C. Nelson (1993 & 1999)

In Nelson’s short article ‘Heterosexism in ESL: Examining Our Attitudes’, we can read her painful feeling and experiences as a lesbian ESL teacher and her thoughtful opinion on ESL curricula where it is hard to find “anything gay in our materials and our curricula” (1993, p.148). She insists that we should “evaluate the content in our courses and the methodology we use in terms of their effectiveness with our gay students” (ibid.). Thus, she provides us with four examples of “challenging questions” connected with gay/lesbian student rights and their safeties in classroom (ibid.).

Before reading the last page of her article, I am eager to know how she solves her challenging questions in her own ESL classroom. Nelson confesses her lesbian identity and uncomfortable feeling to her students and adds “many people think gay people work somewhere else, live somewhere else, are just separate from them. . . I wanted you to know we’re around”(1993, p. 149). Her confession seems that the best solution to remove something uncomfortable is being honest to oneself and opening it up to other people. However, she confirms the fact that there is “the belief that being heterosexual is more ‘normal' than being gay, lesbian, or bisexual. This belief is reflected in every facet of society. As a result, lesbian and gay people continually experience discrimination”(1993, p. 144). But, Ironically, she has never been faced with any discrimination: “I haven’t heard of a teacher not being hired because of being gay; I haven’t encountered overt hatred; nobody has reprimanded me yet. . . I’m out to my colleagues and my administrators, and I haven’t lost my job”(1993, P.147-8). Nelson says discriminations on gay/lesbian (queer) people exist whether it is blatant or subtle, but she, a lesbian, hasn’t had any experience of discrimination, especially in the field of her teaching job. Why? I assume that one of the reasons is related to her social status. Nelson is a high-educated professional on sexual identity, and works for a university as an ESL teacher. Therefore, whenever “the words racism and sexism come up”, she can make counterdiscourses against racism and sexism by “teach(ing) the word heterosexism” (ibid.). That is, her established social status as a teacher is a shield to protect her lesbian identity in (university) society.

Nelson’s second article “Sexual Identities in ESL: Queer Theory and Classroom Inquiry” leaves me with a sense of futility even though I regard it as an article written 10 years ago. After reading of her first article, ‘Heterosexism in ESL: Examining Our Attitudes’, I wonder how she actually applies queer theory to ESL class. As is from the title of the article, she gives me several classroom inquiries, which are very similar to IRF and it makes me discouraged because I expected a detailed discussion on ESL gay/lesbian students’ empowerment. Specifically, it’s hard for me to understand what the differences between IRF and classroom inquiry are: IRF is composed of the teacher’s initiation, the learner’s response, and the teacher’s follow up on student’s response: classroom inquiry has a similar approach to IRF – teachers’ framing questions, facilitating students to investigate, and exploring what is not known with students (Nelson, 1999, p.377). While In IRF, the teacher and students take turns of communication in class, inquiry approach seems to focus more on teacher. Nevertheless, are there big differences between them?

And my expectation of discussion on ESL gay/lesbian students’ empowerment in Nelson’s second article is related to students’ multi-identities, especially social and sexual identities. From her observation of an ESL class, students give opinions on gay/lesbian issues interestingly but mostly lightly except some students’ comments. Though Pablo reveals some facet of his sexual identity in the class, does it give empowerment to him? He mentions a few words about culturally different attitudes to gay between U.S. and his home country (Mexico). The reason that his comment is short may be caused from his low English proficiency or from his uncomfortable feeling on a topic, but it may be the first brave step for him to reveal his sexual identity in public and have social power as a colored immigrant gay student in U.S. society. However, it seems not sufficient because inquiry approach is very similar to Kubota’s ‘the pluralist model’(Kubota, 1999), which respects cultural differences and promotes rhetorical pluralism in mainstream by allowing students to express their voices. It means, inquiry approach to ESL gay/lesbian students empowerment doesn’t critically explore issues of the construction of certain cultural representations, nor does it examine how political power comes into play in the distinction between dominant (heterosexual) and subordinate (gay/lesbian, that is, queer) forms of rhetorical conventions. In Pablo’s case, even though Pablo reveals fragments of his sexual identity in ESL classroom, it would be hard for him to make his own voice in mainstream and his community. Because he may be busy to learn English and get a job for a living. What do we ESL (future) teachers do for developing and improving his empowerment?

