International Perspectives on Teaching English in a Globalised World

Andrew Goodwyn, Louann Reid, Cal Durrant

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781136468032
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

The renowned and highly experienced editors of this book bring together the leading voices in contemporary English education under the banner of the International Federation for the Teaching of English (IFTE). The collected chapters here represent the very best of international writing on the teaching of English in the past decade.

The key issues and debates surrounding English teaching across the globe are discussed and analysed accessibly, and incorporate wide-ranging topics including:

• The impact of high stakes testing on teaching and learning;

• Addressing the needs of minority groups;

• The digitization of literature and new conceptions of text;
• Rewriting the canon;

• Dealing with curriculum change;
• "Best practices" in the teaching of English;
• The tension between 'literacy' and 'English';

• English and bilingual education;
• The impact of digital technologies on teaching and learning;
• Conceptions of English as a subject [secondary and tertiary];
• Bringing the critical into the English/Literacy classroom;
• The future of subject English;
• Empowering voices on the margins;

• Pre-service teacher education;

• The social networking English classroom.

This text looks at the changing face of subject English from the differing perspectives of policy makers, teacher educators, teachers and their students. It tackles some of the hard questions posed by technological advances in a global society, challenges conventional approaches to teaching and points to the emerging possibilities for a traditional school subject such as English in the face of rapid change and increasing societal expectations. Despite all of the converging political and technological threats, the authors of this engaging and insightful text portray an immense confidence in the ultimate worth of teaching and learning subject English.

Chapter 1

---

Introduction

English – looking ahead

Andrew Goodwyn, Cal Durrant and Louann Reid

---

From the beginnings of English as a school subject, teachers and teacher – educators in English-speaking countries have confronted similar issues regarding its teaching. Contextualised by the present time and our local and national settings, a surprising number of the issues are nonetheless both common across contexts, and perennial. They bothered us in the past and, looking ahead, we are certain they will continue to vex us. Through international conferences and essay collections, we realise the similarities of the problems we face, allowing us to interact in larger networks of colleagues and enlarge our understanding of both the problems and the possibilities for addressing them (Hawthorne et al., 2012; Peel et al., 2000; Goodwyn, 2010; Ellis et al., 2007; Doecke et al., 2003). Several key issues indicate the changes and challenges for the traditional school subject of ‘English’ in an international context. The following list of topics is not meant to be comprehensive but it serves to illustrate some of the key, common issues.

First, we have the fundamental issue of mother tongue teaching and policy. In the English-speaking world there is a secondary school subject called ‘English’ and this includes, for example, all of the UK (i.e. including wales and Scotland which have, or had, different traditional/vernacular languages), USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. There are some variations, in the US ‘Literacy’, ‘Language Arts’, or ‘English Language Arts’ are all more frequently employed than ‘English’ alone. In each of these countries the main subject association uses the term ‘English’ in its title (the National Association for the Teaching of English [UK], the National Council of Teachers of English [US]). There are variations. In Australia the main association is still the Australian Association for the Teaching of English, but it collaborates consistently with ALEA (Australian Literacy Educators' Association) and also PETAA (Primary English Teaching Association Australia); it also has a major project called STELLA (Standards for Teachers of English Language and Literacy in Australia). New Zealand uses English in its title but the association's work is much characterised by Maori language and culture. Canada has an overarching body CCTELA (Canadian Association for Teachers of English Language Arts). Strikingly the organisation that represents elementary teachers in the UK that was for many years called the United Kingdom Reading Association changed its name, replacing Reading with Literacy, to become the UKLA – United Kingdom Literacy Association. Evidently ‘English’ retains its dominant place with variations and with elementary teachers ‘accepting’ the literacy nomenclature. However, what ‘English’ actually is, as a subject (and this includes at University level), is the focus of endless debate and contention, a debate that is increasingly politicised and imbued with nationalistic imperatives. The leading researchers and theorists in the field continue to postulate new names and new intellectual frameworks for its future.

