Foreign Language Learning without the Foreign Language

posted by Engelbert Thaler, Freiburg University of Education, Germany

There used to be a time when English was actually spoken in the EFL classroom. The rationale behind this out-dated practice was to learn the language by using it. English language teachers did their best to make students use English as they regarded the development of students’ target language competence as the main goal of their profession. Things were bound to change, however. Scholars, teachers and administrators were no longer content with such a reduced raison d’ệtre.

In a first step they decided to enlarge the list of objectives students were supposed to attain. The four basic skills as well as the language domains of vocabulary, grammar and pragmatics simply were not sufficient. Much needed aid turned up in the form of the competence concept. Students should not focus on oral and written language use, but develop intercultural competence, method competence, inter-personal competence, intra-personal competence, media literacy and further indispensable assets.

In a second step the teacher’s role had to be redefined. The sage on the stage was replaced by the guide on the side, i.e. an EFL teacher was no longer a knower, language model, transmitter, corrector, linguist, expert, or giver (of information), but a counselor, facilitator, tutor, helper, learning manager, learner trainer, learner, and motivator.

The third step consisted of inventing alternative learning methods and approaches which allowed for ample use of the students’ native language. Innovative concepts like Freiarbeit (free work), Stationenlernen (learning at stations, carousel approach), project work, Wochenplan (weekly plan), drama approach, kinesthetic techniques, learning in motion, Community Language Learning, to name but a few, cater for manifold needs, among which the need to speak the target language may not rank highest. In particular, group work proved to be of utmost value, as it guarantees the immediate retreat into the mother tongue, with group members joyously chatting in German on private experiences they had the day before.

The triumph of pedagogy over language still needed support in academic discourse and school administration. That is why TEFL conferences abound with avant-garde scholars presenting high-flown projects which do not work in actual classroom situations; ambitious authors contribute to TEFL journals praising new methods and procedures which they have not tried out in class; young teachers are rewarded by their headmasters for projects which aim at everything but language development; teacher trainers and scholars are jumping on the language-free bandwagon leaving behind all those antiquated Sprachmeister associations.

In the post-language era the ultimate aim of foreign language teaching is the creation of an all-competent personality … who speaks German. May they live happily hereafter.

Council of Europe: Autobiography of Intercultural Encounters

posted by Jürgen Kurtz, Karlsruhe University of Education, Germany

The Autobiography of Intercultural Encounters has been developed as a follow up to the Council of Europe’s White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue : “Living together as Equals in Dignity”. It is a personal document which encourages users to think about and learn from the intercultural encounters that have made a strong impression or had a long-lasting effect on them. With its emphasis on the critical analysis of users’ intercultural experiences, it complements other Council of Europe Language Policy Division tools such as the European Language Portfolio .

This is a ‘must read’ for anyone interested in promoting intercultural communicative competence both inside and outside the school sector. For details klick a) and

AAAL 2010 Annual Conference

posted by Jürgen Kurtz, Karlsruhe University of Education, Germany

The 2010 conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL) will be held March 6 – 9 at the Sheraton Atlanta Hotel, Atlanta, GA. The 2010 AAAL conference will serve as a meeting place for applied linguists to generate ideas, cross disciplinary boundaries, and disseminate research about issues and concerns in language policy, second language acquisition, language pedagogy and assessment, discourse analysis and other areas of applied linguistics.

The submission of abstracts and the refereeing process will be carried out through the AAAL web submission system. Abstracts for all presentation formats should be submitted for blind peer review at:
http://www.aaal.org/aaal2010.

The proposal submission deadline is August 15, 2009.

Council of Europe: White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue

posted by Jürgen Kurtz, Karlsruhe University of Education, Germany

In May 2008, Council of Europe Ministers of Foreign Affairs launched a White Paper on intercultural dialogue, titled “Living Together as Equals in Dignity”.

The White Paper provides various orientations for the promotion of intercultural dialogue, mutual respect and understanding, based on the core values of the European Union. This is the central message:

“Intercultural dialogue […] allows us to prevent ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural divides. It enables us to move forward together, to deal with our different identities constructively and democratically on the basis of shared universal values. Intercultural dialogue can only thrive if certain preconditions are met. To advance intercultural dialogue, […] the democratic governance of cultural diversity should be adapted in many aspects; democratic citizenship and participation should be strengthened; intercultural competences should be taught and learned; spaces for intercultural dialogue should be created and widened; and intercultural dialogue should be taken to
the international level.”

