INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOK OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING

Springer International Handbooks of Education

Volume 11

A list of titles in this series can be found at the end of this volume.

International Handbook of English Language Teaching

Parti

Edited by

Jim Cummins The University of Toronto, Canada

and

Chris Davison The University of Hong Kong, China

Springe]

Jim Cummins Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/Canada

Chris Davison The University of Hong Kong/China

Library of Congress Control Number: 2006932383

ISBN-13: 978-0-387-46300-1 ISBN-10: 0-387-46300-3

e-ISBN-13: 978-0-387-46301-8 e-ISBN-10: 0-387-46301-1

Printed on acid-&ee paper.

© 2007 Springer Sciences-Business Media, LLC. All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks and similar terms, even if they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights. While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of going to press, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

springer.com

Table of Contents

PARTI

List of Authors

Preface

Acknowledgments

xm

xxi

xxvii

SECTION 1. The Global Scope and Politics of ELT: Critiquing Current Policies and Programs

Introduction: The Global Scope and Politics of ELT: Critiquing Current Policies and Programs

Jim Cummins and Chris Davison

1 ELT and Colonialism Alastair Pennycook

2 Ideology, Language Varieties, and ELT James W. Tollefson

3 Tensions Between English and Mother Tongue Teaching in Post-Colonial Africa Margaret Akinyi Obondo

4 A Critical Discussion of the Enghsh-Vernacular Divide in India Vaidehi Ramanathan

13

25

37

51

ELT Pohcy Directions in Multilingual Japan Yasuko Kanno

63

vi Table of Contents

6 English Language Teaching in Korea: Toward Globalization or Glocaljzationl 75 Hyunjung Shin

7 The National Curriculum Changes and Their Effects on English Language Teaching in the People's Republic of China 87 Qiang Wang

8 ELT and Bilingual Education in Argentina 107 Agustina Tocalli-Beller

9 English, No Longer a Foreign Language in Europe? 123 Robert Phillipson

10 Common Property: English as a Lingua Franca in Europe 137 Barbara Seidlhofer

11 Teaching English as a Third Language 155 Ulrike Jessner andJasone Cenoz

Yl Protecting English in an Anglophone Age 169 Joseph Lo Bianco

13 Adult Immigrant ESL Programs in Canada: Emerging Trends in the Contexts of History, Economics, and Identity 185 Douglas Fleming

14 Focus on Literacy: ELT and Educational Attainment in England 199 Jill Bourne

15 Methods, Meanings and Education Policy in the United States 211 Lois M. Meyer

SECTION 2. The Goals and Focus of the ELT Program: Problematizing Content and Pedagogy

Introduction: The Goals and Focus of the ELT Program: Problematizing Content and Pedagogy 231

Chris Davison and Jim Cummins

16 The Goals of ELT: Reproducing Native-Speakers or Promoting Multicompetence Among Second Language Users? 237 Vivian Cook

17 Integrating School-Aged ESL Learners into the Mainstream Curriculxmi 249 Constant Leung

18 Communicative Language Teaching: Current Status and Future Prospects 271 Nina Spada

Table of Contents vii

19 Language Instruction Through Tasks 289 Peter Skehan

20 Knowledge Structures in Social Practices 303 Bernard A. Mohan

21 Accelerating Academic Achievement of English Language Learners: A Synthesis of Five Evaluations of the CALLA Model 317 Anna Uhl Chamot

22 Predicting Second Language Academic Success in English Using the Prism Model 333 Virginia P. Collier and Wayne P. Thomas

23 Four Keys for School Success for Elementary EngUsh Learners 349 Yvonne Freeman and David Freeman

24 Collaborating in ESL Education in Schools 365 Sophie Arkoudis

25 Organization of English Teaching in International Schools 379 Maurice W. Carder

26 EngUsh for Specific Purposes: Some Influences and Impacts 391 Ken Hyland

27 An Interdisciplinary Approach to Teaching Adults English in the Workplace 403 Jane Lockwood

SECTION 3. Assessment and Evaluation in ELT: Shifting Paradigms and Practices

Introduction: Assessment and Evaluation in ELT: Shifting Paradigms and Practices 415

Chris Davison and Jim Cummins

28 Standards-Based Approaches to the Evaluation of ESL Instruction 421 David Nunan

29 The Standards Movement and ELT for School-Aged Learners: Cross-National Perspectives 439 Penny McKay

30 High-Stakes Testing and Assessment: English Language Teacher Benchmarking 457 David Coniam and Peter Falvey

viii Table of Contents

31 New Directions in Testing English Language Proficiency for University Entrance 473 Alister Cumming

32 The hnpact of Testing Practices on Teaching: Ideologies and Alternatives 487 Liz Hamp-Lyons

33 Classroom-Based Assessment: Possibilities and Pitfalls 505 Pauline Rea-Dickins

34 The Power of Language Tests, the Power of the English Language and the Role of ELT 521 Elana Shohamy

3 5 Different Definitions of Language and Language Learning: Implications for Assessment 533 Chris Davison

Author Index 549

Subject Index 575

PARXn

List of Authors xiii

Preface xxi

Acknowledgments xxvii

SECTION 1. The Learner and the Learning Environment: Creating New Communities

Introduction: The Learner and the Learning Environment: Creating New Communities 615

Jim Cummins and Chris Davison

36 ESL Learners in the Early School Years: Identity and Mediated Classroom Practices 625 Kelleen Toohey, Elaine Day and Patrick Manyak

37 The Adolescent English Language Learner: Identities Lost and Found 639 Linda Harklau

Table of Contents ix

38 What About the Students? EngHsh Language Learners in Postsecondary Settings 655 Sarah Benesch

39 Imagined Communities, Identity, and EngUsh Language Learning 669 Aneta Pavlenko and Bonny Norton

40 Academic Achievement and Social Identity Among Bilingual Students in the U.S. 681 Shelley Wong and Rachel Grant

41 Sociocultural Theory: A Unified Approach to L2 Learning and Teaching 693 James P. Lantolf

42 Mediating Academic Language Learning Through Classroom Discourse 701 Pauline Gibbons

43 Creating a Motivating Classroom Environment 719 Zoltdn Dornyei

44 Autonomy and Its Role in Learning 733 Philip Benson

45 Creating a Technology-Rich English Language Learning Environment 747 Denise E. Murray

46 The Internet and English Language Learning: Opening Up Spaces for Constructivist and Transformative Pedagogy Through Sister-Class Networks 763 Vasilia Kourtis-Kazoullis andEleni Skourtou

