Pedagogy and Impacts of Multiculturalism - Essay Example

Section/# Option 2 Response Introduction: Over the of module two, a litany of different readings havebeen represented which helped to define and redefine a broader understanding of the way in which language should be understood and plot; both from the perspective of the learner and from the perspective of the educator. Within the myriad of different viewpoints that have been presented, one central and fundamental element has come to be clear, power, approach, sociology, and impacts of culture are all strongly represented with regard to the way in which language is taught and understood. Almost without exception, each and every author that has been analyzed as focus their research on at least some elements of the aforementioned list. As such, the following analysis will seek to provide an overview and understanding of how educators, as well as fellow stakeholders, can develop effective responses to issues of language in power. It is the hope of this particular author that such a level of discussion will be beneficial; not only in providing a broader level of identification and understanding of the subject matter of module two – but also in terms of effectively understanding the many nuanced impacts that language has upon the life of the individual student and stakeholder within society. Similarly, a specific focus will also be placed upon pedagogical responses to my: such as critical literacy, critical pedagogy, critical multiculturalism, and other aspects that are oftentimes included in core curricula around the globe. Critical Pedagogy and Impacts of Multiculturalism: In terms of critical pedagogy and critical multiculturalism, Alastair Pennycook indicates that one of the major issues facing educators within the current era has to do with the interpretation of teaching ESL students; or more specifically (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). Within his article, entitled “Critical Moments in TESOL Praxicum”, Pennycook indicates there is a certain stigma that is attached to teaching these students; a stigma that most directly relates to an understanding that TESOL education is a type of grunt work – something that no other educator wants. As can directly be seen, the implication of this has for critical pedagogy and critical multiculturalism is one in which these students are oftentimes understood or viewed in terms of the “untouchables” (Pennycook, 2004). Whereas it is oftentimes not the race, gender, or culture of the ESL student that encourages certain educators to make this assessment, the impact of lack of desire, lack of passion, or lack of interest in teaching these individuals necessarily takes away from the broader overall benefit that these students may have from educators that were fascinated by and interested in teaching to ESL students. Another implication with respect to critical pedagogy that has been represented during the course of module to is with respect to what Sung and Pederson represented within their chapter concerning cultural teaching. As such, the authors indicate that there is a direct need to shift away from a cultureless interpretation of education and towards one that understands and takes into account the unique cultural origin and dynamic of the students represented within a given court classroom. Naturally, with respect to the impact that this has upon multiculturalism, it is also necessary factor into account the reasonable expectation that a more and more multicultural world will represent an increasing number of minorities; and ultimately less ethnic or cultural similarity. Accordingly, the educator will find it necessary to change or alter the approach toward the subject matter based upon cultural homogeneity is that might be reflected within the course. Nevertheless, certain aspects of education, as Sung and Pederson denote, do not need to be altered merely as a function of the ethnic or cultural origin of a large percentage of students represented within the classroom. More specifically, the approach that these authors take is one that places a premium upon the understanding that ESL is oftentimes taught in certain regions of Southeast Asia – parts of the world in which cultural homogeneity is perhaps greater as compared to the Western world (Sung & Pedersen, 2012). Politics and Language: One particular difficulty that is represented time and time again throughout the readings included within module two is the fact that politics and language have a certain level of incestuous relations. Essentially, authors such as Clark and Ivanic stressed the fact that teachers need to be cognizant of this and seeks to divorce politics as much as possible for the introduction and instruction to language studies. This is as a result of the fact that political viewpoints are not the vantage point of education and teachers should not be attempting to affect a greater understanding of these elements of human society. Whereas there is more than certainly a time and a place for the instruction of politics and social discourse, the authors of this particular piece indicate that teaching language acquisition skills is not the most appropriate setting in which issues relating to politics and social discourse should be represented. The Singularity of Information: Similarly, information represented within the annual review of applied linguistics indicates the fact that critical literacy is oftentimes difficult to define or otherwise described. As such, the authors ask functional questions of how this changes or more as society begins to engage with new concepts and paradigms. Furthermore, the educator should be uniquely aware of who is responsible for sending this paradigm as a means of defining what critical literacy in fact represents. Essentially, universities around the world face a litany of different requirements based upon what their individual institution, or host country deems appropriate in terms of critical literacy. As such, it is