Here are the supplementary readings to the primary reading assigned to me(Farrell & Tan) for "RECLAIMING THE LOCAL IN LPP: CASE STUDIES." I got them from my dissertation proposal reference list. They are the ones that may provide further background/context and extend the arguments given in the assigned reading.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: a review of research on what language teachers, think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81-109. Retrieved 29 Aug 2009, from
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/1652/1/borgs1_Language_Teaching_36-2.pdf
Chew, P.G.L. (2007). The history and the policy of English education in Singapore. In Choi, Y.H. and Spolsky, B. (Eds.), English Education in Asia: History and Policies (pp. 141-165). Asia TEFL. South Korea: eduKLC.
Fukami, R. (2005). Teacher cognition in context: what’s on their mind? Essex Graduate Student Papers in Language and Linguistics, 7. Retrieved 29 Aug 2009, from
http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache%3AL8cyP4lodFkJ%3Awww.essex.ac.uk%2Flinguistics%2Fpgr%2Fegspll%2Fvolume7%2FPDFs%2FFukami.pdf+studies+on+teacher+cognition&hl=tl&gl=ph.
Gutierrez, M. (2004). Studying teacher cognition: the interplay of teacher beliefs and instructional practice. Kritika Kultura, 4, 53-78. Retrieved 29 Aug 2009, from
http://150.ateneo.edu/kritikakultura/images/kkissue004.pdf
Haque, E. & Cray, E. (2007). Constraining teachers: Adult ESL settlement language training policy and implementation. TESOL Quarterly, 41:3, 634-642.
Harper, C., Platt, E., Naranjo, C. & Boyton, S. (2007) Marching in unison: Florida ESL teachers and No Child Left Behind. TESOL Quarterly, 41:3, 642-651.
Kennedy, C. (1988) Evaluation of the management of change in ELT projects. Applied
Linguistics 9:4, 329-342.
Martin, I. (in press). Periphery ELT: The politics and practice of teaching English in the Philippines. In A. Kirkpatrick, The Routledge handbook of world Englishes. London: Routledge.
Mindo, D. (2008). English language teaching, curriculum innovations and implementation strategies: Philippine experience. In Choi, Y. H. and Spolsky, B. (Eds.) ELT Curriculum Innovation and Implementation in Asia (pp. 161-189). Asia TEFL. Seoul: edKLC.
Nishino, T. & Watanabe, M. (2008). Communication-oriented policies versus classroom realities in Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 42:1, 133-138.
Probyn, M., Murray, S., Botha, L., Botya, P., Brooks, M., Westphal, V. (2002). Minding the gaps – an investigation into language policy and practice in four Eastern Cape districts. Perspectives in Education 20:1, 29-46 Retrieved 29 Aug 2009, from http://eprints.ru.ac.za/1449/01/Minding_the_Gaps.pdf
Richards, J.C., Tung, P., & Ng. P. (1992). The culture of the English language teacher: A Hong Kong example. RELC Journal, 23 (1): 81-103.
Waters, A. & Vilches, M. (2008).Education curriculum factors affecting ELT reforms: The case of the Philippines Basic Education Curriculum. RELC Journal 39:5 Retrieved from http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/39/1/5; http://www.sagepublications.com
Winer, L. (2007). No ESL in English schools: Language Policy in Quebec and Implications for TESL Teacher Education. TESOL Quarterly, 41:3, 489-507.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Len’s Blog Assignment #7 (Lin)
In my dissertation proposal, I describe the significance of my study by indicating the themes of my research that includes
BARRIERS which will reveal the obstacles that block teachers from implementing prescribed policies; BRIDGES which will show what teachers actually do in the classroom to meet their instructional goals despite such blocks; and BREAKTHROUGHS which will lead to new insights that may guide policy-makers and educators, inspire new research in the field of teacher cognition, and improve teaching practices. (Canilao, 2010, pp. 35-36)
The paper of Lin (2006, p. 287) does the same thing: she discusses the BARRIERS (“the dichotomous ways of conceptualizing language and language pedagogies”), explores the BRIDGES (analysis of “the bilingual pedagogical practices in a Hong Kong science classroom”), and presents the BREAKTHROUGHS (proposal of “practical bilingual pedagogies”). Lin provides concrete answers to particular issues that many educators find burdensome and confusing. Her study may provide an answer to the dilemma that many language policy makers and teachers face. Although further research is needed to verify the impact of the proposed bilingual pedagogies, her study inspires language researchers to follow her lead.
In my dissertation, I plan to observe teachers who bridge the gap between policies and practices by employing strategies that may address their learners’ needs in the same way that the science teacher in Lin’s study finds various ways to make her lessons more comprehensible to her students. I will have to observe the factors (e.g. big class size; students’ behavior and attitudes) that may serve as hindrance to the successful implementation of prescribed ELT policies. I will also identify what the teachers do to make things work in the classroom and based on my findings propose particular directions that may be taken by policy makers and teacher educators to improve programs and practices.
Dr. Marlu Vilches, my adviser, and I have agreed to continue through my dissertation her initial study of public school teachers who have found some answers to the typical concerns of ELT practitioners who have to work under various constraints. It will be beneficial to a lot of sectors to uncover the secrets of these proactive public school teachers who are not overwhelmed by discouraging circumstances. Despite their teaching conditions, they still manage to teach effectively. They destroy BARRIERS, build BRIDGES, and introduce BREAKTHROUGHS.
My proposed LPP paper (proposed ELL312 research topic #2) will also be designed according to these themes. In conducting program reviews involving teachers, there are a lot of issues, problems, and concerns that may discourage or impede the process (BARRIERS: e.g. budget constraints). However, there are several venues that may be considered to overcome such obstacles (BRIDGES: e.g. formation of a committee of committed teachers). After a thorough analysis of the barriers and the bridges, BREAKTHROUGHS (e.g. framework for conducting needs analysis) may be proposed that other program reviewers may follow in conducting their own evaluation.
