Language Learning and
Cross-Cultural Attitudes
D. E. Ingram
Executive Dean,
School of Applied Language Studies,
Melbourne University Private,
Hawthorn, Victoria, 3122,
Australia.
Email:d.ingram@muprivate.edu.au
Invited paper
presented by international videoconferencing to the International TESOL
Conference, Chile, 5 – 6 November, 2004.
Language Learning and
Cross-Cultural Attitudes
D. E. Ingram
Contents
Abstract
The Author
Acknowledgement
I INTRODUCTION: THE IMPORTANCE OF CROSS-CULTURAL ATTITUDES
II THE LITERATURE:
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND CROSS-CULTURAL ATTITUDES
III THE
PROJECTS
III.1 Purpose
of the Projects
III.2 Australian
Survey: Brisbane Year 10
III.3
Japan Survey: Akita Prefecture
III.4 Summary
of the Australian and Japan Surveys
III.5 College
French
III.6 Languages
at an Australian University
IV IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH FOR METHODOLOGY
V IMPLICATIONS
FOR CHILE
VI CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Language
Learning and Cross-Cultural Attitudes
D. E. Ingram
The
most central aims of language teaching are the development of language
proficiency, the development of cultural knowledge and intercultural
understanding, and the fostering of positive cross-cultural attitudes. The author and colleagues have examined the
relationships between language learning and cross-cultural attitudes in
projects in Australia and Japan. This
paper reports briefly on those studies.
It focuses particularly on the role of language teaching in fostering
more positive cross-cultural attitudes but interesting data also emerges about
the different perceptions of teachers and students about what is going on in
the language teaching classroom. Not least,
one has to conclude that there is no evidence that language learning per se inevitably produces more positive
cross-cultural attitudes without significant attention being paid to several
identifiable aspects of methodology and course design, which are also
discussed.
The Author
Professor
David Ingram is Executive Dean in the School of Applied Language Studies in
Melbourne University Private, Melbourne Australia. He holds the Bachelor of Arts and Certificate in Education from
the University of Queensland and the Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy
degrees in applied linguistics from the University of Essex, England. He taught for 14 years in Primary and
Secondary Schools in Australia and overseas before entering teacher education
in the early 1970s at the then Mt Gravatt College of Advanced Education. From 1983 to 1986, he was head of the
teacher education program at the (now) Charles Darwin University in the
Northern Territory and was founding Director of the Institute for Applied
Linguistics in Brisbane College of Advanced Education from 1986 to 1989. From 1990 to 2003, he held the Chair in
Applied Linguistics at Griffith University, Brisbane, where he was also
foundation Director of the Centre for Applied Linguistics and Languages. He was President of the Australian
Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations for 14 years to 1996,
Vice-President of the World Federation for six years, and, from 1992 to 1996, a
member of the Australian Language and Literacy Council, the principal advisory
body on language policy to the Federal Minister for Education. He has been a
Fellow and Adjunct Fellow of the National Foreign Language Center, Washington
DC, since 1993. He was the Australian
representative on the joint British-Australian project to develop the IELTS
Test in 1987-88 and was then IELTS Chief Examiner (Australia) for ten years to
1998. He is the co-author of the
International Second Language Proficiency Ratings (ISLPR). He has published extensively in applied
linguistics in journals, books and conference presentations around the
world. In the Australian Honours List
in June 2003, he was made a Member of the Order of Australia for “service to education through the
development of language policy, through assessment procedures for evaluation of
proficiency, and through research and teaching”.
Acknowledgement
The paper is a
substantially amended version of a paper “Cross-Cultural Attitudes amongst
Languages Students in Australia and Japan” originally presented at the
Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations National
Conference 2003, Languages Babble, Babel and Beyond, Brisbane, 10 – 12
July, 2003, and re-printed in shortened form in Babel, Vol. 39, No. 1, 11 – 19, 38. The author acknowledges the cooperation of his colleagues on some
of the projects reported here, viz.,
Minoru Kono (recently retired Professor in the Faculty of Education and
Human Studies in Akita University, Japan), Masako Sasaki (Associate Professor
in the Faculty of Education and Human Studies in Akita University, Japan),
Erina Tateyama (Lecturer in the Japanese Red Cross Junior College, Akita,
Japan) and Dr Shirley O’Neill (Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education,
University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia).
