Category Archives: Scholarly Article

NeltaChoutari’s past journey and future directions

Scholarly Article

A Thousand Mile Journey Begins with a Single Step

In spite of load-shedding for half the day, various professional sectors of the Nepalese society are engaging in professional development through web-based  networking. Because Nepal’s entry into the global professional markets through networking on the web is going to shape the future of the profession of English Language Teaching in Nepal, small efforts today will count as important foundation tomorrow. The increasing presence/activities of Nepalese ELT professionals on the web–email group, blog and wiki, social networking (e.g., Facebook group), and the conventional website–are evidence of the next milestone that this community will, and must, be making. As one small part of this new development, a few ELT professionals started sharing something to read and discuss on a monthly basis one year ago in January 2009. Reflecting on the first year of this small step, we would like to share a few ideas about the challenges, prospects, and future direction for Nepalese ELT professional community on the Web.

DEVELOPMENTS

We started discussing our desire to add substance and professional quality to the ELT discussion that have taken place on Nelta email list for some time. This desire was not just the result of more reliable access and increased technological skills on the part of a few of us who were studying abroad; it was most importantly the consequence of realizing that Nepalese ELT professionals constitute a highly resourceful community that has done a lot in terms of building a great professional organization but a new wave of professional networking was absolutely necessary because while the community has long been connected to the global community but too many members (teachers) seem to not regard their ideas and experiences as worth professional discussion. So, we started a wiki based sharing and responding to ideas by naming the forum Nelta Choutari, as a public square for discussing ELT issues pertaining to the promotion of Nelta and the teaching of English in Nepal.

Our vision was, simply, to promote professional communication among Nelta members, starting the conversation among the few of us and asking everyone to contribute. Our goal would more specifically involve encouraging the community to subvert the traditional notions that there are “scholars” out there who will do the theory-building, discussing of methods, and telling us what ELT practices are best for us, and “we the teachers” doing the actual teaching will only actually teach. It would, we discussed in the background, involve encouraging fellow Nelta members to challenge our ideas, to help us situate the discussion we would initially lead in the actual context of teaching. In a sense, as the initial issue signaled, we wanted to promote a more critical pedagogy in Nepalese English language teaching:

a. raise theoretical and critical questions about the teaching of English in Nepal at this time by challenging uncritical traditional practices,

b. integrate and implement theory in practice by encouraging teachers to theorize their practices, share their teaching experiences, and make sense of theory in terms of their own classroom teaching,

c. situate the discussion of ELT in the local context of Nepal (the society and culture, the political and historical situation, and Nepal’s place in an increasingly globalized world),
d. connect that situated discussion of Nepalese ELT to the discussions of ELT taking place in the world outside by not only studying the global theory and implementing it in local practice but also by developing our own ELT theories, methods, and practices,

e. overall, this would mean the promotion of critical discussions among English language teachers as educators who do not limit themselves to just teaching a foreign language for its own sake but who do so for achieving the larger goals of education: raising critical awareness about the society and the world in students, using local knowledge as the content of teaching English, respecting local languages alongside English, and teaching in response to the demands of the global knowledge market.

Approach-wise, we wanted to start with two dimensions in the discussion: theoretical and practical. On the theoretical side, we planned to include a scholarly article published in international journals in each month’s issue, and on the practical side we planned to include stories of teaching experience by fellow Nelta members. The scholarly article would allow us to engage in more serious discussion on ELT pedagogy, and the local material would help us develop a sense of authenticity in our own ideas, experiences, and practices. The editors/facilitators would bridge between the two aspects by writing an editorial as well as a brief introduction to the overall issue of the month. We later added a teacher humor section to make each issue interesting. We have been taking turns to put together some thought-provoking ELT materials and write-ups every month and we will continue this. We are encouraged by whatever response we have received, the more encouraging number of readers as shown by blog statistics. Our inspiration came from the great success of Nelta’s yahoo mailing group. In a matter of a few years, this list has become a significant professional forum for discussing issues of ELT in Nepal as well as organizing activities by Nelta. What we wanted to add to that wonderful success story is to make ourselves heard beyond the mailing group, to get a global audience for our ideas, and to develop resource on the public and global domain. But we wanted to develop discussion forums that would be able to take our discussion beyond the limits of email, help us build resource, and open ways to connect us to global ELT community in the future. Here are a few things that an email list does not do or doesn’t do as well when compared to a public domain discussion forum on the open web. Here are a few such advantages:

a. access: open forums like wikis and blogs are not password protected, available to outside audience who can respond; in the case of a blog, discussions are also automatically connected to similar blogs by people in the field of ELT from around the world,

b. organization: a blog in particular is archived by month, theme, tags; searchable, browsable, tagged, linked,

c. networking: anyone can respond to the posts on a blog; comments are placed under the post so the discussion is organized; readers can subscribe to new entries with RSS feed,

d. global reach: we are discussing truly great ideas in the last few years and we deserve a larger audience and exchange of ideas from ELT professionals outside our own community,

e. credential: discussion on the web can serve as a form of publication, which will be counted in our academic and professional careers,

f. teaching resources: materials on the open web can be a great resource for teachers and students in Nepal and abroad, today and in the future,

g. inspiration: finally, when we share ideas like this, our students will be inspired to share their ideas with local, national, and global communities; this is good modeling of the idea that our ideas are important too.

We have been encouraging Nelta members to post their ideas on the blog, to respond to monthly discussion posts, and to let others know about this collaboration. If you look at the archive of monthly issues, you will see that we have covered some very important issues ranging from critical pedagogy, local epistemology, globalization and ELT, world Englishes, teacher development, ELT methods, to needs analysis in teacher training. In the first few months, we discussed some larger critical/theoretical frameworks but in the specific context of Nepal. Then we moved on to more concrete issues of classroom teaching, while retaining the critical flavor in the reading and discussion. We are glad to say after almost one year now that this networking has continued, and those of us involved in coordinating these discussions are very proud to hear that Nelta executives and Nelta members have likee the networked collaboration. What we need more is for Nelta members to respond to the posts, volunteer to post entries as editor for the month, and encourage other colleagues to engage directly in the discussion. On the ground, we need to do professional communication face-to-face. But those of us who are able to build some resources online, promote networking, and connect our work worldwide must also make the extra effort to take steps that will become the imperatives of the near future. In fact, online collaboration is going to become both possible and necessary even within Nepal, because of the rough geographic terrain and relatively affordability of web-based networking.

CHALLENGES

There are several challenges that we recognized as we started the networking and those challenges still remain. Perhaps the biggest challenge about promoting professional collaboration among Nepalese ELT practitioners is that the culture of professional discourse has not been very well established. Before Nelta reached across the country and established the practice of training, conferences, publication and other means of professional discourse, teacher training in the public sector used to be seen mainly as an opportunity for teachers to get a raise, better their image, and earn the training allowance–and in many cases it was only for the last one that teachers would participate in trainings. Nelta has evidently made great change in attitude towards professional development as a means of better teaching and professional performance among English teachers. What still seems to remain challenging is for teachers to come forward in whatever forums are available (or accessible) and share their ideas with the confidence that their ideas matter, that they should be knowledge-workers who do not only look up to “bideshi” “thinkers” and a few national experts to think about their profession and develop a discourse of our own and address our problems with our own theories and approaches that are grown at home.

Of course, technology has not yet advanced well enough for many of us to be able to do what we want. When we make the monthly request to Nelta members at home and abroad to please initiate or join the professional conversation on Choutari, we never forget that access is quite limited for many of us; time is limited for others; and many of us do not have the needed level of technological skills–or the motivation to go online and join the discussion. And yet we know that someone has to do this kind of work, pave the way for future work, show what is possible, experiment and take the challenge of ideas, and not just sit there doing nothing because many of us do not have the access. We ask those of us who do have a little bit of access and time to please say something. That is, even without technology, in the face-to-face situation, professional collaboration doesn’t happen on its own. The challenge before us is promoting that culture of discussing, theory-building, and developing critical perspectives about our discipline. Nelta has come a long way in training its teachers, establishing ELT communities around the country, making resources available, and in general uplifting the work of language teaching to a level of a “profession.” Our generation must take that legacy much further by adding new dimensions, in response to the tremendous challenges brought about by Nepal’s entry into the global economic and intellectual market.

As of now, there are challenges related to technology as well as the lack of resources for publication, conferences, and other modes of professional communication. But, by the time when technology, resources, and expertise become more available and widespread, which is increasingly possible in spite of the great political throes that the country is going through, we must be ready and prepared to take advantage of those developments. How we can be prepared for the future, as well as how we can respond to the challenges of the present, should be the subjects of sustained discussion in professional fora of various types.

In terms of encouraging teachers to participate in off line and online discussion–whichever they can participate in–it is necessary to develop a new culture of speaking up, with the confidence that we too have ideas worth sharing, and with the viewpoint that knowledge is what we and our students produce from out of our own life and experience and to meet the needs of our own work and progress. We need to realize that we are educators who must do more than teaching a language; we need to identify our true goals as well as challenges and limitations that we face; and we need to begin to listen to our own voices. That is what we are calling for today.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

History of English language teaching has taught us that there are binaries between theorists and practitioners, between experts and teachers, and between researchers and users of researched knowledge. We need to deconstruct this traditional notion of knowledge-providers and knowledge-consumers. NeltaChoutari will make efforts to theorize practitioners’ knowledge that comes from classroom experiences. Teachers will  be encouraged to share their experience and knowledge to a broader practitioners’ community. When necessary, NeltaChoutari members and other contributers will provide mentorship to the teachers who have wealth of experience and knowledge, yet need some form of assistance to translate their stories into ‘readable’ and ‘sharable’ forms for the larger community.

There are frequent useful and interesting postings in neltamail by our fellow NELTA colleagues. These posts deal with crucial issues in language teaching and teacher training in both local as well as global contexts. There are also occasions when our fellow NELTA colleagues have been to other ELT communites similar to or larger than ours and have got exposure from a different context. For example, some teachers from Nepal have been to other countries for training or research purposes and have had different kind of experience. They have been sharing their experience via neltamail. These people will be requested to post their useful ideas as blog entries in the NeltaChoutari.

Those who are interested to contribute frequently for the blog entry will be provided with an access to add, edit, post, etc. the entries for the blog. We’ll not only teach (if they request) the skills of blogging, but also encourage them to study blogging via internet or other printed sources. We’ll help them find appropriate resources. Our goal is to prepare a platform for grassroots teachers to share their teaching stories and experiences, and benefit from each other’s knowledge-sharing. Because of the challenges that have been outlined above, we need to go step by step. We must remember that a journey of 1000 miles starts from a step. As NeltaChoutari team, we would like to personally and collectively request our colleagues and students to contribute for the blog. Because some of us are teaching M. Ed/M.A. students in the university, we will be requesting our students to contribute for the post. We will help them translating their experience into a sharable form. Students can make a few page long blog entry out of their thesis report or course assignment. As far as possible, people from within Nepal will be encouraged to contribute for the blog.