SECTION 2. Constructs of Language in ELT: Breaking the Boundaries

Introduction: Constructs of Language in ELT: Breaking the Boundaries 777 Chris Davison and Jim Cummins

Al Psycholinguistic Perspectives on Language and Its Acquisition 783 Jan H. Hulstijn

48 Academic Language: What Is It and How Do We Acquire It? 797 Jim Cummins and Evelyn Man Yee-Fun

49 Teaching Implications of L2 Phonology Research 811 John Archibald

50 Current Perspectives on Vocabulary Teaching and Learning 827 Norbert Schmitt

X Table of Contents

51 Changing Approaches to the Conceptualization and Teaching of Grammar 843 Beverly Derewianka

52 Extending Our Understanding of Spoken Discourse 859 Michael McCarthy and Diana Slade

53 New Directions in Student Academic Writing 875 Sue Starfield

54 From Literacy to MuhiUteracies in ELT 891 Heather Lotherington

55 Technology and Writing 907 Mark Warschauer

56 Multimodal Pedagogies, Representation and Identity: Perspectives from Post-Apartheid South Africa 919 Pippa Stein andDenise Newfield

57 Approaches to Genre in ELT 931 Brian Paltridge

58 Researching and Developing Teacher Language Awareness: Developments and Future Directions 945 Stephen Andrews

SECTION 3. Research and Teacher Education in ELT: Meeting New Challenges

Introduction: Research and Teacher Education in ELT: Meeting New Challenges 963

Jim Cummins and Chris Davison

59 Qualitative Approaches to Classroom Research with EngUsh Language Learners 973 Patricia A. Duff

60 Action Research: Contributions and Future Directions in ELT 987 Anne Burns

61 Narrative Inquiry and ELT Research 1003 JoAnn Phillion and Ming Fang He

62 Conversation Analysis: Issues and Problems 1017 Numa Markee

Table of Contents xi

63 Poststructuralism and Applied Linguistics: Complementary Approaches to Identity and Culture in ELT 1033 Brian Morgan

64 What Shapes Teachers'Professional Development? 1053 AmyB.M. Tsui

65 Appropriating Uncertainty: ELT Professional Development in the New Century 1067 Michael P. Breen

66 Teacher Education for Linguistically Diverse Communities, Schools, and Classrooms 1085 Tara Goldstein

67 Challenges and Opportunities for the Teaching Profession: English as an Additional Language in the UK 1101 Charlotte Franson

68 Teachers' Roles in the Global Hypermedia Environment 1113 Chris Corbel

69 Preparing Teachers for Technology-Supported ELT 1125 Michael K. Legutke, Andreas MUller-Hartmann andMarita Schocker V. Ditfurth

Author Index 1139

Subject Index 1165

List of Authors

Stephen Andrews, Faculty of Education, The Universily of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, SAR, China. Email: sandrews@hku.hk

John Archibald, Department of Linguistics, Language Research Centre, The Uni-versity of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada. Email: john.archibald@ ucalgary.ca

Sophie Arkoudis, Faculty of Education, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, 3010, Australia. Email: s.arkoudis@unimelb.edu.au

Sarah Benesch, Department of English, Speech and. World Literature, The City University of New York, College of Staten Island, 2800 Victory Boulevard, Staten Island, New York, USA. Email: benesch@mail.csi.cuny.edu

Phil Benson, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, Hong Kong, SAR, China. Email: pbenson@hkucc.hku.hk

Jill Bourne, Centre for Research on Pedagogy and the Curriculum, School of Edu-cation, The University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO 17 IB J, United Kingdom. Email: j.boume@soton.ac.uk

Michael P. Breen, Sutton House, Auchterarder, Perthshire PH3 lED, Scotland. Email: m.breen@hotmail.co.uk

Anne Burns, Department of Linguistics, Division of Linguistics and Psychology, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia. Email: anne.bums@mq.edu.au

Maurice Carder, Vieima Intemational School, Strasse der Menschenrechte 1, A-1220, Vieima, Austria. Email: mcarder@vis.ac.at

xiv List of Authors

Jasone Cenoz, Department of Research Methods in Education, FICE, The Univer-sity of the Basque Country, Avda Tolosa 70, 01006 San Sebastian, Spain. Email: jasone.cenoz@ehu.es

Anna Uhl Chamot, George Washington University, 2121 Bye Street, N.W., Wash-ington, USA. Email: auchamot@gwu.edu

Virginia P. Collier, Graduate School of Education, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive MS4B3, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA. Email: vcollier@gmu.edu

David Coniam, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong, SAR, China. Email: coniam@ cuhk.edu.hk

Vivian Cook, School of Education, Commimication and Language Sciences, King George VI Building, The University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, NEl 7RU, England. Email: Vivian.Cook@newcastle.ac.uk

Chris Corbel, Manager Research and Development, NMIT, 77-91 St Georges Rd, Preston, Victoria 3072. Email: chrisc-rd@nmit.vic.edu.au

Alister Cumming, Modem Language Centre, Ontario Institute for Studies in Educa-tion, The University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1V6, Canada. Email: acunmiing@oise.utoronto.ca

Jim Cummins, Modem Language Centre, 10th Floor, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, The University of Toronto, 252 Bloor St, West Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1V6 Canada. Email: jcummins@oise.utoronto.ca

Chris Davison, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfiilam Rd, Hong Kong, SAR, China. Email: cdavison@hku.hk

Elaine Day, Faculty of Education, Simon Eraser University, 8888 University Drive, Bumaby, BC V5A, 1S6, Canada. Email: Elaine_Day@sfu.ca

