INTRODUCTION
OF CULTURE-SENSITISING ELT METHODOLOGY
IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
IN UZBEKISTAN
Alexey Ulko
ABSTRACT
This study is aimed at exploration of cross-cultural issues in TEFL in Uzbekistan. The primary objectives of the work are to analyse the nature of cross-cultural encounters in the context of English language learning in higher education in Uzbekistan. I suggest a framework for resolving cross-cultural issues in TEFL and specifically TELT in Uzbekistan, provide a set of sample culture sensitising EFL activities and outline a structure of the culture sensitising component of a teacher-training course. The study is based on my personal experience as an EFL teacher and teacher trainer and to a great extent it is the generalised result of my reflection on this experience.
A brief outline of my learning and teaching experience and crucial assumptions regarding this study are provided in Chapter 1.
In Chapter 2 I describe the Uzbekistani social, political and cultural context and in more detail the TEFL context, and analyse the local cultures of teacher-learner relationship.
Chapter 3 is dedicated to the analysis of the problem of the learners and teachers’ lack of cultural awareness. I describe the frameworks I apply for the analysis of interaction between the cultures of learners and the English language culture, identify the typical communicative situations and the stereotypes which hamper mutual understanding.
In Chapter 4 I provide a rationale for resolving cultural issues in the classroom, the main area of cross-cultural encounter. I outline basic principle of culture sensitising methodology and expand on this issue from three main standpoints: personal development, cross-cultural interaction and contents and methodology of TEFL.
Chapter 5 deals with implications of this framework for teaching. I discuss the ways of raising students’ cultural awareness and provide sample activities for EFL lessons.
Finally, Chapter 6 provides a framework and guidelines for EFL teacher trainers in Uzbekistan with a special focus on raising teachers’ sensitivity to cross-cultural encounters in the context of modern developmental methodologies.
1. REFLECTION ON PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
Preceding the professionally and academically focussed parts of this work, in this section I reflect on my experience as EFL learner, user, teacher and teacher trainer. The stages of my professional development allowed me to identify and analyse the key cross-cultural problem of the Uzbekistani context, caused by the lack of contact with the authentic forms of English. Typically the first direct contact with the target culture (culture of nations of native speakers of English referred to as BANA countries by Holliday, 1994) may take place only after several years of learning. Therefore the practices and underlying assumptions of the cross-cultural encounter in the classroom is the primary focus of this study. In the end of this section I draw my tentative conclusions on the nature of EFL learning which become the cornerstones of the proposed methodology of resolving cultural issues in EFL teacher training.
1.1 LEARNING EXPERIENCE
The proposed research into the complex cultural context of Uzbekistan, although aimed to achieve generalisable conclusions, is done from a certain cultural background which I feel I need to explain. I come from a relatively poor but educated Russian family who have lived in Samarkand, the second largest city of Uzbekistan, for over 120 years. (See 2.1.1) My father was an artist and my mother, a university lecturer in Russian language and literature.
1.1.1 School experience
I started studying English at the age of eight, but my command of the language remained poor and cultural awareness of the target culture was very limited during the school years. It was only the first communicative contact with native speakers, which took place in the last year of school that was culturally illuminating. In 1985 (before perestroika), a group of American school children visited our school and attended carefully staged lessons dedicated to different American writers. I was surprised when after the lesson on Hemingway one of the boys asked me who Hemingway was. Other incongruencies included, for example, dress code: a scruffily dressed girl asked us whether our ‘smart’ jackets and ironed jeans were if fact a school uniform. Nevertheless, despite these obvious cultural differences, the first encounter with the native speakers of English taught me two important things:
* communication was possible and mutual understanding could be fostered by negotiation;
* there were many things we shared with Americans that we did not share with our Uzbek and Tadjik peers: some attitudes and interests (especially in sports, cinema and music).
The second point is particularly important for the culturally divergent Central Asian context. (See 2.1.1.) Although I had realised that the awareness of one’s complex cultural identity in Central Asia is an important factor in the determining of the social status and behaviour of the people, it was the first time I felt that the issue of identity is not always confined to the political and geographical context. This feeling of belonging to a global “European” culture significantly influenced my decision to continue learning English in university.
1.1.2 University years (1986-1991)
Although at university I was a more successful learner of English, my cultural awareness was shaped mostly by traditional grammar-translation lessons, most textbooks being hopelessly outdated (like Eckersley, 1954) (See 3.1.2.). The course on Country Studies did not assist the raising of students’ sensitivity to the target culture, as it was focussed on encyclopaedic data about English-speaking countries, their geography, industry and governments.
The EFL students at that time had only a limited contact with specific groups of native speakers of English: i) tourists, ii) the Peace Corps volunteers, and iii) other expatriates, for example, the British-American Tobacco employees. During my first contacts with American tourists I constantly misinterpreted certain signals like dress code, table manners and other social niceties which are associated in the Uzbekistani context with a certain educational and cultural level. Any attempts to talk about literature, poetry, painting or psychology as deemed appropriate for this level soon proved to be futile and gradually my initial and na;ve admiration for Western culture was tempered by disappointment.
1.1.3 Personal programme of cultural awareness
In my final university years I managed to understand and handle certain isolated elements of the target cultural code of language use and behaviour, but as a learner I was often appalled by “inconsistencies” between them. The whole picture was obscure and controversial. Certain components of BANA, especially British communicative culture seemed obsequious (e.g. regular and irrelevant “thank you”, smiles and so on). Other signals, like body language (e.g. sitting on the table), informal spoken language (e.g. indiscriminate use of the first name), and “loose” behaviour (e.g. vivid mimics and tendency to “have fun”) came across as “non-serious” and disrespectful. While these stereotypes merely replicate those common in the Uzbekistani culture, my own reaction to the cultural and linguistic reality as it was gradually revealing itself, was to accept a certain cultural model and develop my own persona of an English-speaker.
My awareness of the development of a different persona in the context of English language first developed from my intuitive dislike of my groupmates’ obsession with slang and “trendy” language. I believed that our communicative incompetence and grammatically inaccurate constructions could not be compensated for by extensive use of “cool” idioms. Although I could not feel what was wrong exactly, at least I was able to recognise the gap between the intended and the perceived meaning and felt that our “cool” language would sound extremely clumsy and inappropriate to native speaker ears. My personal learning strategy was based on the transfer of my persona of an educated Russian speaker into the English context and modelling it according to the imaginary “upper-class” pattern. In hindsight I believe this decision was inspired not only by the stereotypical image of a “bowler-hatted English gentleman” (Eckersley 1954; Kaushanskaya 1961) but also by my partly subconscious desire to establish a link with my Russian cultural identity and corresponding sociolect and to amplify it in the English meta-discourse.
1.1.4 Development of persona
Although the lack of exposure to an authentic context resulted in a naive and may be even grotesque vision of the target persona, my persistent approximation to the imaginary role of “upper class” English speaker, gradually allowed me to recognise and accept important corrections coming from the “tuning in” with the persona. After university, working in different positions in different social roles, I discovered such specific features of British culture as understatement and a peculiar balance between formal and informal discourse, so different from Uzbek, Russian and even American. Nevertheless it was not until I arrived in Britain in 1999 that I could observe the interaction of my developed persona with the authentic context and was capable of perceiving some important cultural differences between the British and my national and personal culture.
As I became more aware of the differences between my personality and the personae which I assumed in different contexts, I became convinced that the crucial tool for better cross-cultural communication was not the successful mimicry of the target cultural codes but the raising of self-awareness and sensitivity to the target culture. I discuss this issue in more detail in Chapter 4.
1.2 TEACHING EXPERIENCE
I started teaching English in 1994 after a three-year experience of working as a business interpreter and translator. This experience highlighted not only important differences between the English and Russian discourse, but also the significance of the authentic communicative context, where implied meaning may be completely lost in translation if the only concern of the interpreter is formal correctness. I discovered that in many cases I had to “explain” as well as actually “translate” the message by tuning in to it and anticipating its direction and point. Acting as an adviser to my Uzbekistani or foreign employers, I had to deal with an enormous communication gap between the representatives of different cultures, which extended far beyond the language problem, as both parties were often absolutely unaware of its existence and depth.
1.2.1 Teaching literary analysis
Working as an interpreter for three years I had to “teach” my clients cross-cultural understanding before I started teaching English as a foreign language in 1994. My primary responsibility at the Samarkand Institute of Foreign Languages has been teaching English through literature and stylistics. I discuss the typical classroom practices and TEFL principles in Uzbekistani universities in more detail in Chapters 3 and 6. In my classes I tried to help students to understand how the language works in the text in order to produce a certain effect on the reader and to disclose the connection between the topic, the theme of the text and the way it is reflected in the language.
Analysing literary text with students I could appreciate the importance of subtleties in a discourse, the role of context and the significance of interaction between the form, meaning and connotations. I opposed both the traditional grammar-translation approach, practised by most teachers and approved of by the administration, as well as the utilitarian approaches to TEFL, preferred by students. I felt that neither the memorisation of the grammar rules nor superficial communicative “practice” can provide a learner with authentic command of the language, which can be approached only through “understanding” and “internalising” the English language. I saw a problem not only in the obvious lack of exposure to the authentic communicative context, but also in the lack of means and methods of raising the learners’ awareness of differences between their own and English language and culture. Focussing on vocabulary and grammar, students and teachers tended to ignore the functional and stylistical aspects of the language performance, taking for granted their first language (Russian, Uzbek or Tadjik) as a model for English language learning.
Intuitively I tried to raise students’ language and cultural awareness attracting their attention to such simple facts as the frequency of the usage of “thank you” in English as compared to the Russian spasibo and Uzbek rahmat. While the empirically calculated proportion was 10:3:1, students were encouraged to imagine how the native speakers would perceive them if they used their own politeness strategies in English discourse. Thus, not only functional, but also “internal” language competence became for me an important teaching goal.
1.2.2 Development of teacher’s role
Gradually I also changed my teaching style from the prescribed hierarchical, teacher-dominated to more informal, communicative mode, abandoning an approved formal dress code and body language (leftovers from my business career) in favour of a casual outfit and more “natural” behaviour. This worked well in Russian groups, but the majority of Uzbek students perceived it as a desecration of the status of the Lecturer. Appeals to students’ responsibility for their learning were not always effective. Once a student reprimanded me: “you should have forced us, teacher” explaining the reason why the home task was not done, and my inquiry into the exact definition of what he meant revealed that the fear of castigation was the main motivation for the students’ application. At the same time those few Uzbek students who were intrinsically motivated and willing to participate in more learner-centred activities felt a strong peer pressure not to “show off”. (See 2.1.2 and 3.2.1) Despite these discouraging experiences I gradually learned how to maintain a balance between an expected authoritarian role of a Lecturer and a more facilitative role of a “modern EFL teacher”.
1.2.3 First “authentic” TESP experience
For the first time I used modern British textbooks (Business Objectives and First Certificate, OUP) and was trained by a TEFL professional in 1997. Then for two years I was teaching ESP part-time for different companies in Samarkand and this experience augmented my teaching experience and philosophy. Although the proficiency level of the TESP students was lower than that of the SSIFL students, the contents, the methods and the teacher-student relationship in the lessons were more in the vein of the communicative TEFL philosophy. I also managed to transfer some TESP principles, such as needs analysis and group-work to my full-time job at the institute. The interactive combination of different teaching roles and various applications of English allowed me to see deeper into the nature of the cross-cultural encounter within and outside the EFL classroom. This enabled me to define my agenda as an EFL teacher in facilitation of students’ cross-cultural communication and cultural awareness raising.
1.2.4 Setting my professional and personal agenda
By reflecting on personal experience I intended to provide a background for the insights into some of the cross-cultural issues at different stages of my development as an English language learner, user, analyst and teacher. (Wright 1991) Although this study is an extension of my professional experience and reflection on this experience, it is also the result of my personal agenda, based on a theoretical concept which I apply for the analysis of cross-cultural encounter between the English-speaking and Uzbekistani cultures.
Conscious of my marginal role as a native Russian-speaker in the Uzbekistani context (See 2.1.1), I tend to agree with Holliday, who maintains that “being an experienced marginal person by nature would permit the cultivation of an ability to observe and adapt to other cultures.”(Holliday, 1994:155) This also holds true in respect of the specific culture of English-speakers in the same context, which extends beyond ethnic boundaries, but gradually emerges as a distinctive social group exposed to the variety of influences, mainly from the BANA cultures. My interest in cross-cultural encounters, has therefore derived from different sources and led to a publication on cultural archetypes in Central Asia (Ulko 1998), inspired by Jung’s interpretation of cultural phenomena (Jung 1983).
In this study I use the term culture in its broad meaning, believing that behaviour, or the observable part of culture, is derivative from deep patterns rooted in individual and collective consciousness and subconsciousness:
“Culture does not consist of things, people, behaviour or emotions. It is the forms of things people have in mind, their models for perceiving, relating and otherwise interpreting them.” (Goodenough, 1964)
For the purposes of this study I use the term paideuma, introduced by Leo Frobenius, an eminent scholar of African civilisations (See Frobenius 1932), to denote the ultimate self of the culture. Further I discuss the interrelationship of different paideuma in more detail (See Chapter 4) and focus on the techniques of “tuning in” with the different forms of the BANA paideuma, which I regard as a crucial component of the EFL learning and teaching process. Nevertheless, my primary goal is the development of a rationale for teacher training that would enable trainers to assist EFL teachers in Uzbekistan to tackle cross-cultural issues in their classrooms. These issues first of all include the interaction of BANA and Uzbekistani cultures outside and most importantly, inside an EFL classroom. My experience in TEFL has resulted in a strong conviction that successful EFL learning requires from learners a profound adaptation to the underlying values of the target culture, in other words, acculturation. In this study I outline the main principles of methodology, which enables this acculturation through sensitising learners and teachers to the deep layers of target culture and provide a corresponding framework for teacher trainers.
1.3 CRUCIAL ASSUMPTIONS
At the end of this introductory reflective section of the study I summarise the conclusions derived from different experiences and outline a few theoretical assumptions underlying this study. Those assumptions which are particularly relevant for the purposes of this research are discussed in more detail later.
1.3.1 Practical assumptions
My experience as a user, learner, and teacher of English in resolving cross-cultural issues, although subjective, provides me with several initial points of reference, which I explore in this study.
• EFL learning can be successful if the formally studied material and the practical communicative experience are “internalised” through mental processing and placed within a mental context deeply related to the learners’ personality. Otherwise “learners’ understanding of things will remain at the level of specific experiences and practical procedures, while the hoped-for principled understandings are never grasped or achieved.” (Edwards and Mercer 1987:95)
• EFL learning should be a chain of insights and discoveries at every stage and learning level. Bruner lists the following four benefits of discovery learning: “ 1) the increase of intellectual potency, 2) the shift from extrinsic to intrinsic rewards, 3) the learning of the heuristics of discovery, and 4) the aid of conserving memory.” (Bruner 1979:83) Also “only that which is the result of self-effort, of hard struggle and of bitter experience is of permanent and lasting value.”(Bailey 1993: 601)
• Learners’ awareness of their own and target culture, achieved through acculturation, is a crucial tool for EFL learning in general, not only for pragmatically successful communication. As Robinson argues, “cross-cultural understanding does not mean just decoding someone else’s verbal system or being aware why someone is acting or feeling the way they do…it refers to empathising.”(Robinson 1988:1)
• Empathising with and tuning in to the target culture can be achieved in EFL classroom by going beyond the situational learning model, based on “the assumption that the average man and his wife need know only enough to do the shopping,… buy the furniture, hire the television, pick up the newspaper, teach the children reasonable manners and so on.”(Entwistle 1978:151), which seems to dominate most TEFL practices since the late 80s. Learners must develop their imagination, “the organ of the soul by means of which a person establishes a cognitive and visionary rapport with the world.”(Faivre 1993: xvii) I discuss the models promoting the development of these qualities in Chapter 5.
• In this study I do not touch upon on the practical aspects of the Uzbekistani educational policy at the national level. The proposed framework is aimed for the teacher trainers designing TELT courses at the institutional or departmental level.
In view of these assumptions I agree with Candlin, who defines the primary goal for the language curriculum and methodology as:
“to focus on the unobservable metaphors that constitute culture, to concentrate on the ways human actors categorise it and interpret their experiences, how they process information and structure their private and public worlds and, how finally, meaning is derived and communicated.”(Candlin 1988: xiii)
It is difficult to imagine how positivist methodology and purely empirical research could deal with “unobservable metaphors” therefore while in some areas of TEFL and TELT these methods retain their crucial significance, I am convinced that to explore deep cultural patterns a researcher will needs a different thinking framework.
1.3.2 Theoretical assumptions
I base the proposed framework on the following assumptions concerning human mind, language and culture:
* There is a deep and complex connection between the mind, the language and the culture of the people who use this language. This connection permeates different levels of society and human personality. “Cultural messages are transmitted through language, sound or rhythm itself, space, time, body movement, touch, taste, smell, sight and even telepathy.” (Robinson 1988:26)
* EFL learning can be regarded as a process of the interaction between the learners’ cultural background and the English-speaking culture, which is “both the ends and means for their learning.”(Breen 1987: 45) This interaction takes place on several conscious and unconscious planes which learners and teachers may not be aware of.
* Successful EFL learning, which is basically the increasing of learners’ language competence and performance, combines the external work, operating with factual knowledge and skills with the internal, connected with personal development and awareness raising. “Skills manifest abilities and depend upon them, whilst skills and abilities are dependent upon and realise underlying psychological processes.” (Breen 1987: 32)
* Consciousness as a phenomenon is not limited to the functions of the human brain and in my analysis of the complex relationship between different cultures, personalities and their components I take into consideration the hierarchical structure of the physical as well as spiritual forms of human beings. Jung suggests that “we must distinguish three psychic levels: (1) consciousness, (2) the personal unconscious, and (3) the collective unconscious.” (Jung 1983:67) According to the Sufi tradition, which I touch upon in following chapters, “man is comprised of a) a Body or form as his outer self; b) Spirit or soul as his inner life; c) Consciousness (Sirr) and d) Ruh-ul-Quds, the divine aspect.”(Archer 1980:125) I also believe that some aspects of different esoteric doctrines are extremely relevant for the recent developments in Western education.(see Bailey 1971 and 1993, Freire 1976, Bruner 1983, Steiner 1971 and 1983)
1.3.3 Empirical research
Although this study is based primarily on my personal experience as the main source of the data, I envisage the following possible directions for a further empirical research into the topic.
• Trompenaars’ analytical framework of cultural dimensions (See 3.2.1) could provide invaluable data on Uzbekistani culture, but because an empirical research of this culture has not been done, the conclusions I derive from the model are tentative. The only realistic alternative to simply stating my random estimation of the parameters of the framework was to use a model of “estimated approximation” borrowed from business, which requires an empirical verification.
• My analysis of classroom practices could have been substantiated by the data derived from classroom observation, which would require a special research in Uzbekistan and therefore are not available. I considered another possible source of data, a specifically designed questionnaire to be answered by EFL learners and teachers in Uzbekistan. My colleagues responded to my e-mail asking for their reflection on cross-cultural issues and I attach their answers in the Appendix.
Owing to the spatial and temporal restraints this study lacks substantial empirical data and is basically the projection of my personal experience on the plane of modern methodology and learning theories. Nevertheless, conscious of a risk of my examples being anecdotal, I provide a rationale for the further verification of my conclusions in practice.(See 3.2.1 and Conclusion)
*
These assumptions allow me to analyse certain facts and events which characterise the Uzbekistani TEFL context and suggest the rationale for resolving the cross-cultural issues on the levels of TEFL and TELT. In the next chapter I describe this context in general and focus on the context-specific nature of cross-cultural encounter in TTEFL classrooms before proceeding with the analysis of more global aspects of the problem.
