, I learned how to
organize an essay and be critical about the writing. (SL)
Others moved toward a meta-level discussion of their progress over the semester, similar
to the type of reflections cited in the literature on portfolios. JB even gives the specific
amount of words that he can now include in an essay.
199
How time flies! The end of this semester is coming and maybe my final English
course in university also will be concluded. Through this semester, I think my
English has improved much, especially writing. I couldn‘t image that several
mouths age, I couldn‘t write an essay more than three hundred words in English,
but my final writing assignment is more than one thousand five hundred words. I
think this is big advance. (JB)
Interestingly, many students in assessing their learning wrote about the number of words
that they could now write or the numbers of hours that is took them to complete an
assignment. It appears that for CSU students part of reflecting on their writing involves
converting writing ability and work into numerical quantities of words or hours.
Unlike the learning comments that focused on ―what‖ a student learned, the final
category, assessment/assignments, were comments that specifically reflect ―how‖
students performed on classroom assignments and tests and what these performances
reveal about competencies in a range of language activities. Comments ranged from
discussions of portfolio selections to descriptions of the personal circumstances that
students encountered during the writing assignments. Many of the student assessments of
their own abilities contained negative appraisals of their work on classroom assignments
and connected their poor work to their need for personal self-improvement. For example,
AA writes about his need for more life and work experiences.
I choose the resume and cover letter simply because they are of significant
importance to my job hunting in the future. When I tried to write down my skills
and experiences I developed in these years in [CSU], I were finally aware of that I
seldom had experiences of taking park of the activities held on campus, as well as
that my specialized knowledge and language skills were needed further cultivated.
It is known to all that a qualified resume or cover letter is a good introduction for
applying for a job after graduation. Thanks to this writing training, I have chance
to try my best and dig out all my solid knowledge and vocational abilities
developed in school. When I am correcting the essay for a third time, I discover
that although my experience and knowledge can hardly make a nice resume, I at
least have learned how to write it. (AA)
200
Similarly, LL offers a more critical assessment of her work on the book review
assignment.
The last essay is the book review, which take us the longest time to finish. At the
beginning of the semester, the teacher told us to choose a book to read and to
write a review after reading the book. To finish the book is a tough job for me,
because I changed another book just two weeks before handing the draft one.
Luckily, I finished the work. Though my review is not enough critical and
expanding, writing the review is a rare experience for me. (LL)
Overall, the CSU students appear to have little difficulty in reflecting at some level on all
of the reflection categories, but interesting features emerged, such as the praise that they
give to teachers and fellow students often in the beginning of their writing reflections and
the self-critical narratives of overcoming struggles and becoming a better person through
the writing assignments, and the following next section examines first some creative
organizational patterns and next the creative content topics in student reflection writing.
The organization and content of reflection at CSU
There were many creative organizational patterns in the student reflection essays.
I had not specified exactly what type of organization I expected as I hoped that the
students would make the reflections relevant to their own needs. In previous CSU classes
if I gave a model to students, they would be tempted to replicate the model. Of the more
creative organizational patterns, I received three reflections in the form of letters which
began all began with ―Dear Paul‖ and ended with either ―Best wishes‖ or ―Yours.‖ Even
if students did not use formal letter conventions or salutations, they often ended
reflections by thanking me and their classmates by writing, ―Thank you very much. I will
remember you and all the classmates forever‖ (AC). Instead of a letter, some students
used the reflection essay to showcase their abilities to write an organized thesis statement,
something we discussed often in the class, as one student writes, ―In this paper, I want to
201
give myself a assessment in what I‘ve learnt and my performance in the class, explain
why I‘ve chosen the 2nd
essay to revise in the portfolio, my plan in further English
studying as well as give my thanks to my [academic writing] teacher Paul and all my
classmates‖ (EL). While the organizational forms of reflection writing on portfolios are
not clearly outlined in the literature on portfolio assessment, the number of personal
letters to me reveal the CSU student creative interpretations of reflection writing, and the
more formal thesis sentence writing points out the adoption and prevalence of the five
paragraph-style essay, even in more informal writing. In addition to the varied
organizational patterns, certain content topics were prevalent in multiple student essays,
each pointing to interpretations of reflection writing and relationships with teachers,
fellow students, and larger communities of learning.
Compliments
In reviewing the student writing, numerous essays made at least one compliment
to me personally or to fellow students. Often students started their reflections in an
impersonal manner by offering reflections on the classroom instruction and their
assignments, but they would end with statements of praise. For example, ML writes in
her penultimate paragraph:
Last but not least, apart from the academic knowledge I talk above, the instructor,
Paul, educated me by his personality and virtues. I learnt to be serious on
academic work and easy-going on informal occasions. In class, all of us are
friends talking freely. As I see it we all like him, which makes the class successful
to a certain extent. (ML)
LL also thanks me personally for my hard work as well as her fellow students. She
writes:
Thank Paul for teaching me to want to ―talk‖, like to ―talk‖, and how to ―talk‖.
Thank him very much for his hard work for us, and I am also happy to make a
202
friend with him. Fortunately I knew many students with different background, and
I learned many things from them. (LL)
As a final example of these types of compliments that typically appeared at the end of
student reflections, MW goes as far as to comment on my appearance.
Last but not least, I want to say thank you to Paul, my dear ELC5 teacher. Paul is
really a good teacher. He is handsome, knowledgeable, talkative, and careful. At
the same time, I want to thank all my ELC5 classmates. I learnt a lot from them in
the class and during the group discussions. They are all very friendly and kind. I
feel grateful to have such lovely classmates! Thank you, lovely Paul! Thank you
dear classmates! (MW)
As Nunes (2004) has pointed out, novice writers may not have acquired the pragmatic
and discourse knowledge of the language of reflection, and they may choose topics not
typically considered acceptable for reflections. While I initially wanted to discount these
comments as empty ―space-filler‖ that are aimed at making a good impression on me as
the teacher19
, the fact that they are so numerous and often offer comments on my personal
virtues, it seems that the students are doing more than ingratiating themselves to their
teacher and evaluator.
Considering Scollon‘s (1999) description of the Confucian teacher as modeling
wisdom and hard work for students and leading by example not through explicit guiding
of scaffolding, the student compliments are not necessarily commenting on me personally
but rather on my role as a model of knowledge, virtue and hard work in the classroom. In
this way, LL‘s comments are particularly interesting as she adopts the clear
communicative and speaking goal as presented in CSU and ELD policy, but she
expresses her new-found ability as something that she has learned directly from modeling
19
I am aware of the narcissistic tone of repeating student compliments in this manner, but they were a
dominant theme in student reflection that make them an interesting area to explore, and many other local
and foreign teachers in China have mentioned to me similar compliments on classroom written
assignments.
203
herself after me, not as something that she has achieved herself. It is unclear exactly what
I did in class to teach her ―how to talk‖ but clearly she has incorporated something from
my mannerism and perhaps from the way I ―talk‖ about writing and critique essays in
class. Examining these compliments and direct statements of praise as reflecting if not a
Chinese culture of learning than at least a local tradition of teaching roles, the students
are in some ways side-stepping an explicit student-centered writing reflection with some
students even pointing out the friendships and overall atmosphere of the classroom was
just as important as classroom knowledge For example, LP writes, ―All in all, this
semester is a memorable time in my English learning. From ELC5 class, I have gained
friendship, happiness as well as knowledge.‖ While the compliments were surprising for
me as a teacher and difficult to assess in terms of achieving the critical learning goals of
the ELD- and it would be interesting to note if students would offer such compliments of
how local teachers ―talk‖ and act in class- the student compliments of their classmates
and teachers do illustrate the value of the social aspects of our classroom and that gaining
friendships and creating a classroom community of learning are related to and perhaps
more important than personal learning goals.
Stories of personal struggle and perseverance
Another repeated topic of student reflections- often in the form of a short
narrative- was a story about how the writer worked hard to improve themselves, both in
terms of their writing and their personal habits. For example, RQ writes about giving up
other classes to take on the challenge of academic writing.
How time flies this semester! I still remember that I told the classmates I had
given up two courses to choose Level five‘s course. Now I would say it worth
doing so, because I have learnt English writing skills and kept my English-
204
learning passion. Though the essays make me busy and agonizing from time to
time, but I feel substantial now. (RQ)
Similarly, AL writes about the tough work of learning to write in English and how her
work reveals her ―efforts and progress.‖
I spent many of my weekends and finally finished three big projects, a resume and
cover letter, which will be useful for my job hunting in two years, an
argumentative essay, which concerns the topic of all major courses in English in
STU, and a book review of Vanity Fair, a classical novel. They are not the best in
class but I am satisfied because they symbolize my efforts and progress. (AL)
Part of these narratives of perseverance, many students end their reflections with a view
toward the future.
