MacKay EIL Curriculum Development.pdf

http://rel.sagepub.com

RELC Journal

DOI: 10.1177/003368820303400103 2003; 34; 31

RELC Journal

Sandra Lee McKay

Eil Curriculum Development

http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/34/1/31 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at: RELC Journal

Additional services and information for

http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts: http://rel.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions: http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/34/1/31

SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): (this article cites 10 articles hosted on the

EIL CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Sandra Lee

_McKay

San Francisco State University

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

In _{this paper} the author argues that current _changes in the nature of _English and _{English language} learners warrants a re-evaluation of two _widely

accepted notions of ELT curriculum _{development, namely,} that the

_goal

of

English learning is native _{speaker competence} and that native _speaker cul-ture should inform instructional materials and _teaching methods.

Recogniz-ing the current status of _English as an international _{language (EIL),} the author describes central features of an international _language and how these

influence the

_relationship

between

_language

_{and culture. The paper then}

proceeds to demonstrate how native _speaker models and culture need to be

carefully examined in reference to EIL curriculum _development.

As Richards

_points

out, curriculum

development

entails a _range of

plan-ning

and

_{implementation}

_processes that form a network of

_interacting

systems so that

’change

in one

_part

of the

_system

has effects on other

_parts

of the

_{system’ (2001: 41 ).}

This paper argues that in the current

_teaching

of

English

two

_significant

_aspects of the network have

_{changed, requiring}

changes

in other

_parts

of the

_system.

These

_changes

relate to the nature of

English today

and the characteristics of its learners.

Most

_people

_{agree that}

_{today English}

is a

_{global lingua}

franca.

_English

has achieved this status not because of a

_growth

in the number of native

speakers

but rather because of an increase in the number of individuals in the world

_today

who are

_acquiring

_English

as an additional

language.

This situation has resulted in a tremendous

_growth

in the number of second

language speakers

of

_English.

In

fact,

Graddol _argues that

based

_solely

on

_{expected population changes,}

the number of

_{people using}

English as their second _language will _grow from 235 million to around 462

million

_during

the next 50 _{years. This indicates that the balance between} L1 1

and L2 speakers will _{critically change,} with L2 _{speakers eventually}

over-taking L _{1 speakers ( t 999: 62).}

The

_growing

number of

_people

in the world who have some

_familiarity

with

_English

allows

_English

to act as a

language

of wider communication for a

_great

_variety

_{of purposes,}

_contributing

to its status as a

_{global lingua}

franca. In order to

_develop

an

_appropriate

curriculum for

_English

as an international

_language

_(EIL),

it is essential to examine how

_English

has achieved its status as an international

language

and how this role has

altered the nature of the

_language.

Features

_{of English}

as an International

_Language

Brutt-Grif~ier

₍₂₀₀₂₎

_argues

_convincingly

that one of the central features of

any international

language

is that it

spreads

not

through speaker migration

but rather

_by

many individuals in an

existing

speech

community acquiring

the

_language,

what Brutt-Griffler terms

_{’macroaquisition’. Although}

the initial

_{spread of English}

was

_clearly

due to

_speaker

_{migration, resulting}

in the

_development

of

_{largely monolingual}

_{English-speaking}

communities

(e.g.

the United

_States,

Australia and New

_Zealand),

the current

_spread

of

English

is,

as Graddol’s

_projection

demonstrates,

due to individuals

acquir-ing English

as an additional

_language

for international and in some contexts intranational communication.

_However,

unlike

_{speaker migration,}

this

_type

of

_{language spread}

results not in

_{monolingualism}

but rather

_large-scale

bilingualism.

The fact that the

_spread

of

_{English today}

is

_primarily

due to

macro-acquisition

has several

_{important implications}

for EIL curriculum

develop-ment.

_First,

it _suggests that _many learners of

_{English today}

will have

specific purposes in

learning

English,

which in

_general

are more limited than those of

_immigrants

to

_{English-speaking}

countries who may

eventu-ally

use

_English

as their sole or dominant

_language.

_Second,

_{many L2}

speakers

of

_English

will be

_{using English}

to interact with other L2

speakers

rather than with native

_{speakers. Finally,}

_many current learners of

_English

_may desire to learn

_English

in order to share with others information about their own countries for such _purposes as

_encouraging

economic

_{development, promoting}

trade and

tourism,

and

_exchanging

information.

Such _purposes for

_learning

and

_using

_English

undermine the traditional cultural basis of

_English,

in which the

_teaching

of

_English

has often involved

learning

about the concerns and cultures of what Kachru

(1985)

terms ’Inner Circle countries’

_{(e.g. Canada,}

Australia and the United

States).

Since

_by

its _very nature an international

_language

does not

_belong

to _{any particular}

_country

but rather to an international

_community,

as Smith

₍₁₉₇₆₎

_points

out:

1. learners of EIL do not need to internalize the cultural norms of

native

_speakers

of

_English;

2. the

_ownership

of EIL has become

’de-nationalized’;

3. the educational

_goal

of EIL often is to enable learners to com-municate their ideas and culture to others.

