1
INTRODUCTION
The Faithful Fence
Mary Shepard Wong
AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY (USA)
Zoltån Dörnyei
UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM (UK)
Carolyn KristjĂĄnsson
TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY (CANADA)
The impatient gate, that swings both in and out,
Whose work is lost when no one passes through;
The faithful fence, that marks off false from trueâ
No time for hanging back, no room for doubtâ
Exist, not in the world, but in the mind.
Yet God forgive if what is there for me
I either hide, or try to press on thee,
To shout thee deaf, or leave thee lost and blind.
This dreadful choice sets sister against brother,
Either to injure, or to fail each other.
(Earl Stevick, as cited in Wong & Canagarajah, 2009, p. 297)
Mary never ceases to be amazed with her graduate studentsâ thoughtful yet diverse interpretations of Earl Stevickâs poem cited above. What do the âimpatient gateâ and âfaithful fenceâ represent and what is the âdreadful choice?â In one interpretation, the dreadful choice is about sharing oneâs faith and the impatient gate the opportunity that is either lost or taken as it âswings both out and in.â The choice is dreadful because one risks either âinjuringâ someone by âshouting [them] deafâ or âfailingâ them by leaving them âlost or blind.â There is no time to âhang back,â for if one does not pass through the gate, its âwork is lost.â
There might be yet another interpretation of these imagesâone in which the impatient gate represents our research questions, and the faithful fence âthat marks off false from trueâ our research. The phrase, âYet God forgive if what is there for me I either hide, or try to press on threeâ might, then, refer to full disclosure in research, and not overstating oneâs findings and ensuring there is ample evidence for what one claims. âFailing each otherâ occurs by not asking the questions and not engaging in the research that explores our faith and teaching. It begs the question: What âwork is lostâ when we fail to investigate how our deeply held beliefs about God and language impact our language teaching pedagogy, scholarship, and students?
This volume arose out of a keen desire to move forward the research agenda on Christian faith and English language teaching and learning. The idea for the book came to us (Mary and Carolyn) the night after a successful panel on faith and research at the Boston TESOL Convention in 2010. The session, âEnglish teaching and Christian mission: Empirical research perspectivesâ organized by Bill Johnston, was well attended in spite of it being one of the final presentations on the last day of the conference. Four presenters, two Christians (Mary and Carolyn) and two self-identified non-Christians described their research on âEvangelicals and ELTâ and a lively yet respectful discussion followed. The question dominating our dinner conversation that evening was what we could do to keep this momentum going. We surmised that an edited volume of empirical studies on faith and English Language Teaching (ELT) would inspire more research in this area. Wanting to internationalize the scope of the project and provide more expertise in research, we invited ZoltĂĄn Dörnyei to join the editorial team, and he agreed almost immediately. A call for chapters was sent out and, after receiving a solid response, we wrote a book proposal and a contract from Routledge soon followed.
Research on Faith and English Language Learning/ Teaching
Some readers may be unaware of the background of the discussion of faith and language teaching within TESOL. Although research related specifically to faith in ELT is not extensive, it has been developing over the past two decades. A brief summary will be provided here that mentions a few seminal works, but for a more complete list of related works, see Chapter 15, âA Working Bibliography.â It will be shown that the unspoken agreement to not allow oneâs religious faith to âintrudeâ on oneâs professional practice is still present within TESOL, as it is in other fields, but research on identity has provided some space to explore how faith and foreign language teaching and learning impact each other in powerful ways.
The influence of faith on language is not new. Accounts in Scripture of Creation, the Tower of Babel, or the events at Pentecost, for example, are rich with insights about the connections of faith and language. Likewise, the connection of faith and language teaching has been around for centuries. Comenius, the seventeenth-century scholar, often called the âfather of modern education,â made insightful comments about the connections of faith and language education, many of which are still relevant today (for more on Comenius, see Howatt, 2004; Smith, 2000). The work by missionaries in language translation and learning has also been ongoing for several centuries (see, for example, the website for SIL International: www.sil.org). However, up until the 1990s, the discussion of faith and language teaching and learning was largely restricted to Christian publications and was not found much in the wider TESOL literature.
