Alan WatersAlan WatersLancaster University, UK

My early TEFL training: realia as a teaching aid … h I k d f d I h d bor how I woke up and found I had become a neo-

colonialist!

‘Realia were … used to exemplify the meanings and concepts of language. They were thus the p g g ybasic stimuli to guide the students’ adoption of new behaviour…’ (Holliday 2005: 49-50).

‘… [I see here] a parallel … with the trinkets offered by Western explorers to the ‘natives’ of aoffered by Western explorers to the natives of a foreign shore where there was thought to be no shared civilization’ (ibid: 50).

2

All forms of ELT pedagogy are political butAll forms of ELT pedagogy are political, but some are more political than others…◦ Bottom-up pedagogical beliefs, based on

classroom realitiesvs.

◦ Top-down, theoretical beliefs which exclude theTop down, theoretical beliefs which exclude the practitioner perspective

How it has happened the problems itHow it has happened, the problems it causes, and how to ‘stop the rot’…

3

‘Critical theory’ (CT) = application of MarxistCritical theory (CT) = application of Marxist perspective to analysis of socio-cultural structures (Browne 2006)structures (Browne 2006)Power imbalances occur by exercise of h b f lhegemony by more powerful groupsNew policies/practices needed to remedy e po c es/p act ces eeded to e edyproblemCurrently dominant intellectual socio politicalCurrently dominant intellectual socio-political viewpoint, especially in academe

4

CT in ELT:CT in ELT:

1. (Perceived) hegemony of EIL (Phillipson 1992)

2. Re-evaluation of ELT pedagogy (e.g., Pennycook 1994, Canagarajah 1999, McKay 2004, Holliday

d )2005, Edge 2006)

‘Standard’ ELT methods seen as prone to politically unacceptable power imbalances

Overweening advocacy of e.g., ‘critical languageOverweening advocacy of e.g., critical language awareness’, ‘authenticity’, ‘learner-centredness’, etc.

5

✗‘There is nothing wrong with current ELT✗ There is nothing wrong with current ELT pedagogy as it exists in most language teaching situations’teaching situations

✗‘There is nothing of value in alternative✗ There is nothing of value in alternative, CT-based teaching ideas’

What I am saying:

✔✔The CT critique of ELT pedagogy throws the baby out with the bathwater

6

Learners should understand the perceivedLearners should understand the perceived hegemony of EIL (Bolitho et al 2003)‘A critical approach to language learning is helpful for all types of student; English l l hlanguage learners everywhere can engage with arguments about … the hegemony of E li h i t ti l l fEnglish as an international language, for instance’ (Simpson 2009: 428).

7

Fabrício and Santos 2006Fabrício and Santos 2006 Brazilian state high school class of 35 learners aged 10-11learners, aged 10 11Normal approach, i.e:

‘ h i d t t li d l◦ ‘an emphasis on decontextualized language, characterized primarily in terms of its structural components’ p

replaced with◦ one ‘in which English was to be approached by, g pp y

above all, its socio-cultural and political dimensions’ (Fabrício & Santos 2006: 75)

8

11 T … You have noticed here / in these Brazilian11 T … You have noticed here / in these Brazilian12 magazine and newspaper articles / an exaggerated

use of English13 words? // Why do we use ‘hot dogs’ when we have13 words? // Why do we use hot dogs when we have

the word14 ‘cachorro quente'? //15 SI B ti it k thi15 SI Because sometimes it makes things more

simple. For example,16 'shopping center' and 'centro de compras' //17 S2 I think that we use English because English is a

universal18 language //18 language //19 S3 Because it's nicer //

(ibid: 76)

9

29 T If you put the title ‘Novo jornalismo brasileiro' on a magazine cover /

30 and you put 'New journalism' on the cover of another magazine //30 and you put New journalism on the cover of another magazine //31 It's the same magazine the same content / only the cover is different32 // Which one will sell more? =33 Ss The one in English33 Ss = The one in English.34 T Why?35 S5 (looking at the teacher) The person will get engaged more easily /36 She will think it's more interesting =37 S6 = (looking at peers) People think that the quality of things that

come38 from abroad is better than what is ours /39 S7 (looking at peers) I think people value what comes from abroad

and40 do not value our culture =41 T = That's it!42 Ss (claps)( p )

(ibid: 77)

10

Lessons did not appear to contribute toLessons did not appear to contribute to learning of L2‘This approach necessarily involved the use ofThis approach necessarily involved the use of students' L1 as the medium of communication’ (ibid: 75-76) – i e thecommunication (ibid: 75 76) i.e., the lesson excerpts are translationsAn L1 introduction to critical discourseAn L1 introduction to critical discourse analysisPrimary need for increased knowledge ofPrimary need for increased knowledge of system and use of English suborned