Throughout

the paper I argue that since by its very nature an inter-national

_language

is no

_longer

linked to a

_particular

culture and since one of its

_primary

uses will be for

bilingual

_speakers

of

English

to commu-nicate with other

_{bilingual speakers,}

it is no

longer appropriate

to use native

_speaker

models to inform curriculum

_development.

Hence,

it is essential to examine three

_widely

_accepted

ELT

_{assumptions, namely}

that

1. ELT

_pedagogy

should be informed

_by

native

_speaker

models.

2. The cultural content for ELT should be derived from the cultures of native

_English

_speakers.

3. The culture of

_learning

that informs communicative

_language

teaching (CLT) provides

the most

_productive

method for ELT.

In what follows I examine each of these

_assumptions

in reference to EIL

curriculum

_development.

Throughout

the paper I maintain that the

increas-ing

number of

_bilingual

users of

English

and the

uncoupling

of

English

from Inner Circle countries have

significant implications

for curriculum

development.

In the paper I use the term

_’bilingual

users of

_English’

to describe individuals who use

_English

as a second

_{language alongside}

one or more other

_{languages they speak.}

_Although

Jenkins

₍₂₀₀₀₎

includes both native and non-native

_speakers

in her use of the term

_{’bilingual English}

_speaker’,

in _my use of the _term, I am

_excluding

so-called native

_{speakers of English}

who

_speak

other

_languages.

I do so because the domains of

English

for most native

_speakers

tend to be

_quite

different from those of other

bilin-gual

users of

English,

who

frequently

use

English

in more restricted and formal domains. I also make use of Kachru’s

(1985)

useful distinction of

’Inner Circle’ countries where

English

is

_spoken

as a native

_language,

’Outer Circle’ countries where

_{English has}

official _status,

_{and ’Expanding}

Circle’ countries where

_English

is a

foreign language, though

like Yano

(2001)

and

_Gupta

_(2001),

I

_recognize

the limitations of these terms.

Present-Day

English

Learning

To

_begin,

it is beneficial to examine

_why

_many individuals

_today

are

choosing

to learn

_English

so that curriculum

_objectives

and

_approaches

can be

_designed

to meet their needs. Some contend that one of the

_major

reasons for the

_present-day

interest in

_{learning English}

is the extensive

promotion

of

_{English by}

Inner Circle countries. One of the

_major

expo-nents of this view is

_Phillipson,

who in his book

_Linguistic

_Imperialism

(1992)

describes the

_spread

of

_English

as a

_postcolonial

endeavor of core

English-speaking

countries to maintain dominance over

_periphery

(in

many cases

developing)

countries. He coins the term

_{’linguistic}

imperial-ism’ to describe a situation in which ’the dominance

_{of English}

is asserted and maintained

_by

the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural

_inequalities

between

_English

and other

_languages’

(1992: 47).

However,

to assume that the active

_promotion

_{of English}

is the

_primary

cause of the current interest in

_{learning English}

is to

_oversimplify

the

complexity

of the

_spread

of

_{English. Today}

_many individuals desire to learn

_English

not because

_English

is

_{promoted by}

_{English-speaking}

coun-tries,

but rather because these individuals want access to scientific and

technological

information,

international

_{organizations, global}

economic trade and

_higher

education.

_Knowing

_English

makes such access

_possible.

Indeed

Kachru,

in a book entitled The

_{Alchemy of English,}

contends that

’knowing English

is like

_possessing

the fabled Aladdin’s

_lamp,

which

permits

one to _open, as it _were, the

_linguistic

_gates to international busi-ness,

technology,

science and travel. In

_short,

_{English provides linguistic}

power’ (1986:

1).

There is a

_variety

of evidence to

_suggest

that the current interest in

English learning

is

_being

fueled

_by

a belief in the power

_{of English.}

Chew

(1999),

for

_example,

_argues that the

_learning

of

_English

within

_Singapore

is the conscious choice of

_Singaporeans

who view the use of

_English

as

key

to their economic survival. She

_points

out that whereas some

Singa-poreans are concerned that the

_widespread

_{adoption of English}

will lead to a loss of ethnic

_identity

and Asian

values,

many

Singaporeans

value the

material and other rewards that

_English

can

_bring.

As she

_puts

it,

among

parents

there has been a

_pragmatic

realization that their children’s

lack of a command in _English would mean the continued

marginalisation

of their children in a world that would continue to use the _language to a

greater degree. It would also _deny them access to the extensive resources

available in _{English-resources} which have _developed as a _{consequence of}

globalisation (Chew 1999: 41).

Bisong

(1995)

specifically challenges Phillipson’s

theory

of

_linguistic

imperialism

as it relates to his own _country,

Nigeria.

He notes that

pre-sently

many

Nigerian

parents send their children to an international school

in which

_they

are sure their children will learn

_English.

