Feb. 28

I think that one of the most interesting things that came from the Baker article was that the Thai student, Nami makes a comment that when she speaks English she is not following native English speaker conventions. She also doesn’t feel as though she is following traditional Thai communication modes either. Rather she feels that she is drawing upon conventions of a “new generation” in Thailand. Similarly Por makes the conclusion that for her, there is no “real” American or Thai culture when she speaks English. She feels that cultural practices are mixed and hybrid much like Nami.

I have no personal experience to draw from on this topic since I am monolingual. However, it makes sense when I stop and think about it. For one, if a native Thai speaker is speaking English as a Lingua Franca I would see how the speaker feels detached from their native culture. In other words, the speaker would not feel connected to their Thai culture or really connected to the American, British, or Australian (English speaking) culture either. When speaking English it is almost as though a “third space” is created – an identity which is specific only when using of the Lingua Franca.

Since we are beginning to focus on gathering data with our next assignment I can see how Marra’s article proves useful. The LWP had to be very respectful of Maori culture and follow the seven culturally specific ideas (p. 309). The one idea that made me stop and say “oh yeah” was the one about face to face contact, (#2 Kanohi kitea). When writing about data collection the LWP made a point that they had to make an effort to follow up with the Maori participants by telephone over email and preferably face to face. This is due to their culturally specific ideals.

I can apply this idea to my own academic life. When I have to collect data or work with students and people I need to keep in mind the differences between their culture and mine. When I think email is an appropriate mode of communication it could be very insulting to someone else of a different culture. The preferred way of contact may be telephone or in person. I just have to ask questions and respect the wishes of the people I am interviewing. I found the first discussion question interesting (p.319) from this chapter. It is written below.

The final point I want to make is that of the “let it pass” unwritten rule in ELF talk. I thought it was interesting that if something didn’t cause a breakdown in understanding in ELF talk the “non-fatal” misunderstanding was allowed to pass. However, if this interaction resulted in breakdown of understanding when mutual meaning was essential the speakers would make a point to clear up the confusion.

This must be a principal that is understood to help keep ELF talk effective. Many people with many different cultural backgrounds interact with ELF daily. If they had to stop to explain every misunderstanding the conversation would not be fluid and meaningful.

Question:

Consider your own culture and another culture with which you are familiar.

What type of changes would you need to make in order to behave appropriately and ethically for this culture?

Feb. 21

This week’s readings focus on written work. There were three articles, one about a narrow-minded teacher, Barbara, who through her relationships with Carol and David, began to open the door to cultural understanding and move away from essentialist thinking and more into a critical analysis regarding her and her student’s stereotypical assumptions. She learned a lot over the course of the short article and she brings up an interesting point toward the end of the article. This point is: “…not all cultural or ethnic essentialisms are negative. Sometimes, essentialism is used strategically by the oppressed in order to contest oppression and empower themselves.” I find this interesting since I have not thought about essentialism in this way. Also, Barbara talks about becoming aware of how much of our cultural difference is politically implicated in order to overcome negative essentialism. I think that is something many people could benefit from. Watching the news and reading the newspaper from a critical standpoint could benefit everyone. I know too many people that take whatever they read or see on television at face value. This can be very dangerous especially when you consider cultural differences.

The second article I read focused on Japanese Culture constructed by Discourses. The article brings up a thought of extending knowledge and preserving knowledge as part of colonial construction of the other. The literature review from the article implies that Western culture is extending knowledge meaning that western cultures keep creating new knowledge and developing ideas through critical thinking whereas Asian cultures conserve knowledge from the past and are always behind the West. Thinking about this idea and after reading the rest of the article I know that you can point to many examples that are contrary to this colonial discourse.

One example is that of the American classrooms and my own experience is similar to what is discussed on page 18 of the article. Basically the point is that since the 80s American undergraduate students are not interested in thinking and just write down what their instructor tells them. I realize this is one extreme and that the “extending knowledge” idea is another extreme. I believe that Western culture is somewhere in the middle. I think that American educators wish to achieve this idea of extending knowledge and critical thinking but it is a process, not something that students automatically achieve. My principal is always checking and listening for student higher order thinking skills being exercised by teacher questioning. This is something we have to teach our students to do and practice every day. It isn’t automatic.

Going along with this, I have heard from people in education for many years that American students are behind Asian students. If we want our students to be able to compete for industry and jobs on a global scale our students needed to be pushed to achieve and think critically. On page 23 of the Kubota article it is stated that Japanese classrooms “promote self-expression in various subject areas through music, body movement, language, senses, and so on..” This description is a far cry from the colonial discourse of extending knowledge and preserving knowledge. From the description it sounds as though research has found that Japanese classrooms are set up for student success through exploration and creativity. Just what students need to become successful in today’s global job market. I think that this is what most US teachers strive to achieve too because it is just good teaching and benefits many students.

