A letter to Dr. Pennycook

Dear Dr. Pennycook,

My name is Juanito de Los Palotes and I’m a teacher of English in XXXXX, province of XXXXX. I’m a very enthusiastic professional about the teaching of English and I teach at the primary and secondary school levels.

The place I live in is very isolated, and I have very few resources to work with, but my students are very interested in learning about new language and cultures, so I try to do my best to help them in this endeavor. Despite the fact that in the place where I live it is very difficult to buy any instructional materials or to access the most updated research on the teaching of languages, I try to keep in touch with some of the professors at the nearby University of XXXXX, located in Cercadenada, the capital of my province, who provide me with copies of your articles and books. I really admire the work you do and your view on the teaching of English. I believe learning a language is much more than mastering a code and I’m convinced that critical perspectives on language teaching are the only way to promote our students’ awareness and engagement in social change.

However, the reason I’m writing to you is that I’ve been facing a lot of frustration lately. I’ve tried to incorporate a critical perspective on the teaching of English to my students and I believe I have done so with moderate success. Even though I have found this to be a very big challenge, and the fact that doing so has put me through a personal struggle in order to abandon dominant discourses in my own view of language and learning, I believe I have succeeded – at least partially – in helping my students become aware and engaged in processes of social changes in my community. I have been able to bring into the classroom issues related to the ways English has come to be a dominant language in the world as well as the consequences of this phenomenon in our country and even in our village. Through this many of my pupils have learned about the history of our country, how it has been continually oppressed by outside forces and the consequences of this oppression. Many of my students have become interested in these topics, but I have to say I have been facing lots of difficulties in this approach.

For example, one of my students in 11^th grade has decided that she no longer wants to learn English.  She argues that learning English is no longer relevant for her. She says that she doesn’t want to perpetuate the dominance of this language. She even stated that she didn’t understand why she had to learn English, the language of the oppressors, to fight their oppression. She told me she considered this to be a paradox. She believes that she should concentrate all her efforts in transforming the harsh realities of our community and that to do so, her native language was more than enough. This, of course, is a big issue, since all my students need to take an English test at the end of the year, and my job is very much contingent on the performance of my students in this exam. She does come to my class, but refuses to do any tasks.  To my luck, this has been the case of only one student.

However, there is another big concern which is the main reason of my letter. Despite the paramount importance of your proposal, I have found almost none references to how this pedagogy can benefit the actual learning of the language. Clearly, my students have become aware of the power of language, but unfortunately, this has served me little in having them learn the language itself. I’m not saying we shouldn’t adopt the pedagogy you propose, I’m just saying I would love to find ways of how we, teachers, can help our students to learn English as much as about English. I hope you understand this is also my responsibility.  I understand that I need to figure this out for my own community of learners and should draw on my own expertise, but any kind of help would be much appreciated. I’m sure your experience can help me and many more teachers comprehend this a little bit more. Throughout my career I have had very few success experiences in terms of my students becoming fluent English speakers and I would like that to change.

Finally, I just want to thank you for taking the time to read this and I really do hope you can answer me back or have one of your assistants do so. I have received an offer from the principal of my school to become a social science teacher and, as much as I would like to do that (in part because of you eye-opening articles), I am sure I can find ways to balance my classes in a way that they are socially-engaging pedagogy as well as a language learning experience.

Sincerely yours,

Juan Pérez.

The postmethod era

I’ve found the two readings very informative. Celce-Murcia’s article meets the function of providing teachers with a review of the basics of the distinct methods that have been present in the studies of second/foreign language learning .  Kumaravadivelu on the other hand focuses in how the TESOL field of study has evolved over the last twenty years.

I will concentrate on Kumaravadivelu’s article and will pose a few questions:

