Teacher Discussion Forums

The usual language content aside, what do you think of the content of many textbooks for compulsory education? and I stress compulsory education. Obviouly other courses might be more specialized for various specific purposes, or in some countries students might be free to choose their second language.

From my experiences in China, I find the following deficiencies in various textbooks:

1. Ambiguous purpose: In China, the government's objectives for the English course are not clearly laid out, thus leaving not only the foreign, but even the Chinese, teacher in the dark as to what the exact objective is. How do you teach without a clear objective?

In China, English is compulsory for most students, which suggests to me that the government has as an objective to have Chinese people use English for global communication (though this is not spelled out, so I can only guess). Certainly if it is for global communication, then no more emphasis ought to be placed on anglo-saxon culture than on any other. Since this would be detrimental to the country's economic objectives too. Also, are the government's objectives cultural, economic, political, what?

Some textbooks place exclusive emphasis on Anglo-American culture, which would seem to run in direct conflict with the government's intended purpose (assuming I have guessed the government's purpose correctly). Yet many Chinese teachers seem to not have even considered to find out about this purpose. Have Chinese teachers not been taught the government's intended objectives for the English curriculum? And if so, what is it? And if it is for global communication, then why do do so few teachers even consider such criteria in choosing teaching resources?

Obviously this will differ from country to country. If students can choose their foreign language in your country, or if the government has clarified that the purpose of the English curriculum is specifically to communicate with English-speaking countries, or to learn English culture, then a more anglo-centric curriculum would indeed be approapriate. But not in a country in which English is compulsory for the vast majority, and appears to be intended for global communication.

2. promoting an ethno-centric world view:

Many textbooks will (unintentionally I'm sure) present exclusively caucasian characters with typical anglo-saxon names, holidays, sports, and other aspects of culture. And when presenting a Chinese person's travels abroad, you can bet that it's usually to New York, Sidney, London, Toronto or other such city, or at least in the US or a Commonwealth country. Again, while I'm sure the intent is unintentional, the result is that it is programming the students, almost as by Pavlovian reflex, to go specifically to Anglo-saxon countries.

I remember a study done in Europe a few years ago, and among the questions given to highschool students were, 'what language did you study' and where would you like to go'. it showed that there was a strong relationship between the language studied and the country the students wanted to go to. Almost all who'd studied English wanted to go to the US or britain, as if that is all there is in the world. Clearly that is against China's economic interest if the end result is merely that students will cause a booming EFl industry in these countries while still ignoring other world markets and leaving them untapped. This is something worth trying for yourselves. give your students a uestionaire, and ask them where they'd like to go. I did that once. Every single studetn out of thirty said they wanted to go to the US? So much for a mind open to the world.

While this might be fine if English is just one of the foreign languages taught, and it is optional. When it is compulsory, certainly it is a national tragedy to be conditioning an entire populatin to turn its focus to just two countries, ignorant of all other cultures.

It would seem to me that textbook developers in China have paid little to no attention to the sociological and psychological non-linguistic features of their textbooks, and teachers appear to have not been trained either in understanding the overall purpose of the course (e.g. is it for global communication or communication exclusively with English-speaking countries. and if for global communication, then how are the sociological, cultural and psychological content to reflect that objective? And what racial, ethnic or other subtle and unintentinal messages or values or morals are being presented in the course).

Do you find similar problems in teaching resources used in your countries?

Oh, and I just want to clarify that I'm indifferent as to whether English is taught as a national or ethnic language on the one hand, or a global one on the other. I'm just saying that, either way, objectives of the government, teachers and textbooks and other teaching materials ought to be consistent either way. And in China I find them in contradiction to one another. If it's taught as a national or ethnic language, it ought not be compulsory, and if it's taught as a world language, it ought to teach world cultures equally, with no more emphasis on one culture than on another.

My experience teaching in Europe indicates that non-English students want to learn English to do business with other people whose native language is not English: i.e., Germans want to do business with Chinese, and are using English as a lingua franca. As far as holidays, Europeans will often use English to communicate with hotels, taxi drivers, restaurant staff, etc., even in non-English-speaking countries, again because it serves as a common denominator language. They're not necessarily dreaming of visiting America, Canada, Ireland, the U.K. or Australia and improving their English for that purpose.

You've posed some great questions. Why force students to learn English? What is the government's purpose in mandating English? Are students being sold a particular paradigm under the pretense of learning English?
You also seem to suspect that this mandatory English training will also lead to some unexpected and negative results.

Many nations, small and large, have decided to make English mandatory to better compete in the global economy, increase their global status, and reduce nationalist tendencies. A quick look at the world's map also reveals that many former British colonies have become far wealthier and enjoy greater social stability than many other former colonies. For worse or for better, English has become the world's language for trade, education, and science. Many academic journals - in Germany, Spain, Israel, Japan - now publish in English. A stronger EU and the internet have also both contributed to this trend.

You expressed concern that students who study English fantasized more about visiting the United States and the United Kingdom than other parts of the world. Why are you surprised? The more you know about most topics, the more you want to learn and experience. You also express disappointment that students don't want to visit other, less prominent areas of the global. Perhaps its easier for individuals from first world nations to romanticize third world poverty. People raised in poorer nations want to at least see what wealthy nations look like more than discover the exotic smells and problems of other 3rd world countires. Call it human nature. You can't expect a starving man to reject a sizzling steak because red meat might cause cancer.

Thank you for sharing your concerns and posing those great questions.

Shalom

Eric
[email protected]
www.compellingconversations.com