Using English as an International Language in the Local Context

Ursula Wall

Jonathan Hull

Wilaksana Srimavin

Using English as an International Language in the Local Context

“Although textbooks can give students a window on the world, their content is often, at best, irrelevant to students’ lives and, at worst, a threat to local traditions and culture. While working with English language teachers from several secondary schools in two rural areas in Thailand, it was found that, despite government policy to include local content, they do not know how to bridge the gap between published materials and their students’ lives. However, as this paper demonstrates, when given guidance on how to devise tasks and supplementary materials incorporating local culture, these teachers were highly receptive and enthusiastic.”

Language & culture

Teach EFL/ESL learners “English” culture?

English as a

- EFL/ESL language = comes with culture?

- lingua franca = ‘culture free’? (e.g.Kaplan, 1986)

Fears of target language overwhelming native language & culture

Participants today ~

Who: works in an EFL (rather than ESL) environment?

works in a rural and/or remote environment?

works as a teacher? works as a teacher-trainer?

works in Thailand?

Thailand’s Basic Education Curriculum (MoE, 2001)

4 goals (‘substances’) for English teachers:

Language: • for communication• and culture• in relation to other subjects• and its relationship with the community & the

world

Teachers’ duties

Broadly, as well as helping students learn about other cultures, they are expected to include community as a part of language teaching & learning so that learners can talk about their own culture

This requires teachers to adapt and/or design materials that include local content

Barriers to implementation

Teachers’ lack of training, experience & time for adapting/designing materials?

Teachers’ willingness to change?

Learners’ willingness to engage?

Background

KMUTT’s mission supports the provision of teacher training in rural areas

Two-day workshops were conducted in 2 rural areas

Part of a larger project exploring the viability of engaging rural communities in designing suitable English-language materials

Workshop objectives

To ‘brush up’ participants’ English

To elicit/present teaching techniques

To provide hands-on experience in adapting materials to local contexts

Context

Two rural districts in Thailand, one mountainous & one coastal

Both remote from large cities, mainly agrarian but with a small amount of tourism

Teachers in both districts have very little chance to attend training workshops

They have little contact with NSs of English

Methodology: participants

District 1 District 2 Total

<25 2 3 5 11%

25-34 8 11 19 41%

35-45 5 5 10 22%

45+ 7 5 12 26%

22 24 46 100

Pearson Chi-Square

value

.922

df

3 .820

Age

Methodology: participants

District 1 District 2 Total

0-2 4 3 7 15%

3-5 4 5 9 20%

6-10 4 8 12 26%

11+ 9 8 17 37%

21* One missing

24 45 98%

Pearson Chi-Square

value

1.453

df

3 .693

Teaching Experience

Methodology: participants

District 1 District 2 Total

Cert / Dip 0 0 0 0%

BA / BEd 16 21 37 80%

MA / MEd 6 3 9 20%

22 24 46 100%

Pearson Chi-Square

value

1.592

df

1 .207

Education

Methodology: participants

District 1 District 2 Total

1 6 12 18 39%

2 – 3 13 9 22 48%

4 - 6 3 3 6 13%

7+ 0 0 0 0%

22 24 46 100

Pearson Chi-Square

Value

2.645 df 2 .266

Number of

schools

taught in

Methodology: participants

District 1 District 2 Total

< 200 3 3 6 21%

200 – 400 4 1 5 18%

400+ 8 9 17 60%

16* One missing

13 29 99%

Pearson Chi-Square

value

1.056

df

2 .590

Number of

students at

previous

school

Methodology: instrument

Methodology: procedures

Conducted a two-day workshop in each district

- 3 trainers/researchers, with Thai summaries at ends of sessions in District 1

- 2 trainers/researchers, with English summaries at ends of sessions in District 2

Participants completed evaluation forms at the end of each day

Approach to workshops

To be participant-centred

To build on participants’ strengths

To establish a collaborative and participatory atmosphere and process

To be ready to adapt workshop materials

Results: quantitative

Teaching in the Local Context Workshop Evaluations

1 2 3 4 5

Content/Topics

Instructions clear

Handouts andmaterials

Presenters/Trainers

Speed and timing

(1-1.8) Very Unhappy - (1.81-2.60) Unhappy - (2.61-3.39) So-so - (3.4-4.2) Happy - (4.21- 5) Very Happy

Averaged Responses on a Five Point Likert Scale

Day OneDistrict 1 n=22

Day Tw oDistrict 1 n=22

Day OneDistrict 2 n=23

Day Tw oDistrict 2 n=18

Results: quantitative

Sentence stems District 1 District 2 Total

Today, the most useful idea for me was:

Day 1 22/22 23/23100%

Day 2 19/19 17/17

I liked: Day 1 *20/22 *22/2395%

Day 2 *18/19 17/17

I didn’t like: Day 1 *6/22 *5/2316%

Day 2 *0/19 *2/17

Any comments? Day 1 *11/22 *7/2336%

Day 2 *5/19 *5/17

Number and percentage of teachers writing comments each day

* “nothing”, “no”, “-” = 0

Results: qualitative

Amount of writing

Very positive reaction to main ideas

Participants have a sense of their skills & strengths, and of their local knowledge to adapt materials

Specific findings from evaluation forms: (1) “Today, the most useful idea for me was …”/ “I liked …”; (2) “I didn’t like …”; (3) Comments

Results (cont.)

