文獻評論：多元文化/全球教育與台灣外語教育 的結合
黃玟君
國立臺灣科技大學應用外語系助理教授
摘 要
將多元文化及全球教育融入台灣外語教育的重要性自不待言。文獻研究顯 示，美國及其他許國家許多學者已強調多元文化在教育過程中的重要性。多元文 化教育探討多種議題，例如種族/族群、特殊教育、社會階層、性別、年齡、性 別傾向等；更重要的，它強調培養學生知識建構及批判思考能力的重要性。除此 之外，多元文化教育與全球教育因為所關注的議題相似，故兩者多有連結。全球 教育著重於所設計的課程必須幫助學生了解世界的複雜性、國與國間的互存性、
以及建立批判思考及解決問題能力的重要性。因此，多元文化/全球教育已成為 美國教育重要的一環。
雖然多元文化/全球教育源自於美國，其所觸及的許多議題皆有台灣教育可 以借鏡之處，尤其是外語教育，然而實際情況並非如此，值得吾人深思。為探討 多元文化/全球教育與台灣外語教育的相關議題，本文於前半部討論多元文化及 全球教育的文獻，於後半部討論其與國內、外之外語教育的結合及應用。
關鍵字：多元文化教育、全球教育、外語教育
Integrating Multicultural/Global Education Into Taiwan’s Foreign Language Education: A
Critical Review
Wen-Jiun Huang
Assistant Professor, Department of Applied Foreign Languages, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology
Abstract
The importance of integrating concepts and issues of Multicultural Education (ME) and Global Education (GE) into school curricula should not be overlooked.
Scholars in the United States and other countries have highlighted the critical role ME plays in educational processes. ME covers a wide variety of issues, such as race/ethnicity, exceptionality, social class, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc. More importantly, it emphasizes the importance of students’ knowledge construction and the building of their critical thinking skills. Many scholars of ME also make connections with GE, as the two are connected in many ways. GE scholars believe that school curriculum should be designed to help students recognize the complexity of the world, understand the interconnectedness among nations, and build up critical thinking and decision-making skills. As a result, ME and GE have evolved over the years and become a comprehensive curriculum critical for all students in the U.S.
Although ME/GE is an educational approach developed and practiced in the United States, many themes addressed in ME/GE could serve as valuable learning materials to Taiwanese students, especially English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL) learners. However, in practice, the teaching of ME/GE in foreign language classrooms has not been emphasized in Taiwan.
In order to explore the issue of ME/GE and Taiwan’s foreign language education, in the first part of this article, a detailed review of ME and GE is provided. In the second part of the article, studies on the integration and application of ME/GE to foreign language education abroad and in Taiwan are discussed.
Keywords: multicultural education, global education, foreign language education
Introduction
The importance of integrating concepts and issues of Multicultural Education (ME) into school curricula should not be overlooked. Scholars in the United States and other countries have highlighted the critical role ME plays in educational processes. According to Suzuki (1980), ME is an educational program which
“provides multiple learning environments that properly match the academic and social needs of students” (p.21); through such a program, students learn to appreciate and respect cultural diversity and understand the complexity of social, historical, and cultural reality. According to Nieto (1996), ME is a process of comprehensive curriculum reform which challenges racism and other forms of discrimination and affirms the pluralism of all people. More importantly, ME stresses the importance of the construction of knowledge for students. Multicultural scholars consider knowledge as “shared, recycled, and socially constructed” (Ladson-Billings, 1994, p.
81), and it relates to the students’ unique values and cultural experiences.
It is important to note that although ME developed out of the U.S.’s Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, it is not an ethnic-specific movement or educational reform since it covers themes beyond race and/or ethnicity. Issues such as sexism, classism, disability, exceptionality, age, sexual orientation, etc., are essential to multicultural curriculum (Banks, 1998; Sleeter & Grant, 1999).
In addition, many scholars of ME also make connections with Global Education (GE). Like many of the scholars of ME, GE scholars believe that school curriculum should be designed to help students recognize the complexity of the world, understand the interconnectedness among nations, and build up critical thinking and decision-making skills (The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education [AACTE], 1997).
As ME/GE is considered as the foundation of all subject matters, it should be no exception for the field of English-as-a-Foreign/Second Language (EFL/ESL).
However, in reality, concepts and issues of ME/GE are not particularly stressed in foreign language education in the U.S. For example, many scholars have documented the lack of complexity in the multicultural and global information presented in textbooks as well as class activities (Kramsch & McConnell-Ginet, 1992; Moore, 1991; Renner, 1993;Ueber & Grosse, 1991). To make matters worse, the teaching of multicultural/global themes in ESL/EFL classrooms remained scarce because most
The scarcity of teaching multicultural/global themes in EFL classrooms is even obvious in Taiwan. In Taiwan, ME/GE is rarely an element of curriculum design in schools, be it in elementary-, high school-, or college-level.1 Truth be told, although ME/GE is an educational approach developed and practiced in the United States, many concepts and issues addressed and discussed in ME/GE, such as the emphasis on knowledge construction and multiple perspectives, and the development of critical thinking skills, etc., could be learning materials of great value to Taiwanese students, especially EFL learners. This is because among all subject matters, EFL seems to be the ideal vehicle for integrating multiculturalism and language teaching, since extensive knowledge of the English language is culturally embedded, and mastering the language will require mastering a deeper level of target-language culture and the way knowledge is constructed in English-speaking countries.
When addressing issues of ME and multiculturalism, it is crucial not to confuse them with merely teaching “cultures of other countries.” Indeed, “culture teaching” is an important part of the foreign language education. For example, when discussing the development of second language learners’ communicative competence, Savignon and Sysoyev (2005) argued that “language is inseparable from culture” (p. 357).
