Blog Assignment#3: Language Policy, Language Teachers’ Beliefs, and Classroom Practices

        I find the research by Farell and Tan helpful in my research because first it practically gives you an example on the kind or category of problem one will work on, and second, it gives you the kind of data that you might work on.  The problem shown by this research zeroes in on the “impact of a top-down imposed language policy on the beliefs and practices of… school teachers concerning the use of non-Standard English in their classrooms and confirmed those of previous studies that teachers’ reactions to language policy is a complicated process.”(Farell and Tan, 2008)  The research could not have been more relevant than the Philippine context.  It can be argued that the dilemma of the teachers and the confusion in the use of a “standard” as presented by this research is also true in our context.   I also think that the  paradigm of “grassroots/bottom-up” language policy of Canagarajah can also be addressed here since, the research focuses on a particular grassroots context--the classroom.


     Regarding the data, the complexity of teachers’ reactions, the linguistic schizophrenia, and the teaching practices used in class, are some salient features that I could possibly look at and analyze for my research.  I think, the research findings can be the “hypothesis”  for a replicated research with a different data source and different contexts--in my case, I‘ll be using a videotape recording of an English class we had at our school about a year ago.

     Though I am bent on using Farell and Tan’s research (I.e. replicate or adapt it), I am still going to look closely at the data at hand that I already have, because there might still be some interesting patterns in the way the students (and to a certain degree, the teacher) speak.  As Canagarajah points it, there many exciting and surprising things that a researcher can find through an ethnographic research.

     To sum it up, first, I find the research by Farell and Tan as an eye-opener to a certain degree, and second as a model for my research.

Research Problems I'm interested in

The work by Canagarajah, Ethnographic Methods in Language Policy, has been helpful in providing me with some problems I’m interested in working on.  I already have a data, but the problem is in what particular research problem am I going to use it.  The data I have is a transcription of a two-hour long English class (in two sessions).  The class was having a debate.  This data was originally intended to show the feature of English used in my school: whether it is SAE (Standard American English), Standard Philippine English, or another variety.
Using the same data, I have come up with three possible problems: please feel free to comment on these.

1. Does the “English Only” policy in the class work?
2. How do students and teachers use unauthorized codes in the classroom?  What are its features?
3. How do students and teachers manage to circumvent or make their own language policies in a private parochial school in the Philippines?

In line with these problems are the following limitations or challenges I see:
1. Unsuitability of the data.
2. Lack of data.
3. How could the data be triangulated?

Blog Assignment#2: Ethnographic Methods in Language Policy

    The work of Canagarajah places LPP from a top-down perspective to that of a bottom-up perspective by including it (LPP) in ethnography.  The two (LPP and ethnography) may be coming from opposite polarities but it was soundly argued that “in scholarly discourse and the field of LPP itself point to the concerns of ethnography and LPP merging” (Canagarajah, 2006).  In my case (as an ordinary classroom teacher), it might be viewed that we cannot influence the language policies that “trickle down” from the authorities (experts) from above who according to Canagarajah failed to consider the grassroots.  One reason is that it is a messy business (language relationships are difficult to predict and manage, community needs are ambivalent, and a lot of things are considerably ideological in nature).  However, with the emergence of “critical” ethnography and the methods that go with it and its merging with LPP,  that perspective (powerless teachers and uniformed non-grassroots language policies) might just be changed.

    Again, it is not an easy task.  I do agree that a researcher can go to field work with a committed political decision as opposed to a "neutralized" simple descriptive research. (i.e. objective and value-free orientation).   One can argue that a research should not be politically charged--but in the case of LPP where lives are affected, one has to take a committed political stance (in favor of the oppressed). At this point it sounds like a sweeping statement, but as Canagarajah pointed out in the difference between critical ethnography and traditional ethnography in which the former espouses a “neutral” and descriptive stance, and the latter, with an orientation of a non-foundational, socially constructed, and power differences implicated kind of knowledge (Canagarajah, 2006).  Thus, as critical thinkers, we unravel the power play in the system and expose the hegemonic consequences of current language policies, and bring about change in the system.

    In concrete terms, for example, in the classroom or in a community, the teacher-researcher uses critical ethnographic methods of research.  Relating this to the research I have in mind and in the previous blog entry  I made, I said that I let my students code-switch in order for them to explain what they want to say.  With the help of critical ethnographic research methods, I can try justifying how and why I find this strategy In so doing, I contribute to the body of research that helps identify the effectiveness of different pedagogies and curricula, as well as in the understanding of how language policies (top-down model) trickle down to classrooms (Freeman in Canagarajah, 2006).