2. INTRODUCTION TO THE SOCIO-CULTURAL CONTEXT OF TEFL IN UZBEKISTAN
In this chapter I describe the cultural stratification of Uzbekistani society in historical and synchronic perspective and demonstrate the connection with current TEFL methodology and practices. I focus on the context-specific cultures of EFL teaching and learning and discuss teacher-learner relationship, transformation of which is the ultimate target of this study. Describing the host culture, I seek to identify the main factors influencing the interaction of BANA and Uzbekistani cultures within and outside the classroom.
Higher education in Uzbekistan developed within the framework of the Soviet education system and therefore has retained a number of its characteristics. The disintegration of the USSR in 1991 and the consecutive political, social and cultural changes in the Uzbekistani society have brought about new educational policies focussed on “the development of the national ideology.” (Karimov, 1992:65) New educational institutions were established, and the general need to provide a continuous transition and smooth progress towards more “modern” education has been, at least partly, recognised.
One of the most important characteristics of the social transformation in Uzbekistan is that it takes place within the old bureaucratic framework and that the discrepancy between ways and ostensible goals is growing. In Uzbekistan the government is dominated by President Karimov, a “stocky leader…less popular in the West, where he is criticised for stifling democracy, crushing the opposition and pursuing isolationist economic policies” (Collett-White 2000). His statements such as “a feeling of nationalism is natural to human beings, since it is inherited from one’s parents” (Karimov 1992:68) shaped the cultural policy of the country.
Since 1998 the Uzbekistani institutions of higher education have been carrying out the National Personnel Development Programme aimed at bringing up a new generation of young professionals and raising loyalty, patriotism and nationalism among the students. (See www.uzbekistan.com) The most politically targeted components of the programme are the special courses on the works by the President of Uzbekistan, classes on the National Spirituality and Heritage and other subjects focussed on local issues.
On the other hand, the internal and external pressure for real change as well as fear of the imminent threat of Islamic fundamentalism forces the government to seek ways of improving the education system, which at the moment “reduces the chance of Uzbek graduates being able to attend higher educational establishments in developed countries”(UNDP 1998:15).
Among the most rapidly developing components of higher education in Uzbekistan is TEFL, which is apparently treated by the Uzbekistan government as a priority. (See www.uzbekistan.com) All these factors place TEFL in a complex and ambiguous cultural context, where expectations of different social groups are interwoven with the various aspects of a “real life” and the outcome of current TEFL practice is disproportional.
2.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE TEFL CONTEXT
In this section I outline teachers and learners’ cultural map and provide a general classification of cultural factors influencing TEFL in Uzbekistan.
The social context for the proposed framework (Chapters 5 and 6) is a conglomeration of different cultures, classes and roles all interwoven and overlapping, so that it takes a considerable effort to trace all factors directly and indirectly influencing the learning process. The fundamental assumption underlying the analysis of the context includes:
• an understanding of the relativity of some cultural principles in the light of common human values;
• awareness of existing cultural, social, personal and other differences between human beings which influence interpersonal and particularly cross-cultural communication;
• the vision of a human beings as being a complex entity operating through different layers of consciousness and finally,
• the conviction that a person is capable of voluntarily changing his opinions, attitudes and behaviours without any threat to his integrity.
2.1.1 Cultural stratification of the Uzbekistani context
Central Asian society in general and in Uzbekistan in particular, has a long and complicated history and can be viewed as a conglomeration of different ethnic and social groups, forced to co-exist in the same context relatively isolated from the outer world. The most important stratifications of the context are the following:
• Ethnic. About 70% of the population are of Turkic origin (mostly Uzbeks, but also Kazakhs, Karakalpaks and Turkmen), about 10% belong to the most ancient Indo-Iranian demographic stratum (Tadjiks and Iranis), 10% can be generally described as Europeans (Russians, Armenians, Germans, Poles, Jews) and approximately 10% of the population can easily adapt to the lifestyle of one of the three main ethnic groups depending on circumstances (Tartars, Koreans, Bukharan Jews).
• Economic. Over 60% of the population is rural and almost all of them are Uzbeks, Tadjiks and other “native” minorities. They lead a traditional way of life and, no longer subsidised by the government, face an economic crisis. The European population is urban, generally subdivided into working class and intelligentsia, but since the 60s it has been disempowered as the result of the Soviet policy of “affirmative action”. (See 2.1.2 Learner.) While the rural population is extremely poor, most Europeans are also relatively poor, although generally well educated. On the contrary, commercially orientated urban natives and a huge corrupt bureaucratic class are relatively wealthy, although most of them are poorly educated. Unlike in most countries, cultural and economic stratifications in Central Asia do not coincide.
• Linguistic. One of the most important characteristics of cultural affiliation is the language. Most urban natives are bilingual (Uzbek and Russian), in the traditional Tadjik cities of Bukhara and Samarkand many speak three languages. Europeans, with very few exceptions, do not speak Uzbek and since 1989 there is a latent resistance to the government language policy, epitomised by the Act on the National Language which marked the transition from the officially bilingual to monolingual society in Uzbekistan. The Russian language was deprived of its status as ‘the language of international communication’ and Uzbek became the only national language. Sweeping reforms in language use, terminology and alphabet made an impact on the mass media, office work and education. The independence was extolled as “the most significant event in the centuries-long history of the nation” (Karimov 1992:3) and the domination of the Uzbek language became its most important hallmark.
• Cultural. The significance of European culture in Central Asia far extends its ethnic dimension. Brought by the Russian troops and civil servants in the late 1860s, it quickly embraced urban life, and enormous efforts by the Soviet regime to eliminate illiteracy and establish a harmonious intercultural environment, albeit imperfect, were not entirely futile. The result is the highest literacy rate in Asia (UNDP 1998) and, at least in urban areas, a secular and generally tolerant society. However, cultural isolation and the relative economic inefficiency of the Soviet system, inherited by independent Uzbekistan, resulted in disproportionate cultural development of different classes of the society. Despite their relatively low economic status, Europeans are the most culturally advanced stratum along with the “russified” and “westernised” Uzbeks and Tadjiks.
• Religious. Under the Soviet system religious practices were restricted to a minimum, though they survived in the form of folk customs and rituals, which became the most important part of religious life in Central Asia, which makes the local version of Islam very different from that of the neighbouring countries. Nevertheless, religious affiliation plays an increasingly important role, especially in rural areas, and the most recent upsurge of militant Islamic fundamentalism indicates that the significance of this factor is growing. Traditionally Islam had been stronger among urban Tadjiks than with nomadic Uzbeks, but the secular Soviet policy and post-Soviet economic disaster in rural areas have reversed the tendency. Still, there is a considerable number of Europeans and urban Natives who reject the notion of religious affiliation and in the cosmopolitan cities religious tolerance is generally high.
These overlapping identities are loosely based around the dichotomy between the former “colonists” (Europeans, Christians, generally referred to as Russians) and the colonised population (which includes indigenous urban Tadjiks, and the descendants of Turkic tribes who arrived in Central Asia in XV and XVIII century). Yet the Soviet regime significantly changed the cultural map of the area and the roles played by different social groups sometimes bear no resemblance to their past.
For the purposes of the analysis of learning processes, especially in the context-specific professional culture of TEFL, it should be noted that the structure of the target group of the English language learners and teachers is not congruent with that of the whole society. “The emerging elites of the marginal countries are not always representative of their own people.” (Gelpi 1985: 42) First of all, the value of higher education is definitely a concept imported from the West (via Russia), and while the Soviet educational policy was to attract as many learners from rural areas as possible (which to some extent accounts for a great number of university teachers from rural areas), the modern university students of EFL are mostly urban and potentially open to “western” influences. Second the widespread corruption in higher education (see 2.1.2 Teacher.) has changed not only the social status of the learners and teachers, but also the attitude to learning. For most rural students of the Soviet generation of students learning, perceived as the acquiring of “knowledge” was the most valuable tool for their personal and professional development. Many contemporary students regard a degree in English either as a mere indicator of their higher social status, or as a key to a better job. For both types the motivation for learning English is entirely pragmatic. New economic reality forces students to pursue different goals in learning English, which vary from survival to prosperity.
2.1.2 Learner-Teacher relationship
Let me now focus on the complex relationship between learners and teachers in the classroom and identify the main types of this interaction in view of the culturally determined roles.
Scenario: EFL classroom in Samarkand Institute of Foreign Languages
A lesson starts when the bell rings, the lecturer enters the classroom and the students stand up. The lecturer sits at her table facing the class and permits the class to sit. The lecturer checks for absent students and notes them in the register. Then she checks the homework, which normally consists of from two to four exercises, about ten sentences or questions in each. The exercises are related to the studied text and include such tasks as to translate, paraphrase, replace a word with a synonym from the text or answer the question with a phrase from the text and so on. The students answer in turn or when called by the lecturer. Some sentences or questions may be discussed, different versions of answers compared. When a new text or topic is introduced, the lecturer pre-teaches the vocabulary given in the textbook. The students then read the text aloud, taking turns and translate the paragraphs they have read into Uzbek (or Russian). The lecturer corrects their pronunciation and encourages other students to offer their version of translation if the student in charge of a particular paragraph finds it difficult. Every student is asked to do a grammatical and lexical analysis of a sentence from the paragraph chosen by the lecturer. The lecturer explains difficult grammatical problems and provides definitions and synonyms of the difficult words or idioms. At the end of the lesson the lecturer assigns homework for the students and leaves the classroom after the bell.
Teacher
The traditional Central Asian attitude towards teachers is that of deep respect. The two words used both in Tadjik and Uzbek for school and university teachers (respectively mu’allim and domu’llo) have the same root as the Arabic mullah, a preacher, a spiritual master. This attitude is stronger in the rural areas than in cities, and for Uzbek-language schools and university groups it is the core of the relationship between students and teachers. The teacher evokes respect as a superior being and he enjoys a considerable power over his students. At the beginning of the lesson students stand still until the teacher takes his seat, and in the corridor students greet their teacher “Assalom, domullo” with a slight bow, their left hand pressed to the heart.
In order to be respected the teacher has to maintain a great power distance. (Hoefstede 1991) The mode of lecturing is top-down, very formal, as is the dress code (jacket and tie) and even the body shape (a typical protruding belly is informally known as “authority”), as according to a local proverb, “one should not trust a lean man”. The teacher often speaks in a way which most Europeans would find rude - or at least authoritarian. Shouting at and insulting the students is very common. As the teachers’ salary is low even by local standards (about ;10 a month), bribes for good marks are often the main source of their income, particularly in Uzbek groups.
This extreme, but common type of teacher is to a certain degree blended with the Soviet ideal of teacher as an altruistic, poor, hard-working academic. This image has been successfully cultivated and in some remote rural schools remains surprisingly effective. In universities such teachers usually do not hold any important posts, but they are respected for their knowledge, experience and dedication and often consulted. Their teaching style is also formal; however, they value the students’ knowledge and hard work more than the obedience and discipline. (See 3.2.1, Trompenaars’ framework) Most teachers regard students as “slackers”, which often leads to hostility between the teacher and the students, while the demonstration of knowledge and application from the students is the key to good working relationship. The words of one EFL teacher, “we have to be strict, but fair”, epitomise their teaching philosophy.
The third, relatively new type of EFL teachers, is a young (mostly female) graduate of the same university. These teachers often stay in the university only until they find a better-paid job, but still the number of young teachers is growing all over the country. Their attitude to the job is often motivated by interest rather than money, status or ardently pursued teaching philosophy. As the generation gap between the teachers and students is almost nil, their teaching mode is far less formal, though methodology remains traditional and grammar-orientated. Some, though still very few of these teachers have been exposed to “western” teaching methods (usually through the Peace Corps volunteers) and therefore these are more familiar with activity-based tasks than their senior colleagues, though they lack their experience and formal schooling.
Learner
All over Uzbekistan students are subdivided 3:1 into Uzbek and Russian as the language of instruction. In most cases the Russian-language groups consist of urban Uzbeks and Tadjiks. The interrelation between the ethnic culture of the students and their learning culture is as complex as it is interesting.
The Soviet policy of “affirmative action” in education was launched in the early 20s to compensate for the cultural underdevelopment of the Central Asian natives. Separation by the language of instruction has led to the formation of different learning cultures. As I have already mentioned, until recently the Uzbek-language groups consisted almost entirely of the rural students with very poor command of Russian, whose academic performance depended entirely on the knowledge and skills they acquired in the universities. Obedient and hard working, they were easy to manage, but their performance could not be judged by the same standards as that of Russian-language students, who often included children from the educated class, the intelligentsia.
In the 70s and 80s the “prestige” education for the local administrative class was Commerce and Law, but in the perestroika years (1986-1990) TEFL acquired a certain importance and in the independent Uzbekistan it became a new “status” education. (See www.uzbekistan.org) The government was anxious to increase the status of Uzbek-language groups (often at the expense of the Russian-language ones). Eventually the speakers of English became a new professional elite in all branches of society and socially they perform the role of “gatekeepers” (Erickson 1976) or rather “mediums” in cross-cultural encounter, similar to the role of teachers within the classroom. At the same time their cultural, social and ethnic background as well as EFL proficiency levels may be very different.
The specific features of student-teacher relationships are discussed in different parts of this study. The most general characteristic of the relationship is adherence to teacher-centred, confrontational and coercive models of behaviour (See 1.2.) The Uzbekistani teaching culture is definitely “transmissive.” (Wright 1987) Although young teachers are marginally motivated to use less traditional teaching strategies, some classes and students may develop a negative attitude to the modern learning models like “discovery-learning” (J. Bruner 1983), “role-playing” (Shaftel 1982) and prefer the familiar grammar-translation tasks. (See 4.2.1) The teacher decides on a particular teaching strategy and adapts study materials to the background, needs and level of the class.
As the overwhelming majority of EFL teachers and learners have not travelled abroad, their perception, acquisition and use of English remains shaped only by a complicated cross-cultural mixture of their background.
3. PROBLEM ANALYSIS
This chapter is focussed on the description and analysis of the problems of cross-cultural encounter outside and inside the classroom. The first section introduces the basic analytical concepts and frameworks I use in this study. In the second section I provide a stratification of host and target cultures using Trompenaars’ analytical framework (Trompenaars 1998) and identify reciprocal cultural stereotypes. In the end I discuss the implications of the cross-cultural encounter for the ELT classroom practices.
3.1 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS
3.1.1 General considerations regarding human psyche
A self-evident communicative goal of a non-native speaker is complete functional command of the language, and the native speaker standard still remains an unattainable ideal, but a motivating learning objective. Although the concept of native speaker cannot be defined precisely in terms of language competence and performance, de facto it embraces all those who learned to speak a particular language as mother tongue, in other words, in early childhood. The fundamental difference between the ways the person acquires his L1 and L2, which are related to the structure of human consciousness, have been explored by different authors from different standpoints. (Bruner 1983, 1986; Donaldson 1978; Edwards and Mercer 1987)
Little is still known about how exactly small children learn their mother tongue, but it is clear that the process of learning starts at a very early stage. Piaget’s insistence that “the roots of human intelligence, and particular its higher, more abstract forms, derive essentially from action rather than from language” (Edwards and Mercer 1987:78) has been criticised by many in favour of recognising a profound connection between language and mind. (Vygotsky 1978, Donaldson 1978) I find Chomsky’s hypothesis of inborn language patterns (Chomsky 1975) a particularly good illustration of how close the problem of infant language learning is to the issue of human mental activity in general. The structure and the depth of human consciousness remains practically unknown and the influence of external factors for the forming of personality, once deemed crucial (as in the notorious tabula rasa concept and behaviourism), is now re-interpreted in the light of new discoveries. Without going into details of neurology and child psychology, I assume that the intrinsic connection of language acquisition with the development of human personality is a universally accepted fact.
In the introductory chapter I referred to some classifications of the complex human psyche. (See 1.3.2) Although my personal view of the subject is derived from the concepts developed by Rudolf Steiner, Alice Bailey and Georgy Gurjieff, for the purposes of this work I distinguish between:
• the unique and unchangeable self, (also known as Atman, Ego, spirit and so on) which is arguably formed genetically, spiritually and/or divinely;
• personality, (also known as Jiva, I, soul and so on), which is a result of the interaction of the self with a given physical and mental context (karma) and that can gradually change; and
• persona, which is assumed by the personality and which can exist only in relation with other people.(See also 1.1.4) This definition of persona is close to Chesler and Fox’s definition of role as a “patterned sequence of feelings, words and actions… It is a unique and accustomed manner of relating to others.” (Chesler and Fox 1966:58) To avoid confusion with situational social roles, derived from context (Wright 1987), I will use the term persona as a key concept for the proposed framework of acculturation through language learning. (See 1.2.4)
In view of this I believe that the crucial cultural aspect of learning a foreign language is the development of a relatively permanent persona in the target language environment, which is activated as soon as a learner performs a communicative act in the foreign language.
According to Vygotsky and others, a child’s personality is at least partially formed alongside and by means of their mother tongue. On the other hand, adult learning of a foreign language, even in the case of young adults, is an acquisition of certain knowledge, skills and awareness by a fully-fledged, albeit constantly developing personality, which consciously and unconsciously determines the learning process and product. (See Vygotsky 1978, Bruner 1983)
If learning a foreign language has to develop beyond “ritual knowledge” and evolve into “principled knowledge” (Edwards and Mercer 1987:95), it has therefore to be considered as a complex process involving several constants and variables: the self and the personality of the learner, his mother cultures and language patterns, persona and the target cultures and language. The structuring of the learning process has to provide a strong framework for the interaction of these components. In the Uzbekistani TEFL context with its limited exposure to authentic language use I define teacher’s task as to transform this framework into a living learning environment within a classroom. To do that teachers must use at least some elements of what I further discuss as culture sensitising methodology. (See 5.2)
3.1.2 Definition of culture
I use the term host and target cultures as the general categories embracing respectively learners’ complex background before the act of learning and the cultures behind the subject of learning (EFL). Multiplicity of cultures is a reflection of the complexity of social life, and although the most general and important dichotomy in TEFL is BANA vs. other geographically defined culture (in this case that of Uzbekistan), this opposition is by no means extensive. Every group of people a learner belongs to has its own culture specific for this group, although there are considerable overlaps on many different layers of society. The interaction of different cultures is therefore an extremely complex phenomenon, where Uzbekistani EFL learners may share much in common with Uzbekistani learners of German, but at the same time something different with Chinese EFL learners. Furthermore, all the three groups belong to the global culture of language learners, which they do not share with their compatriots not involved in language learning.
Although an empirical research of cross-cultural interaction in different learning contexts is difficult, the cognitive research, the qualitative interpretation of data and even the description of cross-cultural encounter is even more difficult, as it “shifts attention from the observable aspects of what is shared to what is shared ‘inside’ the ‘cultural actor.’” (Robinson 1988:10)
Another very important consideration is the difference in perception of different cultures between their members and non-members. How valid are the opinions on the one hand, of an expert Pakistani journalist on the qualities of the Uzbek people, who characterises them as “the roughest and toughest of all Central Asian nationalities, noted for their love of marauding and pillaging” (Rashid 2000: 149), and on the other hand, a Russian Uzbekistani citizen, who thinks they are neutral, diffuse, ritualistic and communitarian? This however, does not mean that generalisations are impossible, but one has to be very careful about the degree and validity of these generalisations.
The analysis of the interaction between the host and target cultures in the Uzbekistani context lacks substantial empirical data on the country’s cultural profile and therefore my conclusions are tentative. Nevertheless, the use of the Trompenaars’ analytical model, derived from Parson’s five relational orientations has yielded certain important principles underlying the interaction.
As I have mentioned before (See 1.3.1), I always tend to disagree with the positivist approach to reality and therefore do not subscribe to the behaviourist and functionalist views of culture. The cognitive approach to culture (Sapir 1973) goes beyond the empirical surface and although it is mainly limited to purely rational models, it directs the research towards the core of a culture, thereby postulating the importance of non-observable inner reality. The symbolic approach to culture, broadly related to semiotics and hermeneutics, provides a useful way of regarding a culture as a meta-metaphor and the world as a text. The seminal works by C.Levi-Stross and R.Barthes as well as K.G. Jung’s archetypal theory had an enormous impact on my interpretation of culture.
Among the numerous different definitions of culture I tend to side with that of Goodenough (See 1.3.1.) and all those viewing culture as intrapersonal rather than interpersonal phenomenon. Thus, Clifford Gertz’s definition of culture as “the means by which people communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about attitudes to life. Culture is the fabric of meaning in terms of which human beings interpret their experience and guide their action” (Geertz 1973) highlights semiotic aspect of culture, although does not emphasise a profound connection between the inner self of man and culture. Parsons’ three attributes of culture as transmitted, shared and learned (Parsons 1952) epitomise a “politically correct”, mainstream Western vision of the world, which is only one of possible hypotheses regarding the inter-relation between man and culture, not shared by many Asians. While most positivist researches label such concepts as paideuma and Volksgeist “old-fashioned” (Wierzbicka 1991: 130), I am convinced that the relationship between a human being, culture and language cannot be satisfactorily interpreted only in terms of “cross-cultural pragmatics.” Thus, Alice Bailey emphasises the role of an ethnic culture in the life of a human being:
“The big national group, to which he belongs., the karma of which (through aggregation of numbers) is so strong that he cannot break away from it even if he will. Certain racial characteristics, certain temperamental tendencies are his because they are hidden in the racial physical body, and he must carry that constitution and the tendencies inherent in that particular type of body throughout his life on earth...An Oriental type of body has one set of qualifications, and an Occidental body has another set, and equally good, if I might so express it.”(Bailey 1993: 45)
I am convinced that culture is structurally related to the nature of human being as a whole and in particular to human psyche. The symbolic interpretation of culture makes this link more explicit:
“One has access to the comprehension of symbol, of reality, only through a personal struggle for progressive elucidation on many successive levels, that is through a form of hermeneutics.”(Faivre and Needleman 1993: xii)
The above stratification of human psyche (See 3.1.2), although it can be brought down to a more complex picture (Steiner1971), is directly related to Trompenaars’ cultural model.
Trompenaars (1998: 20-23) defines the following three layers of culture:
• explicit artefacts and products, what can also be called “behaviour”,
• norms and values, or values, attitudes and beliefs (VABs), and
• implicit, subconscious basic assumptions, which can further be linked to Jung’s archetypes and Frobenius’s paideuma.
Behaviour, including classroom behaviour, is derivative from VABs, which are rooted in individual and collective cultural archetypes, therefore if an empirical research is done in hope to yield meaningful results, it has to be complemented by a profound exploration of the link between the observable world and non-observable reality of human consciousness, the mental process which is known as “reflection”.
3.2 INTERACTION BETWEEN THE TARGET AND HOST CULTURES
In this section I provide some analytical data on the host and target cultures and I discuss certain theoretical assumptions about cross-cultural encounter which takes place in learner’s mind during the process of language learning. I interpret the encounter as deeply internal and individual, but define its crucial external context as the context of a TEFL classroom.
3.2.1 Uzbek, Russian and BANA cultures in Trompenaars’ model
To characterise the process of inner cultural encounter during EFL learning, I analyse the possible models of cross-cultural interaction on social level. This analysis is based on the data derived from Trompenaars’ analytical framework which I use and discuss in this section. My analysis of cross-cultural issues is focussed mainly on ethnic rather than national cultures, although for the purposes of TEFL in Uzbekistan BANA cultures are defined mainly as different manifestations of Anglo-Saxon culture. I do not discuss in this study regional varieties of English, important as they are for native-speakers, but relevant only for the target context, with a possible exception of difference between American and British. Nevertheless, I distinguish between Uzbekistani cosmopolitan culture and Uzbek as a culture of its dominant ethnic group, although there is a considerable overlap between the two.
Barth lists the following four aspects of the term ethnic group, designating a population which: i) is biologically self-perpetuating; ii) shares fundamental cultural values, realised in overt unity in cultural forms; iii) makes up a field of communication and interaction; iv) has a membership which identifies itself, and is identified by others, as constituting a category distinguishable from other categories of the same order. (Barth 1969:27)
Trompenaars maintains that a specific national or group culture may be analysed with the help of a framework based on the following six cultural dimensions: i) Universalism - Particularism, ii) Individualism - Communitarism, iii) Neutral - Affective, iv) Specific - Diffuse, v) Achievement - Ascription, and vi) Internal - External control. (Trompenaars 1998: in passim)
Although he operates with national rather than ethnic groups, I apply his framework for the analysis of such culturally diverse ethnic cultures as in Uzbek, Russian American and British. While his research contains data characterising BANA cultures and Russian culture, the Uzbekistani culture, apparently, has not been ever analysed this way and therefore I have to operate with approximate assumptions regarding Uzbek culture. Since the 4th century AD numerous Turkic tribes of Central Asia existed on the crossroads between two huge cultures, namely, Islamic and Chinese. The Great Silk Road epitomises this interaction and gradual formation of new ethnic groups.
“The Uzbeks trace their genealogy to Genghis Khan’s Mongols, one branch of which, the Shaybani clan, conquered modern day Uzbekistan in 1500.” (Rashid 2000: 149)
Although they gradually adopted Islam, brought by Arabs, the traditional Turkic culture has remained relatively close to the Chinese, especially that of Western China. The Russian cultural influence changed the explicit cultural layer (only in cities) but not the implicit layer, which I regard as particularly important for the purposes of this study.
To outline the general character of cross-cultural interaction, I used the method of “estimated approximation” used in budgeting and based on the formulaic analysis of analogous performance. I assumed that the quantification of Uzbek culture would yield the results roughly in between the parameters for the Chinese and Arabic cultures, though closer to the former. Despite the arbitrariness of this estimation, this approach still provides certain insights into cross-cultural interaction. I base my application of Trompenaars’ framework for the comparative analysis of Uzbek, Russian, British and American cultures on the following assumptions:
* cultures have their own integrity principles, rooted in paideuma, a cultural archetype, which determines VABs and behaviours. (See Trompenaars 1998: 20)
* the understanding of the implicit layer of the target and host cultures enables a researcher to understand the nature of cross-cultural encounter in the process of learning better.
* cross-cultural encounter outside the classroom is related to the encounter within the classroom through the implicit cultural layers of the learners’ host and the target culture.
* stereotypisation of another culture can be predicted and at least to some extent corrected in the classroom.
* the comparative quantification of Uzbek, BANA and Russian cultures can highlight certain cross-cultural problems in EFL classrooms and provide clues for their possible reconciliation.
In order to avoid making arbitrary judgements regarding possible parameters of Uzbek culture, I apply the formula borrowed from business, where it is used to estimate the performance by “a justified analogy”. (Hramtsov 1994) The estimated parameters for Uzbek culture were calculated according to the following formula: U=A+2/3*AC, where U is an estimated parameter for Uzbek culture, A is an average parameter for Arabic culture according to Trompenaars (I excluded Saudi Arabia and oil-rich countries like Kuwait, where religious and economical factors significantly differ from Uzbekistani), C is a parameter for Chinese culture. I estimate very low accuracy of this approximation and adopted a possible deviation quotient at 10%. The “data” on Uzbek culture I use below have to be verified empirically.(See 1.3.3 and Conclusion) The tables below illustrate the percentage of respondents in each culture answering a series of questions focussed on a particular cultural dimension. It should be noted, however, that these responses correspond first of all to the autostereotypes the respondents hold about their culture.
Universalism vs. particularism
This dilemma can be rephrased as rules vs. relationship. “Universalist, or rule-based behaviour tends to be abstract. Particularist judgements focus on the exceptional nature of present circumstances.” (Trompenaars 1998:32) My personal perception is that Uzbek culture is extremely particularist, and that relationships are the rules. However, Russian scores are slightly lower than the estimated Uzbek, both are very far from British and American. In Russian culture friendship has a very high status, while in Uzbek the priority is given to family and kinship. This dimension is also related to the status, which “depends on what a social group regard as normal behaviour and what they regard as having positive worth.”(Wright 1987: 13)
Individualism vs. communitarianism
I entirely agree with Trompenaars’ opinion that the communist priority of society over individual suits Asian cultures better than European, therefore there is no surprise that at the referendum of 1991 96% of Uzbekistan citizens and only 66% of Russians voted in favour of the preservation of the USSR. BANA countries score higher on the value given to individuals, although in a more specific business-oriented questionnaire they appeared to value team work more than Russians, who are mostly unfamiliar with lateral relationship at work.
Neutral vs. affective
One of the most controversial scales, indicating “open expression of emotion” (Trompenaars 1998: 70). Different cultures give different values to different emotions. My communicative experience shows that many Westerners might find Russians and Uzbeks “too serious”, Uzbeks tend to perceive Westerners and Russians as “too cold inside”, and while for Russians an open display of polite friendliness from a Westerner or an Uzbek is “insincerity”.
“In Anglo-American culture the main emphasis is not on preventing displeasure or on spontaneous and uninhibited self-expression. It is a culture which encourages everyone to say freely – at the right time - what they want and what they think and to ‘agree to disagree’.”(Wierzbicka 1991: 86)
Here Arabic culture enormously differs from Chinese, yet I estimate traditional Uzbek behaviour as much closer to the latter. According to Trompenaars, Russian culture is more affective than BANA countries, placing “an emphasis on interpersonal warmth in private relations.”(Wierzbicka 1991: 86)
Specific vs. diffuse
Specific cultures tend to have much more public than private space, segregated into many specific sections. Private life is kept deep within and an access to the personality is easy. This is typical for BANA culture, and not very typical for continental cultures like German. I perceive Russian culture as generally more diffuse than BANA, but much less diffuse than Uzbek culture, where “your standing and reputation crosses over all private spaces.” (Trompenaars 1998:84) This dimension has serious implications for the nature of personal relationship in different cultures and has an important implication for classroom cultures, where the issue of power and status is crucial.
In the combined stratification of cultures along Neutral-Affective and Specific-Diffuse axis (“emotional quadrant”), BANA cultures tend to operate in Specific-Affective quarter, giving value to responsiveness and expressing themselves through Sympathy/Outrage. Russians operate closer to Diffuse-Affective quarter, expressing themselves through Love/Hate, while Uzbeks are firmly established in Diffuse-Neutral quarter, operating socially in terms of Respect/Disrespect.
Achievement vs. ascription
Another highly controversial dimension. A century ago tribal Uzbek society was status-ascribing “by virtue of age, class, gender, education, and so on” (Trompenaars 1998: 105), although the economic development in the 20th century created a few generations of achievers. A similar transformation is taking place now, when traditional capitalistic ideals seem to appeal to many young Russians and Uzbeks. Nevertheless, in my opinion, ascribed status remains the main tool for achievement. Traditionally in Uzbek society the concepts of clan or kin, age and title are functionally interlinked and money is given an exceptionally high value. In the traditional Russian society status was often connected with nobility and intellectual culture, though the priorities have changed recently. According to Trompenaars, the attitude to an idea of respect connected with family background is shared by the following percentage of respondents:
Internal vs. external control
Dividing cultures into inner- and outer-directed, Trompenaars maintains that the idea of a man being a captain of his fate is one of the key Western concepts,” heavily influenced by Copernican and Newtonian views of the universe as a vast perpetual motion machine which God wound up and left for His faithful to discover.” (Trompenaars 1998:150) For most Asian cultures “the ideal is to fit yourself advantageously to an external force” (ibid.: 149). He also notices that “most European countries score high, in fact, though not the Russians, on whom 45 years of Communism may have had some effect”(ibid.: 146) For Uzbek culture this effect just reinforced the traditional Islamic concept of God’s will.
3.2.2 The host culture as perceived by the target culture.
The nature of real-life cross-cultural encounter depends on the reciprocal perception of another culture. To identify key components of the authentic communicative contact outside the classroom, I describe the cultural stereotypes developed by both parties before the encounter and discuss their influence on the nature of such communication.
Less than ten years ago the whole territory of the USSR was known to the West as “Russia” and its culture was perceived as Russian or Soviet and this is very much still the case. After the political independence (1991) those travellers or expatriates who discovered the cultural specificity of Central Asia, and especially those familiar with such poems as Golden Road to Samarkand by J.Flecker normally expect Central Asia to be far more “exotic” and its population “ethnic”, because “the culture of the English speaking world is implicitly contrasted with that of the learners’ own, to the detriment of the latter.”(Byram 1989: 59) This expectation is partly reinforced by the current cultural policy of the Uzbekistani government, which is trying to “purge” the local culture from “Russianisms”, “Europeanisms” and recently also from “Arabisms” and “Persianisms”.
Thus, the cultural manuals for the Peace Corps volunteers prescribe the dress code and behaviour which reflects the perception of Uzbekistan as mononational, rural and fundamentalist country. They receive an extensive training in Uzbek and many have to learn Russian “on the spot” to be able to communicate with their target audience (EFL learners). While a certain respect for the local culture is welcomed by many Uzbeks, obvious rejection of its “modern” face by Westerners offends the educated part of the population.
The confused identity of most Uzbekistani citizens mostly remains beyond the perception of the Westerners, who assume that political independence was driven by a strong anti-Russian, anti-Soviet feeling, which is only partly true, as the Central Asian nations are the product of the profound interaction between the Soviet political and the local ethnic culture. While most Uzbeks and Tadjiks with their strong ethnic identity are offended being referred to as “Russians” by the Westerners, their own distinction between “us” and “them” in a macro-cultural context remains basically the same as during the Cold War.
One feature of Uzbekistani culture, which strikes the Westerners is hospitality and friendliness of the local population derived from diffusiveness of their culture. Often this attitude is followed by frustration when in the social encounter a Westerner is devoid of his ascribed status of “guest”, which is highly respected in the East. The subtle local policy preventing the loss of face and particularising relationship is often misinterpreted as “hypocrisy” and “corruption”, (Trompenaars 1998:31) and highly ritualistic and phatic social communication, also typical for the Middle East and Oriental culture may leave the Westerners deeply frustrated.
Difference in the discourse codes especially in the interpretation of deferential politeness often causes embarrassment as questions regarding age, marital status and living standards are normative for Central Asian, but definitely inappropriate for Western culture. Local hospitality presumes a great degree of attention from the host that is perceived by the Westerners as impingement on their privacy – again a conflict between diffuse and specific cultures.
While the real-life cross-cultural communication is almost confined to that of between tourists and local community, Uzbekistani EFL learners face the Western stereotypes of the whole national culture, shared by the contact group. Lack of information about Central Asia results in overgeneralization, and cultural expectation which does not account for context-specific subculture of EFL learners.
3.2.3 The target culture as perceived by the host culture
While in terms of scope the communication between Uzbekistani EFL learners and native speakers is still taking place mostly in the local context, the number of local students visiting English-speaking countries is steadily growing. Nevertheless, as I have already mentioned, during the first years of learning English Uzbekistani students develop their perception of target culture almost exclusively through dated textbooks and a scanty and narrow choice of authentic supplementary materials (music, videos, magazines) available in few libraries. Although theoretically this information allows the learners to acquire some knowledge about the target culture, but this knowledge remains largely displaced, as there is no conceptual framework for the processing of this information.
A long cultural and political isolation of Central Asia significantly hampered the cross-cultural understanding between the cultures. If most Westerners have never heard of Central Asia until they came there, for Uzbekistani learners the main, albeit unrecognised problem is the lack of understanding of the modern Western culture. This problem is reinforced by the lack of awareness that such cognitive gap exists. (Ulko 1998)
Misunderstanding of the West is profound and is often based on the simplistic assumptions about its culture, rooted in the Cold War stereotypes mixed with the relative ignorance of facts in favour of indigenous historical and ideological myths. The result of interaction is often complete confusion and many Uzbek EFL students going abroad come back disillusioned and disappointed. “When I lived in Iran, I had a strong faith. When I came to Europe, I was too shy to stand for what is right, and I gradually lost my faith.”(Waddy 1982:136) Such strong orientation towards what is perceived as right, brings about confusion of identity because this notion is almost entirely determined by the current social norm which provides a strong external control over its members. In a different cultural context this outer-directedness influences and ultimately alters the individual’s standpoint: a situation almost unthinkable in the West, with its value of the inner control.
More specifically, Uzbekistani students lack the awareness of the cultural differences within the Western civilisation and therefore “the West” is often perceived as a monolithic structure. Specific, universalist and sequential culture of BANA countries is perceived by diffuse, particular and synchronic members of Uzbekistani culture as “superficial”, “inhuman” and “insincere”.
3.3 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR ELT PROCEDURES
My study is primarily focussed on the cross-cultural encounters which take place in the local TEFL context and in particularly, in learners’ mind (micro-context). The current TEFL structure in Uzbekistan, which provides the macro-context for these encounters, has been shaped by the following two components:
• Well-established and traditional Soviet language schooling. There were two types of institutions of higher education in the USSR: universities, which provided academically-orientated ELT with a minimum of methodology and pedagogical institutes, where the methodological strand was stronger, catering mainly for the needs of the secondary school teachers. This system has been recently changed, but it still remains the core of ELT in Uzbekistan. (See 2.2.1.)
• Local educational culture, basically formed as long ago as in the 60s within the general Soviet context, but now gradually replacing the remaining components of the Soviet ELT. (See 2.2.1.) In many respects it places even a stronger emphasis on the formal aspects of language learning, and its contents has shifted ideologically from procommunist study materials (e.g. Ten Days That Shook the World by. J.Reed) to those of regional importance (e.g. The Independence of Uzbekistan ). The general anti-Russian sentiment is to a great extent anti-Western, which has led for example, to significant cuts in the teaching of English literature.
The exposure of the local TEFL culture to the BANA models is minimal and unsystematic, and the few language programmes run by native speakers are mostly non-professional, although culturally illuminating (like the Peace Corps or CAFE language clubs). One of the most important factors affecting the cross--cultural interaction in TEFL in Uzbekistan is a fundamental difference between the BANA TEFL culture on the one hand, and the fusion of the Soviet TEFL culture (rooted in Russian and Marxist educational traditions) with the traditional Eastern (Muslim) vision of education. While TEFL is formally still structured according to the Soviet, basically classical academic model, the underlying attitudes are being increasingly dominated by the indigenous Eastern paideuma, (See 2.2.1) which leads to a mismatch between TEFL goals and methods. The Islamic educational tradition vehemently opposes critical thinking, the fulcrum of the contemporary Western culture of education:
“In humanism the aim is the affirmation of man. This leads to the problem of the West. People are not happy. There is no certainty any longer. People are always seeking – but without the desire or the intention to find. Doubt has gone too far in that it has been raised to the scientific rank in enquiry. Everything is called in question. Doubt is not a reliable method of inquiry.”(Al-Naquib al-Attas 1971)
Although relatively secular and with a high literacy rate, (UNDP 1998) Uzbekistani society as a whole and the TEFL in particular faces a deep conflict of interests and cultures. It cannot be resolved simply by adopting BANA TEFL methodology, which will at best reinforce the cultural opposition or at worse, lead to a profound rejection of all the contemporary educational methods and the target culture in general. Yet there is a need for a profound contact between the host and target educational cultures, and, as I argue in this study, the successful EFL learning is impossible without raising students’ awareness of the target culture and the modern methodology, deeply rooted in this culture.
Therefore the proposed framework sees the EFL teachers as “mediums” in the cross-cultural encounter with the responsibility to clarify their own perception of the host and target cultures and to facilitate their students’ communication with the culture of the English language through the appropriate TEFL methodology.
4. CULTURE SENSITISING TEFL METHODOLOGY
In this chapter I discuss the need for a concordance between the methods, the language content and the cultural implications of EFL lessons. I define this concordance in terms of the unity of principle in resolving cross-cultural issues in EFL classroom within the methodological, language and cultural continuum. The implementation of the unity of principle leads towards the introduction of culture sensitising methodology, which I discuss in the second section of the chapter.
4.1 METHODOLOGY OF EFL LEARNING
In this section I outline the connection between culture, the learner’s personality and methodology. There are three main groups of factors directly affecting the learning process and related to the structure of human psyche and culture: (See 3.1.1 and 3.1.2)
• the learners’ self, personality and personae; values, judgements and personal philosophy.
* the learners’ intuition, perception and sensitivity to the complex content of the studied language material; language awareness.
* the learners’ formal language competence and performance; language skills and knowledge.
Until very recently methodology recognised only the latter as its only concern, but as Widdowson maintains,
“it was a radical mistake to suppose that a knowledge of how sentences are put to use in communication follows automatically from a knowledge of how sentences are composed... Learners have to be taught what values they may have as predictions, qualifications, reports, descriptions and so on.” (Widdowson 1979:98)
Over last twenty years the issue of value and learners’ personal experience has gained considerable recognition, but still few authors go deeper than recommend learners to start from “where they are” and reflect on their previous learning experience. Holliday points out that “much of the emphasis has been on what is said either in the classroom or a target language situation... concentrating on spoken discourse alone does not address deeper cultural factors.” He then recommends that the study towards “culture-sensitive methodology” should “concern a wider view of behaviour,... what people do as well as what they say.”(Holliday1994: 163)
As I have already discussed (See 1.3.2), behaviour as a phenomenon is derivative from VABs and underlying assumptions of a human being. I regard it as a human reaction to a specific context, in this case, an EFL classroom. I am convinced that a culture-sensitive methodology should be primarily focussed on what learners think and feel, and therefore should directly concern learners’ VABs as well as how they become more perceptive and sensitive to the object of their studies. The analysis of behaviour alone can provide only superficial information about the actual learning experience, especially in the context of a cross-cultural encounter, where both researchers’ and learners’ perception of others’ behaviour is influenced by their different cultural background (See 3.1.2.)
I feel strongly that one of the primary goals of EFL learning should be assisting a profound understanding of the target language culture by learners. It can be achieved only through internal contact of the learner’s self with the paideuma, through “tuning in” with the self of the language, through sensitising to the unfamiliar patterns and phenomena of the target culture. Conscious mental efforts from the learner’s side enable him to establish the connection between the target culture and his personality through the development of attitudes. Sykes maintains that
“our mental processes, which constitute our being and life, are not just abstract and mechanical, but personal, and involve not just classifying and categorising but continual judging and feeling also... Judgement is the most important empirical faculty we have.” (Sykes 1986:19)
The development of the learner’s personality in relation to his culture and the culture behind the studied language has not been thoroughly researched within the framework of the mainstream TEFL methodology, which often merely “scratches the surface” of the psychology of learning. (Holliday 1994: 161)
In this study I cannot provide a panoramic view of all culture-related issues in the context of the modern methodology, in the first place because these issues underpin every aspect of EFL learning processes. I intend to focus on certain specific problems which might not be easily resolved, but the awareness of their existence might provide a sense of direction for EFL learning and teacher training and development in Uzbekistan.
The developmental nature of learning, advocated by such prominent educators as Steiner, Rogers, Freire and others, is the hub of the modern methodology, although its interpretation takes different forms. Nevertheless, introduction of the developmental framework in Eastern cultures poses serious problems related to underlying cultural assumptions. The diffuse, externally controlled and status-ascribing cultures of Central Asia have traditionally relied on the context-based a strong sense of “right” and “wrong”. One of the leading writers on Muslim education, Professor Mohammad Abdul Haq maintains that
“every educator must first himself know the assured truths with a certainty of mind and then transfer them to his pupils their true knowledge with the same power, certainty and belief.”(Haq1990: 45)
Such an attitude not only limits students’ sensitivity to subtleties and differences, but makes them uncomfortable in any other role than that of “EFL student”, where almost every issue can be interpreted in terms of right and wrong. To be at least remotely perceptive to new developmental methodologies the student must know that these methods are “assured truths”, which of course, will be viewed by any Western EFL teacher as an unforgivably contradictory to the spirit of learner-centred and developmental educational philosophy. Such knowledge is based on the authority ascribed to native speaking and in general, Western EFL teachers and this authority should be maintained right from the beginning if only to keep the communicative channel between the teachers and students open. (Also see 5.2.2)
Therefore I suggest that sensitisation of learners through task-based activities should only gradually develop towards the “problematic issues”, like gender, material culture or history. Designed within BANA TEFL context, many communicative and problem-posing activities are supposed to develop lateral or critical thinking, but in the Eastern context they often trigger defence perception mechanisms (fear of “losing face”) and the lesson is likely to end up in a phatic discussion of different cultural codes. In group discussions or answering teacher’s questions the students should feel free to take their stance but the topic and direction of the discussion, initially focussed on relatively neutral issues, should elicit students’ personal rather than culturally typical reaction. I found it relatively easy to invite the Uzbekistani students to appreciate “the beauty of English” through the analysis of different culture-specific stylistic subtleties in a text or a spoken discourse, for example in G.K.Chesterton’s stories or Dame Iris Murdoch’s novels. (Also see 5.2.1) In Uzbekistani context literature remains a powerful, albeit underrated source of personal development and the transmission of the target language and culture to EFL students, while theoretically more “communicative” subjects remain formal and superficial. (See Appendix)
On the one hand, culture-sensitisation through literature or video is relatively impersonal and does not immediately threaten students’ role of “EFL students”, allowing students to choose a distance between themselves and the studied context. On the other hand, it sensitises learners’ imagination, raises their language awareness and triggers metaphorical thinking.
One of the key issues of any awareness raising is the awakening of learner’s perception of his own self, personality and personae. In the diffuse and communitarian Uzbek culture there is a considerable overlap between “I” and “my” and, consequently, acculturation may lead to a fear for the loss of one’s identity. Therefore it is mentally more difficult and painful for Uzbek students to identify the voice of their self than for individualistic Russians, let alone Western Europeans. Although the influence of Islamic fundamentalism in Uzbekistani higher education is not as strong as in other countries of the region, the paideuma of the local culture has assimilated a traditional Muslim mindset, which includes a very specific interpretation of human personality:
“They [Europeans - A.U.] believe their thinking is free but in fact they are deluded because consciously or unconsciously they have already imbibed favours and disfavours from outside as well as from inside and have thus acquired some presumptive attitudes, habits of thoughts, complexes, ambitions, cravings, loves, hatreds etc. and are not free as they think they are. All these lurking factors divert them from a direct approach to truth and reality.” (Haq 1990: 308)
The reference to learners’ and teachers’ cultural identity may therefore bring to life certain thinking patterns and complexes, which will hamper productive reflection. Nevertheless, a less popular Sufi school of thought which is still very respectable in Uzbekistan on the contrary, maintains that “the essential is knowing oneself: discovering one’s potential and cultivating that.”(Ibish 1982, interview) The famous Sufi parables, like An Elephant and the Blind are familiar to most Uzbek students and when I offered it for the group translation into English and discussion, it stimulated active student participation, exploration of the subversive subtleties of the language and inevitably lead towards appreciation of the multiplicity of truths, which many students admitted had never thought about before.
The fact that certain Sufi theories and practices are remarkably similar to the personal development models of learning (See 5.1.3) makes them useful for establishing a link between the host and target cultures by triggering students’ metaphorical thinking, challenging culturally bound stereotypes and addressing their personalities in non-threatening way.
4.2 TOWARDS CULTURE SENSITISING TEFL METHODOLOGY
In sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2., and 4.1 I discussed the links between culture, students’ personalities and methodological principles of culture-sensitive EFL learning. In this section I focus on the specific characteristics of culture sensitising TEFL methodology for the Uzbekistani context with a particular attention paid to the figure of an EFL teacher and his classroom practices.
The term I suggest in this study, culture sensitising methodology, is derived from Holliday’s concept of “appropriate methodology” which “must by nature be culture-sensitive” and should have “two major components: a teaching methodology and a process of learning about the classroom.” (Holliday1994: 161-162) Arguing from the “integrationist point of view”, he believes that the BANA TEFL strategies cannot be automatically transferred into TESEP context and therefore should be integrated with the host methodology to establish a link between different cultures of learning and teaching. I am not sure that “integration” precisely describes the process of interaction between the different cultures in the learners and teachers’ mind. The key component of the methodological framework I propose in this study is the development of students’ persona in the target language. I identify the following attributes of this development:
• persona in EFL context is a projection of the learner’s personality into a studied language and cultural context. Its development depends on the learner’s command of English and on his aspiration towards a certain social role;
• the development of persona reinforces the learner’s contact, on the one hand, with his culture-specific personality and self, and on the other, with the essence of the target culture which manifests through English;
• further development of persona will allow the learner: i) to penetrate deeper into the target culture and distinguish its regional and social varieties, and ii) to receive a cultural feedback regarding his formal and pragmatic performance, and ultimately, persona;
• the development of persona goes hand in hand with “the internalization of the new language, which may bring about changes in the personality of the learner.”(Wright 1987: 46)
To emphasise the importance of personal development in EFL learning through reflective analysis of the internal and external cross-cultural encounters I suggest the term culture sensitising methodology. Apart from the two components mentioned by Holliday (Holliday 1994:161-162), I believe it should include the third component: a process of learning about the relationship between one’s personality and assumed persona as an EFL user. The role of EFL user makes teachers and learners equal participants in the target context, although their roles in the host culture may be very different. As in the case of a learner’s persona, the role of an EFL teacher is the projection of his personality onto the plane of English language discourse. The crucial difference is that the learner evolves from the role of “an EFL student” to that of “EFL user”, while for EFL teacher his teaching role is mandatory in the classroom context. Operating within the language awareness triangle User-Teacher-Analyst, (Wright and Bolitho 1993:292) the teacher cannot abandon his role of a “gatekeeper” (Erickson 1976) , “primary knower” (berry 1981), or “source of approval” (Edwards 1976) and remains a medium between his students and the studied EFL material if not necessarily technically, but psychologically. Even in the most learner-centred classroom a teacher has the responsibility imposed on him by his role which co-exists with his role of an English language user.
The paradox of this split identity is that a teacher with a high language proficiency might operate in a methodological context which is not in tune with the BANA paideuma and therefore experience a conflict between his role as a user and as a teacher. Thomas analysed different forms of pragmatic failure and discovered that the misbalance between analytical and pragmatic command of English was one of the reasons of such failure, like
“Soviet citizens who had little contact with native speakers of English and who, while having an excellent ‘linguistic’ command of the language, often unwittingly appear discourteous or domineering.” (Thomas 1984:227)
In this study I argue in favour of maintaining the unity of principle which allows a teacher to achieve a certain balance between the methods and the contents as well as between the roles of EFL teacher and user. In practice, however, a good command of English means an ability to function within the context of the English language discourse, which will promote the teacher’s sensitivity to BANA TEFL strategies. It is highly unlikely that an EFL teacher of almost native speaker standard will be insensitive to the progressive or interactive TEFL methodology and continue to insist on grammar-translation classroom practices.
I have already discussed the lack of exposure to the authentic language context being one of the problems in TEFL in Uzbekistan. It negatively influences not only the process of EFL learning, but consequently the quality of EFL teaching. In general teachers’ awareness of their role as EFL users is subservient to their culture-specific role of EFL teachers (See 3.1.2) and therefore the cultural pattern transmitted to the students comes mainly from the latter, which directly influences not only students’ formal learning strategies but also their perception of the target language culture.
The methodological aspects of cross-cultural encounter in the classroom were discussed in the previous chapter. Below I outline the other two components of culture sensitising TEFL practice, its overall purpose being to reverse the transmission of cultural patterns and allow teachers to facilitate an authentic contact between the personalities of their students and the paideuma of BANA culture through English.
4.2.1 Learning about teacher’s role
As I have discussed, the principles of reflective learning and development cannot be applied in Uzbekistani context directly and while it holds true for learners, it is even more so for teachers. Nevertheless it does not mean that the teachers will be resistant to all reflective practices. An important pre-condition for the introduction of modern TEFL methodologies should secure the positive attitude to it using the culturally bound dependence on “asserted truths” (see Haq 1990).
This violation of the unity of principle will be undoubtedly labelled by the politically correct BANA educators as “cultural imperialism” (Byram 1989:59) , but on the other hand it is merely a methodological application of the principle of “starting from where they are”. In Uzbekistani context the non-threatening approach to teacher development will be maintaining of authority of the proposed change and focussing on the development of teacher’s traditional transmissive role towards more interpretative. (Wright 1987). As I discuss teacher training strategies in the Chapter 6, let me focus on the teaching practices of a reflective culturally sensitive EFL teacher.
Ideally an EFL teacher should be aware of what implication his role of gatekeeper has for his students and how his awareness of the role of English language user influences his teaching practices. The key to understanding the gatekeeping roles and procedures lies in the highlighting of the marginal character of language teaching. (Erickson1976) The specific problem of the Uzbekistani EFL teachers is the heterogeneity of their classes in terms of culture and proficiency level. (See 2.1.1) As they feel a need to cater for all the students, they almost automatically choose the role which guarantees power and ability to handle the class in all contexts. This position determines the interpretation of their marginal role in respect of their students as that of an unchallengeable authority, superior moral qualities and unquestionable language competence, which should be taken for granted by all participants in the teaching process. As Gelpi argues, “highly structured and controlled forms of education are directed towards the populations whose proper ‘moulding’ is the true educational goal.” (Gelpi 1985:42) The arguments in favour of such a stance revolve around the myth of irresponsible, lazy and disrespectful students (See 2.1.1) who “should be kept in their place” and “forced”, which of course is exactly what many students think of themselves. This seems to be one of the common features of Eastern and particularly, Muslim educational philosophy: “the learners in most classes in Pakistan seem to work better when the source of control is external and imposed than internal and voluntary.”(Shamim 1996:143)
If we seek to introduce culture sensitising practices in classroom and expect teachers to encourage students’ self-development and awareness-raising, we need to find the framework which would allow teachers to incorporate this trend into their agenda. This goes hand in hand with a shift from traditional, coercive, and externally controlled teaching strategy towards more referent, inner-directed and motivational approach. (Wright 1987:17) Such shift involves a significant change in teachers’ VABs about the nature of teaching, which can be facilitated by external as well as internal developmental factors.
Apart from re-considering the philosophy of teacher-student relationship (See 4.2.2) teachers might benefit from allowing their “English language user” role to positively intervene with their “English language teacher” role. Such intervention could transform the marginal character of teacher’s gatekeeping form the mode of coercion and censorship into the mode of sharing knowledge, skills and insights and connecting students with the target culture and language. While methodologically this is still a teacher-centred and authoritarian approach, the value of status is shifted from ascription to actual achievement. Another important implication would be establishing a closer contact with the target culture and teacher’s self-gratification may change from the enjoyment of “disciplinary” power over the students to the enjoyment of “informational” power shared with students.
In Chapter 6 I discuss some particular principles and techniques of teacher training and teacher development, which promote exploration by the teachers of the cultural content of their social role.
4.2.2 Learning about classrooms
There is an excessive literature on different forms of classroom research: Allwright (1993), Duff (1988), Edge (1993), Richards and Nunan (1990) to name just a few. Holliday (1994) provides a rationale for classroom research in view of the development of appropriate methodology. Without going into much detail about purpose and techniques of classroom research I would like to focus on those aspects of the field which are directly related to the culture-sensitisation of EFL learners.
As I argue in this study, classroom discourse and behaviour is derived from teachers’ and students’ values, attitudes and beliefs regarding their roles in the classroom. In Uzbekistani context the prescriptive educational philosophy does not give much space for teachers’ action research, co-operative classroom observation (Edge 1992) and reflection. This is an area which remains largely unexplored and will require a special attention at the highest levels of educational infrastructure. Nevertheless, some forms of action research (Nunan 1993) can be introduced in the context of an individual classroom. (See 6.2.4) The EFL teacher seeking to sensitise his students to English language and culture, should explore the areas of contact between students’ culture and the target culture in two dimensions:
* Macro-context. This is an external, social dimension of cross-cultural encounter (See 3.3) which is closely related to the culture of a particular classroom. Even in traditional teacher-centred classes a teacher may learn more about students’ interests, needs and preferences. This may lead to more conscious choice of materials and methodology and to clarification of teacher’s and students’ agendas in the classroom interaction.
* Micro-context. This is an internal, personal dimension of cross-cultural encounter, which takes place in learner’s mind. An EFL teacher should learn more about what VABs students bring into the classroom in order to define his teaching strategies. Here cross-cultural issues are particularly important, as students’ attitudes to the content and methods of EFL learning will largely influence its success.
In Chapter 5 (5.2) I provide sample activities which on the one hand, can be adapted to more or less learner-centred classes, and on the other, will help students to clarify and express their interests, attitudes and preferences in respect of certain phenomena of the target culture. The freedom of choice is crucial for culture sensitising activities. Although the ultimate goal of this methodology is acculturation, but it should not take place at the expense of students’ individuality through “forcing white middle class Britain down students’ throats.”(Thomas 1983: 110) Instead, teachers should invite students to explore and express their reaction to various cultural stimuli, which will promote and deepen teacher’s knowledge of the classroom. Holliday suggests that “we should treat the cultural factors as given, and how to make the learning group ideal appropriate to these factors as problematic.” (Holliday 1994: 108) The exploration of learner’s ideals and aspirations will not only provide a teacher with more information about the class, but will also promote teacher’s and students’ awareness of their personae and the way they are developing in the learning/teaching process.
In section 6.2.4 I discuss the rationale for the classroom research as a part of culture sensitising teacher training course. For me the most important aspect of classroom research is that, conducted in a form of action research, it is a natural extension of normal reflective practice. (Wallace 1991: 57) Learning about the classroom should therefore be considered not only a means to improve the teacher’s professional performance, but as one of the aspects of human interaction. As Allwright maintains,
“significant development in our general understanding of the relevant phenomena is likely to be dependent upon our ability to build upon the individual understandings of the various participants in the enterprise (principally the teachers and the learners).”(Allwright 1993: 127)
5. CULTURE SENSITISING ACTIVITIES
In this chapter I discuss the ways different models of learning can be adapted for the purposes of culture sensitisation. I provide the rationale for the models, outline the links between them and provide the sample TEFL activities which can be introduced in the context of Uzbekistani EFL classrooms.
