Thoughts and gains concerning the seminar.

By Helder Guzman.

There are many noticeable ways in which the study of the science of
research contributes to our professional development as professors who are
willing to be essential part of educational advance. Along history, professionals
of education in all countries have looked for many different ways to know more
about the issues that influence the negative or positive evolution of communities
worldwide. Therefore, researchers in several fields apply a variety of methods
that relate to their specific interests concerning their beliefs or justified
knowledge, as well as the new trends in language education. The seminar
recently given by our School of Education shed light on many factors of great
significance in our work as teacher-researchers for the satisfactory evolution of
our activity. Above all, there were many contributions through the topics
afforded, from the discussion related to epistemological interests, language and
culture, to the study of educational matters specially focusing on bilingual
education. In addition, the seminar clarified personal myths in relation to the
ways to execute research which became highly appreciated as an important
walkthrough for individual concern.

First of all, it was fascinating for me to know more about the foundations
of epistemological positions in terms of the discovery of the nature of linguistic
ethnography. The information obtained in the readings came favourable for me
to understand how language and the way society develops hold a proportionally
direct growth as one or the other reshapes substantially along time (Creese,
2008). In fact, I have seen how the study of ethnography comes a matter of
deep study when through the past of the years teachers myself included -
confront the challenge of instructing in different new ways that are compatible
with the dynamic process of change in society influenced by the development in
many areas of social interest among youngsters and kids, or even adults.
However, what we all know at this moment concerning linguistic ethnography is
still subject of investigation and the future of this important topic is uncertain due
to the young nature of this approach. At this point, what can be said about the
vision of linguistic ethnography researchers is that they are building a wide
community of experts and new scholars in order to find the way to include it in
the academy as a method and a well-based theory.

In my field of research the theory of linguistic ethnography is essential

taking into account that most young people feel attracted towards technology to
the point of including it in their daily life. It is significant for me to analyse how
etnography plays an important role in Language Acquisition and the way our
society of youngsters has taken new forms hand in hand with advance. Most
people do not realize that technology is changing peoples minds and the way
their language is being used for different educational purposes. Although many
teachers currently do research on the topic mentioned, there is still a long way
to go in order to fathom its reality and future concerns. Overall, the analysis of
the strong relation between language and the evolution of society can be a
determinant factor for interpretation of culture and language as the main
elements in all civilizations.

As a second thought, language and culture is presented as a

controversial subject of discussion with great importance in the field of language
education. It is outstandingly shocking to realize that local policies for language
instruction have become more a tool for economical enhancement of our state
and its globalisation than an essential action for cultural enhancement
(Valencia, 2007a). However, this signage should not be understood as an anti-
imperial conception. The situation lies in the instrumentalization in which
language has being involved, making of it an influential component in the
segregation of groups and an appeal of social status, power and hierarchical
expression (Usma, 2009). As a consequence, language can act as an
oppressing element in society, thus as a detriment in important cultural values
that once identified communities and the beauty of their civilization.

This detrimental situation is evident in modern educational systems like

ours, where the concerns of learning a language no longer connect with the
enrichment of interculturality, but plead for the establishment of international
reforms and marketization of language learning and teaching seeking to play in
favour of powerful imperialist interests (Valencia, 2007b). Nonetheless, it is
valuable for teachers and learners to become aware that the relationship
between language and culture resides in their dynamic interaction, meaning that
language is essential to fully understand culture and vice-versa. Whorf, in
studies made in 1956, discovered that all the structures that form language
abstractly, grammatically and cognitively are culturally constructed. In the same
way, if we study language we get to understand culture proportionally.
Understanding this interactions is so beautiful that when we know a culture it is
easier for us to understand deeper aspects of its language (Roberts et al,
2001). Notwithstanding, the poor knowledge regarding language, makes the
majority of the teachers of different areas to start considering institutional
language demands as a fixed and a closed system (Shohamy, 2006) instead of
a dynamic way to create meanings. As a result, educators adopt the policies
imposed by the government without reflecting on their appropriateness in their
specific educational settings, showing an uncritical position towards the
purposes behind their implementation that conceive language as a tool for
imposition, manipulation and colonization (Shohamy, 2006) rather than a way
to guarantee their own well- being. (Tollefson, 2006).