Similarly, Renner (1993) suggested that language is a crucial part of culture, and language is “learned, shared, evolves and changes over time, just like culture.” (p.3).
However, as Rogoff (1995) and Thomson (1975) pointed out, the “culture study” in second language education should be more about the study of other countries’
political forms, social systems, ethnic relations, customs and habits, economic activities, histories, religions, etc., rather than superficial elements such as foods and holidays.
Teaching language without connecting ME/GE is to be divorced from social, political, economic, and international realities. As Phillipson (1992) argued, “the belief that ELT [English Language Teaching] is non-political serves to disconnect culture from structure” (p.67). Zoreda (2001) also argued that incorporating significant multicultural content into EFL classrooms helped foster learners’ linguistic and cultural identity formation and led to the development of learners’ intercultural intelligence. Therefore it is suggested that although the importance of “culture teaching” has been addressed in ME/GE, it is the teaching of the process of knowledge construction and critical thinking ability that are essential to ME/GE
1
In Taiwan, when ME becomes the focus of the subject matter, it is usually limited to racial/ethnic
issues (i.e., concerning issues of Taiwan’s aboriginal students).
educators.
As Harmer (1991) put it, language teaching is not just about teaching language.
The importance of integrating multicultural/global themes into Taiwan’s foreign language education cannot be over-emphasized. In order to help Taiwanese EFL students become world citizens in this interdependent and interconnected world, it is crucial for Taiwan’s EFL teachers to recognize the importance of teaching multicultural/global themes and to help students become multicultural as well as international beings while learning English.
In order to explore the issue of ME/GE and Taiwan’s foreign language education, in the first part of this article, a detailed review of ME and GE is provided. In the second part of the article, studies on the integration and application of ME/GE to foreign language education abroad and in Taiwan are discussed.
Multicultural Education
Background and Definition
ME developed out of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s in the United States with major concern over issues such as equity, social justice, and the educational success of students of color (AACTE, 1997). At that time, as a reaction to mainstream education, ME represented an attempt to make the school curriculum more relevant to the educational needs of racial/ethnic minority students and help them achieve academic excellence (C. A. Banks, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 1992). Over the years, ME has responded to different socio-historical realities of American society and helped minority students critically view issues of oppression and inequality as well as develop ways to confront or eliminate social problems (Suzuki, 1980).
It is important to note that ME is not an ethnic-specific movement (Nieto, 1996;
Sleeter & Grant, 1999). It represents “the democratic ideas of equality, of unity within diversity, and of justice for all, free of any racial, gender, or social class discrimination” (AACTE, 1997, p.7). In addition, it emphasizes the interaction of social realities of racism, sexism, and class inequality, and the complex influences of socio-historical forces among racial/ethnic minority groups.
ME scholars such as J. A. Banks (1995), C. A. Banks (1995), Sleeter and Grant (1999), and Suzuki (1980) have provided dimensions, approaches, and definitions of multicultural education. Among them, Suzuki (1980) defines multicultural education as follows:
Multicultural Education is an educational program which provides multiple learning environments that properly match the academic and social needs of students…. In addition to enhancing the development of their basic academic skills, the program should help students develop a better understanding of their own backgrounds and of other groups that compose our society. Through this process, the program should help students learn to respect and appreciate cultural diversity, overcome ethnocentric and prejudicial attitudes, and understand the socio-historical, economic and psychological factors that have produced the contemporary conditions of ethnic polarization, inequality and alienation. It should also foster their ability to critically analyze and make intelligent decisions about real-life problems and issues through a process of democratic, dialogical inquiry. (p. 21)
Although ME is very comprehensive and represents various concepts, issues, and themes, its practice also varies depending on individual teachers’ knowledge of ME.
When discussing multicultural content, Banks and Banks (1993) presented four approaches for integrating multicultural content into course syllabus:
1. The Contributions Approach: this approach focuses on the lifestyle (e.g., food, music, dances, gift exchanging, fashion, etc.) of the racial/ethnic group rather than on the institutional structures of racism and discrimination which affect the life chances of the group. According to Banks and Banks, out of the four approaches, this is the easiest and the most frequently used one in adapting to the particular needs of teachers and students, because little attention is given to its meaning and importance to the racial/ethnic community the teachers and students belong to. As a result, such an approach usually trivializes minority cultures and reinforces misconceptions and stereotypes.
2. The Additive Approach: this approach adds cultural concepts (e.g., death, birth, social participation), themes (e.g., ecology, justice, economic development), and perspectives to the content of the curriculum without changing the overall structure of the curriculum. In other words, teachers who adopt this approach do not treat multicultural concepts and issues as the “core” of the curriculum, and thus fail to integrate multiculturalism as a part of their teaching objective and design. According to Banks and Banks, when this approach is implemented, students may experience difficulties due to the lack of background, concepts, and maturity needed for understanding the multicultural
issues presented.
3. The Transformation Approach: this approach aims at bringing structural and didactic changes to the curriculum, thus enabling students to view concepts and issues from perspectives of diverse ethnic and cultural groups. In other words, this approach changes the way in which curriculum is presented, studied, and examined. By infusing various perspectives, points of reference and content sources from various racial/ethnic groups with the content of mainstream culture, the students are given the opportunity to enlarge their understandings of the nature, development, and complexity of human activities.
4. The Social Action Approach: this approach provides further changes in educational methodology with students taking part in decision making on multicultural issues and taking actions to help solve the problems. Based on this approach, the curriculum components are designed to enable students to be aware of the way their knowledge is constructed and respond to issues or problems presented in the core curriculum. In summary, the Social Action Approach bases its curriculum on students’ acquisition of knowledge, values, and skills they need to participate in social change. As a result, students are empowered and become change agents.
