It's been a few years since TESOL hit the forty mark. The issues, though, is still very relevant to the present situation.
There are at least two main takeaways for me from Canagajarah's (2006) article. First, the notion on metanarratives and descriptivism. Second, the critical aspect of language teaching and learning.
Since starting my PhD, I have been fortunate to have at least one classmate whom I have academic disputes with. Several weeks back, he brought up the subject of prescriptivism and descriptivism, as they were related to his PhD thesis. What I learned from him was that, in spite of our efforts to be descriptive in our approaches to teaching a language, we end up prescribing the description. Canagarajah (2006) echoes this concern in his discussion on TESOL's metanarratives. Throughout the history of language teaching, language educators have been documenting processes and decisions involved in their pedagogic practice. Whether the processes or decisions were appropriate is another issue. But the mere documentation, or description, would render it prescriptive. This may lead to the formation of more rules for language learners and teachers. This seems like an inescapable cycle (of death?), instead of a linear progression. I thought the perspectives of the world, at least in the field of TESOL, have become increasingly in favor of constructivism, moving away from positivism. This is still a persisting dilemma, with the rationale that total freedom of meaning-making would create chaos. Regardless, the doubt cast over prescriptivism, or rules, have liberated teachers and students to not set their eyes on the objectives of a certain prescription, but to develop more wholly - parallel to the encompassing nature of language in a real context.
I first heard of a critical approach to teaching language when I studied my first TESOL class many years back. It was linked with Freire's approach, called the Participatory Approach. This approach sees learning as a liberating process, wherein learners are given the chance to improve their livelihood through the learning of a language. It was many years after that course did I hear about Critical Language Teaching again. I must say I am still skeptical to the efficacy of this approach, as a language teacher has many expectations to meet in the language classroom, and time constraints may not permit a critical discussion of issues. However, I do believe that Critical Language Teaching is valuable for those who believe in learners becoming autonomous and sensitive. Basically, Critical Language Teaching takes world issues seriously. Issues pertaining to people, the environment, politics, economics, and so forth are discussed in a critical manner. This approach may bear the semblance of critical thinking such as analyzing, differentiating, opinionating, and so forth. But, it goes beyond the analytical aspect by bringing in real, social issues which are relevant to the current living context.
From: Canagarajah, A. S, TESOL at Forty: Where are the Issues? TESOL, 2006.
There are at least two main takeaways for me from Canagajarah's (2006) article. First, the notion on metanarratives and descriptivism. Second, the critical aspect of language teaching and learning.
Since starting my PhD, I have been fortunate to have at least one classmate whom I have academic disputes with. Several weeks back, he brought up the subject of prescriptivism and descriptivism, as they were related to his PhD thesis. What I learned from him was that, in spite of our efforts to be descriptive in our approaches to teaching a language, we end up prescribing the description. Canagarajah (2006) echoes this concern in his discussion on TESOL's metanarratives. Throughout the history of language teaching, language educators have been documenting processes and decisions involved in their pedagogic practice. Whether the processes or decisions were appropriate is another issue. But the mere documentation, or description, would render it prescriptive. This may lead to the formation of more rules for language learners and teachers. This seems like an inescapable cycle (of death?), instead of a linear progression. I thought the perspectives of the world, at least in the field of TESOL, have become increasingly in favor of constructivism, moving away from positivism. This is still a persisting dilemma, with the rationale that total freedom of meaning-making would create chaos. Regardless, the doubt cast over prescriptivism, or rules, have liberated teachers and students to not set their eyes on the objectives of a certain prescription, but to develop more wholly - parallel to the encompassing nature of language in a real context.
I first heard of a critical approach to teaching language when I studied my first TESOL class many years back. It was linked with Freire's approach, called the Participatory Approach. This approach sees learning as a liberating process, wherein learners are given the chance to improve their livelihood through the learning of a language. It was many years after that course did I hear about Critical Language Teaching again. I must say I am still skeptical to the efficacy of this approach, as a language teacher has many expectations to meet in the language classroom, and time constraints may not permit a critical discussion of issues. However, I do believe that Critical Language Teaching is valuable for those who believe in learners becoming autonomous and sensitive. Basically, Critical Language Teaching takes world issues seriously. Issues pertaining to people, the environment, politics, economics, and so forth are discussed in a critical manner. This approach may bear the semblance of critical thinking such as analyzing, differentiating, opinionating, and so forth. But, it goes beyond the analytical aspect by bringing in real, social issues which are relevant to the current living context.
From: Canagarajah, A. S, TESOL at Forty: Where are the Issues? TESOL, 2006.
Comments