_However,

_Bisong

maintains that it is

_important

to consider

_why

a

_parent

would make such a decision. For

_Bisong,

a

_parent

does so not because of coercion but rather

does so in the secure belief that her child’s mother _tongue or first _language is not in _{any way threatened. There is} no _way three or four hours _of expo-sure to _English in a formal school situation could _{possibly compete with,} let

alone threaten to _supplant, the non-stop process of acquiring competence in

the mother _{tongue ( 1995: 125).}

Bisong

concludes

_{by pointing}

out that

_Nigerians

learn

_English

_for

prag-matic reasons and that

_Nigerians

are

sophisticated enough to know what is in their interest, and that their interest includes the ability to _operate with two or more _linguistic codes in a

multi-lingual situation. _{Phillipsons’} argument shows a failure to _{appreciate fully} the _complexities of this situation _{(1995: 13 I).}

Thus,

many

language

learners

today

are

studying English

not because

they

are

_being

coerced to do so

_{by speakers}

of Inner Circle

countries,

but rather because of the benefits

_knowledge

of

_{English brings.}

Effective EIL

curriculum

_development,

then,

must consider the

_{specific goals}

that lead learners to

_{study English}

and not assume that these

_{goals necessarily}

involve

_attaining

full

_proficiency

in the

_language.

Native

_Speaker

Models and

_English

_Learning

Goals

It has

_generally

been assumed that the ultimate

_goal

of

_{English language}

learners is to achieve native-like

_competence

in the

_language.

Stem,

for

example,

maintains that ’native

_{speaker’s &dquo;competence&dquo;, &dquo;proficiency&dquo;}

or

&dquo;knowledge

of the

language&dquo;

is a _necessary

_point

of reference for the second

_language

_proficiency

concept used in

_{English teaching theory’}

(1983: 341).

Yet

as more

and more users of

_English

come to use

English

alongside

one or more other

languages,

their use

of English

will be

signi-ficantly

different from

_monolingual

_speakers

_{of English.}

Because

_bilingual

speakers

of

_English

_frequently

have different _{purposes in}

_{using English}

than do

_monolingual

_speakers,

it is unwarranted to assume that

_bilingual

speakers

necessarily

want or need to attain native-like

_competence.

How-ever, as Cook notes:

SLA research has often fallen into the

_{camparative fallacy (Bley-Vroman,}

1983) of _relating the L2 learner to the native _speaker. This tendency is reflected in the

_frequency

with which the words succeed and _fail are associated with the _phrase native

_speaker,

for _example, the view that fos-silisation and errors in L2 users’ _speech add _up to ‘failure to achieve

native-speaker

competence’ ( 1999: 189).

Sridhar and Sridhar

₍₁₉₉₄₎

_provide

an excellent

critique

of traditional

English language learning

objectives

with

_regard

to

_bilingual

users of

English

outside of Inner Circle countries.

_They

_{contend that many} tradi-tional ELT

_objectives

are not relevant to an

investigation

of these

speakers

because

_they

often rest on

_assumptions

that were

_developed

and tested in reference to the

_learning

of

_English

in the United

States,

with little

_input

from the

_learning

of

_English

outside of Inner Circle countries. The first

assumption

is that the learner’s

_target

of

_acquisition

of

_English

is native-like

_{competence. However,}

as Sridhar and Sridhar

point

_out, many studies

of

indigenized

varieties

_{ofEnglish (e.g.}

Indian

_English,

_{Nigerian English,}

Singaporean English) clearly

demonstrate that a

variety

of

English

that is too

_{closely aligned}

with a native standard can be seen

_{by speakers}

in the local

_{speech community}

to be ’distasteful and

_pedantic’

and ’affected or even snobbish’

_{(1994: 45).}

As

_such,

_many learners of

_English

do not want and _may even

_reject

a native-like

_{pronunciation}

_{target. Hence,}

if,

as Richard

argues,

language

curriculum

development

must address the needs of the

learners,

EIL curriculum

_development

must

_recognize

that _many

_bilingual

speakers

of

_English

do not desire native-like

_competence

in

_English.

A second

_problem

with many

currently accepted

ELT

learning

objec-tives is that the _process of

_acquisition

is not viewed in reference to the functions that

_English

serves within the local

_community.

As was

_pointed

out

_earlier,

most

_bilingual

users of

English

outside of Inner Circle coun-tries use

English

alongside

other

languages they

speak.

In some cases

Eng-lish serves

primarily

as a

High variety

or formal

register

with

_respect

to the other

_languages

of the

_{speech community.}

_Hence,

_English

does not serve all of the functions it

_might

serve for learners in the Inner Circle

who,

in many cases, learn

English

as a

replacement

for their first

_language.

This means that the

language-learning goals

of _many current users of

English

are far more limited than the

_goals

of those who learn

_English

as a result of

_{speaker migration.}

_Hence,

EIL curriculum

_development

must consider the

_specific

functions for which learners need

_{English today.}

As Sridhar and Sridhar

_point

out, the lack of

_{applicability}

of

_widely

accepted

ELT

_assumptions

for EIL curriculum

_development

is

_particularly

disturbing

in

_light

of the fact that

_English

learners outside of the Inner

Circle

_{’numerically}

as well as in terms of _{the range and}

_diversity

of vari-ables

_they

_represent,

constitute one of the most

_significant

_segments

of second

_{language acquirers}

in the world

_{today’ (1994: 42).}

Because of the

growing

number of such _users, the

_learning

needs and

_goals

of

_bilingual

speakers of English

in

_multilingual

contexts is an area that warrants a

good

deal more research so that

_appropriate

curriculum

_development

for such learners can be

designed.

To

_productively

undertake such

research,

the

_prevalent

_assumption

that

the

_goal

_{of English language learning}

is to achieve native-like

_competence

in

_English

must be

_put

aside. It is

_important

to do so for two reasons.

First,

if-as more and more

_linguists

are

_recognizing

_(see,

_e.g.,

_{Cook 1999;}

Davies

_1991;

_Rampton

_1990)--the

whole notion of

_defining

a native

speaker

and native

_speaker

_competence

is

_fraught

with

_difficulty,

it is un-reasonable to take such a

poorly

defined construct as the basis for EIL cur-riculum

_{development. Secondly,}

an

approach

to curriculum

_development

that is based on the notion that all learners of

_English

need or desire so-called native

_speaker

_competence

will do little to contribute to a better

understanding

of the various _ways

_English

is used within Outer Circle countries for intranational communication and for international purposes among

speakers

of different countries.

What,

for

example,

are the func-tions that

_English

serves within

_particular

Outer Circle countries? How

does

_English

fit into the overall

_{linguistic repertoire}

of

_bilingual

users of these countries? In what contexts does

_English

serve as the unmarked code? How is the use of

_English

within these countries related to

educa-tional level,

economic status and ethnic

_background?

In

addition,

far more research is needed on how

_English

is used as a

_language

of wider commu-nication between individuals who use

_English

as their second

_language.

What

_strategies

do such individuals use in

repairing problems

in

compre-hensibility ?

What does the use of

English

in such contexts _suggest for

linguistic

standards and

_{pronunciation}

models?

(See

Seidlhofer

[2001]

for a

_persuasive

_argument

on the need for such

_research.)

Clearly, teaching English

as an international

_{language requires}

that

cur-riculum

_{developers thoroughly}

examine individual learners’

_specific

uses of

_English

within their

_particular

_{speech community}

as a basis for

deter-mining

learning

goals

and set aside the native

speaker fallacy whereby

bilingual speakers

of

_English,

both in research and

_pedagogy,

are

con-stantly compared

to native

_speaker

models.

Native

_Speaker

Models and EIL Instructional Materials

The role of culture in instructional materials is another area of ELT curri-culum

_development

that often reflects a native

speaker

model,

an

_approach

that once

again

needs to be reassessed in reference to EIL curriculum

development.

Cultural

_knowledge

often

_provides

the basis for the content and

_topics

that are used in

_language

materials and classroom discussions. Which culture to use in instructional materials needs to be

carefully

considered in reference to the

_teaching

of an international

language.

Cortazzi and Jin

₍₁₉₉₉₎

_distinguish

three _types of cultural information that can be used in

_language

textbooks and materials:

1. source culture materials that draw on the learners’ own culture as _content;

2. _target culture materials that use the culture of a

_country

where

English

is

_spoken

as a first

_language;

3. international _target culture materials that use a _great

variety

of cultures in

_English-

and

_{non-English-speaking}

countries around the world.

Traditionally,

many

English-language

textbooks have used

target

culture

topics. Frequently

ELT textbooks use such content because textbooks are often

_published

in Inner Circle countries and because some ELT educators

believe such information will be

_motivating

to

_{English-language}

learners. Whereas it is

_possible

that

_target

cultural content is

_motivating

to some

stu-dents,

it is also

_{quite possible}

that such content may be

largely

irrelevant,

uninteresting

or even

_confusing

for students.

_Furthermore,

if one of the

pri-mary reasons for learners to

_{acquire English}

_today

is to

_provide

information

to others about their own

_community

and

culture,

there seems little reason to

_{promote target}

cultural content in

_{English language}

classroom,

particu-larly

when such content can result in

_bilingual

teachers of

English feeling

insecure because

they

lack

_{specific knowledge}

about

_particular

_target

cul-tures.

_(For

a more extended discussion of the

problems

that can arise in

using

the

_target

culture in EIL

_pedagogy,

see

_McKay

_2002.)

The

_advantage

of

_using

what Cortazzi and Jin call ’source culture’ is that such content

_provides

students with an

_opportunity

to learn more about their own culture and to learn the

_language

needed to

_explain

these cultural elements in

_English.

Such a situation also

_places

local

_bilingual

teachers in a

position

in which

_they

can

explain particular

cultural events

or cultural behavior to students who may not _{be familiar with that} par-ticular

_aspect

of the culture. It is

_encouraging

to note that

_today

in a

_variety

of countries in which

_English

is

_being

studied as an additional

_language,

there is a

_growing

_recognition

of the

_importance

of

including

the source culture. In the

_early

_1990s,

for

_example,

the Moroccan

_Ministry

of Educa-tion

_implemented

a textbook

_project

in which Moroccan culture formed

the basis for textbook content rather than _target culture information.

_(See

Adaskou,

Britten and Fahsi

_[1990]

for a

description

of this

project.)

More

recently,

Chile has

_developed

an entire series

oftextbooks,

entitled Go For

Chile,

that includes a

_good

deal of source culture content.

_{(See McKay}

[2003]

for a

_description

of this

_project.)

There are also many

_advantages

to

_using

what Cortazzi and Jin refer to

as an international

_target

culture.