What is interesting about Lin’s study is that it veers away from deepening the schism that obstructs the thinking of ELT practitioners. Instead, she works toward reducing such divergence and providing alternatives that they may take into account in solving pedagogical dilemmas and predicaments.
Research, then, does not simply remain a description of what the problems are, but breaks the borders of limitations and explores the realms of possibilities. As a researcher, I have to be convinced that my work will not simply be placed in a library shelf or filed in a drawer; I want it to be read and spread to inspire others to pursue further research and challenge fellow ELT practitioners to continue seeking answers to their quests.
References:
Canilao, M.L.E. (2010).The Influence of Cognitive Processes and Contextual Factors on Public School Teachers’ Interpretation of ELT Policies and Classroom Practices. Dissertation proposal. Ateneo de Manila University.
Lin, A. (2006). Beyond linguistic purism in language-in-education policy and practice: exploring bilingual pedagogies in a Hong Kong science classroom. Language and Education 20 (4): 287-305.
BARRIERS which will reveal the obstacles that block teachers from implementing prescribed policies; BRIDGES which will show what teachers actually do in the classroom to meet their instructional goals despite such blocks; and BREAKTHROUGHS which will lead to new insights that may guide policy-makers and educators, inspire new research in the field of teacher cognition, and improve teaching practices. (Canilao, 2010, pp. 35-36)
The paper of Lin (2006, p. 287) does the same thing: she discusses the BARRIERS (“the dichotomous ways of conceptualizing language and language pedagogies”), explores the BRIDGES (analysis of “the bilingual pedagogical practices in a Hong Kong science classroom”), and presents the BREAKTHROUGHS (proposal of “practical bilingual pedagogies”). Lin provides concrete answers to particular issues that many educators find burdensome and confusing. Her study may provide an answer to the dilemma that many language policy makers and teachers face. Although further research is needed to verify the impact of the proposed bilingual pedagogies, her study inspires language researchers to follow her lead.
In my dissertation, I plan to observe teachers who bridge the gap between policies and practices by employing strategies that may address their learners’ needs in the same way that the science teacher in Lin’s study finds various ways to make her lessons more comprehensible to her students. I will have to observe the factors (e.g. big class size; students’ behavior and attitudes) that may serve as hindrance to the successful implementation of prescribed ELT policies. I will also identify what the teachers do to make things work in the classroom and based on my findings propose particular directions that may be taken by policy makers and teacher educators to improve programs and practices.
Dr. Marlu Vilches, my adviser, and I have agreed to continue through my dissertation her initial study of public school teachers who have found some answers to the typical concerns of ELT practitioners who have to work under various constraints. It will be beneficial to a lot of sectors to uncover the secrets of these proactive public school teachers who are not overwhelmed by discouraging circumstances. Despite their teaching conditions, they still manage to teach effectively. They destroy BARRIERS, build BRIDGES, and introduce BREAKTHROUGHS.
My proposed LPP paper (proposed ELL312 research topic #2) will also be designed according to these themes. In conducting program reviews involving teachers, there are a lot of issues, problems, and concerns that may discourage or impede the process (BARRIERS: e.g. budget constraints). However, there are several venues that may be considered to overcome such obstacles (BRIDGES: e.g. formation of a committee of committed teachers). After a thorough analysis of the barriers and the bridges, BREAKTHROUGHS (e.g. framework for conducting needs analysis) may be proposed that other program reviewers may follow in conducting their own evaluation.
What is interesting about Lin’s study is that it veers away from deepening the schism that obstructs the thinking of ELT practitioners. Instead, she works toward reducing such divergence and providing alternatives that they may take into account in solving pedagogical dilemmas and predicaments.
Research, then, does not simply remain a description of what the problems are, but breaks the borders of limitations and explores the realms of possibilities. As a researcher, I have to be convinced that my work will not simply be placed in a library shelf or filed in a drawer; I want it to be read and spread to inspire others to pursue further research and challenge fellow ELT practitioners to continue seeking answers to their quests.
References:
Canilao, M.L.E. (2010).The Influence of Cognitive Processes and Contextual Factors on Public School Teachers’ Interpretation of ELT Policies and Classroom Practices. Dissertation proposal. Ateneo de Manila University.
Lin, A. (2006). Beyond linguistic purism in language-in-education policy and practice: exploring bilingual pedagogies in a Hong Kong science classroom. Language and Education 20 (4): 287-305.
Len’s Blog Assignment #6 (Farrell & Tan; Tupas)
The readings are quite relevant to my dissertation (tentative title: “The Influence of Cognitive Processes and Contextual Factors on Public School Teachers’ Interpretation of ELT Policies and Classroom Practices”) and my proposed LPP paper (proposed ELL312 topic #2: empowering teachers in LPP) because they both reveal the crucial role of teachers in translating policies into classroom practices.
In Farrell & Tan’s piece, I found the following statement quite striking: “The findings of this study demonstrate how the many complex beliefs held by teachers can sometimes be in conflict with each other and how these beliefs exert different degrees of power and influence on the teachers’ final classroom practices” (2008, p. 396). This is one area that I would like to explore in my dissertation. I would like to find out how teachers’ belief systems and their classroom practices connect or clash given particular contextual factors (e.g. ELT policies; logistical constraints). I intend to unveil the intervention of teachers’ personal pedagogical paradigms because it is a major influence on classroom instruction.
Farrell & Tan’s work has also made me realize that, indeed, teachers need to be involved in all stages of LPP because they are the ultimate interpreters, translators, evaluators, and executors of language policies. As Tupas (forthcoming) asserts: “It goes without saying that, if we want to empower teachers and learners with particular models of English, we must let these models emerge from the communities of cultures, literacies and politics” (p. 577). Thus, language policies should be based on the NEEDS of particular teaching/learning communities or contexts (bottom-up process), NOT on what policy makers perceive to be the needs of these teaching/learning communities or contexts (top-down process).
