Critique on “Developing Intercultural Competence in the Language Classroom”

Critique on “Developing Intercultural Competence in the Language Classroom”

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Sunday, May 24, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 172

“The person who learns language without learning culture risks becoming a fluent fool” (Bennett, Bennett, & Allen, 2003). And if this sentence is extended to the learning of literature, we can fully encase the dimension of culture learning for a better understanding of those others who speak the language that is being acquired. For this, “intercultural competence refers to the general ability to transcend ethnocentrism, appreciate other cultures, and generate appropriate behavior in one or more different cultures” (Bennett, Bennett, & Allen, 2003) and in its literature, which is part of their cultural heritage.

What Bennett, Bennett, & Allen (2003) propose is that culture must be “at the core of the language curriculum.” Based on their model, called the Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity, culture understanding rests on six discernible stages “that can be explained by principles of constructivism.” These stages were labeled by Bennett, Bennett, & Allen (2003) as denial, defense, minimization, acceptance, adaptation, and integration. And curriculum design should aim at working on culture teaching and comprehension throughout these six developmental stages differently but coherently since these can be linked to language development phases.

For Bennett, Bennett, & Allen (2003) there is a culture learning journey for learners, who are guided by their instructor, from a Stage I linked to the early-novice language learner all the way to Stage III connected to the late-advanced language student. As the authors admit, these stages in language development are not necessarily a reflection of culture understanding since an early-advanced language learner can be in a defense level. In addition to this observation, educators are confronted with the fact that culture-awareness activities must be designed and developed in accordance to cultural sensitivity. It is a shame that these authors did not go beyond in their explanation on how literature can be used in a culture curriculum design that can help students develop culture sensitivity.

If “it is the apprehension of this subjective culture –temporarily ‘looking at the world through different eyes’- that underlies the development of intercultural competence” (Bennett, Bennett, & Allen, 2003), literature can be greatly exploited in the classroom and vastly appreciated and enjoyed by learners in very specific levels of their culture and language training. Literature can be a way to move students from ethnocentric stages towards more ethnorelative ones, which could help students take great pleasure in novels, poetry, drama, and short stories written in the target language.

Bennett, J., Bennett, M., & Allen, W. (2003). Developing intercultural competence in the language classroom. In D. L.

Lange & R. M. Paige (Eds.), Culture as the core: Perspectives on culture in second language learning. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Developing Intercultural Competence in the Language Classroom by Jonathan Acuña

Critique on “The Possibilities of Paraphrase in the Teaching of Literary Idiom”

Critique on “The Possibilities of Paraphrase in the Teaching of Literary Idiom”

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Sunday, May 10, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 171

If Carter (1986) proposed the usage of Labov’s linguistic narrative model to be used in the teaching of narratives, the question regarding poetry and its teaching is still in the air. Can paraphrasing be used to teach the literary idiom in poetry? Nash (1986) proposes the use of paraphrase in the teaching of literary idiom as a way to create a better connection between the reader and the text.

For Wilbur (quoted by Nash, 1986), there is no way of paraphrasing poetic creations in English. Based on Wilbur’s comment, Nash (1986) comments that “paraphrases of the kind suggested here [in Wilbur’s eyes] do not bring a poem more firmly into our possession, and may even mislead us if we rely on them as a form of explanation and commentary.” It is quite understandable that paraphrasing the English classic poets, even when they are translated, there is a great loss in features in their ars poetica.

For Nash (1986), however, “paraphrase may have no critical status, may be utterly ludicrous as an account of what the poem is and does, but it can still be the step that initiates a sophisticated response to language.” And, in order to produce this response, Nash proposes the following: The instructor should begin with (1) proverbs re-phrased since they account for “explanatory/interpretative” poetic language in regular speech, (2) explanatory and mimetic paraphrase that can somehow produce a comic/satirical result, and (3) rewriting prose passages, something that Nash does not explored in his paper. Mostly of what is presented in term of paraphrase is connected to poetry but no narrative prose.

