[etni] Fw: re: goal of English as a Second language in Israel


----- Original Message ----- From: "Doron Narkiss" - <doron.narkiss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: goal of English as a Second language in Israel


I was very glad to see Daniel's invitation to a long-overdue
discussion of the goals of teaching English in Israel. I am
not a teacher in school - I train teachers-to-be at a
teacher's college. It's important for me, and for all those
preparing teachers, to be included in this discussion.
Let me add my two bits.

English is one of the two most prestigious subjects studied
at school. They may eventually cancel the Bagrut in Tanach,
but Maths and English will stay forever. This says something
about the importance of English in Israel - a matter almost
everyone agrees upon, from the  Ministry to the principals
and teachers, to the parents and the kids themselves.
I'll leave aside for now the question of which language(s)
we should be investing in, given our geographical-political
location, although acc. to law, Hebrew and Arabic are the
official langs, with English in the position of "first foreign
language" (MoE, "Gen. Man. Circular 31: Language Policy", 1996).

But there's the rub. English is being taught, to all intents
and purposes, as a second, not as a foreign language,
or in Braj Kachru's terms, as part of the "Outer Circle" rather
than of the "Expanding Circle" (eg "The Alchemy of English," 1986).
"Kachru suggests a model of three concentric circles...
The Inner Circle consists of Great Britain and the countries
settled by it, the Outer Circle consists of countries that
have institutionalized the English language to one
degree or another (usually after having been colonized), 
and the Expanding Circle consists of all other countries
that are promoting the study of English as a foreign language (EFL)."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9622096662/103-7456642-0486253?v=glance&n=283155

So what's wrong with teaching English as ESL, as though
we were Hispanic immigrants in the US, say, or French Canadians
- if it achieves the desired effect? We can learn from these
situations, but if we are honest we must admit that we're very
different from them, because for most people in Israel English
is not required for daily use. Most people need English not to
be able to read Jane Austen in the original, but for work and
social related purposes. Yet we teach our students as if they
must be prepared to integrate into the culture, history and way
of life of native Eng speakers in "Inner Circle" countries.
We test them on this, holding them accountable to a
standard they can never achieve - that of the native speaker.
Reaching the highest module is an achievement precisely
because it most closely approximates (but never coincides with!)
L1 proficiency. If you think this should be the goal of teaching
English in Israel, then please stop whining about Bagrut backlash
and your students becoming goal-oriented. The question for
me is, does the teaching of Eng involve the acquisition of a tool,
or should the values and traditions of present-day Eng-speaking
countries be included part and parcel in addition to the lang?
Do we consciously want to aim higher than (most of) the pupils
will ever achieve or need, or should we - gradually and
sensibly - begin taking a more realistic view of Eng., its inflated
status, as well as its actual and undoubted benefit, and despite
our personal preferences teach what citizens in Israel require.
This, in the long run, is the solution for "Bagrut backwash",
dispirited pupils and teachers who feel betrayed. It is also
a more nurturing view of education, more attuned to the pupils needs.

Make no mistake - my personal preference is to teach Eng lit.,
and I encourage the use of literature (reading, writing, reciting)
as authentic material in the classroom. But today the sources of
lit. written in English are so varied, that one need not stick with
the rather anemic, US-leaning texts provided by Messrs. Cohen
et al. Use of material in Eng. from around the world is, incidentally,
explicitly encouraged in the latest Curriculum. The variety of
"Englishes" (looks terrible, doesn't it? Get used to it.) will
encourage learners to express themselves more freely and, um,
creatively... but it will also enable them to find an Eng. that is
appropriate for their peceived needs, instead of coming to
English with the sense that they can't leave until either they of it is exhausted.

How can this be done? The EU has developed a model of
linguistic competence, with several levels (see Wiki for an overview -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Framework_of_Reference_for_Languages
it might not be a bad idea to link our standards to theirs. Vivian
Cook (of "multi-competence" SLA fame) suggests assessing
proficiency in L2, acc. to standards to be set, that will clearly
differentiate between native or near-native proficiency, and non-native.
Jennifer Jenkins and others put forward EIL - Eng. as an Int'l Lang;
now there's something called ELF - Eng. as Lingua Franca; and
I want to suggest EAT - Eng as a tool. Kachru "believes that
anglophones in Asia have the right to determine the direction
of their own varieties of English. He celebrates the creativity
of Asians who use English to express their own culture and
insists that Indians, Singaporeans, etc. have the right to
establish their own canons of correctness". We're in
there, under "etc."

There's plenty to discuss; not to mention the different uses and
needs of various sectors, demographics, soc-pol levels,
speakers for whom Eng is a third or fourth language, or,
what interests me in particular, the kind of teacher education
we should provide so that our graduates will be able to face
these challenges.

Looking forward to continuing this conversation,

Doron Narkiss
Kaye College, Beer Sheva

--------------------------------------------
Visit the ETNI site - http://www.etni.org
Send a message to the ETNI list: etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send queries and questions to: ask@xxxxxxxx
--------------------------------------------

Other related posts: