You won’t find “TEGCOM” as a field of study when you update your FaceBook profile, but perhaps you may…one of these days. In their 2002 article “Appropriating English, expanding the field: From TESOL to teaching English for glocalized communication (TEGCOM),” Lin, Wang, Akamatsu, and Riazi (2002) find common threads in their collective life-stories to suggest a way of viewing English as an International Language, revisioning TESOL as Teaching English as a Glocalized Communication.”
And, chances are, Word will claim “glocalized” is misspelled.
The authors – all EFL learners of English – arrived in Canada, confident in their English-speaking competence. Wendy explains how, after learning English in China, where she was viewed (and viewed herself) as “+English,” she became “-English” upon arriving in Canada and realizing her English was “marked” (303). This concept of feeling as if one’s additional language has moved from beneficial status to negative is echoed by the three other narratives. Therefore, Lin et al. (2002) propose approaching TESOL pedagogy from a local perspective, situating the instruction within the context of the student/language-learning/native community. Thus, English becomes a tool of global communication, taught locally within context, erasing the binary of “native” and “non-native” speaker.
I’m not sure why I was surprised to read – again – that I am in the minority. The majority of speakers of English have acquired the language as an additional language. It is my L1, and, frankly, my only language if you do not count my limited grammatical competence with Spanish (and my next-to-nil pragmatic competence). What also strikes me as interesting – and disheartening – is that this paradigm shift, from English as a second language to English as a tool of global communication taught in local context, is not moving very quickly. Lin et al.’s article was written 11 years ago. Over a decade. Why haven’t we heard of TEGOM until now? Why is this shift not recognized in the pedagogy? Or, is the theoretical shift mired in the muck? What can WE do about it?
McKay and Bokhorst-Heng’s Chapter 7 discusses this point as well, only without introducing the shift in terminology to accompany the shift in vantage point. They do discuss EIL pedagogy, however, after they examine ELT materials in other communities. Interesting to note is that some of these materials, even though approved by the Ministry of Education, promote Western values even though the official community’s stance is an anti-Western one (example of Japan, pp. 186-7). McKay and Bokhorst-Heng’s point is that ELT materials and methods in Outer and Expanding Circle countries often create tensions between local values/beliefs and global “standards,” in addition to Othering the students learning from those textbooks and methods. Echoing Lin et al.’s (2002) term “glocalization” with TESOL becoming TEGCOM, McKay and Bokhorst-Heng call for a hybrid method of teaching English as a global language taught within local contexts. They propose “principles for a socially sensitive EIL pedagogy:”
• “EIL curricula should be relevant to the domains in which English is used in the particular learning contexts.” This is the “local context” part, the principle that Lin et al. (2002) also underscore with their concept that, instead of being informed by Inner Circle communities, pedagogy needs to be informed by local knowledge (307).
• “EIL professionals should strive to alter language policies that serve to promote English learning only among the elite of the country.” If we agree that English as a global language can open doors for members of a global society, all members should have the opportunity to walk through those doors, not just those of higher economic backgrounds.
• “EIL curricula should include examples of the diversity of English varieties used today.” All varieties of English are equal, fluid, and hybrid.
• “EIL curricula need to exemplify L2-L2 interactions.” This is a good point, and another interesting revelation regarding EIL materials. More L2-L2 interactions occur in English than L1-L2 interactions. Materials need to reflect actuality.
• “Full recognition needs to be given to the other languages spoken by English speakers.” One of the narratives in Lin et al. (2002) discusses how learning English in her native country involved code-switching, that the instructor encouraged this practice. ELT professionals need to value other languages as a “plus” and not a “minus.” Code-switching is a valuable tool for language learners in learning/using English as well as in maintaining the students’ other languages.
• “EIL should be taught in a way that respects the local culture of learning.” The culture of learning in Inner Circle countries should not be imposed upon the ELT practices in other communities. There is no one “learning culture” that is “correct.”
Written later than Lin, et al. (2002), the chapter in McKay and Bokhorst-Heng (2008) does not use “TEGCOM” as a replacement for “TESOL.” Why not? And, how long until we see a more glocalized vision of TESOL in the theoretical literature? Not soon enough, as we all know how long it takes theory to trickle to the classroom. So, then, I propose it is up to us.
No comments:
Post a Comment