1.  Kumaravadivelu does a very good job in pointing out the difference between methods and practices. This dichotomy presents with a very important question on how teachers actually enact methods in their classrooms. Even though the author does quote some studies on how methods take place in the classroom, I have a lot of doubts in terms on how the results from the studies can be generalized to all teachers in all contexts globally. Coming up to general conclusions on the effectiveness of methods and the ways they are implemented seems a very risky enterprise, particularly if we embrace the differences between local contexts and teachers’ background and teaching styles.
2.  Kumaravadivelu discusses what a postmethod pedagogy could look like, and how it should rely on the teacher’s ability to determine what side of the pendulums they should lean towards.  However, I wonder if this not what many teachers have been doing for a long time, even when the method era was in vogue.
3.  As I read Kumaravadivelu proposal of a Macrostrategic Framework, I couldn’t help but thinking, isn’t this a method in its own? Wouldn’t the enacting of the ten macrostrategies proposed by Kumaravadivelu require some kind of procedural order and implemmentation?
4.  Kumaravadivelu cites Norton (2000) when he says: ‘it is only by understanding the histories and lived experiences of language learners that the language teacher can create conditions that will facilitate social interaction both in the classroom and in the wider community, and help learners claim the right to speak’. I wonder how feasible it is only to know (not to say understand) the histories and lived experiences of language learners.  Furthermore, is this really the only way to create such conditions?
5.  I believe evolution on the study of language and theories of learning as well as our inherent human and scientific desire to find generalizable principles have played an important role in the constant uprising of ELT methods. Of course, economic and political agendas have also partaken in this. As of now, as a consequence of the way social sciences have been moving towards the critical side of the pendulum, we are now witnessing how these critical perspectives on language teaching. However, isn’t it possible that radically critical perspectives of the method era as the ones presented in article may lead us into an atomization and relativism of the field where teachers are responsible of figuring out the specific peculiarities of each learning environment? Isn’t this too much of a burden, particularly with the political and economic contexts where teachers have to develop their profession?

English Language Learners

Diaz-Rico, L. & Weed, K. (2010) The crosscultural, language, and academic development handbook. A complete K-12 reference guide. Chapter 8 Jenkins, J. (2009). Who speaks English today? (p. 15-24). World Englishes. Farr, M. et al. (2010). Ethnolinguistic diversity in language and literacy education.

  

From my perspective, the issues brought up by Diaz Rico, L. & Weed Jenkins and Farr, Seloni and Song need to be approached from different perspectives.

Diaz Rico & Weed ad Farr. et al. discuss the ELL population in the US. Clearly, they provide a clear picture on the challenges and benefits brought by the different waves of immigration throughout the history of the US. It is very unfortunate that nowadays students from culturally diverse backgrounds are still struggling to find an education that responds to their needs and that maximizes their cultural and linguistic richness. Efforts must be made by educational authorities in order to develop the capacity required to equip schools and educate teachers so the educational system can stand up to this challenge. However, this cannot be done without a paradigm shift in the way society sees immigrants. Throughout history, immigrants have been seen by host countries as a work force to help boost the economy. Immigrants have been seen as desirable in times when the local workforce is not enough to cope with the demands of production and trade, or in times of excessive wealth when natives have decided that certain jobs should be done by outsiders in need of income.

From this perspective, the legacy of these immigrants as well as their heritage has been deemed as undesirable, to say the least. It has been this perspective what has prevented immigrants to be treated as legitimate members of the society, as subject of duties but also of rights. It is for this reason that education is not designed to provide quality solutions to the challenges posed by immigration. As Farr, et al. put it (8), it is possible to have a common language but not desirable to have an only language.  Only if we come to understand that efforts should be made in order to take advantage of the benefits and potential of multiculturalism, if we become willing to learn the lessons the peoples of the world have to teach us, can we transform our educational practices to respond to such phenomena. A multicultural society ruled by monocultural policies and practices is a social time bomb.

On the other hand, Jenkins problematizes the notion of the circles as put by Kachru and other authors over the last thirty years. In this respect, I find it necessary to say that even though I consider important to uncover all the layers in terms like EFL, ESL, ENL, and to further our knowledge on the different features of the English learning environments around the world,  I do believe that is necessary to keep this macro-distinctions.  Coming from a country that could arguably called from the outer circle, it is clear that the needs, motivation, resources, etc. of those who learn EFL are very different from those in the ESL circle (or outer). I do not agree with Jenkins when she quotes Graddol to assert that some countries in the outer circle are transitioning into the expanding circle. At least, in the case of Latin America (she mentions Costa Rica and Argentina), this is by no means true. It is not possible to equate the complexities of ESL scenarios with those places where political, cultural and economic decisions have brought about policies to foster the learning of foreign languages. This statement by Graddol is made based on number of people studying English and educational policies and history has proved that ESL settings are brought up by much traumatic happenings such as colonization or political disrupt.