Beverly Derewianka, Faculty of Education, The University of WoUongong, NSW 2522, Australia. Email: bevder@uow.edu.au

Zoltan Dornyei, School of English Studies, The University of Nottingham, UK. Email: Zoltan.Domyei@nottingham.ac.uk

Patricia A. Duff, Department of Language and Literacy Education The University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada. Email: patricia.duff@ubc.ca

Peter Falvey, University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate, 4, Bramcote Lane, Chilwell, Beeston, Nottingham, NG9 SEN, UK. Email: falveyphk@gmail.com

List of Authors xv

Douglas Fleming, The University of British Columbia, 9500 Glenacres Drive Richmond, BC, V7A 1Y7, Canada. Email: fleming_douglas@sd36.bc.ca

Charlotte Franson, Canterbury Christ Church University, North Hohnes Road, Canterbury, CTl IQU, Kent, England. Email: cmf6@canterbury.ac.uk

David Freeman, School of Education, The University of Texas at Brownsville, 80 Fort Brown, Brownsville, TX 78520, USA. Email: david.freeman@utb.edu

Yvonne Freeman, School of Education, The University of Texas at Brownsville, 80 Fort Brown, Brownsville, TX 78520, USA. Email: yvonne.freeman@utb.edu

Pauline Gibbons, Faculty of Education, The University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia. Email: Pauline.Gibbons@uts.edu.au

Tara Goldstein, Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning, Ontario Insti-tute for Studies in Education, The University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1V6, Canada. Email: tgoldstein@oise.utoronto.ca

Rachel Grant, Center for Language and Culture, College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, MS4B3, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA. Email: rag022@aol.com

Liz Hamp-Lyons, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Rd, Hong Kong, SAR, China. Email: lizhl@hku.hk

Linda Harklau, Department of Language Education, 125 Aderhold Hall, The Uni-versity of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA. Email: lharklau@uga.edu

Ming Fang He, Department of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading, College of Education, Georgia Southern University, Post Office Box 8144, Statesboro, GA, 30460-8144, USA. Email: mfhe@georgiasouthem.edu

Jan H. Hulstijn, Faculty of Humanities, The University of Amsterdam, 134 Spuis-fraat, 1012 VB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Email: j.h.hulstijn@uva.nl

Ken Hyland, Institute of Education, The University of London, 20 Bedford Way, London, WCIH OAL, UK. Email: K.Hyland@ioe.ac.uk

Ulrike Jessner, Department of English, The University of Innsbruck, Innrain 52/III, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria. Email: Ulrike.Jessner@uibk.ac.at

Yasuko Kanno, The University of Washington, Department of English, Box 354330, Seattle, WA 98195-4330, USA. Email: ykanno@u.washington.edu

Vasilia Kourtis Kazoullis, Department of Mediterranean Studies, The University of the Aegean, 1 Demokratias Ave. GR-85100 Rhodes, Greece. Email: kazoullis@ rhodes.aegean.gr

xvi List of Authors

James P. Lantolf, Perm State University, Centre of Language Acquisition, 304 Sparks Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA. Email: jpl7@psu.edu

Michael K. Legutke, Justus-Liebig-Universitat Giessen, Institut fur Anglistik, Otto-Behaghel-Str, 10, B, IV, 35394 Giessen, Germany. Email: Michael.K.Legutke® anglistik.uni-giessen.de

Constant Leung, Department of Education and Professional Studies, School of So-cial Science and Public Policy, King's College, The University of London, Franklin-Wilkins Building, Waterloo Road, London, SEl 9NH, UK. Email: constant.leung@ kcl.ac.uk

Joseph Lo Bianco, Department of Language and Literacy Education, The Univer-sity of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010 Australia. Email: j.lobianco@unimelb. edu.au

Jane Lockwood, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, Hong Kong, SAR, China. Email: lockwood@ied.edu.hk

Heather Lotherington, Faculty of Education, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada. Email: hlotherington@edu.yorku.ca

Evelyn Man Yee-fun, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong, SAR China. Email: eyfinan@cuhk.edu.hk

Patrick Manyak, College of Education, Department of Elementary and Early Childhood, The University of Wyoming, P.O. Box 3374 Laramine, WY 82071-3374, USA. Email: pmanyak@u\vyo.edu

Numa Markee, Division of English as an International Language, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 3070 Foreign Languages Building, 707 South Mathews, Urbana, IL 61801, USA. Email: nppm@uiuc.edu

Michael McCarthy, School of Enghsh Studies, The University Nottingham, Uni-versity Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK. Email: mactoft@dial.pipex.com

Penny McKay, School of Cultural and Language Studies in Education, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove Campus, Brisbane, Queensland 4059, Aus-tralia. Email: pa.mckay@qut.edu.au

Lois M. Meyer, College of Education, Department of Language, Literacy & So-ciocultural Studies, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA. Email: lsmeyer@unm.edu

Bernard A. Mohan, The University of British Colvmibia, 4640 West 13th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6R 2V7. Email: bemard.mohan@ubc.ca

List of Authors xvii

Brian Morgan, Department of Languages, Literatures and Linguistics, York Uni-versity, Canada. Email: bmorgan@yorku.ca

Andreas Miiller-Hartmann, Department of English as a Foreign Language Pada-gogische Hochschule Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 561, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany. Email: Andreas.Mueller-Hartmann@anglistik.uni-giessen.de

Denise E. Murray, National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia. Email: denise.murray@mq.edu.au

Denise Newfield, Department of English, School of Literature and Language Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, PO WITS 2050, South Africa. Email: dnewfield@languages.wits.ac.za

Bonny Norton, Department of Language and Literacy Education, The University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4. Email: bonny .norton@ubc.ca

David Nunan, The EngHsh Centre, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Rd, Hong Kong, SAR, China. Email: dcnunan@hku.hk

Margaret Obondo, Rinkeby Institute of Multilingual Research, P.O. Box 5028, 163 05, Spina, Sweden. Email: margaret.obondo@rinkeby-multiling.stockholm.se