In a recent correspondence with Shyam Sharma, one of the members of NeltaChoutari, the President of NELTA (Mr. Ganga Ram Gautam) has indicated that in the near future NELTA will assign an executive committee member as coordinator for the different kinds of professional activities on the web–for example, the efforts of Nelta Choutari. In order to implement what could be called a mission for ‘NELTA on the Web’, the role of an official coordinator will be necessary because the spontaneous increase in professional networking will make more sense if they can be guided by NELTA’s core professional goals. The goal of such a mission (‘NELTA on the Web’) would be not only to promote professional discussion for those who have access to the web but also to better connect local/branch ELT professionals with the national and the Nepalese ELT community with the global community but also coordinating between online and offline efforts for promoting professional communication and professionalisation.

ELT Survey- Need of the Country, by Sajan Karn

English as a Global Language
Editorial
ELT Survey: Need Of The Country (source: http://www.gorkhapatra.org.np/detail.php?article_id=1124&cat_id=7)
Sajan Kumar Karn
English Lan guage Teaching (ELT) began in  Nepal in 1854 when the then prime minister, Jung Bahadur Rana, opened a school in Kathmandu, popularly known as Durbar High school. Since then, the English language has been taught and learnt as a foreign language in the schools and colleges of Nepal. In the olden days, it was used for an extremely specific purpose, i.e., for academic purposes.
Use
When we scrutinise the current status of the English language and its teaching, we find that little attempt has been made to document its present state of affairs. The use of English has extended by leaps and bounds. English language institutes, English medium schools and colleges are mushrooming. Some 50 regular publications, including dailies, weeklies and magazines, are regularly published in English. A large numbers of books, journals and periodicals are produced in English. Nepali literature – stories, essays and poems have been translated into English for wider readership.
Cyber culture has fascinated the younger generation immensely and, therefore, the use of English has considerably gone up. What’s more, in the Nepali society, speaking in English adds to one’s status. All these have ultimately led to a craze among Nepalis to learn and speak English.
Nevertheless, English language teaching in Nepal does not seem to have drawn the needed attention of the authorities concerned, in particular, and the government, in general. The government has not formulated any policies yet for its use and promotion. Of late, English teaching has started from grade One, and today it is a matter of heated controversy among the politicians as to whether to start teaching English from grade One or from grade Four as in the past. The decisions that have been made so far lack study and research.
In 1984, a survey of English language teaching was carried out in Nepal. The report clearly pointed out the lack of required proficiency among the English language teachers. Several other studies indicated the low standard of English teaching in Nepal. Only about 50 per cent of English teachers of Nepal are trained. We can not expect better results from the remaining 50 per cent untrained teachers.
Until recently, English was taught as a foreign language. Nevertheless, its enormous demand and use have made it a second language. Today, English is not only a subject taught in the academic institutions but is also a medium of instruction, means of communication between students and teachers, and the language of trainings, seminars and conferences. English medium schools have treated their territory as ‘English speaking zones’. This has transformed the role of every teacher to be an English teacher first. A considerable number of interviews on TV take place in English. FM radio stations beam a good number of programmes in English.
Recently, some presentations (by V. S. Rai at the 11th international conference in Nepal) and articles claim that a different variety of English is developing in Nepal. The Nepali variety of English, or Nenglish, shows not only remarkable disparity from the native dialects like British, American varieties but also from the Indian English, comically known as Hinglish (as it is influenced immensely by the Hindi language).As a matter of fact, English spoken in Nepal has considerably changed over the years. It has been observed that the way Nepalis speak English differs from the way other nationals speak, not only in terms of vocabulary but also structure and meaning and pronunciation.
Loktantra (a political system devoid of a monarch) is preferred to democracy as democracy was used to refer to prajatantra which included a monarch. Dot pen is used for biro and copy is used for exercise book. Likewise, ‘no’ is used as a filler and ‘isn’t it?’ is a multipurpose tag for Nepalis.  However, it is unfortunate that neither the constitutions in the past nor the newly inked interim statute make any mention of English, which has taken space in most of the Nepalis’ hearts. A New Nepal is in the making. May my pen awaken the constitution makers!
The role of the English language in a New Nepal can hardly be exaggerated as this can stand as an icon of unity and national harmony since all other languages have been alleged to belong to specific communities. English can be an instrument to strengthen loktantra and promote human rights. As the nation is undergoing a transitional stage, everything is in a state of flux. This is the time for the nation to ponder over a language policy, in general, and ELT strategy, in particular.
ELT survey
Whenever our lips utter the word ‘English’, NELTA (Nepal English Language Teachers’ Association) instinctively follows. English and NELTA have become so inseparable that it is impossible to think of one in the absence of another. Today NELTA has developed into a big umbrella that can accommodate one and all English language teachers from primary to university levels. Recently, NELTA has proposed for an ELT survey to bring to the fore the present situation of ELT in Nepal. This is a venture taken by NELTA to help the nation formulate scientific policies for the English language and its teaching. The initiative will contribute to finding out the standard of English language teaching in Nepal.
It will also explicitly sketch an outline of the variety of English emerging in Nepal and will guide ELT in the days to come. On behalf of NELTA, I urge the stakeholders of ELT in Nepal – concerned authorities like the Ministry of Education and British Council Nepal, to join hands with NELTA in its undertaking of the ELT survey.
(Karn is an English teacher educator at Thakur Ram Multiple Campus, Birgunj)

Give task, let students speak

Scholarly Article

Give task, let students speak

Prem Phyak

Introduction

As part of my teaching duty I observe more than thirty student-teachers during their practicum classes every year; and I provide feedback to the student-teachers in order to help make their teaching more effective. I have found most student-teachers have good classroom delivery with strong content knowledge. For example, I have observed many of the student-teachers introduce William Wordsworth’s poem “My Heart Leaps Up When I Behold…” They provide good biographic details about Wordsworth. They explain his writing style and the topic by giving reference to his past work. However, I have rarely found these student-teachers involving their students in group or pair discussions, or asking questions in order to encourage their students to think critically about the poem.

I have also observed secondary and higher secondary classes where the teacher spends the entire lesson (45 minutes) explaining the rules of where prepositions ‘in’ ‘on’ and ‘at’ are used. Students in these classrooms listen to lectures by the teacher. The students appear to lack enthusiasm due to the confusing examples and rules of the grammar. When asked, the teachers commenting on their own class say that they feel more comfortable when students remain quiet and simply listen to them rather than when the learners interact with each other.

Do students learn English if they remain silent? Do they develop their critical thinking skills if teachers spoon-feed them without engaging them in classroom discussion and allowing for interaction? Does language teaching mean more teacher-talk and less student-talk? How can we as teachers engage the learners in classroom interaction while teaching English? These are the major issues I will discuss in this article. I argue that by giving a ‘task’, not lecture, we can promote student participation in the classroom, which ultimately enhances their critical thinking skills.

Task: what is it?

A ‘task’ is an activity which promotes interaction among students by focusing on the meaning or message of language (Willis, 1996; Ellis, 2003). A task can be, for example, filling-in an application form, composing an e-mail message, drawing a street map according to instructions, or showing the differences between two pictures. In order to accomplish the task, students have to communicate sufficiently with their classmates in the classroom. While communicating in a group or in pairs students focus on the negotiation of meaning, i.e. they use different strategies such as comprehension checks, clarification requests and confirmation checks (Ellis, 2003). For example, instead of giving a long lecture about a poem, a teacher can ask students to read the poem aloud in groups, write their own interpretations and let the students present in the classroom. In this process the students work together, which provides opportunities for them to interact with each other by focussing on ‘meaning’. In general, a task should have a purpose and involve a variety of thinking processes, a context in which the task takes place, and a product or result of thinking and doing the task.

Form or meaning?
A form is a grammatical structure which allows students to construct correct sentences. Students construct a sentence with past simple tense using the past form of verbs, for example. In this sense, even sentences like John killed a stone, Anita kissed a stone seem grammatically correct since they “fit” the structure of the past simple tense. However, the sentences are not understandable in a real-life situation. This indicates that teaching students English only to use the correct form makes no sense when they have to engage in real-life communication. Considering the teaching of grammar equivalent to the teaching of the English language in our context (still the dominating belief) has, I think, diminished students’ potential to use English in real-life situations. If we are focusing only on grammar we are making students just followers of rules, making them passive and not helping them generate ideas.

Against this backdrop, giving a task not only engages students in interaction in the classroom, but also bridges the gap between a real-life context and the classroom situation (Nunan, 2004). We can ask students to interact in pairs in order to find out about a frightening moment they have experienced, to draw a picture to illustrate that moment and then show the picture to other students in the classroom. By doing so, the students not only use English to explain and learn about the details of what, when, where and how the event occurred, but also explore and use language appropriate for real communication.

Focused tasks
A task is not only useful for student interaction, but for teaching grammatical items as well. Teachers can provide different types of tasks in order to make the teaching of grammar effective and interactive. Research studies, and my experience as well, suggest most children do not enjoy learning grammar in the classroom. Students seem to feel grammar classes are dry and monotonous. Many teachers simply explain the grammar rules rather than involve the students in any form of real interaction. By doing so, we are making the learning of grammar more difficult for students. Moreover, we are making them passive learners.

We can design different tasks to make grammar teaching/learning a more positive experience. For example, we can give a story completion task in which students work together in a group to explore a story by asking each other questions. By doing this students learn how to use wh-questions (e.g. Where does the boy/girl come from?), do/auxiliary questions (e.g. Do they eat meat? Are they laughing?) along with many more structures. In the same way, instead of describing a picture teachers can ask students to show the differences between two similar pictures in order to teach the students how to form wh-questions, negatives, yes/no questions and so on.

Learning critically

Many teachers believe learning the English language means only to listen, speak, read and write in English. However, such a concept may not necessarily promote the thinking skills of the students. In order to develop the students’ communicative ability, we ask students to listen to and read an English text and then ask questions just to check whether the students understood the text. Teachers provide students with a particular exponent and ask them to use it in a piece of conversation following a model. Such a teaching method may not encourage students to be independent learners and thinkers.

Many teachers evaluate students’ performance on the basis of whether the students provide “the right answer”. Those who provide the right answer are supposed to be better than those who do not. But we never analyse why students do not understand and/or why they are not motivated to read and listen to a text. Teachers rarely ask students why they answered as they did.

Many teachers do not encourage their students to interact with the text and their friends in the classroom. Instead of involving the students in doing tasks that encourage them to analyse, discuss, debate, question and synthesize the ideas given in the text into students’ own socio-cultural contexts, teachers try to influence the students with their own interpretations. Instead of trying to influence the students with the teacher’s interpretation, we can encourage students to develop their own interpretation. For example, if a text is about Women in America, we can ask students to read the text and discuss a comparison with the position of women in Nepal. We can ask the students to discuss how the beliefs and attitudes towards women in America and Nepal are different. This can be done in the pairs or small groups. Topics including education, the economy and politics are some of the issues students can be encouraged to discuss, again in pairs or small groups. Such tasks not only promote collaborative learning skills (Golub, 1988) but also involve the students in the critical thinking process and promote independent learning.

