25.4459, Review: Applied Linguistics: Díaz (2013)

[The LINGUIST List via LINGUIST]

LINGUIST List: Vol-25-4459. Fri Nov 07 2014. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 25.4459, Review: Applied Linguistics: Díaz (2013)

Moderators: Damir Cavar, Indiana U <damir at linguistlist.org>
            Malgorzata E. Cavar, Indiana U <gosia at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org
Anthony Aristar <aristar at linguistlist.org>
Helen Aristar-Dry <hdry at linguistlist.org>
Sara Couture, Indiana U <sara at linguistlist.org>

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Do you want to donate to LINGUIST without spending an extra penny? Bookmark
the Amazon link for your country below; then use it whenever you buy from
Amazon!

USA: http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-20
Britain: http://www.amazon.co.uk/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-21
Germany: http://www.amazon.de/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistd-21
Japan: http://www.amazon.co.jp/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-22
Canada: http://www.amazon.ca/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistc-20
France: http://www.amazon.fr/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistf-21

For more information on the LINGUIST Amazon store please visit our
FAQ at http://linguistlist.org/amazon-faq.cfm.

Editor for this issue: Sara  Couture <sara at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 11:17:33
From: Ali Karakas [akarakas at mehmetakif.edu.tr]
Subject: Developing Critical Languaculture Pedagogies in Higher Education

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=25-4459.html&submissionid=28798371&topicid=9&msgnumber=1
 
Discuss this message: 
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=28798371


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/24/24-3650.html

AUTHOR: Adriana Raquel Díaz
TITLE: Developing Critical Languaculture Pedagogies in Higher Education
SUBTITLE: Theory and Practice
SERIES TITLE: Languages for Intercultural Communication and Education
PUBLISHER: Multilingual Matters
YEAR: 2013

REVIEWER: Ali Karakas, University of Southampton

Review's Editors: Malgorzata Cavar and Sara Couture

SUMMARY

This monograph entitled ‘Developing Critical Languaculture Pedagogies in
Higher Education’ was born out of a desire to contribute to the field of
language and culture education. One of the overarching objectives of language
education is to develop interculturally competent language users. While much
has been said and written abstractly for the inclusion of a cultural dimension
in the language classroom, it has not often been possible to achieve this in
practice so far. This is where the monograph comes into play to bridge the
research gap. It does so, in Anthony J. Liddicoat’s own words, by presenting
“a coherent framework for approach[ing] curriculum and pedagogy, and documents
the experiences of a group of teachers in developing their practice in
response to emerging ideas of interculturally oriented language teaching and
learning” (xii). The book encompasses five chapters embedded in three main
parts. It starts with a foreword written by Anthony J. Liddicoat who presents
an introductory note to the issues covered throughout the book. In the
preface, the author then explains the rationale and motivation that drove her
to write the monograph. In the introduction, she presents the problem
statement of her research, i.e. the negligence of the essential role of
language studies in cultivating intercultural competence in universities’
so-called internationalized curricula. 

