Challenges and Opportunities of a New Era in ELT
Mg. Carlos A. Lizárraga
Facultad de Filosofía y Letras – UNT
calizar@arnet.com.ar
Abstract: In this paper, I explore the impact of globalization on the teaching of the English
Language, the cultural content of the English class, teaching toward global culture awareness, the
changing roles of the English Language teacher, a reflection of the realistic purposes of students in
Argentina to learn the language, a critical view of the content of current coursebooks, and the need
to develop appropriate materials.
Key words: global culture awareness, role of the teacher, coursebooks, appropriate materials.
Since its fairly recent emergence, the ELT profession has come a long way, and it can be said that
it is at an exciting transitional time these days. Along with the increasing criticism of CLT, new
perspectives are beginning to emerge. Globalization and the state of the world in constant flux at
this point in history have had and will continue to have an impact on the way we interact as
individuals, societies, and nations. This so-called post-method era is therefore a time to look for
alternatives. It is also a time for empowerment, for the free flow of our creative impulses, which
poses both challenges and opportunities to every classroom teacher. The good news is that it is up
to each one of us to choose which way to go. Our role in the classroom keeps changing and we
face students whose interests, attitude and predisposition defy our creativity. This is also a good
time to think again of our students’ purposes for learning English, to question ourselves how we
contribute to our students’ general education from the English class, how we motivate them to want
to learn, how we keep them focused on the tasks we propose and thus compete successfully with
social networks, the Internet, video games, and TV programs. I would like to tackle these issues,
and share both current research and my own thoughts on them. My hope is to spark further
reflection of your own and thus promote a professional renewal that should impact our stance in
class and our students’ experience in it.
To begin with, globalization has been a sweeping transformational tsunami that is shaping a new
form of interconnectedness and flow among nations, economies, and peoples. Consequently, it has
transformed our social life in several dimensions: economically, politically, culturally, technologically,
ecologically, and individually. Even though this phenomenon has evolved over several decades,
currently it has changed the world in terms of how we view space, time and the nature of the
concept of nation (Kumaravadivelu, 2008, pp. 35-36). The world has shrunk and our lives are
affected by events taking place on the other side of the planet which we may not be conscious
about. New technologies allow us to learn what is going on as it happens anywhere on the planet in
real time. Because of this interconnectedness, global trade, capital, information, and also ideas,
norms, cultures and values are so accessible and spread out that national boundaries tend to
disappear.
The Internet has taken a prominent role in this process. It connects millions of individuals making
communication possible at a distance and in real time. The growth of online trade is having
continuous unprecedented growth. Transnational corporations have acquired greater power and
capital than countries themselves. General Motors, Coca-Cola, IBM, Microsoft, etc represent half of
the top 100 largest economies. In 1999, 70% of these corporations were based in only three
countries: the US, Japan and Germany (Steger, 2003, p. 48 quoted by Kumaravadivelu, 2008, p 3637). Along with the rise of transnational corporations, we are witnessing a decline of the power of
nation-states. National sovereignty has weakened in front of the power of corporations which seek
to increase profit by making the most of the global availability of cheap labor, foreign resources, and
a deregulated global market. In this context, cultural globalization is the process of connectedness
1
and flow of people’s ideas, values, and life style. The new technologies present us with the
opportunity to grow immensely culturally, and, at the same time, to be heavily influenced to the
point of seeing our cultural identity threatened.
There are different ways of looking at the impact of globalization on culture. Some believe that there
is a process of cultural homogenization operating mainly through the dominant American life style
and culture of consumerism – a clear example of this is evident if we go zapping through TV cable
channels where most of the programs come from the US. The American entertainment industry
spreads American pop culture worldwide. Hollywood makes over 50% of its revenues from
overseas, while only 3% or less of American movie theaters are open to foreign films. To preserve
themselves from importing American values, some countries have taken measures to curve the
entrance of Hollywood films and other cultural exports. In 2005, the UNESCO made a decision to
support these protective measures (BBC News, dated Oct. 20, 2005; quoted by Kumaravadivelu
2008, p. 40-41).