Brian Paltridge, Faculty of Education, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Aus-tralia. Email: b.paltridge@edfac.usyd.edu.au

Aneta Pavlenko, CITE Department, College of Education, Temple University, Philadephia, PA 19122, USA. Email: apavlenk@temple.edu

Alastair Pennycook, The University of Technology Sydney, City Campus Haymar-ket; PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia. Email: alastair.peimycook@ uts.edu.au

Jo Ann Phillion, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, BRNG 4144, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2098. USA. Email: phimon@purdue.edu

Robert Phillipson, Department of English, Copenhagen Business School, Dalgas Have 15,2000 Frederiksberg, Deimiark. Email: rp.eng@cbs.dk

Vaidehi Ramanathan, Linguistics Program, The University of California, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616, USA. Email: vramanathan@ucdavis.edu

Pauline Rea-Dickins, Graduate School of Education, The University of Bristol, 35 Berkerley Square, Clifton, Bristol BS8 IJA, UK. Email: p.rea-dickins@bristol.ac.uk

Norbert Schmitt, School of EngUsh Studies, The University of Nottingham, Not-tingham NG7 2RD, UK. Email: norbert.schmitt@nottingham.ac.uk

xviii List of Authors

Marita Schocker v. Ditfurth, Padagogische Hochschule Freiburg, Institut fur Fremdsprachen/Abteilung Englisch, Kunzenweg 21D-79117 Freiburg, Germany. Email: schocker@ph-freiburg.de

Barbara Seidlhofer, Institut fur AngUstik, Universitat Wien, Universitaetcampus AAKH/Hof 8, Spitalgasse 2-4, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. Email: barbara.seidlhofer@ univie.ac.at

Hyunjung Shin, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, The University of To-ronto, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1V6, Canada. Email: shyun-jung@hotmail.com

Elana Shohamy, Tel Aviv University, School of Education, Tel Aviv 69978, Isarel. Email: elana@post.tau.ac.il

Peter Skehan, English Department, Fung King Hey Building, The Chinese Univer-sity of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong, SAR, China. Email: pskehan@arts.cuhk.edu.hk

Eleni Skourtou, Department of Primary Education, The University of the Aegean, 1 Demokratias Ave. GR-85100, Rhodes, Greece. Email: skourtou@rhodes.aegean.gr

Diana Slade, The University of Technology Sydney, Faculty of Education, PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia. Email: diana.slade@uts.edu.au

Nina Spada, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, The University of Toronto, Modem Language Centre, Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5S IV6, Canada. Email: nspada@ oise.utoronto.ca

Sue Starfield, The Learning Centre, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, AustraUa. Email: s.starfield@unsw.edu.au

Pippa Stein, Department of Applied Enghsh Language Studies, School of Literature and Language Studies, University of Witwatersrand, PO WITS 2050, South Africa. Email: pippa@languages.wits.ac.za

Wayne P. Thomas, Graduate School of Education, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive MS4B3, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA. Email: wthomas@gmu.edu

Agustina Tocalli-Beller, El Monticulo 153, La Planicie, La Molina, Lima 12, Peru. Email: atocalli-beller@oise.utoronto.ca/agustina@cogeco.ca

James W. Tollefson, The University of Washington, 5307 S. Langley Road, Lang-ley, WA 98260, USA. Email: tollefso@u. washington.edu

Kelleen Toohey, Faculty of Education, 8888 University Drive, Simon Eraser Uni-versity, Bumaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada. Email: toohey@sfu.ca

List of Authors xix

Amy B. M. Tsui, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, SAR, China. Email: bmtsui@hku.hk

Qiang Wang, Department of Foreign Languages, Beijing Normal University, Bei-jing, China. Email: wang_qiang99@yahoo.com

Mark Warschauer, The University of California, Irvine, UCI Department of Edu-cation, 2001 Berkeley Place, Irvine, CA 92697-5500, USA. Email: markw@uci.edu

Shelley Wong, Center for Language and Culture, College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive MS4B3, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA. Email: swongl@gmu.edu

Preface

This two-volume handbook provides a comprehensive examination of policy, practice, research, and theory related to English language teaching (ELT) in international contexts. Nearly 70 chapters highlight the research foundation for the best practices, frameworks for policy decisions, and areas of consensus and controversy in the teaching and development of English as a second and/or additional language for kindergarten through to adult speakers of languages other than English. In doing so it problematizes traditional dichotomies and challenges the very terms that provide the traditional foundations of the field.

A wide range of terms has been used to refer to the key players involved in the teaching and learning of the English language and to the enterprise of English language teaching as a whole. At various times and in different contexts, the following labels have been used in countries where English is the dominant language to describe programs, learners, or teachers of Enghsh: English as a second language (ESL), English as an additional language (EAL), limited English proficient (LEP), and English language learners (ELL). In contexts where EngUsh is not the dominant language, the following terms have been used: English as a foreign language (EFL), English as an international language (EIL), and English as a lingua franca (ELF). The international professional organization that supports and advocates for English language teaching calls itself Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) and the term English to speakers of other languages (ESOL) is also used in some contexts around the world to refer to programs, students, and teachers.

None of these labels is sociopolitically neutral; they each highlight certain features of the phenomenon of EngUsh language teaching and those who engage in it, and de-emphasize other features. For example, all of the labels listed above foreground English as the focus of attention, thereby obscuring the fact that the learners are bilingual or multilingual with fully functioning abilities in their home languages. This risks contributing to a deficit view of the learner, particularly in English-speaking contexts involving immigrant and refugee students. The term limited English proficient used by the US federal government is particularly problematic in this regard. Other terms are problematic for different reasons; for

xxii Preface

example, ESL makes the assumption, rooted in a monolingual perspective, that English is the second language of the student whereas in reality it may be the third, fourth, or fifth language that an individual has learned. ELL is currently the favored term among many professional organizations and educational agencies in North America but it obscures some key differences between programs for EngUsh mother tongue learners and those who are learning English as an additional language.