Imagine

a text in which

_bilingual

users of

English

interact with other

_speakers

_{of English}

in cross-cultural encounters

for a

_variety

_{of purposes.}

Such materials could have several benefits.

They

could

_exemplify

the manner in which

bilingual

users of

English

are

effectively using English

to communicate for international _purposes.

_They

could include

_examples

of

_lexical,

_grammatical

and

_phonological

variation in the

_present-day

use

_{of English. They}

could also illustrate cross-cultural

pragmatics

in which

_bilingual

users of

_English,

while

using

_English,

nevertheless draw on their own rules of

appropriateness. They

could then

provide

a basis for students to

_gain

a fuller

_{understanding}

of how

_English

today

serves a

_great

_variety

of international _purposes in a broad range of contexts. There are

_clearly

_many

_advantages

to

_reducing

the focus on

target

cultures in

_teaching

materials as is evident in the current shift in some countries to do

_precisely

that.

Ultimately,

then,

in reference to instructional

materials,

there are _many reasons for

putting

aside the traditional

emphasis

on native

_speaker

cultural content. Chief _among these is

_that,

as an international

_language,

English belongs

to no one _country or culture. In the same way there is no reason

_why

the

_{language teaching}

methods used in EIL

teaching

should be informed

_by

native

_speaker

models.

Native

_Speaker

Models and Communicative

_{Language Teaching}

Today

many

educators,

particularly

Inner Circle

_educators,

contend that CLT is and should be the dominant method in ELT. Brown

_(1994),

for

example,

maintains that the

_{generally accepted}

norm in the field in terms of

_methodology

is CLT. He _notes,

_however,

that

_{although CLT is}

gen-erally accepted,

there are numerous _ways in which it is defined. Nunan

( 1991: 279),

for

_instance,

maintains that CLT can be characterized

by

the

following

features:

1. an

emphasis

on

learning

to communicate

through

interaction in the

_target

_language;

2. the introduction of authentic texts into the

_learning

situation;

3. the

_provision

of

_{opportunities}

for learners to

_focus,

not

_only

on

language,

but also on the

_learning

_process

itself;

4. an enhancement of the learner’s own

personal experiences

as

important

contributing

elements to classroom

_learning;

5. an

_attempt

to link classroom

_{language learning}

with

_language

activation outside of the classroom.

CLT has been

_{largely promoted}

in ELT in Inner Circle countries and in

private English language

institutes in Outer and

_Expanding

Circle coun-tries. In

_using

this

_method,

_typically

a

_great

_premium

is

placed

on

_using

group work to

_develop

students’

_spoken

English.

What has led to the

_widespread

_promotion

of CLT as the most

pro-ductive method for

_{teaching English?}

Tollefson

₍₁₉₉₁₎

_suggests one

reason. He _{argues that the}

_spread

of

_English

is linked to what he terms the

’modernization

_{theory’. According}

to this

_theory,

’Western _societies

pro-vide the most effective model for

&dquo;underdeveloped&dquo;

societies

_attempting

to

_reproduce

the achievements of &dquo;industrialization&dquo; ,

_{(p. 83).}

As

_applied

to ELT

_teaching,

in modernization

_theory,

‘Western

_{&dquo;experts&dquo;...}

are viewed as

_repositories

of

knowledge

and skills who pass them on to elites who will run &dquo;modernized&dquo; institutions’

_(p.

_97).

Whereas the modernization

_theory

_may well be one factor that has led to the

_spread

of

_CLT,

such a view hides the

_complexity

of the issue. Just as the idea of

_{linguistic imperialism}

can be

_challenged

on the

_grounds

that in

many countries

English

has

spread

because there is tremendous interest on the

_part

of the

_people

of that

_country

to learn

_English,

so too _{in many} cases CLT has

_spread

not

_only

because of the

_promotion

of the method

_by

Western

_specialists

but also because educators in these countries have advocated the

_adoption

of this method.

Japan

is a case in

_point.

In 1989 and

1990,

the

_Japanese

_Ministry

of Education released new

_guidelines

for the

_study

of

_{foreign languages}

in

junior

and senior

_high

schools.

_According

to LoCastro

_(1996),

one of the

primary

aims of the new _curriculum was to

_require

teachers to

_promote

speaking

and

_listening

skills as a _way of

_developing

the communicative

language ability

of the students.

Furthermore,

teachers were to strive to

adopt

CLT methods in their classrooms. Korea is another

_country

that is

encouraging

the use of CLT. Convinced that the

_{grammatical syllabus}

does not

_develop

students’ communicative

_competence,

in 1992 the

_Ministry

of Education

_published

a new curriculum which

_clearly

states that CLT

should

_replace

the

_audiolingual

and translation methods

_currently

used in the schools.

The above discussion demonstrates that

_just

as the Inner Circle is often looked to for

_target

models of

_language

use, the Inner Circle is

frequently

looked to for

_methodology

models. Whereas this

_dependency

on the Inner

Circle for

_methodology

_{models may in}

_part

be due to a

_type

of

pedagogi-cal

_imperialism

on the

_part

of Inner Circle

_educators,

there is no

question

that,

just

as with the

spread

of

_English,

an

_{equally important}

factor in the

spread

of CLT has been its conscious selection on the

_part

of local edu-cators. The

_widespread

_acceptance

_{of CLT, however,}

has not _gone

unchal-lenged.