23rd DGFF Conference 2009

posted by Jürgen Kurtz, Karlsruhe University of Education, Germany

The 23rd Biennial Conference 2009 of the German Society for Foreign Language Research  (DGFF) will be held September 30 to October 3 at the University of Leipzig, Germany. The conference theme is: Transcending Linguistic, Cultural and Disciplinary Borders (Grenzen überschreiten: sprachlich – fachlich – kulturell). The university is currently celebrating its 600 year anniversary (1409-2009).

Keynote presentations by Georges Lüdi, Michael Tomasello and Rebecca Oxford.

Special emphasis is placed on the following topics (in twelve sections):

– Early foreign language learning
– Foreign language teacher education
– Research methodology
– Psycholinguistic and sociocultural approaches to language learning
– Transcending linguistic boundaries: focus on Mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktik
– Bilingual education / CLIL
– European and global language politics
– Digital media in foreign / second language education
– Transcending boarders in teaching literature
– Developing intercultural competence
– Task-based instruction
– Monitoring, assessment, evaluation

The twelve (additional) workshops offered cover a wide range of related topics such as the multilingual classroom, migration, drama pedagogy, classroom-based research, etc.

Nationally and internationally, the DGFF conference has a reputation as a comprehensive and stimulating event including a broad spectrum of workshops and poster sessions, thought-provoking presentations, book displays by various publishers, and plentiful opportunities for networking.

For more specific information, click on the above link.

The Role of the Textbook in the EFL Classroom (2)

posted by Jürgen Kurtz, Karlsruhe University of Education, Germany

Back in 1934, McElroy stated that “the textbook is decidedly not the sole condition of an effective class; quality of teaching is more important” (1934: 5). 75 years later, an enormous body of research on the role of the textbook in EFL classrooms has accumulated around the globe, indicating that ‘successful’ learning and teaching in primary and secondary EFL school environments is dependent on a wider spectrum of factors, not only on the quality (or quantity) of English language learning materials. The importance of the teacher is, of course, undisputed (see, for instance, Butzkamm 2005).

Over the past decades, it has become increasingly clear that context-sensitive EFL instruction requires teachers to take into account many anthropological and sociocultural factors which influence the conditions under which English is taught. Currently, global textbooks produced for teaching and learning English as a foreign language in many different countries are criticized for paying too little attention to this, especially for largely failing to assist EFL teachers in bridging the cultural background(s) of ‘their’ individual learners and the diversity of English-speaking target language cultures.

In Germany, global textbooks are rarely used in institutional contexts though. Instead, local textbooks and related materials and media, produced especially for the ‘German school market’ by a few major German publishers are usually employed in EFL classrooms. In my view, the overall quality of these products is high. However, as commercial products textbooks and related materials are – in Germany and elsewhere – last not least designed to occupy the textbook market, offering whatever is seemingly necessary and useful in terms of target language und intercultural education (see Kurtz 2002). In consequence, German EFL teachers are flooded with materials and suggestions. 

Psychologically, this makes it difficult to think about teaching options which go beyond those suggested by the textbook authors in the teaching manuals (arguing from a Gestalt theoretical perspective see Kurtz 2001). Viewed from an international perspective, this is a luxury problem, but it is not unproblematic; the more the better?

References:

Butzkamm, Wolfgang (2005). Der Lehrer ist unserer Chance. Essen: Buchverlag Prof. A.W. Geisler.

Kurtz, Jürgen (2001). Das Lehrwerk und seine Verwendung nach der jüngsten Reform der Richtlinien und Lehrpläne. Englisch, 36 (2), 41-50.

Kurtz, Jürgen (2002): Fremdsprachendidaktik als Dienstleistung und Ware: Verlagskataloge für das Fach Englisch unter der Lupe. Englisch,  37 (1), 8-12.

McElroy, Howard (1934). Selecting a basic textbook. The Modern Language Journal, 19 (1), 5-8.