The studies that I have reviewed for my dissertation proposal reveal that in many instances, policies are not implemented successfully because there is a “cultural mismatch” (Kennedy, 1988, p. 333) between the prescribed policies coming from the state and the local teaching-learning communities. Thus, teachers either follow policies and compromise the learning needs of their students or deviate from them to meet their students’ needs.
How can a bottom-up process be followed in LPP? This is one question I intend to answer in my ELL312 paper by presenting the NEEDS ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK I designed in conducting the review of language courses of the Ateneo de Manila University School of Humanities English Department. This framework focuses on learning needs with the following elements: situation needs: teaching and learning context; language needs: the purpose for teaching and learning English; learners’ objective needs: students’ proficiency and skills levels; learners’ subjective needs: students’ preferences and expectations. This comprehensive framework covers both the macro-level and micro-level perspectives that need to be taken into account in evaluating, improving, and developing programs.
Moreover, I will discuss the PROCESS-ORIENTED approach our program review team followed to allow teachers to participate in proposing CHANGES and evaluating proposed CHANGES. Instead of employing an “external agency” to study learners’ needs and propose program changes, teachers who are the main agents of implementation are the ones directly involved in analyzing the learning needs. This is a form of TEACHER EMPOWERMENT and one venue for promoting OWNERSHIP among them.
My purpose in writing this paper is to share it with other departments and institutions that may consider a more bottom-up process in evaluating and improving their language programs. The current issues discussed in the works of Farrell & Tan and Tupas often surface in language conferences (e.g. ACELT conferences). Teachers often ask: What kind of English should we teach? I agree with Jenkins (2007, p. 36) that the “decision should be made by those directly involved.”
References:
Farrell, T. & Tan, S.K.K. (2008). Language policy, language teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics 29 (3): 381-403.
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kennedy, C. (1988) Evaluation of the management of change in ELT projects. Applied
Linguistics 9:4, 329-342.
Tupas, T.R.F. (forthcoming). Which norms in everyday practice and why? In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.). Handbook of World Englishes. Routledge.
In Farrell & Tan’s piece, I found the following statement quite striking: “The findings of this study demonstrate how the many complex beliefs held by teachers can sometimes be in conflict with each other and how these beliefs exert different degrees of power and influence on the teachers’ final classroom practices” (2008, p. 396). This is one area that I would like to explore in my dissertation. I would like to find out how teachers’ belief systems and their classroom practices connect or clash given particular contextual factors (e.g. ELT policies; logistical constraints). I intend to unveil the intervention of teachers’ personal pedagogical paradigms because it is a major influence on classroom instruction.
Farrell & Tan’s work has also made me realize that, indeed, teachers need to be involved in all stages of LPP because they are the ultimate interpreters, translators, evaluators, and executors of language policies. As Tupas (forthcoming) asserts: “It goes without saying that, if we want to empower teachers and learners with particular models of English, we must let these models emerge from the communities of cultures, literacies and politics” (p. 577). Thus, language policies should be based on the NEEDS of particular teaching/learning communities or contexts (bottom-up process), NOT on what policy makers perceive to be the needs of these teaching/learning communities or contexts (top-down process).
The studies that I have reviewed for my dissertation proposal reveal that in many instances, policies are not implemented successfully because there is a “cultural mismatch” (Kennedy, 1988, p. 333) between the prescribed policies coming from the state and the local teaching-learning communities. Thus, teachers either follow policies and compromise the learning needs of their students or deviate from them to meet their students’ needs.
How can a bottom-up process be followed in LPP? This is one question I intend to answer in my ELL312 paper by presenting the NEEDS ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK I designed in conducting the review of language courses of the Ateneo de Manila University School of Humanities English Department. This framework focuses on learning needs with the following elements: situation needs: teaching and learning context; language needs: the purpose for teaching and learning English; learners’ objective needs: students’ proficiency and skills levels; learners’ subjective needs: students’ preferences and expectations. This comprehensive framework covers both the macro-level and micro-level perspectives that need to be taken into account in evaluating, improving, and developing programs.
Moreover, I will discuss the PROCESS-ORIENTED approach our program review team followed to allow teachers to participate in proposing CHANGES and evaluating proposed CHANGES. Instead of employing an “external agency” to study learners’ needs and propose program changes, teachers who are the main agents of implementation are the ones directly involved in analyzing the learning needs. This is a form of TEACHER EMPOWERMENT and one venue for promoting OWNERSHIP among them.
My purpose in writing this paper is to share it with other departments and institutions that may consider a more bottom-up process in evaluating and improving their language programs. The current issues discussed in the works of Farrell & Tan and Tupas often surface in language conferences (e.g. ACELT conferences). Teachers often ask: What kind of English should we teach? I agree with Jenkins (2007, p. 36) that the “decision should be made by those directly involved.”
References:
Farrell, T. & Tan, S.K.K. (2008). Language policy, language teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics 29 (3): 381-403.
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kennedy, C. (1988) Evaluation of the management of change in ELT projects. Applied
Linguistics 9:4, 329-342.
Tupas, T.R.F. (forthcoming). Which norms in everyday practice and why? In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.). Handbook of World Englishes. Routledge.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
LEN’S RESEARCH TOPIC BLOG (ELL312 RESEARCH PAPER)
#1. What are the current English language teaching policies prescribed by the Department of Education for Philippine public secondary schools? What educational philosophies and pedagogical approaches guide these policies? What are the factors that influence policy makers? What processes are followed in formulating such policies? What mechanisms are used for relaying them to various school divisions?