Attempts to use 'positive' terminology to refer to students and programs can also be problematic. For example, in the United Kingdom students have frequently been referred to as bilingual learners but this label obscures the fact that many of these students are still in great need of English language development (and were usually afforded few opportunities and little encouragement for mother tongue maintenance). In the United States, advocates for bilingual programs and some educational agencies have frequently referred to students as bilingual or bilingual/bicultural; however, it is arguable that this labeling may have contributed to the widespread assumption among the media and some policy-makers and educators that bilinguaUsm represents a linguistic deficit and that the bilingual student is 'limited English proficient.' hi contexts where English is not the dominant language, the label EFL has traditionally been used but EIL and ELF have been promoted as alternatives. The latter is seen as a much more accurate sociolinguistic descriptor to describe many learning and teaching situations outside predominantly English-speaking countries. The problem with adopting all such labels, however, is that by definition they create a single category in which people from many different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, language levels, socio-economic positions, aspirations, and perceived identities are treated as a collectivity.

hi this handbook we have not attempted to reconcile this multiplicity of identities and ideologies; rather, we have generally remained faithfiil to whatever term has been provided by the author of each chapter, assuming that it is an accurate reflection of their context and history, with the exception of the term LEP which we have generally changed to ESL or ELL. The field as a whole, in all its richness and diversity, we have called English language teaching (ELT), despite the limitations of the term, hence the title of this handbook. As this discussion of labels illustrates, language intersects with societal power relations in multiple and complex ways and this reality is reflected in the entire field of English language teaching. Thus, it is not surprising that many of the chapters in this handbook explore the ideological dimensions of ELT and their implications for language policies and classroom practice.

The handbook is intended to provide a unique resource for policy makers, educational administrators, teacher educators and researchers concerned with meeting the increasing demand for effective English language teaching while, at the same time, supporting institutions and communities concerned with the survival and development of languages other than English. Its publication is timely in view of the continuing spread of EngUsh as a global language and the associated expansion of ELT in countries around the world. Policy decisions regarding ELT that will be made during the next five years will influence the lives of individuals and the development of societies for the next 25 years or more. Policies and practices relating to ELT are, unfortunately, just as likely to be motivated by political pressure backed up by plausible but flawed assimiptions as they are by research and careful evaluation of alternative options. For example, many parents and policy makers just assume that earlier and more intensive instruction will result in higher levels of

Preface xxiii

English proficiency. As the research reviewed in this handbook demonstrates, this assumption is not necessarily valid— t̂he issues are considerably more complex than the rush to English would suggest.

Even a cursory examination of the spread of English demonstrates the ecological nature of the phenomenon. The introduction or expansion of EngUsh language teaching in any particular enviroimient exerts multidimensional influences on the status and even prospects for survival of other languages in that environment. Social and linguistic groups within these envirormients are similarly affected—either advantaged or disadvantaged—^by the policies adopted in relation to Enghsh.

To illustrate, it is clear that in countries around the world, English is replacing other languages as the second language taught most fi-equently and intensively in school. The perceived social and economic rewards associated with English have propelled parents to demand earlier and more intensive teaching of English. For example, in Japan, pilot projects have been instituted to start teaching English in the primary grades. In Hong Kong there is spirited public debate about the value of English-mediimi education and the most appropriate age to start learning English. English-medium universities are expanding rapidly in traditionally non-English speaking contexts, not just through the estabUshment of off-shore campuses, but through local universities shifting to English as the main language of instruction. For example, universities in mainland China have been required to teach 10% of their curriculum in English since 2004; in Japan entire degree programs are being offered in English in an attempt to maintain student numbers as the university-age population rapidly dwindles. In Norway and Sweden English is rapidly displacing the national languages as the medixan of teaching and learning in science and engineering faculties. Finland has the largest proportion of higher education courses taught in English outside English-speaking countries. In the European community in general, there are concerns tiiat the drive to teach English is turning it into the de facto official language of the new Europe. Similar developments and debates about the accelerating spread of English are underway in coxmtries around the world. Expansion and intensification of ELT by means of an earlier start, increased time allotment, and experimentation with immersion and bilingual or trilingual programs are evident both in private sector and public sector schools in many countries.

Demand for English has also escalated among adult learners including immigrants to Enghsh-speaking coimtries, business people involved in the global economy, and those who just want to travel as tourists. In many countries, large-scale ELT programs for adult learners have been estabUshed in the commxmity and workplace as a result of the globalization of the workforce, the perceived need to increase economic competitiveness, and a move towards life-long learning.

In some contexts, English has displaced not only competing second languages but also first languages. In many former British colonies and other recently independent countries in Afiica and Asia, for example, English is used almost exclusively as the medium of instruction in schools, thereby constricting the institutional space available for indigenous languages and creating immense challenges for students to learn academic content through a language they do not imderstand. Is this the best policy option? What are the alternatives? Who benefits from these policies and who is disadvantaged? Clearly, policies and practices associated with Enghsh language teaching must be considered not only in relation to effectiveness and efficiency but also with respect to the moral dimensions of decisions and initiatives. Who benefits from particular expenditures of resources and

xxiv Preface

what are the hidden costs with respect to what these resources might have been spent on? Is external aid for language teaching programs promoting the development of home-grown expertise or inducing long-term dependency on external support? hi short, power and status relationships between social groups both within and across societies are intertwined in obvious ways with language teaching policies and practices.

Increased focus on English language teaching has also occurred in countries where English is the dominant language. Many English-speaking countries have experienced dramatic increases in immigration during the past 30 years (e.g. the United States, Australia, and Canada). For example, about 40% of students in California have learned English as a second language and 25% of these are classified as limited English proficient by government agencies. In Canada, about 50% of students in the Toronto and Vancouver urban areas have learned English as an additional language. In Australia, more than 25% of the population use a language other than EngUsh as the main language of communication in the home. The rapid spread of the new knowledge economies and the decline in demand for traditional manual labor are creating even greater pressure for newcomer populations to be highly proficient in English. There is also much more transmigration with people moving to English-speaking countries for temporary periods seeking further education and/or work, a trend accelerated by developments such as the expansion of the European Union. The number of foreign university students in the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada has increased steadily during the past 20 years.

