relating past and present progress and issues in language learning, pedagogy, and curriculum studies

8/12/2019 Relating past and present progress and issues in language learning, pedagogy, and curriculum studies

1/20

LANGUAGE LEARNING, PEDAGOGY, AND CURRICULUM STUDIES 1

Relating past and present progress and issues in language learning, pedagogy, and

curriculum studies

Heather Varaleau

Simon Fraser University

EDUC 820-5

Dr. Wanda Cassidy

December 1st, 2011


2/20


Introduction

This paper strives to draw connections between theories and issues in second language

acquisition and teaching, and curriculum studies. This is done first by comparing the

short histories of each of these fields. In examining these histories, we are able to see

similarities in both struggles and goals in each of these contexts. Following this is a brief

look at current issues in which language plays important roles: socialization, cultural

capital, values, identity, citizenship, and globalization. We will see that these issues are

inseparable from language.

A Short History

There are numerous similarities and differences to be found between both the

histories and theories of curriculum studies and second language acquisition (SLA)

research. While in the United States, curriculum began to emerge as a field of scholarly

enquiry and professional practice only towards the close of the nineteenth century, a time

that coincided with the rise of public schooling for the masses (Flinders & Thorton,

2009, p. 9), SLA began as a field around the 1940s. The emergence of both of these

fields coincide with relevant historical points in US history: the Progressive movement

and the Second World War respectively. Language learning became increasingly

important for the purposes of gathering intelligence.

Although scholars in each of the aforementioned fields have been focused on

making developments in teaching, SLA scholarship has always had its roots in science

with contributions from multiple branches of cognitive psychology and linguistics. This

has led to a significant disconnect between researchers and practitioners.


3/20


The abstractness and conflicting explanations of many important topics in SLA

contribute to a sense of separation between those who do theorizing and those

who do practicing. In addition, the largely quantitative nature of SLA research

studies reinforces this sense of separateness between theoreticians and

practitioners by sending a false signal that unless ones research study includes

some sort of experiment and inferential statistics, ones contribution to

understanding second language acquisition processes is insignificant and

marginal, almost anecdotal. Therefore most teachers view their positions as

powerless, entirely controlled by theoreticians and researchers whose abstract

models they often consider impractical and whose ideas they reluctantly follow

(Johnson, 2004, p. 1).

In SLA, theories based on quantitative research and entirely disconnected from the

classroom and teacher continued to be the norm until the late 20th

century. Meanwhile, in

curriculum studies, traditionalists, the majority of curricularists found in 1977, as

described by Pinar (1978) are former school people whose intellectual and subcultural

ties tend to be with school practitioners. They tend to be less interested in basic research,

in theory development, in related developments in allied fields, than in a set of perceived

realities of classroom and school settings generally (p. 168).

Not unlike the disconnect between SLA theorizers and ESL practitioners, there

arose a similar disengagement between curriculum studies researchers and teachers in the

1960s with the emergence of curricularists known as conceptual-empiricists. At this

time, and greatly due to the so-called curriculum reform movement, research in education


4/20


became no different than research in the cognate field of social sciences, and by 1978, the

field of education lost what intellectual autonomy it had possessed (Pinar p.170).

In the field of SLA, it was not until the 1990s that significant shifts in research

focus began to take place. In Blocks (2003)A short history of second language

acquisitionhe justifies the necessity of his historical survey as it enables him to show

how in the span of approximately thirty years, a loose collection of researchers

interested in language teaching developed into a considerably larger group of researchers

interested in language learning, not only in formal contexts but in naturalistic contexts as

well (p. 8). Kumaravadivelu (2006) further clarifies this point.

We have been awakened to the necessity of making method-based pedagogies

more sensitive to local exigencies, awakened to the opportunity afforded by

postmethod pedagogies to help practicing teachers develop their own theory of

practice, awakened to the multiplicity of learner identities, awakened to the

complexity of teacher beliefs, and awakened to the validity of macrostructures

social, cultural, political, and historicalthat shape and reshape the

microstructures of our pedagogic enterprise (p. 75).

While it appears that curriculum studies has always had roots in macrostructures, there

has also been awakening taking place in the field. This awakening is reconstructionism.

Ornstein & Hunkins detail that in reconstructionism, there is an emphasis on social

sciences and social research methods; examination of social, economic and political

problems; focus on present and future trends as well as national and international issues

(Orstein, 2011, p. 6). It may be argued that practitioners have yet to see the results of


5/20


these awakenings in curriculum and textbooks, but as social actors in institutions and

communities, it is in our power to act as agents of change.