In conclusion, it is memorial semester for me, and I learned a lot from this
semester. Also, i know i still need more time to study and practise how to writing,
I will do my best to improve. (SL)
The students in my academic writing class had all been taking English for 10 years or
more, and many had passed the Chinese English Test (CET), Level 4 and 6. Despite
these experiences learning English, many students comment on how they felt very
nervous and in writing academic essays, a fear that shows up in their writing about
overcoming great odds and showing moral strength to keep trying.
In writing about their experiences over the course of the semester, many of the
narratives repeat common phrases such as ―how time flies‖ and one student revises the
saying ―No pain, no gain‖ into ―I pain, I gain‖ as the last line of his essay. The use of
these clichés and famous phrases invokes the student comment on plagiarism mentioned
earlier and his use of ―beautiful words‖ as many students complete their reflections with
references to these well-known sayings. One passage from WZ‘s reflection piece contains
many of these phrases and an extended reference to the ―Give a man a fish‖ aphorism.
205
If we want to make great progress, we should know our weaknesses and work
hard. However, it is easier to say than to do. What we need includes determination
and perseverance. I really learnt something valuable in this semester. Something
stimulates me to continue English study more seriously. Maybe I still cannot write
the excellent essay, but it is much more important for me to know how to improve
writing skills. You will eat out all the fish if someone just gives you fish; but you
have endless fish to eat if someone teaches you how to fish. What I need is fishing
skills, not just fish. (WZ)
This comment is particularly interesting as WZ draws on the discourse of student-
autonomy in learning to write academically that is found in CSU teaching policy, but he
also connects these skills to his life, not just one written assignment. Like the other
narratives of perseverance and their metaphors of pain and struggle in order to learn to
write academic English, WZ describes academic writing in English as something that
requires serious attention and personal commitment.
Stories of perseverance: Evaluations of personal characteristics
Going further, the stories of perseverance of some students became frank dialogue
with me and themselves about their personalities and morals. For example, BL writes
about his lazy habits.
Every essay we had to write the first, the second and the third draft. I learned a lot
from this kind of writing and modifying. I am not a serious or hard-working student.
And I am lazy to write an essay again and again. But I still learned a lot from the
writing although I was a lazy boy. (BL)
In addition to general laziness, the topic of plagiarism created the most significant stories
of personal flaws as well as perseverance, and it was a significant topic for students to
comment and reflect on. As a first example, JL talks in his reflection essay about the
different cultures of plagiarism and the lessons he has learned. He comments:
Though I got a bad mark in essay 3, I learn a very good lesson which in my
opinion is more important than the knowledge. The lesson is that it is wrong to
plagiarize. At first, I don‘t think it matters much because many Chinese students
may plagiarize part of other people‘s essay so that they can hand in to the
206
teachers. And most Chinese teachers know that and accept. Maybe it is the
difference between two cultures. So I did the same in my essay 3. But at the
conference hour, my teacher Paul told me that I really did something wrong. I
should not do that in my essay. No matter how busy I was and how I thought,
essay was my own duty. I had to finish it by myself. That is a responsible attitude
I should have. I failed in the essay 3, but I learn a responsible attitude. It will
guide me in all my life. (JL).
In his response, JL comments on his perceived differences between local and foreign
teacher views of plagiarism and he positions plagiarism as a moral problem in that
writing your own words is a ―duty‖ to himself. I had not intended to teach a view of
plagiarism as a sin, but JL, offering a slight justification based on his previous teachers,
describes his plagiarism as a lapse in his ―responsible attitude.‖
In the same way, LY included as his class reflection, a two-page letter that he had
written to me about why he plagiarized. He had originally written the letter as a response
to our writing conference in which I had marked large sections of his book review
assignment as copied from the internet. After writing the letter and sending it to me as an
attachment, we agreed that he could revise the letter and include it in his portfolio as part
of his reflection on his writing over the semester. The transcripts below are from the
opening and ending sections of his letter and are full of complex reflections and dialogue
on the topic of plagiarism and academic writing, and how his writing experiences have
shaped his view of himself as a person.
Dear Paul,
Thank you very much for your advices to me. I am very sad for my
plagiarism and I feel terribly sorry for that. Plagiarism is lie, cheat and theft and I
should be responsible to any results from that. It proves my dishonest. My faith of
honest disappeared radically at this moment and I understand myself more from
this. This result will certainly come at the beginning of my plagiarism.
I don‘t want to plagiarize but in fact I did. I don‘t think I am lazy in
learning English and I think I like writing too. At this semester of [academic
writing] class, I prepared a lot and make myself active in class. I like to speak, I
like to communicate and I also feel comfortable in writing journals. But I am
207
nervous at academe writing and I can even unable to write a sentence that satisfies
me. Once I pick up my pen at the beginning of my academe writing, I feel terribly
ill as if each sentence I have wrote was Chinese English and completely wrong in
grammar, spelling or APA style. I was scared of that and it made me filled with
pressure. I can only get back my little confidence in my oral English for no one
will care whether I have said something wrong. So I speak fast sometimes to
avoid my mistakes being found. This advantage radically disappear once I write.
So I try to avoid. The best way is to copy English writing directly from the
Internet which is perfect in grammar and structures, etc. I can guess that you can
tell them apart with a glance. I try to stop my plagiarism but I did not manage to.
This is the worst way and it is totally wrong. And I apologize for that seriously.
Later at the end of the letter, he closes with further reflection on writing.
I have written more than I imagined so far. I feel free in this way of
writing: Just record what I thought and don‘t need to care about anything else. It
may be easier for me to write a self-review rather than a book review. To me,
writing with my true feelings is a most enjoyable entertainment and I like it very
much. To be honest, the rewriting of book review is annoying and I wish I can
hand in this self-review instead. Still, I will rewrite it and I want to know the
deadline of my forth draft. I hope you can give me a little more time for I have to
prepare for my final exams these weeks. However, I will try my best to finish it in
time. Thanks for you patience and advice for me.
Yours,
[LY]
LY‘s letter addresses some very complex questions about portfolios and student views of
academic writing. The response makes me wonder about his view of the reflection
assignment and his desire to include this letter in his portfolio. In many ways, LY is
framing me, the teacher, in the role of moral role model, and he seems to be responding
to me as if I were a parent or someone to confess to. Despite my reference to scholarly
work on plagiarism and the difficult cultural and political definitions of plagiarism, the
students interpreted my writing the word plagiarism on their drafts as a comment on their
morality and ethical standards, and each student felt the need to confess their sins in their
reflection writing. In retrospect, I needed to more fully address the assumptions and
208
negatives connotations of plagiarism in class, having students reflect in writing and
perhaps in small discussions on their experiences and own definitions.
Conclusion
So I suggest, together with encouraging and valuing users‘ appropriation of
English, TESOL workers also need to promote an EIL [English as an
International Language] pedagogy in which the teaching and learning of EIL
should involve valuing and nurturing the expression of other cultural voices in
English, making explicit the values that support judgements about ‗good‘ English
and individual ability, and helping students to construct identities as owners,
meaning makers, and authorised users of EIL. (Phan, 2005)
In a similar fashion, Kramsch (2006; 2007) advocates teaching English from the
standpoint of a pedagogy of reflexion in which the multiplicity of cultures that both unite
and differentiate language learners are viewed as new and creative mythic potentials for
words and meanings in English. She writes, ―wheareas for monolingual speakers words
have become one with the world around them, for multilingual subjects different words
evoke different worlds they can play off one another…Learners can be made more aware
of their third place potential through a pedagogy of reflexion and imagination, of
translingual experience and poetic creativity‖ (2006, p. 108).
In the student reflections, there were instances of the type of pedagogy of
reflexion and appropriation that Phan (2005) and Kramsch (2006) discuss. For example,
the large number of compliments that students wrote to me and their classmates point
toward a re-interpretation of self-reflection as a larger classroom activity and a space to
recognize the role of teachers and classmates as experts and models in the English
language classroom. In addition, by re-analyzing famous quotations such as ―No pain, no
gain‖ and ―Give a man a fish‖ in terms of overcoming writing difficulties, students also
re-interpreted English sayings in creative and new ways, turning the acquisition of
209
academic writing into a symbol of hard work in life and personal virtue. Some teachers
may not accept these reflections as evidence of self-reflection on specific learning goals,
but by enforcing norms in how to reflect, we limit the potential for new ways of
reflecting in English and the opportunity to open classrooms up to discussions of new
competencies and pedagogies.
