Читать книгу Ugandan Children's Literature and Its Implications for Cultural and Global Learning in TEFL - Stephanie Schaidt - Страница 16

Think about an eleven-year-old student in a school in a large city anywhere in the world today. Their life will undoubtedly be affected by the processes of globalisation in a multitude of ways. To name but a few, these could include: the languages spoken within the school; the technology they use to further their learning; the focus of the school curriculum; the origin of the clothes they wear; the cultural mix of students within the school; and the origin of the food they eat during their lunch break. In short, processes of globalisation are increasingly affecting the lives of most (if not all) people in the world, but they do so in different, complex, unequal and contested ways. (Peterson & Warwick, 2015, p. 5)

As the quote illustrates, our world is interconnected on a social, political, technological, economic, ecological and cultural scale. The role of culture in a global age and questions concerned with cultural mixing stretch into TEFL (Lütge, 2015b, p. 7). Many issues people are faced with in an increasingly globalised world are beyond the scope of the bipolar concept of understanding ‘the other’ or intercultural learning and thus present new challenges to the EFL classroom.

Since the 1990s, ‘globalisation’ has been a buzzword dominating political discussion and is “often used very loosely and, indeed, in contradictory ways” (Robertson, 1992, p. 2). Many scholars with various research backgrounds have contributed to academic discussion on this topic (Appadurai, 1996, 2001; Bauman, 1998, 2007, 2012; Beck, 2006; Giddens, 1990, 1999; Robertson, 1992). Giddens (1990, p. 64) defines globalisation as “the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa”. It is commonly looked upon as a dynamic and powerful force and is both appreciated and severely critiqued.

Scholars repeatedly point to the ‘risks’ people are faced with in a globalised world (Beck, 2006; Giddens, 1999). There are many ongoing wars and conflicts, a growing number of people are forced to flee from war areas, gender imbalances prevail, fear of terrorism impacts societies and climate change has effects on people around the world. Beck (2006, 2007) named the world we live in a “world risk society”.

As Peterson and Warwick state in the quote cited at the outset of this chapter, globalisation has, however, different effects on different people. It is, therefore, an asymmetrical process. Economic and political inequalities may be seen as inherent in global power relations. Bauman (1998, p. 71) argues that negative consequences of globalisation are rooted in instabilities brought on by global capitalism:

Globalisation has given more opportunities for the extremely wealthy to make money more quickly. These individuals have utilised the latest technology to move large sums of money around the globe extremely quickly and speculate ever more efficiently. Unfortunately, the technology makes no impact on the lives of the world poor. In fact, globalisation is a paradox; while it is very beneficial to a very few, it leaves out or marginalizes two thirds of the world’s population.

These developments are firmly rooted in history, as colonialism and neo-imperialism have a strong influence on power relations worldwide, Bauman further explains. Appadurai (1996, p. 17) moreover understands globalisation as a “deeply historical, uneven and even localizing process” and points out that it should not be equated with cultural homogenisation or Americanisation because “different societies appropriate the materials of modernity differently” (ibid.).

The concept of global education in the EFL classroom which has been developed over the last few decades focuses on global ‘risks’. As will be further elaborated in this chapter, it does not yet, however, take power asymmetries and historical contexts sufficiently into account.

The fact that global education is regarded as “a transdisciplinary and transcurricular task” (Volkmann, 2015, p. 30), discussed in various fields (e.g. pedagogy, political education) and inspired by different reference disciplines (e.g. critical theory, critical pedagogy), makes it necessary to begin with some background information concerning the definition and origin of the concept.

Despite or because of this grounding in diverse academic discourses, the term global education “still remains fuzzy and ambivalent” (Lütge, 2015b, p. 8). There are inconsistencies in the use of terminology, as Pike (2000, p. 64, qtd. in Lütge, 2015b, pp. 8–9) points out:

A major difficulty in any comparative study of global education – and a hindrance, perhaps, to a global dialogue – lies in the use of the terminology itself. First, the term global education is not universal; although commonly used in North America, a host of lables are attached to similar educational initiatives around the world […].