In both the field of curriculum studies and SLA, there has been a movement

toward qualitative research and socialist approaches. Predictably and unfortunately,

mistrust and intolerance has developed in parallel; in SLA, mainstream researchers view

these approaches as unscientific and relatively minor in their contributions (Johnson,

2004, p. 44) and in curriculum studies criticisms have arisen with regards to who is

capable of asking the right questions (Pinar, 1978, p. 174). In both cases, it is safe to

conclude that no party is wholly right or wrong. Despite decades of research and debate,

what is practiced in ESL classrooms today has strong ties to the linguistic and cognitive

research that took place in the 1940s, and the essentials of what Bobbit wrote in The

Curriculum(1918) has been dominant in North American curriculum ever since (Flinders

& Thorton, 2009, p. 8). Although new theories and practices have emerged over time,

many of these have subsumed aspects of those that came before them. Both SLA theory

and curriculum studies are multifaceted and fluid, offering those interested myriad

choices with regards to both research and practice.

Socialization, Cultural Capital, Values, Identity, Citizenship & Globalization

Each and every creature on Earth is molded by its environment, and humans are

undeniably social beings. Hence, we are shaped by those who surround us; we are

socialized. That is, we are made to behave in a way that is acceptable to our society

(Stevenson & Lindberg, 2010). Socialization is understood as cultural acquisition or

learning, taught mainly implicitly, but sometimes explicitly, by experts to novices


6/20


residing in the same society, not to say that this process is unidirectional, as roles within

it are in fact dynamic. In a paper titled Becoming familiar with a world: a relational

view of socialization,Van de Walle (2011) puts forth an additional definition of

socialization.

The present paper defines it in terms of becoming familiar with a new world,

and a series of changes affecting the structure of the relationship between the

human agent and this new world. These structural changes include immersion in

a world that is at first strange; subjection to the authority of this world on the

basis of acceptance of this authority; and involvement in the worlds everyday

life structures and activities through doing (p. 315).

A childs everyday life and subsequent socializationbegins in the home under the

authority and guidance of their parents. Indeed, the forces of socialization are gathered

even beforebirth when our families begin to project their hopes and dreams, and

expectations into our lives (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2011, p. 15). At first, this statement

sounds promising; the words hope and dreamcarry positive connotations. It may

sounds daunting as well, as the word expectation implies responsibility. What dont

spring to mind are the forces gathered against some children before they have even yet to

be born. What if those hopes and dreams are likely to be unattainable due to

socioeconomic status? What if the society the child is born into disables him or her from,

instead of enables him or her to, meet expectations? Socialization, be it before or after

birth, is unmistakably intertwined with cultural capital, a term coined by Bourdieu,

which refers to the general cultural background knowledge, disposition, and skills that


7/20


are passed on from one generation to another (McLaren, 2008, p. 80). What happens

when children dontinherit the cultural capital needed to succeed todays world?

Following primary socialization with family and in the home, educational

institutions are the major domain of secondarysocializationfor much of the population

(Zuengler & Cole, 2005, p. 303). Unfortunately, Students from dominant culture inherit

substantially different cultural capital than do economically disadvantaged students, and

schools generally value and reward those who exhibit the dominant cultural capital

(which is also usually exhibited by teachers) (McLaren, 2008, p. 81). As a result, if a

child belongs to the dominant culture, the transition from home to school is not a

monumental shift. Regrettably, this is not the case for a large portion of the population.

As Lin (1999) points out arecurrent theme in Bouredieus work is that children from

disadvantaged groups, with a habitus incompatible with that presupposed in school, and

children of the socioeconomic elite do not compete from equal starting points; thus social

stratification is reproduced (p. 394). For those in society who are not part of the middle

or upper class, the progression from home to school may not be smooth, for as Sensoy

and DiAngelo (2011) explain for every social group, there is an opposite group. One

cannot learn what a social group is, without learning what a social group is not (p. 22).

Unfortunately, what an unnecessary number of children learn upon entering formal

educational institutions is that they are not part of the social group that fits in or are

catered to in their new and unfamiliar environment. The system whose purpose it is to

get youth ahead in life is, in fact, designed to leave them behind.


8/20


The inflexibility and lack of accommodation for students of different needs that

exist in schools today lead to numerous students becoming drop-outs or push-outs.

As a result, youth at the margins of society struggle to make it by.

Existing social, racial and economic disadvantages were often exacerbated by

other disturbing events, such as placement in residential care; bullying;

experiences of violence or mental illness; family drug or alcohol abuse; and

unacknowledged learning disabilities. Consequently, experiences of frustration,

difference and being poorly valued at school often grew into dissent or opting out

altogether, sometimes culminating in aggressive or criminal behaviour.

