HERDSA 1996: Conlan - linguistic and cultural sensitivities - course designs

Linguistic and cultural sensitivities in relation to course designs and implementation in the foreign language teaching context

Francis Conlan
Department of Language Studies
Edith Cowan University

To what extent does cultural background and the language of instruction influence the students' ability to absorb ideas/concepts and what are the practical implications for the course deliverer in a foreign language teaching setting?
In such a context should ideas/concepts be taught using the target language as the medium of instruction or should the lecturer satisfy himself that important concepts have been properly understood by relying on using a common language to explain them during class time? By extension this paper touches upon the question of the extent to which responsibility for learning (specifically grasping concepts) should lie with the self-regulated learner, ie in the situation where the course presenter is seen as a resource to be used to guide students in terms of their identifying what is important and what isn't in a course of instruction and to be approached when seeking feedback after students have themselves grappled with new concepts. Consequently the role of the educator is brought into focus.
There is a need to establish the aims of foreign language courses. Do they exist to impart a working knowledge of the language or to impart a knowledge of the workings of the language? The link between the course aims and the multicultural classroom setting forms the basis for this paper.

The dilemma

Discovering the optimum way of designing and delivering a course of instruction in a foreign language is a question fraught with almost innumerable variables in terms of target group composition (the students) and the myriad of possibilities relating to heterogeneity in that regard as well as distinct (albeit with areas of common overlap) methodologies. These two factors, ie class composition and choice of appropriate (effective) teaching methodology, must be examined both separately and then together to determine what course design and what mode of delivery of instruction will be most appropriate for a particular class in a particular year.

Students of different cultural backgrounds have different inherent expectations in relation to teaching. Would their expectations lead to dissatisfaction with a course or course presenter due to the adoption of a particular teaching methodology? Indeed are certain language concepts better absorbed by students of a particular cultural background? Further, can certain concepts be better understood by students when the course presenter uses the target language and clear examples to teach or are such concepts in the target language better understood when explanations are delivered using an existing common language as the medium of instruction? Is any group of students advantaged/disadvantaged as the result of a course presenter's choice of the language to be used as the medium of instruction? The dilemma faced is that of striking a balance between the expectations of variant groups within the student corpus while ensuring that the important aspects of the target language have been understood. Specifically, in the latter regard, the ever-present question of the juxtaposition of a working knowledge of the target language and an understanding of the workings of the target language must be considered.

Internationalisation of classes and equity

As campuses across Australia become "internationalised" voices denying the need to operate within a cross-cultural setting, that is, to devise cross-cultural curricula, become increasingly isolated. In the area of foreign language teaching acknowledgment and recognition of the abundance of ethnocentric values within current curricula are nothing new. It has always been known by the course presenter with the job of introducing another means of coding experience (ie the language teacher) that the effect of ethnocentricity forms a central pillar in the minds of many students. When faced with a question such as "How do you say 'thank you' in Japanese?" or "Give me the target language equivalent of such and such" the language teacher immediately encounters in his students this in-built and perhaps unconscious linguistic and/or cultural ethnocentricity.

In a time and age when university teaching staff are being exposed to government documents which espouse national equity objectives which incorporate strategies such as "cross-cultural awareness" and "multi-cultural curriculum development" (DEET 1990, p38) the problem of addressing equity issues becomes more acute as foreign language classes become increasingly heterogeneous in composition. This could be, for example, because students of Chinese extraction who are familiar with the kanji (Chinese character) script are seen to be in an advantageous position in terms of learning written Japanese.

Linguistic and cultural sensitivities and teaching methodologies

While grappling with equity issues the foreign language teacher must be aware of both linguistic and cultural sensitivities in diverse student bodies when designing and teaching foreign language programs. The choice and usage of the language to be used as the medium of instruction highlight the need to be aware of linguistic and cultural sensitivities in the foreign language classroom. Will the choice of instruction in the common language versus the target language advantage/disadvantage any group? What will be the degree of accuracy employed when using the medium of instruction?