“One well-known feature (…) of literary texts is that while they may intensively state a case, they also have the inherent power to illuminate a universe of parallels, analogies, and variants” (Nash, 1986). If this universe can be illuminated, the possibility to explore poets’ ars poetica is infinite; student comprehension can be well-fostered and strengthened so learners can enjoy literature by mirroring themselves in the lines of what is being read, like in Lacan’s mirror metaphor for literature (Bruss, 1981).

Richard Wilbur stated that “it ought to be impossible satisfactorily to separate ‘ideas’ from their ‘embodiment’” (Nash, 1986), and he could be right. But when it comes to working with non-native speakers, paraphrase can be a great asset for the literature class. If we teachers can have students relate to the text by means of an aesthetic response rather than an efferent one, a better comprehension is now open in front of the literature student’s eyes: Poetry is indeed accessible for anyone.

Bruss, N. (1981), Lacan & Literature. The Massachusetts Review. Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring 1981). pp. 62-92. Retrieved on 2015, April 2, 2015 from the Jstor webpage at http://www.jstor.org/stable/25089121

Carter, R. (1986). Linguistic Models, Language, and Literariness: Study strategies in the teaching of literature to foreign students. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP

Nash, W. (1986). The Possibilities of Paraphrase in the Teaching of Literary Idiom. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP

171 the Possibilities of Paraphrase in the Teaching of Literary Idiom by Jonathan Acuña

Mind Maps or Conceptual Maps

Mind Maps or Conceptual Maps

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Saturday, May 9, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 170

Though the concept of mind mapping is not new in education, its value for student development of knowledge cannot be questioned. Defined as “a type of graphic organizer used to help students organize and represent knowledge of a subject” (Inspiration.Com, n.d.), mind maps are a need to help students systematize their readings, their presentations, and their research projects. Mind Mapping has become a great way to have learners focus on what the core information on a text is.

          Professionally speaking, I cannot state the fact that I have gotten into any trouble while working on mind-mapping with learners, but I must suggest other alternative ways I have used before in my university courses. “Mind maps reflect, -based on scientific observation of brain cell’s dendrites-, the way human beings store information in their long-term memory” (Acuña, 2012, September). Based on this premise, students can develop mind-mapping projects in online platforms such as Mindomo.Com, a webpage that allows them to create state-of-the-art maps with pictures, videos and links. For those who like to use Google Drive, among the apps available to be added, Mind Mups is a great option to create simple but eye-catching works.

          Cmaps, the one option presented by Prof. Fressie Aguilar, one I must admit had not seen or used before, seems to be a good option for people who do not have access to the Internet at all times. Since it is locally run in one’s computer hard drive, it is a good working tool for teaching professionals who also require students to produce their own mind-maps or who need to create maps to present concept relations to their students. Downloadable from http://cmap.ihmc.us/, the tool has great potential for instructors to create a nice and neat maps for their current or future students, or to engage them in the production of their own concept maps.

          As mentioned before, the use of mind maps is something I constantly address with my university students. As a professional in education, I highly recommend other instructors to use a mind-mapping tool to have learners submit brainstorms or outlines for speeches or research projects to help them focus on what it is really important for their presentations or papers. Additionally, mind maps can become a great tool for students to summarize information in connection to partial or final examinations.