Practising English (Objective 1)- District 1 = 11/22 (50%)

- District 2 = 3/24 (12.5%)

“Practice my English skills, listening and speaking”

(District 1)

Results (cont.)

Teaching techniques (Objective 2), - District 1 = 37

- District 2 = 77

“Know a new idea about teaching and technique”

(District 1)

“Dictation game: can use in my class” (District 2)

Results (cont.)

Sharing ideas in groups- District 1 = 12 (54.55%)

- District 2 = 6 (25%)

“Group work: to share idea between friends” (District 1)

Thinking- District 1 = 11 (50%)

- District 2 = 2 (8.33%)

“Technique of thinking skills” (District 2)

Results (cont.)

Applying local community in the classroom (3)- District 1 = 14 (63.63%)

- District 2 = 3 (12.5%)

Today, the most useful idea for me was:

“local community, and I can apply to my English class”(District 1)

“how I can add the local context into my lessons” (District 2)

Results “I did not like …”

Very few responses overall- District 1 => 6 (27.27%); District 2 => 7 (29.17%)

Related to workshop: language, tasks- “To use languages” (District 1)

- “I don’t understand … you speak quickly” (District 2)

- “Teaching strategies because it’s so serious” (District 2)

- “Dictionary task” (District 2)

Results: “I did not like …” (cont.)

Not directly related to workshop

- the weather [heat] (District 1) - thunder (District 2)

- the food provided for lunch (District 1)

- short-sightedness (District 1)

- working on holidays (District 2)

- is far from my school (District 1, “Comments”)

A positive comment in this negative category?

“The short time to study with the speakers” (District 2)

Results: comments

District 1 = 11 (50%); District 2 = 12 (50%)

Mostly expressions of appreciation, e.g.:

“Trainers are nice and very friendship with us. See you again. I hope you will come back here again” (District 1)

More handouts (Districts 1 and 2, Day 1)

Not everything was clear (2, in District 1)

Useful summaries in Thai (1, in District 1)

Results: comments (cont.)

More time needed to practise English (1) More time needed on workshop theme (1) Enjoyed exchanging ideas (2) Adapting textbooks (1)

Recommendations

Provide regular and targeted teacher education (TE) to teachers nationwide so that they have the skills to implement government policy on language & culture and language & the local community

Such TE needs to be tailored, but include: - language proficiency work

- a range of teaching techniques

- hands-on experience in adapting and/or developing materials

to fit local contexts

Recommendations

Teachers need more exposure to native speakers and/or English speaking environments

They also need more access to educational ‘experts’ as mentors; native or native-like speakers

Conclusion

Given a chance to develop professionally through training workshops on language and the community, rural teachers appeared very willing to engage with the process of delivering English lessons that not only comply with MoE regulations but also are more likely to motivate learners

Some useful references

Harper, G. (n.d.). Youth Projects for Sustainable Development. Retrieved January 11th, 2007, from http://www.e-o-n.org/Projects_International/fulltext.htm.

Kaplan, R. B. (1986). “Culture and the written language.” In J. M. Valeds (ed.), Culture bound, pp. 8-19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Office of the National Education Commission (ONEC). (1999) The National Education Act of B.E. 2542 (1999). Bangkok, TH: Seven Printing Group.

Thongsri, M., Charumanee, & Chatupote, M. (2006). The implementation of 2001 English language curriculum in government schools in Songkhla. ThaiTESO Bulletin, 19(1), 60-94.

Watson Todd, R., Taylor, S., Nilnopkhun, P., & Pothiprasart, P. (2002). Managing change: Towards student-centred learning (Trainers’ manual). Bangkok, Thailand: The Supervisory Unit, Department of General Education, Ministry of Education, Thailand.

Wongsothorn, A. (1999). Reflection and projection on Thailand’s language education policy for the new millennium. PASAA, 29 (December, 1999), 54-66.

หลั�กสู�ตรการศึ�กษาขั้��นพื้��นฐาน พื้.ศึ. (2544) http://www.obec.go.th/law/cur.pdf [Basic Education Curriculum, 2001]

Contact us:

Ursula Wall: u_wall@yahoo.com.au Jonathan Hull: jonathan.hul@kmutt.ac.th Wilaksana Srimavin: wilaksana.sri@kmutt.ac.th

Department of Language Studies, School of Liberal Arts,King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT),

126 Prach-Utid Road, Bangmod, Toong-Kru,Bangkok, 10140, THAILAND