This began to change in the 1990s. Earl Stevickâs Humanism in Language Teaching, published in 1990 in response to earlier conversations in the field, made the case that the âobjective stanceâ taken by some critics of âhumanisticâ methods and religious faith was itself grounded in unprovable articles of âfaith.â He included in this work a faith-informed assessment of two methods, as well as a discussion of teaching as âsacramental.â Two years later, Robert Phillipsonâs (1992) seminal work, Linguistic Imperialism, which highlighted aspects of language work in Christian missions, caused many in TESOL to take a more critical look at the forces that made English the language of power and influence that it is today. A series of forum discussions in TESOL Matters in 1996 and 1997 called âKeeping the Faithâ showcased an interesting discussion between Earl Stevick (1997) and Julian Edge (1996, 1997) around the ethical dilemmas of Christian witness and English teaching. The influential work of David Smith and Barbra Carvill (2000), The Gift of the Stranger, and then Don Snowâs (2001a) English Teaching as Christian Mission, made a significant contribution to Christian educators who wanted to explore how to better align their calling to Christ and vocation of teaching. However, the fact that these works were by Christian publishers targeting a Christian audience limited their impact on the larger TESOL community.
In 2001, the tide began to turn when Tom Scovel convened a panel of scholars to speak on âFaith, Values and Language Teachingâ at the annual TESOL convention in St. Louis. Several language teaching professionals were asked to speak about the influence of their faith beliefs on their practice, including Don Snow (Christian), Mary Ann Christison (Buddhist), David Mendelsohn (Jewish), Kassim Shaaban (Muslim), and Henry Widdowson (atheist), who was the discussant. (The session was recorded and was available for purchase.) This well-attended event demonstrated that the topic of teachersâ faith identities was a legitimate one, even at a professional language conference. As Don Snow wrote in CETC Newsletter about the event, âThe primary significance of this event was less the specific content ⊠than the fact that it occurred at allâ (Snow, 2001b, p. 2).
In the following years, a series of articles criticizing Christian English teachers appeared, including Alastair Pennycook and Sophie Coutand-Marinâs (2003) Teaching English as a Missionary Language and Julian Edgeâs (2003) forum piece in the TESOL Quarterly, Imperial Troopers and Servants of the Lord. Stephanie Vandrickâs (2002) chapter, âESL and the colonial legacy: A teacher faces her âmissionary kidâ pastâ served to deepen our understanding of the potential negative consequences of unexamined attitudes of superiority and to raise our awareness of issues of power that all teachers have, especially white educated native-speaking teachers from the West. Manka Varghese and Bill Johnstonâs lead article in TESOL Quarterly in 2007ââEvangelical Christians and English Language Teachingâ under Suresh Canagarajahâs tenure as editorâprovided an interesting qualitative study of Christian MA TESOL studentsâ views of how their faith impacted their teaching, and brought the issue of faith and teaching front and center to the TESOL community. Bradley Baurainâs bold article in 2007, âChristian witness and respect for personsâ in the Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, provided a Christian response to the arguments in several of these and other critical articles. About the same time, Carolyn published a paper investigating the influence of Christian faith on the thinking of Paulo Freire, the father of critical pedagogy, and highlighted the need for theory building that would allow for systematic consideration of spiritual perspectives as a source of knowledge and understanding in language education (KristjĂĄnsson, 2007).