*This the ideal topic for me because I originally wanted it to be part of my dissertation and it’s something that interests me. However, during the mock defense, one of the suggestions was to delete this set of questions because according to the panelists, my focus should be on teacher cognition. I’m still thinking about it. If I pursue it for my LPP paper though, my biggest problem is the TIME for data gathering. To answer the questions above, I need to contact DepEd and interview officials, policy makers, division heads, and public school teachers to get solid data. I don’t think I can do it in a week considering my personal circumstances and taking into account the national elections on May 10.
#2. What steps may be taken to empower teachers in language planning and policy? How can language programs be improved by teachers themselves? What framework may be used in conducting a systematic language program review by teachers?
*I would like to present a case study based on the language program review that the Ateneo SOH English Department conducted from 2008 to 2010. As the En11/12 Coordinator, I initiated it with the help of a committee of dedicated English teachers. The focus of the LPP paper would be the PROCESS that we followed in conducting the review. Based on this process, I would propose a FRAMEWORK that other ELT practitioners may follow in conducting their own language program review that may lead to changes in their ELT policies and practices. I think this is more feasible than the first one and it’s also something I’d like to work on.
*This the ideal topic for me because I originally wanted it to be part of my dissertation and it’s something that interests me. However, during the mock defense, one of the suggestions was to delete this set of questions because according to the panelists, my focus should be on teacher cognition. I’m still thinking about it. If I pursue it for my LPP paper though, my biggest problem is the TIME for data gathering. To answer the questions above, I need to contact DepEd and interview officials, policy makers, division heads, and public school teachers to get solid data. I don’t think I can do it in a week considering my personal circumstances and taking into account the national elections on May 10.
#2. What steps may be taken to empower teachers in language planning and policy? How can language programs be improved by teachers themselves? What framework may be used in conducting a systematic language program review by teachers?
*I would like to present a case study based on the language program review that the Ateneo SOH English Department conducted from 2008 to 2010. As the En11/12 Coordinator, I initiated it with the help of a committee of dedicated English teachers. The focus of the LPP paper would be the PROCESS that we followed in conducting the review. Based on this process, I would propose a FRAMEWORK that other ELT practitioners may follow in conducting their own language program review that may lead to changes in their ELT policies and practices. I think this is more feasible than the first one and it’s also something I’d like to work on.
Len’s Blog Assignment #5 (Canagarajah)
Canagarajah’s work discusses how LPP and ethnography may be brought together, despite their converging directions. Ethnography may be used to aid the formulation, implementation, and development of language policies. Instead of a top-down approach which is usually employed in LPP, a more bottom-up process may be utilized through ethnographic methods. It may be a useful method in uncovering the gaps between policies and practices on the community level, and thus, it may serve as a helpful instrument in exposing tensions and resolving issues. Critical ethnography is proposed to allow the ethnographer and the local group to evaluate policies affecting them.
A researcher may have a committed political position in conducting fieldwork. As an ethnographer though, there are several challenges that she has to face. First, she may encounter resistance from the community she is working with because her advocacy may conflict with the views of her informants. If this is the case, she has to uncover where they are coming from. She needs to unveil their attitudes, values, and beliefs. Second, she may fall into the trap of forcing her advocacy by imposing her views on them or misrepresenting their ideas in the course of her study. She has to be aware of her inclinations and acknowledge them in the presentation of her study. Third, she may be confined by the parameters of the position she has taken. Though she has a particular purpose in conducting the study, she has to be open-minded and explore possibilities and options. Finally, she has to see the study both from her perspective and the perspectives of her informants and somehow find a way to reconcile them by involving them from the beginning to the end of the study. In many instances, informants are left clueless about the results of the study and what the outcome signifies for them. There should be a venue for presenting, discussing, and evaluating the findings that involve the informants themselves. The results may be used to raise the awareness of the informants, challenge them to question their own paradigms, and help them find out for themselves the steps that need to be taken to resolve issues.
This process reminds me of my experience in conducting my MA thesis. As an ELT researcher, I had a very clear purpose: introduce a materials design framework that may integrate the elements of the Ateneo de Manila High School English Program because after having an initial survey of the syllabi and materials, I saw several inconsistencies. The framework seemed to be the appropriate solution to improve the program according to the results of my study. As the chair back then, I discussed the findings with the teachers (also the informants of my study) and introduced the framework. However, I sensed that most of them felt there was some imposition on my part because the solution came from me and not from them. Apparently, they were not convinced that the framework would actually work. Thus, I asked the year level coordinators who saw promise in the framework to conduct a demo class to show how it could work in the classroom. The teachers acted as students and many of them realized the benefits of using it after the workshop. My original position was to implement the framework right away. However, I realized that they had to own the framework first. Thus, the first year became our experimental year. At the end of the year, we evaluated its use and we decided to improve our policies and programs according to that framework. The researcher and informants had to work together to get it done.
Reference:
Canagarajah, S. (2006). Ethnographic methods in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.) An introduction to language policy: theory and method (pp. 153-169). Malde, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
A researcher may have a committed political position in conducting fieldwork. As an ethnographer though, there are several challenges that she has to face. First, she may encounter resistance from the community she is working with because her advocacy may conflict with the views of her informants. If this is the case, she has to uncover where they are coming from. She needs to unveil their attitudes, values, and beliefs. Second, she may fall into the trap of forcing her advocacy by imposing her views on them or misrepresenting their ideas in the course of her study. She has to be aware of her inclinations and acknowledge them in the presentation of her study. Third, she may be confined by the parameters of the position she has taken. Though she has a particular purpose in conducting the study, she has to be open-minded and explore possibilities and options. Finally, she has to see the study both from her perspective and the perspectives of her informants and somehow find a way to reconcile them by involving them from the beginning to the end of the study. In many instances, informants are left clueless about the results of the study and what the outcome signifies for them. There should be a venue for presenting, discussing, and evaluating the findings that involve the informants themselves. The results may be used to raise the awareness of the informants, challenge them to question their own paradigms, and help them find out for themselves the steps that need to be taken to resolve issues.