Whereas in the US the term global education prevails, in Germany Globales Lernen [global learning] is commonly used to refer to the concept (Asbrand & Scheunpflug, 2014; Bühler, 1996; Seitz, 2002). Since EFL didactics draws strongly on international research, global education is, however, also established in German publications in this field (Blell & Doff, 2014; Lütge, 2015a). In this study, the terms global education and global learning are used interchangeably.

Asbrand and Scheunpflug (2014, p. 401), influential figures in the field of global learning in Germany, understand global learning as a pedagogical reaction to the development towards a world society. For Scheunpflug (2010, pp. 33–34), it is a guiding principle which can be applied to different subjects in school and it is defined by thematic issues such as peace, environment and development. According to her, competencies in the field comprise the ability to

understand and critically reflect global interdependencies, own values and attitudes, develop own positions, see options, capability to make choices, to participate in communication and decisions within a global context. (Ibid.)

Documents such as the “Maastricht Global Education Declaration” (North-South Centre of the Council of Europe, 2002), the “UN Decade (2005–2014)” (UNESCO, 2005), the Oxfam brochure “Education for Global Citizenship: A Guide for Schools” (Oxfam, 2006) and the Orientierungsrahmen für den Lernbereich Globale Entwicklung [Orientation Framework for the Learning Area of Global Development] (Appelt et al., 2007; Siege, Schreiber, & Appelt, 2015) provide guidelines for global education and learning on an international and national level. In Germany, the Orientation Framework for the Learning Area of Global Development is the most prominent guideline. This document which was published by the Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK)1 and the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Develoment (BMZ) is competence oriented; it differentiates global learning into three competencies: Erkennen [Noticing], Bewerten [Evaluating] and Handeln [Acting]. These competencies are oriented towards the concept of sustainable development. The framework is not only cross-curricular but also meant as a framework for educators of learners of different ages and learning levels (from kindergarten to tertiary level).

Global learning in Germany is rooted in various educational relevant theories. After the Second World War development education and the so called ‘Third World’ pedagogy emerged. In the 1950s, the first development aid associations such as Misereor (1958), Brot für die Welt (1959), BMZ (1961) and Deutscher Entwicklungsdienst (1963) were founded and became increasingly engaged in the sensitisation of society to the suffering of the people in the so called ‘Third World’. Their pedagogical concept, which encouraged people to reflect upon the ‘deficits’ of people in the ‘Third World’ and to think of ways of how they can be helped to overcome these, was also applied to youth work and schools. In the late 1960s, against the background of political upheaval in Germany, the notion of development education underwent politicisation. The reception of dependency theories created new impulses in discussions about ‘development’ and approaches of ‘development aid’ were reconsidered. Increasingly the role of the Global North in the exploitation of the Global South was taken into account. In consequence of critical perspectives on development, the concept of development education was also developed further. There was a shift away from a mere focus on economic dimensions of development to the inclusion of various other concepts such as culture, education, human rights, environment and emancipation. Increasingly, overlaps with similar fields such as peace education and environment education became apparent (see Asbrand & Scheunpflug, 2014, pp. 401–402; Seitz, 1993).

From the 1990s, a shift away from the term ‘development’ to the term ‘global’ could be observed. In Germany, the term Globales Lernen (global learning) now prevailed. It was increasingly acknowledged that the world is more complex than a Global North versus a Global South; mere educational work concerning problems of ‘the poor’ became questionable. Since then, the concept of global learning has been developed further by various scholars and has taken different directions. Bühler (1996) is an advocate of a normative perspective that is based on a holistic worldview, whereas Scheunpflug and Schröck (2002) represent a rather evolutionary, system-theoretical perspective (see Asbrand & Scheunpflug, 2014, pp. 402–403).