Language Learning and Cross-Cultural
Attitudes
D. E. Ingram
I INTRODUCTION: THE IMPORTANCE OF CROSS-CULTURAL ATTITUDES
Before I start my
paper, I would like to thank Sofia Pereira and Mary Jane Abrahams for inviting
me to present this paper. Though I have
close relatives who have lived in Chile and a son who has passed through Chile
a couple of times on his way to play soccer in Brazil, I have to confess that I
have never visited South America, let alone Chile, and I have no first hand
knowledge of the educational and social situations there.
The issues I wish
to raise are, I believe, of universal importance. We live in a world that is racially, culturally and
linguistically diverse and in which the very societies in which the vast
majority of the world’s people live are also multiracial, multicultural and
linguistically diverse. When I was a
young child growing up in outback Australia, it was rare to encounter a person
of a different culture or race or to hear a language other than English and
such persons were curiosities: you could not conceive what it was like to be
different. Yet today, my wife is of a
different race, my five children are mixed-race, two languages routinely occur
in our home, my children have learned some four others at school, and our extended
family and closest friends are of numerous cultural and racial origins: Afghan, Australian Aboriginal, Cambodian,
Chinese, Chilean, English, French, Indian, Indonesian, Iranian, Irish,
Japanese, Kenyan, Korean, Papuan, Puerto Rican, New Zealand, Welsh, and many
more. Every day in my work, I routinely
communicate with people in a dozen different countries, I get responses from
Japan, Iran or the United States as quickly as I do from my staff down the
corridor, and events such as this international videoconference are routine in
academia, business and entertainment.
Our business is increasingly globalised, owned by multinational
companies larger than the economies of many the world’s nations and operating
indiscriminately of national or geographic divides, and our very currencies are
determined as much by what happens in New York, Tokyo, London or Frankfurt as
in any nation’s own economic centres or seats of government. In the education policy papers I was able to
obtain about Chile, I saw reference to “the increasing insertion of Chile in
the world economy” and, because of this, the notion that “English opens doors”,
giving more opportunities of employment in today’s globalised world.
Yet, despite this
increasing diversification driven by globalised economies, rapid transport and
fast communications, the world continues to be torn asunder by terrorism and
the no less pernicious actions of great and small world powers. Underlying all this anger and distress is
the failure on a global as well as individual scale of one culture and its
people to accept the rights and equality of another culture and its
people. If the
world is to survive and prosper, if all peoples are to live out their lives in
peace and harmony, it is imperative that the critically important issues of
inter-cultural and inter-racial relationships and attitudes be understood and
that the principal tool that a society has available to effect positive
inter-cultural attitude development, viz., education, address these issues
seriously and systematically.
Yet, there is an
enigma: on the one hand, most language
policy makers and language teachers agree that one of the central goals of
language education is to develop cultural understanding and foster more
positive cross-cultural attitudes; on the other hand, the research literature is
equivocal with some studies demonstrating no favourable effect by language
learning on cross-cultural attitudes, there are relatively few empirical
studies that demonstrate a positive effect, and few that have identified the
language teaching variables that can most effectively be manipulated to foster
more positive attitudes.
The view that
language learning can have a positive effect on cross-cultural attitudes is
widely and strongly endorsed by language education policies and language
syllabuses around the world. They
invariably identify the development of cultural knowledge and understanding and
the fostering of positive cross-cultural attitudes as key goals for language
teaching.
The Australian Language and Literacy Policy,
for example, states:
… language proficiency
improves social cohesion, communication and understanding throughout the
Australian community. [DEET 1991a: 62; cf. Lo
Bianco 1987]
It also asserts that language
teaching
… can
promote … greater tolerance within the broader community of linguistic
differences in Australia and internationally …[DEET 1991a: 63]
The global aims
in the Senior language syllabuses in Queensland (my home State in Australia)
include the fostering of more positive attitudes [e.g., Queensland Board of
Senior Secondary School Studies 2001: 5].