Increasing cultural and linguistic diversity in English-dominant countries has given rise to concerns among some groups that EngUsh might be imder threat fi"om competing languages. These concerns have given rise to fierce debates, often with racist overtones, about how English should be taught to immigrant and second generation children as well as adults. In several US states, for example, referenda have mandated that only Enghsh be used in schools for instructional purposes. The goal has been to restrict or eliminate bilingual programs that are seen as conferring status on other languages. Clearly, debates on language policy issues in many countries have been characterized by the confounding of ideological and research-based perspectives. There is considerable research that can inform policy in these areas but it is frequently ignored and/or distorted as a result of entrenched ideological positions.

The International Handbook of English Language Teaching provides authoritative perspectives on these issues from many of the leading researchers, theorists, and policy-makers around the world. The handbook synthesizes the inter-disciplinary knowledge base for effective decision making and highlights directions for implementing appropriate language policies at both instructional and societal levels. Each volume is divided into three main sections and chapters are clustered to address common topics and themes. The focus of Volume I is on Policies and Programs in ELT: Changing Demands and Directions while Volume II addresses Language, Learning and Identity in ELT: Reconceptualizing the Field.

Volume I includes a critical examination of current policies and programs in a variety of contexts aroimd the world (Section 1). The chapters in this section identify empirical, theoretical, and ideological foimdations of ELT policies and their effects on learners and organizational structures. Section 2 of this Volume focuses specifically on the development of curriculum content for ELT programs and the

Preface xxv

pedagogical approaches that have been implemented to teach this content, while Section 3 examines policies and practices in assessment and evaluation. All of these dimensions of ELT—curriculum content, pedagogy, assessment, and evaluation— involve complex sets of decisions made by multiple actors (e.g. policy makers, curriculum developers, publishers, teachers, parents, researchers) who interact with each other in dynamic and often unpredictable ways. Increasingly, these actors span the international stage, hiitiatives adopted in one or more contexts (e.g. standards-based curriculum development and high-stakes testing) influence decisions taken elsewhere, often through the mediation of international experts who consult with publishers and government agencies to identify 'best practices.' The chapters in all three sections of Volume I highlight the complex interplay between global and local perspectives and the need for policy decisions that take account of local linguistic contexts rather than just importing formulaic "off-the-shelf solutions that may be highly inappropriate for a particular context.

In Volume II, the focus shifts to the changing conceptions of the learner, the teacher, the learning environment, and the EngUsh language itself that are implied by particular approaches to program development, curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment. Identity has emerged as a key construct in recent research and theory within ELT, reflecting the fact that learners and teachers are engaged in multiple social relationships both with each other and with peers and colleagues. Learning is conceived as a social endeavor rather than simply an individualistic cognitive and linguistic process. Identities are being constantly negotiated as learners learn language and this process of identity negotiation is strongly influenced by patterns of power relationships in the broader society. Language itself is being reconceptualized as a result of this process, with an increasing concern with shifting and emerging gemes and multimodal texts. The final chapters focus on the development of the ELT profession in a broad sense, both in terms of cutting edge research and in terms of teacher growth and change in an increasingly complex and demanding global enviroimient.

The spread of English is often presented as an inexorable and natural expansion, outside the control of government and non-government agencies, similar to the ideology of 'manifest destiny' that rationalized US imperialist expansion in the 19th and 20th centuries. At the same time its teaching is often assumed to be an inherent good, or at the other extreme, vilified as a threat to fi'agile and precarious linguistic ecologies. Our hope is that this handbook will, in some way, contribute to building the knowledge base and capability of various agencies and individuals to direct and control this expansion and shape its impact on complex and multiple linguistic and pedagogic commimities, both local and global. Effectiveness and eflBciency of ELT, and provision of equitable opportunities to all learners to acquire English (and other languages), are clearly important goals embedded throughout the handbook. However, informed and careful planning in ELT needs to focus not only on maximizing such elements in an increasingly complex, shifting and changing environment, but on ensuring balance and harmony among multiple elements. This is also a central goal of this handbook.

Acknowledgements

This two-volume handbook would not have been possible without the cooperation and enthusiasm of a large manber of people. First and foremost we would like to express our appreciation to the 84 authors from all over the world who contributed in such original and insightful ways to the 69 chapters of the handbook. Their attention to detail and responsiveness to our editorial requests and suggestions helped enormously in completing this ambitious project.

A particular debt of gratitude goes to our friends, colleagues, and graduate students in both Hong Kong and Toronto who assisted in multiple ways during the editorial process. Eila Thomas helped estabUsh contacts with prospective authors and was also responsible for the initial formatting and content and reference checking of the chapters. Hyunjung Shin continued this process at a later stage and helped in particular with the final proofreading. Xinmin Zhang and Jane Lockwood played a major role in developing the subject index. Special thanks also to Scarlet Poon for her work on the early formatting of the chapters and to Eunice Jam who took on the daunting task of getting the whole manuscript ready for the printer. We deeply appreciate their contributions, especially since they devoted time, energy, and enthusiasm to the project at demanding times in their professional lives—and even claimed to enjoy it!

We would also like to acknowledge the support (and patience!) of our editors at Kluwer Academic Pubhshers and later at Springer. In the initial stages of the project Joy Carp's encouragement provided a major impetus, and Renee De Boo's help was invaluable in identifying authors and topics and compiling the Table of Contents. Marie Sheldon put the wind back in our sails mid-way through the project and her unflagging support enabled us to bring the project to completion. Mary PanarelU was always available to answer questions about the finer points of style and format and shepherded the manuscript into the final production stages, with Kristina Wiggins offering invaluable support to complete the project. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the anonymous reviewers who made extremely useful suggestions on the initial proposal for the handbook and the copy editors who helped shape the final manuscript in a thousand small ways.

xxviii Acknowledgements

Financial support for the editorial process was provided by the Education Faculty of the University of Hong Kong as well as through support for graduate assistantships from both the University of Hong Kong and the University of Toronto. We would also like to express our deep appreciation to colleagues at the Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong, and the Modem Language Centre of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, whose advice and encouragement was invaluable.