However, there are some crucial points to be considered in designing a task. The foremost point is the language level of the students. For beginners, we can give simple tasks such as describing pictures, following instructions, grouping objects, and gap filling. In such tasks we encourage students to generate a variety of ideas rather than say this is right and that is wrong. While asking questions (e.g. why do you think so?), students need to be able to express their own ideas in a comfortable environment, one that encourages the students to express their ideas in English. However, some students may not be able to express their ideas fluently. In that context, teachers should help by facilitating the expression process as opposed to overtly correcting the students. If we encourage students to ask questions and express agreement and/or disagreement with the ideas given in the text and that of the teacher, the students can develop skills to be independent learners.

Designing a ‘Task’
Most task-based lessons involve three logical stages: pre-task, during task and post-task (Willis, 1996). In the pre-task stage, teachers and students plan a task collaboratively, and become familiar with what they are going to do. This is the stage groups are formed and teachers give instruction to the students. Moreover, teachers can provide models in order to familiarise students with the types of activities they are doing to accomplish the task, and decide whether the purpose of the task is to teach form (grammar) or content.

In the second stage students are involved in doing the task. There are different options for performing the task depending on the need of the students and the complexity of the task. Usually young children need close guidance and input from the teacher, whereas older students can work more independently. In this stage, teachers can provide necessary information in order to make their task more outcome-oriented. In the same way, teachers can limit the time of the task completion so that the students can focus on the specific activities. During the whole process, working in a group, students consolidate different ideas to complete the task.

In the post-task stage, students are provided a chance to repeat the performance of the task in groups or individually, reflect on how the task was accomplished and raise awareness on the grammatical form. The students look back and analyse how the task was performed, who played what roles and what problems occurred during the task.

Conclusion
By engaging in tasks, students can develop three important skills: cooperation, communication and critical thinking. The studies have also shown that a task can integrate four language skills and engages learners in ‘cognitive processes’ (e.g. selecting, classifying, and reasoning) in order to achieve a fixed ‘outcome’. However, the designing of a task requires rigorous planning on the part of the teacher in order to ensure that the task focuses on meaning (not on form), has a fixed outcome and reflects authentic use of language (real-life language).

A task should also be appropriate for the socio-cultural context, learning practices and expectations of teaching/learning English in Nepal. We as teachers have to design the tasks which utilize local contexts and students are familiar with, so that the students can negotiate with classmates in learning English actively. Thus instead of planning what we are going to say about a particular text or an activity, we need to plan what activities or tasks (related to the lesson) can be conducted in the classroom.

Acknowledgements to Gretchen Coppedge and Laxman Gnawali for comment on the first draft)

Further Readings

Eckerth, J. and Siekmann, S. (2008) (Eds.). Task-based language learning and teaching: theoretical, methodological and pedagogical perspectives. Peter Lang: Berlin.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Golub, J.  (1988). (Ed). Focus on Collaborative Learning. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English,

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Willis, J. (1996) Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, U.K.: Longman Addison- Wesley.

NeltaChoutari November 09 Issue

Critical Pedagogy

A Reflection on Birgunj Conference: Invitation for Discussion

An interesting video
(We think the west is completely advanced, but in most societies education tends to lag behind the advancements of the time)

Some fun with English
chewing gum prohibition: engrish.com
entering the tower: engrish.com

If you are an English Teacher…

Scholarly Article, Teacher's Experience/anecdotes

IF you are a teacher,……….?

Govinda Raj Bhattarai, Ph.D.
Professor of English, Tribhuvan University

A man should first direct himself in the way he should go. Only then should he instruct others, says Lord Buddha, considering the duty of a teacher. This is an age-old dictum, yet its value has never faded away, nor will it be so even in the distant future. Actually, a teacher practices examples, he should shun away from preaching only. His character and nobility, his personality and perseverance count thousand times, valuable than his degrees and diplomas.  A teacher instills humane values in the learners, not merely does he teach the students the tricks of life, and he teaches them its mystery and beauty as well.

In modern sense, he becomes a facilitator pointing always at the ideal path—without enforcing, without coercing he should direct them, he doesn’t rule their mind, instead, wins thousand hearts.  Psychologically, he attracts the learners towards a world of harmony, patience, love, courage and achievement. See, how the words of Galileo echo until today: You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him to find it within himself.Therefore, let our students find the unending treasure  of mystery and possibility lying within themselves, let us help them eschew away from sheer automata and mechanical repetitiveness because creativity has no repetition. The teacher will be truly a facilitator in modern sense.

All eternal messages are inscribed long ago. They echo in the ether time and again. A true teacher should listen to these words. Let us listen to Horace Mann: A teacher who is attempting to teach without inspiring the pupil with a desire to learn is hammering on cold iron. Let us stop and think, are we hammering on cold iron or are we stroking the budding flowers that may bear infinite color and smell and touch and feel?

If You and English Teacher

Prof. Gobinda Bhattarai, Professor of English, Tribhuvan University

Teaching is greatest of jobs on earth, a happiest moment to spend; only a luckiest person can internalize these values and thank God for appointing him or her for the noble task of being a teacher. It is the only moment when someone is face to face with innumerable souls with divergent interests and capacity, inclination, and probability. To live with these thriving souls, to talk with them and watch them grow every moment is a mystery, and a great joy.

A true teacher is a sage—performing humblest of duties on earth—of shaping innumerable souls in the mould of humanity, not in the format of an engineer, a doctor, a professor, a business person, a lawyer, or an administrator.

One should first of all learn these immortal values before being a teacher. It they fail to do so, they will justify Wilde’s saying: Everybody who is incapable of learning has taken to teaching. Are we also incapable of learning?

Of course, if we fail to understand the mystery of teaching, the glory of being a teacher and the beauty underlying it, we fail to learn, we are incapable of learning.  A true teacher should never fail to learn.

Nelta Choutari October Issue

Scholarly Article

In this issue we have an article “If you are a teacher….?” by Professor Govinda Raj Bhattarai. The article has raised some philosophical issues regarding the role of a teacher. We hope you will enjoy reading article given bellow. Please read and comment on the post below.

In addition, Sajan Karna from Birgunja has contributed an article on Englishisation in which he talks about how Nepali English way of using English is increasing and its implication in ELT. Please  read and comment on the articlebelow.

If You are a Teacher…?

Scholarly Article

IF you are a teacher,……….?

Govinda Raj Bhattarai, Ph.D.
Professor of English, Tribhuvan University

A man should first direct himself in the way he should go. Only then should he instruct others, says Lord Buddha, considering the duty of a teacher. This is an age-old dictum, yet its value has never faded away, nor will it be so even in the distant future. Actually, a teacher practices examples, he should shun away from preaching only. His character and nobility, his personality and perseverance count thousand times, valuable than his degrees and diplomas.  A teacher instills humane values in the learners, not merely does he teach the students the tricks of life, and he teaches them its mystery and beauty as well.

In modern sense, he becomes a facilitator pointing always at the ideal path—without enforcing, without coercing he should direct them, he doesn’t rule their mind, instead, wins thousand hearts.  Psychologically, he attracts the learners towards a world of harmony, patience, love, courage and achievement. See, how the words of Galileo echo until today: You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him to find it within himself.Therefore, let our students find the unending treasure  of mystery and possibility lying within themselves, let us help them eschew away from sheer automata and mechanical repetitiveness because creativity has no repetition. The teacher will be truly a facilitator in modern sense.

All eternal messages are inscribed long ago. They echo in the ether time and again. A true teacher should listen to these words. Let us listen to Horace Mann: A teacher who is attempting to teach without inspiring the pupil with a desire to learn is hammering on cold iron. Let us stop and think, are we hammering on cold iron or are we stroking the budding flowers that may bear infinite color and smell and touch and feel?

Teaching is greatest of jobs on earth, a happiest moment to spend; only a luckiest person can internalize these values and thank God for appointing him or her for the noble task of being a teacher. It is the only moment when someone is face to face with innumerable souls with divergent interests and capacity, inclination, and probability. To live with these thriving souls, to talk with them and watch them grow every moment is a mystery, and a great joy.

A true teacher is a sage—performing humblest of duties on earth—of shaping innumerable souls in the mould of humanity, not in the format of an engineer, a doctor, a professor, a business person, a lawyer, or an administrator.

One should first of all learn these immortal values before being a teacher. It they fail to do so, they will justify Wilde’s saying: Everybody who is incapable of learning has taken to teaching. Are we also incapable of learning?

Of course, if we fail to understand the mystery of teaching, the glory of being a teacher and the beauty underlying it, we fail to learn, we are incapable of learning.  A true teacher should never fail to learn.

English as a Bonus

English as a Global Language

Englishization is a bonus

By Sajan Kumar Karn, NELTA Birgunj

Do you agree that ‘Englishization is a boon in Nepal? What makes you think so? Do the following rationales speak your heart and mind? If not, why? Feel free to comment. The platform is yours.

What is Englishization?
The English language in Nepal is said to have two faces i.e. Englishization of the Nepalese languages and nativization of English. Minimally, the term Englishization can be interpreted as the influence exercised by the English language upon non-English languages such as Nepali, Maithili, Bhojpuri, Newar, Limbu etc. The adoption and adaptation of English words and phrases in Nepalese literary writings (true to say, in all sorts of writing) and daily conversation is perceived rampantly which has led to the increasing hybridization of languages (English+Nepali, English+Maithili, English+Bhojpuri etc.). Likewise, the other close manifestation of English is its nativization. Nativization of English has already been sprouting by leaps and bounds in Nepal. Many papers have been presented and articles have been written to argue that a distinct variety English is budding in Nepal. Englishization and nativization have become global phenomena today, however. Hinglish, Singlish, Anglish, Menglish, Philippine English, Nenglish etc. are some of the instances of Nativized Englishes used in different parts of the world. This interfulence (Englishization and nativization) of English and Nepalese languages is observed at all levels -phonological, grammatical and semantic and at both the modes–speech and writing, which is not the concern of this article, however. The rest of this article uses the term Englishization to refer to both-Englishization and nativization since both seem to have similar effect ultimately(for many) and also in order to be economical. Many people have argued that the interfluence caused by Englishization does not only confine to the language (speech or writing) of the speaker, rather it escalates gradually and weighs upon her lifestyle, education, culture, identity, and virtually on her entire personality in such a way that she virtually becomes Englishized (Westernised or Americanised) goodbyeing her own original identity and culture. However, Englishization has become an inevitable global phenomenon and world’s numerous languages have been hybridized and there is little evidence that people have utterly been denativized. Adoption (Owning English and giving it a native perfume) and adaptation (use of English words and phrases in different way) are speeding so massively today that it can hardly be impeded in near future. Whereas some nations embraced English because of colonization in the past, others have acknowledged it owing to its instrumental value and still others seem to have owned and nurtured it unintentionally. Whatever may be the reason in the wake of Englishization, the issue has stimulated heated controversies amongst intellectuals. Whereas some have labeled Englishization as neo-colonization, others have taken it as a productive indicator for the prosperity of the country and people.