The syllabuses state unambiguously:
... learning a second language widens
horizons and leads ultimately to the capacity to look out from the new language
and culture and, in effect, to develop a soundly based world view. This, in turn, fosters cross-cultural
understanding and empathy with people of other languages and cultures …
[Queensland Board of Senior Secondary School Studies 2001: 1]
In Japan, the 1999 Senior High
School “course of study” makes frequent references to fostering “a positive
attitude toward communication with foreign peoples” and states:
… consideration should be given to the following points:
A. To make students appreciate a variety of thoughts and
viewpoints, to cultivate the ability to make a fair judgement, and to foster a
richer sensitivity.
B. To deepen students’ understanding of the peoples and places
of the world … and to foster an attitude of respect for those cultures.
C. To deepen international understanding… and to foster the
spirit of international cooperation. [1999 Course of Study, Foreign Languages
(Senior High School), Chapter 8, p. 39]
A “group of experts” appointed to
develop a policy on the teaching of languages in Switzerland asserts:
Knowledge of neighbouring or partner
languages ... contributes ... to mutual
understanding and an attitude of tolerance towards other cultures.[1] [Translated from Conférence
suisse des directeurs cantonaux de l’instruction publique 1998: 4]
The Council of
Europe firmly supports the view that language learning can improve
intercultural understanding and cross-cultural attitudes. The seminal Recommendation R(82)18 from the
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe stated that:
.. it is only through a better knowledge of
European modern languages that it will be possible to facilitate communication
and interaction among Europeans of different mother tongues in order to promote
... mutual understanding and
co-operation, and overcome prejudice and discrimination; … [Recommendation
No. R(82) 18 of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers]
Trim, the
principal leader of the Council’s “modern languages projects” states:
The best protection against all forms of
racism and xenophobia is provided by knowledge and direct experience of the
foreign reality and improved life and communication skills … [Trim 1997a: 6]
Elsewhere, he
states one of the aims of European language teaching as:
...
to promote the personal development of the individual, with … positive
attitude towards other peoples and their cultures, free from prejudice,
intolerance and xenophobia … [Trim 1997: 5 – 6]
The World
Federation of Modern Language Teachers (FIPLV) has also called for
…language in education policies which aim
at … the development of the spirit of tolerance and the culture of peace ...
[Cunningham and Candelier 1995: 14]
Though I did not see reference to
fostering positive cross-cultural attitudes as a goal of the English program in
Chile in the few documents I was able to peruse in preparing this paper, there
was repeated reference to the need for English for international business
purposes and implicit in that is the need for Chileans to understand and be
able to interact harmoniously and effectively with speakers of English, while
the representative of the organising committee for this conference commented to
me that the issue of fostering better intercultural understanding and positive
attitudes was central to Chile’s Education Reform proposals.
Yet, as already
noted, the research literature does not suggest that language teaching
inevitably has a positive effect on cross-cultural attitudes and, if such an
effect is to occur, it suggests that the course content and the methodology by
which the language is taught and learned are more important than the fact of language
learning per se.
II THE LITERATURE: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANGUAGE LEARNING
AND CROSS-CULTURAL ATTITUDES
It is not possible, in the time available here, to comprehensively
review the previous research but the present writer has done that in many other
papers [e.g., Ingram 1978, 1999, 1999a; Ingram, O’Neill and Townley-O’Neill
1999] and so only the briefest of summaries will be provided here.
Wilkins sums up the overall findings when he says:
..
neither the empirical nor the theoretical research entitles us to make
strong claims with regard to the possibility that the learner of a foreign
language … gains psychological benefits …[Wilkins 1987: 32]
There are some
studies that show a positive relationship between language learning and
cross-cultural attitudes. Riestra and
Johnson [1964], for example, found that students studying Spanish had more
favourable attitudes towards Spanish speakers than did those not studying
Spanish though their attitudes to non-Spanish-speaking groups were no more favourable. Gardner and Smythe [1975] found that the
more years were spent in studying a foreign language, the more favourable were
the attitudes to the speakers of that language. Similarly, Bartley [1969, 1970] found that
language dropouts had less positive attitudes than those who elected to study a
foreign language in the following year though what was the cause and what was
the effect is unclear.