5.1 MODELS OF LEARNING
In this section I discuss the models of learning which can be applied for the development of materials, tasks and teaching strategies within the framework of culture sensitising methodology. I would like to re-emphasise the importance of the principle of unity of methodology, language and content as an important pre-condition of the proposed educational change. This goal can be attained through the principle of cultural continuity (Holliday 1994). The current local methodological culture for the current TEFL practices will serve as a starting point for the possible introduction of new TEFL activities, curricula or methodology. Breen argues that such unity can be achieved only if related to the learners’ personality and deeper self, and that “task objectives should directly address learners’ retrospective and prospective assumptions, which lie behind their needs.” (Breen 1987: 28) Robinson maintains that this unity is a crucial requirement for developing cross-cultural understanding through relation to “cultural experience of the learner, which is to be applied to the whole learning environment, i.e. to the teaching methodology, structuring of tasks, interactional styles as well as the selection of context.” (Robinson 1988: 2) The ideal scenario for introduction of culture sensitising TEFL methodology in the vein of these principles would be the implementation of educational change, which should be:
* global, embracing classroom, institutional and social cultures;
* profound, resulting in reassessment and development of VABs and underlying assumptions;
* particular, affecting actual teaching practices of every teacher and the nature of activities done in the classroom.
The objectives of this study do not include considerations for a global change of educational philosophy and curricula at the national or even institutional level. As I have already mentioned (See 1.3.1), I do not aspire towards introduction of learner-centred, task-based methodology in its integrity aimed at change in classroom practices and activities. The ways of sensitising students to the target culture through language and raising their language awareness through tuning in with the target culture are to be developed by the teachers according to their own cultural awareness and particular educational goals. Nevertheless, an approximation to the principle of unity may be achieved in any given context through the development of inner awareness of one’s VABs and implicit cultural patterns. Therefore the suggested activities aim first of all at the development of learners’ capacity to perceive, process and empathise with the “unobservable metaphors” (Candlin 1988) of the target culture. The objective of the activities are derived from the models of learning I recommend for culture sensitising. Below I discuss the adaptation of particular models of learning to the identified criteria and goals of culture sensitising methodology.
Joyce, Calhoun and Hopkins’ classification of learning models, “that simultaneously define the nature of the content, the learning strategies and the arrangements for social interaction that create learning environments for our students,” divides them in three groups:
* Information processing models;
* Social models, and
* Personal models. (Joyce et al 1997:7)
The culture sensitising methodology is focussed on interaction between the three layers of the host and target cultures through the three components of learners’ psyche. (See 3.1.1). The crucial point of cross-cultural interaction is learners’ persona in the EFL context and therefore the culture sensitising models of learning have to tackle this layer in order to reach the deeper layers of culture as well as the learners’ psyche. Thus, the coherence between all three dimensions of learning models will enable students to achieve holistic developmental goals through improving their information processing abilities and by enhancing their social sensitivity. Before proceeding with the sample activities, let me examine the suggested models in more detail.
5.1.1 Information processing models
The purpose of culture-sensitive information processing in TEFL context is to assist students’ discovery of the typical features of how information is processed in the target language and culture. Holliday (1994) indicates that for most TEFL cultures of TESEP (Third World) countries the dominant view of communicative methodology is serial , regarding learner as “an empty receptacle who must learn a new language by means of a new set of stimulus-response behaviour traits.” (Holliday1994:166) The current TEFL practices in Uzbekistan are not only rooted in grammar-translation methodology, (See 2.1.1) but also in the misunderstanding of the essence of communicative methodology, typical for serial cultures. In terms of information processing modes I describe most Eastern (serial) cultures as predominantly metonymical, while most European, especially BANA (developmental) cultures are metaphorical, following Jakobson’s dichotomy (Jakobson 1960). In view of these characteristics and the earlier considerations for in-depth encounter with the target culture I consider the development of metaphorical thinking essential for Uzbekistani EFL learners. It will serve the following purposes:
* facilitation of personal development through imagination;
* development of culture-sensitive mental faculties (empathy, imagination and intuition);
* raising students’ awareness of the target language and culture;
Depending on the context of a particular class and the focus of the task, the culture sensitising activities can be incorporated into the lesson in different forms. The development of the students’ metaphorical thinking should be a crucial goal for a teacher seeking to raise his students’ awareness of the target language in the appropriate mental context. A relatively narrow learning model exploiting metaphor, synectics, was designed by William J.J. Gordon and his associates (1961) to teaches metaphoric thinking and can be broadly applied to various classroom activities. This learning model can be a useful starting point for developing activities aimed at exploring the subtleties of English, connotations of different forms and usages in speech and literature. I illustrate this statement with Activity 2 (See 5.2.1), however, some other types of activities require imaginative and creative thinking as well as sensitivity to the learning context. (See 5.2.2 and 5.2.3)
“Metaphors establish a relationship of likeness, the comparison of one object or idea with another object or idea by using one in place of the other. Through these substitutions the creative process occurs, connecting the familiar with the unfamiliar or creating new idea from familiar ideas.”(Joyce et al 1997:61)
Metaphorical thinking is particularly important for the purposes of personal development and acculturation, where students are required to empathise with the target culture and establish mental relationship between their personalities and the symbols and rituals of the target culture.
Noteworthy are the parallels with some spiritualistic schools and techniques. Alice Bailey maintained that the fundamental necessity of modern education is “the need to relate the process of unfolding the human mentality to the world of meaning, and not to the world of objective phenomena.”(Bailey 1971: 16) According to Faivre, spiritual development of a human being implies the discovery of “symbolic and/or real correspondences between all parts of the visible or invisible universe, which are considered more or less veiled at first glance and therefore meant to be read, to be decoded.” (Faivre 1993: xv) The development of metaphorical thinking is a powerful tool for the discovery of implicit meanings and the development of persona, the processes assisted by the social models of learning, aimed at appreciation of the values and external manifestations of the target culture.
5.1.2 Social models
“Second language, foreign language, bilingual and crosscultural educators may gain valuable insights by applying the principles of social learning theory to crosscultural adaptation strategies.”(Robinson 1988:97)
The differences in cultures of social interaction between BANA countries and Uzbekistan make the introduction of group work in TEFL classroom a challenging task, the detailed discussion of which goes beyond the scope of this study. The most important objective of culture sensitising social model of learning is the development of the student’s persona in the target context. I do not think that the simulation of authentic communicative situation in the classroom is the best way to attain this goal, in fact, I doubt whether such simulation is possible. As Medgyes argues,
“classroom activities designed to simulate real life are bound to be contrived... I the language lesson, the teacher can undertake no more than to rehearse language skills which will be called for in real-life communicative situations.” (Medgyes 1999: 141)
Nevertheless, if communicative context of the classroom is not “real”, the mental context of cross-cultural encounter through language is real as long as it relates to the student’s fledgling persona. “The notion that the context of a discourse is not physical but mental is an essential part of the link between discourse and knowledge.” (Edwards and Mercer 1987: 65) I have already mentioned that persona should not be confused with a learner’s social role, defined by Wright as “a complex grouping of factors which combine to produce a certain type of social behaviour.” (Wright 1987: 7) Yet by adopting different social roles in classroom, by relating to different communicative situations and reflecting on it, the learners will raise the awareness of their persona and of the way it operates in the target context. This will hopefully, lead to the adjustment of persona, to subtler tuning in to the target context and to acculturation, so that “the role itself may modify our personality.” (Wright 1987) (See 1.1.4)
The role-playing model of learning, designed by F. and G. Shaftel (1967) provides a useful starting point for a wide range of persona-developing activities, “that serve as a vehicle for students to:
* explore their feelings;
* gain insight into their attitudes, values and perceptions;
* develop their problem solving skills and attitudes;
* explore subject matter in varied ways.” (Joyce et al 1987: 106)
The arbitrary allocation of roles to be played in the classroom, however, does not add much to the authenticity of context and may demotivate students, whose social role in the classroom is remote from any real-life situation. On the other hand, an empathic analysis of the problem may be particularly helpful for the initiation of student’s reflection on their real roles, identities and VABs. The analysis of the students’ roles should therefore be focussed not only on “what” and “how” of language performance, but mostly on “why” and allow free choice of a role. “The question ‘why’ is essentially the personal one since there can be no universal answer.”(Freeman 1982: 27) The types of discourse in communication in English, more than any other area of TEFL, cannot be “taught” or even “learned”, as its material or factual data do not automatically lead an unprepared learner to understanding. The problem is that even authentic material full of illuminating connotations, will remain closed for an EFL learner approaching this material from outside, in the role of “an EFL student”. The communicative role-play, apparently positioning a learner within the context, does not directly relate to the personality of a learner, nor to the paideuma of the English language culture. The teacher has to avoid allocation of the fictitious roles to be performed by the learners using English as a tool, as these roles have nothing to do with the assumed persona of a learner as an English-speaker. Instead students should be either given a real-life task they can relate to (See 5.2.3) or the activities should provide a genuine mental context where a student may choose to empathise with a certain role. (See 5.2.2) Reflection upon different the relation between social roles and VABs and personae which determine them, is closely connected with the personal development models of learning, “because it attempts both to help individuals find personal meaning within their social worlds and to resolve personal dilemmas with the assistance of social group.”(Joyce et al 1987: 105)
5.1.3 Personal development models
The ultimate goal of culture sensitising methodology is the development of learners’ personality through raising their language and cultural awareness and vice versa. The personal models of learning are essentially developmental and can be connected with the spiritual awakening of learners and especially teachers, which make them closely related to various esoteric schools and techniques. Arguing in favour of life-long learning of a teacher, Freeman maintains that “development assumes that teaching is a constantly evolving process of growth and change,…an expansion of skills and understanding.”(Freeman 1982: 22) Needleman distinguishes between two types of teachers, a scholar, “fulfilling a social function to contribute to the general fund of accessible human knowledge” and a seeker who provides “spiritually effective teaching. The scholar looks outward; the seeker looks inward. It is at this point that the idea of esotericism can usefully be introduced.” (Needleman1993: xxvi) Not surprisingly, therefore, that Abraham Maslow, Douglas MacGregor and Fritz Perls, the key figures in the area of personal development had a long affiliation with various spiritual movements and organisations.
Joyce et al list the following purposes of personal models of learning:
* to lead the student towards greater mental and emotional health, by developing self-confidence, forming a realistic sense of self and building empathetic reactions to others;
* to increase the proportion of education that emanates from the needs and aspirations of the student - that is, taking each student as a partner in determining what he or she will learn and how he or she will learn it;
* to develop specific kinds of qualitative thinking, such as creativity and personal expression. (Joyce et al 1997: 116)
Noteworthy are the similarities between these objectives and the features of culture sensitising learning discussed above (See 4.2). All personal models of learning can be applied to TEFL practices according to the qualities of a particular class or a student. Different forms of Rogerian non-directive counselling are particularly effective for teacher education (Rogers 1983, Heron 1985, Edge 1992, Underhill 2000). I believe that the TEFL as well as TELT activities should incorporate corresponding elements from information processing and social models. I have already discussed some difficulties in introducing developmental, inner-directed methodology in Uzbekistan, where the traditional culture is based on the concept of external control, as in most Asian, especially Muslim countries. Nevertheless, a gradual, non-threatening introduction of person-centred approach to the learner-teacher interaction in classroom will not only improve working relationship but will also enhance students’ sensitivity to the modern BANA learning culture. I illustrate this statement in the sample activities section. (See 5.2.2 and 5.2.3)
5.1.4 Language awareness
Language awareness, a relatively new integrative concept in TEFL, is defined as “a person’s sensitivity to and conscious awareness of the nature of language and its role in human life.”(Donmall 1985:7) and can be regarded a step further towards more holistic interpretation of language proficiency.
The issue of language awareness raising in TEFL and TELT has attracted considerable attention by TEFL/TELT professionals, James and Garrett (1991), Bolitho and Tomlinson (1995), Wright (1994) to name just a few. Although “the psycho-cultural element is rarely described in English language education”(Holliday 1994:129), in this section I intend to discuss the crucial links between language awareness raising and culture sensitising in more detail.
Successful EFL acquisition presumes full operational command of the language, but while the capacity of understanding English (or any other language learned as foreign) develops in most cases much earlier than that of generation of meaning in English. Thomas defines it in terms of pragmatic competence being “the ability to use language effectively in order to achieve a specific purpose and to understand language in context.” (Thomas 1983: 92) By understanding I mean an ability to perceive the intended meaning conveyed through and with the help of English language. Only decoding and deciphering skills are not enough; a learner should be at least partially aware of the way the intended meaning is coded in the culture-specific language forms. In terms of pragmatic performance this ability is revealed in a certain social context: real, discoursal (spoken) or imaginary, textual (written). In terms of semantics it is related to the connotative as well as to denotative plane of the language.
The inability to handle both planes, “the inability to understand what is meant by what is said” is a pragmatic failure, “an area of cross-cultural breakdown.” (Thomas 1983: 91) While there are definite “advantages of foreign language learners operating in a social context similar to that encountered by mother-tongue learners, …most language teaching gives little opportunity for such activity.” (Brumfit 1984: 35) In sections 1.3.1, 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 I have argued in favour of approximation towards authentic mental context for EFL learning and below I demonstrate this principle in practice. The adequate language performance in a given context does not necessarily imply adequate level of language awareness and understanding of the principles underlying certain discoursal forms.
Let me illustrate this statement with a simple example. “Meeting People” is a traditional unit in many TEFL courses used in Uzbekistan. (Eckersley 1954, Kaushnaskaya 1961 and others) The teaching such form of polite introduction as “How do you do?” is a necessary element of this unit. The Uzbek students find it easy to learn and use mostly because they can relate it to the traditional Uzbek form of polite greeting: “Kandai mi siz? Yakhshi mi siz? Salomat mi siz?” (‘How are you? How is health, family, work, rest?’) which is also a rhetorical question which requires no answer but a reciprocal greeting. The English form is a ritual within the “deference politeness” communicative strategy and specific culture. On the contrary, its Uzbek equivalent is phatic and presumes “solidarity politeness” (Scollons 1983) based on the diffusiness of the culture, and is often followed by a “small talk” about families and other issues which a representative of BANA culture will find private. It is not just a matter of different etiquette, but more essentially, the question of different cultural interpretation of human privacy, social functions and philosophy of life.
Language performance even at the very early stages of learning is strongly connected with the connotative aspect of language, almost completely ignored by situational learning methodology and even communicative tradition. (See 1.3.1 and 3.1.1) Language awareness-based methodology, however, provides certain means of access to the connotative plane of the language and that has a great influence on language learning. One of the most important distinctions in the way language operates is that between metonymical and metaphorical connections the human mind establishes between a sign and a meaning. (See 5.1.1)
I have already asserted the importance of the development of metaphorical thinking in TEFL. It is rooted in the capacity of the human brain to extract an abstract component from a concrete fact of the language and establish links with other sets of signs and meanings through the association of meanings. Thus, to understand Hamlet’s remark that “the time is out of joint” does not require specific cultural knowledge. Nevertheless, its emotional and structural overtones (for example, based on the richness of the construction “out of + Noun”) make it specific for the English language and difficult to translate into other language preserving the same relationship between denotative and connotative meanings.
Language awareness is also related to culture-specific linguistic awareness, or the relationship between certain forms of the language structure and national Weltanschauung. According to Wierzbicka,
“what makes Japan a nation of Japanese, or Russia a nation of Russians is reflected – more clearly than anywhere else – in the ways the Japanese or Russians speak.”(Wierzbicka 1991: 130)
English is an analytical language, Russian is synthetic and Uzbek is flective, and these grammatical differences reflect certain profound differences in the cultural vision of the world. The actual relationship between the syntactical patterns of a language and the culturally determined thinking subtleties is rooted deeply in the subconscious. Thus, the gender in Russian language strongly influences the perceived connotation of certain objects, like dub (m) ‘oak’, often accompanied with a masculine epithet ‘mighty’, or bereza (f) ‘birch-tree’, often seen as ‘tender’. On the other hand, the absence of future forms of the verb in many Eastern languages, including Uzbek and Tadjik reflects the perception of time in these culture, which is in sharp contrast with the north European and BANA concept of time. (Trompenaars 1998)
The cultural codes and discourse types cannot be simply translated from one culture to another. Most Uzbekistani students lack the awareness of the specific features of even the most common types of BANA discourse, though linguistically they can perform very complicated tasks. Let me analyse a linguistically simple example of discourse, which can be used for language and culture awareness activities and would pose a great problem for Uzbekistani EFL students.
“As I approached the last immigration official [at Logan Airport in Boston], he said to me: ‘Any fruit or vegetables?’ I considered for a moment. ‘Surely, why not,’ I said. ‘I’ll have four pounds of potatoes and some mangoes if they’re fresh.’ Instantly, I could see that I had misjudged my audience and that was not a man who ached for banter... Luckily, this man appeared to conclude that I was just incredibly thick. ‘Sir,’ he enquired more specifically, ‘are you carrying any items of a fruit or vegetable nature? ‘‘No, sir, I am not,’ I answered at once and fed him with the most respectful and grovelling look I believe I have ever mustered.” (Bryson 1999)
First of all students may find it difficult to see that the joke is based on zeugma, which would be a good example for a lesson on stylistics. All other implications of this discourse are simply out of students’ reach: why did the author decide to pretend he did not understand the question? Why did he decide to make a joke with an immigrant official? What does it have to do with the difference between American and British cultures? What kind of “judgement of the audience” lies behind this kind of language behaviour? These and similar questions will also be culturally biased, as for many Russian students Bryson’s behaviour would be perceived as “disrespectful” towards an official, for many Uzbeks it would have a strong connotation of deliberate (=stupid) “loss of face”. The actual language of this discourse could have been found in standard textbook units “Shopping” and “Travelling” and would not pose any formal problem for the university students. Yet an understanding of the nature of this particular cross-cultural encounter in this context would require an insight into a specifically British communicative style and appreciation of the specific type and role of humour in British society as opposed to American. I provide a sample of similar problem-posing language awareness activities in section 5.2.1.
The culture sensitising, awareness-raising methodology does not simply assist the learners’ capacity to cope with a certain symbolic cultural code or the type of discourse, it is focussed on the development of what Jung calls “double vision”, a capacity to see oneself in the world and the world in oneself. Such vision and sensitivity can be achieved only if the contents, the EFL methods and the cultural awareness of the learners are integrated into one complex developmental process.
5.2 SAMPLE ACTIVITIES
In this section I demonstrate how the models discussed above can be used for the culture sensitising purposes in the classroom. The ultimate target of the suggested framework focuses on the layer of learner’s implicit assumptions (See 3.2.1), and therefore can be accessible only through the learner’s conscious mental effort. Nevertheless, the classroom context can ideally be regarded as an explicit equivalent of the mental context of EFL learning. The task-based lesson is, according to Candlin and Murphy,
“a set of differentiated, sequentiable, problem-posing activities involving learners and teachers in some joint selection from range of varied cognitive and communicative procedures applied to existing and new knowledge in the collective exploration and pursuance of foreseen or emergent goals within a social milieu.” (Candlin and Murphy 1987:10)
The activities suggested below are primarily focussed on various types of cross-cultural encounter and were designed as a sample range of different tasks which can be used in EFL classrooms in Uzbekistani universities. Every activity is followed by a comment on its culture sensitising effect. Some of these activities are adapted from different sources, others are original and have been actually tried. Their selection reflects the above principles of culture sensitising methodology (See 4.2), the discussed models of learning and the existing EFL curriculum in Uzbekistani higher education.
5.2.1 Language awareness tasks
Although language and cultural awareness raising tasks are in the core of the proposed framework, I suggest that in certain EFL lessons taught in Uzbekistani universities language awareness raising should be also specifically aimed at. Most successfully language awareness tasks can be used in the Conversation lessons, traditionally focussed on different themes or “topics”, like Meeting People, Meals, Travelling, and so on. I do not specify the mode of students’ work, as some classes might have different attitudes to the group work and normally teacher decides on the mode according to the class.
Activity 1. Office etiquette
This activity has been designed according to the framework suggested by Wright and Bolitho (1993) and focuses on several cultural issues. It can be used in the Conversation lessons for senior students as a part of the In the Office topic or at lessons on British and American Press.
* What do you think might be the typical features of the office language in the UK?
* Do you think people speak differently when they talk to their colleagues at work from the way they speak at home or in the street? Should they?
* Now read the question sent to The Daily Telegraph. What do you know about this newspaper?
Dealing with bad language
ONE of the younger members of my staff has taken to complaining about the inappropriate nature of some of the language being used in the office. What is the appropriate way of dealing with this?
* Who do you think is the writer of the letter? How do you know?
* What is his problem? What do you think he refers to as ‘this’?
* What exactly has the young person been doing?
* Professor Ernst Andersen, who advises on the readers’ questions, answers the letter. What would you answer if you were him?
* Now read the professor’s advice and answer the questions that follow.
THE appropriate way is to say “you’re a boring prig and you’re fired”.
Unfortunately true appropriateness has little place in the 21st century office. So tell the complainant that, while you may not always agree, you respect the opinions and will promote the person to being in charge of Office Health and Safety.
With luck after a few months the mind-numbing task and the piles of boring bumf should rid them of ever again opening their mouth in public.
* Is the advice is what you had expected? Why do you think the professor gave it?
* Why do you think the professor was critical about the young man?
* Would you like to be in charge of Office Health and Safety? Why? How would you deal with bad language in the office?
* How would you characterise the professor’s choice of words? Can you guess the meaning of the words you don’t know?
* What do you think is the key word of the article? Why?
* Compare the uses of the adjective ‘appropriate’ in the text. Is there any difference in meaning?
* Who is referred to as ‘them’ in the last sentence?
* What conclusions can you make on the office culture in the UK:
- How do they speak in the office? How do you know?
- How do they solve problems? How do you know?
* Do you think you will find it easy to work in an office in the UK?
Commentary
This activity tackles a stereotypical image of a formal “bowler-hatted” English gentleman (See 1.1.3 and 3.2.3) and allows students to explore their own VABs regarding office culture. The teacher, however, has to be careful not to let students assume that the English use only “bad language” in the office. Their attention should be attracted to the young person’s behaviour, the professor’s attitude to it and the underlying assumptions. Linguistically, students are encouraged to point out and guess the meanings of such informal words as ‘prig’, ‘bumf’, ‘to fire’ and perceive the effect of a contrast with more formal words and phrases like ‘complainant’, ‘true appropriateness’, ‘respect the opinions’ and others. Students will learn some idiomatic phrases, like ‘to have taken to’, to be in charge’ and ‘mind-numbing’ in a context and should explore the concept of appropriacy in light of the perceived difference between the contextual meanings.
Activity 2. Exploring metaphors
• Read the extract from Brideshead Revisited by E.Waugh and answer the questions that follow.
We had bottles brought up from every bin, and it was during those tranquil evenings with Sebastian that I first made a serious acquaintance with wine and sowed the seed of that rich harvest which was to be my stay in many barren years. We would sit, he and I, in the Painted Parlour with three bottles open on the table and three glasses before each of us; Sebastian had found a book on wine-tasting, and we followed its instructions in detail. We warmed the glass slightly at a candle, filled it a third high, swirled the wine round, nursed it in our hands, held it to the light, breathed it, sipped it, filled our mouths with it and rolled it over the tongue, ringing it on the palate like a coin on a counter, tilted our heads back and let it trickle down the throat. Then we talked of it and nibbled Bath Oliver biscuits, and passed on to another wine; then back to the first, then on to another, until all three were in circulation and the order of glasses got confused, and we fell out over which was which, and we passed the glasses to and fro between us until there were six glasses, some of them with mixed wines in them which we had filled from the wrong bottle, till we were obliged to start again with three clean glasses each, and the bottles were empty and our praise of them wilder and more exotic.
‘...It is a little, shy wine like a gazelle.’
‘Like a leprechaun.’
‘Dappled, in a tapestry meadow.’
‘Like a flute by still water.’
‘...And this is a wise old wine.’
‘A prophet in a cave.’
‘...And this is a necklace of pearls on a white neck.’
‘Like a swan.’
‘Like the last unicorn.’
And we would leave the candle-light of the dining-room for the star-light outside and sit on the edge of the fountain, cooling our hands in the water and listening drunkenly to its splash and gurgle over the rocks.
‘Ought we to be drunk every night?’ Sebastian asked one morning.
‘Yes, I think so.’
‘I think so too.’(Waugh 1968:51)
• Where and when do you think the scene is taking place? How do you know?
• Can you guess who Sebastian and his friend (Charles) are? Substantiate your guessing with evidences from the text.
• Comment on the stylistic effect of the description of the wine-tasting procedure. Why do you think this procedure is so elaborate?
• Read the ‘praise’ of wine on your own and describe the taste of each wine in your own words. Do you find it easy? Compare your descriptions in a group.
• Think of something or somebody you like (somebody, a book, food, drink, and so on) Suggest your own metaphors (or similes) of this object and share your metaphors in a group.
• What is the difference between a metaphor and a description of an object?
Commentary
This text can be used for a series of different language and culture awareness activities. In this sample I focus on the metaphor as a way to express feelings and attitudes which are difficult to describe. Apart from expressive vocabulary and rich stylistics of the text students might establish links between certain linguistic and cultural planes of the text. The way they can relate the style and the content of the extract to themselves can be controversial and culturally illuminating. On the one hand, few conservative Muslim students may choose to be critical about drinking in general, while some Russian students might disapprove of ‘aristocratic’ life style exposed in the text. On the other hand, an example of the holiday life of Oxford students may be perceived by the majority of Uzbekistani EFL students as something they as a new “elite” are aspiring to. (See 1.1.3, 2.1.1 and 2.1.2) In tune with their social aspirations they might be interested in the language of the novel and of the particular extract. The teacher should attract their attention to various subtle details in the text which can disclose certain culturally charged meaning. (E.g. “we had the bottles brought up”, “barren years”, “Painted Parlour”, “last unicorn”, “fountain”, “leprechaun” and so on.) I consider teaching literature one of the least threatening and yet effective means of culture sensitisation and acculturation. (See 4.1)
Traditional Analytical Reading classes should be orientated towards exploring the relationship between literature, culture and language by applying awareness-based, learner-centred methods, which also imply teaching literature for the purposes of personal growth. (See Carter 1991) Such an approach will increase cultural, language and literary competence of the students, as according to J. Spiro, “literary competence must in many ways depend on linguistic competence; one could not imagine appreciation of literary texts without appreciation of the language in which they are constructed” (Spiro 1991: 32)
5.2.2 Case studies
Case studies are directly focussed on a specific problem, a “case” and provoke students to express themselves, responding to a situation they can relate to. Students can freely choose the degree and direction of their empathy as well as the distance from the case study. (See 5.1.2) The complex cultural context of Uzbekistani higher education allows the use of case studies with a wide range of potential responses, especially on controversial topics like gender, status, and cultural issues. A classical “Lima’s Story” (Edge 1992:33) will generate diametrically opposite reactions from different ethnic and social groups of Uzbekistani students and therefore may serve as a rich point of discussion of the students’ VABs and cultural backgrounds. On the other hand, case studies promote investigation into various psychological issues and therefore may bring into the classroom a strong developmental element. (See 5.1.3) The following activity tackles the crucial issues of the encounter between host and target cultures more directly and can be used both for the Conversation and ELT Methodology lessons. (Also see 6.2.3)
Activity 3. Jane’s story
Jane’s story.
• Read the following story on your own and discuss the questions below in pairs.
Jane arrived on her first day at University in Central Asia and was slightly upset by the reaction of surprise on the faces of the students where she was about to start teaching. She had been well prepared by the Peace Corps who had given her a thorough training in the customs and language of the people - they had even given her a dress code. In fact dress was one of the things that had perplexed her during her lesson. The female students, she had been told, would all be dressed in an exotic way with flowing folk dresses, shawls and head scarves, all covered with sequins, “The hippie look,” she thought to herself, “Lovely!”
In class she discovered that her students were in fact dressed in jeans and mini skirts. “Never mind,” she thought to herself, “The Peace Corps are the professionals and they know best,” and she continued to come to class with a wide, happy smile and her flowing neo-hippy skirts, shawls and head scarves and covered with sequins. Her first task was to establish rapport and to enable students to express their opinions and interests freely. But the students were not willing to engage in her lessons and appeared passive and even less participatory than she had expected. Jane tried hard to get away with power distance which she thought was the main reason for silence and restrain. Eventually she succeeded and soon the students became less reserved and more boisterous, and then disrespectful and disruptive.
One particularly noisy morning the University Principal visited the lesson and all students immediately stopped chatting and all stood. In dead silence the Principal came up to Jane and said: “You should not allow these bloody slackers behave like this! All right, I understand that you are a foreigner, you are young and a woman… Now let me just show you how to teach them …” But Jane did not listen. She felt really insulted, ran away from the classroom and cried.
(Prichard and Ulko 2000)
• What went wrong?
• Why? Is there anyone to blame?
• Suggest possible reasons for the students’ Jane’s and the Principal’s behaviour. Who do you sympathise with the most?
• Can you empathise with a different point of view?
• Can you suggest any possible solutions? Share your suggestions with the group in plenary discussion.
Commentary
This task aims at group investigation into a case where judgement is not as important as the analysis of the problem from different viewpoints. Trying to work in non-judgemental mode, the students will explore the effects of misunderstanding and misinterpretation, lack of cultural sensitivity and awareness on the teaching process in a familiar context. Some students could have been taught by Peace Corps Volunteers and other “Western” teachers and for them the problem posed in the case study would not be new. A particular attention should be paid to enabling the students to see the reasons behind the culture-bound behaviours and to imagine how these behaviours were perceived by a different party. The students should appreciate that
“many Peace Corps volunteers often expressed extreme frustration and anxiety because it became obvious to them that the tasks which they came to accomplish so earnestly did not matter to the members of the host culture.”(Robinson 1988: 87)
Nevertheless, the main purpose of this activity is to provide students with an opportunity to take and express their position in a controversial situation as well as for practising problem solving in the vein of Rogerian counselling. The latter component makes such activities particularly useful for teacher training. (See 6.2 4)
Activity 4. Mini-case study
The idea for this activity is borrowed from Trompenaars’ questions aimed at identification of dominant cultural dimensions. (See 3.2.1) The students are asked a direct personal question, which allows limited choice of answers (preferably two). The answers then are discussed with the teacher. Alternatively, classes used to groupwork, can be split in two groups arguing for their case (Popper’s debate programme).
A lecturer asks a student to help him paint his house. The student, who does not feel like doing it, discusses the situation with a groupmate.
A The groupmate argues: “You don’t have to paint if you don’t feel like it. He is your lecturer at university. Outside he has little authority.”
B The student argues: “Despite the fact that I don’t feel like it, I will paint it. He is my lecturer and you can’t ignore that outside university either.”
* What would you do? Justify your choice of action.
Commentary
This particular activity probes into the dichotomy between diffuse and specific cultures. For many Uzbekistani students this mini-case study will pose an additional problem, as in a real-life situation their mark may depend on their decision. (See 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 Teacher) This type of activity encourages students to position themselves socially, but also promotes exploration of their motives and cultural identities. The students coming from a diffuse Uzbek culture, where “everything is related to everything”, and those from a less diffuse Russian community may disagree in principle yet agree in their respect for authority (Trompenaars 1998: 88). The teacher then may provide some input and another point for discussion, telling students that over 80% Americans and the British and most in northern Europe would not paint the house as compared to only 30% of the Chinese. Discussing this statistics the students will make their underlying cultural assumptions explicit and juxtaposed with the patterns of the target culture. Similar mini-case studies can be designed to explore other cultural dimensions of the Trompenaars’ model (See 3.2.1 and 6.2.5) in Conversation and Methodology classes.
5.2.3 Project
Project is “a group of activities which are carried out within a clearly defined time and cost to reach a set of specific objectives.” (Young 1997: 245) This definition is close to Breen’s definition of language-learning task: “ any structural language learning endeavour which has a particular objective, appropriate content, a specified working procedure and a range of outcomes for those who undertake the task.” (Breen 1987:23) This type of activity can be successfully used in the vein of role-exploring model of EFL learning avoiding at the same time the contrived context of simulated real-life situation. (See 5.1.2)
Activity 5. Questionnaire
This activity has been derived from a real project conducted by UNDP in Samarkand in 1998. It is particularly useful for the EFL students who study Tourism or intend to work in this sector after the graduation. It has therefore a real value and provides students with a variety of tasks to be performed in groups and individually.
* Agenda setting
Teacher sets the following goal: to collect data that would reflect foreign tourists’ impression of their staying in Samarkand. He suggests that students design a questionnaire and then interview tourists in the city. Students negotiate on the focus of the questionnaire (quality of service, reality vs. expectations, overall impressions and so on) and decide on the number and the content of questions, taking into consideration their interests as well as the tourists’ willingness to participate.
* Questionnaire design
After students have decided on the basic parameters of their questionnaire the teachers provides input, advising on different ways of data quantification (grading, scale, yes/no questions and so on). In two or three groups students design their questionnaire drafts (there should be no more than 10 questions), which then they discuss and work out a single mutually agreed form which is photocopied by the teacher.
* Pre-interview discussion
Before actually interviewing tourists the teacher attracts students’ attention to their communicative strategies, encouraging them to empathise with tourists. Students decide on their discoursal approaches which would make tourists interested and happy to participate in the survey. The teacher asks students to pay attention to actual interaction with tourists so that later it could be discussed in class. Students also decide on the mode of the interview (group-work, pair-work or individual).
* Post-interview discussion
The classroom discussion after the interview has two foci: i) the interpretation of the collected data; ii) the discussion of discoursal strategies and actual interaction. In the first phase of the discussion students report and compare the results, identifying the patterns of the respondents’ answers. In the second phase they interpret the results, trying to see through VABs of the target audience. They also discuss to what extent the responses matched their expectations. In the third phase students reflect on and discuss whether the communicative strategies they adopted worked and share insights they gained during the interview. Teacher monitors the discussion, inviting students to relate to the tourists’ cultural background and providing input on the culture-based communicative issues discovered by students during the interaction (polite forms, body language, attitude, emotions and so on).
Commentary
This activity may require from 4 to 10 hours depending on the size and level of the class. As an open-ended project, it has no predicted output, which will depend on the questionnaire and students’ cultural sensitivity and command of English. It will allow students to adopt an authentic social role different from that of “EFL students”, which may be relevant for their future profession. On the other hand, this activity requires a great degree of empathy with the respondents and creative imagination, which would enable students to tune in to the cultures of their respondents.
The provided set of sample activities does not embrace all possible forms and directions of culture sensitisation. I am convinced that there can be no recipe for an EFL teacher, whose definition of the students’ needs for such activities will also depend on his own level of cultural awareness, professional competence and on his agenda. Yet, only because “there is a strong association in learner’s minds between learning a language and learning about the people who speak that language” (Prodromou 1992: 46), EFL classroom will always remain a macro-context for the cross-cultural encounter which first takes place in learner’s mind. This cannot be ignored in teacher education, which should incorporate the fact that teaching and learning a foreign language “can be viewed as a complex set of cultural learnings.”(Robinson 1988: 35) In the next chapter of this study I discuss how culture sensitising may be implemented on the level of teacher training and teacher development.
6. INTRODUCTION OF CULTURE SENSITISING METHODOLOGY INTO PRESET AND INSET COURSES:
GUIDELINES FOR THE TEACHER TRAINER
In the final chapter of this study I discuss the practical side of the introduction of culture sensitising methodology in the training of Uzbekistani EFL teachers. By its nature the cultural awareness of EFL teachers is a complex phenomenon related to various aspects of teachers’ personalities and professional competence and performance. Ideally culture-sensitisation should be incorporated into all aspects of EFL and TELT curricula at national level, but to confine my study to more realistic objectives, I define them as following:
* To provide rationale for teacher trainers that would enable them to incorporate a culture sensitising component in PRESET and INSET courses.
The practical side of the introduction of innovative methodology does not mean, however, that culture-sensitisation can be in any way reduced to a set of “activities” or even a “course”. “It is an educational error to train language teachers as if they were garage mechanics rather than engineers.” (Strevens 1978:114) As I have argued in this study, the proposed methodological framework should focus first of all on the underlying assumptions of an EFL teacher, which determine his or her VABs and ultimately, teaching practices. Fullan maintains that:
“Educational reform will never amount to anything until teachers become simultaneously and seamlessly inquiry orientated, skilled, reflective and collaborative professionals. This is the core agenda for teacher education and the key to bringing about meaningful, effective reform.” (Fullan 1991:326)
In other words, an EFL teacher has to become a “reflective practitioner” (Schon 1987) not only as the result of the innovation, but, paradoxically, also as its pre-condition. In the Uzbekistani context different groups of teachers (see 2.1.2) may be susceptible to different implementation strategies (Kennedy 1987: 164), and as a result, for many of those coming from a traditional rural Uzbek background any experiential or reflective practice may pose an enormous cultural problem:
“The so-called ‘progressives’ conceive of education as the constant reconstruction of the experience… It is simply an aimless experimentation with potentialities, which may take any course they like,.. the assessment of wild powers which have nothing to achieve.”(Haq 1990: 171)
For the traditional Soviet-type EFL teachers the resistance will possibly come from their VABs and strong affinity with the traditional transmissive teaching role. (Wright 1987) In view of these considerations I assume that although the unity of principle may not always be maintained in practice, the culture sensitising component should find its place in any form of teacher training, introducing reflective and empathic practices in a non-threatening, culture-sensitive way.
6.1 TEACHER TRAINING OBJECTIVES
In this section I expand on the teacher training objectives in the Uzbekistani context and discuss their implications for the design of PRESET and INSET courses.
The proposed framework should have two interrelated outcomes:
* to raise EFL teachers’ awareness of their own and the target culture;
* to enable EFL teachers to introduce culture sensitising practices in their lessons.
The first of these outcomes is essentially developmental, person-centred; the second, also derivative from teachers’ VABs, is classroom-centred and is strongly connected with the whole range of issues of modern methodology, such as learner-centred and task-based learning, awareness-raising, group work and others. The problem of introducing deep innovation in TEFL practices
“can be dealt with only if, during training, the acquisition of skills goes hand in hand with the acquisition of appropriate attitudes to teacher development. This is necessary because attitudes command skills.” (Britten 1988:6)
In view of this I am convinced that any PRESET or INSET course in the Uzbekistani context should contain the following components:
* a language awareness component;
* a methodology component;
* a culture sensitising component;
* a teacher development component.
