Education is a political activity and, if education is political, so is language education. Pennycook (1990) warned, “We are involved in language and education, an intersection between two of the most fundamentally political aspects of life” (p. 9). Language teaching is a cultural, moral, social, and political activity that can either help students uncover and confront unjust social power structures or reinforce them. Therefore, it is important that L2 teachers understand the political nature of our profession. When L2 teachers have critical consciousness, they become aware of, reflect on, dialogue, engage, and act against dominant ideologies and they guide their students to do the same. Critically conscious teachers are aware of and challenge taken-for-granted assumptions embedded in the curriculum and in their own teaching practices.
The teaching of English language has been criticized as a pervasive, colonizing force for Western ideologies in the form of teaching approaches (see Canagarajah, 2008; Pennycook, 1994; Phillipson, 1992; Vandrick, 2009). Pennycook (1994) warned that teaching approaches taught widely in American L2 teacher development programs (e.g., communicative language teaching) carry assumptions of “superiority” and “advanced” Western language teaching methods, potentially incompatible in other cultural contexts.
Communicative language teaching promotes Western superiority when it is based on theories and models that are different from and dissonant to those that of the local culture of learning (for examples in China, see Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; Hu, 2005). Blindly applying a particular teaching methodology, such as communicative language, may result in conflict with local values and misconceptions regarding the particular methodology. In the context of the classroom, it can affect how teachers manage classrooms and, consequently, student-teacher relationships (Butler, 2011). This does not mean, however, that communicative language teaching cannot be adapted in a culturally sensitive way. On the contrary, when teachers adapt certain teaching methodologies to their local contexts and to national educational traditions and cultures, these methodologies become “embedded in local practices” (Butler, 2011, p. 36).
Critically conscious English language teachers thus recognize both the challenges associated with the English language teaching profession and issues of domination and neo-colonialism (see Canagarajah, 1999; Pennycook, 1994) and the possibilities it creates as a tool of liberation.
References:
Butler, Y. G. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-Pacific region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 36-57.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). On EFL teachers awareness and agency. ELT Journal, 53(3), 207-214.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2008). The politics of English language teaching. In S. May & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 213-227). Boston, MA: Springer.
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). English teaching and learning in China. Language Teaching, 29(2), 61-80.
Hu, G. (2005). Contextual influences on instructional practices: A Chinese case for an ecological approach to ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 39(4), 635-660.
Pennycook, A. (1990). Towards a critical applied linguistics for the 1990s. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 8-28.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London, UK: Longman.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Vandrick, S. (2009). A Former "Missionary Kid" Responds. In M. S. Wong & S. Canagarajah (Eds.), Christian and critical English language educators in dialogue: Pedagogical and ethical dilemmas (pp. 141-149). New York, NY: Routledge.
Commentaires