Part 1, “The Theory/Practice Gap in Language and Culture Pedagogies in Higher
Education,” consists of two chapters. The first chapter discusses the
obstacles to narrowing the gap between the avowed vision of higher education
institutions (HEIs) and their practices concerning the interplay of culture
and language. Despite today’s highly internationalized HEIs’ efforts to
develop students’ intercultural competence, less attention is given to
language education. The decrease in offering foreign language education is
signaled by the author as one of the indications of this claim. In this
regard, the author points to existing models of intercultural competence,
maintaining that the models, particularly Byrams’ (1997), suffer from a number
of limitations. The impediments regarding Byrams’ model are divided into
theoretical and pedagogical impediments. Theoretical impediments are
threefold: conceptual, relational and developmental. Conceptually, the nature
of intercultural competence is critically questioned, asserting that this
model lacks a systematically constructed view of the relationship between
language and culture. Relationally, the argument centers on the lack of
articulation of the relationship between subcomponents of Byrams’ (1997) model
that lays out several competences (i.e. linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse
and intercultural competence) which are theorized as the constituents of
intercultural communicative competence. Intercultural competence lies at the
heart of the model and is constructed as a non-language related competence,
with such subcomponents as knowledge, skills and attitudes. The crux of the
argument is that as the links between the subcomponents of the model are
formed in the form of a list, they seem disconnected, especially in
translating the cultural and linguistic elements into learning objectives and
activities. Developmentally, the main criticism is about the overall
development of intercultural competence. With a pedagogical/curricular concern
in mind,  the author questions how teaching various aspects of
sub-competencies should be prioritized over each other. Plus, complaining
about the lack of developmental models of intercultural competence (henceforth
ICC), the author discusses that just having knowledge of the target culture
per se (knowledge dimension) and language teaching (skill and attitudinal
dimension) fails to ensure the teaching of culture and the acquisition of ICC.
Toward the end of Part 1, a number of examples from several reports,
particularly released in native English speaking and European countries, are
given to show that the avowed goals of preparing culturally competent
graduates who can communicate efficiently in various contexts and the
institutions’ practices contradict each other. In short, the identified
discrepancies include the oversight of teaching other languages except
English, lack of clear-cut guidance on the integration of culture and language
pedagogies, subordination of cultural goals to linguistic goals, lack of
students’ interest in going abroad and engagement with cultural experience,
and the small number of multilingual graduates, to name a few.  

Chapter 2, “From Stumbling Blocks to Building Blocs,” addresses the
limitations established in earlier paragraphs, and looks for ways of
overcoming them. As an alternative to the existing models of ICC, the author
proposes the “languaculture curriculum development framework” (p. 59). This
framework is constructed on three essential components, i.e. theoretical,
pedagogical and institutional, in a manner that does not disregard the
complexity of language and culture connection. In the framework, the author
prefers the term languaculture as another way of apprehending the linkage
between language and culture. The theoretical building block is primarily
concerned with three tenets: one, an unequivocal conceptualization of the
language and culture relationship; two, articulation of this relationship for
language teaching practices; and three, description of the gradual examınation
of the proposed conceptualization through sequential case studies undertaken
as is done by the author. These three principles aim to render the connection
between language and culture visible to teachers. The author suggests that the
term critical “languaculture” awareness (CLA) deals best with what learners
need to be aware of. Through pedagogical building blocks, the author aims to
put forward particular steps that serve the development of curricular elements
embedded in language programs. Here, the emphasis is on the acquisition of CLA
from the beginning of language teaching/learning rather than procrastinating
until a stage at which learners will have already developed a static
understanding of cultural aspects of language.  Several suggestions are made
by the author about how CLA may be enacted in the curriculum. For example, at
the curricular level, learning objectives might be set in accordance with CLA,
and the languaculture aspect could be explained overtly. Furthermore,
materials, particularly authentic ones that will help raise CLA, can be either
purposefully selected or designed by teachers. Finally, language learning in
higher education (HE) should be free from traditional methods to language
teaching that place more emphasis on language teaching, but less on culture
teaching. Instead, teachers should make informed and deliberate pedagogical
decisions about their teaching practices. Institutional building blocks relate
to the principal realization of university mission statements by revisiting
languaculture dimensions and organization philosophy of the HE sector.
Finally, language learning should not be compressed within a few courses, but
spread around the structure of the whole degree program, for instance by
offering various language courses to learners.

In part 2, “Theory Versus Practice and the Realm of Possibility,” the author
presents how she put the proposed framework into practice in the form of four
case studies of curriculum innovation. To this end, the languaculture
curriculum development framework was applied in two language programs at an
Australian university. Chapter 3, “Case Studies of Curricular Innovation,”
outlines four exploratory case studies of curriculum innovation done in the
Italian and Chinese language programs. For each language program, two case
studies were conducted, focusing both on a language and a non-language
subject. The aim was to integrate a languaculture dimension into the existing
curricula/syllabi through using various pedagogical interventions: for
example, adding languaculture modules, preparing intercultural reflection
worksheets, online discussion forums, workshops on languaculture, in-class
presentations, inter alia. Various data collection tools (e.g. classroom
observations and semi-structured interviews with course lecturers and
students) were utilized to understand to what extent the framework operated in
the way desired and at which points it suffered from limitations. The
limitations observed by the researcher include, for example, the following
issues: insufficient time in the classes to apply the framework; the language
teachers’ personal teaching styles and philosophies (e.g. overemphasis on
linguistic competence) which do not match the objectives of curriculum
innovation; teachers’ difficulty in assessing the relationship between culture
and language; the lack of materials to raise languacultural awareness; and a
perceived lack of connection between subjects and language culture sessions.
However, positive outcomes were achieved in respect to leading teachers and
students to be more critical and reflective towards cultural aspects of
language learning. To recap, in the author’s own words, the “analysis of the
data collected in each case study has provided a bottom-up perspective on what
may be pedagogically achievable in the university classroom through a
languaculture approach” (p. 111).   