Knowledge Construction and Critical Thinking Skills
Although ME has evolved over the years, its emphasis on the development of students’ knowledge construction remains the same. Multicultural teachers encourage their students to examine the process of their knowledge construction as well as to understand how their knowledge is created and influenced by factors such as race/ethnicity, gender, and social class.
ME also emphasizes the importance of teachers’ recognition that they also possess complex and multiple identities related to their race, religion, gender, socioeconomic status, the language(s) they speak, and other characteristics, and these identities inevitably interact with their knowledge construction. Therefore, when multicultural teachers plan their course syllabus, they have to critically reflect on their own process of knowledge construction and how such a process interplays with their multicultural beliefs and attitudes (Banks, 1998; Ladson-Billings, 1995a, 1995b).
In this regard, the essence of ME is very similar to that of social constructivism.
Social constructivists’ central assumption is that individuals create knowledge from
the interaction between their existing knowledge and the new situations they encounter (Rogoff, 1995). In other words, the experiences and perspectives that individuals have acquired earlier are brought into new interactions the individuals engage in, and what was learned in the past influences the construction of new knowledge (Weade, 1994).
The concept of knowledge construction in ME is also very much similar to Freirean critical theory. Freire (1970) criticizes traditional education as an act of depositing, in which the students act as the depositories and the teacher as the depositor of the information. In contrast to this “banking” concept of education, a Freirean class expects students to think critically about subject matter, the learning process itself, and the society they live in (Shor & Freire, 1987). In Freire’s ideas of a liberated classroom, teachers constantly pose problems which derive from the students’ lives, social issues, and academic subjects, in a “mutually created dialogue”
(Shor, 1993, p.25). It is through this process of problem-posing that students learn to question answers rather than merely to answer questions and thus a search for knowledge is truly fulfilled.
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy
In the field of ME, culturally relevant pedagogy has been extensively discussed in literature in recent years. Culturally relevant teachers believe that all racial minority students can succeed academically while maintaining multicultural competence (Ladson-Billings, 1995b). Foster (1995) presents several characteristics of culturally relevant teachers (pp. 575-578):
1. Building cultural solidarity: teachers have strong attachment to the minority students’ community and consider themselves a part of it;
2. Linking classroom content to students’ experiences: students are encouraged to bring community experiences into the classroom, and teachers do not silence students’ voices by avoiding controversial multicultural issues;
3. Focusing on the whole child: teachers emphasize the complete development of children, not just with their cognitive growth; in other words, teachers explicitly teach personal values, leadership skills, structural inequalities in society, multiple perspectives, etc.;
4. Using familiar cultural patterns: teachers adopt cultural patterns such as collectivity and consolidate them into classroom activities;
5. Incorporating culturally compatible communication patterns: teachers
facilitate students’ learning in settings that are linguistically meaningful and socially and culturally familiar to minority students.
Although culturally relevant pedagogy is originally developed for racial minority students in the United States, it is believed that all students can benefit from such pedagogy’s emphasis on the perspectives of critical theories. Culturally relevant teachers go beyond promoting students’ academic success and multicultural competence and see themselves and their students as “change agents” who challenge power relationships “through curriculum, instructional practices, and individual and collective action toward more just personal and structural relationships in schools, districts, and communities” (Zeichner et al., 1998, p. 168).
Culturally relevant pedagogy also promotes the notion that teachers and students are involved in “a collective struggle” against the status quo (Ladson-Billings, 1994b, p.118). One of Sleeter’s (1993, 1996) and Sleeter and Grant’s (1999) approaches to multicultural education, Education That Is Multicultural
and Social Reconstructionist, sees education as social reconstruction oriented and
teachers and students as reconstructionists. The social reconstructionist approach works toward preparing students to take action against structural inequality in society.In this regard, the spirit of the social reconstructionist approach is very similar to that of Banks and Banks’ Social Action Approach.
Global Education
Background and Definition
GE developed in the post-World War II era due to the U.S.’s emphasis on area studies, foreign policy, and international educational and cultural exchanges. One of its original goals was to help American students understand the mechanics of up-and-coming global systems and their own personal economic, political, environmental, and cultural connections with other people around the world (Tye, 1999).
In 1991, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) Yearbook entitled “Global Education: From Thought to Action” defined GE as follows:
Global education involves learning about those problems and issues which cut
across national boundaries and about the interconnectedness of systems—cultural, ecological, economic, political, and technological.
Global education also involves learning to understand and appreciate our neighbors who have different cultural backgrounds from ours; to see the world through the eyes and minds of others; and to realize that other people of the world need and want much the same things (p.5).
During the 1970s and 1980s, GE was known as “World Studies” in the U.K. and many parts of the Europe. The English “Global Teacher Project” funded by U.K.’s Department for International Development (DFID) defined GE as follows:
Global Education is not a subject, but a dimension that runs through the curriculum, an extra filter to help children make sense of all the information and opinion the world is throwing at them. It combines methodology—active and experiential discussion based activities, a caring, co-operative and open outlook on the classroom experience, and core concerns—finding out about all the cultures of the UK and of other countries and groups, about the causes of poverty and inequality (here as well as in other countries) and about the environment (2005, p.1).
Similarly, the “Maastricht Global Education Declaration” released during the Europe-wide Global Education Congress held in Maastricht, the Netherlands in 2002, defined GE as follows:
Global Education is education that opens people’s eyes and minds to the realities of the world, and awakens them to bring about a world of greater justice, equity and human rights for all. Global Education is understood to encompass Development Education, Human Rights Education, Education for Sustainability, Education for Peace and Conflict Prevention and Intercultural Education; being the global dimensions of Education for Citizenship.
In 2003, David Hicks defined GE as the academic field concerned with teaching and learning about global issues, events, and perspectives. He also outlined some of the key ideas and terms of GE:
1. Development Education: the term is originated from the work of NGOs which
concerned issues of development and North-South relationships; however, over the years the focus of development education has widened to comprise other global issues.
