IEPIS Newsletter - March 2014 (Plain Text Version)
|
||
|
In this issue: |
EFL IN THE UNITED STATES
EFL and ESL English is taught around the world in a variety of contexts, but there is a primary distinction between teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) and teaching English as a second language (ESL). The difference between the two lies in the environment surrounding the language teaching/learning process. If the surrounding language is English, it is ESL. If not, it is EFL. I remember hearing in graduate school that teaching foreign languages (including EFL) is generally not very effective and that the only programs that really do work are those that offer exchange studies, in which students travel to a country of their target language and do second language study there. While this statement may be an overgeneralization, most former foreign language students can probably relate to the sentiment of “I studied that language for 6 years, and I can barely speak a word of it.” ESL, on the other hand, tends to enjoy a reputation of effectiveness, with millions traveling abroad every year to improve their English sufficiently to gain admission to English-speaking universities and ultimately obtain degrees or qualify for jobs in internationally minded companies. ESL teaching techniques and textbooks tend to lead the language teaching field. EFL in the United States? Although ESL success stories abound, it does not always work. Some students are just not adept at language learning. Language learning may be a skill, perhaps like that of playing a musical instrument or playing a sport. Not everyone is adept at either of those skills. But everyone learns a native language. Why can’t everyone learn a second language well? Again, in graduate school it was taught that success at language learning depends on several factors, including motivation, cognitive style, and richness and appropriateness of the linguistic environment. If, for example, there is no respect for the nation and culture of the target language, the likelihood of successfully acquiring that language diminishes. Furthermore, without desire to integrate into the group that speaks the target language, the probability of successful acquisition decreases further. Also, without the desire to be immersed in the target language, or even worse, with a desire to avoid the target language, language acquisition becomes close to impossible. Basically, even in an English-speaking environment, it is possible for learners to place themselves by their attitudes, in an EFL micro-environment, where they may take classes in English for lengthy periods without acquiring much of the language at all. This situation is EFL in the United States, and it seems that it is becoming increasingly common. For the past half-decade or so, there has been a major demographic shift in the nationalities of students studying abroad in the United States. At the University of Delaware English Language Institute, the change was from predominantly Korean to about one-third mainland Chinese and one-third Saudi, with a large portion of those groups aiming at admission to U.S. universities. However, these students have met with only mediocre success. Many are reaching universities ultimately, but many are not. Yet regardless of the ultimate success or failure to gain admission, the process of acquiring English proficiency is slower than hoped for by both the students and the institute. What is happening, and why? My hypothesis is that EFL in the United States is happening. It would be difficult to say that either the People’s Republic of China or Saudi Arabia has been staunchly pro–United States for the past several decades. While there have been improvements in relations, marked noticeably by the developments of recent policies and programs allowing students to come to the United States to study and even providing funding for and sending them, there tends to be guardedness in relations. The Internet in China is not entirely open to information from the United States, and much of the information available is probably not pro–United States. Bartlett and Fischer (2011) quote Stevens, the director of the English Language Institute of the University of Delaware, saying, “We’re well aware that the Chinese are raised on propaganda, and the U.S. is not portrayed very positively. If you’ve been raised on that for the first 18 years of your life, when it comes down to who they trust—they trust each other. They don’t particularly trust us” (p. 4). In schools in Saudi Arabia, English may be considered “the language of Infidels” (Elyas, 2008, p. 34). If guarded, untrusting attitudes exist among students, those feelings will probably reduce their respect for the United States and its culture, reducing, in turn, the likelihood of language learning success. Moreover, there may be political/social pressure from Chinese and religious/social pressure from Saudis not to integrate with Americans. Furthermore, with the great numbers of students from these nations that have simultaneously arrived for English study in the United States, it may be exceedingly difficult for students to avoid using their native languages outside of classes and perhaps even for the majority of their time in the United States. Their immersion in the target language is compromised at best, and the amount of comprehensible input decreases along with output opportunities, causing acquisition quite naturally to be slowed. Recent articles have also revealed that there is a “China conundrum” (Bartlett & Fischer, 2011, p. 1) and that many Chinese are not truly seeking to be educated in the United States, but rather are seeking only credentials, employing a variety of methods to get through university degree programs without gaining English proficiency and using English minimally (Zhou, 2013). The Internet does not necessarily improve the situation for those who choose to study in the United States without committing themselves to learning English. While the Internet provides innumerable sites and opportunities for exposure to or training in English, it also provides countless ways to escape from an English environment and stay in the security of a native language. Many students of English still rely on native language homepages and search engines for information. Online translations of English language pages are also available. Skype enables communication with those in native countries daily or even more frequently, and texting in native languages can be conducted relatively inconspicuously throughout the day. Cyberspace represents a continual escape from immersion for those not inclined toward enjoying the benefits of an ESL environment. What to Do What can be done in these EFL-in-the-United-States situations? English-only policies may be developed, and publicized, but they are exceedingly difficult to enforce. Faculty may not wish to act as “language police,” and even if they do, students tend to simply apologize, wait for the enforcer to leave, and continue their native language conversation. Moreover, even if asked to leave a building, students may merely leave and continue on their way in their native language. Nevertheless, institutes such as Middlebury Language Schools (n.d.) with L2-only policies that are enforced do tend to enjoy great success. Cohort programs may also be developed that group students of diverse language backgrounds together and call on them to perform a variety of fun and service activities and meetings with the hope that they will be using English consistently. However, these programs require enormous amounts of time, physical space, and staff commitment of an institute, and in spite of all the effort on the part of the institute, students may resent having to go through so many motions, using up all of their time, ultimately causing even further withdrawal from target language environments. Overall, cohort programs do show promise, but they require dramatic evolution of an intensive English program. Classroom policies forbidding native language use may work in the classroom, but such policies do little or nothing to increase use of English outside of class. Policies which limit the number of times a class or level of classes may be taken apply academic pressure on students to push themselves to learn quickly, but if large numbers of students fail to acquire language at an adequate pace, it might be impossible for all of them to be dismissed or demoted. Language teaching institutes may not wish to make the financial sacrifice or risk their reputations. Other possible ways to address the issue may include actively shifting demographics by limiting any single language group to a relatively small percentage of the population, requiring rooming with noncompatriots or homestay families, providing mandatory extra classes and support for students who do not naturally engage, or even participating politically to improve international understanding and cooperation in order to earn greater respect for the United States and its language and culture. Nevertheless, there is a limit to the support that can be offered to or forced upon those who do not desire to integrate, and in the end, the onus of learning is on the learner. Language teaching institutes must remain vigilant to maintain standards, be sensitive to the needs of students, require students to act responsibly, and judiciously allow students to fail if they insist on pursuing ESL results while choosing to remain in EFL microenvironments. References Elyas, T. (2008).The attitude and the impact of the American English as a global language within the Saudi education system. Novitas-ROYAL, 2(1), 28–48. Middlebury Language Schools. (n.d.). The language pledge. Retrieved from http://www.middlebury.edu/ls/approach/pledge Zhou, Y. (2013, January 16). The China conundrum: A student perspective. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com
Kenneth Cranker has taught English for 12 years internationally and for nine years at the University of Delaware English Language Institute. He has been the primary mentor and level coordinator for the high-advanced level of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) there, seeing its EAP program expand more than 20-fold. |
|