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

ii

© Paul McPherron 2008

All Rights Reserved

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].