Acuña, J. (2012, Sept.). Mind Maps as Vocabulary Enhancers: Three Useful Tools to Explore. Retrieved on 2015, May 9 from the Reflective Online Teaching webpage at http://reflective-online-teaching.blogspot.com/2012/09/mind-maps-as-vocabulary-enhancers.html

Florida Institute for Human & Machine Cognition. (2014). Cmaps [Software]. Available at http://cmap.ihmc.us/

Inspiration Software Inc. (n.d.). Teaching and Learning with Concept Maps. Retrieved on 2015, May 9 from the Inspiration Software webpage at http://www.inspiration.com/visual-learning/concept-mapping

Mind Maps or Conceptual Maps by Jonathan Acuña

CmapTools Tutorial by Jonathan Acuña

Critique on “Linguistic Models, Language, and Literariness”

Critique on “Linguistic Models, Language, and Literariness”

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Saturday, May 9, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 169

“Language and literature are separate systems or phenomena” (Carter, 1986), but there is no reason why linguistics-borrowed models cannot help the reader/learner to better comprehend literary texts and their literariness. Carter (1986) also argues that “linguistic models provide the best means of sensitization to and acquisition of the relevant procedures” that can help teachers organize their teaching of literature to guide their pupils to grasp the meaning being conveyed in narratives.

How can literature be enjoyed by pupils? As Brumfit (1986) has posited, “the profound pleasure of reading comes partly from an experience which is simultaneously individual and communal.” And this experience linked to the pleasure of reading can be achieved, as Carter (1986) proposes, by means of language teaching strategies, which has been labeled in ELT literature as prediction, cloze procedure, summary, forum, and guided re-writing. But to spice up any of these strategies, Carter (1986) goes further by incorporating Labov’s linguistic model while working on oral narratives told in Black English Vernacular, which is indeed a sound idea if Labov’s principles are respected.

What did Carter do with Labov’s model of narrative? Basically, and for teaching purposes, Carter (1986) simplifies the overall framework for the study of narrative that Labov used in 1967 and in 1972 (Labov, 2003). What was discovered by Labov (2003) and his colleagues is that narratives do contain an abstract (story summary), orientation (setting and actors), complicating action (temporal organization), evaluation (juxtaposition of real and potential events), validation (credibility, not used by Carter), resolution (the result of what happened), transformation (subjective events insertion), and termination (coda). If what Labov documented in his research regarding narratives is the way we tell or listen to stories, it does make sense to explore this approach to engage students into reading a literary piece that is connected individual and communal experiences.

An approach like the one proposed by Carter can be quite productive in an Introductory Course to Narrative or in groups whose English level is around the CEF B1+. With such level, learners can “explore the extent to which readers respond (or are invited by the author/narrator to respond) to the absence of ‘expected’ features of orientation” (Carter, 1986), like the ones outlined by Labov (2003). It is the teachers’ teaching expertise and literary knowledge that can help them plan accordingly to engage learners into enjoying literature rather than find it a punishment.

Brumfit, C. (1986). Wider Reading for Better Reading: An alternative approach to teaching literature. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP

Carter, R. (1986). Linguistic Models, Language, and Literariness: Study strategies in the teaching of literature to foreign students. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP

Labov, W. (2003). Uncovering the Event Structure of Narrative. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. pp. 63-83

Linguistic Models, Language, And Literariness by Jonathan Acuña

Critique on “Wider Reading for Better Reading”

Critique on “Wider Reading for Better Reading”

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Friday, May 8, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 168

Can a course in which students decide what they want to read from a series of proposed books already chosen by a tutor be a better and more motivating one for them? Can the creation of a reading community rather than a lecturing class prompt individuals to read more and find enjoyment in their readings? For Brumfit (1986), “the great value of the [literature] course [like this] lay in establishing what might be called a ‘reading community’,” a group of individuals, whom guided by their instructor, experience literature with their life experiences, the understanding of a theme, and comparing writers.

     What Brumfit (1986) proposes is a course which is not designed to follow a “’set books’ approach to teaching literature.” Brumfit intends to develop “with students an attitude to works of literature” (1986) that can help learners to better comprehend literature and find enjoyment in the choice of books they make. What Brumfit intends to achieve is finding a method that in the eyes of McKay (1986) focuses its importance on “the enjoyment attained [by the reader] by interacting with texts” in aesthetic reading. For Brumfit (1986), “our response to literature is part of our response to history, to ethics, to politics, to understanding what we are and what other people are.”