In the EFL classroom, global education may be considered to have its origin in the politically oriented Landeskunde approaches of the 1970s and 1980s (see Chapter 2.1). It gained momentum, however, around the turn of the millennium (Volkmann, 2015, p. 29). Since then, scholars have increasingly suggested going beyond culturalist assumptions and including global issues in TEFL. Very influential in this context, is the spread of the English language across the world. English is considered a global language and it is increasingly used as lingua franca by people worldwide (see Crystal, 2012; Seidelhofer, 2011). Pennycook (2007, p. 6) points to the strong link of English to processes of globalisation:

English is a translocal language, a language of fluidity and fixity that moves across, while becoming embedded in, the materiality of localities and social relations. English is bound up with transcultural flows, a language of imagined communities and refashioning identities.

Under the influence of these developments and postcolonial discourses, the call for a shift beyond the hitherto dominant countries in the EFL classroom, Great Britain and the USA, becomes louder.

Furthermore, the fact that the English language is less seen as a language of native speakers than a language for learning about the world and communicating with people all around the world (Cates, 2004b, p. 242) means that “any country and its locally as well as globally relevant topics could be deemed worthy of inclusion” (Volkmann, 2015, p. 30). Against this background of English as a global language, Doyé (1999, p. 98) pleads for an integration of global issues in the EFL classroom, a concept he calls world studies:

even an extended concept of cultural studies […] cannot fulfil the task of providing appropriate cultural contents for the teaching of English as a global language alone, and therefore cultural studies, in my opinion, have to be complemented by what has become known as world studies. […] It starts from the global issues of this world such as starvation, suppression, ecological destruction, illiteracy, aggression and shows their global dimension.

Volkmann (2015, p. 29) sees another reason for the establishment of global education in FLT in Germany in what he calls the “twin dilemma” in FLT discourses in the 1990s: The communicative turn brought about concepts of FLT which were primarily pragmatic and utilitarian. The CEFR (2001), for example, focuses on communication “at the cost of neglecting skills or competence in the time-honored educative fields of literature, aesthetics, education, political education, etc” (ibid.). The integration of global issues in this context has meant a shift to a more content-driven and educationally relevant foreign language classroom which many opponents of the CEFR have welcomed. Also on an international scale, scholars regarded global education as a way to resolve perpetual challenges of FLT:

English language teaching has been bedevilled with three perennial problems: the gulf between classroom activities and real life; the separation of ELT from mainstream educational ideas; the lack of a content as its subject matter. By making Global Issues a central core of EFL, these problems would be to some extent resolved. (Maley, 1992, p. 73)

A scholar in the field of global education in the foreign language classroom who is well-received and widely cited in EFL didactics in Germany is Kip Cates, an English language educator based in Japan (Blell & Doff, 2014; Florio-Hansen, 2010; Hammer, 2012a; Lütge, 2012b, 2012c, 2015b). Cates defines global education as

an approach to language teaching which aims at enabling students to effectively acquire and use a foreign language while empowering them with the knowledge, skills and commitment required by world citizens for the solution of global problems. (1990, p. 3)

For him it involves the integration of global issues such as peace, development, environment and human rights in the foreign language classroom and the focus on concepts such as social responsibility and world citizenship. He divides global education into four component fields: “peace education, development education, environmental education and human rights education” (2004b, p. 241).

Cates states that language teaching has a special status within the field of education. He talks of the “unique responsibility in promoting peace, justice, and an active concern for the world’s problems” (2002, p. 43) and the “flexibility of topic” (2002, p. 44) that sets languages apart from other subjects. Cates refers to a precursor in the field of global education, the so called Linguapax project that emerged from an UNESCO conference on “Teaching Foreign Languages for Peace and Understanding” in 1987. It was one of the first initiatives that linked language teaching with global education. Today Linguapax is an NGO that is “dedicated to the appreciation and protection of linguistic diversity worldwide” (Linguapax, n.d.).