    Lastly, if I will commit myself with a political stance and proceed with my ethnographic research, the one big problem I see is how am I going to share this with the community (my school- students, teachers, and parents) and “enlighten“ them about the importance of participating in the decision-making process of LPP.  With all the other concerns in school (concerns of parents, teachers, and students), such thing could be easily brushed off by other “bigger” concerns.  

    Intuitively, my answer for this challenge is to keep “talking” about it so as to make it to the mainstream consciousness of the people concerned.  In the end, we may have achieved the first step in the improvement of our own communities.

Report on Tollefson's Revolutionary Language Policy

• The article by Tollefson illustrates how language becomes a gate-keeper and how language is used in the stratification of society particularly in the Philippines.  It also shows that there's not much change in the language policy of the Commonwealth era towards the Marcos administration towards the Aquino administration.  Indeed, there has always been a compromise between the "elites" and those in government as to what language policy should be enforced in the country.
• Tollefson operates from a Marxist point of view in this article--essentially, he sees language policy as a big deal as to why the Philippines has not progressed (i.e. took off) from its current state of poverty.  It is also essential to note that critically, those in power would not want lose that power by letting loose those who are displaced by the language barrier; giving people equal access to opportunities by changing the language policy (i.e. giving other Philippine languages official status) makes those who are good in English (most of whom belong to the "elites") lose their edge over others.   It 'sis also true that language and language skills are basically "commodified", and this process has been perpetuated in the guise of BPO's and tourism.
• However, from another vantage point, we have agreed in our discussion that changing the language policy alone will not solve the inequalities prevalent in our country.  For T iollefson, it seems that it is, but we believe it isn't.  To date, no country in the expanding circle of World Englishes (Kachru's) that made significant strides by making English an official language really made it to the top economically by changing their language policies alone.  China, Japan, and Korea did not give English an official status in their countries yet they made great economic progress.  Indeed, it is not by resolving the language policy alone that the woes of the Philippines might be reversed.  Though, we think it might be the first step.
• We (Prixie & Oliver) decided not to vote for the son of the president of the administration succeeding Marcos because instead of providing a solution, the problem was perpetuated by making a compromise with the elites.  :-D

Blog Assignment#1

  Ricento and Hornberger have correctly identified and placed the teacher (i.e. classroom practitioner at the heart of the onion (symbollically, the most important and interesting part). They have succinctly illustrated how the classroom practitioner has been manipulated (cajoled), despite the fact that the "experts" have already pointed out or claimed that change begins in the grassroots level (Burns in Ricento and Hornberger, 1996).  And the irony of it is that we the classroom practitioners are often viewed simply  as implementers of the language policies.  Ricento and Horngerber's have clearly pointed out that even the language policies can even be changed as it goes through several layers of the onion before it gets to the teachers (core of the onion).  The point is that teachers can still implement these policies with broader social attitudes in contrast to implementing a specific policy by the school or government without the teacher consciously realizing it (Auerbach in Ricento and Hornberger,1993).  To this extent, I do agree with what  Ricento and Hornberger place the classroom practitioners that, despite their seeming unimportance in the process, being at the core doesn't mean that they are incapable of influencing it.  Regarding this, It is also important to note that the classroom practitioners themselves are not just unconscious participants in the LPP process but that they can be primary policy-makers.  

   In line with the ideas of Ricento and Hornberger, the classroom teacher as a participant in developing language policy within their respective institution has been a reality in my experience.  Though, our school's policy has been outright a mimic of DepEd's (Department of of Education) policy, at least, we in our language area were given free rein to do what we think is best for our students.  My school's language policy is that English must be spoken on designated areas in the school (the classroom included) during class hours, on all subjects except Filipino and AP (Araling Panlipunan or Social Studies).  However, my students are not used to conversing with each other using L2, and using English in that manner (conversational) in the class during class hours is fictional in our school.  We have explained this to our academic coordinator and so far, we the English teachers have been flexible and tolerant in the constant code-switching that students commit.  We, the teachers have decided that we will let students do this at a particular limit which is only when they (students) are trying to explain something.  In that way, we were able to practice our independence as regards language policy. 

       

ELL312Test Blog

Test.