In some studies where there was a positive effect, the critical variable
seems to have been interaction. Thus,
Clement, Gardner and Smythe [1977] looked at the attitudes of Year 8 English
speaking students before and after a visit to a French environment and found
that the attitudes of the “high contact group” were more positive. Wilkins reviews a number of studies and
concludes that, if language learning is to effect positive attitude change, it
must include the opportunity for significant interaction. He quotes Genesee’s conclusion that
There may be limits to the
extent of attitude change that can be achieved in second language programs
which do not provide real meaningful contact between the learner and members of
the target language group.
[cited in Wilkins 1987: 23]
Other studies
again have shown that the opportunity to consider issues of cross-cultural
relations and attitudes was a necessary part of effecting positive attitude
change. Mantle-Bromley and Miller
showed that language classes that included “multicultural sensitivity lessons”
were more effective in generating favourable attitudes than classes without
such lessons [Mantle-Bromley and Miller 1991: 422 423].
On the other
hand, other researchers have found that language learning had either no effect
or a negative effect on cross-cultural attitudes and, in some, interaction
seemed to have no effect.
Mantle-Bromley and Miller [1991] cite a variety of studies, some of
which claim to show that contact with the target language group improves
cross-cultural attitudes with the frequency of contact being significant while
others claimed to show that “bicultural exchanges” did not achieve significant
attitudinal change [Mantle-Bromley and Miller 1991: 418 - 419]. Other studies have shown that visiting other
countries was less significant in determining attitudes than “background
variables” [e.g., Byram and Estate-Sarries 1991].
One of the most comprehensive reviews of
the relationship between foreign language learning and attitude change is that
by Morgan [1993]. She reviewed many studies going as far back as 1932 and
concludes that there were a number of factors that were important if positive
attitude change was to occur:
“externalising” issues for discussion and reflection [cf. Ingram 1978,
1980b], opportunities to create “some affective bond” (i.e., friendship with
the speakers of the target language) [Morgan 1993: 68], and classes that make the students aware of the schemata and
beliefs of their own culture and the relativity of this particular pattern
amongst alternatives (including the target culture). She also quotes research that draws attention to the desirability
of learners’ having the opportunity to re-conceptualise their previous
experience through the new language [cf. Ingram 1978 and 1979].
In summary, the
following conclusions can be drawn from the literature:
1.
There are
many theoretical and empirical studies that have found a favourable
relationship between language learning and positive cross-cultural attitudes
[e.g., Ingram 1978, 1980b; Riestra and Johnson 1964, Gardner and Smythe 1975,
Bartley 1969, 1970].
2.
However,
there is no automatic relationship between language learning or teaching and
positive cross-cultural attitudes, there may be no effect, the effect may be
negative, or other, especially background variables such as socioeconomic class
and social and parental attitudes seem to be more significant [e.g.,
Mantle-Bromley and Miller 1991, Byram and Estate-Sarries 1991, Jaspers and
Hewstone 1983].
3.
Interaction
with speakers of the other language seems to be one of the key factors that can
strongly influence cross-cultural attitudes provided that it is managed
appropriately [e.g., Ingram 1980a, 1980b, 1978, 1977, 1977a; Clement, Gardner and Smythe 1977].
4.
Cerebration,
giving learners the opportunity to externalise their own intuitive responses
and attitudes for examination and rational modification, seems to be a vital
factor if attitudes are to change in a positive direction [Ingram 1978, 1980b,
1980c; Morgan 1993; Kramsch 1993; Mantle-Bromley 1995].
5.
Knowledge
alone about another culture does not automatically have a favourable effect and
can lead to a worsening of attitudes unless there is intervention that leads to
“cerebration” about attitudes [cf., Ingram 1978, 1980b, Jones 1996,
Mantle-Bromley and Miller 1991].
Nevertheless, profound cultural knowledge and understanding (not just
knowledge of the superficial or trivial aspects of a culture) are essential.
6.
Through
learning about the target and other cultures and through interacting with
speakers of the other language, learners need to become aware of, and sensitive
to, two important contrasts: the
individuality which exists within the universality of a culture and the
universal, fundamental human features that underlie and permeate the diversity
of cultures.
7.
“Culture
shock” seems to play an important part in the learning experience since it
makes learners aware of their intuitive reactions and pre-conceptions and
provides teachers with opportunities to stimulate discussion about cultures and
inter-cultural relations, to try to
explain and rationally change any of the students’ adverse reactions and
prejudices, and so to effect positive attitudinal change [see Ingram 2001a,
1999, 1999a, 1996, 1995, 1980a, 1980b, 1978, 1977, 1977a; Ingram et al 1999,].