the role of the educator to consider these elements and seek to establish whether or not they are functionally relevant for inclusion within the curricula. Whereas the article stop short of encouraging outright insurrection among educators that believe that elements of critical literacy that might not correspond to best practice should be ignored, it does strongly encourage the educator to sink more defensively and independently with respect to the information that is represented within their classrooms. Likewise, the authors also place the unit of focus upon what is known as English for academic purposes (EAP). By questioning these norms and unraveling their meaning, the article seeks to promote the way in which educators should engage the student and represent best practices throughout the field. This of course has a profound level of application with regard to teachers, parents, and the way in which the educational process should be applied as it relates to language acquisition. Race, Racism and Language: Crawford (1999) also provides pedagogy critique within the article entitled “We can’t all understand the white’s language: An analysis of monolingual health services in a multilingual society”. Within this particular text, the reader comes to the clear understanding that a degree of linguistic arrogance is represented within many societies; something that the language teacher should strive to minimize that each and every opportunity. This way, making language nonracial, noncultural, and viewing success is the ultimate goal post – not emulation of a particular socioeconomic level or race – the positive impacts of linguistic education can most directly be felt and noticed. What this means for teachers is that lessens need to be carefully reviewed to ensure that a degree of bias, arrogance, racism, jingoism, politics, xenophobia, or any other element is minimized or ultimately removed. Non Binary Approaches to Language: In line with an understanding of language and separation, Module 2 has also indicated that there is a certain level of importance to understanding language as “non-binary”. Authors like Cameron (2005) have pointed to the fact that gendered expressions of language and social engagement have defined the broader part of the past several decades. However, in understanding that language is genderless, the educator must critically assess the approach that they will take and review themselves to ensure that a genderless representation of language is represented to the end student. Other stakeholder within the educational process can ensure that this is affected by promoting language students to identify with goals rather than identifying with a particular gender or individual towards which they seek to emulate. Further pedagogical critique that was leveraged by one of the authors included within module two involves the importance of self identification and reinforcement as compared to force change of language. In as much, the authors indicate that he force change of language creates a level of in cohesion and disharmony that might otherwise threatening entire educational process; lending the student to see system as pernicious to their overall development. Obviously, the latter effects a negative impact upon the learner and reduce the overall potential that development can take place. Within such a dynamic, the reader is encouraged to view the educational process as against their own best interests and destructive to their identity; rather than beneficial and cooperative. As a means of reducing this particular negative aspect, students, teachers, and educational stakeholders should necessarily engage with a more multicultural paradigm; one in which language instruction is not seen in any way as an arrogant attempt to alter or change cultural values that might be held by the individual in question (Renkema, 2009). Control of the System and the Representation of Language: In keeping with this critique, the Journal of Sociolinguistics, in an article published by Diana Eades, postulates that there is a perennial conflict between outsiders and those that control system. Whereas class struggle and the means by which sociology relates to individual well-being has of course been a topic of discussion within the social sciences for decades, the author of this particular article indicate that the struggle between the haves and have-nots is ultimately a struggle between those that control the language of the operating system and those that seek to establish their own best interests within it (Eades, 2006). Naturally, there is a distinct advantage for those that “speak” and “write” the “correct” language. Accordingly, the author promotes the understanding that in order for the educational system to be more fair and equitable, it must understand that there are innate differentials between students with respect to their overall understanding of a particular lexical structure and the means by which it operates within their world (Coupland, 2000). Literacy and Power: In keeping with this theme, Janks (2010) book entitled Literacy and Power seeks to impress upon the reader the fact that power is directly defined based upon the language that individual speaks as well as the socioeconomic status they are born into. Whereas a great deal of scholarship and research has been conducted on to the latter, the author argues that literacy as a tool of power is perhaps the most important measurement by which one can understand whether or not an individual will be successful within certain circles. Within this definition and understanding, the role of the educator in seeking to prepare students for operating at a high level and exhibiting the telltale markers of extraordinarily well balanced and educated and linguistically proficient individual is manifestly related. With a further review of the power structure, politics, and literacy as forming an interrelated mix, Joel Robbins (2001) piece effects a further understanding of the way in which