2. Global Dimension: the term refers to the curriculum taken as a whole of a school in which the subject elements and cross-curricular concerns are focusing on global interdependence, issues, and events.
3. Global Perspectives: the term refers to the achievement the students gain as a result of having a global dimension in the curriculum, as there are always different cultural, historical, economical, and political perspectives on global matters.
4. Global Citizenship: the term refers to the students who become or feel like a citizen of the global as well as intercultural community.
5. Globalization: the term refers to the numerous economic, cultural, technological, and political interconnections which unite the local and national communities into the global one.
In summary, teachers who advocate global themes see GE as a way of approaching everything they teach and how they teach it. Further, GE broadens horizons and encourages exploration of all subjects from a global perspective. Like ME, GE contributes to the entire curriculum and enhances the students’ understanding of the world.
Scope of GE
As the twenty-first century begins, cultural boundaries and identities are becoming increasingly blurred and intermingled. In the era of globalization, the world is a system in which social, cultural, technological, ecological, economic, and political issues can no longer be efficiently addressed by single countries because most issues concern and affect more than one country or region. Continual and pressing global issues such as immigration and refugees, human rights and resources, personal welfare, conflict resolution, famine, global climate change, etc., are carefully examined across time and place by GE scholars (AACTE, 1997). GE educators are concerned deeply with “cultural universals” among different ethnic groups and countries, as well as long-term involvement of the learners in the local and international communities (Alger & Harf, 1986). In discussing the scope of GE, the
“Global Teacher Project” (2005) provided eight key concepts within the global
dimension: global citizenship, conflict resolution, diversity, human rights, interdependence, social justice, sustainable development, and values and perceptions.
In addition to the above-mentioned aspects of GE, in the literature reviewed, GE also aims at cultivating students with the following abilities (Alger & Harf, 1986;
Case, 1993; Hicks, 1993; Kniep, 1986):
1. Open-mindedness
2. Cross-cultural understanding and skills 3. Self-knowledge and substantive knowledge 4. Anticipation of complexity
5. Resistance of ethnic, racial, linguistic, and other types of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination
6. Perspective consciousness (i.e., recognition and appreciation of others’
points of view)
Cross-Cultural Experiential Learning
One of the important features of GE is its emphasis on cross-cultural learning. In 1982, Angene H. Wilson proposed “cross-cultural experiential learning,” pointing out that young students should be provided with opportunities to cross over, through their studies and personal experiences, to a culture different from the one in which they have been born/raised or familiar with. He noted that through entering other lives the learners begin to enter the world, and to provide themselves with something to compare themselves with, and by comparison to learn to look at human beings and the world from a broader perspective. Wilson also pointed out that, true cross-cultural experiential learning has to provide learners with opportunities for ongoing reflection of their sustained cross-cultural experiences. Based on such reflection, the learners are able to examine their own presubscribed value systems and faiths and consequentially form the basis of transformation and change.
The Commonalities and Differences Between ME and GE
Over the past few decades, there have been tensions and conflicts between ME and GE. Some ME educators have criticized that educators in GE have ignored issues such as racial injustice, ethnic conflicts, linguistic policy controversy, and various inequities domestically and in their own communities as they teach about cultures in
other countries and promote international exchanges. On the other hand, some GE educators perceive that educators in ME are only focusing on improving the status of a few “special interest groups” domestically and ignoring the persistent problems existing beyond the border. They also disapprove of the fact that multicultural teachers focus too much on the “differences” rather than the “commonalities” of the human beings; and although teaching cultural and ethnic differences among groups may promote inter-group understanding, overemphasizing the differences may result in inter-group hostility.
Despite the fact that ME and GE have developed as separate fields of study, many scholars have made connections between the two and integrated their theory and practice in teacher education programs. As Banks (2007) pointed out, the increasing diversity in ethnicity, culture, language, etc. in nations throughout the world has pushed educators and policymakers in the U.S. and abroad to rethink existing concepts of unity, diversity, citizenship, and nationality in global perspectives.
In literature reviewed, the similarities and connections between ME and GE are as follows:
1. Understanding of human diversity as well as human commonalities;
2. Knowledge for cultural awareness of one’s own and other cultures;
3. Aspiration for eradicating stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination;
4. Use of knowledge and competence for decision-making and social/political action against structural inequalities, social injustices, and racial oppression;
5. Goals of improving inter-group relations, promoting skills of inter-cultural interaction, and building community across cultures;
6. Access to knowledge from multiple perspectives, particularly perspectives of people on the “margins,” and skills in critical understanding of the process of knowledge construction;
7. Ability to critically reflect on and examine one’s own value system, beliefs, attitudes, etc. and form the basis of transformation and change.
In the midst of the heated debate between ME and GE, it is important to note that the differences as well as the commonalties of cultural characteristics among ethnic/racial groups should be equally emphasized by ME/GE teachers. Hoffman
(1996) noted that when teaching, teachers should not focus merely on individual, unique cultures without recognizing the “common culture” shared by all human beings. In response to this issue, Giroux made a sound argument in his proposition of a “critical multicultural curriculum” (1992):
…A multicultural curriculum must address how to articulate a relationship between unity and difference that moves beyond simplistic binarisms. That is, rather than defining multiculturalism as against unity or simply for difference, it is crucial for educators to develop a unity-in-difference position in which new forms of democratic representation, participation, and citizenship provide a forum for creating unity without denying the particular, the multiple, and the specific. (p. 10)
Wardle (1992) and Frederick (1995) therefore suggested that it will be helpful for teachers to develop activities that help students understand that in many ways all people are the same, and they share common human behaviors and characteristics across cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and individual differences.
Integrating ME/GE into Foreign Language Education:
Abroad
Over the years, scholars of ME/GE have promoted making ME/GE a fundamental and indispensable subject matter for all school curricula in the U.S.