In examining student responses, it is easy to view them as examples of
appropriation of English reflection writing, however, it is important to note that most of
students are drawing on previous socialized writing patterns and are not in any way
actively pursuing new English meanings or re-interpretations of writing norms. In fact,
many students, such as AL, write in their reflections about the need to work hard in order
to write ―more beautiful English like native speakers‖ (AL), and a majority of student
responses praised the process approaches to teaching and the student-centered activities
such as the writing conferences, multiple paper drafts, and peer-reviews. Teachers need
to seek a balance in encouraging the fascinating appropriations of English and reflection
writing and at the same time honoring the choices of students such as AL. In addition,
much of the student writing represented traits of Jin & Cortazzi‘s notions about a Chinese
culture of learning, particularly the way CSU students modeled themselves after my
―virtues‖ and ways of speaking. The notion of a culture of learning may essentialize the
complexities and local realities of Chinese university classrooms, but the prevalence of
certain traits in student reflections points out sedimented meanings and practices that we
cannot cast aside as irrelevant as they affect the lived realities and, as Jin & Cortazzi
(2002) write, ―the frameworks‖ in which students view language learning at CSU.
210
What is important, though, is to not let any one practice become the dominant
standard of teaching and to model the type of questioning stance toward our own beliefs,
something that I may have failed to do in our classroom discussions about plagiarism and
academic writing. Atkinson (2003) has already discussed this type of ―turning culture
back on ourselves‖ (p. 51), and he argues that writing teachers must make the debates
over contested terms such as ―culture,‖ and in my case academic writing itself, into
opportunities to examine our own socializations as language teachers and researchers.
This turning the lens on ourselves must occur before we can work toward pedagogies that
represent student appropriations. In retrospect, I could have more explicitly demonstrated
this type of questioning of academic writing and plagiarism. In addition to the question
―what are you still curious or worried about?‖- a common question that aims to spark
self-reflection- I could have followed with a more pointed question such as: ―what is your
opinion of definitions of academic writing, plagiarism, essay organization, and research
writing?‖ or ―why do you think academic writing standards exist?‖, and most importantly
answered these questions myself in classroom dialogues and talks with students.
In conclusion, while portfolio assessment in academic writing courses has
primarily been a tool to further communicative language teaching goals, I argue that we
need to also consider portfolios in EFL contexts as spaces for students to ask questions
about English-language identifications and their own appropriations of academic writing
norms. In this way, portfolio assessment can become a place to further discussion of
cultures of learning and the role of teachers in ELT classrooms. This type of cross-
cultural and trans-national dialogue is just as important, if not more, than the
development of communicative language skills and student-autonomy, and in this way,
211
we can push student reflections in class to be less about ―what they learned‖ and more
about ―how they are learning.‖ Hopefully, more studies on portfolio assessment in China
and other EFL contexts can expand our understandings of the uses of portfolio
assessment and self-reflection writing and the local appropriations of English teaching
pedagogies.
212
Conclusion
English Language Teaching in China
Writing about the inherent incompleteness in all language and policy research,
Canagarajah (2005b) writes, ―rather than treating them [unresolved tensions] as a
problem for policy formation, we should think of tensions as opening up more complex
orientations to language in education (LIE).‖ (p. 195). In the same way, I began this
dissertation with the goal of investigating tensions in my own teaching context and the
multiple interpretations of English as an international language and west-based teaching
reforms. In this way, the dissertation chapters analyzed the discourses, pedagogies, and
language practices in ELT at a Chinese university and explored ways in which these
competing perspectives can become the basis for teaching and learning English. Also
exploring the tensions of language policy, Lin & Martin (2005) further point out that we
need to do more than deconstruct the dominant assumptions and myths in ELT; instead,
echoing Ramanathan & Morgan‘s (2007) call for investigations of ―what we do with
policy,‖ they write that we must also work toward re-constructing effective and equitable
teaching and learning practices. As a way to conclude the dissertation, I want to further
explore some of these reconstructions of practice and policy in relation to the data
presented in the preceding chapters.
More specifically, the next sections review some answers and implications to the
guiding research questions that framed the dissertation and focus on ELT professionals
who are worried about linguistic and cultural imperialism when taking English language
teaching positions in China and elsewhere. In addition, the chapter returns to the
213
theoretical notions of ideology, globalization, and ELT pedagogy that framed the
discussion in Chapter 1.
Research Question #1: (How) do teachers at CSU appropriate west-based teaching
methodologies and teacher roles as significations of global citizenship?
As evidenced in the repeated use of the request of students to ―open your mouth‖
and the insistence on individual development and speaking skills in multiple local teacher
classrooms, it is clear that there is wide-spread acceptance of communicative language
teaching (CLT) methods and at least the appearance of student-centered classrooms in
CSU policy and the practices of local teachers. As one teacher remarked to me, she and
other local teachers are doing all they can to become ―communicative competence
teachers.‖ In addition, foreign teachers also generally view their classrooms in terms of
the skills facilitator model presented in recent ELT teaching literature (Savignon, 2001;
Ellis, 2004; Nunan, 2005; Brown, 2006). At the same time, local teachers and some
foreign instructors of English are mixing rote memorization and text-centered learning-
traditionally associated with Chinese education cultures (Scollon, 1999; Cortazzi & Jin,
2002; Adamson, 2004)- with their attempts to internationalize their teaching through the
use of CLT.
In addition, teachers at CSU do not outwardly resist the reform teaching program,
but many local teachers have mentioned their inability to fully create the active and
personal teaching style that they feel foreign teachers and native-speakers naturally offer.
Some students have also articulated the connection between foreign teacher classroom
and the creativity and speaking skills expected in the international business community,
and foreign teacher classrooms all have high enrollment, with some students expressing
214
the belief that only native-speakers and foreign teachers can effectively teach English. It
was interesting to note in Chapter 4, however, that most foreign teacher classrooms used
similar methods to the local teachers, emphasizing students speaking skills and ―opening
your mouth‖ over creative and critical thinking.
In terms of teaching roles and responsibilities, both local and foreign teachers
are performing multiple teaching, role-model, and care-giving roles inside and outside of
their classrooms, roles that do necessarily correspond to the skills facilitator teacher
embedded in CSU teaching policy and common understandings of CLT pedagogy. CSU
policy and administrators often frame the role of local teachers as important since they
know that backgrounds and Chinese culture of their students, while foreign teachers are
considered ―foreign experts‖ and integral to the reforms at CSU because they are
experienced in the student-centered and communicative teaching methods expected in the
reform teaching program. This division of abilities, however, only captures part of the
dynamic situation occurring in local and foreign teacher classrooms. Through Wendy‘s
students use of ―mother‖ to Ann and Kim‘s negotiations of personal relationships with
students in restaurants, bars, and their own homes, it is clear that the relationships
students and teachers perform at CSU are complex and multiple, offering foreign teachers
the chance to have closer contact with students than they felt was appropriate in the
United States, and opening spaces to articulate to meanings for English words and
phrases such as ―I love you.‖
Teachers and administrators at CSU often view the teaching reforms as
―empowering‖ local teachers through new connections with international teaching
English communities and professional organizations, such as Teachers of English to
215
Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). Local teachers such as Sue, Wendy, and Iris do
take pride attending the international symposium hosted every year by the ELD and the
multiple professional development seminars throughout the school year. At the same
time, the reliance on foreign teachers as models of the reforms and outside experts to lead
seminars furthers a divide between local and foreign teachers and research and practice
that exists throughout the field of applied linguistics and TESOL.
Research Question #2: What are the responses of English language learners to
teaching reforms and internationalization efforts at CSU?
Similar to local teachers, CSU students express excitement to the teaching
reforms and increased focus on speaking skills, but they also appropriate the focus on the
creative use of English to perform new identities and relationships in unexpected ways.
For example, their creative use of English names- often changing names to fit different
needs and contexts- and their appropriation of reflection writing to achieve a variety of
communicative goals, reveals that English learning in China is not a simple binary choice
between assimilation and resistance to norms. The example of Dodo/Shufen illustrates
this interesting and complex orientation to name-practices well, as her name alternatively
expresses her uniqueness and creativity as well as creates tensions and restrictions
through interactions with local teachers and work colleagues.
In addition to general enthusiasm and interest in taking ELD classes, some
students have begun to express more skepticism and ambivalence about the new teaching
program, including my students such as Guy, Erin, and Echo. These students are revising
their images about what foreign teachers offer students as well as how English- in
particular, what English skills and identities- will play a role in their future careers and
216
lives. Similar to their counterparts at other Chinese universities, the students at CSU have
begun to view their futures as part of international business and academic communities
that were severely limited to the generation of their parents. With the Olympics of 2008
and the international media attention paid to China‘s economic and social structures, it
can often seem that the younger generation in China is single-mindedly focused on
economic gain, but the students at CSU offer a more complex picture of college students
in China. For example, CSU students in Ann and my classrooms seek traditional
relationships with teachers as care-givers, both inside and outside the classroom, and
many students, from Guy to Erin, desire English classrooms that provide moral and
intellectual topics pertaining to Chinese history, in addition to the speaking skills
currently emphasized in ELD classes. In summary, through their creative use of English
in phrases such as ―I love you‖ and their multiple reinterpretations of reflective language
in portfolio assignments, the students at CSU offer a clear reminder of the complexity of
student motivations and goals in any educational system, a complexity that is often
ignored in national and local English teaching reform policy in China and elsewhere.