Medgyes

(1986),

for

_example,

a

_Hungarian

teacher

educator,

has

vari-ous concerns about the

_{implementation}

of CLT in his

_country,

even

_though

he has

_publicly

advocated the method in teacher education courses. His

primary

concern is the burden CLT

_places

on teachers. To

_begin,

teachers of CLT are

_encouraged

to base the

_syllabus

on students’ needs and inter-ests.

_Yet,

as

_{Medgyes points}

_out, most

_Hungarian

_students,

like _many EFL

students,

study English

for no obvious reason other than because

_they

are

required

to do so.

_Hence,

teachers face a _group of students who often have very little motivation or interest to use

_English

and uncertain needs for

English

in the future. Teachers are also asked to

_develop

authentic com-municative situations where real _messages are

_exchanged.

_Hence,

’teach-ers have to create favourable conditions for such needs to arise and

_get

expressed’ (Medgyes

1986:

_{108). Creating}

such a context

_is,

of _course,

particularly

difficult in EFL classes in which students would

_naturally

use their mother

_tongue

to communicate in so-called real interactions. In

addition,

in CLT the textbook is

_{suspect. Hence,}

teachers are asked to do away with the textbooks and substitute it with a ’wide stock offlexible and

undertake in countries in which there is not a wealth of

readily

available

English

texts.

Given these difficulties in

_implementing

CLT in

_Hungary,

_Medgyes

asks who would

_possibly

_attempt

to

_implement

the method. He contends that

_perhaps

the

_only

teachers who would do this are the elite who have had the

_opportunity

to

_exchange

ideas at conferences and ’on

_arriving

home, they

feel

_obliged

to

_promulgate

all the

_{trendy thoughts they}

have

picked

up, never

doubting

that their message is true and will reach the

general public’ (p.

111).

Often such conferences are held in Inner Circle

countries,

providing

a further

_impetus

for the

_spread

of

_predominant

methods of Inner Circle countries to other contexts. In the

_end,

he believes that what is needed are educators who work

_halfway

between ’the zealots and the

_weary’

_{(p. 112),}

local educators who are well aware of the

com-plexities

of

_{teaching English}

in the local context.

Indeed,

since EIL

_by

definition no

_longer

_belongs

to _{any one nation} or

culture,

it seems reasonable that how this

_language

is

_taught

should not be linked to a

particular culturally

influenced

methodology;

rather the

lan-guage should be

taught

in a manner consistent with local cultural expec-tations. In

_short,

an

_appropriate

EIL

_methodology

_presupposes

_sensitivity

to the local cultural context in which local educators determine what

hap-pens in the classroom. As Kramsch and Sullivan

put

it:

appropriate pedagogy must also be a _pedagogy of _{appropriation.} The

English language will enable students of English to do business with native and non-native

_speakers

of _English in the

_global

world market and for that

they

need to master _{the grammar and}

_vocabulary

of standard _English. But

they also need to retain control of its use _{(1996: 211).}

For Kramsch and

Sullivan,

such a view of an

_{appropriate pedagogy}

is in

keeping

with the

_political

_{motto, ’think}

_globally,

act

_locally’,

which trans-lated into a

language pedagogy might

be

’global thinking,

local

_teaching’

( 1996: 200).

This motto is

_{particularly important}

for the

_teaching

of EIL.

Clearly,

EIL educators

_today

need to

_recognize

the use of

_English

as a

global

language,

where

_English

is used for a wide

_variety

of cross-cultural communicative purposes. Yet in

_developing

an

appropriate

curriculum,

EIL educators also need to consider how

_English

is embedded in the local context.

The

_promotion

of CLT has been fueled

_by

the

_tendency

to extend so-called center

_{assumptions of English language}

_learning

to other countries.

Unfortunately,

the

_{prevalent assumption}

that CLT is the best method for the

_teaching

of EIL has several

_negative

effects. It often

_requires

students

to become involved in

_language

activities that

_challenge

their notion of

appropriate language

behavior in a classroom. Its

emphasis

on an

English-only

classroom can undermine the

productive

use of the mother _tongue in the

_learning

of

_English,

which is

_{particularly problematic}

in an era when

English

is

_being

learned

_primarily

in

_bilingual

classrooms. Most

impor-tantly,

it can

_marginalize

local teachers who at times are asked to

imple-ment a

_methodology

that _may be in conflict with their own sense of

plausibility.

Clearly

the first

_step

toward an

appropriate methodology

must be for local

_educators,

as Kramsch and Sullivan _argue, to be involved in a

’pedagogy

of

_{appropriation’}

in which

_they

retain control of the

_teaching

of

English.

As

_Canagarajah

_argues:

If English teaching in _Periphery communities is to be conducted in a _socially

responsible

and

_politically

_empowering manner, the authority for conceiving and _implementing the curriculum and _pedagogy should be _passed on to the local teachers themselves _{(1999: 90-91).}

EIL Curriculum

_Development

_Assumptions

The

_teaching

of EIL takes

_place

in a

_great

_diversity

of contexts. In some

countries like

_{Singapore, English}

is the medium of instruction. In other countries like

Jamaica,

students

_bring

to the classroom their own distinct

variety

of English.

