Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction Many readers must sympathize with Peter Grundy (1999) when he laments
the fact that after 30 years in the E LT profession, he still does not know
how to do his job. It seems indeed that, despite all the discussion, research,
and experimentation which has taken place over that time, it has not yet
been demonstrated that there is a best way of teaching a second language.
This conclusion has been a common theme in recent writings: although
different new methods have appeared to offer an initial advantage over
previous or current ones, none has finally achieved overwhelmingly better
results. Even the Communicative Approach, which has done so much to
restructure how we as language teachers view our activities, has had its
detractors and has not proven more obviously successful than other
methods in the past. There has indeed been methodological fatigue, leading
many to the pragmatic conclusion that informed eclecticism offers the best
approach for the future.
While confidence in specific methods has declined, interest in individual
learner differences, such as motivation, aptitude, family background, has
noticeably increased. If we cannot say exactly how we should teach, then
perhaps we must let our learners determine how they should learn, and
be guided by that instead. Thus has developed an interest in learner training
and self-directed learning, and in what is termed the student-centred
approach, either in its strong form, whereby the teacher and learners
negotiate the syllabus, or in its weak form, whereby the teacher tries to
ensure that what happens in the classroom responds to learners’ needs
and interests as well as to external or traditional requirements. It is in
conjunction with this shift of emphasis away from teaching and towards
learning, that there has appeared a growing awareness of the role played by
culture in the classroom.
A broad definition of In the past, culture tended to mean that body of social, artistic, and
culture intellectual traditions associated historically with a particular social, ethnic
The cultures of Of course, teachers need to be aware not only of the cultures of their students
teachers and their environment, but also of the cultures that they themselves bring
to the classroom, whether they are nationals or expatriates. This is not
just a question of the historical and social baggage that, for example, an
American or a metropolitan from New Delhi, inevitably carries with them,
but of the particular attitudes and practices that they have developed as
individuals. Woods (1996: 196) refers to a teacher’s ‘B AK’: their underlying
beliefs, assumptions, and knowledge. These determine how what is
planned is implemented in practice. He says of course design and delivery:
‘When a [plan] is carried out, it is interpreted using familiar structures in
a way which is coherent with the teacher’s BAK. By virtue of this
interpretation, the actual curriculum—what happens to the learners in the
classroom—is different from the planned curriculum’(ibid.: 269).
Even when we are dealing with culture in the more traditional sense, this
is increasingly seen primarily as a context within which personal identity
The scope of These different perspectives on the role of culture in the classroom
inter-cultural demonstrate how very broadly the term has come to be employed in the
communication teaching context. It approximates in meaning to the patterns of behaviour
training and the belief systems which teachers and learners have evolved in response
to both their general social context and their particular life experience.
Broadly speaking, this could be paraphrased as ‘how people live or aspire to
live in their world’. Understanding this, it seems, is more important than
knowing how to teach in any narrow, mechanical sense of that idea.
Certainly the writers whose works I have quoted seem clearly to be
indicating that concern for culture must predominate over concern for
method, irrespective of what any official teaching syllabus might declare.
Naturally, this imperative places a huge burden on the shoulders of the
teacher, who must cope with the multi-faceted challenge that it presents.
In order to meet this challenge, courses have been developed to improve the
inter-cultural communicative competence of both teachers and students.
The understanding of culture here is usually the more limited and
traditional one, pertaining to the life-style and values of a given people
and society, with linguistic and/or pedagogical implications following on
from these. Through a series of exercises, such courses aim to sensitize
participants to the cultural issues involved in operating in a trans-cultural
situation, and to equip them to meet the related challenges that they will
face there. This process ‘involves an implicit and sometimes explicit
questioning of the learner’s assumptions and values; and explicit
questioning can lead to a critical stance, to ‘‘critical cultural awareness’’’
(Byram and Fleming 1998: 6).
A good example here is Utley’s Intercultural Resource Pack (Utley 2004).
This is a well-designed book which aims, in a convincing way, to promote
cultural awareness and encourage self-reflection. However, in parts
(primarily between pages 19 and 49), it does require users to provide
overviews of their own and other cultures. This is no easy matter: there is
no guarantee that they will be able to identify or explain relevant features
of these cultures. In addition, there is no provision for checking or
The profile of a Appropriate personal qualities, therefore, are what count most in the
‘good teacher’ development of good intercultural communicative competence. In fact,
I would argue, they are the key to overall success in the classroom, and
this has not really changed over the years, although concern with the
latest technique and method has tended to obscure this fact. As Brumfit
The role of teacher Recognition of this fact has led to the traditional idea of teacher training
development giving way to the more far-reaching concept of teacher development. If
what I do in class depends mainly on who I am as a person, then I must
develop myself as much as I can if I wish to improve as a teacher. As far
as development in the classroom is concerned, teachers need to enhance
those reflective and critical skills which will allow them to assess and
appropriately modify their performance in the light of experience and of
the insights provided by research, both their own and that of experts in the
field. This process is described well by Tsui (2003: 277):
the theorization of practical knowledge and the ‘practicalization’ of
theoretical knowledge are two sides of the same coin in the development
of expert knowledge . . . and they are both crucial to the development of
expertise.
Such reflection helps prevent that ‘overroutinization’ which Prabhu (op. cit.:
174) considers to be the pre-eminent ‘enemy of good teaching’. It also helps
the teacher develop an individual voice, one which does not merely echo
external criteria and concerns, but gives expression to the teacher’s own
inner dynamic.
The teacher in charge If authenticity is the key factor in the classroom and, in a sense, we teach
who we are, then teacher development really becomes a matter of self-
development. If this is so, then, arguably, learning a musical instrument,
having a child, or achieving a greater level of fitness, may be as relevant to
your work as improving your technique at teaching grammar and
vocabulary if the end result is to make you a more fulfilled, more confident,
more interesting practitioner. Certainly such personal growth will help
us deal more easily with inter-cultural challenge: the more we understand
the world, human relations, and ourselves, the better able we will be to
empathize with others and make connections.
This merging of private and professional selves to achieve an integrated
identity with which we can feel satisfied, is a challenging but necessary
project. However, while this prospect may be invigorating for an
experienced practitioner, it can seem daunting to a novice, who is usually
looking for simple signposts to follow. To be told that teachers must rely
primarily on their own experience and expertise in order to chart their
way ahead, can be alarming. Yet expertise is not an abstract system of rules
which can be absorbed and then enacted; it is a personal construct which
is built up over a lifetime. As such, it involves a dynamic relationship with
the overlapping cultures and schemata within which the teaching takes
place. Tsui (op. cit.: 64) comments:
Teacher knowledge . . . should be understood in terms of the way
[teachers] respond to their contexts of work, which shapes the way their
knowledge is developed. This includes their interaction with the people
in their contexts of work, where they constantly construct and reconstruct
their understanding of their work as teachers.
Since teachers’ lives are different one from another, so their expertise will
differ, with no model emerging as an obvious template. What is right is