Читать книгу Ugandan Children's Literature and Its Implications for Cultural and Global Learning in TEFL - Stephanie Schaidt - Страница 10

Since the 1980s, the term intercultural learning has been increasingly used across disciplines and school subjects in Germany. Intercultural competence (IC) appears as a cross-subject learning objective in various educational frameworks and curricula. The concept has its roots in pedagogy. The term intercultural education was first used in the USA, in the period between the two World Wars, to refer to programmes that fostered the integration of different ethnic groups into American society (Doyé, 1992, p. 4). In Germany, immigrant pedagogy (Ausländerpädagogik) developed in the 1950s and 1960s and intercultural pedagogy (interkulturelle Pädagogik) in the 1980s (Auernheimer, 2003; Borelli, 1986).

In the 1950s and 1960s, immigrant pedagogy aimed at a better integration of children of migrant workers into ‘German’ society. The concept was a reaction to the problems many ‘foreign’ students had at school and their lack of German language skills. It was therefore rather focused on deficits (deficit hypothesis) and aimed at linguistic and cultural assimilation of ‘foreign’ children (see Burwitz-Melzer, 2003, p. 39; Fäcke, 2011, p. 175). In the 1980s, intercultural pedagogy initiated a shift away from a focus on deficits as problems to differences as potentials. The one-sided perspective of ‘the other’ was replaced by an emphasis on mutual learning and living in a multicultural society. Intercultural learning was defined as a learning objective and teaching principle across subjects. ‘German’ and ‘foreign’ students were encouraged to learn from each other (Krumm, 1995, p. 156). Frequently, however, this did not go beyond the integration of culinary specialities or music and dances of the students’ countries of origin into the classroom. Thus, the difference hypothesis is often criticised for stigmatising, exoticising and insufficiently considering political and social-economic contexts and racial discrimination (see Fäcke, 2011, p. 175).

Since the 1990s, the concept of cultural learning is also influenced by anti-racist pedagogy (Essed, Mullard, & Essinger, 1991; Essinger, 1993; see also Chapter 2.7) and the pedagogy of diversity (Prengel, 2006). Advocates of anti-racist pedagogy plead for the deconstruction of racist thought patterns and lines of actions. They focus on power inequalities between members of majority and minority groups. Both open and hidden forms of racism are critiqued. It is the aim of the approach that students develop awareness for structural similarities, differences and inequalities. Fäcke and Rösch (Fäcke, 1998; Fäcke & Rösch, 2002; Rösch, 2000) have translated some ideas of anti-racist pedagogy into (foreign) language didactics. Fäcke (2011, p. 176), however, also warns that if it is taken to an extreme, any thoughts or ways of conduct may be considered racist and politically ‘correct’ behaviour does not actually exist. Anti-racist pedagogy is furthermore criticised for tendencies of levelling differences. Auernheimer, therefore, pleads for the synthesis of intercultural and antiracist pedagogies:

Solange das Nebeneinander von antirassistischer und interkultureller Erziehung nicht überwunden wird, tendiert letztere zu kulturalistischen Vereinfachungen, während erstere dazu tendiert, das Prinzip der Anerkennung von Andersheit zu vernachlässigen. [As long as the parallel existence of anti-racist and intercultural education is not overcome, the latter is prone to culturalist simplification, while the former neglects the principle of acknowledging otherness.] (2003, p. 22; my translation)

The pedagogy of diversity (Alleman-Ghionda, 1997; Prengel, 2006) focuses on the uniqueness of every individual. It takes into account that every person may have multiple identities and thus be both a member of majority and minority groups. Difference is not only looked at on the basis of ethnic background but other categories of discrimination such as sexual orientation or religion are also considered. Prengel (2006, p. 181) notes that the two terms equality and difference are mutually dependent. She argues for an integration of the two by recognising the diversity of individuals on the basis of equality (egalitarian difference).

In the 1990s, intercultural learning in the foreign language classroom gained in importance. Many scholars pointed to the strong relationship between language and culture (see Byram, 1997; Kramsch, 1993) and therefore looked at the foreign language classroom as particularly suitable for intercultural learning:

Von seiner Aufgabe und seiner Erfahrung her eignet sich aber gerade der Fremdsprachenunterricht für interkulturelles Lernen, zumal er auch die sprachlichen Voraussetzungen für die ‘Grenzüberschreitung zwischen Kulturen’ schafft. [Given its function and background, the foreign language classroom is particularly well suited for intercultural learning because it creates the linguistic framework within which boundaries between cultures can be crossed.] (Buttjes, 1991b, p. 2; my translation)

Against the background of a changing concept of culture and various developments in reference disciplines such as pedagogy, learning about cultures was now seen as a process of meaning creation between representatives of different cultures (Delanoy & Volkmann, 2006, p. 13). Building on the Stuttgarter Thesen zur Rolle der Landeskunde (see Chapter 2.1), the learners’ role in the cultural learning process was increasingly taken into account and a more cultural-comparative and culture relativizing approach was sought:

Learners should no longer be seen as mere ‘receptacles’ to be filled with factual information. Instead, they are invited to become personally involved in the exploration of English-speaking cultures as self-reflective co-constructors of cultural meanings. (Grimm et al., 2015, p. 158)

Intercultural learning intends to foster students’ Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC), which can be understood as a specific communicative competence for intercultural situations. In contrast to many Landeskunde approaches, it targets not only cognitive but also affective and pragmatic learning objectives. The different goals are frequently assigned to the three domains: knowledge, skills and attitudes. In his influential model, Byram (1997) defines ICC in terms of the following objectives:

 the knowledge about social processes and social interaction concerning both one’s own and other cultures (savoirs)

 skills of interpreting documents or events from other cultures and relating them to those of one’s own culture (savoir comprendre)

 skills of acquiring new knowledge about another culture and operating it in real time communication (savoir apprendre/faire)

 attitudes such as curiosity and openness towards other cultures, the willingness to relativise ones own beliefs and the ability to decentre and change perspectives (savoir être)

 the ability to evaluate cultural products and processes criticially and to take also a critical perspective on one’s own culture (savoir s’engager).