One of the important ideas from the third article by Connor I want to take away with me is to not be “discouraged by recent criticisms of contrastive rhetoric but to treat them with a balanced perspective.”

My question for this week is:

1. How do teachers use contrastive rhetoric in their classrooms when planning writing lessons? Do I use it as a basis for my planning unknowingly?

Week Five-Feb. 14

In Problematizing Cultural Stereotypes in TESOL I found it especially interesting that under the Obedience to Authority section the author discusses what Indian schools have been facing with their students. The article calls it a “perennial discipline problem”, students who are disruptive and disobedient. My initial reaction was “what?!? You’re kidding!”...I really did say that out loud. I think I was so surprised because of the typical assumption that all Asian students are obedient to authority. Then I began to think about the “perennial discipline problem” a little harder. I realized that kids are kids no matter where they are and teachers all over are faced with many of the same challenges, one of which is how to effectively manage a classroom. Further on, the author talks about historical accounts from Confucius which do not support the Asian stereotype of complete and unconditional obedience to authority. So where does this generalization come from?

I would also like to discuss the Example A2.1.1 from the Holliday book. When I read the excerpt about John and his encounters with the Smiths I sadly could relate. My grandparents have had a bunch of Mennonite men and women move into their community. They have horse and buggies, do not use electricity, and there are no phones in their homes. When I first saw these men and women I first thought they were Amish. My mother had been selling them houses and quickly set me straight on the fact that they were Mennonites. I had to research to find what the differences were between the two groups. I became confused though when I saw some of the men and women with cell phones. I didn’t know where they drew their line and what was acceptable to their culture and not. Just like John I was allowing the images from the internet and television help me form my conclusions about the families in my grandparent’s neighborhood. I also let the culture (culturism) become bigger than the men and women who were part of it. After reading section A2.1.1 I need to reexamine my thoughts regarding this group of people.

Week Four - Feb. 7

Week Four – Identity and Language Learning: Discourse, culture, and identity

The reading for this week focused on how a person’s identity affects their language learning. Beginning with Bonny Norton Peirce and her article Social Identity, Investment, and Language Learning readers meet several immigrant women and their struggles with investing in their cultural capital (as defined by Bourdieu and Passeron). The women in the article were from varying backgrounds but, Martina was of particular interest to me. She was a professional surveyor in Czechoslovakia and came to Canada for a “better life for children.” Her identity was one of caretaker and mother (among others) She found it hard to work with her young co-workers as they would laugh at her because of her English. Through Martina’s identity as a mother she decided to rearrange the power relations between herself and the young co-workers, resulting in the children (her young co-workers) not having any authority over her as a “parent”. Through this reclamation of power, Martina found her right to speak (communicative competence) and claimed the use and importance of her cultural capital.

When turning to the sections in Holliday, I get the strong message from Gee that culture is an ambiguous term. Since no one really knows the definition of culture, he prefers the term Discourse. Discourse and discourse systems refer to the many different “socially recognizable identities and activities” one prescribes to. Through these discourses people integrate language and non-language to communicate and identify identities. Another interesting idea in the reading is that “cultures do not talk to one another; individuals do ... all communication must be interpersonal communication and not intercultural communication (p.110). The Holliday sections also touch on what happens when an individual is forced to learn a new language. How does an individual reconstruct their identity while learning a second language?

The last reading, chapter 2, Language and Identity, the author explores research on language, culture, and identity. Our identity is shaped by the groups and communities to whom we belong. People also have agency to shape these groups and communities through their actions. The theory of structuration and habitus are explored as well as Interactional Sociolinguistics (IS). In this chapter some conclusions that are made include: Language is used as a social carrier of culture. Culture and language are never apart from one another. Personal identities are not stable but rather, emergent – each time we think or speak discourse is being reconstructed.

When I went through my reading master’s classes I studied Gee a little and the effect that discourse has on reading acquisition. I identify with the discourse idea and think that Gee has a point when he talks of the many discourses people ascribe to. The thought that it is through these discourses people frame their identity and language is something I can relate to and begin to understand.

Taking this idea further, I can see how it can work well for an ELL teacher. Tapping into student discourse would be an excellent way to begin English instruction. In October, we were blessed to have a Macedonian student begin our school. He had no English experience and spent the first week of school in tears and utter resistance to being part of our school. Over time we were able to make small gains by tapping into his discourse of being a soccer player. He was able to communicate with students through non-verbal soccer actions. This helped him become more at ease with other students and his teachers. After he was able to display his soccer discourse/identity, we were able to build language on top of that. He has built his identity at school as a soccer player, mathematician, and English language learner. Every day a new discourse may be shared or an established one may be used for a starting place (prior knowledge) for instruction.

One question I have is:

Isn’t culture and discourse really the same thing? Didn’t we say in class that culture is anything a person prescribes to? (Kind of like the activity we did in class where we wrote all the cultural groups we belonged to on paper?) So, if I say I belong to the culture of Elementary Teachers, isn’t that a discourse as well?