Content and language

FLTs can contribute to citizenship education by teaching with citizenship-related content. According to Maley (2004), since “language teaching has no defined content” (p. 3), FLTs are free to teach about more or less any subject matter. This view is a comparatively recent one, as Richards and Rodgers (2001) demonstrate. Until the emergence of the Reform Movement in the mid-nineteenth century, teachers of modern languages worked on the same assumptions that for centuries had guided teachers of Latin and Greek: that learning a language was essentially a matter of mastering its grammar, and that grammar should be taught

deductively, through translation exercises and rote memorization of grammatical rules. Thus, language teachers’ subject matter consisted very clearly of the grammar and vocabulary of the target language.

All this changed during what Richards and Rodgers (2001, pp. 14-16) refer to as “the methods era”, particularly from the 1950s to the 1980s, which revolutionized the teaching of foreign languages. While variants of the grammar- translation method continue to play an important role in some parts of the world – and, crucially for this study, in Japanese schools – for more than three decades, foreign language teaching has been dominated by the communicative approach.

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) “emphasizes that the goal of language learning is communicative competence, and … [it] seeks to make meaningful communication and language use a focus of all classroom activities” (J. C. Richards & Schmidt, 2002, p. 90). Compared with grammar-translation, the emphasis placed on “meaningful communication” in CLT implies radically different roles for teachers and learners. Learners take centre stage in the lesson, interacting with one another in communicative tasks; there is far less explicit grammar teaching as it is assumed learners will acquire grammatical rules inductively, through the trial-and-error process of communication. A large part of the teacher’s role is to facilitate this communication by providing materials

and activities that will stimulate talk, and it is in this sense that Maley refers to the absence of defined subject matter.

Those who advocate a role for FLTs in teaching citizenship-related content (e.g. Peaty, 2004) also draw support from theories of Content-Based Instruction (CBI) and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). CBI and CLIL are often treated differently in the literature, but as Cenoz (2015) demonstrates, there is no essential difference between them: both refer to the teaching of academic content through a second language, and treat language as a “medium of learning” rather than something taught for its own sake (Mohan, 1986, chap. 1). For convenience, I use the term CBI to refer to CBI/CLIL.

In their comprehensive account of CBI, Brinton, Snow and Wesche (2003) present a case for organizing language courses around topics or themes rather than linguistic items, arguing that “a second language is learned most effectively when used as the medium to convey informational content of interest and relevance to the learner” (p. ix). They outline various models of CBI which are distinguished by the relative weight given to language and content. In the

theme-based model, content is taught by a language teacher; the main aim is to

improve students’ language skills, but the simultaneous learning of content is an inherent feature of the model. It is this theme-based model of CBI, which Brinton, Snow and Wesche (2003) argue is “appropriate at virtually all levels of language proficiency” (p. 20), that is most relevant to the Japanese high-school context (and further references to CBI should be understood to refer to the theme-based model).

There is, then, substantial theoretical support for FLTs who wish to address particular content as they teach language. What arguments are there for them to address citizenship-related topics in particular? By “citizenship-related”, I refer to topics that concern the public sphere rather than the personal sphere that has tended to be the focus of language courses (Starkey & Osler, 2003). The public/private dichotomy relates to philosophical traditions outlined earlier, with republicanism focusing on the duty of citizens to participate in the public realm of politics, and the liberal tradition emphasizing the need for rights to protect liberties, many of which are enjoyed in the private sphere. More recent theory, particularly from a feminist perspective, has challenged the private/public distinction, demonstrating, for example, how relationships within the “private”

sphere of the family and the home are inextricably tied up with “public” matters of power and policy. Global education has also emphasized the need for greater awareness of the links between the “private” choices individuals make as consumers and the very public effects those choices can have, in terms of their environmental impact, for instance. Citizenship-related topics concern the public sphere in the sense that they address the question highlighted by Hess and McAvoy (2015), “How should we live together?” (p. 166). It is also clear that many topics schools could address as matters of personal ethics or “character” can also be considered from a public-policy standpoint as issues of citizenship (Davies, Grammes, & Kuno, 2017).

The Crick Report (QCA, 1998) argued that students need to acquire a basic knowledge and understanding of society “through the topical and

contemporary issues, events and activities which are the lifeblood of citizenship education” (p. 42), and identified these as spanning social, moral, political, environmental and economic issues. It also emphasized that such issues should be explored at a range of levels, from the local to the national, regional and global.

While the content taught by FLTs can address any of these levels, there is a particular interest in the profession in the global dimension. Cates (2005; 2002) observes that many language teachers feel a personal moral responsibility to address contemporary global issues:

Our world faces serious issues of terrorism, ethnic conflict, social inequality and environmental destruction. How can we prepare our students to cope with these challenges? What is our responsibility as language teachers in a world of war, poverty, prejudice and pollution? (K. Cates, 2005, p. 59)

Cates argues that this is not just a matter of personal ethics, however; language teachers have a professional responsibility, he says, to try to further educational goals adopted by international organizations like the UN. He cites UNESCO’s Linguapax Kiev Declaration which affirmed the responsibility of FLTs to “further international understanding through their teaching”, and do what they can “to enhance mutual respect, peaceful co-existence and co-operation among

nations” (as cited in Cates, 2005, p. 61). Like Cates, Peaty (2004) argues that FLTs are justified in incorporating human rights issues into their lessons since these have been sanctioned by international agreements such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Likewise, Birch’s (2009) argument that FLTs should teach for global citizenship is grounded in the Earth Charter, an

international declaration of values of sustainability, social justice and democracy that “has been endorsed by over 2,000 organizations and millions of people around the world” (p. 42).

To sum up, then, FLTs may often be able to address citizenship-related content in their lessons. The widespread adoption of CLT and, in particular, the influence of CBI theory, have highlighted the importance of teaching with content that is relevant to learners and engages their interest, and this has encouraged many FLTs to view the language classroom as a forum for learning about contemporary topics. Many language teachers feel a personal and

professional responsibility to address matters of citizenship in their classes, and they can point to internationally framed agreements, as well as second-language acquisition theory, as endorsing them in this.