Clearly
there is no simple cause-effect relationship between language learning and
positive cross-cultural attitudes, the variables that can be controlled in
teaching seem to be important factors that may determine a positive or negative
outcome, and, for this reason, colleagues and I in both Australia and Japan (i.e.,
in very different societies and educational environments) have undertaken a
number of studies to try to examine further what variables are significant, how
they might be controlled and what the implications are for course design and
methodology.
These
studies have involved both small-scale specific teaching projects and quite
large scale surveys of attitudes of Secondary School students in Australia and
Japan, in particular to identify what link, if any, there is between language
learning and cross-cultural attitudes and to consider what aspects of
methodology, especially those suggested by the theory that emerges from the
research referred to earlier, might positively or negatively influence
attitudes.
III THE
PROJECTS
III.1 Purpose
of the Projects
The
first two of the projects to be discussed sought to examine the cross-cultural
attitudes of students in the middle of Secondary School in Australia and Japan
in an attempt to identify the nature of their cross-cultural attitudes and
whether these were related to their language learning experiences. The second two projects implemented a
methodology derived from the theoretical considerations and from the research
on both cross-cultural attitudes in language learning and the development of
language proficiency in order to trial the methodology and assess whether it
did in fact lead to improved cross-cultural attitudes and significant gains in
proficiency.
III.2 Australian
survey: Brisbane Year 10
This
survey has been written up in a number of other papers, including in Babel
[Ingram and O’Neill 20001/2002; see also Ingram et al 1999] and will be
reported only briefly here.
The purpose
of this survey was to identify the cross-cultural attitudes of a sample of Year
10 students in State and non-State Schools around Brisbane, the capital city of
the State of Queensland, Australia and to try to relate their attitudes to
their language learning experience. No
comparison of attitudes between students who had or had not learned a language
was possible since almost all the students had spent some time in language
classes even though some 40% were not currently studying a language.
The central hypotheses tested in the study were these:
1. That the
responses of students currently studying a foreign language will be
significantly more positive than those of students who had dropped out of
language study some time earlier).
2. That the
responses of students who have studied a foreign language for four or more
years will be significantly more positive than those of students who have
studied one for less than four years.
The subjects were 598 Year 10 students in 7 State and 10 non-State
secondary schools in and around
Brisbane, chosen to provide a cross-section of socioeconomic classes, a
range of languages, and a range of language learning experiences. 57% of the students were female and 43% male
and most (95%) were aged 14 or 15. For
most, English was the language of the home (87%) but another 25 languages were
also spoken at home, the most frequent of which were a Chinese language (5.5%)
and Hindi (1%). Almost half the students had learned or were learning Japanese
with the next most frequent languages being French and German. (See Table 1.)
The questionnaires elicited personal information about the
students, their attitudes to the learning of languages, their attitudes to
migrants and other cultures, information on language classes and learning
strategies, and predominant learning activities. The last five question sets used an identical set of semantic
differential scales to elicit the students’ attitudes towards speakers of the
language they were learning, towards other Australians, Europeans, Asians,
Australian Aboriginals, their language teachers, and themselves. In the last question, the students were
asked what they would like to see changed in their language classes.
Overall, the students’ cross-cultural attitudes were quite favourable,
certainly more positive than negative, and there was no significant difference
whether they were in a FL program or not and whether they had learned the
language for less than 4 years or more (Table 2). However, closer investigation reveals some tendencies but so
mixed that it is difficult to conclude whether foreign language learning had a
positive or a negative effect on the students’ attitudes. On the one hand, there is a tendency (just
4%) for those in the FL program to be more favourably inclined towards the
target language group than those who had dropped the subject, generally
eighteen months earlier. On the other
hand, those who had been learning the language for less than 4 years showed a
very slight tendency (2.88%) to be more favourably disposed towards the target
language group than those who had been learning the language for 4 or more
years. Their attitudes to Australians
were virtually indistinguishable, as were attitudes to Europeans, except that
those who had studied languages for more than 4 years responded slightly less
favourably towards Europeans though it is probably significant that about half
of the students were in Asian language programs (Table 1).