linguistics and culture form a unique bond that helps to define whether or not power is diffused through norms of speech; and in what ways. Seeking to deny that this power exists is of course ineffective. However, the author indicates that the educator must be uniquely aware of these power differentials as a means of encouraging students to reflect best practices and promote higher levels of literacy. Rather than rejecting the system as biased towards the student, the broader view that the educator should reflect is based upon seeking to engender mutual benefit between effective linguistic instruction and the means by which the student can better themselves in the real world. Another vital understanding that is represented throughout module two has to do with the politics of language. Essentially, regardless of the culture or ethnic background that individual might be from, there are unique cultural differences and a secondary language acquisition can often become synonymous with the level of political comprehension and acceptance (Tollefson, 2012). Within such an understanding, the authors that have been read indicate that this should be avoided at all costs. Whereas it is relevant and necessary to engage individuals with contemporary discussions and to encourage them to develop their own points of view and means of argument, the teacher and the educational system itself should not be focused upon solidifying or promoting any particular political vantage point. This can of course be seen with respect to the way in which any course should be taught; however, it should especially be noted with regard to secondary language acquisition – in that these individuals will inherently, from a different culture and/or ethnic background and might be particularly sensitive to the way in which such non-multicultural focuses might have. Regardless of political approach, it is more or less agreed upon, by almost all of the scholars represented within module two that this course helps to shape and legitimize societal understanding and comprehension. This is not only it has to greater understanding but a tool in and of itself. Although this is a valuable tool, the warning that remains relevant is that Prof. or teacher should not attempt to leverage or legitimize social understanding as a means of promoting a particular worldview above any other. Sound and Cultural Identification: As indicated within “Sound and Power: The Language of the Rastafari”, the author points to the fact that text and literature is as much part of identity as might specific dances, musical genres, or other aspects that help to formulate identity. For such a reason, refraining from disparaging any aspect of culture or comparing “power” in the form of language to success, the educator must be mindful of the inherent bias that their own cultural affinity might provide. Furthermore, the understanding that can be gained from such articles as the aforementioned is based on the belief that self identification is also formed on the part of the educator; based as an intrinsic part of where they were born and educated – as well as where they live and teach currently. The Inherent Need for Sensitivity from the Educator’s Standpoint: Another rational for the sensitivity that educators should exhibit towards cultural and linguistic differentials amongst students is clearly represented within Faircloough’s 2003 piece entitled “Texts, social events and social practices”. Within this particular article, the author points the fact that text and literature form a valuable part of defining social events and identity. As such, the educator that would promote multiculturalism should inherently recognize that the type of focus which is specified within the course material has a powerful determinacy with respect to the understanding of social events and identity that will be reflected amongst the students. In order to counter-act this, it is of course the understanding of this student that the curricula should be thoroughly reviewed and if it is in fact true that cultural or textual evidence of bias is represented, it should either be removed entirely or countered with bias or textual information that represents the opposite. Class and Social Standing as a Function of Language Evolution and Instruction: Taking the exemplifications that have been provided thus far in the analysis of Module 2 one step further, the reader could adequately note that the piece entitled “In the Beginning was Society: Marx, Volosinov and Vygotsky on Language”. Likewise the article points to the fact that even before the structure of class or even race had come to be represented within academic inquiry, the power of language as a separator of persons has been exhibited throughout history. Within such an exemplification, the reader can and should denote that the educator must carefully introduce the concept of language acquisition; so that there is not a deduced or expected understanding that cultural superiority is being exhibited. Power Dynamics and Language as a Research Tool: Likewise, a discussion of language and power dynamics within the historical context is provided within Janks (1997) piece entitled, “Critical Discourse Analysis as a Research Tool”. The representation of the way in which shared identity and the power of communication impact upon the way in which history is understood provides the analyst with a more powerful understanding of the way in which all of these aspects of the human experience influence one another and help to contribute to an identity that in turn impacts upon the definition and understanding of “culture”. However, language crafts more than culture, it also crafts stereotypes and the approach to different cultures, backgrounds, and/or races. This is analyzed in depth within the piece entitled, “Semiotics of Racism: Approaches in Discourse Analysis”. As such, the authors indicate that language and its construction/interpretation/understanding has a powerful and definitive impact upon the way