using english as an international language in the local context ursula wall jonathan hull wilaksana...
TRANSCRIPT
Using English as an International Language in the Local Context
Ursula Wall
Jonathan Hull
Wilaksana Srimavin
Using English as an International Language in the Local Context
“Although textbooks can give students a window on the world, their content is often, at best, irrelevant to students’ lives and, at worst, a threat to local traditions and culture. While working with English language teachers from several secondary schools in two rural areas in Thailand, it was found that, despite government policy to include local content, they do not know how to bridge the gap between published materials and their students’ lives. However, as this paper demonstrates, when given guidance on how to devise tasks and supplementary materials incorporating local culture, these teachers were highly receptive and enthusiastic.”
Language & culture
Teach EFL/ESL learners “English” culture?
English as a
- EFL/ESL language = comes with culture?
- lingua franca = ‘culture free’? (e.g.Kaplan, 1986)
Fears of target language overwhelming native language & culture
Participants today ~
Who: works in an EFL (rather than ESL) environment?
works in a rural and/or remote environment?
works as a teacher? works as a teacher-trainer?
works in Thailand?
Thailand’s Basic Education Curriculum (MoE, 2001)
4 goals (‘substances’) for English teachers:
Language: • for communication• and culture• in relation to other subjects• and its relationship with the community & the
world
Teachers’ duties
Broadly, as well as helping students learn about other cultures, they are expected to include community as a part of language teaching & learning so that learners can talk about their own culture
This requires teachers to adapt and/or design materials that include local content
Barriers to implementation
Teachers’ lack of training, experience & time for adapting/designing materials?
Teachers’ willingness to change?
Learners’ willingness to engage?
Background
KMUTT’s mission supports the provision of teacher training in rural areas
Two-day workshops were conducted in 2 rural areas
Part of a larger project exploring the viability of engaging rural communities in designing suitable English-language materials
Workshop objectives
To ‘brush up’ participants’ English
To elicit/present teaching techniques
To provide hands-on experience in adapting materials to local contexts
Context
Two rural districts in Thailand, one mountainous & one coastal
Both remote from large cities, mainly agrarian but with a small amount of tourism
Teachers in both districts have very little chance to attend training workshops
They have little contact with NSs of English
Methodology: participants
District 1 District 2 Total
<25 2 3 5 11%
25-34 8 11 19 41%
35-45 5 5 10 22%
45+ 7 5 12 26%
22 24 46 100
Pearson Chi-Square
value
.922
df
3 .820
Age
Methodology: participants
District 1 District 2 Total
0-2 4 3 7 15%
3-5 4 5 9 20%
6-10 4 8 12 26%
11+ 9 8 17 37%
21* One missing
24 45 98%
Pearson Chi-Square
value
1.453
df
3 .693
Teaching Experience
Methodology: participants
District 1 District 2 Total
Cert / Dip 0 0 0 0%
BA / BEd 16 21 37 80%
MA / MEd 6 3 9 20%
22 24 46 100%
Pearson Chi-Square
value
1.592
df
1 .207
Education
Methodology: participants
District 1 District 2 Total
1 6 12 18 39%
2 – 3 13 9 22 48%
4 - 6 3 3 6 13%
7+ 0 0 0 0%
22 24 46 100
Pearson Chi-Square
Value
2.645 df 2 .266
Number of
schools
taught in
Methodology: participants
District 1 District 2 Total
< 200 3 3 6 21%
200 – 400 4 1 5 18%
400+ 8 9 17 60%
16* One missing
13 29 99%
Pearson Chi-Square
value
1.056
df
2 .590
Number of
students at
previous
school
Methodology: instrument
Methodology: procedures
Conducted a two-day workshop in each district
- 3 trainers/researchers, with Thai summaries at ends of sessions in District 1
- 2 trainers/researchers, with English summaries at ends of sessions in District 2
Participants completed evaluation forms at the end of each day
Approach to workshops
To be participant-centred
To build on participants’ strengths
To establish a collaborative and participatory atmosphere and process
To be ready to adapt workshop materials
Results: quantitative
Teaching in the Local Context Workshop Evaluations
1 2 3 4 5
Content/Topics
Instructions clear
Handouts andmaterials
Presenters/Trainers
Speed and timing
(1-1.8) Very Unhappy - (1.81-2.60) Unhappy - (2.61-3.39) So-so - (3.4-4.2) Happy - (4.21- 5) Very Happy
Averaged Responses on a Five Point Likert Scale
Day OneDistrict 1 n=22
Day Tw oDistrict 1 n=22
Day OneDistrict 2 n=23
Day Tw oDistrict 2 n=18
Results: quantitative
Sentence stems District 1 District 2 Total
Today, the most useful idea for me was:
Day 1 22/22 23/23100%
Day 2 19/19 17/17
I liked: Day 1 *20/22 *22/2395%
Day 2 *18/19 17/17
I didn’t like: Day 1 *6/22 *5/2316%
Day 2 *0/19 *2/17
Any comments? Day 1 *11/22 *7/2336%
Day 2 *5/19 *5/17
Number and percentage of teachers writing comments each day
* “nothing”, “no”, “-” = 0
Results: qualitative
Amount of writing
Very positive reaction to main ideas
Participants have a sense of their skills & strengths, and of their local knowledge to adapt materials
Specific findings from evaluation forms: (1) “Today, the most useful idea for me was …”/ “I liked …”; (2) “I didn’t like …”; (3) Comments
Results (cont.)