However, attitudes towards Asians were considerably and significantly
lower than towards Europeans or towards the target FL group and attitudes
towards Aboriginals were the lowest of all.
Again, it is noticeable that attitudes of those who had studied a
language for less than 4 years were slightly more positive towards Asians (by
just over 5%) than were those of students who had studied the language for 4 or
more years. This again makes one
question the hypothesis that language learning will necessarily produce more
favourable cross-cultural attitudes.
As noted earlier, many of the studies of cross-cultural attitudes
suggest that background variables have more influence in determining attitudes
than language learning itself and so it is undoubtedly relevant that, just as
funding was received for the project, a major debate erupted in the community
over immigration policy and compensatory funding to Aboriginals as a result of
the election of an extreme right-wing individual to Federal Parliament. It is probable that that community debate
intruded considerably on the results and more strongly influenced the students’
attitudes at that time than did the language teaching they were experiencing
[see Ingram and O’Neill 2001/2002 for further discussion of this point].
Some of the questions that had been considered
peripheral at the time the study was planned, in fact yielded interesting and
relevant results. Information was
sought on the students’ perception of classroom practice, what
activities they valued, and what they would like to change in that experience.
Significantly, the activities that the students most valued or that they
wanted to be used more often tended to be those that research suggests are more
likely to have a favourable effect on cross-cultural attitude development. The following observations were particularly
noteworthy (see Table 3):
1.
Those
activities which the students most wanted to see increased were those most conducive
to favourable attitude development but the teachers’ responses put those
activities relatively low on their list of priorities.
2.
Three of the
four items in which a majority of students sought change involved more active
use of the language, especially interaction with native speakers over the
internet or face-to-face. Clearly
students wanted their language classes to be more oriented towards real-life
communication and contact with native speakers.
3.
The fourth
area in which a majority of students (59%) wanted to see increased attention
was in the teaching of culture.
4.
Approximately
two-thirds of the students did not want any increase in the more formal aspects
of language teaching such as formal accuracy in pronunciation or grammar. Again, this matched with their preference
for a focus on real-life communication activities.
5.
The students
generally did not support an increase in the teaching of other subjects through
the language and a small majority of them (52%) did not want to see any
increased vocational emphasis in language teaching activities. This is interesting in light of the
vocational emphasis in Australian language education policy (and, I note, in
Chilean language education policy). The
students clearly preferred more real-life use of the language in interaction
with native speakers, i.e., more social interaction (see Table 3).
6.
There was a
strong mismatch between the students’ perceptions of what was happening in
their language classroom, the goals and the point of the activities and what
the teachers perceived as going on [see Ingram et al 1999]. There are implications in the study for
teachers to re-consider their methodology but clearly students need to be made
aware of the purpose of the activities in which they participate and for those
activities to be more obviously related to the development of practical
language skills and better understanding of the target language speakers and
culture.
In summary, though the students’ cross-cultural attitudes were generally
reasonably positive, no evidence was found to support the hypotheses that those
in language programs or those who have studied the language longer will have
significantly more favourable cross-cultural attitudes. At the same time, it was evident from both
the students’ and the teachers’ responses (see Tables 4 and 5) that little use
was made of those activities that are probably most conducive to positive
cross-cultural attitude development but they are also the activities
(especially related to social interaction with native speakers and culture
teaching) which the majority of students wanted to see increased in their
language programs.
III.3 Japan
Survey: Akita Prefecture
The Japan study
surveyed more than 630 students and their 47 teachers in ten schools. Information was elicited on many aspects of
language teaching in Japan but the focus in this paper will be on the students’
cross-cultural attitudes and related aspects of course design and methodology.
Purpose: Like the Brisbane study, the project sought to examine the
cross-cultural attitudes of the students and the features of their programs
that may have influenced those attitudes.
The study was essentially a replication of the Brisbane study using the
same questionnaires, translated into Japanese with the only changes being those
necessitated by the
translation process and the different educational, social and linguistic
context.