The problem with Brumfit’s proposal, though he admits they “cannot say whether it worked” (1986) or not, is the fact that he never contextualized this approach in an EFL/ESL context where students lack the necessary vocabulary to embark in this reading odyssey. As McKay (1986) insists, “To understand and appreciate ‘any work written in English’ demands far greater command of vocabulary than 2,000 words, and an ability to tolerate and resolve uncertainty for oneself.” In other words, depending on the level where this method can be applied, learners may not be fit for choosing books to read from already prepared lists that do include certain stories that can be rather difficult.

Though the study presented by Brumfit is not well-contextualized in terms of the kind of students who were used in this study, it is worthwhile paying attention to it. After students engaged themselves in constant in-class discussion, they were better fit for their writing tasks and were able to produce creative writings based on the things being explored. The adaptability in teaching is exceptional due to course needs in planning as learners suggest and require assistance. And of course, it cannot be rule out the fact that if a group of students become a reading community able to explore “the interplay of Imaginary objects with a Symbolic code in a Real context” as proposed by Lacan (Bruss, 1981).

Brumfit, C. (1986). Wider Reading for Better Reading: An alternative approach to teaching literature. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP

Bruss, N. (1981), Lacan & Literature. The Massachusetts Review. Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring 1981). pp. 62-92. Retrieved on 2015, April 2, 2015 from the Jstor webpage at http://www.jstor.org/stable/25089121

McKay, S. (1986). Literature in the ESL Classroom. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP

Wider Reading for Better Reading by Jonathan Acuña

Critique on “Teaching Study Skills for English Literature”

Critique on “Teaching Study Skills for English Literature”

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 167

For Long (1986), “both literature and language teaching involve the development of a feeling for language.” And “literature can provide a basis for extending language use” (McKay, 1986). And, as stated by Vincent (1986), if “the reader must bring to the text linguistic, conceptual, and cultural understanding of a high order,” teachers must be prepared to deal with literature in the classroom with more than the simple formalistic approach to literature instruction, what Short & Candlin refer to as “teaching about literature … instead of teaching literature itself.”

Short & Candlin (1986) carried out, with the help of several colleagues from and at the University of Lancaster (GB), a case study with three different groups of literature teachers from around the globe, and one of these courses took place in Nanjing, China with only Chinese instructors. The course organizers included three different instructional strands: stylistic analysis (language & literary study), reading strategies (levels of meaning, strategies, & difficulties), and curriculum design (purpose, content/methodology & evaluation).

Based on Short & Candlin’s (1986) case studies at Lancaster and Nanjing, what was suggested to course participants is that “if a reader feels some need to process a text as a literary artefact …, he or she will attempt to apply a set of special interpretative conventions.” From my experience, this “predisposition” or “literary indisposition” can trigger a high anxiety level when learners are faced with texts they are not ready to deal with. Students should be confronted with literature from a different angle where they can “perceive the text not so much as a literary one” (Short & Candlin, 1986). It is a shame that the case study authors did not include other activities they developed along their training courses.

Should literature be treated as something that is not connected to language? For Short & Candlin (1986), “if there is a distinct corpus of texts which can be called ‘literature’, it would appear that the corpus will have to be defined at least partly in socio-cultural rather than in linguistic terms.” In other words, literature as “the mirror stage” in Lancan’s words (Bruss, 1981) is a way to have the reader live life or its experiences over again. What literature awakes in the reader/student is what really counts, and if instructors are able to awake all this set of sensations, feelings and emotions, the beginning of some sort of literary criticism can start to happen in terms of literary appreciation.