Ideology: The discourses of globalization and education reform
Based in Barthes‘s (1957) social constructionist position that popular myths in
society create the ―common sense‖ beliefs and ideologies that are then articulated in
dominant discourses in society (Gee, 2003; Pennycook, 2007), the data chapters have
explored the relationship of ideologies and discourses to the polycentric language use
(Blommaert, 2005a; 2005b) found in classroom observations and interactions in English.
I argue that the students at CSU are not just learning the norms of Inner Circle countries
(Kachru, 1986) or resisting the standards of English language naming practices (Edwards,
217
2006). Instead, the students are indexing their language use to both the ―here‖ of local
meanings and functions as well as their perceptions of international English-speaking
communities. In this way, not all language teaching and socialization is a bifurcated
choice of compliance or resistance. As Blommaert (2005a) has pointed out in his work on
English signs in East Africa, the re-interpretations of English meanings and even the use
of CLT at CSU represent playful expressions of personality that index global languages,
postures, and symbols but with meanings and functions indexed to the ―here‖ of the
classroom. Additionally, important practices explored in the dissertation- such as the use
of English names and the interpretation of CLT or TBLT methods- are not just tokens of
an ideology of globalization or the re-articulation of the dominant discourse of education
reform in China- both of which are true- but crucially they are also tied to on-going
processes of identity and agency in the English language department‘s classrooms. As
one of the clearest examples of the agency of a CSU teacher, Sue adopts the CLT
methods and often deferring to foreign teachers as experts, but her adoption of these
reform methods empower her to request a different evaluator, something very rare in a
the hierarchical administration at CSU. In addition to illustrating the complexity of
language socialization processes in ELT classrooms, the data chapters here provided the
thick description and observational data of students and teachers at CSU that is often
missing in many studies of ideology and globalization.
While teachers and students are interpreting English and language pedagogy in
creative ways, side-stepping dominant norms- and we need to always be aware of this
complexity in designing curriculum- the data chapters point out that dominant discourses
and ideologies of globalization and ELT remain powerful and pervasive factors in
218
shaping teacher and student perspectives of their English classrooms. No ideology or
discourse is uniform and internationalization is clearly interpreted in very different ways
in different classrooms, but particularly in the way English is framed by teachers in
classroom activities at CSU, the image of English is always as an international language
of commerce and opportunity and the reasons for learning English are typically tied to
future job success. In addition, teachers and students at CSU commonly draw on the
discourses of education reform and internationalization, particularly the individualistic
―stage‖ metaphor, in describing classroom teaching practices, thus, framing their
classroom activities in terms of goals of student-centered learning, individual-autonomy
and creativity.
Interestingly, the discourse of education reform is found primarily in the
classrooms of and interviews with the younger teachers at CSU, and they draw explicitly
on the goals of CSU policy in framing their teaching in terms of encouraging confidence
and individual achievement in their students. While some students at CSU, like Guy‘s
original email that provoked this study, questioned some parts of the CLT and reform-
based teaching methods, Wendy‘s description of the ―former‖ and ―present‖ methods and
her point that students do not learn as much vocabulary as in the past, was one of the few
instances of an overt critique of the CSU reforms in which a teacher did not fully
embrace the reform methods at least in describing her class. Sue, Iris, and the other
teachers in the study are 15-20 years younger than Wendy, and overall, younger teachers
appear much more eager to embrace the new methods, marking a generational shift in
English teachers at CSU. In fact, it is primarily foreign teachers at CSU, including me,
who openly worry about the cultural dominance of CLT and the new methods. Perhaps,
219
this lack of concern by the Chinese teachers is due to their confidence in unity of Chinese
culture and its power to resist subordination to Western norms, what Spivak (1990) may
theoretically call a strategic essentializing of Chinese culture. Regardless, as more
students in China enter universities such as CSU and are inundated with discourses of
individualism and education reform and more young teachers are trained explicitly in
CLT and TBLT methods, university education and characteristics of Jin and Cortazzi‘s
Chinese cultures of learning will certainly continue to change, most likely in relation to
perceived North-American and European teaching standards.
Globalization: Identities and identifications
Much recent theoretical writing about globalization has pointed out that the term
―globalization‖ is generally used in its nominalized form, but it is in fact a process ―in
motion‖ (Appadurai, 1996) with ties between place and culture continually de-
territorialized and re-territorialized (Tomlinson, 1999). Recent discussions of identity
have made similar points about the multiple selves and roles we create and re-create as
students and teachers of languages (Varghese, et. al, 2005; Ramanthan, 2007). In the
preceding chapters, I have connected these discussions of identity and globalization as
processes and pointed to examples of teachers, such as Wendy and Sue, and students such
as Dodo and Masgo, as examples of the dual processes of identity and globalizaiton in the
classrooms of CSU. In summary, the divergent education traditions, the creative uses of
English, and the multiple teaching roles taken up by local and foreign teachers all
illustrate processes in which students and teachers are continually moving outside of the
limits of their immediate surroundings and alternatively defining and maintaining images
of themselves in relation to global indexes.
220
In celebrating the triumph of the hybrid, global self, choosing from multiple
identities depending on context, we should consider refining the definition of identity to
draw more attention to the process of identity formation. As Bailey (2005) has pointed
out, the terms hybridity or hybrid identity are problematic in that they connote the
existence of the opposite, ―pure and coherent anterior systems‖ (p. 270). Hybridity can be
a useful and powerful term as a counter to essentialist positions prevalent in the dominant
discourses circulating in CSU policy and ―common sense‖ arguments about western and
Chinese culture, but the analysis presented in the data chapters moved away from
labeling any one practice, utterance, or position as simply representative of hybridity. In
this way, I have pointed out that CSU students and teachers do not just have multiple
identities, but what Bauman (2005) calls identifications. He writes:
Perhaps instead of talking about identities, inherited or acquired, it would be more
in keeping with the realities of the globalizing world to speak of identification, a
never-ending, always incomplete, unfinished and open-ended activity in which we
all, by necessity or by choice, are engaged. (Bauman, 2005, p. 453)
The students and teachers at CSU adopt so many discourses, ideas, and affiliations, even
within the course of one classroom that the term identity- even if defined as multiple and
contested- connotes a coherence that does not exist in any student or teacher at CSU, and
the use of a term such as identification draws attention to the unfinished work of all
identity processes in the English language classrooms at CSU including my own sense of
self as a teacher moving into a new physical and cultural space. This does not imply that
the term identity should be replaced with identification; rather, the process of
identification is part of the larger theoretical construct of identity. In their invocation of
―our China‖ and a common tradition, students and teachers reveal the power of a
common collective identity and it is important to continue examining identity as the
221
terms people use to ―label‖ themselves and their groups, but we must also continue to
examine identification as the process of defining these cover terms.
Returning to Guy‘s email the began the dissertation, he mentions his ambivalence
about learning English, ―To be honest, I don‘t think many Chinese students really love
English, include me… sometimes I found it interesting to use a language which is
different from my own, from which I can hide myself and ―translate‖ myself to be a
different person, another ego.‖ His words seem to refer directly to identity theories in
language learning, but more importantly, Guy represents many CSU students and
teachers who are responding to given realities and inherent power dynamics in the spread
of English as an international language. Guy has to learn English for his ―future,‖ CSU
feels that it must invite teachers and TESOL experts in order to align itself with the
―international community‖ and attract the best students, and local and foreign teachers
feel the need to accept and use a communicative approach to teaching and learning in
China as the ―present‖ fashionable method. Each of these stakeholders in the English
language learning project at CSU are making their choices based on dominant trends and
processes of globalization, and each group is ―translating‖ themselves and performing
new identifications that are not pre-determined but the process of globalization.
In examining globalization and identity processes in China, more longitudinal
studies of CSU students such as Dodo or Guy, particularly after they have graduated, can
reveal more learner responses to language norms and internationalization surges in
English language teaching over time. In addition, more in-depth survey and interview
studies can investigate what jobs CSU students are actually finding in China and beyond,
as well as how they are actually using English in their professions. This will help to
222
contextualize the goals and assumptions of ELD policy in the work realities of CSU
graduates. In one pilot interview not included in the dissertation chapters, I traveled to
Shenzhen, typically cited as an economic success story in China, and interviewed three
former graduates of CSU who work in international export companies in the area. All of
the students worked for bosses that did not speak English but had achieved great success
when the economy of southern China opened to international business in the 1980‘s. The
differences between the CSU students and their bosses who had not attended university
illustrate the rapid changes in Chinese society, and much more work needs to be done on
the how English as an international language is used at these businesses and how it can be
both an empowering tool helping students find jobs but also create tensions. In doing this
longitudinal work, we can continue to develop our conceptions of the identifications of
language learners and pursue research into the connections between language
socialization in divergent contexts over time and in multiple contexts.
