Cross-Linguistic Language Awareness and ITE Provision

In light of the earlier definition of TLA (after Thornbury, 1997: x), I now offer the following definition of the construct ‘Cross-Linguistic Teacher Language Awareness’:

The knowledge that L2 teachers have of the underlying systems of the L2, the learners’ L1, and the scope and nature of L1–L2 cross-linguistic influence that enables them to teach the L2 (more) effectively to monolingual L1 learner groups.

It would thus appear axiomatic that the closer one moves to considerations of context, the greater the significance the cross-linguistic dimension of L2 pedagogy assumes. This point is exemplified in the discussion of ‘approaches to the teacher education curriculum’ in Roberts (1998), wherein an L2 teacher trainee’s content knowledge is 52

62 mediated by contextual knowledge to inform the construct of PCK. Roberts (1998) accordingly presents a ‘protosyllabus of objectives’ for ITE programs in which consideration of contextual factors is seen as a key component in the construction of the principal knowledge bases for effective L2 instruction.

In a similar vein, Wright (2002) identifies the cross-linguistic dimension as an important element in the sensitization process which a language awareness approach aims to set in motion, observing that, ‘A linguistically aware teacher not only understands how language works, but understands the student’s struggle with language and is sensitive to errors and other interlanguage features’ (Wright, 2002:115). Indeed, Wright (2002) uses the term ‘linguistic radar’ to describe this sensitization to features of the L2 system, recalling the earlier use of the term with regard to the comparative analysis of, for example, syntax in the Japanese EFL context.

More general perspectives on ITE (see for example, Kagan, 1992) posit the need for student teachers to identify with ‘the reality of pupils’ experience of learning’ (Roberts, 1998:80) as a crucial realization to be engendered within ITE. A focus on the cross-linguistic dimension would therefore appear to offer an ideal route to such a realization – not least because ITE trainees will be in a position to capitalize on their own previous and ongoing experiences as learners within the same sociolinguistic and educational context.

Here we may recall Corder’s (1981) point that non-native English L2 instructors were once in the very same position as their learners, and thus once shared – likely still share – many of the features of their learners’ interlanguages –hence ‘learner-users’ (Wright and Bolitho, 1993). In this connection, it is interesting to note that the Japanese word for ‘teacher’ – ‘sensei’ – literally means ‘one who has gone before’/‘one who has travelled the path before’. This term is, it would seem, particularly apt in the context of L1 Japanese/L2 English language learning.

Viewed within the context of a language awareness approach to L2 ITE (Bolitho et al, 2003), a focus on the cross-linguistic dimension would appear to offer program providers the potential to a) mitigate the limitations of purely ‘experiential’ learning identified in Jarvis (1991), and b) provide a coherent route by which supervisors might make the difficult transition from directive to non-directive roles (see Roberts, 53

63 1998). With regard to the first of these affordances, Wright (1991) notes the importance of trainees’ perceptions of (program) tangibility and credibility, observing that it is vital for program providers to strike an appropriate balance between ‘exploration’ and ‘information’. Roberts (1998) maintains that the presentation of new information is an essential feature of ITE courses. It is essential, however, that this new information be presented as input in ways that immediately connect with trainees’ prior or current states of knowledge, and that this input be tangible, i.e. be represented by the use of concrete examples (Roberts, 1998).

The provision of tangible cross-linguistic informational input would, I believe, satisfy these requirements on a number of levels: connections with prior and current knowledge states would result in real L2 knowledge/insight gains for trainees, thus establishing at the outset the value and credibility of a language awareness approach. With regard to the second of these affordances, the transition from directive to non- directive provider roles, an initial provision of (cross-linguistic) L2 knowledge gains/insights via ‘language awareness’ will, it may be assumed, encourage the subsequent development of a more autonomous ‘explorational’ orientation on the part of trainees. This orientation may have an initial focus on the L1/L2 interface, but can be expected to broaden thereafter, for example, by serving as the basis for L2-internal comparative analyses.