In other countries like

_Japan,

the

_{learning of English}

in

public

schools is

_promoted

_through

national examinations. In

_addition,

within each _{country, great}

_diversity

exists so that the

_teaching

of

_English

in,

for

_{example, public}

versus

_private

institutions and urban versus rural institutions tends to be

_quite

different.

_Clearly,

_any sound EIL curriculum

development

must be informed

_by

a

_theory

of

_{language learning}

and

teach-ing

that is

_{sufficiently complex}

to account for this

_diversity.

However,

in

closing,

let me

_suggest

some of the

assumptions

that need to inform EIL curriculum

_development.

Throughout

this

_article,

I have

_argued

that the

_development

of

_English

as a

_{global lingua}

franca has altered the _very nature

_{of English}

in terms of how it is used

_by

its

_speakers

and how it relates to culture. As was

_pointed

out

_earlier,

the current

_spread

of

_English

is

_largely

the result of

macro-acquisition, leading

to more and more

_bilingual

users of

_English.

The

growing

number of

_bilingual

users of

English

_suggests

that a

_productive

theory

of EIL

_teaching

and

_learning

must

_recognize

the various ways in

which

_English

is used within

_multilingual

communities.

_Typically

these

bilingual

users of

_English

have

_specific

_{purposes for}

_{using English,}

employing

their other

_languages

to serve their many additional

language

needs. Often

_they

use

English

to access the vast amount of information

currently

available in

_English

and at times to contribute to this

_knowledge

base. One _purpose

_they

all

_{share, however,}

is to use

_English

as a

_language

of wider

communication,

resulting

in cross-cultural encounters

_being

a central feature of the use of EIL.

_Hence,

one of the

_{major assumptions}

that needs to inform EIL curriculum

_development

is a

recognition

of the diverse ways in which

bilingual speakers

make use of

English

to fulfill their

_specific

_purposes.

The second

_{major assumption}

that needs to inform EIL curriculum

development

is that many

bilingual

users

_{of English}

do not need or want to

acquire

native-like

_competence.

Such an

_assumption,

of _course, presup-poses that there is some _agreement as to what constitutes a native

_speaker,

although

this is

_clearly

not the case.

Nevertheless,

current ELT

_learning

objectives frequently posit

that the

_goal

of most learners of

_English

is to

develop

native

_speaker

_grammatical

standards,

phonological

patterns

and discourse _competence. There are,

however,

several reasons

why

_many current

_bilingual

users of

_English

may not see this as their

_goal.

First of

all,

on a

practical

level

they

_may not need to

_{acquire the full range of}

registers

that is needed

_{by monolingual speakers}

of

_English

since their use

of English

may be restricted to

largely

formal domains of use.

_Secondly,

there are attitudinal reasons

why they

_may not want to

_acquire

native-like

competence,

particularly

in reference to

_{pronunciation}

and

_pragmatics.

Third, if,

as I have

_argued

_throughout

the _paper,

_English

as an

interna-tional language belongs

to its users, there is no reason

_why

some

_speakers

of English

should be more

_privileged

and thus

_provide

standards for other users of

_English.

The final

_assumption

that needs to inform EIL curriculum

development

is a

_recognition

of the fact that

_English

no

_{longer belongs}

to _{any one}

culture,

and hence there is a need to be

_culturally

sensitive to the

_diversity

of contexts in which

_English

is

_taught

and used. In terms

_{of materials,}

this

suggests

that the traditional use of Western cultural content in ELT texts

needs to be examined. There are clear

advantages

to the use of source culture content. Such content minimizes the

_{potential of marginalizing}

the values and lived

_experiences

of the learners. Source culture content can also encourage learners to

_gain

a

_{deeper understanding}

of their own cul-ture so that

_they

can share these

_insights

when

_using

EIL with individuals from different cultures.

_Perhaps

most

_{significantly,}

source culture content

does not

_place

local teachers in the difficult

_position

of

_trying

to teach someone else’s culture.

The

_uncoupling

of

_English

from the culture of Inner Circle countries also

_suggests

that

_{teaching methodology}

has to

_proceed

in a manner that

respects

the local culture of

_learning.

An

_{understanding}

of these cultures of

_learning

should not be based on cultural

_stereotypes,

in which assertions about the roles of teachers and students and

_approaches

to

_learning

are made and often

_compared

to Western culture. Rather an

_{understanding}

of local cultures of

_{learning depends}

on an examination of

particular

class-rooms.

_Although

it is

_important

to

_recognize

that what

_happens

in a

speci-fic classroom is influenced

_{by political,}

social and cultural factors of the

larger community,

each classroom is

_unique

in the _way the learners and teacher in that classroom interact with one another in the

_{learning of}

Eng-lish. Given the

_diversity

of local cultures of

_learning,

it is unrealistic to

imagine

that one

_method,

such as

_CLT,

will meet the needs of all learners.

Rather,

local teachers must be

_given

the

_right

and the

_{responsibility}

to

employ

methods that are

_culturally

sensitive and

_productive

in their stu-dents’

_learning

of

_English.