Others believe that as a reaction to the threat of globalization there’s a trend toward
heterogenization in order to strengthen local and religious identities. Lots of local cultural identities
are re-emerging. For “localizers,” globalization is becoming decentered. As examples of this,
Giddens mentions Al-Jazeera, the Arabic language television network, and Bollywood, the Indian
film industry which produces more movies than Hollywood and has a wider audience. Localizers
believe that acceptance of Western consumer goods does not mean acceptance of Western
cultural beliefs.
A third view is that there is a simultaneous process of homogenization and heterogenization taking
place, producing the tension mentioned above and creative impulse. This process has come to be
known as “glocalization,” i.e. the global is localized and the local globalized. Glocalizers believe that
cultural transmission is a two-way process which constantly shape and reshape each other directly
or indirectly. Originated in the Japanese language to refer to marketing issues, it is similar to the
popular slogan “think globally, act locally.” An example of this is how McDonald’s & Burger King try
to be sensitive to local food habits and be competitive as well with local fast food places, e.g. they
offer their version of our popular milanesa and lomito sandwiches. They serve Kosher food in
Israel, Halal food in Islamic countries, and vegetarian food in India. Glocalizers emphasize their
ideal of human universality.
In this scenario, language education is taking the direction of helping learners construct their
personal meaning of the world with a global understanding and a search for self-identity. This is
ultimately the greatest added value that language education may give our students. Two aspects
are derived from this state of affairs: the need to teach towards our students’ global culture
consciousness and their personal construction of their own cultural identity.
The teaching and learning of a foreign language have always been inextricably interwoven with the
exploration of the target language culture. However, given the status of English as an international
language, it becomes difficult to define what we mean when we say “target” culture. It has mostly
traditionally been the British culture, mainly due to the historical predominance of Britain in the
production of global textbooks and the advancement of knowledge in the discipline. Yet, the
Anglophone culture encompasses several countries and realities, and beyond their borders, the
number of speakers of English as a second or other language far exceeds that of native speakers.
For this and other reasons, approaching the teaching of English as an international language
presupposes the inclusion of diverse cultural content from the target, global, and local cultures
(McKay, 2002, p. 88; Kumaravadivelu, 2008, p. 256).
Developing a global culture consciousness requires critical and constant self-reflection, and it
strengthens awareness of our own cultural identity. Now, what do we exactly mean by the
exploration of our “cultural identity?” The term “culture” has no simple definition. It refers both to the
societal constructs of creative endeavors such as theater, dance, music, literature, and art (Culture
2
with a capital C), and to the personal construct of behavior, values, and beliefs that guide our daily
lives (culture with a small c). And the teaching of culture according to H.H. Stern (1992) includes a
cognitive, an affective, and a behavioral component. The cognitive component includes
geographical knowledge, the contributions of the target culture to civilization, and an understanding
of this community’s attitudes and sense of values. The affective component encourages the
student’s developing empathy towards the target culture. The behavioral component allows
students to understand cultural behavior and to develop an ability to act appropriately when in
contact with the target culture. Furthermore, supposedly, as Stern proposes it, we should gain an
understanding of the perspective of a native speaker, i.e. “becoming sensitive to the state of mind of
individuals and groups within the target language community.”
However, this has been considered a rather limited view, because it focuses on the native speaker
of the language and it associates cultural identity with national or linguistic identity. We can only
speak in broad generalizations to refer to the Argentinian culture, since there are countless
subcultural variations within our country. Therefore, Kumaravadivelu proposes we consider the
exploration of our cultural identity not only in terms of our national and linguistic background but
also in terms of our ethnic heritage, religious beliefs, class, age, gender, and sexual orientation.
From his point of view, we should consider our class as a mosaic of multicultural members that
represent a variety of world perspectives. “One’s learned knowledge and experience of other
cultural contexts not only expands one’s cultural horizon but also clarifies and solidifies one’s own
cultural heritage” (Kumaravadivelu, 2008, p. 164).
