An Examination of Culture Knowledge: a Study of L2 Teachers’ and Teacher Educators’ Beliefs and Practices
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
4 Spring 2011 An Examination of Culture Knowledge: A Study of L2 Teachers’ and Teacher Educators’ Beliefs and Practices David R. Byrd Weber State University Anne Cummings Hlas University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire John Watzke University of Portland Maria Fernanda Montes Valencia Saint Louis University Abstract: Historically, culture has not been emphasized as much as linguistic fea- tures in the teaching of second languages, but the introduction of the National Standards has provided an opportunity for a shift in this trend. This study surveyed 415 world language teachers and 64 teacher educators about the extent to which the culture stan- dard is a focus of teaching and the motivators and barriers in maintaining culture knowledge. Using descriptive statistical analysis, survey results suggest that both groups share some concerns, motivations, and barriers to teaching culture, but they also differ in significant areas. The article concludes with some potential implications for teacher education programs as well as suggestions for continued professional develop- ment for teachers related to culture knowledge. Key words: culture, professional development, Standards, survey results, teacher education David R. Byrd (PhD, University of Iowa) is Assistant Professor of Education at Weber State University, Ogden, Utah. Anne Cummings Hlas (PhD, University of Iowa) is Assistant Professor of Spanish at the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire. John Watzke (PhD, University of Iowa) is Professor of Education and Dean of the School of Education at the University of Portland, Oregon. Maria Fernanda Montes Valencia (ABD, Saint Louis University) is a doctoral student in Educational Studies at Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri. Foreign Language Annals Á vol. 44, No. 1 5 Introduction Language Center at the University of Mary- Teaching culture in the second language land (http://www.langsource.umd.edu) in (L2) classroom can be challenging for association with ACTFL. It was the Board’s teachers at all levels of instruction. This can charge to examine how pre-service foreign be especially true for K–12 L2 teachers. language teachers are prepared to teach Teachers at these levels face challenges culture and how in-service teachers are preparing, teaching, and assessing culture, teaching culture. which is particularly critical in a time where more pressure is being placed on K–12 dis- Review of Related Literature tricts and universities to maintain and grow In the 21st century, the Standards Move- language programs. One of the challenges ment provides an overarching and unified to teaching culture is the ability to learn and framework that situates culture as a pri- maintain culture knowledge. Teachers are mary component of language learning; often left to their own devices to find cul- however, this has not always been the case. tural resources, instructional strategies, and A historical examination of the place of frameworks for the teaching of culture. culture within teaching methodologies Recently, however, the Standards for Foreign sheds light on the current status of culture Language Learning in the 21st Century in today’s L2 classrooms and L2 methods (National Standards, 2006) movement has courses. reshaped how L2 teachers approach the teaching of language and culture in the classroom. Evolution of Cultural Instruction This is true for the area of culture, Over the years, the foreign language pro- which in the past has suffered in compar- fession has sought out the ideal method to ison to linguistic elements of the classroom. teach learners an L2. Because some of the Historically, culture has not been given the early methodologies of choice lacked a cul- prominence it deserves within language tural component, the integration of culture curriculum, methodologies, and instruc- into the curriculum has suffered from a tional techniques. In 1983, Stern stated that delayed start. A summary review of the a balance between the two features of lan- evolution of the teaching methodology with guage study is difficult to achieve, either reference to culture sheds light on why cul- stressing linguistic forms, which in turn ture has been so long neglected. ignore the people who use the language, or From approximately 1800 to the early emphasizing cultural matters, which fails to 1900s, students studied foreign languages draw attention to linguistic form, making almost solely through the Grammar- the language ‘‘superficial and unservice- Translation Method (Mitchell & Vidal, able’’ (p. 191). Despite efforts in the field to 2001; Omaggio-Hadley, 2001; Stern, 1983). create this balance, culture has never quite Initially, the method was