Let us observe the following expressions collected from new generation Nepalese speeches on different occasions:

a. Yo mahina ko salary kahile dine hola-malai kasto khancho parisakyo?The equivalent for salary-talab is almost non-existent in new generation Nepali speech.
b. Nepal ma ta kehi system nai chaina bhanya? Who uses parnali?
c. NELTA le every year international conference organize garchaa.
Out of seven words, how many are Nepali?
d. British council charity organization ho.
e. Final exam ko lagi ramro preparation gara.
f. TU ta aba certificate distribution centre banisakyo.
g. Sthapit sir ko way of teaching nikai down –to- earth thiyo.
h. Look! ma creative writer banna chahanchu tara family circumstance le diraheko chaina.
i. Aajako weather kati sunny chha
j. Langauge institute gaeko, tuition fee ta ekdum high –pay garnai nasakne.

These are only some instances of the Englishized Nepali. English words have become so overriding in the mother tongue expressions(above) that equivalent mother tongue words are gradually disappearing form young generation conversation, which has become a matter of concern for many of us.

Let us now observe some Nepalised English:
a. Sunil looked at the speaker and namested him……(Rai, 2008: New Generation English)
b. My daughter reads in Nursery.
c. Gita Miss is so strict but Bina Miss is good.
d. Heartly welcome to Tribhuvan University.
e. Ram is very proudy.
f. One ladies teacher asked my name and went away.
g. Thousands of people sacrificed for Loktantra in Nepal.
h. Ram sir did not teach us today, Shyam sir engaged his class, instead.
i. Could you give me your dot pen please?
j. Loadshedding is killing us.

It would be very interesting to calculate the percent o f Nepali in (so-called) Nepali expressions and that of English in (so called) English expressions. This makes me often ask myself (and everyone I believe): what language do we speak? The noticeable thing in the above example sentences is that Englishization and Nepalization have occurred not because of obligation but because of will. Even if Nepali possesses the words, English equivalents are used and even if English has the words, equivalent Nepali words are used but intentionally. Is it because the speakers want to appear elegant, intelligent, and erudite? Or English is so much used that it has become extremely common to use pidginized language across the world? Should we let it go? If yes, why? If not, why? This article seeks to find the answers to these questions.

Should Englishization be promoted?

The following could be the reasons why Englishization should be promoted in Nepal.

God’s endowment
The almighty has gifted Nepalese with a flair for using so many languages and if they use English, the most extensively used language in the universe; they commit no sin. A Slovakian proverb highlights the importance of learning a new language in these words “With each newly learnt language, you acquire a new soul”. Similarly, a French proverb adds: “A man who knows two languages is worth two men”. Knowing and using English, we enrich ourselves with English arts, culture and trades, and we also add a new personality (Crystal, 2000:44).

English linguistic imperialism ends with nativization
Philipson (2007:47.) defines English linguistic imperialism as “the dominance of English asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages”. Nevertheless, linguistic imperialism as advocated by Phllipson (2007) ends with the owning of English. A lot of people such as Gandhi (1927) protested against the intoxication, denationalization and mental slavery induced by English in the past. Nevertheless, when the matter of nativization of the English language comes to the fore, linguistic and cultural imperialism seems to fade away gradually. The only need is to shape the English language in accordance with our own culture and soil. Further, with the new Englishes growing around the world, the ideology must end and English should rather be treated as a means of empowerment.

English fetches success
Englishization and prosperity are interlinked. Larsen- Freeman (2007) says ‘English is the key to successes’. Everyone wants success in life. If it is English which fetches success, what wrong is there in adopting and adapting it? Further she maintains “English is regarded as gateway to wealth for national economies, organizations and individuals”.

English is a killer language?
Many have said that English is a killer language and therefore promotion of it infers the loss of linguistic diversity of a country, which, however, has proved wrong. Graddol (2006) maintains “English is not the main reason for global language loss. The impact of English is mainly on the status of other national languages”. In other words, spread of English is not the direct cause of language endangerment. English in fact had its effects on national (major languages) not on regional and minority languages. In many countries, it is the national language, such as Nepali that threatens local languages, not English.

Colonization has proved advantageous
Although people criticize the European colonization in the past, the countries that were colonized are also found to have been luckier to those which were not. This is because in many cases, the victim countries could exploit English speaking colonial heritage and which connected them to global economy, for instance, India (Graddol, 2006). We have heard many Nepalese lamenting that it would have been better for Nepal, had it been colonized. However, it does not conclude that we expect any form of colonization in the future but it only suggests that English proved better for them.

English widens our horizons
Use of English internationalizes us. Our horizon of knowledge does not remain localized rather our potentiality and prospects get widened. The world is narrowing down into a global village and therefore, it is only English that links Nepalese to the non-Nepali communities. At the time when the concept of world citizen is in vogue, narrowing down ourselves would be nothing but chauvinism.

Nepal can house one more
A home to enormous linguistic diversity, the greater Himalayan region’s lap does not fall short to house one more language (English). The country which has accommodated 123 languages can accommodate one more. Continuing with English, we do not subtract from our repertoires.

English is the treasure
English is the treasure of knowledge available in the world. Avoiding English, we will only put ourselves at semi-darkness. More than half of the world books are written in English. About a third of world newspapers are published in English. Do not we want to read and obtain information and pleasure out of them?

One more but new identity
Who says: using English we lose our own identity and culture? We rather add to us one more language, one additional culture and thus one extra but new identity. Further, learning English does not mean forgetting our own culture and language. There is little evidence that core values of Nepalese have been changed owing to influence of English. Therefore, there is no question of Englishized ( Westernised or Americanised) identity of Nepalese students or people. The growth of nativized Englishes does not pose the problem of identity crisis, rather has facilitated the speakers to signal identity through English.

English is our appendage
English is no longer the exclusive possession of any English speaking countries like the UK, the USA or Australia or Canada; instead it has become our own asset today. We also know very well that non-native speakers of English have already outnumbered the native speakers. Today, we are at the juncture from where we can not imagine Nepal without English. Our observation should be, “we need English and we need more English, our forthcoming generations need even more English to survive at both national and international spheres”.

Do not pluck the bud
You can not preserve and promote one language suppressing or killing others. Therefore, our efforts should be geared towards how English can be owned. English is budding in Nepal and it should be reared carefully to meet our linguistic needs.

Summing up
Whereas some are of the opinion that English is the need of the nation: others have strongly criticized the Englishization. They have every right to use sharp words to criticize English such as hegemony, linguistic colonization, linguistic and cultural imperialism and so forth , but they should not close the eyes to the reality that English has become the flesh and blood of academia and deprived of which the educational world would feel underprivileged. The use of Englishized Nepali or Nepalese languages should neither surprise and nor worry us as it is something like a universal phenomenon today. Purity in languages is hard to find at post-modern era. Also, the invasion is mutual i.e. not only Nepali and other Nepalese languages have been invaded by English but English has ever adopted inclusive attitude towards loan words. As Crystal(2004:27) puts “English is a vacuum-cleaner of a language, readily sucking in words from whichever languages it meets-well over 350 of them in the history of British English”. Further, since English is in the process of becoming our own language, it is futile to protest against the alienation that can be induced by English. Upon scrutiny, Englishization can prove advantageous if planned cautiously to meet national linguistic and cultural needs. New English in Nepal can serve the function of expressing national identity if Nepalese cultural heritage is added to it. Further, the role of the new English language in the New Nepal can hardly exaggerated as this can stand as the icon of unity and national harmony since all other languages have been alleged to belong to specific communities. English can be a fair instrument to strengthen loktantra and promote human rights.

References
Crystal, D. 2000. Language Death. Cambridge: CUP.
Crystal, D. 2004. The Language Revolution. Cambridge: Polity  Press Ltd.

Graddol, D.2006. English Next. London: The British Council.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2007. Teaching and Learning English: From     Ideology to Empowerment. In
Journal of NELTA. Kathmandu: NELTA.
Philipson, R. 2007. Linguistic Imperialism. New Delhi: OUP.
Rai, V.S. 2006. English, Hinglish and Nenglish. In Journal of         NELTA. Kathmandu: NELTA.

English as a Bonus

English as a Global Language

Englishization is a bonus

By Sajan Kumar Karn, NELTA Birgunj

Do you agree that ‘Englishization is a boon in Nepal? What makes you think so? Do the following rationales speak your heart and mind? If not, why? Feel free to comment. The platform is yours.

What is Englishization?
The English language in Nepal is said to have two faces i.e. Englishization of the Nepalese languages and nativization of English. Minimally, the term Englishization can be interpreted as the influence exercised by the English language upon non-English languages such as Nepali, Maithili, Bhojpuri, Newar, Limbu etc. The adoption and adaptation of English words and phrases in Nepalese literary writings (true to say, in all sorts of writing) and daily conversation is perceived rampantly which has led to the increasing hybridization of languages (English+Nepali, English+Maithili, English+Bhojpuri etc.). Likewise, the other close manifestation of English is its nativization. Nativization of English has already been sprouting by leaps and bounds in Nepal. Many papers have been presented and articles have been written to argue that a distinct variety English is budding in Nepal. Englishization and nativization have become global phenomena today, however. Hinglish, Singlish, Anglish, Menglish, Philippine English, Nenglish etc. are some of the instances of Nativized Englishes used in different parts of the world. This interfulence (Englishization and nativization) of English and Nepalese languages is observed at all levels -phonological, grammatical and semantic and at both the modes–speech and writing, which is not the concern of this article, however. The rest of this article uses the term Englishization to refer to both-Englishization and nativization since both seem to have similar effect ultimately(for many) and also in order to be economical. Many people have argued that the interfluence caused by Englishization does not only confine to the language (speech or writing) of the speaker, rather it escalates gradually and weighs upon her lifestyle, education, culture, identity, and virtually on her entire personality in such a way that she virtually becomes Englishized (Westernised or Americanised) goodbyeing her own original identity and culture. However, Englishization has become an inevitable global phenomenon and world’s numerous languages have been hybridized and there is little evidence that people have utterly been denativized. Adoption (Owning English and giving it a native perfume) and adaptation (use of English words and phrases in different way) are speeding so massively today that it can hardly be impeded in near future. Whereas some nations embraced English because of colonization in the past, others have acknowledged it owing to its instrumental value and still others seem to have owned and nurtured it unintentionally. Whatever may be the reason in the wake of Englishization, the issue has stimulated heated controversies amongst intellectuals. Whereas some have labeled Englishization as neo-colonization, others have taken it as a productive indicator for the prosperity of the country and people.