ELT Pedagogy in China and beyond
Although language socialization models tend to imply that the appropriation of
target culture norms and practices is always desirable, virtuous, inevitable, and
complete, a greater range of possible intentions and outcomes actually exists,
including non-conformity, partial and multiple community memberships and
linguistic repertoires, and social exclusion. Seen in this way, knowledge and
participation in educational activities are co-constructed and are crucially linked
with issues of identity, agency, and difference. (Duff, 2002)
I began this dissertation concerned with my role as a foreign expert in China and
wary of the linguistic and cultural effects my teaching position may have. I considered
my teaching and researching CLT in the classrooms of CSU as an example of the
ideology of modernization according to Toleffson (1994), and a potential form of the
linguistic imperialism described by Philipson (1992), or worse the actions of a teacher of
223
a ―killer‖ language (Skutnab-Kangas, 2000). In the complexities and imaginations I
found in the classrooms at CSU, I argue that West-based theories and pedagogies of
language learning are certainly dominant and contribute to the relationships between
foreign teachers and students, but norms in language teaching, just as Duff (2002) notes
in terms of language socialization, are never inevitable nor purely one-sided and
imperialistic. Teachers and students at CSU are assigning new meanings and
interpretations to English and language pedagogy and the field of applied linguistics and
TESOL should investigate the conditional aspects of all classrooms, not simply the
assimilation or resistance of dominant theories and methods. Pedagogists such as
Kumaravadivelu (2006) and Kramsch (2007) have begun to articulate visions of the
―post-method‖ classroom, and the dissertation reinforces that a greater emphasis on
teachers as producers of meanings and knowledge in the field, not simply as readers and
receivers of ELT methods, is a necessary but still not completed move in our field.
In terms of actual ELT classroom practice, one clear implication based on the data
from student and teacher interactions in the classroom is the need to move away from
making every classroom encounter ―authentic‖ and connect to the perceived future
careers of students. Much of the literature on communicative language teaching has
focused on making classrooms ―real‖ and addressed play as perhaps a ―means‖ to
reaching practical real-world goals, but the data in Chapter 5 and 6 reveal that as
language teachers and researchers we should be concerned with making language
classroom represent the ―real‖ and ―imaginary‖ worlds and in defining the functional and
playful aspects in language learning tasks. The focus on language play as described in
Cook (2000) connects to Kramsch (2006)‘s pedagogy of reflexion as classrooms become
224
spaces in which students and teachers appropriate new meanings, standards, and uses for
languages, not as a ―means‖ to an end but as goal of classrooms in themselves.
In terms of teacher education, the teacher narratives, classroom observations, and
student journals on teachers and reform teaching point out the unfinished and ―in-
between‖ positions and practices of students and teachers at CSU, and I have proposed
that we make what Watson-Gegeo (2004b) calls the limit experiences, defined as
encounters in which our preconceived notions and knowledge of the world must be re-
categorized, as a central notion in teacher education curriculum. The data chapters 3, 4, 5,
and 6 analyzed the processes and practices in the language classroom when the limits and
identifications placed on cultures and languages become slippery for both students and
teachers, but in breaking down these limits new configurations of space, meaning, and
identity remained. Today, the field of ELT for many practicing teachers is oversaturated
with new methods and theories on language and teaching. Instead of focusing on theories
of language- be they structural or functional- and teaching methods- be they text-based,
communicative, or social semiotic- teacher-education materials and classes should
incorporate more ethnographic studies based in actual teaching and learning contexts.
These studies should not be considered as periphery applications and examples of a
theory or macro-strategy, but as the core reading and discussion for a course. Is this
possible? Would novice teachers feel empowered by the rich descriptions and action-
research studies of the realities of language learning, or would the de-centering of
theories and methods engender a feeling of helplessness, and ―what do I do Monday
morning‖ panic?
225
In the university M.A. TESOL program where I work, this shift has already
occurred with mostly positive results. Responding to the generalized and de-
contextualized classrooms in most TESOL methods books, instructors put together
reading packets for ELT methods classes that focus on ethnographies and action research
studies, and future teachers discuss in detail the appropriations of teaching methods and
English intelligibility standards around the globe. In these re-imagined teacher-
preparation classrooms, novice teachers look for themes and practices across settings, but
more importantly, they notice the unique tensions and heterogeneity of learners and
teachers in each context. They examine these ethnographies in terms of Watson-Gegeo‘s
(2004b) conception of the limit experiences encountered in daily teaching activities, and
they consider their own conceptions and assumptions about learning and the cultural
backgrounds of students. This emphasis on personal and local community meaning-
making in response to global flows of ideas, such as CLT, is an explicit attempt to show
teachers that local appropriation should be expected. In training teachers this way,
however, a common theoretical vocabulary is not ignored, but the focus is simply on
adapting theories to local contexts, not changing local contexts to fit a theory such as
communicative competence. Kumaravadivelu‘s (2004; 2006)‘s writing about post-
methodology offers complex orientations and good starting points for novice teachers to
this divide between global theories and local insights, and each writer is used extensively
in our program. As with all theories, however, the two writers import insights on teaching
are most useful when contextualized through the practices of local language teachers and
identities of teachers such as Sue, Wendy, Iris, Ann, and me as the classrooms presented
226
throughout the dissertation are inherently ―post-method‖ and draw on their personal
identity to inform their pedagogy.
Focusing teacher education on preparing for the limit experiences of teaching as
well as the post-method condition reinforces the notion that no one theory or method
works for or explains every given context. In adopting these alternative frameworks for
teacher education, language teachers and researchers need to remember that all teaching
is not only about the choices and experiences of individual students and teachers in
independent classrooms. Rather, the process of teacher identifications is about the
discussions and dialogues of teachers as a community, not as individual teachers acting
alone uninfluenced by local teaching policies and discussions. In placing limit
experiences as more central to teacher education, we need to expand our understanding of
these experiences as part of the practices of entire thought collectives (c.f. Ramanathan,
2002)
As a final implication in relation to ELT pedagogy and practices, the data chapters
here point out again the power of pedagogy that is based in issues and topics from the
community and pertinent to the experiences of students in a given context, similar to calls
for community-based pedagogy by teacher-researchers such as Morgan (1998), Benesch
(2001), and Canagarajah (2003). Using Chinese English names as a topic for students to
write about and research was just one of the many topics I used connecting issues and
choices in student lives to classroom activities. Drawing attention to a topic such as the
choice of English names in China is important in particular because it is inevitable in the
Chinese context that students will have considered choosing an English name in their past
227
learning, and it is a relevant entry point to larger discussion of language standards and
norms.
In closing
In so far as globalization can be represented at all, it is through the contradictory
pluralities of such enforced in-betweenness and the tactics of serious play to
which it give rise. Glimpsed, but not grasped. (Perry, 1998, qtd. in Edwards &
Usher, 2008).
The image of ―in-bewtweenness‖ can be troubling for SLA and applied linguistics
as sub-fields of social science departments that strive to make accurate definitions and
models of social life. Similar to the above quote about globalization processes, talk of
glimpses may strike some linguists as something far too vague to help in representing
how language works in our minds, something for cultural studies not linguistics.
Returning to the metaphor of the rhizome, Ramanathan (2007) describes researching and
identity processes as lacking fixed roots and being taken up again and again, extensions
of meanings without fixed origins. As a practicing teacher, I have often heard the call by
teachers who want concrete examples of what works and what does not, but in closing
this dissertation, I wonder if the metaphor of the rhizome might be useful in capturing
what actually does happen in teaching departments such as the English language
department at CSU. In the face of such complexity and the globalizing and localizing
currents found in CSU policy and student and teacher responses, framing our teaching in
terms of unfinished processes is not going to solve the tensions, myths, and discrepancies
between policies and practices, but as part of a the reconstruction of a new discourse of
education, it is a start.
In addition to continuing to build discourses of teaching and identity as inherently
―in-between‖ processes, follow-up ethnographies of similar universities in China or
228
elsewhere in the East Asian or Southeast Asian context could be revealing. As one point
of interest, it appears that students in Chinese language contexts (Taiwan and the PRC)
are the only students to have take such creative names in language classes. In discussions
with teachers and students in Korea, Japan, and Vietnam, I have never heard of similar
phenomena or playful adaptations of English names. To be sure, language play is part of
these classrooms and learning cultures (Sullivan, 2001), but why do only Chinese
students appear to appropriate naming practices? In addition, comparisons of divergent
English language programs, both in the Asian EFL or North-American ESL context will
help to more fully develop our glimpses and notions of globalization and language
teaching.