used with the achieved the status that linguistic forms classical languages, Latin and Greek, but it have over the years in regard to teaching was also adopted as a method for teaching methodologies. modern languages when the latter were In response to the call of L2 educators introduced into school curricula. In this (Crawford-Lange & Lange, 1984, 2001; teaching methodology, culture was equated Met, 2004; Schulz, Lalande, Dykstra-Pruim, to the literature students read as the funda- Zimmer-Lowe, & James, 2005; Stern, 1983) mental course content and ultimate goal for to make culture a more meaningful part of understanding a language (Allen, 1985). the L2 classroom, the present investigation Developed as an oppositional metho- is part of a study conducted by the Profes- dology to the Grammar-Translation Method, sional Development Board (PDB) of the the Direct Method emerged as a significant LangSource Project of the National Foreign force in foreign language methodology from 6 Spring 2011 around 1890 to 1930. This method focused avoid social blunders (Benseler & Schulz, instruction on the development of speaking 1980). Many pre-service and in-service skills, emphasizing proper pronunciation. education courses were restructured during This Direct Method kept the L2 learner in the this period to prepare future and practicing here-and-now, often using classroom objects teachers to use ALM in the classroom to guide language learning. Grittner (1996) (Schulz, 2000; Smith, 2000). ALM flour- stated that during this period culture was ished during the 1960s, and the prior attended to mainly through picturesFtext- feelings of anger and fear toward teaching book illustrations of great historical figures, culture gave way to more positive ones churches, castles, cities, and everyday life. (Nostrand, 1988). Student language learn- Typically, these cultural items were unrelated ing demands led to more comparisons of to the linguistic focus found in the texts lifestyles between and among cultures than (Grittner, 1996). These types of cultural in learning just the language and/or the information were too superficial to be literature. Due to the behaviorist under- described as authentic cultural artifacts; pinning, students learned culture in a however, they represented a step toward memorized manner that promoted cultural authenticity of daily cultural interactions. learning as facts. Indeed, culture during this The Direct Method did not require special- time period was quite often viewed as a ized education on the part of the teacher to fifth ‘‘modality’’ of language, alongside learn to teach culture to the students, nor did reading, writing, listening, and speaking, it move the profession as a whole to seek out and teachers often felt that it could be methods for teaching culture. taught following the same pattern drill-type In the 1950s, culture occurred so thinking that dominated the teaching of its infrequently in the curriculum that Nos- modality counterparts. trand (1988) reported, ‘‘The contention that Much time and money had been . [teachers] ought to include the cultural poured into the development and commer- context in their courses aroused their anger. cialization of ALM. Practitioners and They not only saw little need for this added stakeholders had expected to see great burden, they were afraid of it’’ (p. 29). Soon, improvements in student learning. When however, world events would cause this these results did not materialize, other philosophy of instruction to change. methods of teaching languages were sought Late in this decade and borrowing out and the 1970s saw a ‘‘diversification of heavily from Bloomfield’s American Struc- methodologies’’ (Mitchell & Vidal, 2001, turalism and behavioral psychology, the p. 30). Most often these various methodo- Audiolingual Method (ALM) heavily influ- logies, like their predecessors, did not enced L2 instruction (Stern, 1983). This emphasize the teaching of culture. method relied on B. F. Skinner’s theories During this period, psychology was promoting habit formation through stimu- moving in a different direction (Martinez, lus-response activities, such as drills, and 2010). Whereas behavioral psychology dic- overlearning language patterns (Omaggio- tated much of what was included in ALM, Hadley, 2001; Stern, 1983). A major goal of cognitive psychology, with its emphasis on this method was to prepare learners to enter the thinking processes, contended that the target culture(s); therefore, the study of learning is more complex than simply culture and the preparation of students to responding to stimuli. Another significant deal with the daily tasks of living in the school of psychology, humanistic psychol- target culture with some level of socio- ogy, posited that the learner’s affective needs linguistic appropriateness were mandatory require attention as well as his or her intel- (Brooks,