(Milbourne, 2009, p. 77).

Without economic capital and cultural capital in their corner, many disaffected youth are

left with social (symbolic) capital as their only means of gaining control in their lives.

The means by which youth gain symbolic capital, accrued prestige or honour (Thompson,

2003/1991, p. 14), may culminate in undesirable outcomes. An individuals judgment of

what is important in life, a persons values, may be manipulated by forces which appear

out of ones control. Differences in values as well as the devaluation of others can lead to

conflict and marginalization.

Values are not held solely by an individual or group of individuals, culture as a

whole is laden with values. Figure 1 shows the democratic values in the cultural domain

of Canada as represented by Hbert & Wilkinson (2006). We can see Sense of

belonging and Human dignity at critical points at the base of this figure. Furthermore,

studies of


9/20


Figure 1: Network of Democratic Values in the Cultural Domain (p. 37)

disadvantaged youth have identified both of these values as crucial to the success of

youth in educational settings. In Milbournes (2009) examination of three case studies of

community based organizations working with disengaged youth she identified sense of

belonging as key (p. 79). A Canadian study by Cassidy and Bates (2005) examining the

ethic of care as it is practiced in an independent school for underserved at risk youth

quotes one students perspective on how the principle behaves toward him as follows:

He treats me, he treats us like human beings, instead of just a place where he works (p.

97). It is clear that in the Canadian context, the values of the cultural domain and those

of the individuals within it overlap. And herein lies the question, if we all essentially

hold these values, why does our society continually strip individuals of a sense of

belonging and human dignity? Identity and autonomy play important roles.


10/20


11/20


12/20


lessons and were positive about their futures. Of the three remaining schools, students in

two of them felt disengaged from lessons and believed their futures were dismal. In the

final school, due to the agency of the teacher, students participated in English lessons and

felt positive about their futures. Lin concludes that understanding existing classroom

practices and their sociocultural and institutional situatedness is a first step toward

exploring the possibility of alternative creative, discursive practices that might contribute

to the transformation of students habitus (p. 441). This is a fact that holds true in all

educational settings. From aperspective of global education as the number of people

using English grows, L2 speakers of English are drawn toward the inner-circle of first

language speakers, and foreign-language speakers to the outer-circle of second-

language speakers (Taavitsainen &Pahta, 2003, p.4). Even in countries where English

is not an official language, there is a risk of youth becoming drop-outs or push-outs

as a result of their English skills, or lack there of.

When it comes to socialization race and ethnicity interact in complex ways with

language and nationality (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2011, p.23). In their introduction to

Language socialization across cultures, Schieffelin and Ochs (1986) take language

socialization to mean both socialization through language and socialization to use

language (p. 2). Socialization is not only experienced by children, it is something that

takes place continually throughout our lives, and for immigrants and learners of a second

language, socialization takes place in a new sociocultural context. A study by Li (2000)

looks at the double socialization of a Chinese immigrant named Ming in a new work

environment and as a learner of a new language and culture. Her study focuses on

Mings development of requesting behaviour. Li points out, that for immigrant ESL


13/20


learners the expression of needs and wants through English requesting behaviour is

usually neither optional nor trivial. For them, making requests is tied up with their

survival, wellbeing, and productivity within their adoptive land (p. 60). By the close of

the study, Ming had successfully adopted English requesting behaviour without

compromising her traditional Chinese identity or values. In her discussion, Li points out

that socialization need not go hand in hand with complete assimilation. From a

pedagogical perspective, she also notes that the processes of socialization and pragmatic

development involve conditions, options, choices, and consequences that should be

discussed in ESL classes (p. 67). Although Western culture claims to value

individuality there are social, psychological, and material rewards for conformity, such

as social acceptance, being treated as normal, andcareer development (Sensoy &

DiAngelo, 2011, p.18). Nowhere does social acceptance play a more crucial role than in

schools.

For children for whom English is a second language and who are in the Canadian

school system, mastering English is likely to determine their success in the classroom, in

society, and throughout their entire future. Whats more, there might be the added

pressure of a family who is counting on them for future financial support. A study by Li

(2010) demonstrated that for immigrant children in ESL programs schools reproduced

the social inequality that perpetrates exclusion and discrimination (p.132), which

immigrants are already suffering from in their day-to-day lives. In her study, Li identifies

two major barriers for students: a lack of opportunities for immigrant students to interact

with peers that did not speak their first language, as well as a socially induced

psychological fear derived from peer separation (p. 131). These two factors result in an


14/20


unlikelihood of students mastering English as well as lead to marginalization within their

school community. Given the number of immigrants and immigrant children in Canada,

changes to practices and policies both within and outside of the education system are

paramount.