Chapter 4, “The Good, The Bad and The Feasible,” discusses “the outcomes and
exemplars of good practice that emerged through these case studies vis-à-vis
the recurrent limitations identified in discussion of the data” (p. 112) in
three sections. The first one mentions examples of good practice. Good
practices here are characterized as positive aspects of applied interventions
enabling a combination of culture teaching with language teaching. Examples of
good practice are discussed with reference to three instructional criteria:
objectives (why), syllabus or content (what), and teaching methods and
strategies (how). Regarding the goals, the author attempted to add
intercultural learning goals in the language curriculum. This was an
innovative move as “cultural goals continue to be subordinated to linguistic
goals in most language subjects” (p. 116). Concerning the syllabus, one good
practice was linking languaculture aspects with the syllabus of language and
non-language topics in the case studies by means of discussion sessions and
workshops. This helped raise teachers’ and students’ consciousness of where
culture takes place in language use. The ‘how’ of the good practices deals
with the framework’s transparency, its actualization in classroom materials
and tasks, and assessment. Many materials were utilized strategically by
engaging students in online forums, challenging pre-established prejudices in
textbook activities, and using autobiographical accounts in order to involve
teachers and students in active and conscious learning about languaculture.
The “Bad” section refers to recurrent limitations in the application of
framework. The two main issues are heavy emphasis on the linguistic competence
in subjects and the assumption that culture learning will naturally occur
while teaching linguistic content. Conversely, issues of assessment pertain to
challenges faced in identifying which tasks are appropriate to assess
students’ CLA. The “Feasibility” section focuses on the proposed framework’s
foundation, addressing theoretical, pedagogical and institutional building
blocks. Theoretical building blocks concern re-conceptualization and
definition of the relationship between culture and language, articulation of
their relationship, and mapping a sequential study of the conceptualization
against a set of case studies. Pedagogical building blocks are concerned with
formulating new learning objectives that will harmonize with the tenets of
CLA. Lastly, the purpose of institutional building blocks is to reinforce the
alignment of institutional graduate profiles with languaculture goals, to
increase the flexibility in degree programs’ structure so that the study of
languages across several faculties can be ensured, and to warrant for a
programmatic approach, through which teachers can follow an overall plan or
schedule outlined to work out an issue or a problem.   

Part 3, “Bridging the gap without falling into the precipice,” contains only
one chapter, chapter 5, “Articulating the feasible with sustainable
innovation.” It addresses ways for the sustainability of the suggested
innovative praxis-driven curriculum. The author speaks of what she calls three
interconnected sustainability-enabling mechanisms as the means of
accomplishing the proposed pedagogical innovation applied in the case studies.
The first mechanism reconfigures the role of language teachers as ‘curriculum
innovators,’ who will assume personal responsibility to make systematic
changes on the curricula to meet the needs of language learners of a
globalized world. As for the second mechanism, it is carefully noted that
professional development of language teachers should be a priority and the
training of these faculty members include pedagogical elements. Furthermore,
the author accentuates the role of collaborative development of teachers
through cooperation and critical examination of their teaching practices as
well as particular management strategies that language teachers can utilize to
gain self-reflexivity. Finally, the third strategy concerns embedment of
innovation to assure sustainability. For this, various strategies are proposed
with the objective of enabling and promoting the sustained improvement of
teaching practices. 