(Sleeter, 1993, 1996; Sleeter & Grant, 1999). Recognizing the importance of integrating ME/GE to foreign language education in the U.S., in 1999 the National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project proposed the “Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century,” specifying five different goal areas known as the “Five Cs” for foreign language learning for grades four, eight, and twelve, and has held workshops for foreign language teachers throughout the country.
The “Five Cs” are communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, and communities, and each of the five goals is closely linked to the essence of ME/GE:
1. Communication: it stresses the use of language for communication in real life situations and emphasizes what students can “do” with language rather than what they “know” about language. Students are asked to communicate in oral and written form, interpret oral and written messages, show cultural understanding when they communicate, and present oral and written
information.
2. Cultures: it stresses the importance of cross-cultural understanding in language learning. Students are encouraged to experience and appreciate other cultures and develop a relationship between the foreign language and other cultures, as well as their native culture. In this way, students become better able to understand others’ points of view and ways of life.
3. Connections: it stresses the importance of connecting the foreign language with other subject areas, such as science, history, arts, international affairs, etc. In other words, content from other subject areas is integrated with foreign language instruction through teaching materials that are developed around common themes.
4. Comparisons: it encourages learners to compare and contrast languages and cultures. Through the foreign language they learn, they discover patterns, make predictions, and analyze similarities and differences across their native language and culture with other languages and cultures.
5. Communities: it encourages students to extend their learning experiences from the foreign language classroom to the community, the nation, and global society they live in. Students are also encouraged to participate in community, national, and global events and activities.
In Europe, where many countries are getting more and more diverse in terms of races, ethnicities, cultures, religions, and languages, it is now becoming commonplace for foreign language teachers to view their language teaching and learning from an intercultural and international perspective (Hicks, 2003). In other words, foreign teachers are now required to teach “intercultural communicative competence” rather than mere “communicative competence.” A study by Sercu (2005) suggested that most foreign language teachers in Belgium are beginning to implement the intercultural communicative approach in their teaching and are willing to support intercultural objectives.
However, despite the above, studies conducted to date have shown the scarcity of second/foreign language instructors actually implementing concepts of ME/GE into
their teaching.2 Several studies have been conducted in the U.S. in the past regarding foreign language instructors’ pedagogical priorities and concerns. In a survey of foreign language teachers and supervisors, Cooper (1985) found that
“culture/multicultural learning” ranked only eighth among the respondents’ top ten priorities. A study conducted by Wolf and Riordan (1991) showed that
“culture/multicultural teaching” was not even listed among the foreign language instructors’ top ten priorities.
The lack of foreign language teachers’ participation in connecting ME/GE to their curriculum design can be attributed to the following reasons, among others: (1) multicultural/global learning goals could be very elusive, and it is difficult to measure something as complex as multiculturalism and global awareness, (2) most foreign language instructors may not be familiar with or do not feel comfortable teaching aspects of target language culture and themes of ME/GE. Further, to many foreign language teachers, ME/GE themes are seen as difficult to teach or evaluate (Byram &
Morgan, 1994; Storme & Derakhshani, 2000).
Language and Culture
One of the important elements of teaching multiculturalism is teaching “culture.”
In foreign language teaching, the relationship and interaction between language and culture is also significant. Henry Trueba once pointed out that language is the heart of culture and culture is the heart of language (in Lockwood, 1994). When discussing the development of second language learners’ communicative competence, Savignon and Sysoyev (2005) argued that “language is inseparable from culture” (p. 357). Similarly, Renner (1993) suggested that language is an important part of culture, and language is
“learned, shared, evolves and changes over time, just like culture” (p.3).
Many studies have also shown that foreign language education is one of the best ways to instill positive attitudes in students about foreign cultures (Byram, 1988;
Cheung, 2001; Cortazzi & Jin, 1999; Crawford-Lange & Lange, 1984; Fleet, 2006;
Kane, 1991; Lange & Paige, 2003). Studies conducted in Asian countries such as Singapore (Wharton, 2005) and Hong Kong (Jackson, 2003) also found that to many business-major college students, learning about the English-speaking countries’
2
In the literature reviewed, only one study by Calvin and Rider (2004) at the Indiana State University
foreign language program integrated multicultural studies with the development of critical thinking
skills to reach students’ overall objectives of communicative competency, cultural awareness,
sensitivity to diversity, etc.
cultures will greatly enhance their employment marketability as well as linguistic ability.
Although most scholars and educators agree that a language cannot be taught without knowledge of a target culture, when discussing the issue of teaching culture, the question emerges as to what culture(s) to be taught. Should it be the culture of the target language? If yes, in the case of the English language, which countries’ cultures should be taught—American culture, British culture, or another? And when English is viewed as an international language, then whose culture(s) should be taught?
When discussing the question of the ownership of English, Widdowson (1994) stated that, “[t]he very fact that English is an international language means that no nation can have custody over it.” As English assumes the role of an international language, the question of which culture to teach and how to teach it raises several important issues. According to McKay (2000), there are many benefits to including a variety of cultures, not just cultures of Western countries, in foreign language classroom materials.
When discussing the learning of language and culture, Kramsch (1993) proposed the concept of “interculturality.” She emphasizes the notion that culture is “a social construct, the product of self and others’ perceptions” (p.205). She contended that culture learning is more than the transfer of information between cultures; rather, it requires that the student considers his/her own culture in relation to another.
Therefore the process of learning about another culture entails a reflection on one’s own culture as well as the target culture. In this regard, the students are asked to reflect on their own culture in relation to other cultures, or to establish a sphere of interculturality. Kramsch’s interculturality suggests that the teaching of culture should not involve a mere presentation of facts but a critical and social process of trying to understand other cultures in relation to one’s own.