Second, in mother tongue (and literacy) policy there is attention to other languages. This includes notions of English as an Additional Language or English as a Second Language and then what might be termed minority languages. A country like New Zealand has a relatively exemplary policy in relation to Maori, very unlike Australia and its indigenous languages or the US and either indigenous or immigrant languages. Essentially, there remains an immense tension between an imperialistic and nationalistic notion of English as a dominant language (i.e. all immigrants must learn to speak and ‘love’ English) and a far more inclusive notion which critiques this domineering position and asks students to do the same. Somewhat linked to issues of language are broader notions of culture with the term ‘multicultural’ also a political football in the 21st century. with notions of culture come epithets for literature such as ‘multicultural’ or ‘world’. In England during the 1990s there was an anthology of poetry entitled ‘Poetry from other cultures’, brilliantly capturing the neoliberal ideal of ‘our culture’ and then those of the ‘alien’, the ‘other’. The new Australian Curriculum: English (ACARA, 2011) tries to dodge the issue of multiculturalism, and the political neatness of the discourse in the document's Rationale is well worth repeating here:

Although Australia is a linguistically and culturally diverse country, participation in many aspects of Australian life depends on effective communication in Standard Australian English. In addition, proficiency in English is invaluable globally. The Australian Curriculum: English contributes both to nation-building and to internationalisation.

The new Common Core State Standards in the US (National, 2010) mention ‘culture’ generally, as in reading literature from ‘diverse cultures and time periods’ but in the standards on language, where one might expect to find attention to the linguistic diversity of the US, only ‘standard English’ is addressed. This observation also relates to the next issue.

Third, we have the issue of grammar teaching which has its own long history deriving from the notions of grammar taught in Classics (especially Latin) and really is a separate strand of attention to language. For example, The London School was very much concerned with creating a balance between students working on language and literature (Britton 1970; Dixon, 1975) and was completely opposed to grammar teaching, at least as characterised by the aptly named ‘Grammar Schools’. Both elementary and secondary teachers of English continue to address language rules but in spite of numerous right wing attempts to ‘bring back grammar’ (Kingman, 1988) explicit teaching of decontextualised grammar has been resisted. In Australia, the new national English curriculum (ACARA, 2011) comprises three strands: Language, Literacy and Literature. while various state English curriculum documents have varied in their focus on grammar over the years, the Language strand places a renewed emphasis on ‘knowing about the English language’. Significantly, the curriculum writers have quite deliberately avoided anointing any single grammar, opting to use traditional grammar terminology but taking a functional grammar perspective. It has already resulted in a rapid growth in the number of grammar books published for schools as the major publishers jockey for market position. Many of these lend themselves to the decontextualised teaching of grammar. Grammar is likewise addressed as part of the language standards in the Common Core State Standards, using the politically loaded phrase ‘standard English’. Students are to “demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English grammar and usage when writing or speaking” and “the conventions of standard English capitalization, punctuation, and spelling when writing” (National, 2010: 52ff). Teaching beyond the standards will clearly be needed if students and teachers are to understand the riches of multilingualism.

In the last decade some more interesting attention has been paid to whether explicit teaching of grammar in defined contexts can improve students' writing. The relationship of grammar teaching to improvement in writing is only one of the many questions in dispute. Indeed the teaching of writing, also called ‘composition’ in the US and Canada, occupies an awkward space in ‘English’. It remains the main mode through which student competence is assessed, yet it is also seen as a mode of learning as in ‘writing to learn’ and ‘writing across the curriculum’. yancey, describing the situation in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s in the US, points to the tensions between an understanding of writing as a process and writing as a tool for assessment:

At the same time, however, the promise of composing process as developing theory and classroom practice was truncated by several factors, among them two that are related: (1) the formalisation of the process itself, into a narrow model suitable for (2) tests designed by a testing industry that too often substitutes a test of grammar for a test of writing and that supports writing, when it does, as an activity permitted in designated time chunks only, typically no more than 35-minute chunks.

(Yancey, 2009: 4)

Tensions also exist regarding the development of writing, with the workshop approach conflicting with the teaching of strict forms such as the five-paragraph essay. Generally, though, the writing curriculum of most countries follows a pattern whereby early writing is personal and expressive and older students are mostly engaged in essay style and critical texts. In the past decade, multimodal composing has found a place in curriculum as we consider the skills necessary for 21st century communication. Teachers are often less comfortable teaching writing than any other part of the curriculum, although the National writing Project in the US (Lieberman and Wood, 2003; Stock, this volume) has been one highly successful professional development initiative to address this concern.