11

Am I just ‘cherry-picking??Am I just cherry-picking??1. Study set in ‘heartland’, not periphery, of

ELT world2 English to be taught ‘above all’ in terms of2. English to be taught above all in terms of

its political dimensionsP bli h d i th it ti ll ti f3. Published in an authoritative collection of papers (Edge 2006)i.e., a major statement of re-direction

12

Authenticity as a ‘moral imperative’ (Clarke 1989)Authenticity as a moral imperative (Clarke 1989)

Matches anti-’authority figure’ stance of CT

◦ ‘We know from our knowledge of our first language that in most textbook discourse we are getting something which is concocted for us and may therefore rightlywhich is concocted for us, and may therefore rightly resent being disempowered by teachers or materials writers who, on apparently laudable ideological grounds, appear to know better Information or knowledge aboutappear to know better. Information or knowledge about language should never be held back; the task is to make it available, without artificial restrictions, in ways which answer most learners’ needs’ (Carter andwhich answer most learners needs (Carter and McCarthy 1996: 369).

13

Ideologically-motivated practitioners vsIdeologically-motivated practitioners vs. ‘disempowered’ learners?BUT some aspects of language knowledge can be too confusing/daunting -> ‘holding back’

lcan empower learnersNatural for learners to assume teachers ‘know atu a o ea e s to assu e teac e s obetter’Practitioner awareness of pragmatics ofPractitioner awareness of pragmatics of classroom vs. ideological preconception

14

…”’Do you understand?’ is the most direct and honest… Do you understand? is the most direct and honest way we check understanding in real life, so - if the same conditions of authenticity and sincerity are operating in the classroom (which I argue they should p g ( g ybe) - then it may make a lot of sense if, when in doubt, teachers simply stop and ask, hand on heart, ‘Do you understand?’. The reason such direct yquestions were proscribed in the past is that the classroom was never considered to be a place where communication could be authentic, hence students ,were not trusted to give honest answers, especially when questions were motivated by fear rather than a sincere desire to register the current state of your g yinterlocutor's understanding” (Thornbury 2004 December 8).

15

Ignores typical interpersonal psychology of classroom

Learners often feel compelled to behave in ‘distrustful’/’dishonest’ ways (Prabhu 1992, Allwright / y ( , g1996 & 1998)

Teachers ignore ‘unwritten rules’ at their perilTeachers ignore unwritten rules at their peril

‘Inauthentic’ use of language a better check

See also, e.g., Hutchinson and Waters 1987: 158-160; Bell and Gower 1998: 127-128; Richards 2006: 26; Widd 2003 Ch 9Widdowson 2003: Ch. 9

Top-down political perspective imposed on pedagogy

16

‘Curriculum development becomes aCurriculum development becomes a collaborative effort between teachers and learners, since learners will be involved in ,decisions on content selection, methodology and evaluation’ (Nunan 2004: 15)

✗‘Teacher-centred’ approach (‘teacher as di t ’)director’)

✔‘Learner-centred’ approach (‘teacher as✔ Learner-centred approach ( teacher as facilitator’)

17

Rationale based on a priori assertion vs. empirical evidence◦ ‘The notion that different learners have differentThe notion that different learners have different

communicative requirements, and that these ought to be reflected, both in the content of the curriculum… and learning processes… was also reinforced by an ideological shift in focus away from the teacher and the textbook and toward thefrom the teacher and the textbook and toward the learner’ (Nunan 1999: 10 – my italics).

Teacher/textbook seen as automatically inTeacher/textbook seen as automatically in hegemonic relationship with learner

18

In learner-centred approach:

◦ Learners may choose inappropriate contenty pp p

◦ It may be necessary to teach what learners do not want to learn (Hutchinson 2002)

Teacher-centred approach a better match for typical prevailing educational ethos

◦ ‘classrooms are governed by an “educational imperative” [Goffman 1981] which dictates the kind of discourse that arises’ (Ellis 2003: 252).

◦ Ts and Ls assume that purpose of classroom = teaching & learning -> preferred interaction patterns

◦ ‘Rigid discourse structure consisting of IRF (initiate-respond-feedback) exchanges’; ‘Teacher control [of] topic development’; ‘Turn-taking… regulated by the teacher’ [etc.] (ibid: 253)Turn taking… regulated by the teacher [etc.] (ibid: 253)

19

Many prior pedagogical orientations based on y p p g gsound principles -> much of critique unjustifiedCT-based pedagogical ideas have merit as potential complements to existing practiceBut usually presented as wholesale substitutesDevelopment needs to be based on:1. an understanding and appreciation of pragmatic

value of much current ELT pedagogy i d l i ‘b ildi ’2. two-way, negotiated evolution -> a ‘building up’

vs. ‘tearing down’/’throwing away’ approach (see, e.g., Waters 2007: 289-290)

20

If you would like to discuss the subject further or would like aIf you would like to discuss the subject further, or would like a copy of the PPT and/or the paper, please e-mail me at:

a waters@lancaster ac uka.waters@lancaster.ac.ukReferences

Allwright, D. 1998 'Contextual factors in classroom language learning: an overview' in K. Malmkjaer and J. Williams (eds.). Context in Language and Language Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Allwright, R.L. 1996 'Social and pedagogic pressures in the language classroom: the role of socialisation' in H. Coleman (ed.). Society and the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bell J and R Gower 1998 'Writing course materials for the world: aBell, J. and R. Gower. 1998 Writing course materials for the world: a great compromise' in B. Tomlinson (ed.). Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 116-129.

