Jody Cripps,  Towson University, Maryland, USA
Mayra Daniel, Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, Illinois
Mario E. López-Gopar, Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca
Kristin Snoddon,  Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada
Shelley Taylor, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada

THE “E” IN TESOL: IS IT THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM?

Mayra Daniel’s talk focused on the current linguistic and cultural landscape of schools around the world. In this landscape, it is not difficult to see the influence of TESOL on teachers’ pedagogy. As Daniel suggested, the “E” in TESOL is like the elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge. However, this “E” serves to raise awareness of bilingual students’ right to interact in two or more languages and cultures (Collins & Blot, 2003; TESOL Standards, 2001).

Progressive educators believe that schooling has changed for the better because multilingualism has hit the schoolhouse. Today, students translanguage with their siblings at home and with their classmates and teachers at school (García, Bartlett, & Kleifgen, 2007). In so doing, these students realize powerful multilingual multicultural identities.

The “E” in TESOL stands for a philosophy of teaching and learning that extends from kindergarten to tertiary education. For TESOL, the “E” means to educate the whole person. In teacher education programs, the “E” is the vehicle to eliminate discrimination. For teachers, the “E” is the cheerleader and role model. The above three conceptions of the “E” means challenging students to nurture their multicultural identities. Educators with such an “E” in mind uphold TESOL standards while developing curriculum and fair assessment; advocate for learners and their families; begin with students’ funds of knowledge (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005); rejoice in the multicultural identities of their students (Gollnick & Chinn, 2009; Pang, 2005); and plan culturally appropriate content and language instruction (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994).

As described by Daniel, the “E” is vibrant in Mr. H.’s middle school mathematics classroom. Mr. H. pushes, prods, tells stories, and exemplifies for his learners what they can accomplish. Working with Ms. L., the family liaison, Mr. H and his colleagues expect only success from their students. What a letter this “E” is!

REFERENCES

Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.

Collins, J., & Blot, R. (2003). Literacy and literacies: Texts, power, and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

García, O., Bartlett, L. & Kleifgen, J. A. (2007). From biliteracy to pluriliteracies. In P. Auer & L. Wei (Eds.), Handbook of applied linguistics. Vol. 5: Multilingualism (pp. 207-228). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Gollnick, D.M. & Chinn, P.C. (2009). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society. 8^th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (Eds.) (2005). Funds of knowledge for teaching in Latino households. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pang, V. O. (2005). Multicultural education: A caring-centered, reflective approach. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. (2001). TESOL/NCATE Standards for P-12 Teacher Education Programs. Retrieved fromhttp://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/seccss.asp?CID=219&DID=1689.

++++++++++

MEXICAN LANGUAGE POLITICS AND ETHNOGRAPHIC PRAXIS

Mario E. López-Gopar also presented on behalf of his colleagues Angeles Clemente and William Sughrua. As described by López-Gopar, Mexico is a culturally and linguistically diverse society (Terborg, García Landa, & Moore, 2007). In this society, language practices are characterized by the intersection of Spanish, numerous Indigenous languages, and English (Clemente & Higgins, 2008; López-Gopar, 2009). As a result, English language teachers and teacher educators may preserve the status quo. Here, Spanish is the de facto official language of Mexico, and English is the language of success.

Alternately, educators may resist these hegemonic language ideologies. These educators work toward the development of a society where all languages are valued and respected. Doing so leads to a critical analysis and reframing of the “E” in TESOL in Mexico.

López-Gopar, Clemente, and Sughrua’s paper presented an overview of language politics (Labrie, 2004) in Mexico. These language politics include English and its connections to the historical relationship between Mexico and the United States. The authors also discussed the current English-as-the-language-of-success discourse. Last, the authors discussed ethnographic praxis-driven (Freire, 1970; Higgins & Coen, 2000; Pennycook, 2001, 2010; Pierce, 1989) research projects. In this research, English language researchers and student teachers confront English language politics. These researchers and teachers also reinvent critical pedagogies with children in schools in Oaxaca, Mexico.

Constant analysis of the research and teaching praxis of the English language is needed. Such analysis promotes multi(trans)lingual, intercultural, and multimodal language practices. It also works toward more egalitarian societies in Mexico and elsewhere.

REFERENCES

Clemente, A., & Higgins, M. (2008). Performing English with a postcolonial accent: Ethnographic narratives from Mexico. London, England: The Tufnell Press.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.

Higgins, M., & Coen, T. (2000). Streets, bedrooms and patios: The ordinariness of diversity in urban Oaxaca. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Labrie, N. (2004). Linguistic pluralism and language politics in the new economy. Estonia’s integration model at an era of change. In M. Luik (Ed.), Proceedings of conference “Multilingual Estonia,” 24-25 October 2002, Tallinn Estonia (pp. 30-38). Tallinn, Estonia: Integration Foundation.