Last, but not least, our love and gratitude to our families for their understanding and support. This project has also been a part of their lives over a period of several years and they will no doubt be extremely happy to see it boimd and dispatched so that we can all move on to additional personal opportunities and professional challenges.

In conclusion, as editors, we feel privileged to have had the opportunity to bring together this comprehensive survey of issues and trends in the field of EngUsh language teaching (ELT). The dialogues with authors and between ourselves, and the in-deptii reading and re-reading of chapters, have extended our own appreciation of both the empirical basis for policy and practice, and the theoretical constructs that jostle for position in this still emerging field. However, what stands out as particularly significant for us at this point is the complexity of the moral dimensions of ELT in the context of the unrelenting spread of English. Teachers, policy-makers, and researchers—^we are all implicated in the shaping of social and linguistic spaces where identities are being negotiated and personal and professional opportunities are being constructed or constricted. Our heartfelt thanks once again to all those who have contributed to our own growth in understanding of, and sensitivity to, the complexity of these issues. We hope that the handbook acts as a catalyst for reflection and dialogue aimed not only at increasing the effectiveness of ELT, but also at creating ecologically viable and sustainable multilingual societies.

Jim Cummins Chris Davison

July 2006

Section 1:

The Global Scope and Politics of ELT: Critiquing Current Policies and Programs

SECTION 1

THE GLOBAL SCOPE AND POLITICS OF ELT:

Critiquing current policies and programs

JIM CUMMINS AND CHRIS DAVISON

INTRODUCTION

Language teaching research and theory have traditionally focused on issues of effectiveness and efficiency: What is the best method for teaching a second or foreign language? What is the optimal age for starting the teaching of a new language? What emphasis should be placed on each of the "four language skills"— speaking, listening, reading, and writing—for optimal outcomes? And more recently, the effectiveness of literature has expanded to include the role of technology in second or foreign language teaching: Is computer assisted language learning (CALL) effective in improving proficiency? Is CALL cost-effective? How should teachers use computers in the classroom to promote learning?

These are all legitimate issues for policy makers and educators to consider. However, when considered in isolation fi'om the contexts, purposes, and politics of language teaching and learning, these questions of technical efficiency are naive and vinhelpM. Many educators and appUed linguists might initially concur with statements such as "language teaching should attempt to promote authentic communication in the target language," or "better outcomes will result from starting language teaching as early as possible in children's schooling," or "bilingual instruction will produce better outcomes in the target language than teaching the language as a school subject." When presented in isolation, statements such as these may appear persuasive and almost common sense. However, as the chapters in this first section of the handbook make clear, language teaching cannot be reduced to a one-dimensional set of prescriptions. We use language in complex and constantly evolving ways depending on whom we are communicating with, the purposes of our communication, the history of our relationship, and the varieties of language to which we have access.

In a similar way, the teaching of languages will vary according to sociopolitical and economic contexts in ways that defy simplistic prescriptions that focus on effectiveness in a vacuum. For example, when English is taught in former colonial contexts, the language carries complex baggage related to its historical role in establishing and reinforcing patterns of power relations both between colonizer and colonized and within the colonized population. In non-colonial contexts, access to English is also associated with social stratification both with respect to who gets access and the social advantages of access. However, in other respects the

4 Cummins and Davison

sociopolitical dynamics and pedagogical realities are quite different than in fonner colonial contexts. In non-colonial contexts where it is seen as a "foreign" language, English has traditionally been regarded as the polite guest that knows its place and does not obviously intrude into the sphere of the dominant language; by contrast, in former colonial contexts, English has frequently been proclaimed the only language with educational and economic legitimacy with the result that students' mother tongues have been largely banished from educational and economic Ufe.

Regardless of the sociopolitical and historical context, the embrace of English is increasingly characterized by a certain ambivalence. The instantaneous culture of an Information Age global economy has taken English out of the box— ît can no longer be neatly packaged and controlled by governments or even publishing companies. At the same time as they commit vast amounts of money to expand the teaching of English in schools, govenmients around the world also express concern that English words are infiltrating the lexicon of the national language(s) and English-medivim cultural artifacts (fihns, music, books, Internet content, etc.) are constricting the space available for indigenous cultural expression. The rapid spread of English is seen as threatening cultural sovereignty, particularly in light of the demand by the United States that cultural "products" be treated no differently than any other commodity within a "free" global market.

The papers in this first section all acknowledge that the teaching of Enghsh is as much an ideological as a pedagogical enterprise. In the opening chapter, Permycook traces the historical relationships between ELT and colonialism. He points out that ELT originated as a professional discipline within the British empire and, in many respects, contemporary ELT reproduces colonial relations of Self and Other. He suggests that post-colonial theory has begun to articulate ways whereby marginalized groups can resist the neo-colonial power of English. However, for critical applied linguists and EngUsh language teaching professionals, there is still no clear resolution to the paradoxical requirement to teach English and about the English language, but also to develop in learners a critical awareness of the neo-colonial impact of English and encourage resistance to this impact.

Tollefson extends discussion of the ideological roots of ELT in the context of policy and pedagogical decisions regarding which language or variety of language is deemed appropriate for teaching in a range of sociopolitical and sociolinguistic contexts. He expHcates the central characteristics of critical approaches and ideological orientations to medium of instruction policies in ELT. A critical approach moves beyond pedagogical issues to highlight how dominant ethnolinguistic groups use particular medium of instruction policies to retain their system of privilege, as well as how social and economic hierarchies may be challenged by alternative policies that better serve the interests of subordinated language groups. The term ideology in ELT tries to capture the implicit and usually unconscious assumptions about language and language behavior that fundamentally determine how human beings interpret events. Analysis of medium of instruction policies that remains at the pedagogical level is inadequate to understand the dynamics of poHcy options and academic outcomes. Tollefson points out, for example, that policies supporting mother tongue education can serve to maintain the social, economic, and political advantages of dominant groups (e.g. in apartheid-era South Africa) or they can represent an attempt to reclaim identities and resist dominant group hegemony (e.g. in the United States).