This process reminds me of my experience in conducting my MA thesis. As an ELT researcher, I had a very clear purpose: introduce a materials design framework that may integrate the elements of the Ateneo de Manila High School English Program because after having an initial survey of the syllabi and materials, I saw several inconsistencies. The framework seemed to be the appropriate solution to improve the program according to the results of my study. As the chair back then, I discussed the findings with the teachers (also the informants of my study) and introduced the framework. However, I sensed that most of them felt there was some imposition on my part because the solution came from me and not from them. Apparently, they were not convinced that the framework would actually work. Thus, I asked the year level coordinators who saw promise in the framework to conduct a demo class to show how it could work in the classroom. The teachers acted as students and many of them realized the benefits of using it after the workshop. My original position was to implement the framework right away. However, I realized that they had to own the framework first. Thus, the first year became our experimental year. At the end of the year, we evaluated its use and we decided to improve our policies and programs according to that framework. The researcher and informants had to work together to get it done.
Reference:
Canagarajah, S. (2006). Ethnographic methods in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.) An introduction to language policy: theory and method (pp. 153-169). Malde, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Len’s Blog Assignment #4 (Pennycook)
In “Postmodernism in Language Policy,” Pennycook (2006) proposes a critical look at language policy through the eyes of postmodernism which he describes “as a skepticism toward many cherished concepts and modes of thought” (p. 63). He explores areas where language policy takes effect: in particular teaching and learning institutions and contexts; uncovers the complexities of language and discourse; and advocates an alternative to current views by rethinking, disinventing, and reconstructing languages.
Let me now wear Pennycook’s glasses and examine my own context in the Philippines. I will focus on one issue that many teachers of English raise. Many of them claim that their students use “bad English.” Their complaint is echoed by school administrators who whine about teachers using the same kind of English. What exactly does “bad English” mean? Why are students and teachers judged that way? Where is this view coming from?
In many instances, Filipinos associate bad English with incorrect grammar; thus, there is an obsession for accuracy. I have reviewed many ELT textbooks written by Filipino writers and surveyed lesson plans of ELT practitioners both in the private and public school settings. It is striking that many of these materials focus so much on the teaching of grammar. It is also interesting that many institutions clamor for English proficiency workshops for their teachers.
Bad English is also associated with accents and pronunciations that deviate from “educated” English. Even the media sector ridicules them by using these speakers as objects of entertainment. The comic relief usually comes from a stereotypical English-speaking maid or driver with a “funny accent.” ELT practitioners from other regions who want to have a shot at teaching in an exclusive school in Metro-Manila find it difficult to find a slot because of their acquired local accent. Students with local accents are marked as well. Joseph Estrada is probably best remembered as the former Philippine president who speaks bad English.
What does this fixation indicate? It may actually suggest the conditioning that Filipinos have received through their colonization and (mis)education. In the Philippines, many consider it an achievement to acquire “native speaker” proficiency based on “Standard English.” “Native speaker” proficiency has always been the benchmark and “Semi-Native speaker” competence patterned after it has become the ultimate model. When I talk about “semi-native,” I refer to Filipino speakers who have been immersed and educated according to the conventions of “Standard English” which is considered “good English.”
The pressure for students and teachers to speak “good English” also comes from parents who associate language with social status, financial progress, and intellectual achievement. This is another kind of conditioning that has been passed on through different generations and propagated by Western agencies who are tasked to “sell English” across countries to maintain their cultural and economic primacy.
I have nothing against the teaching and learning of “Standard English” because it has its functions and purposes. However, a paradigm shift in the thrust of ELT needs to be done. Grammar is not the issue; neither is it a problem of accent or pronunciation. Students and teachers may speak “good English” but can they THINK CRITICALLY, ACT RESPONSIBLY, and APPRECIATE their FILIPINO-ness and ASIAN-ness? I think it is time to “De-Westernize” our thinking and begin considering Filipinonizing and Asianizing it further. By that, I mean we have to begin accepting our OWN varieties of English and start setting our OWN standards. Why do we simply follow Western standards and trends when we can set them ourselves? It is time that we Filipinos and Asians initiate our OWN cultural and linguistic enlightenment according to our OWN view, voice, and verve.
Reference:
Pennycook, A. (2006). Postmodernism in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: theory and method (pp. 60-76). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Let me now wear Pennycook’s glasses and examine my own context in the Philippines. I will focus on one issue that many teachers of English raise. Many of them claim that their students use “bad English.” Their complaint is echoed by school administrators who whine about teachers using the same kind of English. What exactly does “bad English” mean? Why are students and teachers judged that way? Where is this view coming from?
In many instances, Filipinos associate bad English with incorrect grammar; thus, there is an obsession for accuracy. I have reviewed many ELT textbooks written by Filipino writers and surveyed lesson plans of ELT practitioners both in the private and public school settings. It is striking that many of these materials focus so much on the teaching of grammar. It is also interesting that many institutions clamor for English proficiency workshops for their teachers.
Bad English is also associated with accents and pronunciations that deviate from “educated” English. Even the media sector ridicules them by using these speakers as objects of entertainment. The comic relief usually comes from a stereotypical English-speaking maid or driver with a “funny accent.” ELT practitioners from other regions who want to have a shot at teaching in an exclusive school in Metro-Manila find it difficult to find a slot because of their acquired local accent. Students with local accents are marked as well. Joseph Estrada is probably best remembered as the former Philippine president who speaks bad English.
What does this fixation indicate? It may actually suggest the conditioning that Filipinos have received through their colonization and (mis)education. In the Philippines, many consider it an achievement to acquire “native speaker” proficiency based on “Standard English.” “Native speaker” proficiency has always been the benchmark and “Semi-Native speaker” competence patterned after it has become the ultimate model. When I talk about “semi-native,” I refer to Filipino speakers who have been immersed and educated according to the conventions of “Standard English” which is considered “good English.”