Results: There was
no statistically significant difference between students according to how long they had been learning English
in their attitudes towards English speaking people or towards people of other
cultures (Europeans, Asians and the Ainu) (see Table 6). However, those who had
been learning English longer were significantly less positive towards Japanese
people as though greater knowledge of English language and culture led them to
re-evaluate their own culture or, at least, to see its strengths and weaknesses
more discriminatingly (see Table 7). On
the other hand, even though the overall difference fell below the significance
level, the feelings towards themselves of those students who had been learning
English for more than four years were more positive on almost all features than
for those who had been learning it for less than four years (see Table 8).
Unlike the Brisbane
study, many more of the Japanese students surveyed had had the opportunity to visit a country where English is spoken. A small difference was found in attitudes
towards English speakers between those who had visited an English-speaking
country and those who had not, reinforcing the notion that interaction with
speakers of the language can have a beneficial effect on cross-cultural
attitudes. Those who had visited an
English-speaking country viewed English-speaking people as more interesting,
more handsome, more colourful, more honest, more kind, more sophisticated, more
reliable, more hard-working, less strict, and more civilised than did those who
had not visited an English-speaking country (see Table 9).
The
teachers’ preferred goals for their language programs showed a mix of
priorities. There was strong consensus that the most important goal is to
communicate orally with native speakers of English, rated in the top five goals
by 87%. However, most goals related to
cross-cultural attitudes were not rated highly. It was striking that the goal "to gain positive attitudes
about native speakers of English" was rated as of greatest importance by
just 4% of teachers and in the top five goals by fewer than half (49%) of the
teachers. “To learn about the culture
of native speakers of English” was rated as of most importance by only 2% of
the teachers but within the top five by 62%.
Interesting and relevant, however, was the fact that 56% of the teachers
rated the goal “to enable students to evaluate their own cultural
preconceptions” amongst the top 5 goals.
In brief, the goals specifically relevant to cross-cultural attitudes
were given mixed priority by the teachers and considerably less weighting than
the general “language learning” goals (see Table 10).
Goals tend to be idealistic and
the teachers’ preferred teaching/learning
activities
are probably more relevant to student outcomes. Priority was given strongly to
“traditional”, formal methods with more than half of the teachers saying that
they “often” or “very often” used pronunciation drills (89%), formal grammar
teaching (83%), and grammar exercises (75%). 58% said that they used
translation exercises “often” or “very often”.
“Communicative activities” ranked 10th in priority order with just 29% of teachers
saying they used them “often” or “very often”, 49% saying they used them
“sometimes”, and 23% saying they “never” or “rarely” used them. Activities that promote practical
proficiency and provide an opportunity for learners to use the language
creatively or for communicative purposes ranked even lower with, for example,
language games being used “often” or “very often” by 21% and interaction with
native speakers by 20%. The focus in
the nine most preferred activities is clearly on formal knowledge and
“traditional” methods rather than creative or productive use of the language in
interaction.
Of those activities known to be
conducive to more positive cross-cultural attitudes and a balanced
understanding of the target culture, again the focus seems mainly to be on
formal culture teaching. 45% of
teachers, for example, said that they used “teaching of culture” “often” or
“very often” and 49% “sometimes”. More
informal activities that encourage learners to use the language for normal
social interaction outside the constraints of the classroom and in contexts
where there is some opportunity to live the culture rather than learn about it,
activities such as language clubs, language camps or language evenings, were
virtually never used with just 9%, 5% and 2% respectively saying that they used
them “sometimes” and 87%, 95% and 98% saying that they used them “rarely” or “never”. Interaction with native speakers either
face-to-face or via the internet, which are desirable both for developing proficiency
and for fostering positive cross-cultural attitudes, were rarely used. Though 48% of the teachers said that they
sometimes used “interaction with native speakers”, only 20% said they used it
“often” or “very often”, and 32% said that they “never” or “rarely” used
it. It is probable that those who used
it most frequently had access to a native English speaking teaching
assistant. Activities involving the
internet or email were ranked very low with 81% and 92% respectively saying
that they used them “rarely” or “never”. (Table 11)
In brief, the teachers’ responses
concerning their preferred teaching and learning activities suggest a largely
formal, teacher-centred, and “traditional grammar-translation” approach to
language teaching with relatively few opportunities given to the learners to
use the language creatively, informally or in uncontrolled situations for
normal social interaction (or situations that approximate to such
interaction). Similarly, those
activities most conducive to balanced cultural understanding and positive
cross-cultural attitudes (other than probably formal “teaching of culture”)
were also rare.