in which individuals identify with groups and typify them. This creates a barrier for individuals within certain socio-economic positions of society that might have a peculiar vernacular as compared to those that are inherently more sophisticated. Naturally, the step towards this understanding of language coming across in racial overtones or in terms of racism is not a large one. Inasmuch, the authors promote the understanding that educators should place a key level of awareness towards this and promote a uniform approach to “power” language in terms of raising the aspirations and educational approach of all students equally. The Unifying Dynamics of Language and Language Instruction: Yet, language is not something that should always be understood in a pejorative sense; at least as it relates to instilling aspects of culture, race, or identity. As such, Johnston (2003) promotes the understanding that values and the politics of language can be, on the whole, positive; and ultimately dependent upon the approach that the educator is able to evoke. Such a representation stands in clear contrast to the prior interpretation of language as nothing more than a mechanism by which societal differentiation could be effected. In such a manner, the reader is encouraged to believe that the role the educator fulfils is fundamentally important to deciding whether or not a positive or negative reaction to language and power might develop within the mind of the student. However, in somewhat of a level of opposition to Johnston’s approach, delineated above, Luke (1996) posits that the laws of language and power are socially constructed. Within such an interpretation the analyst is motivated to view the role/power/prominence and/or importance of the educator in somewhat a diminished role. Instead, the educator, at least within Luke’s mind, is somewhat beholden to the way in which society has established beliefs and acculturated the minds of stakeholders. Nevertheless, this approach is one that argues that educators still have a level of power and direct levels of influence over the way in which “social” construction takes place. Social Inputs and Language Studies: Reagan (2006) further indicates that there is a direct level of reflection represented within language; the type of reflection that is concentric of language and the socio-political inputs. He further argues that this is not only useful for students but for teachers in construction approaches to language instruction. By motivating the educator to see past the myriad of difficulties or impediments that might exist with respect to language education, the study promotes the understanding that both the teacher and the student(s) can gain useful benefit from learning the way in which best practices should be effected and the manner by which languages helps to define the social space. Potential Negative Influences of Language Instruction: Finally, the means by which negative nuances of English language instruction impact upon identity and “non-English” culture is denoted within Rapatahana & Bruce’s (2012) piece entitled, “English Language as Hydra: It’s Impacts on non-English Language Cultures”. Inasmuch, the authors argue for the fact that the unity of information and education that language instruction brings is oftentimes undermined by an inherently culturally elite presentation or format of learning. Likewise, the authors denote that English is more often than not a separator as compared to a unifier of peoples (Canagarajah, 1999). Conclusion: From the information that has herein been presented, and studied, from module 2, it is clear and apparent that the English language educator faces a litany of distinct challenges. Many of these are of course concentric upon ensuring that a level of xenophobia and racial overtones are not represented in the way that he/she teaches the course material. However, beyond this, there are unique pedagogical nuances that have been presented as well; those that will assist the student in coming to understand some of the best practices which should be put forward within the field and how they should be accomplished. Bibliography Cameron D 2005, ‘Language, gender and sexuality: Current issues and new directions’, Applied Linguistics, vol. 26. No. 4, pp. 482-502. Canagarajah, AS 1999, Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford University Press, USA. Coupland, J 2000, Small talk. Allyn & Bacon. Crawford, A 1999, “We can’t all understand the white’s language: An analysis of monolingual health services in a multilingual society”, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 136, pp. 27-45. Eades, D 2006, Lexical struggle in court: Aboriginal Australians versus the state1. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(2), 153-180. Janks, H 2010, Literacy and Power, Routledge, N.Y., pp. 35-60, Janks, H 1997, Critical discourse analysis as a research tool. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 18(3), 329-342. Johnston, B 2002, Values in English language teaching. Routledge. Luke, A 1996, Genres of power? Literacy education and the production of capital. Literacy in society, 308-338. Pennycook, A 2004, Critical moments in a TESOL praxicum. Critical pedagogies and language learning, 327-345. Rapatahana, V & Bunce, P 2012, English Language as Hydra: Its Impacts on Non-English Language Cultures (Vol. 9). Multilingual Matters. Reagan, T 2006, The explanatory power of critical language studies: Linguistics with an attitude. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: An International Journal, 3(1), 1-22. Renkema, J 2009, Discourse, of course: An overview of research in discourse studies. John Benjamins Publishing. Robbins, J 2001, God is nothing but talk: Modernity, language, and prayer in a Papua New Guinea society. American Anthropologist, 103(4), 901-912. Sung, K & Pederson, R 2012, Critical ELT Practices in Asia (Vol. 82). Springer. Tollefson, JW 2012, Language policies in education: Critical issues. Routledge. Read More