The pressure for students and teachers to speak “good English” also comes from parents who associate language with social status, financial progress, and intellectual achievement. This is another kind of conditioning that has been passed on through different generations and propagated by Western agencies who are tasked to “sell English” across countries to maintain their cultural and economic primacy.
I have nothing against the teaching and learning of “Standard English” because it has its functions and purposes. However, a paradigm shift in the thrust of ELT needs to be done. Grammar is not the issue; neither is it a problem of accent or pronunciation. Students and teachers may speak “good English” but can they THINK CRITICALLY, ACT RESPONSIBLY, and APPRECIATE their FILIPINO-ness and ASIAN-ness? I think it is time to “De-Westernize” our thinking and begin considering Filipinonizing and Asianizing it further. By that, I mean we have to begin accepting our OWN varieties of English and start setting our OWN standards. Why do we simply follow Western standards and trends when we can set them ourselves? It is time that we Filipinos and Asians initiate our OWN cultural and linguistic enlightenment according to our OWN view, voice, and verve.
Reference:
Pennycook, A. (2006). Postmodernism in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: theory and method (pp. 60-76). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Len’s Blog Assignment #3 (Blommaert); Q#1
Blommaert’s article discusses the strong link between language policy and national identity. It explores the tensions that result from the attempts of the state to define a national identity by promoting particular languages that are conceived to be instruments of ideological unification and it exposes the realities of multilingual societies that are incongruous to such movements. The case of Swahili is presented to illustrate that while the national language of Tanzania was successfully spread to shape ideal socialist citizens, it failed to eclipse English, the colonial language, and other local languages, pre-socialist forms of communication, because people continued to use them beyond the sphere of politics.
In the Philippines, Filipino is the national language, and it shares its throne as an official language with English as stated in the 1987 Constitution while regional languages serve as “auxiliary official languages in the regions” (quoted in Tollefson, 1991, p. 158). Based on the functions assigned to these languages, Filipino is at the top of the linguistic hierarchy, followed by English and the regional languages. However, as Tollefson (1991, p. 159) points out, Filipino is simply a “national integrative symbol” with English dominating the major realms of communication. This may be explained by the perception that English is the language of prestige, progress, and power. Filipino, although it is understood and spoken nationwide, does not seem to have the same stature as English, especially in the field of education. A student who is fluent in English usually receives more applause than a student who is brilliant in Filipino. Entrance tests and national exams focus on English communication skills and seldom or never on Filipino communication skills. The first language that many children learn is English because their parents have to train them for their target exclusive schools that conduct tests and interviews in English and condition learners that it is a big sin not to be able to communicate well in English. Thus, to rephrase a famous quote, to speak Filipino is human, but to speak English is divine. If Miss Japan mutilates the English language in the Miss Universe beauty pageant, she is forgiven, but if Miss Philippines commits a grammar slip in English, she is condemned.
Is Filipino, then, just a mere illusion created by the state to convince the country and the world that it is an independent nation with many islands linked by a distinct homegrown language? It is true that most Filipinos in the country use it, but do they do it as an expression of their cultural identity or simply as a tool of interaction? Does it really reign supreme in the linguistic repertoire of Filipinos, especially those who live beyond the boundaries of the National Capital Region where Filipino is often used?
I remember going to South Cotabato to conduct ELT training sessions. At night, the teachers would gather and speak in various languages such as Cebuano, Ilonggo, and Waray. Knowing only Kapampangan, Filipino, and English, I could not join the conversation. However, I listened to them, fascinated that they understood one another even if they spoke in different languages. There was some kind of linguistic kinship among them. That made me realize that in such regions, Filipino was overshadowed by the local languages. It made me understand why there was still resistance to Filipino as a national language by some sectors.
Will Filipino ever steal the glory away from English and conquer the hearts of Filipinos scattered in the various islands of the Philippines? The answer lies in the direction that Filipino language policy makers and educators will take in this inescapable age of globalization.
References:
Blommaert, J. (2006) Language policy and national identity. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: theory and method (pp. 238-254). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing
Tollefson, J.Q. (1991). “Revolutionary language policy.” Chapter in Planning language, planning inequality: language policy in the community. London: Longman.
In the Philippines, Filipino is the national language, and it shares its throne as an official language with English as stated in the 1987 Constitution while regional languages serve as “auxiliary official languages in the regions” (quoted in Tollefson, 1991, p. 158). Based on the functions assigned to these languages, Filipino is at the top of the linguistic hierarchy, followed by English and the regional languages. However, as Tollefson (1991, p. 159) points out, Filipino is simply a “national integrative symbol” with English dominating the major realms of communication. This may be explained by the perception that English is the language of prestige, progress, and power. Filipino, although it is understood and spoken nationwide, does not seem to have the same stature as English, especially in the field of education. A student who is fluent in English usually receives more applause than a student who is brilliant in Filipino. Entrance tests and national exams focus on English communication skills and seldom or never on Filipino communication skills. The first language that many children learn is English because their parents have to train them for their target exclusive schools that conduct tests and interviews in English and condition learners that it is a big sin not to be able to communicate well in English. Thus, to rephrase a famous quote, to speak Filipino is human, but to speak English is divine. If Miss Japan mutilates the English language in the Miss Universe beauty pageant, she is forgiven, but if Miss Philippines commits a grammar slip in English, she is condemned.
Is Filipino, then, just a mere illusion created by the state to convince the country and the world that it is an independent nation with many islands linked by a distinct homegrown language? It is true that most Filipinos in the country use it, but do they do it as an expression of their cultural identity or simply as a tool of interaction? Does it really reign supreme in the linguistic repertoire of Filipinos, especially those who live beyond the boundaries of the National Capital Region where Filipino is often used?