The now almost universally embraced communicative approach to foreign language teaching places emphasis on a student's ability to function/operate in a given social setting and does not concern itself with imparting an analytical understanding of the workings of the target language. Using the target language wherever possible during instruction in the classroom can facilitate the students' absorption of the target language as a result of immersion in the new linguistic environment but it can also inhibit natural inquiry and the students' ability to fathom or absorb foreign concepts. Such absorption of foreign language expression without an understanding of the theoretical basis upon which it rests has practical implications for the students themselves and therefore, indirectly, for the course designer/deliverer also. A question that arises here is "Will future teachers of the foreign language require an understanding of the workings of the language being studied or will a working knowledge of the foreign language be all that is required?" Certain overseas students might have expectations of the course in terms of analysing expressions and understanding structures and grammar and be culturally inhibited in terms of seeking to display facility in the spoken language.

Linguistic sensitivities and course delivery

Linguistic sensitivity in terms of acknowledging the correctness of unusual interpretations of language is sometimes as necessary as being aware of cultural sensitivity in terms of the position of those who misinterpret. The "lateral thinking" of some students should not draw rebuke or belittlement. The course presenter should be sensitive enough to listen to what the students in question are telling him - perhaps that is that he should be more accurate in his use of language when presenting lessons/assessment tasks.

Davies (1991) tackles the issue of accuracy as follows:

Much of the argument (criticism) about correctness is in reality about the lack of correctness... better considered as a lack of precision, an inability to write what you mean......

With the widespread adoption of the communicative approach to foreign language teaching the role of "accuracy" or "pedantic accuracy" and its importance is being questioned and re-evaluated. How important is it? Is it essential? Is it so very important given that native speakers of languages communicate freely with inaccuracies in their speech which sometimes are shunned by non-native speakers?

With foreign language teaching we are now at the crossroads in terms of reviewing the role of 'correctness' in language and must acknowledge that there are two opposing schools of thought in relation to the 'correctness' arguments - the first of which belongs to the serious prescriptivists while the second is that of the complaints lobby which typically focuses on the "table manners aspect of language use". Simon (1980) asserts that "if you continue to use 'between you and I' instead of 'between you and me' there will soon be no more communication between you and me". The challenge here is to establish which school of thought this attitude represents.

Cultural sensitivities and chauvinism

In terms of sensitivity in relation to the cultural background of students in the multi-cultural language classroom setting, an understanding of the motivation for study and the perceived roles of educator/learner are essential. Notwithstanding individual differences, it is generally the case that overseas and Australian students will have different approaches to study. They will study with different motives, different desires in terms of course outcomes and different expectations concerning course delivery. Hogan (1996) outlines the case of a Nepali student who studied in an Australian course not designed to cater for the student's needs after returning home. This student returned to his lecturing position in Nepal and attempted to introduce group work into his classroom, only to be accused of 'not teaching'. This incident underscores the need to avoid "cultural chauvinism", that is, the attitude that "we do it this way and it works for us - you should learn it and apply it back in your country" when designing courses of instruction. Ladyshewsky (1996) contends that the Western approach to learning is fundamentally different to the Eastern approach.

Chang (1995) contrasts the Western individual's need for independence with the East Asian students' approach to individuation - a process influenced by Confucianism and one which rewards "approval" and "group harmony". Students from such a background are hesitant to put themselves in a position where they are expected to take responsibility for their individual actions. The question of the extent to which each party to the language education process should carry responsibility for learning (especially grasping concepts) is brought into focus. Is it indeed reasonable to seek to foster the rearing of self-regulated language learners in the multi-cultural context?

Target language instruction

Amongst both Western and Eastern students the degree of enthusiasm for conducting lessons almost exclusively in the target language depends on a number of factors, including the individual's degree of facility in that language. The inherent danger factor here is separating the "able" and "other" students and linguistically isolating the latter. Those students who have not achieved fluency to the extent that they feel comfortable operating in the target language tend to ask for explanations in the common language otherwise they get "lost". On the other hand students with a working knowledge of the target language can be completely at home communicating in that language in much the same way as a native speaker. Again, however, like a native speaker, they might be ignorant of, and quite at a loss to explain, the rules of the language. In particular students who have spent some time in a country where the target language is spoken may have picked up some terrible speech habits along with their fluency and confidence in speaking. Bright and McGregor (1975) indicate that, in this situation, the axiom "We learn from our mistakes" is as far from the truth as one can get. In the foreign language learning context, students "do not learn from their mistakes: they learn their mistakes". Whether students have a degree of facility in the target language or not, the observation by Reid, Forrestal and Cook (1987) that students who have had the opportunity to talk their way to an understanding of the point at hand in a small group are more confident in expressing an idea to a larger group, bears relevance. It should be noted that this observation presumably is only true if the opportunity to talk their way to an understanding of the point at hand is not only presented by the course controller but also taken up by foreign language learners. Hess (1991) cautions that not only a student's willingness to talk in class but his willingness to talk in the target language needs to be monitored. "Even highly motivated students slip into their native language as soon as the central teacher-controlled framework disappears."