Cates (2002, p. 46) criticises the status quo in the foreign language classroom. Textbooks only treat global issues shallowly, if at all, and so rather create stereotypes and bias instead of deconstructing them, he asserts. According to him, traditional schooling characterised through rote memorisation, passive learning and examination pressures does not adequately prepare young people to cope with global challenges (2004b, p. 241). He pleads for more task-based, experimental, interactive and cooperative learning (Cates & Jacobs, 2006).

Essential for Cates’s concept of global education is that it intends to go beyond a mere incorporation of facts about global issues (knowledge) and instead encompasses a profound involvement and concrete impulses for action. Cates divides his concept, therefore, into four dimensions:

 Knowledge about world countries and cultures, and about global problems, their causes and solutions;

 Skills of critical thinking, cooperative problem solving, conflict solution, and seeing issues from multiple perspectives;

 Attitudes of global awareness, cultural appreciation, respect for diversity, and empathy;

 Action: the final aim of global learning is to have students ‘think globally and act locally’. (2004b, p. 241)

Cates states that global education can be applied in various ways in teaching. It should not only encompass the integration of global issues in the EFL classroom (content) but also involve methods, materials, course design, etc.:

Global education is as much a matter of how we teach as of what we teach. For many teachers, this involves a shift from passive to active learning, from teacher- to student-centered classes, from language as structure to language for communication about the world. (2002, p. 45)

In the last two decades, there has been a remarkable amount of publications in the field of global education in Germany (e.g. Lütge, 2015a; Thaler, 2006–2011). Different thematic areas within global education are addressed: While some scholars focalise peace education (Diehr, 2007; Florio-Hansen, 2002; Hammer, 2012b), others look into human rights (Bland, 2012; Genetsch, Hallet, Surkamp, & Weisshaar, 2012), gender issues (Thaler, 2008a) or ecodidactics (Küchler, 2009; Mayer, 2006; Mayer & Wilson, 2006; Volkmann, 2012). Both issues of diversity (Kroschewski, 2015) and topics that are of universal human interest or have universal validity such as family, school, friendship and love (Alter, 2012; Volkmann, 2007, p. 150) are considered relevant in the global age.

Grimm et al. (2015, pp. 163–164), drawing on Volkmann (2010, pp. 195–196) and Hammer (2012a, p. 75), published a list of twelve “obviously interrelated and overlapping thematic fields” which may be focused on in the EFL classroom to develop “global competence”:

 Demographic aspects: mobility, dissolution of space, spatial ‘shrinking,’ processes of migration, settlement, mass migration, according to countries, cultures, social groups, etc., the politics of migration and immigration

 Social aspects: religion, living together in multicultural societies, integration and ‘parallel societies’

 Aspects of peace education and non-violence: violence and war, racism, armament, refugees, terrorism

 Social aspects: human rights, gender issues, child rights, social commitment (e.g. ATTAC, Amnesty International, Terre des Femmes)

 Political aspects and human rights education: human rights, global governance, immigration laws, politics of assimilation, multiculturalism, integration

 Ecological aspects and environmental education: environmental pollution, deforestation, animal rights, recycling, natural catastrophes, climate change

 Cultural aspects: global pop culture, McDonaldization, globalization and localization (local and global interconnections)

 Socio-economic aspects: poverty, unequal distribution of wealth, consumer societies, commercialism, financial systems, market economies, fair trade

 Technical aspects: traffic, mobility, digitalization

 Media aspects: media use, Internet, social networks, global communication, smart phones

 Health education: drugs, fighting AIDS and other global diseases, food (fast food vs. balanced diet)

 Language-related aspects: language imperialism (English as ‘killer language’), communication problems, English as a lingua franca, business communication (see ch. 1.1). (Italics in the original)

Global education is considered to be both “Themenfeld und Unterrichtsprinzip [topic area and teaching principle]” (Jancke & Surkamp, 2012, p. 65). Key areas of the world risk society are selected and used as examples in the classroom with the goal of fostering students’ global competence. The scholars, however, also point out that in order to reach this goal a certain methodology needs to be applied. It includes rather student-centred classes, active, experiential, task-based learning, and interdisciplinary projects.