1.4.5.1 The Elusive Goal of Contextual Relevance

In respect of the majority of L2 teacher education programs, an L2-internal focus dominates, and trainees are left to make the L1 connections themselves. The de facto norm is for educational institutions to offer programs generically-styled, for example, ‘MA TESOL’, rather than context-specific programs titled, for example, ‘MA in Teaching English to Japanese L1 speakers’, thus reflecting a producer-driven orientation (although commercial, in addition to pedagogic considerations, would appear to justify the provision of, say, an ‘MA in Teaching English to Mandarin Chinese L1 speakers’).

Borrowing the phrase ‘home truth’ from the thesis title, there would seem to be little merit, as Widdowson (2003:156) observes, in making a virtue out of necessity, as the universalist, monolingual agenda has succeeded in doing for so long. A concomitant 54

64 tendency may be identified in this connection: practical considerations in respect of L2 teacher education provision have effectively marginalized the cross-linguistic dimension of SLA pedagogy, hence trainees are encouraged along the lines of ‘apply these theories to your particular context’, or ‘analyze these theories in respect of your particular context’ – in effect, a ‘DIY’ approach to contextualization.

In this connection, the Moussu and Llurda (2008) ‘State-of-the-art’ article on non- native English L2 instructors cites research (Govardhan et al, 1999; Polio and Wilson- Duffy, 1998; Braine, 1999; Liu, 1999; Oka, 2004; Canagarajah, 2005; Holliday, 2005) which questions the relevance of much of the content of North American TESOL programs, including MA TESOL programs, to non-native English L2 instructors planning a subsequent return to their EFL instructional contexts.

In a similar vein: ‘Kamhi-Stein (1999) argues for the inclusion of specific issues related to non-native speakers in language teacher education programs as a way of empowering non-native English speakers of TESOL (sic)’ (Moussu and Llurda, 2008:320). Medgyes (1999), Berry (1990), Nelson (1992), Eguiguren (2000) and Llurda (2004) all advance similar arguments in respect of the development of L2 KAL, L2 pedagogic skills, and the ability to better respond to learners’ L2 language needs.

Significantly, given the generic nature of the majority of L2 teacher education programs highlighted in the foregoing analysis, the ITE case study offered in Wallace (1991:147), although containing the stipulation – ‘principle 1’ - that, ‘The course should be relevant to the educational and professional needs of the target population, and to the needs of the community which they will serve as professional educators’ (emphasis in original), omits any reference to notions of cross-linguistic language awareness in the checklist of program aims and objectives.

With regard to considerations of knowledge transfer and contextualization, Wright (2002:128) maintains that, ‘Creating a shift from new knowledge to classroom reality is the vital stage in the LA learning cycle.’ This being the case, the adoption of a context-specific, cross-linguistic orientation might well provide the degree of integration and program cohesion necessary for this ‘vital’ transition. By the same token, the absence of due consideration of the cross-linguistic dimension may render this transition problematic and/or reduce the likelihood of it ever occurring.

65 A final observation: The implied directionality of Wright (2002) above is, I think, worthy of note. Proceeding ‘from new knowledge to classroom reality’ (emphasis added) hints at the dangers inherent in a producer-driven orientation – perhaps even to the extent of inviting difficulties in respect of subsequent knowledge transfer. It may be that a more cyclical approach, one proceeding from classroom reality to new knowledge and then back to classroom reality has the potential to offer a truly consumer-driven, contextualized and responsive alternative.

Under this (idealistic?) arrangement, due consideration of the (linguistic) realities of the Japanese EFL context would inform the design and delivery of ITE and INSET programs catering specifically for L2 English instructors operating within that context, and the immediate relevance of the input would likely facilitate its acceptance on the part of trainees and subsequent transfer to the ‘chalkface’ of the Japanese EFL context.

Wright and Bolitho (1993) was, in many ways, a significant paper, not least in respect of its thought-provoking title: ‘Language awareness: a missing link in language teacher education?’ It seems to me that, absent due consideration of the cross- linguistic dimension, (teacher) language awareness – and hence ITE/INSET L2 teacher education – is, and will remain, incomplete.