Fourth, we have the fundamental focus on the teaching of reading and this takes many forms. The teaching of early reading in numerous countries has been consistently controversial. In the US the controversy was characterised as the ‘Reading wars’ with deeply opposed factions (Goodman, 1998). Advocates of whole language pedagogy (e.g., Goodman, K., 1986, 2005; Goodman, Y., 1989; Short, Harste and Burke, 1996) advocated a real reading and contextualised approach to the teaching of reading with their opposition championing approaches using reading schemes and close attention to phonics (Turner and Burkard, 1996) who then influenced the UK NLS. Reading and literacy are often used synonymously (and confusingly) in these campaigns. The debate shifts with older students. Legislative solutions such as No Child Left Behind (in the US) and methods as ‘Reading Recovery’ (from New Zealand) have been adopted in various countries at various times. These interventions are often heavily gendered with a high concern for boys' failure to read competently or ethnicity/class becomes a factor especially in urban contexts whether with recent immigrations or long-standing issues of deprivation. However, Critical Literacy, (Misson and Morgan, 2006; Muspratt et al., 1997) was a very different development, led by academics and teachers, principally in Australia. Its concerns were with the nature and purpose of reading and the idea of empowering readers to ‘read against the grain’ of texts, exposing the ideologies of texts and their attempts to position readers to accept dominant positions e.g. white, nationalistic, heterosexual, capitalist etc. (Horner, this volume). This movement was highly influential amongst Australian teachers but became increasingly vilified by politicians and columnists from the News Limited-owned national daily The Australian (Donnelly, 2004, 2005, 2007; Durrant, 2005; Slattery, 2005). After several ‘false starts’, the Australian federal government is implementing a National Curriculum with English as one of four First Phase subjects to be addressed and introduced over the next two years. Australia exemplifies those federalist countries (as with the US and Canada) where strongly established curricular and literacy policies at state level exist in strong tension with the federal governments' nationalistic objectives. These tensions remain unresolved but the NC documents for English in Australia show only a few traces of Critical Literacy.

Although US educators may use the term ‘critical literacy’ more broadly (thus lower case), their similar concerns are apparent in various ways. Most discussion of ‘critical literacy’ draws from the notion that there are multiple literacies, not a single entity called literacy, and from an understanding of literacy as social practice (Harste, 2003). NCTE calls critical literacy a 21st century learning skill in its Pathways professional development programmes, and a 2008 position statement contends that Literacy has always been a collection of cultural and communicative practices shared among members of particular groups. As society and technology change, so does literacy. Because technology has increased the intensity and complexity of literate environments, the 21st century demands that a literate person possess a wide range of abilities and competencies, many literacies. These literacies – from reading online newspapers to participating in virtual classrooms – are multiple, dynamic, and malleable. As in the past, they are inextricably linked with particular histories, life possibilities and social trajectories of individuals and groups. Twenty-first century readers and writers need to:

• develop proficiency with the tools of technology;

• build relationships with others to pose and solve problems collaboratively and cross-culturally;

• design and share information for global communities to meet a variety of purposes;

• manage, analyse and synthesise multiple streams of simultaneous information;

• create, critique, analyse, and evaluate multi-media texts;

• attend to the ethical responsibilities required by these complex environments (NCTE Executive Committee).

In the US, at least, critical literacy has become more fully realised in the context of changing technologies and changes in society. Underlying all this is English teachers' own fascination with reading, research suggests (Goodwyn, 2011b) that one of the very strongest motivations for becoming a teacher of English is ‘a love of reading’ (Goodwyn, 2003). No shifts in definitions of literacy seem to change this deep personal and professional relationship with reading, principally of literature.

Fifthly, the most fundamental change to literacy in the late 20th century and increasingly into the 21st is the impact of technology, especially those technologies concerned with providing information (the media, the internet, multimodal texts) and communication (email, texting, mobile phones, Skype). The debate about this begins with the media, first film (1960s and 1970s), later television (1970s and 1980s) then the web (1990s and ongoing; Goodwyn, 2004; Durrant, 2009). In all the countries mentioned above there has been uncertainty about whether ‘English’ should include Media Education or sho...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Contributors
• 1 Introduction English – looking ahead
• Part I Literacies and literatures Creative possibilities
• Part II English teachers @ work Tensions, pressures, opportunities
• Part III New technologies, new practices
• Index