Let us observe the following expressions collected from new generation Nepalese speeches on different occasions:

a. Yo mahina ko salary kahile dine hola-malai kasto khancho parisakyo?The equivalent for salary-talab is almost non-existent in new generation Nepali speech.
b. Nepal ma ta kehi system nai chaina bhanya? Who uses parnali?
c. NELTA le every year international conference organize garchaa.
Out of seven words, how many are Nepali?
d. British council charity organization ho.
e. Final exam ko lagi ramro preparation gara.
f. TU ta aba certificate distribution centre banisakyo.
g. Sthapit sir ko way of teaching nikai down –to- earth thiyo.
h. Look! ma creative writer banna chahanchu tara family circumstance le diraheko chaina.
i. Aajako weather kati sunny chha
j. Langauge institute gaeko, tuition fee ta ekdum high –pay garnai nasakne.

These are only some instances of the Englishized Nepali. English words have become so overriding in the mother tongue expressions(above) that equivalent mother tongue words are gradually disappearing form young generation conversation, which has become a matter of concern for many of us.

Let us now observe some Nepalised English:
a. Sunil looked at the speaker and namested him……(Rai, 2008: New Generation English)
b. My daughter reads in Nursery.
c. Gita Miss is so strict but Bina Miss is good.
d. Heartly welcome to Tribhuvan University.
e. Ram is very proudy.
f. One ladies teacher asked my name and went away.
g. Thousands of people sacrificed for Loktantra in Nepal.
h. Ram sir did not teach us today, Shyam sir engaged his class, instead.
i. Could you give me your dot pen please?
j. Loadshedding is killing us.

It would be very interesting to calculate the percent o f Nepali in (so-called) Nepali expressions and that of English in (so called) English expressions. This makes me often ask myself (and everyone I believe): what language do we speak? The noticeable thing in the above example sentences is that Englishization and Nepalization have occurred not because of obligation but because of will. Even if Nepali possesses the words, English equivalents are used and even if English has the words, equivalent Nepali words are used but intentionally. Is it because the speakers want to appear elegant, intelligent, and erudite? Or English is so much used that it has become extremely common to use pidginized language across the world? Should we let it go? If yes, why? If not, why? This article seeks to find the answers to these questions.

Should Englishization be promoted?

The following could be the reasons why Englishization should be promoted in Nepal.

God’s endowment
The almighty has gifted Nepalese with a flair for using so many languages and if they use English, the most extensively used language in the universe; they commit no sin. A Slovakian proverb highlights the importance of learning a new language in these words “With each newly learnt language, you acquire a new soul”. Similarly, a French proverb adds: “A man who knows two languages is worth two men”. Knowing and using English, we enrich ourselves with English arts, culture and trades, and we also add a new personality (Crystal, 2000:44).

English linguistic imperialism ends with nativization
Philipson (2007:47.) defines English linguistic imperialism as “the dominance of English asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages”. Nevertheless, linguistic imperialism as advocated by Phllipson (2007) ends with the owning of English. A lot of people such as Gandhi (1927) protested against the intoxication, denationalization and mental slavery induced by English in the past. Nevertheless, when the matter of nativization of the English language comes to the fore, linguistic and cultural imperialism seems to fade away gradually. The only need is to shape the English language in accordance with our own culture and soil. Further, with the new Englishes growing around the world, the ideology must end and English should rather be treated as a means of empowerment.

English fetches success
Englishization and prosperity are interlinked. Larsen- Freeman (2007) says ‘English is the key to successes’. Everyone wants success in life. If it is English which fetches success, what wrong is there in adopting and adapting it? Further she maintains “English is regarded as gateway to wealth for national economies, organizations and individuals”.

English is a killer language?
Many have said that English is a killer language and therefore promotion of it infers the loss of linguistic diversity of a country, which, however, has proved wrong. Graddol (2006) maintains “English is not the main reason for global language loss. The impact of English is mainly on the status of other national languages”. In other words, spread of English is not the direct cause of language endangerment. English in fact had its effects on national (major languages) not on regional and minority languages. In many countries, it is the national language, such as Nepali that threatens local languages, not English.

Colonization has proved advantageous
Although people criticize the European colonization in the past, the countries that were colonized are also found to have been luckier to those which were not. This is because in many cases, the victim countries could exploit English speaking colonial heritage and which connected them to global economy, for instance, India (Graddol, 2006). We have heard many Nepalese lamenting that it would have been better for Nepal, had it been colonized. However, it does not conclude that we expect any form of colonization in the future but it only suggests that English proved better for them.

English widens our horizons
Use of English internationalizes us. Our horizon of knowledge does not remain localized rather our potentiality and prospects get widened. The world is narrowing down into a global village and therefore, it is only English that links Nepalese to the non-Nepali communities. At the time when the concept of world citizen is in vogue, narrowing down ourselves would be nothing but chauvinism.

Nepal can house one more
A home to enormous linguistic diversity, the greater Himalayan region’s lap does not fall short to house one more language (English). The country which has accommodated 123 languages can accommodate one more. Continuing with English, we do not subtract from our repertoires.

English is the treasure
English is the treasure of knowledge available in the world. Avoiding English, we will only put ourselves at semi-darkness. More than half of the world books are written in English. About a third of world newspapers are published in English. Do not we want to read and obtain information and pleasure out of them?

One more but new identity
Who says: using English we lose our own identity and culture? We rather add to us one more language, one additional culture and thus one extra but new identity. Further, learning English does not mean forgetting our own culture and language. There is little evidence that core values of Nepalese have been changed owing to influence of English. Therefore, there is no question of Englishized ( Westernised or Americanised) identity of Nepalese students or people. The growth of nativized Englishes does not pose the problem of identity crisis, rather has facilitated the speakers to signal identity through English.

English is our appendage
English is no longer the exclusive possession of any English speaking countries like the UK, the USA or Australia or Canada; instead it has become our own asset today. We also know very well that non-native speakers of English have already outnumbered the native speakers. Today, we are at the juncture from where we can not imagine Nepal without English. Our observation should be, “we need English and we need more English, our forthcoming generations need even more English to survive at both national and international spheres”.

Do not pluck the bud
You can not preserve and promote one language suppressing or killing others. Therefore, our efforts should be geared towards how English can be owned. English is budding in Nepal and it should be reared carefully to meet our linguistic needs.

Summing up
Whereas some are of the opinion that English is the need of the nation: others have strongly criticized the Englishization. They have every right to use sharp words to criticize English such as hegemony, linguistic colonization, linguistic and cultural imperialism and so forth , but they should not close the eyes to the reality that English has become the flesh and blood of academia and deprived of which the educational world would feel underprivileged. The use of Englishized Nepali or Nepalese languages should neither surprise and nor worry us as it is something like a universal phenomenon today. Purity in languages is hard to find at post-modern era. Also, the invasion is mutual i.e. not only Nepali and other Nepalese languages have been invaded by English but English has ever adopted inclusive attitude towards loan words. As Crystal(2004:27) puts “English is a vacuum-cleaner of a language, readily sucking in words from whichever languages it meets-well over 350 of them in the history of British English”. Further, since English is in the process of becoming our own language, it is futile to protest against the alienation that can be induced by English. Upon scrutiny, Englishization can prove advantageous if planned cautiously to meet national linguistic and cultural needs. New English in Nepal can serve the function of expressing national identity if Nepalese cultural heritage is added to it. Further, the role of the new English language in the New Nepal can hardly exaggerated as this can stand as the icon of unity and national harmony since all other languages have been alleged to belong to specific communities. English can be a fair instrument to strengthen loktantra and promote human rights.

References
Crystal, D. 2000. Language Death. Cambridge: CUP.
Crystal, D. 2004. The Language Revolution. Cambridge: Polity

Press Ltd.
Graddol, D.2006. English Next. London: The British Council.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2007. Teaching and Learning English: From Ideology to Empowerment. In
Journal of NELTA. Kathmandu: NELTA.
Philipson, R. 2007. Linguistic Imperialism. New Delhi: OUP.
Rai, V.S. 2006. English, Hinglish and Nenglish. In Journal of NELTA. Kathmandu: NELTA.

English as an Official Language in Nepal

Critical Pedagogy, Scholarly Article

In this time of growing tension of the status of languages in Nepal, I believe we need to discuss some issues related to English. English is not mentioned in debates among the public or in the government nor in the speech of political leaders. But we can see that English is using more and more in banks, markets, products, email, etc. Sometimes code-switching used too much.

In this context, should English be another official language in the era of globalization? What might be its positive and negative consequences? Can Nepal be empowered with English?

Please response yourself. I request all our gurus and gurumas, all nelta executives and members, all well wishers, all subscribers to write thier views. I hope writing will relish oneself. Let’s make this discussion.

Thanks

Sincerely yours

Santosh Bhattarai

ELT in New Nepal: A Means for Republican and Global Knowledge-Sharing

English as a Global Language,

Nelta Choutari September 2009 Issue

Shyam Sharma

Recently the question of whether English should/could become a link language or one of the official languages of New Nepal has been quite interestingly discussed among Nelta colleagues. This discussion has been a lucky background to the September issue of Nelta Choutari that I am responsible to put together.

Ganga Gautam and Santosh Bhattarai in particular brought up the issue that English could possibly serve as a “link” or “official” language in the new Nepal. Using an external language would in some ways create a new platform where the language of the politically dominant communities that speak Nepali (Khas) would have a competing alternative for the linguistically less privileged communities. Indeed, we have long ignored linguistic diversity in our country in the name of (in effect) a one nation one language policy. The use of English as one of the link/official languages (if not the official language) would also help the new nation, as Kashi suggests, in competing in the global intellectual market. As Prem and Bal have pointed out, however, the “neutrality” of English, must not be taken without some critical thinking: we should remember that there is already a state of unequal access to English, as seen in the two classes created by public and private schools, further reinforcing difference of social and economic classes. It would be too naïve for teachers like us to celebrate the use of a foreign language simply because it can bring about practical conveniences, is financially viable, or has such other incidental benefits.

We can address the challenges as well as take advantage of using English as a link/official language if we, teachers of English, understand and act by understanding that we are not only teachers of a language: we are not, or should not be, only and absolutely “language instructors” who teach the grammar and sentence structure and social expressions of English to our students. We must be educators who know that education must empower learners, that teaching must mean helping learners become creators of new knowledge, and that pedagogy must be a politically responsible profession. (“Politics” here has nothing to do with parties, with policies, or with governance: it is a matter of being critically aware of the impact of our action on the society, a matter of social responsibility and sense of justice towards our students, and a matter of intellectual sensibility that makes the teaching of language a part of educating people and contributing to the society). We must be the bearers of the torch of knowledge for our society, and we must know that that role is all the more important at such a time of political and cultural upheaval in the country. We must also be intellectuals who connect our world of knowledge to other worlds of knowledge outside. We are responsible to promote the creation of knowledge from our own local bases—our experience, our heritage, our realities—for that is the only way that our future generations will not end up only reading books written by others but also write themselves. Honestly, if our students needed just the language, they could fulfill that objective significantly well by helping themselves with an English language learning handbook available in Bhotahity. We don’t have to teach someone a language for ten, twelve, or sixteen years–unless we also mean to educate people through or with it and with a view to achieving larger educational goals of the society. To look at ourselves as only language masters would be like using a Pentium 5 computer as a paperweight! We must be educators who know the larger educational context in which we are teaching language. If we limit ourselves to the mission of teaching language and language per se, we will continue to make our profession as shameful as it is indicated by Balkrishna’s example:

Have you ever been kissed by a stranger?
Do you prefer ham or steak?