Bruss, N. (1981), Lacan & Literature. The Massachusetts Review. Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring 1981). pp. 62-92. Retrieved on 2015, April 2, 2015 from the Jstor webpage at http://www.jstor.org/stable/25089121

Long, M. (1986). A Feeling for Language: The multiple values of teaching literature. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP

McKay, S. (1986). Literature in the ESL Classroom. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP

Vincent, V. (1986). Simple Text and Reading Text. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP

Short, M. & Candlin, C. (1986). Teaching Study Skills for English Literature. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP

Teaching Study Skills for English Literature by Jonathan Acuña

Critique on “Simple Text and Reading Text”

Critique on “Simple Text and Reading Text”

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 166

Should students in the literature class be provided with the classics as they are, or a simplified version, or even a graded version? As Vincent (1986) posits, “the reader must bring to the text linguistic, conceptual, and cultural understanding of a high order.” If learners lack these kinds of understanding, they are bound to face a lot of problems in trying to deal with the classic English literary pieces. And what about when we have learners who are in EFL or ESL programs? Can they read the classics?

“For the foreign reader, literary text will usually be even more linguistically difficult” than for a regular native speaker (Vincent 1986). For McKay (1986), that literary works need to be carefully chosen, and not at random. And though experts have been talking about this for ages, it looks like we have not found the right books to teach literature correctly. It is for this reason that Vincent (1986) claims that simplified versions should not be used, and that classics must be avoided in an early developmental stage of language learning. And the use of literary pieces should not only be linked to classics but to translations of mother-tongue texts or lighter, more accessible literary productions.

Vincent (1986) proposes a systematic way of working with reading as a prelude to the teaching of literature. As a first stage, it is proposed that students get exposed to “extensive use of simple texts” (Vincent, 1986) to really develop learner’s capacity to read in the target language. As a second stage, Vincent (1986) suggests “lighter works of fiction” and perhaps “a couple of abridged classics or fairly reputable works of the second rank.” Additionally, the author urges the use of “simple texts” and non-fiction works that can help pupils develop their reading capacity, which can be a brain gym prior to getting into the classics. What I suggest in this section, and what Vincent does not account for, is the use of storytelling to equip learners with schemata, aesthetic responses, and why not efferent reading.

“Simplicity … enables the learner to respond to … works of literature, not as reading puzzles” (Vincent, 1986). Simplified or abridged classics do lose a lot of its essence when they are modified to fit students’ language level. Instead, storytelling along readings to prepare learners for more complex reading should be used. As McKay (1986) suggests, the success in the study of literature rely on the literary pieces that are chosen. It cannot be done at random and the classics at a beginning learning stage can be counterproductive rather than profitable for the pupil. Literature must be enjoyed and not a punishment for the learners.

McKay, S. (1986). Literature in the ESL Classroom. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP

Vincent, V. (1986). Simple Text and Reading Text. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP

Simple Text or Reading Text by Jonathan Acuña

Critique on “Is Literature Language? Or is Language Literature?”

Critique on “Is Literature Language? Or is Language Literature?”

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 165

“Pupil’s responses to literature … is parallel with the value of the pupil’s work within other subject areas” (Burke & Brumfit, 1986). The one problem with literature is how it has been taught all along, without a very clear methodology (Long, 1986) that really directs both instructors and learners in contexts where English is not a native language “by treating it as a completely separate subject area from English language” (Burke & Brumfit, 1986).

Students do face trouble understanding literature. Burke & Brumfit (1986) agree on the fact that difficulties may arise “from ignorance of the language being used, of the ideas being used, or of the form being used.” To put Burke & Brumfit’s (1986) argument simple, learners may lack the necessary linguistic, conceptual, and formal tradition to cope with literary texts. And the search for an aesthetic response, rather than an efferent reaction (McKay, 1986), is not going to happen.

What seems to be the problem with Burke & Brumfit’s argument? To start with, the authors do not account for the similarity or difference of problems young and adult EFL/ESL learners may face in working with literature; they concentrated on analyzing what children can experience in class. What is intrinsic and important to the teaching of literature is what Burke & Brumfit (1986) point out when they state that literature is “enriched not merely at the level of language, but also at the level of form, structure of story, paragraphing, concept, and so on. And there is no reason why this cannot be done with young and adult EFL/ESL learners. This is a great way to activate the reader’s schemata to enrich reading.