Teaching Materials and Curriculum Development
Continuing on the debate of “teaching culture,” the literature reviewed indicates that the major problem in developing multicultural/global materials and curriculum for the EFL classroom is the lack of complexity in the cultural information presented in textbooks (Moore, 1991; Ueber & Grosse, 1991). For example, the textbooks generally fail to take into consideration the real life communication needs of EFL students who learn English to interact with other non-native speakers. Such textbooks often contain lessons on Western-style greetings, introductions, compliments, and
may be unfitting for interactions among non-native speakers. Such textbooks’ focus is on language production rather than world communication (Renner, 1993). Since the needs of the EFL students are international communication, the students should be given the cultural ability to communicate using more than just one point of view.
Another example of textbooks’ lack of complexity in teaching culture is that in many teaching materials, mainstream Western culture (e.g., American and British culture) is usually the core while non-WASP (i.e., non-White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) groups are often times ignored (Winter, Inkiriwang & Senduk, 1996; Goodlad, 1982).
When Western culture, rather than global culture, is represented, the textbooks are limited in presenting the reality of the world.
A similar example of textbooks’ lack of complexity in teaching culture is that they usually present a superficial knowledge base for understanding other cultures and peoples from Western perspectives (Kramsch & McConnell-Ginet, 1992). When the textbooks present a certain way of looking at the world through the cultural lens of the Westerners, the multiple realities which make up the culture and the world are missing.
Since the textbook information is not enough to create a balanced study of the cultural diversity of EFL learners, in order for EFL teachers to avoid the above pitfalls when choosing textbooks to teach “culture,” according to Renner (1993), they will have to acquire an in-depth database on the experience of various ethnic cultures, including reading native writers, experiencing cultures first-hand using non-western value standards, etc. More importantly, EFL teachers should also choose textbooks which present the culture of the EFL learners from other cultures’ point of view. When learners are given the opportunity to see their culture from the point of view of another culture, they are able to understand their own culture better and see how it interacts with other cultures.
Finally, Banks (1998) pointed out that textbooks’ activities concerning other important dimensions of ME/GE “such as the knowledge construction process, prejudice reduction, and an equity pedagogy” (p. 75) should be the most important areas for the multicultural/global involvement of foreign language education, as well as the involvement of English teachers. In this way, foreign language teachers should be prepared to teach cultural diversity in such ways that students overcome media stereotypes, “us versus them” prejudices, and “food and festivals” superficiality.
Integrating ME/GE into Foreign Language Education:
Taiwan
English has become the means of world communication. For a long time, Taiwan’s English teaching method has placed particular emphasis on the Grammar Translation. The teaching mainly focuses on vocabulary, grammatical rules, declensions, conjugations, as well as sentences and article translations. The vocabulary learned often emphasizes reciting from memory that is not related in meaning. The grammar teaching emphasizes detailed and complex grammatical rules explanations and exercise. Difficult reading materials are usually selected, and the emphasis is not on the contents but on the grammar and vocabulary. Overall, the emphasis of such teaching is on cognitive understanding and rote reproduction of language rules rather than on communicative and sociolinguistic competence.
Influenced by innovative language teaching methods developed overseas, many of Taiwan’s English teachers have gradually adopted a more communicative approach in their teaching. The communicative approach emphasizes that language is something more than just rules, syntax, and lexis. It brings about seeing language as discourse in which notions and functions work together to create understanding between speakers. However, English teaching and learning is still something more.
When it comes to integrating multicultural/global themes into EFL curriculum, like most of their American counterparts, English teachers in Taiwan view such teaching as a new and unfamiliar venture. To EFL teachers in Taiwan, the problem is compounded by a lack of examples of how to teach for multiculturalism and intercultural competence and by the teachers’ misguided belief that they have to be
“multicultural/global/cultural experts” to teach concepts and issues of ME/GE. As a result, even though English teachers in Taiwan may recognize the importance of teaching ME/GE, most of them do not include it in or infuse it into the curriculum design.
Foreign Language Education Policies in Taiwan
English language education3 has been one of the most emphasized academic subjects in Taiwan. For years, English education had started from the first year of
3
In this article, “English (language) education” and “foreign language education” are used
interchangeably since in Taiwan the most important foreign language to be taught and learned is
junior high school. In the last few decades, realizing the importance of English, many parents have sent their children to learn English as early as in elementary school or even preschool. In response to a strong request of the society, English education officially began in elementary school in 2001. According to the “The Nine-Year Coherent General Curriculum Guidelines for Compulsory Education” issued by the Ministry of Education in 1998, the goals of English lessons in elementary schools are:
1. To cultivate the basic English communication skills of the students;
2. To cultivate the interests and methods of studying English of the students;
3. To promote the understanding of Taiwan’s and foreign countries’ cultures and customs.
In the Guidelines, the Ministry of Education also took “cultural study and international understanding” as one of the “Ten Basic Capabilities of National Education.” The detailed items of “cultural study and international understanding”
included: recognizing Taiwanese and foreign countries’ festivals and customs, understanding Taiwanese and foreign manners and practices, appreciating simple children’s literature, understanding cross-cultural social etiquettes, and appreciating different cultural customs. The above illustrates the importance of shaping Taiwanese students to become world citizens in the twenty-first century. Others included in the Ten Basic Capabilities of National Education, such as “appreciation and innovation,”
“expression, communication, sharing,” “critical thinking and problem solving,” are also linked with multicultural/global themes.
Culture Teaching in Taiwan
Following the official’s guidelines, English teachers in Taiwan have started to incorporate elements of culture into their curriculum. Many of them believe that teaching the cultures of English-speaking nations is to educate students about festival-related topics of Western countries. Therefore when Thanksgiving Day, Christmas, or Halloween comes, the teachers would ask students and parents to make outward changes in clothing and food, such as putting on costumes and sampling festive cuisines. Although doing so can help students understand Western cultures to some extent, the superficial English environment cannot truly help the students understand the multifaceted cultures of English-speaking countries and the deeper and larger meaning of ME/GE.