The Global Scope and Politics ofELT 5

The chapters by Obondo and Ramanathan highhght the tensions between English medium instruction and mother tongue teaching in Africa and hidia. Both chapters also illustrate the necessity to examine how medium-of-instruction policies and practices intersect with the broader societal power structure. The central issue is not whether EngUsh-medium or vernacular-medium instruction is inherently superior but rather how best to provide access to strong educational development, together with English literacy, for students across social class and income boundaries.

Obondo presents examples drawn from different African countries that show the negative consequences of imposing a monolingual "English only" language policy in multilingual and multicultural Africa. She suggests that the African experience illustrates the operation of linguicism (Phillipson, 1992) that ensures educational success and social advancement only for speakers of the language that dominates political and economic structures. Linguicism operates in such a way that those who are excluded from access to the power structure believe that they will gain access only by acquiring the relevant European colonial language. Thus, they develop negative perceptions about their own indigenous languages and often protest vehemently against attempts to promote indigenous languages as languages for education and social empowerment. Obondo argues for an inclusive multilingual language policy in which indigenous African languages are used as the primary languages of schooling. Enghsh would be taught effectively but primarily as a subject rather than a medium of instruction. This policy direction would also make possible an inquiry-oriented transformative approach to pedagogy where students are enabled to participate much more actively and critically than is possible when their knowledge of the language of instruction is limited.

Ramanathan, focusing on Gujarati-speaking communities in hidia, examines how English, and the privileges associated with it, remain inaccessible to those who have been schooled through their vernacular language. This is due not to vernacular-medium schooling, in itself, but rather to the ways in which the social structure of the society is reinforced by pedagogical practices and curricular materials. She highlights the role of three inter-related socio-educational practices: (a) educational policies at national and state levels regarding medium of instruction, (b) curricular practices involving a focus on English literature to the exclusion of English language, (c) different pedagogical assumptions evident in the textbooks available in Gujarati-mediimi and Enghsh-mediimi classrooms. In English-medium classrooms populated largely by students from middle-class backgrounds, textbooks foster the voices and opinions of students, whereas the opposite is the case for the English textbooks used in Gujarati-mediimi classrooms. Thus, middle-class students in EngUsh-medium classrooms are encouraged to see themselves as individuals with perspectives that matter and that should be articulated, while students in Gujarati-medium classrooms remain in a passive role within the classroom. Thus, both medium of instruction and the content of instruction reinforce the structure of power and status in the wider society.

The next set of chapters deals with the rapid expansion of ELT in countries where Enghsh has traditionally been regarded as a foreign language: Japan, Korea, China, and Argentina. As Kaimo's title indicates, despite its persistent stereotype as a homogeneous country, contemporary Japan is increasingly multilingual and multicultural. There are significant populations of people from Korean, Chinese, Brazilian, and Filipino backgrounds as well as a number of indigenous communities. Kanno points out that there has been extremely active public policy debate on ELT

6 Cummins and Davison

in recent years and sometimes the rationale for intensifying ELT (e.g. introducing it at elementary school level) is expressed in terms of "international understanding." However, the linguistic resources of minority populations are typically ignored and viewed implicitly as irrelevant to "international vmderstanding." One gets the impression from Kanno's accoimt of ELT policy and practice in Japan that the issues are very much in a state of flux. A strong government push to improve English language teaching (even to the extent of proposals to make EngUsh an official language) is countered by concerns that the infiltration of English will undermine Japanese culture and "corrode" the Japanese language. Newly implemented elementary school curriculum that reflects "communicative" language teaching principles is negated by secondary school curriculum firmly entrenched in a grammar-translation orientation designed to prepare students for university entrance examinations. These debates about policy and practice mirror those in other countries and undoubtedly will play themselves out over the coming decades.

Shin highlights the huge amount of money, time, and effort spent in studying English in Korea and the nationwide desire to be fluent in Enghsh. As in many other countries, more affluent parents arrange for their children to have private lessons in Enghsh to supplement the instruction they receive in the education system. She points out that the increased expectations of students and parents have brought enormous social and institutional pressure on Korean Enghsh teachers to turn out highly proficient speakers of English. In its pursuit of "authentic" English, the government has mandated that Enghsh be used as the medium of instruction in English classes to the greatest extent possible. According to Shin, the new Korean English-only policy went beyond the mere discussion of language of instruction and perpetuated the notion of the native speaker as the ideal language teacher. Korean English teachers, however, have resisted the dominant ideology embedded in the poUcy and recreated themselves as ELT professionals who know how to teach English to Korean students more effectively than do native speakers who frequently lack teacher qualifications and knowledge of the local context. Drawing from the work of Wallace (2002), Shin argues for a focus on developing a "global literate English" through critical forms of pedagogy that would harness Enghsh to address issues that resonate locally but have global implications. Clearly, implementation of this pedagogical approach to ELT might be advanced significantly if more case studies were available in different national contexts that docimiented the concrete pedagogical realities of critically-oriented classroom instruction.

Wang traces the gradual shift of ELT instruction in China during the past 30 years from grammar-translation and audio-lingual approaches through a more commimicative-oriented approach which is currently shifting towards an emphasis on task-based teaching. Teaching of English now begins at the elementary (primary) school level and a range of textbooks are being developed to address the specifications of the new curriculum. Teachers are being encouraged to take advantage of technological tools such as TV and radio programs, Enghsh language magazines, computers, the Internet, distance language teaching, and other multimedia resources. Obviously, for these changes to be implemented successfiilly, extensive professional development of teachers is required. Wang's accoimt suggests that while expanded teacher fraining is a central part of the implementation plan for the new curriculum, there is also the expectation that teachers will take the initiative in changing their fraditional role definition from being simply the transmitter of knowledge and skills to a very different conception of what it means