The objective for us teachers to provide opportunities for our students to explore and strengthen
their cultural identity, and develop a sense of global culture awareness is quite a challenge. It
requires that we review our role as teachers, our approach to teaching, and class materials
critically.
In this so-called postmethod era, the growing dissatisfaction with method comes from the realization
that they have not proven to be effective for every context. Currently with CLT, the one-size-fits-all
approach proposed by the global textbook is a top-down process, in which the expert far removed
from our sociocultural environment decides what is to be taught and how. The teacher thus is
nothing more than a conduit who channels the flow of information from the foreign expert to the
students, without altering the content. This role of teachers as a passive technician is what we have
been mostly used to. Our training largely consisted of learning the history of methods and how to
implement the latest one in the classroom.
Nowadays, there is a growing concern that methods do not consider the input of the teacher who
may make valuable decisions based on their reality. Methods do not consider the cultural baggage
and life experience that students bring to the classroom too. Instead, methods are fed to us in prepackaged textbooks that reflect a Western lifestyle and, therefore, a biased world perspective.
Methods do not consider societal needs, cultural contexts, political exigencies, economic
imperatives, and institutional constraints.
The current state of affairs calls for different types of role, so that we leave behind the rather
uncritical stance and belief in tradition, and the submissive obedience to authority of the passive
technician. Instead, we can see our role as either reflective practitioners or, better yet, as
transformative intellectuals. The former views teaching not as series of “predetermined and presequenced procedures but as a context-sensitive action grounded in intellectual thought. Teachers
are seen not as passive transmitters of received knowledge but as problem-solvers possessing the
ability to look back critically and imaginatively, to do cause-effect thinking, to derive explanatory
principles, to do task analysis, also to look forward, and to do anticipatory planning” (Dewey, quoted
by Kumaravadivelu, 2003, p. 10)
The reflective practitioner “examines, frames, and attempts to solve the dilemmas of classroom
practice; is aware of and questions the assumptions and values he or she brings to teaching; is
3
attentive to the institutional and cultural contexts in which he or she teaches; takes part in
curriculum development and is involved in school change efforts; and takes responsibility for his or
her own professional development” (Zeichner and Liston quoted by Kumaravadivelu, 2003, p.11).
The criticism of this role is that, on one hand, it focuses on the introspective process of the teacher,
and does not consider the interactive process with learners, colleagues, planners, and
administrators. On the other, it focuses on what the teacher does in the classroom, and may pay
little or no attention to the sociopolitical factors beyond the confines of the classroom.
The role of the teacher as a transformative intellectual stems from the educational philosophy of
Paulo Freire, who saw education as a democratic process of sociopolitical emancipation and
individual empowerment. From his work in the Brazilian fabelas, he embraced the belief that any
pedagogy is embedded in relations of power and dominance, and is used to create and sustain
social inequalities. Critical pedagogists have used his philosophy to create a movement that sees
teachers as “professionals who are able and willing to reflect upon the ideological principles that
inform their practice, who connect pedagogical theory and practice to wider social issues, and who
work together to share ideas, exercise power over the conditions of their labor, and embody in their
teaching a vision of a better and more humane life” (Giroux and McLaren, 1989, quoted by
Kumaravadivelu, 2003, p. 13)
This kind of pedagogy places a premium on the teachers’ and students’ lived experiences, and
proposes the empowerment of students so that they become critical agents, educated for
transformative action. If we do not educate our students to improve their lifestyle and living
conditions, our work would lack meaning and betray a basic postulate of the teaching profession.
Teachers who see themselves as transformative intellectuals are dedicated to “the creation and
implementation of forms of knowledge that are relevant to their specific contexts and to construct
curricula and syllabi around their own and their students’ needs, wants, and situations” (ibid., p. 14)
They seek to maximize their students’ sociopolitical awareness by using consciousness-raising,
problem-posing activities.