In addition, as mentioned earlier, when teaching cultures of other countries to their students, teachers may sometimes fall into the trap of fostering and reinforcing
cultural/racial/ethnic stereotypes. As Guest (2002) pointed out, many EFL teachers often times misrepresent foreign cultures by promoting popular stereotypes, and they construct these cultures “as monolithic, static ‘others,’ rather than as dynamic, fluid entities” (p. 154). According to Guest, a certain degree of generalization is acceptable within certain genres of large-scale cultural interaction, however problems occur when teachers “apply these general interpretive pegs to immediate situations and personalized discourse” (p. 157).
In Taiwan, some language teachers also believe in Kaplan’s contrastive analysis (1966) and develop their cultural curriculum based on the theory. However, in language learning, contrastive analysis may serve to oversimplify the variety within cultures. It tends to reduce cultural understanding to discrete and declarative propositions about a culture, and such a reduction of cultural knowledge may be questionable. Also, contrastive analysis tends to undermine the fact that cultural attributes exist along a continuum and fosters an adversative “either/or,” “us versus them” polarizing frame of mind. Although such a binary logic can sometimes be a convenient tool, it often fails to represent complex realities in this culturally diverse world.
ME/GE and Taiwan’s Foreign Language Education
As mentioned earlier, there is a scarcity of teaching multicultural/global themes in EFL classrooms in Taiwan. Thus related literature is not yet to be found.
Although ME/GE has not been emphasized in Taiwan’s EFL curriculum, English teachers in Taiwan can still infuse various topics of ME/GE to the English curriculum, and seek the transformation of society or policy through the collaboration of the students and local communities. Topics such as the knowledge construction process of English speaking countries, the elimination of linguistic prejudice, and equity and justice among nations, are some examples that English teachers can use to infuse ME/GE to the curriculum. Also, upon engaging in independent study projects, critical reading, and self-directed learning tasks, the students could be encouraged to correlate, summarize, or define and defend their own point of view (McKay, 2000). In addition, real or simulated cross-cultural experiences in classrooms, communities, and abroad are a significant part of ME/GE. Therefore teachers can encourage students to role-play various interactions among different countries and regions, as well as encourage students to participate in study tours, semesters abroad, student exchanges, or get involved with hosting international student programs and activities.
that are multicultural- and global-oriented, teachers’ reflections on the linguistic, cultural and racial identity development of Taiwan and English speaking countries are imperative, because it helps eliminate the prejudices and stereotyped impression that were previously established.
References
Alger, C.F., & Harf, J. E. (1986). Global education: Why? For whom? About what? In R.E. Freeman (ed.), Promising Practices in Global Education: A Handbook with Case Studies (pp. 1-13). NY: National Council on Foreign Language and International Studies.
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (1997). Multicultural and Global/International Education: Guidelines for Programs in Teacher Education. Washington, DC: AACTE publications.
Armstrong, G. K. (1984). Life after study abroad: A survey of undergraduate academic and career choices. The Modern Language Journal, 68, 1-6.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (1991). Global Education:
From Thought to Action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD publications.
Banks, C. A. (1995). Gender and race as factors in educational leadership and
administration. In J. A. Banks, & C. A. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education (pp. 65-80). NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan
Publishing USA.
Banks, J. A. (1995). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. In J. A. Banks, & C. A. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education (pp. 3-24). NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan Publishing USA.
Banks, J. A. (1998). Multicultural education: Development, dimensions, and challenges. In M. J. Bennett (Ed.), Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication (pp. 1-34). Maine: Intercultural Press.
Banks, J. A. (Ed.). (2007). Diversity and Citizenship Education: Global Perspectives.
Jossey-Bass.
Banks, J. A. & Banks, C. A. (1993). Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Byram, M. (1988). Foreign language education and cultural studies. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 1. (1), 15-31.
Byram, M. & Morgan, C. (1994). Teaching-and-Learning Language-and-Culture.
Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Case, R. (1993). Key elements of a global perspective. Social Education, 57 (6), 318-325.
Cheung, C.-K. (2001). The use of popular culture as a stimulus to motivate secondary students’ English learning in Hong Kong. ELT Journal, 55. (1), 55-60.
Cooper, T. C. (1985). A survey of teacher concerns. Foreign Language Annals, 18 (1), 21-24.
Cortazzi, M. & Jin, L. (1999). Cultural mirrors: materials and methods in the EFL classroom. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in Second Language Teaching (pp.
196-219). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crawford-Lange, L. M. & Lange, D. (1984). Doing the unthinkable in the
second-language classroom: A process for integration of language and culture.
In T. V. Higgs (Ed.), Proficiency: The Organizing Principle (pp. 139-177). The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, Foreign Language Education Series. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.
Fleet, M. (2006). The role of culture in second or foreign language teaching: Moving beyond the classroom experience. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 491 716).
Foster, M. (1995). African American teachers and culturally relevant pedagogy. In J.
A. Banks, & C. A. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education (pp. 570-581). NY: Macmillan Publishing.
Frederick, P. (1995). Walking on eggs: Mastering the dreaded diversity discussion.
College Teaching, 43 (3), 83-92.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. NY: Continuum.
Giroux, H. A. (1992). Curriculum, multiculturalism, and the politics of identity.
NASSP Bulletin, 76 (548), 1-11.
Global Teacher Project (2005). Supporting the Standards (handbook). World Studies Trust.
Goodlad, J. L. (1982). The Current State of Social Studies. Boulder, CO: Social
Science Education Consortium.
Guest, M. (2002). A critical ‘checkbook’ for culture teaching and learning. ELT Journal, 56. (2), 154-161.