The exact proportion and focus of these components may vary considerably, but the cross-curricular links between them will enable teachers to develop one aspect of their professional competence through other three. Such a holistic attitude, based on the unity of principle described above (See 4.1) is one of the first qualities to be initiated before in-depth exploration of VABs and classroom practices will take place. The vicious circle of cause and effect (“to become a reflective teacher one has to change attitudes, which is impossible without reflection”) can be at least partly transformed into an experiential learning cycle if the initial point of input is related to trainees or teachers’ VABs. “Initially, learners can relate to what the task is about only through what they recognise as familiar in the context.” (Breen 1987: 20) In the TELT context, it means that “changes are normal and necessary. But they may be easier to accept and assimilate if they emerge from current practice.” (Brown 2000: 227)
Identification of “familiar” and “current practice” provides a starting point for a TELT course, but its initial direction is determined by another point, which is trainees’ or teachers’ aspiration, their personal goal as teachers, their ideal persona in the classroom context. The goals of PRESET trainees will be different from the INSET trainee teachers, and the culture-specific teacher roles (See 2.1.2) will therefore significantly determine the contents and direction of the courses. Nevertheless, the underlying principles of personal and professional development of teachers from different contexts will remain rooted in the same philosophy, summarised by Underhill in the following words: “Teacher development is primarily a version of personal development. Self-awareness is an essential pre-requisite for such development.” (Underhill 1992: 71)
6.1.1 Culture sensitising in PRESET courses
The basic form of pre-service (P/S) teacher training in Uzbekistan is embedded into the TEFL curriculum at all universities as a series of different Methodology courses, mostly delivered as lectures. In the beginning of the last (fourth) year at the university there is a two-month teaching practice at school, combined with classroom observation. As I have discussed (See 2.1.2), both the current teaching practices and methodology are based on the traditional grammar-translation method, which therefore, serves for the future teachers both as the model for imitation and the official doctrine.
Culture-sensitisation of the trainees is therefore mostly derived from their experience of EFL learners, and by the time they start reading Methodology, they would have had 4-6 years of EFL learning experience at school and 2 years at university. Over-exposure to traditional models of teaching often results in a cognitive gap between the cultural contents of the taught subjects and the learner’s actual awareness of the target culture, derived mostly from the books, films and music. (See Appendix) If a P/S teacher trainer seeks to assist “a shift from a form-focused, or structural approach to a meaning-focused, or communicative approach” (Brown 2000: 227), his course should capitalise on culture-sensitive, awareness-raising elements in trainees’ EFL learning experience. It would be considerably easier in the institutions of higher education where EFL practices already contain some elements of awareness raising and culture sensitising methodology. Another important factor is a correspondence between the host culture of a class and the target culture. Thus, the idea of students’ individual responsibility for their learning may be more accessible both culturally and methodologically for Russian students than for their more communitarian and externally orientated Uzbek peers, brought up to believe that
“too much emphasis on ‘individuality’ by the Western thinkers of the past and present ages has put a major part of humanity on the wrong track.” (Haq 1990: 239)
The bridge between current EFL and P/S training practices may be established through co-operation between EFL teachers and teacher trainers, who often work in the same departments. Activities similar to the sample case studies provided in Chapter 5 (See 5.2.2) can be used both in Conversation and Methodology lessons. Other cross-curricular links between Methodology and other subjects may include:
* the use of metaphors in P/S training (links with Stylistics);
* the use of authentic materials (texts, audio and video materials) for language awareness raising (links with Reading and Conversation);
* the use of projects and team-work (links with various practical EFL subjects and others, like Economics or Psychology);
* the use of personal development activities (links with Conversation, Psychology and Philosophy);
* the use of Trompenaars’ analytical framework for cultural awareness raising and exploration of the implication of cultural dimensions on teaching and learning (links with Country Studies); and , finally,
* the use of traditional transmissive lecture mode to inform trainees on theoretical aspects of the modern methodology, (possible links may be established with lectures on Linguistics, Literature, Psychology, Philosophy, Economy and other academic subjects). According to Britten,
“the main justification... for having theoretical subjects, including the theoretical treatment of methodology, in P/S training syllabuses, is that they foster and underpin attitude change during training itself and minimise reversion, once training is over, to older teaching models.”(Britten 1988: 4)
The key component of P/S courses, Methodology, should be linked with the EFL curriculum first of all through language awareness, which facilitates metacognitive skills of the learners, as it “involves talking about language in order to find more about it and... acknowledges the strong cognitive dimension which helps most learners toward communicative competence.” (Bolitho 1998: 5) As there are both cognitive and affective dimensions to EFL learning, raising trainees’ language awareness in strong connection with cultural awareness will enable them to approach the target language and culture through personal and professional development.
6.1.2 Culture sensitising in INSET courses
I regard I/S teacher training course as the focus of the proposed framework for two main reasons:
* P/S courses may be successful only if accompanied by a corresponding change in TEFL practices. A strong link between methodological theory and current TEFL practice must be established ;
* I/S teacher training in Uzbekistani context has a direct impact on P/S teacher training (Methodology) courses conducted by senior EFL teachers, who normally also teach other subjects.
Cultural awareness of the three main types of Uzbekistani EFL teachers is limited by the socio-cultural context as well as by the lack of cognitive framework for awareness raising. (See 2.1.2) The restrictions of external context, such as lack of authentic materials, highly hierarchical administrative and social structures, lack of exposure to authentic communicative context and so on have a great impact on teachers, especially of older generation. They generally operate in the same cultural space every year and are not easily inclined to use even those limited authentic materials which are available, preferring dated but “safe” materials and methodology. While the variables of the external context can be changed only at macro level, the teachers’ VABs regarding their classroom practices must be made flexible enough to incorporate culture sensitising methodology.
In addition to the general principles of culture sensitisation in teacher training courses (See 6.1.1) I have to reiterate that any INSET course, irrespective of its particular focus, target group of teachers, duration and so on, must have as one of its objectives raising teachers’ awareness of the target culture. To achieve this goal the course should meet the following criteria:
* to be focussed on teachers’ VABs and underlying cultural assumptions;
* to assist the development of teachers’ personae in the target language;
* to promote teachers’ perception of and contact with paideuma of the target culture through language and other means, like art, music, and so on;
* to facilitate teachers’ understanding of the deep connection between the target culture and modern ELT and TEFL methodology;
* to support teachers’ personal development, creative thinking, and reflection;
* to raise teacher’s language awareness.
Below I discuss the rationale for the design of culture sensitising component for PRESET and INSET courses. Although the differences between the two types of trainees are crucial for the development of teacher training courses, methodologically they aim at the ideal of the extended professional, whose outstanding characteristic is
“a capacity for autonomous professional self-development through systematic self-study, through the study of the work of other teachers and through the testing of ideas by classroom research procedures.”(Stenhouse 1967: 64)
Culture sensitisation of EFL teachers depends mostly on the development of their personalities and attitudes and on the extent these attitudes are brought into the classroom. Therefore the suggested framework is focussed primarily on teachers’ cultural identities outside and inside the classroom.
6.2 CULTURE SENSITISING IN TEACHER TRAINING
In this final section of the study I summarise all that has been said above about culture sensitising methodology in TEFL and TELT in the form of commentaries on the different stages of a teacher training course. As I have already discussed, culture sensitisation should ideally be a component of any teacher training course and all tasks and activities designed for the course should directly or indirectly lead to the raising of trainees’ cultural awareness.(See 4.1. and 4.2) The culture sensitising methodology of TELT is related to the fundamental theory of reflective teaching and learning (Sch;n 1987, Wallace 1991), where the suggested training procedure is construed in relation to the learning cycle (see Kolb 1984). The seminal work by Wallace provides a sense of direction as well as a wide range of techniques and activities that can find their place in the Uzbekistani TELT curriculum in future.
6.2.1 Experiential learning cycle
In view of the described TEFL context in Uzbekistan and in order to meet the needs of the teachers and learners I feel strongly that the culture sensitising component of the course must be linked with:
• modern TEFL methodology,
• counselling and other developmental procedures, and
• language awareness.
Such cross-curricular connection will facilitate holistic teacher training as well further teacher development. As I have mentioned, the humanistic concept of adult learning is a fairly new concept for the Uzbekistani education and should be introduced gradually and authoritatively, as “hierarchical models of power in society are often replicated by those who have been victims of them.” (Ledwith 1997: 134)
The proposed framework is designed for the EFL teachers involved in teacher training and training new teachers. The succession of the activities in the suggested training scheme leads the trainees from reflection upon their learning and teaching experience to the analysis of cross-cultural encounter in macro and micro context. (See 4.2.2) The trainees explore the role of cultural awareness raising for EFL teaching and are encouraged to realise the affinity between personal development, modern TEFL methodology and the culturally-centred content of the EFL courses they teach. Depending on the type, duration and particular focus of the course, the culture sensitising component may have different outcomes. I used the recommendations provided by Allwright (1993) for the action research as a reference point for the incorporation of this component into a teacher training course and identified the following stages for this incorporation:
• Pre-training stage. Establishment of the ground rules and the channel of interaction with the trainee teachers.
• Experiential-reflective stage. Trainees start with the recollection or reconstruction of their experience and “identify puzzle areas”.(Allwright 1993: 132) They reflect on the experiences and clarify their vision of the cross-cultural issues.
• Reflective-conceptualising stage. Trainees come to certain conclusions regarding cross-cultural interaction and culture sensitisation. They may identify appropriate classroom procedures to explore it. At the end of the stage they may receive a theoretical input from the trainer.
• Conceptualising-transformational stage. Trainees derive the principle of unity between different components of the course and conceptualise this principle in respect of culture sensitising activities in classroom. At the end of the stage they produce various TEFL activities incorporating or emphasising culture sensitising component and possibly try them in classroom.
• Reporting stage. Trainees report on the results of the course and establish the background for their further development.
Below I describe the rationale for the activities at each stage of experiential learning cycle and comment on cross-curricular connections between culture sensitising and other three components of a course in more detail.
6.2.2 Pre-training stage
As I have already mentioned, most Uzbekistani EFL teachers, before delving into experiential learning have to be convinced that the proposed methodology has a certain ascribed status. In view of this I suggest that a teacher training course may start with a short lecture on the main principles of learner-centred, task-based learning, with a special emphasis on the value given to teachers’ previous experience.
“Models perceived as more similar to learners might be more effective in initial stages of learning than models chosen solely on the basis of cultural authenticity, language proficiency and expertise.”(Robinson 1988: 91)
The teacher trainer starts in the domain of the applied science model, which provides a necessary channel of communication with trainee teachers, as this model is “the traditional and still the most prevalent model underlying most training programmes.” (Wallace 1991: 8)
At this stage trainees are introduced to the most general terms and concepts of the modern methodology in connection with the BANA TEFL culture.
6.2.3 Experiential-reflective stage
At this stage I/S teacher trainees could be invited to explore their practices and P/S trainees could reflect on their past learning experience. The culture sensitising component should start with raising trainees’ self-awareness. After an induction to the topic of the session trainees might think about their own cultural identity, contemplating on such questions as:
• Who are you culturally? What different cultures you belong to? How do you know? How does your culture influence decision-making? How useful was your formal study of English in preparing you for the authentic contact with the native speakers? Could you suggest why?
From exploration of their past experience trainees may proceed to discuss case studies focussed around a cross-cultural encounter. The case study can be similar to “Jane’s story” (See 5.2.2) and promote the establishment of a connection between different cultures and teaching/learning styles. The trainees are invited to question “myriads of conceived values that individuals often introject and hold as their own without ever having considered their inner organismic reactions to these patterns and objects.” (Rogers 1983: 260) Their VABs manifest themselves through conscious actions and subconscious reactions, which are at least partly determined by the teachers’ cultural identity.
The trainer may decide to elicit trainees’ feelings rather than thoughts about their past experiences, different cross-cultural encounters and/or case studies and direct group discussion towards the issues of empathy and sensitivity.
At this stage a link with language awareness may be established by using culturally illuminating language awareness materials similar to Activity1 provided in section 5.2.1. Such a link will balance the introspective focus of this stage by directing trainees’ attention to the outer expressive means of the language in the cultural context.
6.2.4 Reflective-conceptualising stage
At this stage integration between different experiences and impressions may take place in a form of group discussion of the connections between classroom practices and VABs. Such group exploration can be potentially disruptive, as some trainees may feel uncomfortable about questioning their implicit cultural and methodological principles. It is important to introduce the concept and practices of co-operative development at this stage. (Edge 1992)
The theoretical context for the counselling component of the proposed scheme for professional support is derived from the works on Rogerian counselling and cross-cultural issues in counselling and TEFL. As I have mentioned before, humanistic educational principles in the Central Asian context are strongly associated with the Western democratic values. (See 3.1 and Haq 1990) The cohesion between more culturally sensitive approach to methodology, language and the culturally specific ways of teaching is therefore crucial for teacher liberalisation and development. Six Category Intervention Analysis (Heron 1985) is the core concept for the development of group work.
One of the most challenging concepts to emerge from new paradigm thinkers is that described by Heron as a state where there is full interpersonal reciprocity at each stage of the research action – where the researcher becomes co-subject and the subject becomes co-researcher. (Ledwith 1997: 103)
The preliminary analysis of the priorities of the Uzbekistani EFL teachers has shown that the teachers are more likely to shift from the traditional methods of EFL teaching than to question their negative attitude to learner autonomy. The teacher training course should connect the more technical aspects of TEFL with language and cultural issues through counselling support and personal developmental activities, which will create conditions for EFL teachers to discuss their new teaching experience.
At the beginning of the stage the trainee teachers are most likely to raise their awareness of the following problems and issues:
• technical difficulties of conducting activity-based classes;
• psychological insecurity due to diminishing power distance;
• awareness of their own personal and professional weaknesses;
• lack of cultural, methodological and language sensitivity to the BANA culture.
As the training procedure has an important ideological implication for the trainee teachers. At this stage the trainees will sharpen their perception of themselves, target culture and the problems of culture sensitisation of EFL students. By directing trainees towards specific outcomes, the teacher trainer will have to reinforce cross-curricular links between culture sensitising and other three components of the course. Depending on the particular focus of the course, the teacher trainer may provide a theoretical input in the following areas:
• cultural dimensions and Trompenaars’ analytical framework (See 3.2.1);
• correlation between human psyche and culture (See 3.1.1 and 3.1.2);
• culture-specific BANA methodology of TEFL (See 4.1);
• Six Category Intervention Analysis (Heron 1985, Underhill 2000);
• action research (Nunan 1990, Edge 1993) and classroom cultures;
• EFL teacher’s self-development.
The trainee teachers start working on the “product” of the culture sensitising component at the end of this stage. This product may take the form of:
• designing culture sensitising activities for EFL students;
• writing culture sensitising EFL materials or adapting the existing materials for culture sensitising purposes;
• developing guidelines for raising EFL students/teachers’ cultural awareness;
• developing culture sensitising mentoring procedures (on INSET course).
According to Paul Freire, “education is politics” (Freire 1976) and this connection becomes even more conspicuous in this stage of the teacher training course. Many Uzbekistani trainee teachers may perceive the connection between person-centred methodology and target culture and language as a challenge to their cultural identity, social ideology and personal values. (See 2.1.2 and Haq 1990) Nevertheless, the connection between language awareness, methodological, developmental and culture sensitising components of the course can facilitate a compromise between the trainees’ VABs and the new learning and teaching models.
6.2.5 Conceptualising-transformational stage
At this stage cross-cultural and psychological issues in the EFL classroom should be focussed upon and worked with. The trainee teachers work in groups or individually on the culture sensitising activities or other “product”. Depending on the duration and focus of the course they may be classified into the following categories:
• Subject-specific. Trainees may design activities for the subjects they teach, such as Conversation, Analytical Reading, Grammar, Stylistics, Phonetics, Methodology and so on. Some subjects, like Conversation or Analytical Reading are by nature more culturally loaded than Phonetics and Grammar. A language awareness model (James and Garrett 1991, Bolitho 1998, Wright and Bolitho 1993), however, can be successfully applied for designing culture sensitising activities.
• Dimension-specific. Activities may be designed to explore particular cultural dimensions identified by Trompenaars (See 3.2.1) or Hoefstede (Hoefstede 1991) Activity 4 (See 5.2.2) is focussed on the exploration of the Specific-Diffuse dimension of the host and target cultures.
• Area-specific. Activities can be designed to tackle one or several areas of TEFL, such as cultural codes of the BANA countries, culture-specific learning styles, the learner’s personal development, culture-specific discoursal styles and so on. Thus, Activity 2 (5.2.1) is primarily focussed on cultural codes, Activity 1 (5.2.1) concerns codes and discoursal styles, Activity 3 (5.2.2) explores codes and learning/teaching styles and so on.
• Model-specific. Activities can be developed in view of one of the learning models (See 5.1) and focussed on the processing of information, social interaction or personal development. As I have argued, the three types of models should be regarded in a continuum, involving exploration of behaviours, thoughts, feeling and implicit cultural assumptions in relation to TEFL.
At the same time trainees should deepen their understanding of the target culture as well as of the principles of culture sensitisation. The developmental bias of the course should be made more explicit and as the trainees continue working on their product, they should also receive and practice some forms of counselling. For the Uzbekistani context the crucial problem is not a lack of information about cultural differences, but the lack of understanding of the meaning of these differences. Sensitivity to other cultures is a fairly new concept and the demand of unconditional acceptance can be very disturbing for the teachers brought up in traditional, especially Muslim families. Under these circumstances the shift of attitude towards more tolerant and conscious cross-cultural and social communication, backed up by understanding of relative nature of one’s own cultural assumptions would be regarded as a necessary element of the trainees’ awareness. Another important implication of the session is negotiation of the strategies and methods of resolving cultural issues in a mixed group, which makes trainees actually practise acceptance at least for the sake of successful communication in the training room.
At the end of this stage trainees have an opportunity to “practice what they preach”(Wallace 1991: 18) and “reflect while doing” (Underhill 2000), by running micro-teaching sessions and actually trying their activities in the classroom (for INSET course). These sessions may be more or less focussed on culture sensitisation, but an attempt should be made to incorporate culture sensitising component into all activities and practices in the classroom at least to a certain degree. Action research methods should be linked with the trainees’ reflection on their VABs, as “those upon the teaching ray will learn to teach by teaching…provided it is accompanied by deep love, personal yet at the same time impersonal for those who are to be taught.”(Bailey 1971: 13)
6.2.6 Reporting stage
After micro-teaching and classroom practice trainee teachers prepare a group or individual report highlighting the main components and insights of the course and teaching practice. This report may take several different forms depending on the format of the course.
The most important component of the report is the reflection on the progress and exploration of VABs underpinning not only trainees’ teaching practices but also their personalities and personae. I am convinced that in terms of culture sensitisation of the trainee teachers the most important outcome of the course would be not only an actual change in their VABs and practices but orientation towards self-development. Teachers should be encouraged to perceive themselves as life long learners also outside their teaching career and invited to see this learning as an ongoing process. They should reflect on their cultural identity and make a commitment to refine their cultural perception, awareness and sensitivity.
“According to Freire it is impossible to have politically neutral education. Education is either domesticating or liberating.” (Ledwith 1997:67) The proposed training framework is aimed at liberation of teachers’ thinking and behaviour at different levels, enabling them to question their own VABs, and underlying cultural assumptions. Ideally the awareness of one’s self and the increasing capacity to tune in with the paideuma of the BANA culture will allow teachers to combine their roles of scholar and seeker (See 5.1.3) and will make them sensitive facilitators of EFL students’ personal, cultural and linguistic discoveries.
CONCLUSION
The study of cross-cultural encounter in Uzbekistani TEFL at tertiary level and the development of culture sensitising component for TEFL and TELT was carried out in two interlinked dimensions: professional and personal.