López-Gopar, M. E. (2009). “What makes children different is what makes them better”: Teaching Mexican children “English” to foster multilingual, multiliteracies, and intercultural practices (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice. London, England: Routledge.

Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pierce, B. N. (1989). Toward a pedagogy of possibility in the teaching of English internationally: People’s English in South Africa. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 401-420.

Terborg, R., García Landa, L., & Moore, P. (2007). Language planning in Mexico. In R. Baldauf Jr. & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Language planning and policy in Latin America. Vol. 1: Ecuador, Mexico and Paraguay (pp. 115-217). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

IN SEARCH OF AUTHENTIC READING INSTRUCTION WITH ENGLISH FOR DEAF STUDENTS

Jody Cripps also presented on behalf of his colleagues Sam Supalla and Laura Blackburn. These authors explored the Universal Design framework in terms of inclusive reading development experiences. Deaf students may have the full capacity of processing and mediating in the signed modality of language. However, this area has not been adequately addressed in terms of reading development. This is especially true since American Sign Language (ASL) has no formal writing system. In addition, there has been no pedagogy to connect Deaf students’ knowledge of ASL with English.

Consequently, the authors suggested a cross-linguistic system to make connections between ASL and written English. They argued that this system would help authenticate the learning process.

The authors discussed general reading development experiences. Deaf students do not have full access to English literacy. The authors then discussed reading instructional practices that have been adopted for deaf education. These instructional practices fall short of authenticity. Finally, the authors showed how deaf students authentically experience beginning reading development when the students’ signed language knowledge is tapped for learning English literacy. An intermediary writing system was discussed for making this process a possibility.

EXAMINING THE MULTILINGUALISM IN TESOL’S “E”

Shelley Taylor’s talk focused on why it is beneficial and necessary for teachers to focus on the “E” in TESOL. However, Taylor claimed that teachers should also concern themselves with the learners’ primary languages (or L1s). She suggested that teachers must beware of the fallacies of English teaching identified by Phillipson (1992). These fallacies involve the following mistaken beliefs about English language teaching:

• English is best taught monolingually.
• The ideal teacher of English is a native speaker.
• The earlier English is taught, the better the results.
• The more English is taught, the better the results.
• If languages other than English are used a lot, standards of English will drop.

Taylor suggested that while teachers must focus on their students’ learning of English, they must also understand multilingualism. This understanding will lead to the creation of optimal English learning situations for students.

Taylor outlined a study that investigated the BEIS/TEDS membership’s views on the role of multilingualism in TESOL (Taylor, Smith, Daniel, & Schwarzer, 2009). She examined this issue by referring to research directed at learners’ funds of knowledge and learner identity issues (Moll & González, 1997; Norton, 2000). Taylor also discussed UNESCO’s (2003) L1-based, multilingual language education initiative that is part of its "Education for all" focus, referring to an initiative to introduce instruction in 140 L1s in Nepal (Taylor, 2011), and results of other L1-based MLE programs internationally, including an extensive, longitudinal study in Ethiopia (Skutnabb-Kangas & Heugh, 2011).  She cited longitudinal research that suggests there is no single path to success for English learners (Parrish, Merickel, Perez, Linquanti, Socias, Spain, … Delancey, 2006).

Taylor concluded by suggesting that the primary role of TESOL professionals is not only to develop learners’ English proficiency but also to learn about the important role played by learners’ L1s.

REFERENCES

Moll, L. C., & González, N. (1997). Teachers as social scientists: Learning about culture from household research. In P. Hall (Ed.), Race, ethnicity and multiculturalism: Policy and practice (pp. 89-114). Missouri Symposium on Research and Educational Policy, Vol. 1. New York, NY: Garland.

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Harlow, England: Longman

Parrish, T. B., Merickel, A., Pérez, M., Linquanti, R., Socias, M., Spain, A., Speroni, C., Esra, P., Brock, L., & Delancey, D. (2006). Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the education of English learners, K-12: Findings from a five-year evaluation. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, England:  Oxford University Press

Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Heugh, K. (eds). (2011). Multilingual education and sustainable diversity work: from periphery to center. New York: Routledge

Taylor, S. K. (2011). MLE from Ethiopia to Nepal -- Refining a success story. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas, & K. Heugh (Eds.), Multilingual education and sustainable diversity work: From periphery to center (pp. 178-196). New York, NY: Routledge

Taylor, S. K., Smith, P., Daniel, M., & Schwarzer, D. (2009). Is there a need for a language policy and heightened multilingualism in TESOL? Survey results. Bilingual Basics, 11(1). Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org//s_tesol/article.asp?vid=163&DID=12977&sid=1&cid=736&iid=12972&nid=3077

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2003) Education in a multilingual world, accessed 8 January 2009. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001297/129728e.pdf