I end by pointing out that at CSU much of the policy and methods for teaching
were introduced from so called experts that did not teach or live at CSU, and a major
point of the project has been to reveal that teachers and students at CSU and similar ELT
contexts should have a more prominent role in choosing the pedagogy and curriculum at
CSU or any other EFL/ESL. CSU teachers and students know infinitely more than local
or foreign administrators about student needs, including how to use language
communicatively and how to lead a moral life. As stated throughout the dissertation,
these stakeholders should be the ―true‖ engine that drives English language teaching at
CSU.
229
References
Adamson, B. (2004). China’s English: A history of English in Chinese education. Hong
Kong: HKU Press.
Adejunmobi, M. (2004). Vernacular palaver: Imaginations of the local and non-native
languages in West Africa. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
Ager, Dennis (2003) Ideology and image: Britain and language. Buffalo: Multilingual
Matters.
Anderson, B. (1983/2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread
of nationalism, new edition. New York: Verso.
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Appadurai, A. (2001). Grassroots globalization and the research imagination. In
Appadurai, A. (Ed.), Globalization (1-21). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Atkinson, D. (2003). Writing and culture in the post-process era. Journal of second
language writing 12, 49-63.
Bailey, B. (2007). Heteroglossia and boundaries. In Heller, M. (Ed.), Bilingualism: A
social approach ( ) New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bahktin, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin. (Ed. M.
Holquist). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Barthes, R. (1957/1972). Mythologies. London: Hill and Wang.
Bauman, Z. (2005). Identity in the globalizing world. In Shapiro, S. & Purpel, D. (Eds.),
Critical social issues in American education: Democracy and meaning in a globalizing
world (443-454). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics, and
practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Press.
Bell, D. & Chaibong, H. (Eds.). (2003). Confucianism for the modern world. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bell, D. (2008). China’s new Confucianism: Politics and everyday life in a changing
society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Block, D. & Cameron, D. (Eds.) (2002). Globalization and language teaching. New
York: Routledge.
230
Blommaert, J. (Ed.). (1999). Language ideological debates. New York: De Gruyter.
Blommaert, J. (2005a). Situating language rights: English in and Swahili in Tanzania
revisited Journal of Sociolinguistics 9, 390-417.
Blommaert, J. (2005b). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Blommaert, J. & Verschueren, J. (1998). Debating diversity: analyzing the discourse of
tolerance. New York: Routledge.
Bolten, K. (2002). Chinese Englishes: From Canton jargon to global English. World
Englishes, 21(2), 181-199.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Breen, M.P. & Candlin, C. (1980). The essentials of a communicative curriculum in
language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 89-112
Brown, D. (2006). Principles of language learning and teaching, 5th
edition. White
Plains, NY: Pearson.
Brumfit, C. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching: The roles of
fluency and accuracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York:
Routledge.
Burawoy, M. (2000). Introduction: Reaching for the Global. In Burawoy, M. (Ed.),
Global ethnography : forces, connections, and imaginations in a postmodern world (5-
20). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Canagarajah, S. (1999). Safe houses in the contact zone: Coping strategies. TESOL
Quarterly 33(3): 349–70.
Canagarajah, S. (2002). Globalization, methods, and practice in periphery classrooms.
In Block, D. & Cameron, D. (Eds.) Globalization and language teaching (134-150).
New York: Routledge.
Canagarajah, S. (2003). Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan Press.
231
Canagarajah, S. (Ed.) (2005a). Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice.
Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Canagarjah, S. (2005b). Accommodating tensions in language-in-education policies: An
afterward. In Lin, A.L. & Martin, P. (Eds.), Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-
in-education policy and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.) (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd
ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative
analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Charmaz, K. & Bryant, A. (2007). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
College English Curriculum Requirements. (2004). Beijing: Ministry of Education Press.
Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cortazzi, M. & Jin, L. (2002). Cultures of learning: the social construction of
educational identities. In Li, D. (Ed.), Discourses in search of members (47-75).
Lanham: University Press of America.
Cortazzi, M. & Jin, L. (2006). Changing practices in Chinese cultures of learning.
Language, Culture, and Curriculum 19(1), 5-20.
Crokett, T. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London:
Longman.
Cresswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Clevendon: Multilingual
Matters.
Dey, (1999). Grounding grounded theory. London: Academic Press.
Duff, P. (2002). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and difference:
An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics
23(3), 289-322.
232
―Confucius makes a comeback: Reassessing China‘s great sage.‖ (May 17 2007). The
Economist. Retrieved June 18, 2008 from www.economist.com
Edge, J. (Ed.) (2001). Case studies in TESOL practice series: action research.
Arlington, VA: Kirby Lithographic.
Edge, J. (2006). (re)locating TESOL in an age of empire. New York: Palgrave.
Edwards, R. (2006). What‘s in a name? Chinese learners and the practice of adopting
‗English‘ Names. Language, Culture, and Curriculum 19(1), 90-103.
Edwards, R. & Usher, R. (2008). Globalisation and pedagogy, 2nd
edition. New York:
Routledge.
Elbow, P. (1993). Ranking, evaluating, and liking: Sorting out three forms of judgment.
College English 55, 187-206.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: OUP.
Evans, C. (2006). The great big book of baby names: A complete guide from A to Z. New
York: Publications International, Ltd.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: textual analysis for social scientists.
London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2006). Language and globalization. London: Routledge.
Ferris, D. & Hedgcock, J. (1998). Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, process, and
practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.
Ferris, D. (2005). Reflections of a ‗blue-collar linguist:‘ Analysis of written discourse,
classroom research, and EAP pedagogy. In Bruthiaux, P. et. al. (Eds.).
Directions in applied linguistics (91-100). Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
Flaitz, J. (Ed.) (2003). Understanding your international students. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews & other writings, 1972-
1977. New York: Pantheon Books.
Gee, J.P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. New York:
Falmer Press.
Gee, J.P. (1992). The social mind: Language ideology, and social practice. New York:
233
Bergin and Garvey.
Gee, J.P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New
York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for
qualitative research. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Glaser, B. & Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. London: Sage.
Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Mill
Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London, Edward
Arnold.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (Ed.). (1991). Assessing second language writing in academic contexts.
Norwood NJ: Ablex.
Hamp-Lyons, L. & Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the portfolio: Principles for practice,
theory, and research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Hasan, R. (2003). Globalization, literacy, and ideology. World Englishes 22(4), 433-448.
Henze, R. (2005). Metaphors of diversity, intergroup relations, and equity in the
discourse of educational leaders. JLIE 4(4), 243-267.
Hessler, P. (2001). River town: Two years of the Yangtze. New York: Harper Collins.
Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the four skills. TESOL, 40, 109-131.
Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge: CUP.
Hulburt, A. (April 20 2007). Re-education. The New York Times. Retrieved March 23,
2008, from http://www.nytimes.com
Hu, G. (2005). Contextual influences on instructional practices: A Chinese case for an
ecological approach to ELT. TESOL 39, 635-660.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In Pride, J. & Holmes, J. (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics: Selected readings. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
Jin, L. & Cortazzi, M. (1998). Dimensions of dialogue: large classes in China.
International Journal of Educational Research 29, 739-761.
234
Jin, L. & Cortazzi, D. (2002). English language teaching in China: A bridge to the future.
Asia Pacific Journal 22(2), 53-64.
Kachru, Braj. B. (1986) The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models of
non-native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kramsch, C. (2006). The Multilingual Subject. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics 16(1), 97–110.
Kramsch, K. (2007). The uses of communicative competence in a global world. In Liu, J.
(Ed.). English language teaching in China: New approaches, perspectives, and
standards (55-74). London: Continuum.
Krostisky, P. (2000). Regimes of language. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research
Press.
Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied
linguistics research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 9-35.
Kumarvadivelu, B. (2003a). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching.
New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Kumarvadivelu, B. (2003b). Problematizing Cultural Stereotypes in TESOL. TESOL
Quarterly 37, 709-719.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006a). Understanding language teaching: From method to
postmethod. New York: Routledge.
Kumaravadiveliu, B. (2006b). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends.
TESOL, 40, 59-81.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its
challenge to western thought. New York: Harper Collins.
Lam, W.S. Lam (1999). The Question of Culture in Global English
Language Teaching: A Postcolonial Perspective. In Lydia H. Liu (ed.) Tokens of
Exchange: Translation, Representation, and Global Circulations (374-397). Durham:
Duke University Press.
Lee, J. (2001, February 11). China Youth Take Names From West: Hi Medusa! The New
York Times. Retrieved March 23, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com
235
Li, S. & Thompson, R. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Liao, S. (2007). Unpublished manuscript.
Lin, A.L. & Martin, J. (2005). From a critical deconstruction paradigm to a critical
construction paradigm: An introduction to decolonisation, globalisation, and language-
in-education policy and practice. In Lin, A.L. & Martin, J. (2005). (Eds.).
Decolonisation, Globalisation: Language-in- education policy and practice. Clevedon,
Avon; Multilingual Matters.
Louie, A. (2007). Chineseness across boarders: Renegotiating Chinese identities in
China and the United States. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Luke, A. (2004). Two takes on the critical. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.). Critical
pedagogy and language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Macaro, E. (2001). Learning strategies in foreign and second language classrooms.
London: Continuum.
Mackay, S. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and
Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackay, S. (2006). Researching second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Press.
Makoni, S. & Pennycook, A. (Eds.). (2007). Disinventing and reconstituting languages.
Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
Menard-Warwick, J. (2004). ―I always had the desire to progress a little‖: Gendered
narratives of immigrant language learners. JLIE 3(4), 295-311.
Menard-Warwick, J. (2005). Transgression narratives, dialogic voicing, and cultural
change. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9(4), 533-556.
Menard-Warwick, J. (2007). ―My little sister had a disaster, she had a baby‖: Gendered
performance, relational identities, and dialogic voicing. Narrative Inquiry, 17(2),
279-297.
McPherron, P. (2005). Assumptions in assessment: The role of the teacher in evaluating
ESL students. CATESOL Journal 17(1), 35-50.
Mignolo, W. (2000). Local histories/global designs: Coloniality, subaltern
knowledges, and border thinking. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Milroy, J. (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal
236
of Sociolinguistics 5(4), 530-555.
Mines, L., Loewenbury, S. & Li, M. (2006, Summer). Lost in Translation. Retrieved
March 11, 2008, from http://www.sexybeijing.tv/new/video.asp?id=15
Morgan, B. & Ramanathan, V. (2005). Critical literacies and language education: Global
and local perspectives. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25, 151-169.
Morgan, B. (1998). The ESL classroom: Teaching, critical practice, and community
development. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Morgan, B. (2004). Teacher identity as pedagogy: Towards a field internal
conceptualization in bilingual and second language education. Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism 7(2&3), 172-188.
Nino-Murcia, M. (2003). ―English is like a dollar‖: Hard currency ideology and the status
of English in Peru. World Englishes 22(2), 123-143
Noddings, N. (2002). Starting at Home. Caring and social policy. Berkeley: University
of California Press
Norton, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL 29(1), 9-
31.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and educational
change. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: CUP.
Nunan, D. (2005). Task-based language teaching. Oxford: OUP.
Nunes, A. (2004). Portfolios in the EFL classroom: disclosing an informed practice. ELT
Journal 58(4), 327-335.
Oxford English-Chinese pocket dictionary. (2005). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pennycook, A. (1994). A cultural politics of English as an international language.
London: Longman.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pennycook, A. (2003). Global Englishes, Rip Slyme, and performativity. Journal of
Sociolinguistics 7(4), 513-533.
Pennycook, A. (2007. The myth of English as an international language. In Makoni, S.
237
& Pennycook, A. (Eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages (90-115). Buffalo:
Multilingual Matters.
Phan, L.H. (2005). Toward a critical notion of appropriation of English as an
international language [Electronic version]. Asian EFL Journal Vol. 7(3).
Phan, L.H. & Phan, V.Q. (2006). Vietnamese educational morality and the discursive
construction of English language teacher identity. Journal of Multilingual Discourses,
136-151.
Phillipson, R. (1993). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: OUP.
Ramanathan, V. (2002). The politics of TESOL education: Writing, knowledge, and
critical pedagogy. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Ramanathan, V. (2005). The English-Vernacular divide. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
Ramanathan, V. (2006). Of texts AND translations AND rhizomes: Postcolonial anxieties
AND deracinations AND knowledge constructions. Critical Inquiry in Language
Studies, 3(4), 223–244.
Ramanthan, V. & Morgan, M. (2007). TESOL and policy enactments: Perspectives from
policy. TESOL Quarterly 41(3), 447-463.
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. New York: Palgrave.
Richards, J. & Rogers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching.
Cambridge: CUP.
Ricento, T. (2005). Considerations of Identity in L2 Learning. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.),
Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 895-910).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ricento, T. (2006). (Ed.). An introduction to language policy: Theory and method.
Hobokken, NJ: Blackwell.
Rymes, B. (1986). Naming as social practice: The case of Little Creeper from Diamond
Street. Language in Society, 25, 237-260.
Said, E. (1979). Orientalism. New York: Vintage.
Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Savignon, S. (2001). Communicative Language Teaching. In Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.).
Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd
ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
238
Scollon, S. (1999). Not to waste words or students: Confucian and Socratic discourse in
the tertiary classroom. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and
learning (13-27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sherrod, M, & Rayback, M. (2008). Bad Baby Names: The Worst True Names Parents
Saddled Their Kids With, and You Can Too! New York: MyFamily.com, Inc.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & Phillipson, R. (Eds.). (1995). Linguistic Human Rights:
Ovecoming Linguistic Discrimination. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic Genocide in Education- or worldwide diversity
and human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2006). Language policy and linguistic human rights. In Ricento, T.
(Ed.). An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (273-291). Hobokken,
NJ: Blackwell.
Song, B. & August, B. (2002). Using portfolios to assess the writing of ESL students: a
powerful alternative? Journal of Second Language Writing 11, 49-72.
Spivak, G. & Harasym, S. (1990). The post-colonial critic: Interviews, strategies,
dialogues. London: Routledge.
Silverstein, M. (1996). Monoglot ‗standard‘ in America: Standardization and metaphors
of linguistic hegemony. In Brenneis, D. & Macaulay, R. (Eds.). The Matrix of
Language: Contemporary Linguistic Anthropology (284-306). Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: CUP.
Social Security Administration Online (2007, May 11) Popular Baby Names. Retrieved
March 23, 2008, from http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/
Thompson, (1990).
Steger, M. (2005). Globalism: Market ideology meets terrorism, 2nd
edition. Oxford:
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Sullivan, P. (2000). Playfulness as mediation in communicative language teaching in a
Vietnamese classroom. In Lantolf, J. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language
learning (115-132), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tollefson, J. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality. New York: Longman.
Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalization and culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
239
Timm, L. (2000). Language ideologies in Brittany, with Implications for Breton
Language Maintenance and Pedagogy. In Sutcliffe, R.F.E. & Néill, G.O. (Eds.), The
Information Age, Celtic Languages, and the New Millennium (147-154). Limerick,
Ireland: University of Limerick Press.
Thompson, J.B. (1990). Ideology and modern culture. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Thompson, R. (2006). Bilingual, bicultural, and binominal identities: Personal name
investment and the imagination in the lives of Korean Americans. JLIE, 5(3), 179-208.
Tierney, J. (2008, March 11). A Boy Named Sue, and a Theory of Names. The New York
Times. Retrieved March 23, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com
Tsing, A. (2001). The global situation. In Scott, J. & Keates, D. (Eds.), (2001). Schools of
thought: twenty-five years of interpretive social science. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Varghese, M., Morgan, B, Johnston, B., & Johnson, K. (2005). Theorizing language
teacher identity: three perspectives and beyond. Journal of Language, Identity, and
Education 4(1), 21-44.
Vencat, E.F. (August 20 2007). The Race is on. Newsweek International Edition.
Retrieved June 18, 2008, from http://newsweek.com
Watson-Gegeo, K. (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials. TESOL 22,
575-592.
Watson-Gegeo, K. (2004a). Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward a language
socialization paradigm for SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 331-350.
Watson-Gegeo, K. (2004b). A different world: Embodied experience and linguistic
relativity on the epistemological path to somewhere. Anthropology of consciousness
15(2), 1-23.
Wines, M. (2007, October 1). In a Land of Homemade Names, Tiffany Doesn‘t Cut It.
The New York Times. Retrieved March 23, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com
240
Appendix
Interview questions
Questions for current ELD Students
Why did you come to [CSU]?
你为什么来XX大学呢?
Did you know about [ELD] classes before you came to [CSU]? Can you remember your
expectations of [ELD] classes? Explain please.
来XX前你了解英语语言中心的课程吗?你记得你对英语语言中心课程的期望吗?请解释
What [ELD] classes have your taken?
你选了英语语言中心的哪些课程呢
Describe what you do in your [ELD] classes.
请描述你在英语语言中心课程的课堂上做的事情
Is there a difference between the local and foreign teachers in class? Please explain.
本土老师和外教在课堂上有区别吗?
请解释
Why did you pick the [ELD] class that you are currently taking? Time period, teacher,
location? Explain.
你为什么选择你现在正在修的英语语言中心课程的课的呢,基于哪些方面的考虑?
时间,老师还是地点?
请解释
Please describe what a good English teacher does in class.