Common

_{assumptions regarding English teaching}

have been

_largely

based on an instructional context in which

_immigrants

to

_{English-speaking}

countries learn

_English

often as a

_replacement

for their first

_language.

Today,

however,

English

is

_being

studied and used more and more as an international

_language

in which learners

_{acquire English}

as an additional

language

of wider communication.

_Hence,

the dominance of native

speak-ers and their culture has been

_{seriously challenged.}

Given this shift in the nature

_{of English,}

it is time to

_recognize

the

_multilingual

context

_{of English}

use and to

_put

aside a native

_speaker

model of curriculum

_development.

Only

then can an

_appropriate

EIL curriculum be

_developed

in which local educators take

_{ownership of English}

and the manner in which it is

_taught.

Received

_July

2002

REFERENCES

Adaskou, K., D. Britten and B. Fahsi

1990 _’Design Decisions on the Cultural Content of a _{Secondary English} Course

for Morocco’, ELT Journal 44.1: 3-10.

Bisong, J.

1995 ’Language Choice and Cultural _Imperialism: A _{Nigerian Perspective’,} ELT Journal 49.2: 122-32.

Brown, H.D.

1994 Teaching by Principles: An Interactive _Approach to _{Language Pedagogy}

(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Regents).

Brutt-Griffler, J.

2002 World _Englishes: A _{Study of} its _{Development (Clevedon: Multilingual} Matters).

Canagarajah, A.S.

1999 _{’Interrogating} the "Native _{Speaker Fallacy": Non-linguistic Roots,} Non-pedagogical Results’, in G. Braine _(ed.), Non-native Educators in _English Language Teaching (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum): 77-92.

Chew, P.

1999 _{’Linguistic Imperialism,} Globalism and the English Language’, in D. Graddol and U. Meinhof (eds.), English in a _Changing World, AILA Review 13: 37-47.

Cook, V.

1999 _{’Going Beyond} the Native _Speaker in _{Language Teaching’,} TESOL Quar-terly 33.2: 185-209.

Cortazzi, M., and L. Jin

1999 ’Cultural Mirrors: Materials and Methods in the EFL Classroom’, in E. Hin-kel (ed.), Culture in Second Language Teaching (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 196-219.

Davies, A.

1991 The Native _Speaker in Applied Linguistics (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).

Graddol, D.

1999 ’The Decline of the Native Speaker’, in D. Graddol and U. _{Meinhof (eds.),} English in a _Changing World, AILA Review 13: 57-68.

Gupta, A.

2001 ’Realism and _Imagination in the _Teaching of _English’, World _Englishes 20.3: 383-91.

Jenkins, J.

2000 The _{Phonology of English} as an International Language (Oxford: Oxford

University Press).

Kachru, B.B.

1985 ’Standards, Codification and _{Sociolinguistic} Realism: The _{English Language} in the Outer Circle’, in R. _Quirk and H.G. Widdowson (eds.), English in the World: Teaching and _Learning the _Language and Literatures _(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 11-30.

1986 The _{Alchemy of English (Oxford: Pergamon Press).}

Kramsch, C., and P. Sullivan

1996 _{’Appropriate Pedagogy’,} ELT Journal 50: 199-212.

LoCastro, V.

1996 ’English Language Education in _Japan’, in H. Coleman _{(ed.), Society} and the

Language Classroom _{(Cambridge: Cambridge University} Press): 40-58.

McKay, S.L.

2002 _{Teaching English} as an International Language: Rethinking Goals and Approaches (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

2003 ’Teaching English as an International _Language: The Chilean Context’, ELT Journal 57.2: 139-48.

Medgyes, P.

1986 ’Queries from a Communicative Teacher’, ELT Journal 40.2: 107-112.

Nunan, D.

1991 ’Communicative Tasks and the _{Language Curriculum’,} TESOL _Quarterly 25.2: 279-95.

Phillipson, R.

1992 _{Linguistic Imperialism (Cambridge: Cambridge} University Press).

Rampton, M.B.H.

1990 _{’Displacing} the Native _{Speaker: Expertise,} Affiliation, and Inheritance’, ELT Journal 44: 97-10.

Richards, J.C.

2001 Curriculum _Development in _{Language Teaching (Cambridge: Cambridge} University Press).

Seidlhofer, B.

2001 _’Closing a _{Conceptual Gap:} The Case for a _Description of _English as a Lingua Franca’, International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11.2: 133-58.

Smith, L.

1976 _’English as an International Auxiliary Language’, RELC Journal 7.2: 38-43.

Sridhar, S.N., and K.K. Sridhar

1994 _{’Indigenized Englishes} as Second _Languages: Toward a Functional _Theory

of Second Language Acquisition in _{Multilingual Contexts’,} in R.K. Agni-hotri and A.L. Khanna (eds.), Second Language Acquisition: Socio-Cultural and _Linguistic Aspects of English in India (London: Sage): 41-63.

Stem, H.H. David

1983 Fundamental _{Concepts of Language Teaching (Oxford:} Oxford _University

Press).

Tollefson, J.W.

1991 Planning Language, Planning Inequality (London: Longman). Yano, Y.