Common vs target language: Case study

I return now to a question posed at the beginning of this paper concerning the language used as the medium of instruction, viz "Can certain concepts be better understood by students when the course presenter uses the target language and clear examples to teach or are such concepts in the target language better understood when explanations are delivered using an existing common language as the medium of instruction?"

Just as in English we have a distinction in the usage of the terms is/are, so too in Japanese there is a distinction between the "equivalent" verbs 'to be', imasu/arimasu. If we expect the students to be self-regulated, i.e. to overtly take some responsibility for learning (specifically in this case grasping a new concept) and to have the situation where the course presenter is used for feedback after students initially grapple with the new teaching material/concept - then it would be incumbent upon the lecturer to offer examples of the usages of 'imasu' and 'arimasu' which demonstrate the distinction drawn.

If the course presenter feels he can't impart an understanding of the concept in question economically using the target language, then the language of instruction should change to whatever is deemed to be a common language in the classroom and the role of the educator becomes critical in explaining.

Would the incorrect choice of imasu/arimasu be necessarily considered so important? Although Bloomfield (1972) seems to have thought that linguistically speaking mistakes were of no interest the fact is that our endeavour as foreign language teachers is, as enunciated by Davies (1991), always "to provide a facility in the standard language (dialect), spoken and written." As the case study in question indicates, the linguistic means of providing that facility (the language of the medium of instruction) does influence, or have bearing on, the students' ability to absorb ideas/concepts.

References

Australian Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET) (1990). A fair chance for all. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Bloomfield, L. (1972). Literate and illiterate. Speech reprinted in Hockett, C.F., A Leonard Bloomfield Anthology. University of Chicago Press. 1970. p.84-90.

Bright, J. A. and McGregor. (1975). Knowledge vs skill. Article in Teaching English as a Second Language. London: Longman.

Chang, S. (1995). In seminar "Cross-Cultural Counselling" presented at School of Psychology, Curtin University of Technology. .

Davies, Alan (1991). Correctness in English. In Makham Tickoo (Ed), Languages and Standards: Issues, Attitudes, Case Studies. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. p.56.

Hess, Natalie (1991). Headstarts, one hundred original pretext activities. Singapore: Longman Singapore Publishers.

Hogan, C. (1996). What is the extent of responsibilities of universities to prepare overseas students to return to their home countries? In Abbott, J. and Willcoxson, L. (Eds), Teaching and Learning Within and Across Disciplines, p83-91. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, Murdoch University, February 1996. Perth: Murdoch University. http://cea.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1996/hoganch.html

Ladyshewsky, R. (1996). Cross cultural clinical supervision/education: The SE Asian experience. In Abbott, J. and Willcoxson, L. (Eds), Teaching and Learning Within and Across Disciplines, p99-104. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, Murdoch University, February 1996. Perth: Murdoch University. http://cea.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1996/ladyshewsky2.html

Reid, Forrestal & Cook. (1987). Small group work in the classroom. Perth: Education Department of Western Australia.

Simon, J. (1980). Paradigms lost: Reflections on literacy and its decline. New York: C. Potter.

Smith, L. (1991). Standards in world Englishes. In Makham Tickoo (Ed), Languages and Standards: Issues, Attitudes and Case Studies. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Author: Francis Conlan, Lecturer in Japanese
Department of Language Studies, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia
Fax: +61 9 370 6593 Email: F.Conlan@cowan.edu.au

Please cite as: Conlan, F. (1996). Linguistic and cultural sensitivities in relation to course designs and implementation in the foreign language teaching context. Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education. Proceedings HERDSA Conference 1996. Perth, Western Australia, 8-12 July. http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/conlan.html

[ HERDSA ] [ Proceedings Contents ]
This URL: http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/conlan.html
Created 27 June 2001. Last revision: 23 May 2002.
© Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Inc