Having a glimpse of the title, some readers may wonder whether this article has anything to do with Freire and Macedo’s (1987) Literacy: Reading the World and the World. The answer is “yes.” This article borrows Freire and Macedo’s classic word and world distinction and endeavors to expand its implications for both English as a foreign language (EFL) and English as a second language (ESL) teaching, exploring the language learning texts and the realities representing the texts in the two fields, as well as how the two fields coincide or clash with each other in this regard.

Whose Word and World EFL Learners Are Reading

When I taught EFL at a university in China, I was always unhappy with the mandated student textbooks, because I felt that the content was not meaningful or relevant to the students and failed to effectively motivate them to learn. The texts were “authentic,” in the sense that they were written by native English speakers and introduced pictures and representations from English-speaking countries. However, as Alptekin (2002) points out, language which is real for native speakers is not likely to be as real for nonnative speakers. In others words, to what extent a text makes sense to readers may vary considerably from native to nonnative speakers as a result of dramatic differences in sociocultural contexts.

That being said, I do not degrade the use of authentic texts among EFL learners, nor do I reject the learning of the sociocultural knowledge of the target language through authentic texts. Instead, I reckon it as indispensable to incorporate the sociocultural content related to the target language in second or foreign language learning and teaching. As many researchers have affirmed (e.g., Canale & Swain, 1980; Cummins, 2001), sociolinguistic competence is an essential component of communicative competence and language proficiency. However, when language learning materials are purely based on the sociocultural backdrop of the target language without consideration of the characteristics of particular groups of English language learners (ELLs) and the background they are coming from, they may turn learners away rather than engaging them effectively. This will not only impact students; teachers may also experience challenges designing and implementing communicative activities. Teachers may “find themselves in the potentially awkward position of equipping their students with aspects of the native speaker’s sociolinguistic and strategic competence which is not at their best” (Alptekin, 2002, p. 62). This is exactly what I felt and experienced as a former EFL teacher.

Whose Word and World Are ESL Minority Children Reading

When meaning and relevance are removed from the word EFL learners read, learning is impaired. Likewise, when nonnative-English-speaking immigrant children in the United States read the word that symbolizes the world not belonging to themselves, their ESL learning outcomes are likely to be undermined, too.

Nevertheless, compared with EFL learning, in which English is learned as a foreign language and a separate subject matter, the ESL learning of minority children in the United States entails much more than simply learning a language. Language is by no means just a tool for communication; it carries with it the power of conferring prestige, status, and authority both to the specific language and to the social class representing that language. I would argue that this is much more intensely reflected in the education of language minority children in the United States.

While EFL learners are reading the word and the world of native English speakers in the name of authenticity, these students are reading the word and the world of the mainstream, inscribed by the dominant class in society. The word, to these minority students, is more often than not irrelevant and may even conflict with their life experiences and negate their own world. Therefore, they may refuse to read and write the content of their stated curriculum and even refuse to be engaged in literacy activities. Their overall academic achievements may deteriorate, and even their identity development may be jeopardized in the midst of identity confusion and struggles.

I wonder, as the educational system conventionally blames those students for not performing and their parents for not supporting them, how many individuals have really pondered over Freire and Macedo’s (1987) inquiry: “whether they left school or they were left by the school” (p. 121). While school districts evaluate ESL programs by counting how many students have been successfully transitioned to regular classrooms, has anybody wondered whether these students’ real needs, not only linguistically but also, and more important, psychologically and socioculturally, have been cared about and to what extent these students have developed an independent and critical mind toward existing words and worlds?

Where EFL and ESL Learning Meet

The issue of whose word and world ELLs are reading points to where EFL and ESL learning converge. Both types of ELLs are taught to read words linguistically different from their own and then be able to communicate the word in a world maybe thousands of miles away from them culturally and experientially. Both types of teaching lack cultural sensitivity for ELLs.

Literacy is commonly believed to be the prerequisite for absorbing and expanding new knowledge, and literacy teachers must pride themselves on their contributions in this regard. However, Freire and Macedo (1987) challenge people to rethink the relationship/sequence between literacy development and knowledge building. Understanding literacy as the relationship of learners to the world, not the word, they assert that reading the world should take place before reading the word. I think this is applicable to the teaching of EFL and ESL as well. Unfortunately, ELLs in both EFL and ESL contexts, more often than not, have to read/understand the word before they read/understand the world.