The book is closed with a conclusion section where an overall outline of the
research is summarized to the reader, touching on the following areas: the
scope and context of the investigation, the aims, and implications for culture
and language pedagogy and the HE sector. To take the most obvious
implications, criticality for teachers and learners, and developing
interculturally competent students, the author suggests, should be given more
attention in future research on language and culture pedagogies. Next, the
author calls on  language teachers to adopt a praxis-driven approach in their
teaching activities and to question their professional development over time.
The author terms this new role of teachers as teacher-researcher, who is
expected to conduct action research (i.e. research in which teachers reflect
on and question their practices by working on an identified problem or issue
in order to improve their practices) in cases where any language-related
demands of learners need to be urgently met. Furthermore, teacher-researcher
collaboration is recommended for teachers to become the agents of change in
their profession. Thus, for both pre-service and in-service language training,
several recommendations are made: in particular, to add up teacher education
content for intercultural learning to curricula, to instill an investigative
stance in teachers, and to incorporate intercultural teaching practices in
in-service trainings, inter alia. For HE, implications subsume the adoption of
development of interculturally competent graduates, the embedment of
strategies that sustain language studies across disciplines, degrees, and
curricula, and finally moving beyond paying sole attention to offering English
language learning in respect to quality assurance.

EVALUATION

Considering the current face of HE which has been on a constant process of
being shaped and impacted by what is termed as ‘internationalization’, this
research stands out in the sense of showing how language teaching in tertiary
levels might cover up cultural aspects that are essential for interculturally
competent students, with a bottom-up approach (i.e. an approach taken by
individual teachers against the solution of an immediate problem, often with
collaboration with other colleagues who experience the same problem(s)) . It
is rather fair to assert that the research is timely and addressing a
long-standing issue that is taken for granted. Challenging the conventional
assumption that language teaching naturally results in cultural learning, the
book strives to reveal that language and culture teaching are two different
phenomena albeit their close interrelation; teaching one does not ensure the
learning of the other. Therefore, rejecting a prescriptive understanding of
the link between language and culture, the author recommends that innovative
practices should be put into place by the agents--language teachers--who carry
out language classes for effective cultural learning. Through showing how such
innovative practices can be applied in real classroom environments in the form
of case studies, the author seems to have achieved her objective of helping
“bridge the theory/practice gap in language and culture pedagogy” (xiii). 

Despite the fact that the book problematizes earlier models of language and
culture nexus like that of Michael Byrams’, it is surprising not to see some
arguments of scholars who have intensively written about intercultural
communication and awareness in relation to language teaching, predominantly
regarding English. For example, I would have expected to see Will Baker’s
(2011) model of intercultural awareness as it is comparatively related to the
issues discussed within the book. Similarly, although he is among the first
scholars who generated the debate surrounding culture and language teaching,
Alptekin’s (2002) arguments on intercultural communicative competence are
missing in the book. Moreover, the reader might find it hard to grasp the
theoretical concepts addressed particularly in relation to language and
culture teaching unless they have previous familiarity with the models and
discussions of them.
 
Apart from these minor points, the book is reader-friendly and thus, capable
of attracting and holding readers’ attention. Moreover, it is a book written
for quite a wide readership, including scholars of applied linguistics and
language teaching, language teachers, language curriculum designers as well as
students of linguistics. In closing, I have no hesitation to suggest this book
to anyone who is interested in language and culture teaching, particularly in
tertiary education irrespective of their context of study and work. As a final
note, the quality of chapters is very high and the book’s contents
considerably repay close reading.                   

REFERENCES

Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT.
ELT journal, 56(1), 57-64.

Baker, W. (2011). Intercultural awareness: modelling an understanding of
cultures in intercultural communication through English as a lingua franca.
Language and Intercultural Communication, 11, (3), 197-214.
doi:10.1080/14708477.2011.577779.

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative
competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Ali Karakas is a Research Assistant at Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Burdur,
and is currently working on his Ph.D thesis on the perceptions of English in
English-medium Universities in Turkey at the University of Southampton, UK.
His main research interests include ELF, World Englishes, Sociolinguistic,
Linguistic Anthropology, Language Teacher Education, Applied Phonetics and
Computer Assisted Language Teaching.








----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-25-4459	
----------------------------------------------------------