It is absurd to teach English, as in using the educational material above, without respect for the students’ and their society’s values, experiences, meanings, and identities. Therefore, it will make little sense if English is made the lingua franca for the new nation without the society, and its educators, considering what social, cultural, and political impacts it might have on the many communities, many languages, many cultures of this country. This is by no means intended to reject the idea of English as a common language in the new nation and among the varied linguistic communities in it. It is rather to suggest that the discussion must not stop at the point where the suggestion for that possibility is made. In the context of the discussion that is taking place among us, we should pursue the hypothesis presented by Ganga Gautam and Santosh Bhattarai with sufficient attention to the issues raised by Kashi, Prem, Balkrishna, and other colleagues. This is a very important discussion so far as it matters to the destiny of a nation, not just the future of individual students or even a generation.

In the article by Alastair Pennycook that was attached to Nelta Mail, the author suggests that teachers of English around the world must take the political dimension of teaching it very seriously, rather than merely considering language just a politically neutral means of communication. Pennycook emphasizes on the need for political responsibility on the part of those engaged in teaching the language. He suggests that is politically insensitive and intellectually dishonest to impose a language from the outside without considering the need to promote learning of content in the learners. Simply put, if our students Sita and Ramu are brilliant in English language without being as brilliant in understanding, producing, and sharing ideas with the world, then we have not been good educators.

Pennycook’s article is one of the most intellectually engaging pieces that I have read on the subject of global English. He not only pays attention to the political nature of the “global enterprise of English language teaching” but also explores it as an issue of the coming together of epistemological cultures through the medium of English. I find the article significant as a student and teacher because the author injects himself into the discussion as a teacher with a concern for the most genuine purpose of learning as knowledge-making, and he also goes beyond describing the reality into suggesting what we can do about the spread of global English which, instead of benefiting people around the world by connecting their repertoires of knowledge, is actually destroying that very possibility.

On the surface of it, Pennycook uses the common word “translation” without defining or explaining it in the light of his argument. But as we read the article more carefully, it is clear that he is referring to the way language works as a channel through which knowledge flows, or the way the socio-cultural content of one language is affected during that flow. He also uses another synonymous term for this process, “traffic.” Drawing from Claire Kramsch, Pennycook says that

[the] traffic in meaning is precisely what language teaching should be about, so that language competence should be measured not as the capacity to perform in one language in a specific domain, but rather as ‘the ability to translate, transpose, and critically reflect on social, cultural and historical meanings conveyed by the grammar and lexicon’. The role of the language teacher from this perspective, therefore, is ‘to diversify meanings, point to the meanings not chosen, and bring to light other possible meanings that have been forgotten by history or covered up by politics’. (33-34)

The global enterprise of ELT is for the most part based on the mission of teaching a common language to people around the world, but for what purpose it is never made clear. It has a colonial history and neo-colonial agenda behind it, but most English teachers in both native and non-native situations believe that they are teaching just the language. This hiding of the politics of an inherently political phenomenon is what Bourdieu found problematic in the very discipline of linguistics; the self-denying politics of the applied branch of linguistics called ELT is a much more unacceptable crime in the context of a much more globalized twenty-first century than the self-denying politics of structural linguistics in the previous century.

In many countries around the world, especially in former colonies and other developing countries, English is a required medium of education—and required to the point that young students are severely punished if found using their mother tongue. By teaching just the formal elements of the English language, by confusing the learning of “English” with the acquisition of “good education,” and by imposing the content of foreign literature and culture upon students in the name of learning the language, the educational systems in these countries have effectively destroyed the appeal of local epistemologies among generations of students. This teaching of a language shared by many societies, instead of becoming a means to the transaction and mutual enrichment of epistemological cultures, has become a means to convince millions of people that their own local epistemological resources are not worth what is called “education.” On the other hand, in native English situations, where English is either the only or almost only language in education, there are programs in place that help students from different linguistic backgrounds with how to use their own languages to expedite the process of assimilating into the world of one language, English. Such is the irony of a world that is connected by a shared language, by extraordinary technologies of communication, and by numberless other means of understanding among societies and cultures. And it is in that world where language and education is much less liberating than oppressive that Pennycook’s suggestion that teachers be activists makes much sense. “When we think of translation in an uneven world…, we need to consider not only that uneven global linguistic field on which translation has to play, but also that pedagogical field from which it has already been given a red card, sent off, dismissed to scowl on the sidelines” (36). This “translation” is not the skill that English teachers teach their students when they start learning the new language: it is the translation of a learner’s own experiences into meaningful stories, the translation of the reality of a learner’s own social world into meaningful discourses, and the translation of a learner’s knowledge into education. As Pennycook rightly argues, pedagogy must be responsible towards the need to cure the malady of treating English in its own context, ignoring the content that flows through it, and disregarding the context in which it interacts with specific languages, cultures, and epistemologies.

Pennycook rejects all attempts at establishing non-native varieties, standards, or by implication, linguistic identities as ways that will only help us fall back into the same trap that we try to denounce or escape from. Citing Michael Cronin, he suggests that in order to escape that cycle of political injustice that the learning of language and acquisition of education can perpetuate, “there must also be ‘an activist dimension to translation which involves an engagement with the cultural politics of society at national and international levels’” (43). Pedagogically speaking, this activism involves not only helping students learn English (or any other language) but also helping them flow in and out of the global traffic of knowledge and knowledge-making. Only that activism can make both language learning go along with knowledge learning possible at the same time.  In particular, the suggestion that English teachers must also teach ideas is particularly important for us as teachers in a country in crisis which good education can significantly help resolve.

We are, no doubt, teachers of language, but since we are a lot more than that, we have absolutely no reason why we should be teaching language without at the same time helping students with creating, sharing, and promoting knowledge, and doing so especially out of their own personal and social worlds.

Hope to hear more on the issue from Nelta Colleagues!

Here’s some more khurak to go with the issue.

Which English to Teach?

English as a Global Language

August 2009 Issue

The English language has established itself as the most influential global language of communication in different countries around the world. It is one of the major languages taught in schools and universities. Most countries have adopted either the British or the North American variety of English as a target for teaching and learning purposes. But research studies have shown that there are new and legitimate varieties of Englishes in countries like Singapore, India, South Africa and the Philippines, and they too are governed by linguistic and sociolinguistic rules of use and usage. In addition, most people use English in order to communicate with the people belonging to different linguistic backgrounds in order to carry out real world communicative tasks in events like business transactions, conferences, transnational negotiations, etc.

The notion that few center countries own English as their sole property has been questioned due to its expanding role worldwide. Due to its global spread and emergence of new varieties when it has come in contact with other languages and cultures, no one nation or group of nations can claim the sole ownership. The obvious claim is that the people who employ English for communication must have a sense of ownership and agency over it. Therefore, the pedagogical policies and practices must inform the learners that they are learning English that belongs to them and that they can find their identity with it. So English is no more ‘foreign’ or ‘alien’ to the learners. Closely connected to the question of ownership is the traditional dichotomy between native and non-native speakers. The native speaker construct on genetic or ethnic ground is unjustifiable, and to assume that there are idealized native speakers of English is a myth. Native speakerness is not a fixed identity but is socially-culturally constructed identity. Other more neutral terms related to affiliation or proficiency like more/less proficient, expert/novice user might replace the NS/NNS dichotomy. Vivian Cook, for example, prefers to use the term ‘successful second language learner’ for the more proficient user of language. This discussion and debate questions the fundamental goal of traditional English language teaching: To make the learners able to communicate with the native speakers of English which is unattainable or irrelevant target. Since there exist no idealized native speakers or since everybody can be a native speaker of English if s/he has mastery over it (See Davies, 2003), then there is a need to redefine the goal of language teaching.

Against this backdrop, Aya Matsuda provides a case study of Japan (where American English is an ideal target for curricular goals) in the article entitled “Incorporating World Englishes in Teaching English as an International Language” published in TESOL Quarterly in 2003. She analyzes the textbooks used in the Japanese public schools and justifies the need to incorporate other outer circle countries’ English speaking characters and dialogues in the course books. She also points out that we can bring in the fluent speakers of English from other parts of world rather than only from the center English speaking countries. I have quoted the main highlights of her argument in the following bullets:

  • The  international  scope  of  learners’  English  learning  agenda should  logically  be  matched  by  pedagogical  approaches  that  teach English as an international language (EIL), in part through inclusion of varieties of World Englishes (p.719).
  • Teaching  inner-circle  English  in  Japan  neglects the real linguistic needs of the  learners, eclipses their education  about the  history  and  politics  of  English,  and  fails  to  empower  them  with ownership of English (p. 721).
  • Teachers themselves must be aware of the  current  landscape  of  the  English  language.  Teacher education programs for pre-service EFL teachers need to focus on both the inner circle and the outer circle varieties of English (p. 725).
  • Incorporating  World Englishes  does  not  mean removing  native  varieties  from  English  classes  or  replacing  them  with less-perfect  ones;  rather,  they  add  to  the  current  repertoire  and  thus enrich  the curriculum (p. 726).

She concludes her argument as:

“Presenting the  complexity  of  the  sociolinguistic  reality  of  English  is  needed  to prepare  learners  for  their  future  use  of  English that  may  involve  both NNSs  and  NSs  and  that  may  take  place  in  any  part  of  the  world.  The understanding  of World Englishes  does  not  consist of a  set  of  discrete items or topics that can  be tucked in at the beginning of the semester, between  formal  chapters,  or during the first 5 minutes  of  every  lesson and  then  be  forgotten.  It  is,  rather,  a  different  way  of  looking  at  the language,  which  is  more  inclusive,  pluralistic,  and  accepting  than  the traditional,  monolithic  view  of  English  in  which  there  is  one  correct, standard way of using English that all speakers must strive for. In a sense, incorporating World Englishes is like putting on a new pair of glasses— the detail and complexity of the world we suddenly see may initially be overwhelming,  but  in  the  long  run,  we  would  have  a  better  view  and understanding of English as an international language (EIL)” (p. 727).

Though the arguments and examples come from the Japanese EFL context, they have implications for Nepal too, and we English teachers can draw insights and develop our awareness of the plurality of English. Please find the attached article in the neltamail and provide your comments via the ‘comment’ link below.