I remember going to South Cotabato to conduct ELT training sessions. At night, the teachers would gather and speak in various languages such as Cebuano, Ilonggo, and Waray. Knowing only Kapampangan, Filipino, and English, I could not join the conversation. However, I listened to them, fascinated that they understood one another even if they spoke in different languages. There was some kind of linguistic kinship among them. That made me realize that in such regions, Filipino was overshadowed by the local languages. It made me understand why there was still resistance to Filipino as a national language by some sectors.
Will Filipino ever steal the glory away from English and conquer the hearts of Filipinos scattered in the various islands of the Philippines? The answer lies in the direction that Filipino language policy makers and educators will take in this inescapable age of globalization.
References:
Blommaert, J. (2006) Language policy and national identity. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: theory and method (pp. 238-254). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing
Tollefson, J.Q. (1991). “Revolutionary language policy.” Chapter in Planning language, planning inequality: language policy in the community. London: Longman.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Len’s Blog Assignment #2 (Tollefson)
According to Tollefson (1991, p. 163), English is a means of maintaining “economic inequalities within Philippine society.” This is very striking because it suggests that language policy can widen the barriers between the rich and the poor. However, if English ceased to be the official language, would it lead to fairer socioeconomic conditions? Another striking point is the NPA’s policy of promoting “the national language as the principal medium of communication in Philippine society…” (Tollefson, 1991, p. 144). However, if Filipino served as the more dominant official language of communication, would it stop linguistic elitism? These are some of the issues which Tollefson raises in his article.
Until now, it seems that the focus of the language debate in the Philippines has been on the use of either English or Filipino as the central medium of communication. However, I believe that the answer lies in language ecology that promotes linguistic diversity, liberty, and inquiry (Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas, 1996). How can the paradigm of language ecology work in the Philippines?
First, all languages used in the various regions in the Philippines should be considered as important as Filipino and English. These indigenous languages have to be integrated in our educational system to promote cultural awareness. The first step has to be the appreciation of local culture: for Filipinos to become more Filipino, they have to know how rich and deep their roots are. Let students have a taste of different indigenous languages and literatures such as Ilocano, Kapampangan, Bicolano, Cebuano, and Ilonggo in the primary and secondary levels and let them master one language as an elective in the tertiary level.
Second, continue immersing them in Filipino and English which may be useful to them when they pursue higher education, seek professional opportunities, and advance social justice around the world. Filipino should be positioned not as a language of the elite but as a symbol of national unity that bridges our islands. While English is the legacy of our American colonizer, it may be a powerful weapon of emancipation as used by our literary and cultural freedom fighters such as Carlos Bulosan and F. Sionil Jose. Thus, we do not have to junk English; instead, it should be exploited fully for noble ends. Meaningful and liberating Philippine works in English should be taught in all levels of education. Let students become acquainted first with Filipino literary giants such as NVM Gonzalez, Ben Santos, and Nick Joaquin before they are taught Shakespeare, Hemingway, and Faulkner. Let English be utilized as a crucial eye-opener instead of a cultural blindfold.
Third, as most institutions are already doing, official documents and communications need to be both in Filipino and English for practical purposes. Filipino is the common language of Filipinos and English is the common language shared by Asians and most of the world. For us to close our doors to English may not be wise, considering that all our Asian neighbors are opening theirs to this language to achieve pragmatic goals.
As for uplifting the state of the poor, the key is to educate them critically to enable them to find their place in the labor force. Filipinos have been conditioned to think that their only hope for progress is to find a spot in the corporate world or to seek greener fields abroad. The government has to be more aggressive in supporting entrepreneurship, agriculture, technology, and other industries that will provide solid livelihood for the people. Thus, it is not just a matter of language policy, but a matter of critical sense and practical action that may revolutionize the conditions of Philippine society.
Reference:
Tollefson, J.Q. (1991). “Revolutionary language policy.” Chapter in Planning language, planning inequality: language policy in the community. London: Longman.
Until now, it seems that the focus of the language debate in the Philippines has been on the use of either English or Filipino as the central medium of communication. However, I believe that the answer lies in language ecology that promotes linguistic diversity, liberty, and inquiry (Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas, 1996). How can the paradigm of language ecology work in the Philippines?
First, all languages used in the various regions in the Philippines should be considered as important as Filipino and English. These indigenous languages have to be integrated in our educational system to promote cultural awareness. The first step has to be the appreciation of local culture: for Filipinos to become more Filipino, they have to know how rich and deep their roots are. Let students have a taste of different indigenous languages and literatures such as Ilocano, Kapampangan, Bicolano, Cebuano, and Ilonggo in the primary and secondary levels and let them master one language as an elective in the tertiary level.
Second, continue immersing them in Filipino and English which may be useful to them when they pursue higher education, seek professional opportunities, and advance social justice around the world. Filipino should be positioned not as a language of the elite but as a symbol of national unity that bridges our islands. While English is the legacy of our American colonizer, it may be a powerful weapon of emancipation as used by our literary and cultural freedom fighters such as Carlos Bulosan and F. Sionil Jose. Thus, we do not have to junk English; instead, it should be exploited fully for noble ends. Meaningful and liberating Philippine works in English should be taught in all levels of education. Let students become acquainted first with Filipino literary giants such as NVM Gonzalez, Ben Santos, and Nick Joaquin before they are taught Shakespeare, Hemingway, and Faulkner. Let English be utilized as a crucial eye-opener instead of a cultural blindfold.
Third, as most institutions are already doing, official documents and communications need to be both in Filipino and English for practical purposes. Filipino is the common language of Filipinos and English is the common language shared by Asians and most of the world. For us to close our doors to English may not be wise, considering that all our Asian neighbors are opening theirs to this language to achieve pragmatic goals.