When children come to this phenomenal world, they cannot choose their race,

gender, class, and first languages. As new immigrant students from all over the

globe enter into Canadian schools to face mainstream teachers, Western

textbooks, and peer pressure, they challenge both themselves and institutions to

change. To fashion a meaningful cultural integration that honours differences

and does justice to diversity, our educational system must make a sustained

effort to attune itself to the changing face of Canadian classrooms, providing

schooling that places greater emphasis on the strengths as well as the needs of

culture and ethnicity (Li, 2010, p. 134).

It is upon us all as citizens of the world to take up the challenges that children face

regardless of their origin and persuasion. Whether one is teaching language or biology, in

Canada or Korea, issues of culture and identity will always come into play. Regardless of

the context awareness and sensitivity are required.

Like language cannot be separated from culture or socialization, pragmatics

cannot be separated either. When it comes to language socialization, pragmatics is

paramount. One cannot teach or use language and avoid language in use and the contexts

in which it is used. As all socialization, much of pragmatic socialization is implicit,

occurring through novices participation in recurrent communicative practices (Kasper,

2001, p. 520). In many ways, pragmatics is deeply rooted in culture. In looking at Figure


15/20


2 it can be seen that language is a surface culture, but in fact, many of the cultural rules

that lie below the surface are inseparable from pragmatics. When language is taught,

Figure 2: The Iceberg Concept of Culture(Source:http://www.echospace.org/assets/1843)

culture is taught. Sociocultural information is deeply imbedded in language. Language

in use is then a major, if not the major, tool for conveying sociocultural knowledge and a

powerful medium of socialization (Scheieffelin & Ochs, 1986, p. 3). Where English has

become the language of the world, this poses new questions for the ESL teacher.

Indeed, it could be argued that English educators, if they hope their craft to

remain relevant and up-to-date, must look afresh at how they teach both

language and culture. In this respect, English teaching professionals need to

rethink the answers to such questions as whose culture should be taught, what
http://www.echospace.org/assets/1843http://www.echospace.org/assets/1843http://www.echospace.org/assets/1843http://www.echospace.org/assets/1843


16/20


goals should guide culture teaching, and how culture-related course materials

should be designed and selected (Nault 2006 pp.314).

While those in the field of curriculum studies are concerned with what we teach in formal

schools, ESL practitioners all over the globe also need to be aware of bringing cultural

bias into classrooms. Although it is often not realized by English teachers, ELT

materials are in no sense neutral or value-free educational aids (Nault, 2006 p. 321).

In his article titled Going Global: Rethinking Culture Teaching in ELT Contexts,Nault

(2006) concludes that globalization has troubled the issue of how to teach culture and the

English language itself. It is his view that, ESL instructors better educate themselves

and their students on world cultures to promote genuine linguistic/cultural awareness and

international understanding (p. 314). It could be said that in this globalized world,

people of all backgrounds and all professions would do well to educate themselves in this

way.

Discussion

Educators, regardless of specialty or whereabouts carry with them mutual

struggles and responsibilities. We struggleforchange: change in research, change in

curriculum, change in materials, change in practices, change in policies, change in

politics, and change in social constructs. We struggle tochange: to change our students,

to change their present and their future, to change their plight, to change their view, to

change their outlook, and on top of all that we are challenged to change ourselves. Of all

the change we contend with, we possess the absolute power to change one thing:

ourselves. In the wise words of Gandhi be the change you want to see in the world.It


17/20


is only when we begin to change our own values and perceptions that we can begin to

change others. In knowledge lies power. Ineducating ourselves on issues that have led

to and continue to drive the socioeconomic disparities thriving across the globe, we will

gain the power to be and create agents of change.

With English having become a global language, English language learning and

teaching have become commonplace worldwide. In many respects, language teachers

and learners hold influential roles in the global community as ambassadors of culture.

Language is inseparable from culture in almost every respect. Regardless of where

practitioners are teaching, they need to be aware of whatthey are teaching. Language

learning need not simply open doors, but open minds. It is the responsibility of language

educators to provide relevant, meaningful, crosscultural and unbiased lessons that serve

to promote international understanding and foster global citizenship.