The English language has established itself as the most influential global language of communication in different countries around the world. It is one of the major languages taught in schools and universities. Most countries have adopted either t

A Discussion

English as a Global Language

Here is a podcast of an international conference call (on Skype, 19 July 2009), in which the current Choutari editors discussed promoting professional communication and how to connect online discussion with offline conversation.

June 09: Problematizing English Language Teaching Methods

Critical Pedagogy

Introduction: NeltaChoutari June 2009 Issue

The global spread of English has given rise to a new form of global power to the English speaking countries through worldwide ELT industry “serving the interest of English speaking-countries as well as native speakers and native-speaking professionals” (Kumaravadivelu, 2006:13). These countries have a firm grip over textbook production (Gray, 2002), teacher education and training (Goverdhan, Nayar and Sheorey, 1999), and research on classroom pedagogy. Holliday (1994) adds another point when he says “almost all the internationally established literature on English language education is published in these countries which at present seem to have a virtual monopoly on received methodology (p. 12). Kumaravadivelu (2006) further argues that the English language and its teaching carries its colonial form from four perspectives– scholastic, linguistic, cultural and economic. According to him, the scholastic dimension refers to the dissemination of Western knowledge which makes the local knowledge less valuable, the linguistic dimension refers to the global spread of English and its effects on local languages and knowledge, the cultural dimension is concerned with how the teaching of English carries with it the culture of the English speaking countries and makes the local culture less valuable, and finally the economic aspect refers to the financial gain for the English speaking countries and their ELT professionals by the commodification of the teaching of English.

The countries and the people in the periphery, on the other hand, regard English as a gatekeeper and a major key to upward social and economic mobility. The fallacies that native speakers make the best teachers, textbooks written by the White English speaking people are the authentic ones, and knowledge that these English native speakers produce and distribute is the legitimate one are still prevalent among the English teaching professionals in those countries. All these fallacies have given rise to a perceived importance and role of English native speakers– which Holliday (1994) calls native speakerism. Holliday (1994) further argues that the teachers in the periphery countries regard native speakers as the source of pedagogical knowledge, and regard their own practice, experience and knowledge as inferior compared to the people from native English speaking countries. In this way, the role of English as a major international language in most countries in the world has seemingly served the purpose of both types of countries: the English speaking countries are serving their interest by ‘exporting’ the knowledge in the form of textbooks, teaching methods, teaching professionals, teacher trainers, and several English language teaching projects and programs, and the countries in the receiving end where English is used as an additional language are happy to consume that ‘imported’ knowledge and see it as a form of empowerment, democratization and globalization.

In this changing global context, the English language teaching profession has undergone a sea change over the last four decades. The variables of change can be observed almost in all aspects of English pedagogy: who teaches English, who learns English and why, the socio-political context in which English is taught and learnt, and the variety of English that is the target of teaching and learning. As a consequence, teacher education has become more challenging but remained limited to almost the same goals, i.e. to make the teachers able to do the profession (Johnson, 2006). The notion that there exist universal principles and theories of English language teaching that are applicable to all the settings in the world has been questioned and criticized by a number of scholars in applied linguistics and TESOL (Canagarajah, 2005; Kumaravadivelu, 2006; Holliday, 1994; Pennycook, 1989). Theories and methods of English language teaching in the past have largely failed to address the realities that actually take place in the classroom (Johnson, 2006). There are also concerns that the theorized body of knowledge in second language teacher education in the West (e.g. in North America and United Kingdom) have little bearing on actual classroom teaching environments in the countries of the periphery (Kumarvedevalu, 2006; Canagarajah, 2005). Rajagopalan (2005), for example, argues that expert knowledge that is produced by a bulk of research studies fails to take account of the “specificities as well as the diversities of local environments” (p. 100) of language teaching. The English language teaching methods, for example audiolingualism and communicative language teaching, are the concepts first produced and practiced in the West. English teachers, therefore, have had a challenge to implement them in the Asian countries like Japan, Korea and Nepal because these methodologies were invented without necessarily knowing the diverse classroom situations in different contexts (Holliday, 1994). Pennycook (1989) eloquently argues that knowledge is always political in nature and it attempts to protect and represent the interest of a certain social group. In other words, knowledge construction and distribution “represents the particular view of the world and it is articulated in the interests of unequal power relations” (pp. 589—590).

Though there has been recently an awareness among the professionals in TESOL recognizing the importance and role of local knowledge (e.g. Canagarajah, 2005; Edge, 2003) and lived experiences of language teachers (Johnson, 2006), this has been far from practical reality. Realizing that theories and methods of teaching English from the West cannot address the problems and particularities of local teaching contexts, Kumaravadivelu (2006) has laid down a number of principles that characterize the post-method pedagogy arguing for an urgent need to localize the teaching of English. He further specifies his perspectives by using three parameters of pedagogy: parameter of particularity, practicality and possibility. According to him, the parameter of particularity “seeks to facilitate the advancement of a context-sensitive, location-specific pedagogy that is based on a true understanding of local linguistic, sociocultural and political particularities” (p. 21). The parameter of practicality focuses on the relation between theory and practice- “encouraging teachers to theorize from their practice and practice what they theorize” (p. 21) and the parameter of possibility “seeks to tap the sociopolitical consciousness that students bring with them to the classroom so that it can function as a catalyst for a continual quest for identity formation and social transformation” (p. 21).

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that in second/foreign language teaching, acquisition of pedagogical skills and knowledge plays an important role to meet the goals of language teaching programs. It is also not contested that one way to acquire the pedagogical knowledge by the teachers is to learn from the people who know more about the field, have more years of research and teaching experience and can articulate their theoretical and practical knowledge in research publications. Reviewing the literature, however, history of English language teaching profession shows that English language teaching principles, methods and techniques were researched and theorized in the Western countries, and they were exported to other countries where English is taught as a second or a foreign language, and those who applied these theories took very little attention to the socio-cultural realities and constraints of the contexts where the language was actually being taught. This is also true in the case of teacher training and teacher development programs where the teachers in the periphery context perceive native speakers as the ‘source’ of best pedagogical practices. And looking at the other side of the coin, native English speaking countries and their ELT professionals also think that they make the best teacher trainers because English is ‘their’ language. This fallacy exists among English teaching professionals in both English speaking and non-English speaking countries. It is obvious that any universal English language teaching methods cannot address the pedagogical issues and challenges that the English teachers are facing in diverse contexts around the world,; there are no readily available universal pedagogical theories and practices that can be easily picked up and implemented in all kinds of settings. The overarching argument in this issue of our web magazine calls for an urgency of theorizing local pedagogical practices that make use of local knowledge and resources, and one way to do so is to develop professional networking among the teachers in the local level and incorporate their lived teaching experiences in English teaching theories and methods.

This issue includes the folloing columns:
1. Three scholarly articles
2. Teacher’s anecdote
3. Classroom humor
4. An audio clip (Multilingualism in Nepal)

REFERENCES

Canagarajah, S. (2005). Reconstructing local knowledge, reconfiguring language studies. In S. Canagarajah (ed.) Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice (pp. 3-24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Edge, J. (ed.). (2006). (Re)locating TESOL in an age of empire. London: Palgrave.

Edge, J. (2003). Imperial troopers and servants of the lord: A vision of TESOL for the 21st century. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 701—709.

Govardhan, A. K., Nayar, B., and Sheorey, R. (1999). Do US MATESOL programs prepare students to teach abroad? TESOL Quarterly, 33, 114—125.

Gray, J. (2002). The global coursebook in English language teaching. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 151—167). London: Routledge.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Dangerous liaison: Globalization, empire and TESOL. In J.    Edge (ed.) (Re)locating TESOL in an age of empire (pp. 158-170). New York: Palgrave.

Johnson, K. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 235—257.

Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language. TESOL Quarterly 23, 589-618.

Rajagobalan, K. (2005). The language issue on Brazil: When local knowledge clashes        with expert knowledge. In S. Canagarajah (ed.) Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice (pp. 99—122). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Scholarly Articles June 09

Critical Pedagogy

Abstracts of three scholarly are provided are here. Please go to source to read entire texts.

1. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods, changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 59-81. Abstract This article traces the major trends in TESOL methods in the past 15 years. It focuses on the TESOL profession’s evolving perspectives on language teaching methods in terms of three perceptible shifts: (a) from communicative language teaching to task-based language teaching, (b) from method-based pedagogy to postmethod pedagogy, and (c) from systemic discovery to critical discourse. It is evident that during this transitional period, the profession has witnessed a heightened awareness about communicative and task-based language teaching, about the limitations of the concept of method, about possible postmethod pedagogies that seek to address some of the limitations of method, about the complexity of teacher beliefs that inform the practice of everyday teaching, and about the vitality of the macrostructures— social, cultural, political, and historical—that shape the microstructures of the language classroom. This article deals briefly with the changes and challenges the trend-setting transition seems to be bringing about in the profession’s collective thought and action. Read more…

2. Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language. TESOL Quarterly 23, 589-618. Abstract Examining the concept of Method in second language education, this paper argues that both a historical analysis and an investigation of its current use reveal little conceptual coherence. Ultimately, the term seems to obfuscate more than to clarify our understanding of language teaching. While this may seem at first a minor quibble over terminology, there are in fact far more serious implications. By relating the role of teaching theory to more general concerns about the production of interested knowledge and the politics of language teaching, this paper argues that Method is a prescriptive concept that articulates a positivist, progressivist, and patriarchal understanding of teaching and plays an important role in maintaining inequities between, on the one hand, predominantly male academics and, on the other, female teachers and language classrooms on the international power periphery. (Please find this article in Nelta Mail archive).