To make the teaching of literature in the EFL/ESL class effective, certain conditions must be met. For Burke & Brumfit (1986), it is necessary to “treat the literary tradition … as a literary and not solely a national or linguistic tradition,” to understand that responses proceed “from an awareness of relationships between book,” to comprehend the need to “grade the skills necessary” to cope with literary pieces, and to recognize that “literature can be enriched by skillful use of background material.” If these principles are aligned with the necessary linguistic, conceptual, and formal tradition to cope with literary texts, a literature for language learning can be aesthetically introduced and used.

“Is Literature Language? Or is Language Literature?” From my point of view, the inquiry is not solved! Literature is not language, but uses it as a vehicle to convey ideas; language is not literature though words are used to convey one’s schemata. Literature “cannot be read in a vacuum” (Burke & Brumfit, 1986), so language is needed to cope with one’s former experiences.

Burke, S. & Brumfit, C. (1986). Is Literature Language? or Is Language Literature. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP

Long, M. (1986). A Feeling for Language: The multiple values of teaching literature. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP

McKay, S. (1986). Literature in the ESL Classroom. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP

Is Literature Lanaguage? by Jonathan Acuña

A Critique on “Literature in the ESL Classroom”

A Critique on “Literature in the ESL Classroom”

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 164

As Long (1986) has put it, “the teaching of literature has lacked a consistent methodology for presentation to non-native speakers.” And many teachers have opposed to the teaching of literature since it does little to help students internalize grammar, develop their “academic and/or occupational goals,” and comprehend “cultural perspectives” (McKay, 1986). This is a short-sighted attitude towards literature, and this mindset must be changed to profit from the use of literary texts in the classroom.

McKay (1986) states the fact that literature has two levels that can be exploited in class: level of use and level of usage. For her, literature has mainly been used to develop student “language usage” (grammar) instead of utilizing it for “language use” (pragmatics). “Literature is ideal for developing an awareness of language use” (McKay, 1986). Academically and occupationally speaking, literature can be used to boost “reading proficiency.” And literature can promote “a greater tolerance for cultural differences” (McKay, 1986). As Long (1986) suggests, the teaching of literature should be a multi-directional mode of presentation, where students practice “verbal” and “creative” responses while they interact with the text aesthetically and not in an efferent manner (McKay, 1986).

McKay (1986) makes a good point in mentioning what needs to be done to achieve success in the use of literature in the classroom. On the one hand, she points out the fact that literary works need to be carefully chosen, and not at random. Additionally, the author identifies an important distinction that needs to be done to use a literary piece in class; it needs to be used aesthetically (student-text interaction) and not in an efferent manner (just to gain information, or as stated by Long (1986), as cases of “text(s)-as-object”). The one main problem with McKay’s approach is that she envisions this in an ESL classroom, and no mention to EFL learning settings are mentioned or even tested.

It cannot be claimed that literature has no room in ELT; it can be practically incorporated within the school curricula. If student motivation can be triggered, reading in English can be an end in itself. Literature can be used to illustrate how language is used and how cultural assumptions can be made. Its success profoundly depends on a careful selection of literary pieces, on using an aesthetic approach instead of an efferent one. With all these in mind, and as Long (1986) suggests, there must be a shift on the focus: “The whole emphasis” of teaching literature must be “on the learning rather than the teaching.” For all these reason, “literature does indeed have a place in the ESL[/EFL] curriculum” (McKay, 1986).

Long, M. (1986). A Feeling for Language: The multiple values of teaching literature. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP.

McKay, S. (1986). Literature in the ESL Classroom. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP.

Literature in the ESL Classroom from jonacuso