As transcultural learning, global education, though considered an essential supplement of cultural learning, is also criticised for problematic aspects. Hammer (2012a, pp. 77–78) and Peaty (2004) list several points of criticisms and concerns that are frequently raised in this context. There is the risk of preaching instead of teaching or even indoctrination. Moreover, teacher bias and inadequate teacher education in the field are considered problematic aspects. In addition, it is criticised that the curriculum is already full and that language lessons should focus on language and leave world affairs to the social studies.

A major point of criticism focuses on universalising tendencies in global learning. Scholars (Andreotti, 2008; Fäcke, 1999; Merryfield, 2009) point out that a basic principle of global education is an epistemology that suggests certain universal and ‘correct’ ways of thinking and acting. Developed by white Western scholars, it frequently carries the inherent assumption that Western ideas about education, development or human rights are universal/superior, they argue.2

Global education is also frequently attacked for being too idealistic and for not focusing enough on power asymmetries. Fäcke (1999, pp. 51–55) raises this point of criticism with reference to Bühler’s concept of global learning. She comments on his book Perspektivenwechsel? Unterwegs zu ‘globalem Lernen’ (1996) in which Bühler strongly pleads for a protection of the weak. According to Fäcke, his approach is utopian and implies a claim to absoluteness. It does not withstand critical perspectives of power, she states. Power asymmetries are only mentioned but not sufficiently contextualised. There is not enough criticism of existing conditions and no suggestions for tackling power imbalances are made. In addition, Fäcke criticises that Bühler’s approach focuses only on ‘the other’ and not ‘the self’. The gaze from the perspective of the powerful is so turned to the powerless and Bühler’s concept clearly addresses a ‘Western’, European target group:

Die von Bühler formulierten Leitideen und Richtziele orientieren sich ausschließlich hin auf europäische Schüler. Doch welche Lernziele wären adäquat für den Rest der Welt? Verbirgt sich dahinter nicht doch ein Menschenbild, das den Mächtigen einen Subjektstatus und den Machtlosen einen Objektstatus zuweist? Das Grundinteresse aller Herrschenden nach Macht wird hier gleichzeitig verschleiert und diskursiv reproduziert. [The key ideas and principles divised by Bühler are oriented towards European students. But which learning objectives would be appropriate for the rest of the world? Is there a human image behind it that gives the powerful the status of subject and the powerless the status of object? The basic striving of all rulers for power is blurred and also discursively reproduced.] (Fäcke, 1999, pp. 53–54; my translation)

Scholars also raise the concern that global education does not focus enough on the historical background and lacks references to the legacy of colonialism. Glokal e.V., an association registered in Berlin which focuses on power critical educational work and counselling, analysed over a hundred sources and core documents dating from 2007 to 2012 that were published in the field of development education in Germany and are used by NGOs, teachers or multipliers in the education sector. The aim of this analysis of materials was “to find out how far, and to what effect, development education material broaches or neglects issues of postcolonial power relations” (Glokal e.V., 2013, p. 5). The association summarises the results of the study as follows:

In summary it becomes evident that the analysed material reproduces hegemonic Eurocentric historiography (and, in particular, historical omissions) as well as hegemonic concepts of development, culture and racism. The interconnectedness of colonialism, capitalism and modernity are avoided and wholeheartedly ignored. With the absence of these important issues within the modern discourse on development education, the bifurcation of the world persists: on the one hand people and societies which need to be ‘developed’, and helpers, saviours of the world, and responsible cosmopolitans on the other. A Postcolonial critique is adopted at times, but is often defused to such a degree that it does not destabilise the dominant narrative perspective. In addition, the material does not do justice to an inclusive pedagogy in the migration society. (Glokal e.V., 2013, p. 5)

Much of the criticism addressed at the concept of global learning in Germany also focuses on the Orientation Framework for the Learning Area of Global Development (Appelt et al., 2007; Siege et al., 2015). In an open letter to the architects of the first edition of the orientation framework, a nation-wide affiliation comprising various organisations and networks from the field of power critical education and organisations of Blacks (Berlin Postkolonial, glokal, IMAFREDU, karfi, moveglobal, 2014), raises several points of criticism concerning the framework. It criticises, for example, that it is a product of a white, Western scholarship, not taking perspectives of Black people and people in the Global South sufficiently into account. Furthermore, it points to the normative orientation towards sustainable development, a highly disputed concept, as very problematic.