In EFL teaching, there is a predicament involved in using authentic texts. On the one hand, communicative language teaching principles unavoidably require the use of authentic texts for the purpose of fostering learners’ communicative competence so as to use the language in real contexts. On the other hand, communicative activities should develop within a relevant communicative context (Criado & Sanchez, 2009). To engage students in meaningful and instructive communicative activities, materials inevitably need to be rooted in the discourse community of a particular ELL group. As Alptekin (2002) indicates, “the more the language is localized for the learners, the more they can engage with it as discourse” (p. 61). Otherwise, students are easily silenced in the class if they feel they don’t know much about cultural content, while teachers undoubtedly encounter difficulties managing a class meant to be communicative.

In teaching ESL to minority children, the curriculum is designed to let everyone read the word scripted by the mainstream, and therefore the world in alignment with the mainstream, regardless of the ethnic, linguistic, and cultural background of the children. While talking about being respectful about and appreciative of minority children’s heritage and celebrating diversity, to what extent is the implemented instruction meaningful to these students and committed to the maintenance of their linguistic and cultural heritage? Freire and Macedo (1987) challenge us to think of the political, social, and ideological dimensions tied to literacy, contending that literacy has long served the ruling class, playing the role of reproducing the dominant ideology and the discourses of the people in power. ESL teaching, likewise, fails to give full attention to the legitimization and incorporation of minority children’s cultural background.

Reading the Word and the World of ELLs

In EFL teaching, the key to making ELLs read their own word and world is the reconceptualization of authenticity, also a possible escape from the plight of “authentic” reading materials. Authenticity cannot be construed within the boundary of the reality of native speakers. To motivate learners and enhance their language learning experiences, the dimension of authenticity as localized for the learners in specific contexts should be taken into account, interweaving features relevant and meaningful to the learners.

The ESL teaching of minority children should also involve allowing them the opportunity to read their word and world. At an instructional level, minority learners’ word and world can be incorporated in ESL teaching in multiple manners, for instance, the way teachers treat minority learners’ use of their own word in the classroom or teachers’ attitudes toward minority learners’ use of resources in ESL learning, cultural beliefs, traditions, and life experiences. At a curricular level, ESL teachers can deconstruct the curriculum; rebuild it into something more honest, relevant, and meaningful to minority students; and contribute to the development of more positive self-identity among the latter. This is essential in order to foster their academic and career success as well as a healthy and happy life.

The demands at the curriculum level are more challenging for ESL teachers because they require establishing a teacher as curriculum maker (Clandinin & Connelly, 1992). Just like the educational landscape in general, the language teaching field also calls for a greater teacher agency, autonomy, and decision-making power. We need to strengthen the view of language teachers as knowledge knowers and doers rather than “mediators between curriculum and student outcomes” (Craig & Ross, 2008, p. 283), performing whatever curriculum has been imposed on them.

Language teachers teaching language in the domains of linguistics may be good language teachers, but may not be holistic teachers. Equally important to language proficiency is a sound brain that can read the word and the world independently and critically. This is what language teachers have generally overlooked. They may have done well teaching students to acquire language skills, but “failed to assess students’ awareness of civic and political responsibilities” that could have been cultivated alongside language acquisition (Freire & Macedo, 1987, p. 113).

Concluding Remarks

Overall, through examining the word and the world that ELLs in both EFL and ESL contexts are reading, this article uncovers a shared commonality between EFL and ESL teaching. Namely, both types of teaching lack sensitivity for the culture of ELLs. It is the goal of this article to call for more readings of the word and the world of ELLs in both EFL and ESL contexts.

References

Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT Journal, 56(1), 57–64.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 363–401). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Craig, C., & Ross, V. (2008). Cultivating the image of teachers as curriculum makers. In F. M. Connelly, M. He, & J, Phillion (Eds.), Handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 282–305). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Criado, R., & Sanchez, A. (2009). English language teaching in Spain: Do textbooks comply with the official methodological regulations? A sample analysis. International Journal of English Studies, 9(1), 1–28.

Cummins, J. (2001). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Liping Wei, EdD, previously taught EFL at a university in China as an assistant professor. Her interests revolve around bilingual education, language minority education, cultural/linguistic diversity, and the use of qualitative methodologies to investigate these issues.