请描述一个好的英语老师在课堂上做什么。
Do you think that an English teacher should teach you about culture, both Chinese and
from English-speaking countries? Please explain.
你认为一个好的英语老师应该讲授文化吗,包括中国文化和英语国家文化。
请解释。
Do you think that an English teacher should also serve as a moral role-model? Please
explain.
你认为一个英语老师应是道德模范吗?
请解释
What did you like about studying English at [CSU]? What did you not like?
你喜欢在XX大学学习英语的哪些方面,又有哪些方面不喜欢呢?
If you could change one thing about the [ELD] classes, what would you change?
241
如果你能改变英语语言中心课程的一件事。你会改变什么呢?
Do you think that English should someday be the main medium of instruction at [CSU]?
Explain.
你认为英语有一天成为XX大学教学的主要媒介吗
What is your opinion of the lectures given by foreign guests at [CSU]? Do you think that
the lectures should be translated into Chinese?
你对外国客人在XX大做的讲座怎么看呢?
你认为应该讲讲座翻译成中文吗
If English were an optional course at [CSU], would you still have chosen to learn
English? Why or why not?
如果在大英语是门选修课,你还会选择去学英语吗?
为什么呢
Do you have an English name? If yes, could you describe how you got your name and
what it means to you?
你有英语名字吗?如果有,请描述你是怎样取这个名字的,它对你意味着什么呢?
When do you use English now in your daily life? At work? In your personal life?
在现在的日常生活中你什么时候使用英语呢?工作中,还是个人生活中?
At this point, is knowing English important for your career or personal development?
Which skills are most important if any, i.e. writing, speaking, etc.? Please explain.
懂英语对你的职业和个体发展重要吗?
如果重要,哪项是最重要的呢,写,说或其他?请解释
Please add any additional comments on English learning and use in your life below.
请写出你对英语学习和应用的任何看法
Questions for former ELD students
Why did you come to [CSU] University?
你为什么来XX大学呢?
Did you know about [ELD] classes before you came to [CSU]? Can you remember your
expectations of [ELD] classes? Explain please.
来XX前你了解英语语言中心的课程吗?你记得你对英语语言中心课程的期望吗?请解释
What [ELD] classes have your taken?
你选了英语语言中心的哪些课程呢
Please describe what you did in your [ELD] classes.
242
请描述你在英语语言中心课课堂上做了什么
Please describe what a good English teacher does in class.
请描述一个好的英语老师在课堂上做什么。
Do you think that an English teacher should teach you about culture, both Chinese and
from English-speaking countries? Please explain.
你认为一个好的英语老师应该讲授文化吗,包括中国文化和英语国家文化。
请解释。
Do you think that an English teacher should also serve as a moral role-model? Please
explain.
你认为一个英语老师应是道德模范吗?
请解释
Did you have foreign and local teachers? For which classes?
你有上过外教或本地老师的课吗。
是哪级呢
Was there a difference between the local and foreign teachers? Explain.
本地老师和外教有区别吗。
请解释
How did you pick the [ELD] classes that you took? Time period, teacher, location?
Explain please.
你是怎么选英语语言中心的课的呢,基于哪些因素的考虑?时间,老师,地点?
请解释
What did you like about studying English at [CSU]? What did you not like?
你喜欢在XX大学学习英语的哪些方面,又有哪些方面不喜欢呢?
If you could change one thing about the [ELD] classes, what would you change?
如果你能改变英语语言中心课程的一件事。你会改变什么呢?
Do you think that English should someday be the main medium of instruction at [CSU]?
Explain.
你认为英语有一天成为XX大学教学的主要媒介吗
If English were an optional course at [CSU], would you still have chosen to learn
English? Why or why not?
如果在XX大英语是门选修课,你还会选择去学英语吗?
为什么呢
Do you have an English name? If yes, could you describe how you got your name and
what it means to you?
你有英语名字吗?如果有,请描述你是怎样取这个名字的,它对你意味着什么呢?
Where are you working now or where are you looking for work?
243
你现在在哪里工作呢?或你要去哪里找工作呢?
When do you use English now in your daily life? At work? In your personal life?
在现在的日常生活中你什么时候使用英语呢?工作中,还是个人生活中?
Do you continue to study English? How?
你会继续学习英语吗?怎样学呢?
At this point, is knowing English important for your career or personal development?
Which skills are most important if any, i.e. writing, speaking, etc.? Please explain.
懂英语对你的职业和个体发展重要吗?
如果重要,哪项是最重要的呢,写,说或其他?
请解释
Please add any additional comments on English learning and use in your life below.
请写出你对英语学习和应用的任何看法
Questions for local English teachers
How did you become an English teacher?
你是如何成为一名英语老师的?
What were your English classes like in college/high school?
你大学/高中的英语课是什么样子的?
Were you trained in language teaching methods at university? Please explain.
你在大学接受过语言教学方法的培训吗?
Why did you come to teach at [CSU]?
你为什么来XX大教书?
Describe your teaching style. What do you do in the classroom?
请描述你的教学方式
你在课堂上做什么呢
Have you changed your teaching style since the reform program at [CSU] started in
2002? Please explain.
自2002年XX大改革计划实施以来你改变了你的教学方式吗?
请解释
Do any of the tasks in your classroom follow Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
or Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT)? Which ones? What is your opinion of these
methods?
你的课堂任务有按交际语言教学(CLT) 或任务驱动式教学(TBLT) 拟定吗?
如果有,是按照哪一个呢?你怎么看这些教学方法呢?
244
Do you think that there is a difference between the local and foreign teachers‘
classrooms? Explain.
你认为本土老师和外教的课堂有差别吗?
请解释
Do you think that an English teacher should teach about culture, either Chinese and/or the
culture of English-speaking countries? Please explain.
你认为一个好的英语老师应该讲授文化吗,包括中国文化和英语国家文化。
请解释。
Do you think that an English teacher serves as a moral role-model and guide as well as a
teacher? Please explain.
你认为一个英语老师应是道德模范吗?
请解释
Do you allow Chinese to be spoken in your class? When, why, how much?
你允许你的课堂上讲中文吗?什么时候,为什么,讲多少呢?
Do you have an English name? If so, how did you choose your name?
你有英文名字吗?如果有,你是怎么取这个名字的呢?
Do you usually use the students‘ English or Chinese names in class? Why or why not?
课堂上你常用学生的英文名还是中文名?
为什么?
Why do you think that some students use creative English names such as X-boy or
Shadow?
你对有些学生取富有创意的的英语名字如X-boy 或者Shadow怎么看呢?
In what ways do you think that students will use English in their future, both
professionally and personally?
你认为学生在他们将来的职业和个人生活中会以什么样的方式运用英语呢?
If English were an optional course at [CSU], do you think that most students would still
choose to take [ELD] courses? Why or why not?
如果英语在XX大是选修课,你认为大多数学生还会选择英语语言中心的课程吗?
为什么?
Do you think that English should be the main medium of instruction at [CSU]? Please
explain.
你认为英语有一天成为XX大学教学的主要媒介吗
What is your opinion of the lectures given by foreign guests at [CSU]? Do you think that
the lectures should be translated into Chinese?
你对外国客人在XX大做的讲座怎么看?你认为讲座应该翻译成中文吗?
245
Please add any additional comments on English learning and teaching in [CSU].
请写出你对英语学习和应用的任何看法
Questions for foreign teachers
How/Why did you become an English teacher?
Were you trained in language teaching methods before coming to China? Which ones?
Why did you come to teach at [CSU] at the [ELD]?
Did you know about [ELD] classes before you came to [CSU]? Can you remember your
expectations of [ELD] classes? Explain please.
What have been some of the biggest difficulties for you in terms of teaching or living
here in [CSU]?
Describe your teaching style. What do you do in the classroom?
Have you changed your teaching style since coming to teach at [CSU]? Please explain.
Do any of the tasks in your classroom follow Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
or Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT)? Which ones? What is your opinion of these
methods?
Do you think that an English teacher should teach you about culture, either Chinese
and/or the culture of English-speaking countries? Please explain.
Do you think that an English teacher serves as a role-model and guide as well as a
teacher? Please explain.
Do you think that there is a difference between the local and foreign teachers‘
classrooms? Explain.
Do you allow Chinese to be spoken in your class? When, why, how much?
Do you usually use the students‘ English or Chinese names in class? Why or why not?
Why do you think that some students use creative English names such as X-boy or
Shadow?
In what ways do you think that students will use English in their future, both
professionally and personally?
246
If English were an optional course at [CSU], do you think that most students would still
choose to take [ELD] courses? Why or why not?
Do you think that English should be the main medium of instruction at [CSU]? Please
explain.
What is your opinion of the lectures given by foreign guests at [CSU]? Do you think that
the lectures should be translated into Chinese?
Please add any additional comments on English learning and teaching in [CSU].