Kumaravadivelu describes transformative teachers as:
 inquiry oriented: their aim is to explore problems they pose about life in and outside the
classroom;
 socially contextualized: aware of the sociohistorical context and power dimensions that
have helped shape it;
 dedicated to the cultivation of situated participations: they promote discussion in class,
situated in the students’ words, concerns, and experience;
 extended by a concern with critical self- and social reflection: they propose activities that
encourage introspection and self-reflection;
 steeped in a sensitivity by pluralism: they familiarize themselves with the linguistic and
cultural diversity of their students and conceptualize multiple perspectives on issues that
matter to themselves and their students;
 concerned with the affective dimension of human beings: teachers seek to develop both the
emotional and logical sides of their students and themselves.
(Adapted from Kumaravadivelu, 2003, p. 14-15)
Embracing a role as transformative intellectuals is no easy task. The passage from being a passive
technician to a transformative intellectual can hardly happen without a commitment to constant selfreflection and self-renewal. This, of course, will be the case if we have the ability and willingness to
explore the process, to challenge established assumptions and theories we learned in our formal
teacher education, and embark on the venture of developing our personal theories of teaching and
learning, of discovering how to best promote our students’ acquisition of the language.
4
In this process of re-examining the very basic foundations of our profession and at a time when CLT
has come under intense scrutiny and criticism, it is worth noting that throughout most of the
existence of ELT as an academic and scientific discipline, most of the research and developmental
energies went into the technical aspects of language teaching, i.e. mainly how to teach grammar,
develop a large vocabulary, how to speak fluently, pronounce and produce English sounds
proficiently, listen and read comprehensively, write with coherence and cohesion, how to
communicate effectively. Nowadays there is also a healthy focus on content, which is why the
aspect of culture has become so important. Within the same predicament of this brave new
globalized world, several voices have arisen that claim for a revision of current views.
The criticism of cultural imperialism in ELT discourse, practices and materials has led Phillipson and
Skuttnab Kangas (1999) to refer to Eastern Europe as the new postcolonial world. When asked to
comment on this, Widdowson said that there were “rather too much of people coming in from
outside ‘bringing in the good news’ with scant knowledge of local traditions of scholarship and
education’ (Widdowson, quoted in Thomas 1999, p. 125). The issue of localizing ELT practices has
gathered strong support among ELT professionals. The question posed by Catherine Wallace is
how we draw on, adapt or reject prevailing methodologies and materials.
Her response to the question deserves our attention. She criticizes the standard global textbook as
being reductive, offering the three Ds view of consumerist EFL culture: dinner parties, dieting, and
dating, and despite being global, she contends textbooks usually carry narrow and parochial
discourse. She views English language learning as “educationally demanding, rooted in literate
language and designed to prepare students for longer term and relatively unpredictable needs as
continuing learners and users of English” (Wallace, 2002, p. 109)
Her essay leads to a reflection of our students’ actual purposes to learn English. Current
“communicative” methodologies assume the language is learned to interact with other speakers, the
aim being “to talk for its own sake; simply talking is enough, and it is immaterial what you talk about”
(ibid, p.110) She goes on to share Pennycook’s description of this as the ‘empty babble of
communicative language class.’ The goal of CLT approaches to enable communication with native
speakers in natural, everyday environments is challenged as rather limited. She proposes what she
calls the teaching of literate English. Developing literate English means teaching language that is
not for immediate use, but that serves longer-term needs. The approach called Critical Language
Awareness has the purpose of making language itself the object of critical scrutiny, as evidenced in
the reading and writing of texts. This implies the use of a wide range of text genres, frameworks for
analysis and opportunities for discussion around the texts. Each text is re-contextualized within the
classroom and is critically analyzed as a cultural object that reflects certain values and belief
systems.
In the critique of a range of texts, students are encouraged to use literate talk, in more extended,
planned discourse than can usually be found in the regular CLT class, where “short-burst informal
talk is privileged.” This approach intends to enable students to be in contact with a world community
of intellectuals, most of whom will not be native speakers of English, in the public arena and, most
probably via the Internet, beyond the national boundaries.