Though the Japanese students’
attitudes to their language learning program and the learning methods have
still to be analysed in full, like the Australian students, many of them would
like to see changes with particular emphasis on talking with native speakers,
learning to use English for everyday purposes, learning about the culture of
English-speaking countries, learning English for the job they wanted to do in
future, and, unlike the Australian students, listening to more songs in
English.
III.4 Summary of the Australian and Japanese Surveys
The next two projects to
be discussed implemented methodologies that particularly emphasised interaction
with native speakers as a core aspect of the methodology and course design, the
most important factor that both the research literature and the studies just
described suggest may positively influence cross-cultural attitudes.
III.5 College
French
The current
writer’s earliest attempt to implement a methodology based on the principles
emerging in this paper was made some 20 years ago with students in first and
third year French programs in a Teachers’ College in Brisbane, Australia. The project and its results have been
reported in other papers [Ingram 1980 c and d] and will be discussed only
briefly here, focussing mainly on the impact on the students’ cross-cultural
attitudes.
Project Description: The central learning activity was “community
involvement” in which students set up meetings with French speakers in the
Brisbane community and discussed some topic of mutual interest with them (e.g.,
their life in Australia in comparison with the country from which they had
come, how their restaurant, oil company, or other business operated, or any
other issue that interested them).
Afterwards, the students presented a detailed oral report to their class
and submitted a written report to the lecturer. In most cases, this formal activity led to informal social
interaction with the community members in their homes or in a social
event. The course also contained formal
teaching of the language in response to student need, another segment focussed
on different registers and genres of the language, there was a course of French
and Australian social studies taught in French once a week, and there were many
opportunities given to listen to daily Radio Australia newsbulletins in French
and to view and discuss French films or slide shows. Regular discussions were held on intercultural and interracial
relationships and attitudes and occasionally games were used that highlighted
issues of relationships between dominant and smaller societies or communities.
The project
outcomes proved to be very successful both in terms of the students’
language proficiency and in producing more positive cross-cultural
attitudes. In summary, the benefits
relevant to attitudinal change included the following:
1.
Once the
students’ initial fear of contact with native speakers was overcome, they
showed considerable willingness to converse and participated much more readily
and confidently in class than previously.
2.
All the
cohorts approved the design of the course and the variety of activities,
especially the heavy emphasis on the oral language. Though most students approached the initial interaction with some
trepidation, that was soon replaced in most cases by considerable enthusiasm.
3.
Experienced
lecturers who had not participated in the program evaluated the students in
comparison with those they had encountered previously. Without exception, they commented favourably
on the students’ progress, especially in such features as readiness to
participate in conversation, confidence, fluency, comprehension, initiative in
directing conversation, and poise.
Though these are features more immediately related to language
proficiency, the increased confidence and poise that the students demonstrated
very likely rubbed off onto their attitudes.
4.
The results
on a simple cross-cultural attitude questionnaire administered pre- and
post-course showed a considerable shift towards more positive attitudes both
towards French people and more generally, including to the group in Australia
that has most suffered from discrimination and negative attitudes, Australian
Aboriginals.
5.
The
favourable attitudinal effects were seen not only in the students but also in
the people whom they had met. Many
community members, for instance, commented that these were the first “real”
Australians they had met socially, they appreciated the opportunity to meet the
students, and they were keen to maintain contact with them [cf. Ingram 1980d].
In
summary, the “community involvement approach” to methodology seemed to have a
favourable impact, not only on the students’ language proficiency but also on
their cross-cultural attitudes both towards the target (French) group and
towards other cultures and races.
III.6
Languages at an Australian University
In late 1999, the present author and a colleague were awarded a National
Teaching Development Grant to implement a long-term project entitled “Taking
‘foreignness’ out of Languages other than English: the Community as a Resource for improving Proficiency
Outcomes”. Its aim was to
implement a “community involvement” approach in University language teaching
for both Asian and European languages and to examine the impact of the approach
on both proficiency development and other goals of language teaching, including
cross-cultural attitudes. Here, only
the latter will be reported though more extensive reports have been published
[e.g., Ingram 2002, 2002a, 2002b, 2001a].