21

Bolitho, R., R. Carter, R. Hughes, R. Ivanic, H. Masuhara and B. Tomlinson.2003 'Ten questions about language awareness' ELT J 57/3: 251-2592003. Ten questions about language awareness . ELT J 57/3: 251 259.Browne, A. 2006 The Retreat of Reason. London: Civitas.Canagarajah, A.S. 1999 Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Carter, R. and M. McCarthy. 1996. 'Correspondence'. ELT Journal 50/4: 369-71.Clarke, D. 1989. 'Communicative theory and its influence on materials , yproduction: state-of-the-art article'. Language Teaching 22/2: 73-86.Edge, J. (ed.). 2006 (Re-)Locating TESOL in an Age of Empire. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Ellis, R. 2003 Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Fabrício, B.F. and D. Santos. 2006 'The (Re-)FRaming Process as a C l b i L f Ch ' i J Ed ( d ) (R )L i TESOL iColaborative Locus for Change' in J. Edge (ed.). (Re-)Locating TESOL in an Age of Empire. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 65-83.Edge, J. (ed.). 2006 (Re-)Locating TESOL in an Age of Empire. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave MacmillanHampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Ellis, R. 2003 Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Fabrício B F and D Santos 2006 'The (Re-)FRaming Process as aFabrício, B.F. and D. Santos. 2006 The (Re )FRaming Process as a Colaborative Locus for Change' in J. Edge (ed.). (Re-)Locating TESOL in an Age of Empire. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 65-83. 22

Goffman, E. 1981 Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Holliday, A. 2005 The struggle to teach English as an international y, gg glanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hutchinson, T. 2002 'Systems within systems: methodology and educational philosophy.' Unpublished plenary paper given at the 22nd Annual Thailand TESOL Convention Bangkok Thailand22nd Annual Thailand TESOL Convention Bangkok, Thailand.Hutchinson, T. and A. Waters. 1987 English for specific purposes : a learning-centred approach. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.

h 992 ' l l l S d lKohonen, V. 1992 'Experiential language learning: Second language learning as cooperative learner education' in D. Nunan (ed.). Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.g yMcDonough, J. 2002. 'The teacher as language learner: worlds of difference? '. ELT Journal 56/: 404-41.McGrath, S. 2008. 'Educational change: Best practices and messyMcGrath, S. 2008. Educational change: Best practices and messy realities'. International Journal of Educational Development 28/2: 115-117.McKay, S.L. 2004. 'Teaching English as an International Language'. ELT Journal 58/: 1ELT Journal 58/: 1.Nunan, D. 1999 Second language teaching & learning. Boston, Mass.: Heinle & Heinle.Nunan, D. 2004 Task-based language teaching (Rev. Edition). u a , 00 as based a guage teac g ( e d t o )Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

23

O'Neill, R. 1991. 'The plausible myth of learner-centredness: or the importance of doing ordinary things well'. ELT Journal 45/4: 293-304304.O’Sullivan, M. 2004. 'The reconceptualisation of learner-centred approaches: a Namibian case study'. International Journal of Educational Development 24/6: 585-602Educational Development 24/6: 585-602.Pennycook, A. 1994 The cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman.Phillipson R 1992 Ling istic imperialism O ford O ford Uni ersitPhillipson, R. 1992 Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Prabhu, N.S. 1990. 'There is No One Best Method – Why?'. TESOL Quarterly 24/2: 161-176Quarterly 24/2: 161 176.Prabhu, N.S. 1992. 'The dynamics of the language lesson'. TESOL Quarterly 26/2: 161-76.Richards J C 2006 'Materials Development and Research MakingRichards, J.C. 2006. Materials Development and Research--Making the Connection'. RELC Journal 37/1: 5-26.Simpson, J. 2009. 'A Critical Stance in Language Education: A Reply to Alan Waters' Applied Linguistics 30/3: 428-434to Alan Waters . Applied Linguistics 30/3: 428 434.Waters, A. 2007. 'Native-speakerism in ELT: Plus ca change...?'. System 35/3: 281-292.Widdowson H G 2003 Defining issues in English language teachingWiddowson, H.G. 2003 Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

24