As for uplifting the state of the poor, the key is to educate them critically to enable them to find their place in the labor force. Filipinos have been conditioned to think that their only hope for progress is to find a spot in the corporate world or to seek greener fields abroad. The government has to be more aggressive in supporting entrepreneurship, agriculture, technology, and other industries that will provide solid livelihood for the people. Thus, it is not just a matter of language policy, but a matter of critical sense and practical action that may revolutionize the conditions of Philippine society.
Reference:
Tollefson, J.Q. (1991). “Revolutionary language policy.” Chapter in Planning language, planning inequality: language policy in the community. London: Longman.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Len’s Blog Assignment #1 (Ricento and Hornberger)
Indeed, “the classroom practitioner” should be placed “at the heart of language policy (at the center of the onion)” (Ricento and Hornberger, 1996, p. 417). Teachers have the power to implement, question, adjust, modify, and introduce language policies to meet their students’ needs, to achieve their instructional goals, and to advocate critical language awareness. However, the reality is that many teachers do not use this power because they work in contexts that impose and prescribe strict language policies. There are some contexts though that empower teachers to seek answers that may solve puzzling language issues and to propose fresh language policies.
As a classroom teacher, a former chair and coordinator, a teacher educator, and a language researcher, I see language policies as instruments in promoting critical and cultural literacy. They need to be evaluated and modified regularly to ensure that they serve their purpose. If they become obstacles to thinking and learning, then they need to be amended. Reviewing existing specific ELT policies is unquestionably a challenging task because it usually entails destroying old paradigms that threaten traditional and established programs and practices. Nevertheless, it is an important process that needs to be followed if the goal is learning advancement.
I have always been an ELT maverick and the first thing I do as a classroom teacher is study the prescribed/recommended ELT policies as reflected in the syllabus, the tasks/activities, and materials and check if they are congruent with my teaching context. While I follow the “musts” (non-negotiable items or prescribed items) in the course, I assess the learners’ needs and course objectives. After doing so, I introduce “wants” (enrichment tasks/projects/activities) that may enhance the cognitive abilities and critical awareness of my students further. If I see flaws in the “musts,” I adjust them without deviating from them. I design experimental/alternative materials and conduct experimental/alternative lessons that I evaluate through action research. The results of my action research I share with my co-teachers and the department to propose the innovation of materials, the enhancement of practices, and the improvement of programs. Thus, instead of being influenced by language policies, I tend to do the opposite because I believe that the ultimate policy-maker and agent of implementation is the teacher who knows exactly what needs to be done in the classroom because she is the soldier in the battlefield of education. However, developing policy has to be research-based and process-oriented for it to be formed successfully.
My Ateneo teaching contexts (Ateneo High School and School of Humanities) have allowed me to be an active agent in policy evaluation and innovation. It has not been an easy journey, but it has been a meaningful and fulfilling one. As a teacher educator, I share my findings and experiences with fellow classroom practitioners to encourage them to use their power as policy evaluators and innovators. The sad part is that many of them are constrained by their school environments that are guided by rigid language policies. My answer is that they can introduce little changes that do not totally go against the prescribed policies and allow ripples of change to bring about a significant impact on the system. Whenever I conduct workshops on critical thinking for teachers, I remind them that as language teachers, we have the burden, the duty, and the privilege of empowering learners’ minds. I believe that the classroom is the starting point of social change and every teacher is a catalyst who may inspire learners to make a significant contribution to society. There may be many impediments, but it is a matter of overcoming them with passion, conviction, and determination.
Reference:
Ricento, T. & Hornberger, N. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: language planning and
policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30 (3), 401-427.
As a classroom teacher, a former chair and coordinator, a teacher educator, and a language researcher, I see language policies as instruments in promoting critical and cultural literacy. They need to be evaluated and modified regularly to ensure that they serve their purpose. If they become obstacles to thinking and learning, then they need to be amended. Reviewing existing specific ELT policies is unquestionably a challenging task because it usually entails destroying old paradigms that threaten traditional and established programs and practices. Nevertheless, it is an important process that needs to be followed if the goal is learning advancement.
I have always been an ELT maverick and the first thing I do as a classroom teacher is study the prescribed/recommended ELT policies as reflected in the syllabus, the tasks/activities, and materials and check if they are congruent with my teaching context. While I follow the “musts” (non-negotiable items or prescribed items) in the course, I assess the learners’ needs and course objectives. After doing so, I introduce “wants” (enrichment tasks/projects/activities) that may enhance the cognitive abilities and critical awareness of my students further. If I see flaws in the “musts,” I adjust them without deviating from them. I design experimental/alternative materials and conduct experimental/alternative lessons that I evaluate through action research. The results of my action research I share with my co-teachers and the department to propose the innovation of materials, the enhancement of practices, and the improvement of programs. Thus, instead of being influenced by language policies, I tend to do the opposite because I believe that the ultimate policy-maker and agent of implementation is the teacher who knows exactly what needs to be done in the classroom because she is the soldier in the battlefield of education. However, developing policy has to be research-based and process-oriented for it to be formed successfully.
My Ateneo teaching contexts (Ateneo High School and School of Humanities) have allowed me to be an active agent in policy evaluation and innovation. It has not been an easy journey, but it has been a meaningful and fulfilling one. As a teacher educator, I share my findings and experiences with fellow classroom practitioners to encourage them to use their power as policy evaluators and innovators. The sad part is that many of them are constrained by their school environments that are guided by rigid language policies. My answer is that they can introduce little changes that do not totally go against the prescribed policies and allow ripples of change to bring about a significant impact on the system. Whenever I conduct workshops on critical thinking for teachers, I remind them that as language teachers, we have the burden, the duty, and the privilege of empowering learners’ minds. I believe that the classroom is the starting point of social change and every teacher is a catalyst who may inspire learners to make a significant contribution to society. There may be many impediments, but it is a matter of overcoming them with passion, conviction, and determination.
Reference:
Ricento, T. & Hornberger, N. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: language planning and
policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30 (3), 401-427.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)