On the professional level I investigated into the area which only recently has attracted the serious attention of TEFL professionals and which remains almost entirely unexplored in the Uzbekistani context. The choice of the direction for the research was influenced by my awareness of the significant role the cross-cultural issues play in English language teaching and learning. In view of the objective limitations for an empirical research of the context I had to address these issues mainly from the reflective angle and relate my experience to different areas of sociology, psychology, philosophy and, of course, TEFL methodology. My experience in business, translation and EFL learning and teaching in a multicultural environment led me to the awareness of a deep connection existing between the language, culture and personality of a human being. This connection is a crucial construct for the process of learning a foreign language as it enables learners to interact with the deep levels of the target language and culture behind this language.
In this study I investigated into the nature of this construct and the interaction between learners’ culture and the target culture through English. I focussed on the innate qualities of the host and target cultures and the implications of these qualities for the EFL learning and teaching in Uzbekistani higher education. The complex connection between human beings, languages and cultures can become an object of culture sensitising EFL learning only when the deep levels of these three elements are addressed in the learning process. I suggested that culture sensitising TEFL methodology should lead to raising the learner’s language, cultural and personal awareness through assisting the learner’s exploration of his VABs and cultural patterns of the host and target culture and the ways these meanings are transmitted through English. Subsequently, the suggested framework for the development of culture sensitising component of an INSET or PRESET course aims at raising teacher’s language, cultural and personal awareness and at introducing culture sensitising methodology and activities in the Uzbekistani EFL classrooms.
On the personal level this study was not only the ends but also the means of my own personal and professional development. Apart from reflecting on my past experience from the new standpoints provided by the MEd TTELT course, I incorporated the insights and discoveries gained during the course into the process of research and writing the dissertation. As a result I not only applied the “received” training to practice, but also sharpened my vague ideas of cross-cultural encounter and placed them in the existing theoretical and methodological context. (See 1.3) The reflection on these two interwoven processes led me to a further development of my persona and personality in the context of the English language, BANA cultures and the TEFL/ TELT sub-culture in Uzbekistan. (See 1.1.3 and 1.1.4) If the practical value of this study in the macro-context still has to be verified empirically, its contribution to my personal and professional development is undeniable.
The further development of the culture sensitising methodology in the Uzbekistani TEFL and TELT context has to start with a research of the host culture and context. The Trompenaars’ analytical framework (See 3.2.1) may provide a basis for a wide scale research into the cultural dimensions of different ethnic and social groups in Uzbekistan. The prioritisation of goals and the development of strategies for the introduction of the culture sensitising methodology should be based on the research of the TEFL/TELT context through the classroom research and observation, discussions and questionnaires. (See Appendix) While I do not assume that this study will lead to revolutionary changes in the Uzbekistani TEFL at national level, I see a realistic potential for the introduction of the proposed framework as a component of an INSET or PRESET course at the institutional or departmental level in the Samarkand Institute of Foreign Languages. Ideally the culture-sensitising methodology should be also incorporated into the rationale for the curriculum development and materials writing. The alternative approach might be designing and running a short INSET course specifically focussed on culture sensitisation, although its efficiency will be significantly limited by the lack of cross-curricular links. Whatever form the actual implementation of culture sensitising methodology in TEFL/TELT might take, an appropriate feedback mechanism should be devised to enable future correction and development of the proposed framework.
By seeking ways to promote a deep communication between learners’ selves and the multiple cultures behind the English language I intended to contribute to the professional development of TEFL in the Uzbekistani context and to assist the professional, personal and spiritual development of the stakeholders of this process, beginning with myself. Ultimately, the goals, contents and methodology of the proposed framework were derived from my deep conviction that “it is the expansion of consciousness and the production of increased sensitivity and perceptive awareness which is the goal of all divine effort.” (Bailey 1971: 103)
REFERENCES
Al-Naquib al-Attas, S.M. (1971) Interview. In C. Waddy (1982) The Muslim Mind. London: Grosvenor.
Allwright, D. (1988)
Allwright, D. (1993) Integrating ‘research’ and ‘pedagogy’: appropriate criteria and practical possibilities. In J.Edge and K.Richards (1993) (Eds) Teachers Develop Teachers Research. Oxford: Heinemann.
Archer, N.P. (1980) (Ed) The Sufi Mystery. London: Octagon.
Bailey, A.A. (1971) Education in New Age. New York: Lucis Publishing Company.
Bailey, A.A. (1993) Letters on Occult Meditation. New York : Lucis Publishing Company.
Bailey, K.M.& D. Nunan (Eds) (1996) Voices from the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barth, F. (1969) (Ed) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. London: Allen &Unwin.
Barthes, R. (1992) Izbrannye Raboty. Moscow: Academkniga.
Bolitho, R (1998) Language awareness in the classroom. In English Teaching Professional. Issue 6.
Bolitho, R. and B.Tomlinson (1995) Discover English. New edition. Oxford: Heinemann.
Breen, M. P (1987) Learner contribution and task design. In C.N. Candlin and D.F. Murphy (Eds) (1987) Language Learning Tasks. Lancaster: Prentice-Hall.
Britten, D. (1988) Three stages in teacher training. In ELT Journal 42/1
Brown, R. (2000) Cultural continuity and ELT teacher training. In ELTJ 54/3
Brumfit, C. J. (1984) Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bruner, J. (1979) On Knowing. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknop.
Bruner, J. (1983) Child’s Talk. London: Oxford University Press
Bruner, J. (1986) Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. London: Harvard University Press.
Bryson, B. (1999) Why Americans don’t have the sense of humour. In The Guardian, 46.
Byram, M. (1989) Cultural Studies in Foreign Language Education. Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Candlin, C.N. (Ed) (1983) Language and Communication. London: Longman.
Candlin, C.N and D.F. Murphy (Eds) (1987) Language Learning Tasks. Lancaster: Prentice-Hall.
Candlin, C.N. (1988) Preface. In G.L.N. Robinson, (1988) Crosscultural Understanding.
Hemel Hempstead: Prentice-Hall.
Carter, R.A. (1991) Teaching Literature. New York: Longman.
Chesler, M. and R.Fox (1966) Role-playing Method in the Classroom.Chicago: Science Research Associates.
Chomsky, N. (1975) The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. New York: Plenum Press.
Collet-White, M. (2000) Uzbek President re-elected in landslide win. This Is London [online]. Available from: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/000110/1/d9r8.html. Accessed 10 January 2000
Donaldson, M. (1978) Children’s Minds. London: Fontana.
Donmall, B.G. (Ed.) (1985) Language Awareness: NCLE Reports and Papers, 6. London: CILT.
Duff, T. (Ed) (1988) Explorations in Teacher Training: Problems and Issues. London: Longman.
Eckersley (1954) Conversation in English. Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola.
Edge, J. (1992) Co-operative Development. Harlow: Longman.
Edge, J. and K.Richards (1993) (Eds) Teachers Develop Teachers Research. Oxford: Heinemann.
Edwards, A.D. (1976) language in Culture and Class. London: Heinemann.
Edwards, D. and N. Mercer (1987) Common Knowledge. London: Methuen.
Entwistle, H. (1978) Class, Culture and Education. London: Methuen.
Erickson, F.(1976) Gatekeeping encounters: a social reflection process. In P.R. Sanday (Ed) (1976) Anthropology and the Public Interest. New York: Academic Press.
Faivre, A. and J.Needleman (Eds) (1993) Modern Esoteric Spirituality. London: SCM Press.
Freeman, D. (1982) Observing teachers: three approaches to in-service training and development. In TESOL Quarterly. Vol.16/1.
Freire, P. (1976) Education: the Practice of Freedom. London: Writers & Readers.
Frobenius, L. (1932) Erlebte Erteile. Frankfurt: University of Frankfurt.
Fullan, M. (1991) 2nd Edition. The Meaning of Educational Change. London: Cassell.
Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gelpi, E. (1985) Lifelong Education and International Relations. Beckenham: Croom Helm.
Goodenough, W. (1964) Explorations in Cultural Anthropology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gordon, W.J.J. (1961) Synectics. New York: Harper and Row.
Haq, M.A. (1990) Educational Philosophy of the Holy Qur'an. Lahore: Institute of Islamic Culture.
Hawkins, E. (1984) Awareness of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heron, J. (1985) The role of reflection in a co-operative inquiry. In Boud, Keogh & Walker (Eds) (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London: Kogan Page
Hoefstede, G. (1991) Culture's Consequences. London: Sage.
Holliday, A.. (1994) Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Howard, P. (1984) The State of the Language. London: Penguin.
Hramtsov, P. (1994) Menedjment I buhgalterskiy uchet. Moscow: Elita.
Ibish, Y. (1969) Interview. In C. Waddy (1982) The Muslim Mind. London: Grosvenor.
Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.) (1960) Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
James, C. and Garrett, P. (Eds.) (1991) Language Awareness in the Classroom. London: Longman.
Joyce, B., E. Calhoun and D. Hopkins (1997) Models of Learning: Tools for Teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Karimov, I.A. (1992) UZBEKISTAN: The Road of Independence and Progress. Tashkent: Uzbekiston.
Kaushanskaya, N. (1961) Uchebnik angliiskogo jazyka. Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola.
Kennedy, C.(1987) Innovating for a change: teacher development and innovation. In ELTJ 41/3.
Kennedy, C. (Ed) (1999) Innovation and Best Practice. London: Longman.
Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Kramsch, C. (1993) Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ledwith, M. (1997) Participating in Transformation. Birmingham: Venture.
Levi-Stross, C (1983) Strukturnaya Antropologiya. Moscow: Nauka.
Medgyes, P. (1999) Epilogue: the fifth paradox: what’s the English lesson all about? In C.Kennedy (Ed) (1999) Innovation and Best Practice. London: Longman.
Nunan, D. (1993) Action research in language education. In J.Edge and K.Richards (1993) (Eds) Teachers Develop Teachers Research. Oxford: Heinemann
Parsons, T. (1952) A Sociologists’ Look at the Legal Profession. New York: Free Press.
Prodromou, L. (1992) What culture? Which culture? Cross-cultural factors in language learning. In ELTJ 46/1
Rashid, A. (2000) Taliban. Islam, Oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia. London: I.B.Tauris.
Richards, J. and D. Nunan (Eds.) (1990) Second Language Teacher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, G.L.N. (1988) Crosscultural Understanding. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice-Hall.
Rogers, C. (1969) Freedom to Learn. A View of What Education Might Be. Columbus: Merrill
Rogers, C. (1983) Freedom to Learn for the 80’s. Columbus: Merrill.
Sapir, E.(1973) Selected Writings. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Schon, D.A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Scollon, R. & S.B.K. Scollon. (1983) Face in interethnic communication. In C.N. Candlin (Ed) (1983) Language and Communication .London: Longman.
Shaftel, F. and G. Shaftel (1967) Role Playing of Social Values: Decision Making in the Social Studies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Shamim, S. (1996) In and out of action zone. In K.M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds) (1996) Voices from the Language Classroom .Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spiro, J. (1991) Assessing literature: four papers. In C.J. Brumfit (ed.) (1991) Assessment in Literature Teaching. London: MacMillan.
Steiner, R. (1971) Theosophy. New York: Anthroposophic Press.
Steiner, R. (1983) The Inner Nature of Music and the Experience of Tone. New York: Anthroposophic Press.
Stenhouse (1967) Culture and Education. London: Nelson.
Strevens, P. (Ed) (1978) In Honour of A.S. Hornby. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Strevens, P. (1978) Linguistics, language teaching, and the description of English. In P. Strevens (Ed) (1978) In Honour of A.S. Hornby. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sykes, O. (1986) A Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Thomas, J. (1983) Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. In Applied Linguistics. Vol.4 No.2.
Thomas, J. (1984) Cross-cultural discourse as ‘unequal encounter’: towards a pragmatic analysis. In Applied Linguistics. Vol.5. No 3.
Trompenaars, F. and C. Hampden-Turner (1998) Riding the Waves of Culture. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ulko, A. (1998) Cultural archetypes in Central Asia. In Valihanov Reader. (1998) Kokchetaw: Kokchetaw University.
Underhill, A. (1992) The role of groups in developing teacher self-awareness. In ELT Journal 46/1
Underhill, A. (2000) Six category intervention analysis. Mimeo.
UNDP (1998) Uzbekistan: Human Development Report. New York: UNO.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1971) Thought and Language. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Vygotsky (1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Waddy, C. (1982) The Muslim Mind. London: Grosvenor.
Wallace, M. J. (1991) Training Foreign language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Waugh, E. (1968) Brideshead Revisited. London: Penguin Books
Widdowson, H.G. (1979) Explorations in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wright, T. (1987) Roles of Teachers and Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wright, T. and R. Bolitho (1994) Language awareness; a missing link in language teacher education? In ELTJ 47/4.
Young, T.L. (1997) Leading projects. In M. Preedy (Ed) (1997) Educational Management: Strategy, Quality and Resources. Buckingham: Open University Press.
APPENDIX
QUESTIONNAIRE
CROSS-CULTURAL INTERACTION IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
This questionnaire consists of three sections. In Section 1 you are asked to reflect and answer a few questions on your own English Language Learning Experience be it at school or in the university. In Section 2 those of you who taught English at any level may want to answer similar questions on your own English Language Teaching Experience. In Section 3 the questions are focussed on your English Language User Experience with a specific emphasis on cross-cultural interaction and perception.
Section 1. EFL Learning Experience (overall impression).
1.1 How useful was your formal study of English in preparing you for the authentic contact with the native speakers? (0-useless, 5-very useful).
A: 3
B: 3
Could you suggest why?
A: The theoretical aspect (Grammar) and passive vocabulary were the corner stones of English teaching in school (maybe in MY ordinary school) - the focus on Grammar was the weak point. We didn't TALK - I don't remember any everyday and social English from my 7-year language training in secondary school. Having quite a large passive vocabulary I was afraid of simple live talking, thought too much about how to say - structure, word search.
B: Language was taught without fixed objectives, process was not systematised and too complicated, based on old fashioned and tendentious material prepared mostly not by native speakers.
1.2 Suggest three positive and three negative qualities which characterise your formal study of English.
Positive:
A: Awareness of Grammar, rich vocabulary (derived from "classical" literary texts), awareness of English and American culture and literature (in school though maybe tinted by Soviet ideology and later in University by Soviet English Grammar and other textbooks)
B: It gave rather wide basis, cramming formed a habit to learn, some bright teachers awoke interest to British culture
Negative:
A: Lack of conversational practice, "learning by heart" - texts, topics - we weren't allowed to think and create in English, limited usage of English (no goal - most students couldn't answer: what do you learn English for? Career? Why and how?!)
B: Teaching methods generally were not attractive and even monotonous and poor, no attention was paid for raising the awareness of the language (it was more than 10 years ago), motivation and compensation schemes were too primitive and not effective
1.3 Grade the match between the methods and the content of your formal study of English (0-no correspondence, 5-perfect correspondence).
A: 2
B: 3
Could you suggest why?
A: I think the CONTENT was quite OK - our textbooks are great (mostly), their ideas and structures were carefully thought of, but the methods (depending on a teacher) were sometimes absolutely irrelevant, i.e. teacher's training was insufficient and ineffective against textbook requirements.
B: Methods and contents belonged to the same school and often had been created by the same people. This is the reason for correspondence.
Section 2. EFL Teaching Experience (overall impression).
2.1 Are you, as an EFL teacher, aware of the cultural differences between your host culture (Soviet, Russian, or Uzbek etc.) and the target culture (British or American)?
A: Dead sure there are differences that are crucial for the learning of the language. That wonderful fashion term - mentality!
B: Yes
2.2 Did you find it necessary to raise your students’ awareness of this difference?
A: It's necessary as in many cases you can explain why it's like that or like this (in Grammar or Reading) only through the cultural issues. Language is culture.
B: Yes
2.3 What did or would you do to raise your students' cultural awareness of the target culture?
A: It's natural that you teach English using a lot of authentic materials (original texts, newspapers, songs, motion pictures, etc.) The teacher's concern is to select appropriate material - I'd show the students the richness and variability of literature, music, cinema (of different time periods and levels). The students should if not learn but comprehend the enormity of culture phenomena in English.
B: I pointed out at some typical situations as examples of cultural differences and compared it to relative components of our culture. Most often while watching together movies in English shot by native directors.
Section 3. EFL User Experience (overall impression)
3.1 Briefly describe the most striking difference between your perception of the target culture before and after the first illuminating contact with the authentic target culture (please state whether British or American).
A: Before discovering the "greatness" of British culture (in its synthesis of many cultures) - it was the lectures on History of English and American Literature which led me to reading Shakespeare and pre-Shakespeare literature and then much later authors, and to the wonderful immersion into English as a live rich language and culture - my English learning was somehow mechanical, based on cultural stereotypes and the same boring topics on English meals, English character, biography of Bernard Shaw and so on… Nevertheless before literature in my childhood I encountered English and American music (The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Smokie) and this culture existed in me separately, not connected with formal learning.
B: It was a hello error. Before I had been thinking that target culture could permit to express your personality and would respect this expression. After I realised that this respect was not always conscious but formal, and referred to tradition of following certain rules. Though rules were more reasonable than in our culture. Of course target culture was much less rude than my native one. In my perception this part still remains constant and unchanged.
3.2 Are you aware of your different "role" in the context of English discourse as compared to your own culture? Briefly describe the difference.(e.g. In my role of English-speaker I am more casual/formal/aristocratic/loose etc....)
A: As an Engish-speaker I feel more confident, my speech is more logical and structured. Sometimes it seems easier to speak and write in English as it's easier to find relevant and exact words and express ideas. I'm rather more formal in English and besides, it's a bit difficult for me express emotions and feelings.
B: I believe in the existence of “International English language”, which exists autonomously, without direct reference to British or American culture, though affected by both of them. Like Greek language which existed in Roman empire was very distant from Classic Greek or Latin, being influenced not only by them, but by Germanic, by Celtic, by Aramaic or Egyptian. I brushed it up after years of joint work with English speakers who did not belonged to Anglo-Saxon community (including honourable Scots, Eire and Wales guys, even if they would be against it). This language definitely has its content, grown on basic English with more simple pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary. At the same time it is very informative and serves different communication processes like business, cultural contacts, etc. Very often it is influenced by the native language of a speaker. It is high time to accept the idea of such language, when more foreigners speak English now than native speakers. So when I speak English actually I do not correspond myself to any level of British or American society, but to “citizens of the world”, though Oykumena uses English language today. Is it crazy?
3.3 What aspects or components of the target culture do you find easiest to relate to? Most difficult to relate to?
Easy:
A: Literature ("classic" and the newest ), music, social communication
B: To smile more often, to demonstrate good will
Difficult:
A: Way of thinking, life style, convergence and development of cultures
B: To smile more often ( due to dental problems). Seriously - to grow inside myself a custom of sincere respect to others, to stop expression of bad energies
3.4 In the light of your EFL User Experience what advice on cross-cultural issues would you give to less experienced learners of English?
A: Language is an integral part of culture - you cannot cumprehend how the language works and lives without knowing the people and its culture. Learning English through authentic sources you will have to learn also the culture.
B: 1. To use all existing channels to receive information concerning Language:
Movies (in English, with subtitles or parallel translation), books, magazines, music. Movies are very useful for they give the opportunity to learn what to say in typical situations.
2. To use all possibilities to communicate with English speakers( it should be people with different from you native language)
3. To attend English lessons regularly. The custom to learn is very important.
Without all three types of activities the immersion will not be complete.
It will not be in contradiction with the above: to learn it easier in the native English countries.
Culture-Sensitising Methodology for ELT
© Copyright: Àëåêñåé Óëüêî, 2008
Ñâèäåòåëüñòâî î ïóáëèêàöèè ¹208080300166
Ñâèäåòåëüñòâî î ïóáëèêàöèè ¹208080300166
Ðåöåíçèè