Wallace’s proposal is an example of how we can explore different paths toward providing the best
possible instruction for the particular purposes of our students. In our classrooms, the purpose of
learning English for most of our students is mainly for their cognitive and academic development.
For realistic purposes, children and adolescents will need it to understand videogame and software
instructions, make sense of a song they like, or expressions used by a favorite character in a sitcom on TV. However, since the advancement of knowledge happens largely in English, in the future
they will need it to access the literature of their discipline, to be up to date in the development of
their professional field. They will need it to access information via modern technologies. In fact, only
a tiny minority will ever need it to speak with either a native or non-native speaker. In most cases,
their learning is a lifetime endeavor, as there is wide consensus that proficiency in English is highly
5
desirable in every area of experience. Giving them the opportunity to develop their critical thinking
skills, their global culture awareness, and their sense of identity will become powerful competencies
in this increasingly challenging globalized world.
Now the problem comes when we need to think of how to achieve this. On the one hand, textbooks
are the main tool teachers have. We usually look for the most appropriate one according to our
group of students, however a lot of ink has been poured into the criticism of the nature and content
of the global textbook. In fact, for teachers to embrace the role of transformative intellectuals, the
current textbooks offer extremely limited help.
The importance of the ELT publishing industry was recognized in the mass media in an article in
The Economist in 1990. Entitled ‘English in Eastern Europe,’ it describes the English language
teaching policies in seven countries of this bloc, and the extent of the penetration of British ELT
publishing. Given the high demand for English instruction, it recognized the promising business of
coursebooks, and other ELT materials as having great potential. A little later, in 1992, Phillipson
suggested that “the promotion of British ELT was an enterprise with an economic and ideological
agenda aimed ultimately at boosting commerce and the dissemination of ideas and language.” The
business has grown so much that nowadays Gray reports that some European (other than Britain)
and Asian countries are now exporting materials or offering their own English language teaching
programs to the rest of the world.
The textbook industry has largely absorbed criticism and has changed over time, from an open
emphasis of its contents mainly on Britain and the US, to a greater inclusivity of other cultures in the
latest series. In fact, Gay reports, ELT publishers have a set of explicit guidelines for their
coursebook writers. They revolve around inclusivity and inappropriacy.
As regards inclusivity, for example, over time the representation of women has changed
dramatically. The checklist provided by the publishers included that materials should show women
as assertive, showing initiative and self-control, and men as vulnerable, demonstrating emotion,
and searching for reassurance. These guidelines also included a fair balance in the representation
of age, class, ethnic origin, and disability. Inclusive language was to be expected too, i.e. politically
correct language: no generic use of ‘man’ or ‘mankind’ but inclusive terms such as people, humans,
or humanity, etc.
In terms of inappropriacy, culturally offensive content was not to be used. Some of the proscribed
topics include politics, alcohol, religion, sex, narcotics, isms, and pork. Gray says he saw a list with
around thirty items, among which appeared alcohol, anarchy, Aids, Israel and six pointed stars,
politics, religion, racism, sex, science when it involves altering nature – e.g. genetic engineering,
terrorism, and violence. As a result, most textbooks began to look alike, and were mostly found to
portray a very “thin slice of a clean, affluent social environment.” Needless to say, disabled, old, gay
and lesbian, poor characters were usually absent. Due to waves of harsh criticism, publishers have
begun to provide more truly inclusive and appropriate contents, even though they still have a long
way to go in this respect. What still needs to happen on a regular basis is the accommodation of the
local in them.
Textbooks are produced mainly with the teacher in mind and are intended for as wide a market as
possible. That is why they are called global. However, now in Spain and Italy, Gray reports,
publishers have produced tailor-made materials that consider the number of hours students have
for English, the methodologies and the themes to be addressed. Another strategy of publishers is to
provide materials intended for a certain region consisting of several countries. They produce a core
text that is supplemented in each country with material written by local authors that include specific
local contents. In all cases, they strive to provide teachers a ‘better fit’. The idea is that by using
high-tech production, they can provide smaller markets with what they need, i.e. especially
customized for local use.