In addition, global education approaches, as they are suggested by scholars in foreign language didactics, entail questionable aspects. Since Cates’s concept of global education is frequently referred to in the German EFL context, there is need for further reflections upon his approach at this point. Despite the fact that Cates has without doubt made important contributions to the field of global education in foreign language learning, particularly by bringing attention to the concept, his approach is not unproblematic, I argue.

First of all, the theoretical and empirical foundation of his concept may be questioned. To my knowledge, Cates has only published a number of short articles, essays and talks in the field of global education which give only an insight into sections but not an overview of his theoretical foundation of the concept. In addition, he hardly provides any empirical evidence for his assumptions.

Furthermore, some of the goals Cates lists seem to be rather impracticable and impossible to realise. In my opinion, global education should not raise the claim of solving world problems since this is an unrealistic if not presumptuous goal. Cates, however, emphasises exactly this point in several of his articles:

 The final goal of global education is action – democratic participation in the local and global community to solve world problems. (Cates, 2002, p. 41)

 One out-of-class activity carried out by Bamford was a charity walkathon in Tokyo where students and teachers practice English while walking 35 kilometers to raise money to help end world hunger. (Cates, 2002, p. 47)

 In this chapter, we propose an optimistic view of the future of this planet. We propose that as our tiny globe spins round the Sun, we second language teachers can play a role in making this world a better place at the same time that we improve our students' language proficiency. The means by which we and many of our colleagues have been attempting to do our part for the planet lies in the use of global education projects as a component of the second language curriculum. (Cates & Jacobs, 2006, p. 167)

In addition, I would judge some of the following methods and activities that Cates suggests rather critically:

 Role plays can stimulate students' creativity while promoting communicative language use in a way that lecturing can't. There's a big difference between reading about Third World refugees, for example, and actually becoming one in class. Global education role plays include conflict resolution skits, discrimination experience games, and Model United Nations simulations, and can have students take on roles ranging from endangered species, to African slaves, to world leaders. (Cates, 2004a, p. 33)

 Some schools write English letters to foster children from Third World countries. Yet others hold English charity events to raise money to remove Cambodian landmines, help African AIDS victims, assist Iraqi children, or build schools in Nepal. (Cates, 2004a, p. 34)

The first quote gives an overview of suggestions for role play activities. I consider “acting out a refugee” or an “African slave” not only a very difficult activity for students without experiences of displacement or colonial oppression but also a highly questionable one, as it may easily reinforce existing prejudices and play down the seriousness of the topic. The suggestions in the second quote focus on ways in which students may help or assist underprivileged people in the world. Such activities, particularly when done in a non-reflective manner, may increase feelings of superiority and prejudices. Both quotes show that Cates’s concept of global learning clearly addresses a Western target group and does not include everyone. It seems to look at ‘the other’ as an object of Western knowledge through which people in the Global North may enhance their competencies. It completely neglects that people in the Global South may develop their own possibilities of action. Therefore, I would deny the concept the denomination ‘global’.

In conclusion, from a postcolonial perspective, global education as it is often understood and implemented today tends to reproduce assumptions of cultural supremacy, implicitly or explicitly. Consequently, stereotypes are reinforced instead of being deconstructed. It usually targets ‘the other’ and excludes certain people and groups of people of a migration society. I therefore plead with Fäcke (1999), Andreotti (2006, 2008) and Merryfield (2009) for a more reflexive discussion of notions of culture and global issues. Ideas for such an approach are given in Chapter 8.