The Role of the Textbook in the EFL Classroom (1)

posted by Jürgen Kurtz, Karlsruhe University of Education, Germany

It is very interesting to see that even though textbooks and related teaching and learning materials/media have been adapted continuously to the ever-changing and growing challenges and demands of learning English as a foreign language, to new findings in foreign/second language research and theory construction and to advances in information technology, scholarly views on the role of the textbook and recommendations on how to use it in everyday classroom practice very often reflect little more than personal opinion and/or common sense. To  illustrate this, here are some exemplary statements I have come across while working on an upcoming publication (a few quotations in English first, then some more in German, followed by a very provocative statement in English again, published last year).

In my view, the many metaphorical expressions used in this context (i.e. the textbook as a dictator, a tyrant, a necessary evil, a straitjacket, a dungeon, a corral, a stone quarry, etc.) clearly indicate that much more classroom-based research on this is needed worldwide.

***

Rivers (1968: 475): „The importance of the textbook cannot be overestimated. It will inevitably determine the major part of the classroom teaching and the students’ out-of-class learning.”

Williams (1983: 251): „In situations where there is a shortage of trained teachers, language teaching is very closely tied to the textbook. (…) The textbook can be a tyrant to the teacher who, in his or her preoccupation with covering the syllabus, feels constrained (…).“

Sheldon (1988: 237): „ELT coursebooks evoke a range of responses, but are frequently seen by teachers as necessary evils. Feelings fluctuate between the perception that they are valid, labour-saving tools, and the doleful belief that masses of rubbish is skilfully marketed.”

Hutchinson & Torres (1994: 315): “The danger with ready-made textbooks is that they can seem to absolve teachers of responsibility. Instead of participating in the day-to-day decisions that have to be made about what to teach and how to teach it, it is easy to just sit back and operate the system, secure in the belief that the wise and virtuous people who produced the textbook knew what was good for us. Unfortunately this is rarely the case.”

***

Mangold (1892: 9): Der “freie mündliche, nicht der auf ein Buch sich stützende Unterricht soll den Mittelpunkt und den leitenden Teil des unterrichtlichen Geschehens bilden.”

Münch (1911: 39): “Das Haupthemmnis der wünschenswerten Lebendigkeit möchte in dem Fortleben des (von den alten Sprachen übernommenen) buchmässigen Charakters des Sprachunterrichts zu sehen sein. Ihm gegenüber muss sich vor allem der Lehrer selbst zur Freiheit und Lebendigkeit […] erziehen.”

Karpf (1915: 39-40): Die Unterrichtenden dürfen sich nicht “durch die abgliederung der lektionen einpferchen lassen” und diese “mit zeremonieller langweiligkeit” erledigen; erst die “freie Übung” kann das Interesse der Schülerinnen und Schüler erwecken.

Raith (1967: 76): Das Lehrbuch sollte als ein “Steinbruch” im Sinne eines Angebots betrachtet werden, aus dem entsprechende unterrichtliche (Bau-)Steine auszuwählen sind.

Heuer (1968: 15): Das Lehrbuch darf nicht zum “didaktischen Diktator” werden und den “Aktionsradius des Englischlehrers” einengen.

Billows (1973: 69): “Wir dürfen nicht zulassen, daß die Fremdsprache zwischen die Seiten eines Buches eingekerkert wird und dort erstarrt. Es gehört zur Aufgabe des Lehrers, die Beziehungen der Schüler zum Buch in die rechte Relation zu setzen, indem er ihre Erfahrungen aus ihrer Umwelt aufgreift und sprachlich realisiert, bis sie schließlich die Welt des Buches mit einbeziehen.”

Bludau (1988: 84): “Das Lehrbuch soll keine Zwangsjacke sein.”

Kahl (1990: 82): “Die starke Bindung des Lehrgangs an das Buch birgt die Gefahr, daß die Schülerinnen und Schüler die neue Sprache eher als eine Abfolge von Units oder Lektionen, die nacheinander durchgearbeitet werden müssen, erleben, denn als ein Kommunikationsmittel, das Bezug zu ihrer eigenen Lebenswelt hat. Trotz mancher Versuche, den Unterricht freier und offener zu gestalten, trotz des Bemühens, durch den Gebrauch audio-visueller Medien für Vielfalt und Abwechslung zu sorgen, scheint das systematische Fortschreiten auf dem durch das Lehrbuch vorgezeichneten Weg nach wie vor für die meisten die bessere (oder bequemere?) Alternative zu sein.”

Butzkamm (1995: 193): “Die Vielfalt vorgefertigter Buchübungen (Lehrbuch und workbook) sind eine ständige Verlockung für den Lehrer. […] Der Lehrer muß jeweils einen Teil des Unterrichts buchfrei unterrichten, indem er Gesprächsgegenstände aktualisiert und auf die besonderen Klassenbedürfnisse eingeht.”

Gehring (1999: 149): … das “Problem der Lehrwerkdiktatur” im Englischunterricht …

***

More recently, Tomlinson (2008: 3) has argued that “many ELT materials (especially global coursebooks) currently make a significant contribution to the failure of many learners of English as a second, foreign or other language to even acquire basic competence in English and to the failure of most of them to develop the ability to use it successfully. They do so by focussing on the teaching of linguistic items rather than on the provision of opportunities for acquisition and development. And they do this because that’s what teachers are expected and required to do by administrators, by parents, by publishers, and by learners too.”

What do you personally think of his? How should the textbook (and the related materials) be used in everyday learning and teaching practice?  Stay tuned, more to come.

References:

Billows, Lionel F. (1973). Kooperatives Sprachenlernen. Techniken des Fremdsprachenunterrichts. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.

Bludau, Michael (1988). Was kann, was soll der Englischunterricht auf der Mittelstufe leisten? Der fremdsprachliche Unterricht 21 (4), 4-6.

Butzkamm, Wolfgang (1995). Unterrichtsmethodische Problembereiche. In: Bausch, Karl-Richard; Christ, Herbert & Krumm, Hans-Jürgen (Hrsg.), Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht. Tübingen: Francke (UTB), 188-194.

Gehring, Wolfgang (1999). Englische Fachdidaktik. Eine Einführung. Berlin: Schmidt.

Heuer, Helmut (1968). Die Englischstunde. Unterrichtsgestaltung und Unterrichtsforschung. Wuppertal: Henn.

Hutchinson, Tom & Torres, Eunice (1994). The textbook as agent of change. ELT Journal, 48 (4), 315-327.

Kahl, Peter W. (1990). Die ersten Wochen im Fach Englisch. Englisch, 25 (2), 81-86.

Karpf, Fritz (1915). Das neusprachliche Können unserer Schüler. Wie kann die Sprechfertigkeit der Schüler gehoben werden? Teil 1. Die Neueren Sprachen, 23 (1), 32-45.

Mangold, Wilhelm (1892). Gelöste und ungelöste Fragen der Methodik auf dem Gebiete der neueren Fremdsprachen. Berlin: Springer.

Münch, Wilhelm (1911). Lebende Sprachen und lebendiger Sprachunterricht. In: Bericht über die Verhandlungen der 14. Tagung des allgemeinen deutschen Neuphilologenverbandes (A.D.N.V.) in Zürich vom 16. – 19. Mai 1910. Hannover & Berlin: Carl Meyer, 29-33.

Raith, Josef (1967). Der Englischunterricht. Band 1: Grundfragen. München: Manz.

Rivers, Wilga M. (1981). Teaching Foreign-Language Skills. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Sheldon, Leslie E. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42 (4), 237-246.

Tomlinson, Brian (ed.) (2008). English Language Learning Materials. A Critical Review. London: Continuum.

Williams, David (1983). Developing criteria for textbook evaluation. ELT Journal, 37 (2), 251-255.

The Mother Tongue Taboo or Taking the Dogma out of Foreign Language Methodology

posted by Wolfgang Butzkamm, Aachen University (RWTH), Germany 

In many Asian countries pressures are rising on English teachers to teach through English only. In Europe, the issue is still being debated, with peaks in the early 1900s when a group of Parisian radicals officially enforced the direct method for more than a decade, and again in the 1970s, when foreign-language-only audiovisual coursebooks were made available. Whether the foreign language should be the sole medium of instruction is thus more than an academic dispute. Millions of learners and their teachers are affected. Official target-language-only policies, though inspired by the best of motives, are irresponsible because the baby is thrown out with the bathwater. So:

Should we conduct lessons through the foreign language? My answer is an unequivocal yes. Does this mean the exclusion of the mother tongue from the classroom? The answer is an equally unequivocal no. The solution to this paradox is the sandwich-technique:

• French teacher of English: “What’s the matter? Qu’y a-t-il? What’s the matter?”
• German teacher of English: “You’ve skipped a line. Du hast eine Zeile übersprungen. You’ve skipped a line. Or: “I mean the second last word. Das vorletzte Wort. The second last word.”