Byram’s model serves as a major reference when defining the teaching/learning objectives of intercultural learning in the foreign language classroom in Germany and it is also used as theoretical background for a number of empirical studies in the field of cultural learning (Burwitz-Melzer, 2003; Eberhardt, 2013; Jäger, 2008).

Today, fostering students’ ICC is often considered the core aim of FLT (Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2014, p. 18; Thaler, 2012, p. 271). The main goal of communicative language teaching has therefore been complemented by an intercultural component. These developments are anchored in relevant documents such as the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001), the national educational standards (KMK, 2004, 2014) and the curricula of the different Bundesländer.1 It is generally agreed that FLT should prepare students for real-life intercultural encounters.

Bredella defines the aim of intercultural learning in FLT as follows:

Im FU sollen die Lernenden auf erste interkulturelle Begegnungen vorbereitet werden und interkulturelle kommunikative Kompetenz erwerben. Ziel ist es, zu verhindern, dass sie in außerschulischen Begegnungssituationen Tabus verletzen und Sanktionen erleiden und dass sie den Äußerungen von Fremden falsche Bedeutungen zuschreiben. [In the foreign language classroom learners should be prepared for intercultural encounters and gain ICC. The aim is to prevent them from violating taboos, suffering disapproval and ascribing the wrong meaning to what foreigners say in encounters outside the classroom.] (Bredella, 2010c, p. 123; my translation)

As is apparent in this definition, learning about norms, values and taboos is at the heart of many intercultural learning approaches. In addition, the reflection upon (national) stereotypes2 is considered fruitful for intercultural learning:

Die Reflexion über kulturelle Selbst- und Fremdbilder sowie Stereotypen und Vorurteile sensibilisiert Lernende nicht nur für kulturelle Andersartigkeit, sondern führt zu einer kritischen Betrachtung und Relativierung des eigenen Standpunktes und ermöglicht Lernenden ihre neu erworbenen schulischen (Er-)Kenntnisse auf die außerschulische Lebenswelt zu übertragen. Durch die Übertragung der fremdkulturellen Problematik auf die eigene Lebenswelt sollen die Lernenden befähigt werden, negative Fremdbilder kritisch zu reflektieren. [The reflection upon self or external images and stereotypes and prejudices not only sensitises learners to cultural otherness but also leads them to a critical view and relativisation of their own attitudes and enables them to apply their newly gained awareness to real life situations. By applying the foreign culture perspective to their own environment, learners should learn to critically reflect on negative images of the other.] (Voigt, 2010, p. 5, my translation)

Although some scholars in the field of intercultural learning also take hybridity, diversity and transcultural transgressions into account (e.g. Kramsch, 1993, see Chapter 2.5), the nation is a central reference point in most intercultural learning approaches. Cultural standards that were developed for the international business sector (Hofstede, 1984) frequently serve as an orientation system. They are used as evaluation units for the analysis of cultural differences and the interpretation of intercultural misunderstandings. To prepare students for real-life intercultural encounters “the method of working with ‘critical incidents’ has established itself as a most beneficial preparation” (Grimm et al., 2015, p. 161).

Although intercultural learning is widely accepted in foreign language didactics today, at least on a theoretical level (see CEFR, educational standards and curricula), it is not without its critics. In its initial phase, the inflationary use of the term ‘intercultural learning’ and also the lack of clarifications and specifications concerning the concept was regarded as problematic (see Doyé, 1992, p. 43). Some scholars went so far as to declare the concept superfluous (Edmondson & House, 1998; Freudenstein, 1994). Freudenstein (1994), for example, argued that this concept actually deployed ideas of Landeskunde, merely under another label. Edmondson and House (1998) pointed out that the focus of FLT should be on communicative language skills and thus considered the concept of intercultural learning as not expedient. Schüle (1998) criticised the approach for an ideologisation and depoliticisation of classroom conditions. In her reply to Edmondson and House, Hu (2000) reacted to some of the criticism raised by the two scholars and also pointed to the need for rethinking contrastive rhetoric in the context of intercultural learning.

Whereas many of these initial concerns seem to have subsided today, the concept is still exposed to criticism. Critics argue that it builds on presumptions about pure, clearly definable and static cultures and follows rather national standards and norms. It focalises differences between cultures; intracultural diversity and cultural breaks and transgressions are not sufficiently taken into account (see Volkmann, 2015, p. 22). The target of dismantling stereotypes is often not achieved since overgeneralisations and oversimplifications may actually lead to their perpetuation. Fäcke (1999, p. 47) points out that differences in status and prestige of cultures, which strongly influence peoples’ attitudes and behaviour patterns, are not considered.