Conclusion

Although on the surface, research and practice in second language acquisition and

curriculum studies appear to have multiple differences, there are in fact at least as many

similarities both in their short histories and with regard to current and relevant social and

global issues. This paper has brought to light some of the shared difficulties and

responsibilities education and education professionals face by drawing attention to

matters of socialization, cultural capital, values, identity, citizenship, and globalization,

all of which are in many ways inseparable from language. Lastly, to sum up, with

teaching, of any kind, comes responsibility and as a consequence and in the words of

John Cotton Dana who dares to teach must never cease to learn.


18/20


References

Block, D. (2003). The social turn in language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown

University Press.

Cassidy, W. & Bates, A. (2005). Drop-outs and push-outs: Finding hope at a school

that actualizes the ethic of care.American Journal of Education, 112, 66-102.

Flinders, D. J. & Thorton, S. J. (2009). Introduction to part one. In Flinders, D. J. &

Thorton, S. J. (Eds) in The Curriculum Studies Reader 3rd

Ed.(pp.7-14). New

York, NY: Routledge.

Hbert, E. & Wilkinson L. (2006). Diversity and democratic values: Implications for

public policy. In G. H. Richardson & D. W. Blades (Eds.), Troubling the Canon

of Citizenship Education(pp. 31-41). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing,

Inc.

Indiana Department of Education, Office of English Language Learning and Migrant

Education Downloaded from www.doe.in.gov/englishlanguagelearning on

04/06/10. InECHO Space(2008)http://www.echospace.org/assets/1843

Accessed on 01/12/11.

Johnson, M. (2004).A philosophy of second language acquisition. New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press.

Kasper, G. (2001). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development.Applied Linguistics,

22(4), 502530.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends.

TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 59-81.
http://www.echospace.org/assets/1843http://www.echospace.org/assets/1843http://www.echospace.org/assets/1843http://www.echospace.org/assets/1843


19/20


Li, D. (2000). The pragmatics of making requests in the L2 workplace: A case study of

language socialization (FN1). Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(1), 58-

87.

Li, J. (2010). My home and my school: Examining immigrant adolescent narratives

from the critical sociocultural perspective.Race Ethnicity and Education,13(1),

119-137.

Lin, A. M. Y. (1999). Doing-English-lessons in the reproduction or transformation of

social worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 393-412.

McLaren, P. (2008). Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In Darder, A.,

Baltodano, M. P. & Torres R. D. (Eds.), The Critical Pedagogy Reader 2nd

Ed.

(pp. 61-83). New York, NY: Routledge.

Mibourne, L. (2009). Engaging disaffected young people. In te Riele, K. (Eds),Making

Schools Different: Alternative Approaches to Educating Young People(pp. 74-

85). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Nault, D. (2006). Going global: Rethinking culture teaching in ELT contexts.Language,

Culture and Curriculum, 19(3), 314-328.

Ornstein, A. C. (2011). Philosophy as a basis for curriculum decisions. In Ornstein, A. C.

Pajak, E. F. & Ornstein, S. B. (Eds), Contemporary Issues in Curriculum 5th

Ed.

(pp. 3-9). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Pinar, W. F. (1978). The reconceptualization of curriculum studies. In Flinders, D. J. &


Ed.(pp.168-175).

New York, NY: Routledge.


20/20


Sensoy, O. & DiAngelo, R. (2011).Is everyone really equal? An introduction to key

concepts in social justice education.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Smith, D. G. (2003). Curriculum and teaching face globalization. In Flinders, D. J. &


Ed.(pp.368-384).

New York, NY: Routledge.

Spinner-Halev, J. (2005). Teaching identity and autonomy.Journal of Philosophy of

Education, 39(1), 141-147.

Stevenson, A. & Lindberg, C. A. (Eds.). (2010).New Oxford American Dictionary 3rd

Ed.New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc.

Taavitsainen, I. & Pahta, P. (2003). English in Finland: Globalisation, language

awareness and questions of identity.English Today 76, 19(4), 3-15.

Thompson, J. B. (1991/2003). Editors introduction. In Bourdieu, P.Language and

Symbolic Power. Boston, MA: Polity Press.

Tupper, J. (2006). Education and the (im)possibilities of citizenship. In G. H. Richardson

& D. W. Blades (Eds.), Troubling the Canon of Citizenship Education(pp. 45-

54). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Van de Walle, G. (2011). Becoming familiar with a world: Arelational view of

socialization.International Review of Sociology, 21(2), 315-333.

Zuengler, J. & Cole, KM. (2005). Language socialization and second language learning.

In E. Hinkel (Ed.)Handbook of research on second language teaching and

learning, (pp. 301316). L. Erlbaum Associates.

relating past and present progress and issues in language learning, pedagogy, and curriculum studies

Documents