Practising English (Objective 1)- District 1 = 11/22 (50%)
- District 2 = 3/24 (12.5%)
“Practice my English skills, listening and speaking”
(District 1)
Results (cont.)
Teaching techniques (Objective 2), - District 1 = 37
- District 2 = 77
“Know a new idea about teaching and technique”
(District 1)
“Dictation game: can use in my class” (District 2)
Results (cont.)
Sharing ideas in groups- District 1 = 12 (54.55%)
- District 2 = 6 (25%)
“Group work: to share idea between friends” (District 1)
Thinking- District 1 = 11 (50%)
- District 2 = 2 (8.33%)
“Technique of thinking skills” (District 2)
Results (cont.)
Applying local community in the classroom (3)- District 1 = 14 (63.63%)
- District 2 = 3 (12.5%)
Today, the most useful idea for me was:
“local community, and I can apply to my English class”(District 1)
“how I can add the local context into my lessons” (District 2)
Results “I did not like …”
Very few responses overall- District 1 => 6 (27.27%); District 2 => 7 (29.17%)
Related to workshop: language, tasks- “To use languages” (District 1)
- “I don’t understand … you speak quickly” (District 2)
- “Teaching strategies because it’s so serious” (District 2)
- “Dictionary task” (District 2)
Results: “I did not like …” (cont.)
Not directly related to workshop
- the weather [heat] (District 1) - thunder (District 2)
- the food provided for lunch (District 1)
- short-sightedness (District 1)
- working on holidays (District 2)
- is far from my school (District 1, “Comments”)
A positive comment in this negative category?
“The short time to study with the speakers” (District 2)
Results: comments
District 1 = 11 (50%); District 2 = 12 (50%)
Mostly expressions of appreciation, e.g.:
“Trainers are nice and very friendship with us. See you again. I hope you will come back here again” (District 1)
More handouts (Districts 1 and 2, Day 1)
Not everything was clear (2, in District 1)
Useful summaries in Thai (1, in District 1)
Results: comments (cont.)
More time needed to practise English (1) More time needed on workshop theme (1) Enjoyed exchanging ideas (2) Adapting textbooks (1)
Recommendations
Provide regular and targeted teacher education (TE) to teachers nationwide so that they have the skills to implement government policy on language & culture and language & the local community
Such TE needs to be tailored, but include: - language proficiency work
- a range of teaching techniques
- hands-on experience in adapting and/or developing materials
to fit local contexts
Recommendations
Teachers need more exposure to native speakers and/or English speaking environments
They also need more access to educational ‘experts’ as mentors; native or native-like speakers
Conclusion
Given a chance to develop professionally through training workshops on language and the community, rural teachers appeared very willing to engage with the process of delivering English lessons that not only comply with MoE regulations but also are more likely to motivate learners
Some useful references
Harper, G. (n.d.). Youth Projects for Sustainable Development. Retrieved January 11th, 2007, from http://www.e-o-n.org/Projects_International/fulltext.htm.
Kaplan, R. B. (1986). “Culture and the written language.” In J. M. Valeds (ed.), Culture bound, pp. 8-19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Office of the National Education Commission (ONEC). (1999) The National Education Act of B.E. 2542 (1999). Bangkok, TH: Seven Printing Group.
Thongsri, M., Charumanee, & Chatupote, M. (2006). The implementation of 2001 English language curriculum in government schools in Songkhla. ThaiTESO Bulletin, 19(1), 60-94.
Watson Todd, R., Taylor, S., Nilnopkhun, P., & Pothiprasart, P. (2002). Managing change: Towards student-centred learning (Trainers’ manual). Bangkok, Thailand: The Supervisory Unit, Department of General Education, Ministry of Education, Thailand.
Wongsothorn, A. (1999). Reflection and projection on Thailand’s language education policy for the new millennium. PASAA, 29 (December, 1999), 54-66.
หลั�กสู�ตรการศึ�กษาขั้��นพื้��นฐาน พื้.ศึ. (2544) http://www.obec.go.th/law/cur.pdf [Basic Education Curriculum, 2001]
Contact us:
Ursula Wall: [email protected] Jonathan Hull: [email protected] Wilaksana Srimavin: [email protected]
Department of Language Studies, School of Liberal Arts,King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT),
126 Prach-Utid Road, Bangmod, Toong-Kru,Bangkok, 10140, THAILAND