In spite of this flurry of articles on faith and teaching within TESOL, it was clear that the organization was not comfortable with the topic, as was evidenced by the TESOL Boardâs decision to dissolve the Christian caucus (and all seven caucuses). The Christian caucus, which had been active within TESOL since 1996 and had grown to over 1,000 members at its peak, was dissolved in 2008 due to âlegal concernsâ of discrimination and fears that people would think TESOL supported Christianity over other religions. We watched how other caucuses, such as NNEST and Teachers for Social Responsibility, applied to become Interest Sections within TESOL and thus maintain their community and strengthen their influence. They did this by demonstrating that there was a solid body of research and scholarship supporting their causes, and thus they were considered robust subfields within TESOL. As a former leader within the Christian caucus, Mary started to consider how more rigorous research on faith and teaching, including publications in peer-reviewed journals, might help to legitimize the area of faith and ELT, by means of publications and conferences not only within Christian circles, but also outside them.
This desire prompted her to bring together major players in this discussion into one volume, and after securing the help of the then-editor of TESOL Quarterly Sueresh Canagarajah, they invited several of the authors mentioned above (Phillipson, Stevick, Edge, Pennycook, Canagarajah, Smith, Snow, Vandrick, Vargese, Johnston), as well as some twenty others, to continue the dialogue around issues of Christian faith and pedagogy, spirituality, ideology, and teacher identity in an edited volume, which resulted in the Routledge publication by Wong and Canagarajah (2009 hardback; 2011 paperback). That volume, however, was primarily ideological and conceptual in orientation and did not contain empirical studies on faith and language teaching/learning. As stated in the conclusion of that book, the editors felt that â[e]mpirical research [had not] kept pace with the amount of theoretical discussions on the role of spirituality in language learningâ and wanted âto see more classroom research on ways in which teachers and students negotiate their beliefs in teaching and learningâ (Wong & Canagarajah, 2009, p. 290). This current volume is a response to that call and a desire to âmark off the false from trueâ in empirical studies, and explore the questions that investigate the spiritual aspects of language teaching and learning.
About the Studies in This Volume
At the outset of our project, we faced some uncertainties about whether we would be able to solicit enough high-quality research papers on the topic to make up a robust anthology. While we knew that there was a healthy segment of the language teaching community that was interested and even involved in investigations concerning faith and language education, it was to be seen whether this interest would materialize in actual research studies of sufficient rigor to meet our editorial guidelines. Also, we were unsure about which aspects of language education would be targeted by the emerging studies and which would remain underrepresented. Our initial plan foresaw three main areas to be covered: (a) faith and language teacher identity; (b) faith and language learner identity; and (c) faith and language acquisition. Thus, we anticipated papers concerning the interface of faith beliefs and the identities of the agents in the language education process, as well as papers identifying direct links between faith beliefs and the mechanisms of second language acquisition.
In the end, the research papers that were accepted for the volume only partially confirmed our initial anticipations. We were pleased to receive a healthy number of empirical studies, mainly qualitative in nature, and the final content of the volume provides evidence for both the theoretical and practical validity of this new emerging subfield of Second Language Acquisition (SLA). The richest data were obtained about teacher identities, while learners were mainly examined in relation to their learning contextâhence the change of title of Part II. The most significant divergence from our original expectations occurred with regard to the actual process of second language learning (Part III). While we recall a few papers at past conferences that specifically linked faith-based issues to components and mechanisms of SLA (for example, praying as a learning strategy in missionary language training), for the present volume there was only one such area represented: the motivational basis of the learning process. Motivation is indeed an obvious factor to mediate faith beliefs but it is not the only possible one by any means; we feel that future research may target a wider scope of potentially relevant issues (we will come back to this question in the conclusion).
As the content of the book was gradually taking shape, we decided to make two further modifications to our initial plans. First, in order to strengthen the theoretical embededness of the data-based studies, we invited three content specialists to write review papers for each section. We were pleased that Maggie Kubanyiova, David Smith, and Ema Ushioda accepted our invitation, and their summaries and responsesâalso accompanied by suggestions for further researchâ have become an invaluable asset to the book.
The second change was motivated by the growing recognition that the literature relevant to the...