3. Akbari, R. (2008) Postmethod discourse and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 641-652. Introduction The second language (L2) teaching profession has gone through a number of dramatic changes during the last two decades. A look at journal articles and topics included in teacher development books shows a broadening of scope in terms of the number and the depth of the topics addressed. Language teaching, one can conclude, has become more inclusive in the sense that more of the reality of the lives of students, and at times those of teachers, are taken on board as significant in affecting the outcomes of teaching and learning (Tudor, 2003). Topics such as World Englishes (Kachru, 1986, 2005), critical applied linguistics (Carlson, 2004; Pennycook 2001; Toolan, 2002), critical discourse analysis (Kumaravadivelu, 1999; Riggins, 1997), ethnography of communication (Harklau, 2005; Hymes, 1996), qualitative research (Davis, 1995; Richards, 2003), and linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992, 2003) have turned into common themes of discussion and research. The social/political consciousness one observes in the profession was certainly lacking during most of the 1980s. Language teaching, in a sense, has parted with its quest for metanarratives and grand theories and instead has become involved in “the messy practice of crossing boundaries” (Canagarajah, 2006, p. 30, emphasis in original). Read more…

ELT, Globalization, and Local Epistemologies

Critical Pedagogy, Scholarly Article

Introduction: NeltaChoutari March 2009

Add 17 and 6, multiply the sum by 2, then subtract 6 from the result, and finally divide that by 2. Now, if you ask me why I asked you to do that calculation, and if I say that I have no reason except to ask you to do some math, would you like that? For many years, I have thought of education in Nepal as a formalized exercise where teachers don’t feel the need to let students know why they are doing what they are doing. This disease of institutionalized education is not just a Nepalese phenomenon (”teaching in a vacuum” was an important subject of discussion, research, and educational policy-making in the US in the 1980s and the concern is still there when it comes to grade school education), but it seems to me that we are doing this so well that we are probably very high on the list of societies doing meaningless math and purposeless language teaching. As teachers of English in Nepal, let us think more critically than usual for one moment about the PURPOSE of teaching our students a language for one and a half decades. If we think in habitual ways, we will come up with very simple answers, including these: English is a language of international communication, it is an access to global resources of knowledge…. If we think less superficially, we will come across some other not so simple issues, including these: English is a language whose imposition as the language of instruction in societies like ours makes content learning ineffective, it is a tool of social power that can further disempower learners from marginalized communities…. And finally, if we think more critically, we will stumble upon some significant confusions, such as these: Do we really know how learning something IN English makes learning more effective, compared to learning the same thing by using our own languages? If the purpose of education is knowledge, are we not putting the cart of English in front of the horse of content? Are we not confusing the purpose of teaching language as means by putting it before the larger intellectual purpose of teaching as helping students to be(come) producers of knowledge? We have seen tourists learn Nepalese in a few months, and we have seen the world’s best philosophers, scientists, and businessmen from non-English backgrounds function as well as the products of our “boarding” schools–well, actually better, you might want to add. There is no doubt that there are simple answers about what we spend our lives doing–teaching a language. But, wait, should we just be teaching language as if it were for its own sake, or should we be teaching language as a means and part of a larger process called educating people? Let us not jump to thoughtless answers like, “I teach English and the science teacher teaches science.” No theory of language learning supports the idea of teaching it for 15 years, for Pete’s sake! So, there is no doubt that there are simple answers; but it is our responsibility to help our educational leaders, national policy-makers, parents, and teachers think more critically about the over-emphasis the “society” has given to English in Nepal, over-emphasis at the cost of rendering learning ideas and producing knowledge-makers less important than producing graduates who can speak English fluently, kararara! What the heck are people supposed to do with fluency of language if that language diminishes the effectiveness of learning itself? Should we blame the society for not doing anything about it? There is no visible agent called the society: logically, this invisible target of our blame for such a serious thing like a nation’s wrong-headed educational priority is height of our professional irresponsibility. Let’s own that first. During a discussion about education in Nepal the other day, a Nepalese-American fellow said that it is crazy to talk about education and stuff while the politicians are wrecking the society indefinitely. We have just enough stupid people who don’t believe in the value of professional dialog. Let’s not just join them. Let’s talk and understand problems even when they seem to be far beyond our control. I don’t think Newton wanted to control gravity in any way when he had the urge to understand it. Let’s communicate our ideas, dissatisfaction, or solutions to problems that we perceive and influence one person. Those of us who make or influence policy, government, or at least institutions, let’s do what we can. Thinking can and must happen even when the country is in a wreck. Talking can happen too. In fact, we should not take for granted that we can talk across the globe and share our thoughts publicly and permanently through the many fast and powerful media. Solutions don’t happen before we identify and discuss problems. It might sound somewhat logical when someone says, as many people do when you start talking about making learning practical, that students need to learn the “skills” of math itself first and they will figure out themselves how to solve problems by applying their knowledge in the future (a math teacher must teach math), that they first need to be proficient in the English language so they can communicate and study further in the future (we’re there to teach language, not to solve problems of the system), that we DO NOT have the “resources” to make teaching practical, and so on. Those arguments sound reasonable in themselves but when we consider them more critically they are the result of irresponsible and lazy thinking. It is possible to start making learning more meaningful by communicating the purpose and creating situations or problems in the class for students to solve (give 50 points for class activities and the other 50 for exams that test students under terrible anxiety and artificial context). It’s not impossible to understand ourselves and also share with our students the limitations of our learning environment. It is possible to motivate students by informing them how what they learn will benefit and empower them (let students write about their lives and ideas and let grammar take care of itself for a while). It is possible for us to UNDERSTAND, discuss, and rethink our teaching. Understanding is the best resource, best capital, best investment and we don’t have to be nationally poor in that regard. It is time that we question, discuss, rethink, and honestly assess our profession. No, we cannot change the entire educational or political structure, but our questioning, discussing, rethinking, and assessing of our work and priorities can lead us into having better ideas and then making our work more meaningful and satisfying. Professional discussion can help us use English language teaching to achieve the larger purpose of educating our students: social and intellectual empowerment. Professional dialog can help us avoid teaching a mere language but teach language as a means of finding, processing, and presenting new knowledge, a means for becoming knowledge-makers. The Principal, the education board, the “society” may set very restrictive limits on what book we teach, but we don’t need to let them do the thinking about the perspective and attitude about learning we want to instill in our students. We can at least do that. No one can stop us from helping our students understand the purpose behind and beyond just learning a language.

Ira Shor: “Education Is Politics: An Agenda for Empowerment”

Critical Pedagogy

Scholarly Article 2: Nelta Choutari April 2009 Issue

When we say that NELTA is a non-political organization, we use the word “politics” to mean something that has to do with politicians, political parties, and political ideology that divides people into parties and party affiliations. But there is another important meaning of the word “politics”: any practice, problem, or phenomenon as seen from the point of view of social or institutional policy. We can say that the practice and policy of requiring English as a medium of instruction in private schools involves a social “politics” about education. Issues of economic class and social power, of values attached to gender and ethnicity, of prestige attached to the same knowledge gained through different languages, and such other subjects are deeply political in the context of our education system in Nepal. Yes, we should avoid politics in education in the first sense of the word described above. But if we think we are doing good to our students or our profession by avoiding the discussion of social, economic, cultural, ethnic, gender, or such other value-based questions about teaching English–or teaching anything for that matter–then we are being unintellectual, insensitive, and irresponsible, to say the least. In his article “Education Is Politics: An Agenda for Empowerment,” Ira Shor discusses how we can and must socially as well as intellectually empower our students not only by engaging ourselves in the discussion of politics inherent in the design and system of education but also by encouraging students themselves to ask those questions, because the practice of education that pretends to be non-political is usually impractical, unjust, or even oppressive. Any education system tries to socialize and shape students’ knowledge, behaviour, and values; therefore, it is dishonest to not allow and help students think critically about social issues that affect their learning and lives–yes, even in high school. The question is not whether to make students critically conscious about the purpose, problems, and politics of education; the question is how to. In a context like ours, we might need to do so carefully, slowly, intelligibly. The goal of this awareness teaching, on top of language or information teaching is, Shor argues, democratic participation, critical awareness, and affective involvement of the learner in the process of learning. Only awareness IN the students, not just teachers, can help students participate in helping them and their future society overcome the political status quo and injustice inherent in today’s educational system and society. The article  is posted on NeltaMail.

To STEAL or to TELL (ELT in a Global Era)

Critical Pedagogy

Scholarly Article, NeltaChoutari April 2009

Seonagh McPherson: “To STEAL or to TELL: Teaching English in the Global Era”

In the article “To STEAL or to TELL: Teaching English in the Global Era,” Seonagh MacPherson proposes a constructive model for teaching English that will help us avoid destroying the languages and cultures of non-English speaking learners, and thereby the meaning, motivation, and purpose of learning itself. The most important idea in this essay (second half) is that we must not teach a foreign language as if to “STEAL (Surreptitiously Teach English as an Assimilationist Language) (79)” but to “TELL (Teach English as a Liberatory Language) (86).” When English language is taught without empowering the learners themselves, the happy prospect of making our students able to speak in English will in the long run turn into the “cataclysmic erosion or outright elimination of human diversity in languages, cultures, and consciousnesses.” It sounds scary but that is what English teaching is doing to a great extent in many countries like ours in the world today. You might wonder if there is any good to this skeptical outlook—oh, yes, there is. Through critical thinking about our profession, we can help create a richer body of knowledge and better goals for language learning, and we can help our students become better citizens and intellectuals, as compared to teaching grammar and making our students love the bell at the end a lot more than the learning during the hour. If we make local knowledge the primary substance and empowerment our primary goal of English language teaching, we can not only help students better realize the positive potentials of learning English but also make them use it as a “conduit to the ‘global,’ transnational network of education, justice, economic development, and mobility … [or] what liberation means to most people in the world” (86). As a teacher of Tibetan refugees in India, MacPherson speaks from direct experience of how disenfranchised people are able to join, with the medium of English , into the “transnational community of people who support their political, activist, religious, ecological, and economic aspiration and needs.” Our context and realities are not far removed from the learners he is talking about. MacPherson proposes that English teachers should advocate “multilingual, multiliterate, and intercultural curricula as central to the postcolonial educational agenda” (89). His conclusion is an insightful one: “Thus, it may very well be that our struggles with globalization, and with English as the language of globalization, ultimately become the struggle to understand our collective place in the universe” (90)—that is, if English could be taught to “TELL” and not to “STEAL.” MacPherson weighs both the benefits and dangers of teaching English as a global language, and then concludes that “a genuine … resolution is to negotiate a way for humanity to move beyond the sense of a narrow choice between extremes of [global] monocultural assimilation and [local] fundamentalism[s]” which will constitute an “international, intercultural Third Space” towards a better understanding of world communities through what he calls the “presence of choice” (79) that will help people from all societies and cultures learn from one another. A more critically conscious language teaching pedagogy would enhance the struggle of the people of different cultures and contexts to understand one another by not only having a means to communicate with other cultures but also the substance to contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the global village we live today. Article is posted on NeltaMail.

Techer Experience as Professional Resource

Critical Pedagogy, Teacher's Experience/anecdotes

Introduction to Scholarly Articles: Nelta Choutari March 2009

Jin (pseudonym), a teacher from Singapore, as described in Farrell (2006), faced many complications as a newly qualified teacher (NQT). The first complication was the conflict between his approach to teaching English and expectation of the school. His second complication was related to the conflict between what he wanted to teach (i.e. content) and what he was required to teach. He has many other complications. The important thing to mention here is; how did he solve these complications and establish himself as an English language teacher? Jin’s story can be downloaded in the form of a .pdf file here.

Minfang (pseudonym), a teacher from China, has also faced similar complications. Minfang got no personal satisfaction. He did not want to encourage any discussion in case his “disgraceful past” has inadvertently revealed in the course of discussion. Nor did he want to be a popular teacher, because in Chinese culture, a teacher who is popular among students is perceived as a teacher of little substance and one who has nothing but relationships to win the students’ hearts. He found working in a hierarchical institution oppressive with so many powerful people above him. He could not apply CLT into his classes and so on. However, he established himself as the best teacher in the school. Mingfang’s exciting story can be downloaded as a .pdf file here.