This technique of sandwiching the translation of an unknown expression can be carried out very discreetly in the tone of an aside or sometimes even whispering. It should be a central technique of any foreign language teacher as it is the quickest way to make authentic classroom communication possible: statement in L2, restatement in L1, and again in L2. The supportive use of the mother tongue is indispensable because of the improvisational nature of much of classroom talk where participants come up with unforeseen problems and teachers are caught unawares and unprepared and must react in an unrehearsed, yet natural manner. The language required is often more complex and beyond the language taught concurrently in the coursebook. That’s why mother tongue aids make it easier to conduct whole lessons in the foreign language and can promote more authentic, message-oriented communication than might be found in lessons where they are avoided. Pupils gain confidence and, paradoxically, become less dependent on their L1.

Foreign language teaching theory needs to make a complete turnabout and accept that the mother tongue is the greatest asset a talking child brings to the classroom. It is also the single most important teaching aid.

TEFLSPEAK-G and the Idea of Encouraging Improvised Speech in the EFL Classroom (5)

posted by Jürgen Kurtz, Karlsruhe University of Education, Germany

Improvisation is a vague concept that is not defined clearly. With regard to speaking a foreign language, it refers to

• situated target language performance, and to learning by / while doing,
• accessing one’s target language / intercultural resources under communicative pressure, especially in informal communicative contexts which are usually less scripted and predictable,
• employing (compensatory) communicative strategies spontaneously, and furthermore to
• making use of whatever the totality of the communicative context has to offer,
• being flexible and creative in a variety of linguistic and non-linguistic ways,
• being prepared to take risks in the process of negotiating / co-constructing meaning.

How does this relate to current research and theory construction? In a recent issue of Applied Linguistics, Joann Swann & Janet Maybin (2007: 491) emphasize the importance of creativity for language learning. They point out that “creativity may be identified broadly as a property of all language users in that language users do not simply reproduce but recreate, refashion, and recontextualize linguistic and cultural resources in the act of communication.” They go on to say that “playfulness and humour is a potential characteristic of creativity” (2007: 492). It is evident that improvisation is a similar concept, which focuses on spontaneous, unprepared language use in the first place; more generally: on the predictability-unpredictability dimension of oral exchanges. 

The theory of foreign language improvisation is grounded in classroom-based empirical research spanning more than a decade (see, for instance, Kurtz 1997). Here is one more transcript illustrating what improvised speech is all about in actual classroom practice, how it affects oral production and how it contributes to target language communicative flexibility. Again, the format of interaction is Bus Stop (as described in part three of the TEFLSPEAK-G series). The improvisers are two 11-year-old German 5th grade students (after about nine months of learning English in a comprehensive school in Germany) (L = learner; T = teacher; … = pause; ? = intonation suggesting a question):

[…] 
T:  All right … who is next? 
L₁: Can I please? Herr Schneider .. can I?
T:  O.K. Simon … and who is your partner? … Murat? … no? what about Marc? … fine .. Simon and .. eh .. Marc .. you are at .. em .. the bus stop. … let’s count! … [whole class] … THREE, TWO, ONE, ACTION
L₂: Yes … em .. hello. 
L₁: Hello, my name is .. Simon. 
L₂: Pleased to meet you, .. em .. I’m Marc. 
L₁: Are you waiting for the bus? 
L₂: Yes .. how about some sweets? 
L₁: Thank you .. [cue:]  … em .. your shirt .. eh … is really beautiful .. [begin impro:] .. is it new?
L₂: Yes.
L₁: Look, … es [German word] … ähm … it [self correction] is dirty. Can you see .. it?
L₂: No .. your shirt is dirty … look 
L₁: What? .. that’s not .. er .. dirty … that’s modern  /mo’de:rn/ [end impro] [outburst of laughter in class]
L₂: Oh, mmh .. here comes my bus. I have to go. Nice talking to you. Bye.
L₁: Bye
[applause]

Still more to come. Stay tuned.

Swann, Joanne & Maybin, Janet (2007), “Introduction: Language Creativity in Everyday Contexts.” Applied Linguistics, 28, 491-496.

Kurtz, Jürgen (1997a). Improvisation als Übung zum freien Sprechen. (Improvisation as Free Speaking Practice). Englisch, 3, 87-97.