Thirdly, Bilingual education presents itself a variety of constraints in its

achievement due to local policies. For instance, it is evident at university and
schools that bilingualism plans should be reconsidered as a way to offer pupils
an integral education not only involving languages, but cultural values
themselves. Therefore, economic purposes should not be taken as the base for
the programs. In my context at university the curricular plans and syllabuses
should be redefined and structuralized to question the validity of the B2 level
proposed in the program, as it is based on the CEFR, hence, it is an imposed
measure brought from a European context that differs from our local one.
However, I shall highlight that in the global context having a proficiency level
according to this frame; can also have some validity in specific academic
situations. In the other hand, the legitimacy of the internal tests and their
equivalence with the CEFR parameters must be questioned to examine their
concordance with the linguistic abilities our students have to acquire and their
relation to the context. Another matter of consideration is the fact that
bilingualism could be seen from a broader perspective, and that students should
be given the opportunity to be bilingual in a different set of languages including
the native ones like Chibcha, Muisca, among others; as they do for example-
in countries like Wales with Celtic language. Finally, it is important to highlight
the inclusion of the minorities in the ELT process at the University, as it is a way
to respect their mother tongue and their traditions.

One last important point that was of my great interest and contributed to
my development as a researcher was the demythification in front of many
beliefs I had in front of the activity of research. My long career as a teacher has
found a point where studying educational issues is a most; but in many ways
this practice has been made difficult due to the persistence of other teachers
implying that there are teaching and learning situations that are not affordable
as matters of study due to the cultural aspects inherent to our society and the
lack of resources being suffered at state and private institutions. In addition,
there is a strong believe that a research work can never be done unless the
teacher is overwhelmed by loads of information and references from ancient
authors as supporters of arguments. However, I feel jubilant to know through
the seminar that research practice should be a straightforward activity with the
aim to be concise and practical, as well as making things and methods clear in
the achievement of the objectives proposed. In the same way, I agree with the
instructor that not only ancient experts and authors are the only ones whom we
can trust, but also new writers and article-authors who experiment in modern
ways of instruction.

The information gathered about qualitative research was necessary for

me to know how easy it can be to find out the answer to the questions proposed
in the research project. In addition, the presentations in class display the way
qualitative research demonstrates synergy among the participants building
significant information for the development of conclusions (Valencia, 2006). In
the same way, interviews and talks engage participants in an active way
enhancing and helping structuring the data to be collected. Non-verbal
communication becomes important as well at the time of collecting data, but
what I found difficult is the way to group information into categories, as well as
the conventions for identifying commonalities, that is definitely something I need
to study more, but it will surely be of great help in the progress of my project.
 Finally, a personal thought in relation to the seminar and its contributions
is that it was able to formulate better insights of meaningful issues related to the
teaching and learning activity and our path to qualitative research. It also
confirmed the great importance of the activity of educational research as a
means for progress in many areas specially language teaching. The knowledge
acquired and reviewed in the course was of great help and it now serves as a
leading road towards the consecution of goals in my teaching career and as a
promoter of development in our society.
References:

- Creese, A. Linguistic Ethnography. K.A. King & Nancy H.Hornberger,

(eds.) Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Volume 10: Research
Methods in Language and Education , 2nd Edition. New York: Springer,
3-17. 229-241. 2008, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
- Roberts, C., Byram, M., Barro, A., Jordan, S. (2001). Language Learners
as Ethnographers. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
- Shohamy, E. (2006). Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New
Approaches. London and New York: Routledge.
- Tollefson, J. W. (2006). Critical Theory and Language Policy. In Ricento,
T. (2006) (Ed). An introduction to language policy. Malden, MA. Blackwell
Publishing.
- Usma Wilches, J., Education and Language Policy in Colombia.
Exploring Processes of Intrusion, Exclusion and Stratification in Times of
Global Reform. Profile 11, 2009.ISSN. 1657-0090. Bogot, Colombia,
pages. 124-141.
- Valencia Giraldo, S. (2006). La Investigacin Cualitativa en el aula de
clase bilinge. Cuadernos Interdisciplinarios Pedaggicos.Nro. 7,
pginas 145-154. ISSN 0122 877
- Valencia Giraldo, S. (2007a). Literacy practices, texts, and talk around
texts: English language teaching developments in Colombia. Colombian
Applied Linguistics Journal. Bogot: Universidad Distrital Francisco Jos
de Caldas.
- Valencia Giraldo, S. (2007b). El bilingismo y los cambios en polticas y
prcticas en la educacin pblica en Colombia: un estudio de caso.
Segundo Simposio Internacional sobre Bilingismo y Educacin Bilinge
en Latinoamrica. Bogot, Septiembre 5, 6, and 7.
- Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1956. Language, thought, and reality: Selected
writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Edited by John B. Carroll. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.