Hansel, B. G. (1985). The impact of a sojourn abroad: A study of secondary school students participating in a foreign exchange program (culture learning, contact travel, educational). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York.
Hanvey, R. G. (1975). An attainable global perspective. New York: Center for War/Peace Studies. Reprinted in 1987 in Next Step in Global Education: A Handbook for Curriculum Development, W. M. Kniep (Ed.). NY: The American Forum on Global Education.
Harmer, J. (1991). The Practice of English Language Teaching: Longman Handbook for Language Teaching. Harlow: Longman.
Hicks, D. (2003). Thirty years of global education: A reminder of key principles and precedents. Educational Review, 55. (3), 265-275.
Hoffman, D. M. (1996). Culture and self in multicultural education: Reflections on discourse, text, and practice. American Educational Research Journal, 33 (3), 545-569.
Jackson, J. (2003). Case-based learning and reticence in a bilingual context:
Perceptions of business students in Hong Kong. System, 31. (4), 57-69.
Kane, L. (1991). The acquisition of cultural competence: An ethnographic framework for cultural studies curricula. In D. Buttjes & M. Byram (Eds.), Mediating Languages and Cultures (pp. 239-247). Clevedon, Avon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16. 1-20.
Kniep, W. M. (1986). Defining a global education by its content. Social Education, 50 (10), 437-466.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C. & McConnell-Ginet, (Eds.). (1992). Text and Context. Lexington, MA:
D. C. Heath and Company.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1992). Culturally relevant teaching: The key to making multicultural education work. In C. Grant (Ed.). Research and Multicultural Education: From the Margins to the Mainstream (pp. 106-126). London:
Falrner.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). What we can learn from multicultural education research. Educational Leadership, 22-26.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995a). This issue. Theory into Practice, 34 (3), 150-151.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995b). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy.
American Educational Research Journal, 32. (3), 465-491.
Lange, D. L. & Paige, R. M. (Eds.) (2003). Culture as the Core: Perspectives on Culture in Second Language Learning. Greenwich, Conn.: Information Age Pub.
Lockwood, A.T. (1994). Language, culture, and identity. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 374 645).
Maastricht Global Education Declaration, The. (2002). [on-line]. Available:
http://www.globaleducation.ch/english/pagesnav/framesE4.htm?PL&pages&PL_.htm McKay, S. L. (2000). Teaching English as an international language: Implications for
cultural materials in the classroom. TESOL Journal, 9. (4), 7-11.
Moore, H. E. (1991). An analysis of cultural content of post-secondary textbooks for Spanish: Evidence of information processing strategies and types of learning in reading selections and post-reading adjunct questions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project (1999). Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century. Yonkers, New York:
Author.
Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education. NY: Longman Publishers.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Renner, C. E. (1993). Multicultural language learning: Applications in EFL
curriculum development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 375 611).
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. Wertsch, P. del
Rio, A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural Studies of Mind (pp. 139-164). N.Y.:
Cambridge University Press.
Savignon, S. J. & Sysoyev, P. V. (2005). Cultures and comparisons: Strategies for learners. Foreign Language Annals, 38. (3), 357-365.
Sercu, L. (2005). Foreign language teachers and the implementation of intercultural education: A comparative investigation of the professional self-concepts and teaching practice of Belgian teachers of English, French, and German. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28. (1), 87-105.
Shor, I. (1993). Education is politics: Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy. In P. McLaren,
& P. Leonard (Eds.), Paulo Freire: A Critical Encounter (pp. 25-35). NY:
Routledge.
Shor, I. & Freire, P. (1987). A Pedagogy for Liberation. MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers, Inc.
Sleeter, C. E. (1993). Multicultural education: Five views. The Education Digest, March, 53-57.
Sleeter, C. E (1996). Multicultural education as a social movement. Theory into Practice, 35. (4), 239-247.
Sleeter, C. E. & Grant, C. A. (1999). Making Choices for Multicultural
Education: Five Approaches to Race, Class, and Gender. NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Storme, J. A. & Derakhshani, M. (2000). Defining, teaching, and evaluating cultural proficiency in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 35. (6), 657-668.
Suzuki, B. H. (1980). An Asian-American perspective on multicultural education:
Implications for practice and research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 205 633).
Thomson, D. S. (1975). Worlds shaped by words. In Thomson, et al. (Eds.), Human Behavior: Language (pp. 103-116). New York: Time-Life Books.
Tye, K. A. (1999). Global Education: A Worldwide Movement. South Pasadena, CA:
Harrison Publishing.
Ueber, D. M. & Grosse, C. U. (1991). The cultural content of business French texts.
The French Review, 65. (2), 247-255.
Wardle, F. (1992). Supporting biracial children in the school setting. Education and Treatment of Children, 15 (2), 163-172.
Weade, G. (1994). Location learning in the times and spaces of teaching. In H. H.
Marshall (Ed.), Redefining Student Learning (pp. 87-118). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing Corp.
Wharton, G. (2005). Language learning interest at a new management university in multilingual Singapore. Foreign Language Annals, 38. (4), 544-553.
Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28.
277-388.
Winter, H., Inkiriwang, R. & Senduk, A. (1996). Integrating global cultures in EFL materials. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 394 281).
Wolf, W. C. & Riordan, K. M. (1991). Foreign language teachers’ demographic characteristics, in-service training needs, and attitudes toward teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 24 (6), 471-478.
Zeichner, K. M., Grant, C., Gay, G., Gillette, M., Valli, L. & Villegas, A. M. (1998). A research informed vision of good practice in multicultural teacher education:
Design principles. Theory into Practice, 37 (2), 163-171.
Zoreda, M. L. (2001). A Deweyan perspective on cross-cultural experiences and Anglophone pedagogy in the teaching of English as a foreign language. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 452 697).