6
The winds of change in this post-method era leave us, it is true, with no alternative approach at
hand. We are left in a position with greater freedom, greater empowerment, and endless
possibilities to use our creativity and imagination. However, this is also highly challenging and
definitely anxiety-provoking. The reality for most of us is that –I should add ‘fortunately’- we are
overloaded with teaching hours, and have very little time to carry on constant reflection, and
innovation. The situation is far from optimal. In many cases, we have to cope with crowded
classrooms, scarcity or lack of resources, and little time per week devoted to preparing class. We
end up feeling lucky if our students can afford to buy a textbook or get photocopies of class
materials. Whenever I think of optimizing our effectiveness within the most common scenarios for
teachers, I try to propose plausible paths that may help us improve our practice, do a better job,
exert greater satisfaction from our work.
Having a wide variety of appropriate teaching materials available would make our life a lot easier,
but that is not case yet. ELT publishers have taken note of the rejection of the idea of the ‘one-sizefits-all’ type of textbook. Hopefully not long from now, we shall have a textbook market that will
reflect the principles and contents discussed in this paper. Until we have this material available, I do
not propose we become full-time materials developers. We can make up for this scarcity in a
number of ways. One is to work with colleagues as teams, to collaborate in the production of a
lesson, or a unit. My effort will be rewarded with that of my colleagues. By sharing our efforts we
multiply our resources. Another way is to seek student-teachers, work with them as their mentor,
and in collaboration with them, explore possibilities for diverse classroom projects and, along the
way, develop appropriate materials. Finally, if none of these is an option, we can always add a
reflective component to the material we are currently using. In other words, we can promote our
students’ exploration of their personal beliefs and values if we simply propose a critical view of the
contents of current textbooks.
The road is wide open for us in this exciting time of our profession. We can re-define the role of the
English teacher in the general curriculum, channel our energy to raising our students’ level of both
linguistic and global culture awareness, and, on the way, find greater sense and meaning in our
profession.
Bibliography
Block, David and D. Cameron, Ed. (2008). Globalization and Language Teaching (2nd ed.).
London, UK: Routledge Publishers.
Brown, D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (4th ed.). London: Longman.
Brown, D. (2001). Teaching by Principles. London: Longman.
Burns, Anne & J. C. Richards, Ed. (2009). Second Language Teacher Education. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Carter, Ronald & D. Nunan Ed. (2001) The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of
Other Languages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Freire, Paulo. (2003). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 30th Anniversary Edition. New York, US:
Continuum Publishers.
Holliday, Adrian (1994). Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Holliday, Adrian (2005). The Struggle to Teach English as an International Language. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Johnson, Karen E. (2009). Second Language Teacher Education – A Sociocultural Perspective.
New York, US: Routledge Publishers.
Kramsch, Claire. (2004). Context and Culture in Language Teaching (6th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond Methods. Macrostrategies for Language Teaching. New
Haven, US: Yale University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding Language Teaching. From Method to Postmethod.
New Jersey, US: Routledge Publishers.
7
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2008). Cultural Globalization and Language Education. New Haven, US: Yale
University Press.
Long, Michael H, and Catherine J. Doughty, Ed. (2009). The Handbook of Language Teaching.
West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
McKay, Sandra Lee. (2009). Teaching English as an International Language. (4th ed.). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Norton, Bonny & K. Toohey, Ed. (2004). Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pennycook, Alastair (2001). Critical Applied Linguistics, a Critical Introduction. London: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Reagan, Timothy & T. A. Osborn. (2002). The Foreign Language Educator in Society. Toward a
Critical Pedagogy. London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Richards, J. & C. Lockhart. (1994). Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. New
York. CUP
Sharifian, Farzad, Ed. (2009). English as an International Language. Perspectives and
Pedagogical Issues. New Perspectives on Language and Education Series, Viv Edwards
Ed. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
8