Auerbach & Burgess (Nov.16)

“The Hidden Curriculum of Survival ESL” by Auerbach and Burgess makes me so confused. Survival English has been considered as the most important thing in English learning and teaching in Korea. Because school English education is focused on “grammar, vocabulary and function exercises” for the examination for entrance of university, it has been criticized for long time which most students can’t speak English with native speakers in spite of their over 10 years English learning (p.492). So, in colleges and private institutions, there are a lot of courses related to survival English, usually under the title of ‘practical English’, ‘English Conversation, or ‘survival English’. The goal of these courses is to“provide the students with the practical abilities that enable them to function in the new society”(p.475). In other words, the courses are “reality-based” (p.475), which means that, if students take those courses, they would learn how and what to do for starting their new life in America. I had taught under this principle because I absolutely agreed with it..

But the article by Auerbach and Burgess insists me on rethinking it, especially about the survival textbooks. I can’t remember what and how many books I had used for survival English textbooks as a teacher or as a student, and don’t know whether those books are problematic or not. Although I agree with the authors’ reproaches on it, many survival English textbook are, in fact, very helpful for me to get English expressions and American cultures. But, like the authors’ insistences, sometimes I thought several conversations described in those books were not enough to make full conversational situations. For example, there was one description about asking the direction to go library (as I remember, the book title is Progress in English). I used those expressions when I visited UCLA in 2001 as a traveler, and was so embarrassed. Because I only expected one situation described in the book, but reality was different! After that, I keenly realized “reality should never be taken as a given, but, instead has to be questioned and analyzed”(p.493).

But how can I teach the student who don’t know what they don’t know? The authors persist in “education should start with problematic issues in people’s lives and, though dialogue, encourage students not only to develop a critical view of their reality but to act on it to improve their lives” (p.492) I think, I should start with thinking on a teacher itself. Teacher should not be a person who transmits knowledge to students, but who has the problem-posing view, bring and adapt it in classroom. “The teacher’s role is to facilitate the dialogue between students with a series of inductive questions aimed at eliciting students’ ideas, assisting them in making generalizations, relating the theme to their own lives, and helping them to take action to effect change where applicable”(p.492). I may already know this idea and the problems when I apply the problem-solving view to my students. But, knowing something is not enough.

v. cook (nov. 9)

I am a L2 language learner and also a L2 language user. According to Cook’s article, I’m a “successful multicompetent language user”(p.204). Am I? I can speak two languages and have multi-identities like mother, student, daughter, wife and so forth. But I don’t think I’m a successful multicompetent language user. And I have never thought English as mine in my life. Since I started to learn English at 12, I have thought English belongs to American people, not Britons or other English-speaking whites. I have admired their English and cultures because good English proficiency with the information on American culture is one of the most important methods to improve my status in Korean society including my grades in school. But my English proficiency has never gone beyond my expectation. It always makes me sick. I usually comfort myself with the idea, “I’m not an American, so it’s reasonable that my English is not good.”

Cook says “The meaning of native speaker here is . . . a monolingual person who still speaks the language learnt in childhood” (p.187) I remind of the film American Tongue. What are those people who I saw? People in the film are all native speakers, who learned English in childhood and I admired before. But if I am a department dean in a university in my home country, I would not hire those people even if they have TESOL degrees. Because I don’t think their English is not a good model for my students; then, what is a good English? And... is it possible that I recognize their English as dialects, if I don’t have previous knowledge about the film? Absolutely not. If I don’t have it, I would be frustrated because I can’t understand their English well.

What English do I have to learn? I may know the answer. It may be school English or media English. But if my students ask the meaning of some English dialects, what do I have to do? Can I say to them, ‘they're dialects, so you could ignore them’. Dialects are also English just like L2 users English is also English. What is the standard? Can we define?

Brutt-Griffler & Samimy (Nov.2)

While I read the "Revisiting the Colonial in the Postcolonial: Critical Praxis for Nonnative-English-speaking Teachers in a TESOL Program", one word comes across my mind: self-colonization. Actually, whenever I have a lot of readings or I can't find proper words to express my opinions, I wish I am an American (means NS). If I am, I don't need an English-Korean dictionary so that reading will be a piece of cake to me. Then, I may be a real English teacher to my students, who has perfect pronunciation, oral fluency, vocabulary, accurate cultural information and extra. But this article shows me how much I am a colonized person who has an imperative concepton of NS language proficiency. And it also makes me think about what I can teach my students, it means, I can teach my students which NS teacher can't access and understand. This is related to one of my previous teaching experiences in Korea.

I was so nervous that I got an opportunity to teach a graduate course for current English teacher under the title of 'English culture and Literature'. But, during the semester, I didn't know why some of them didn't have interests in the course in spite of my tremendous materials, visual aids, and references. As time passed by, I knew why. First, they wanted a NS teacher or at least a teacher who had studied abroad. Second, they wanted practical teaching methods which they could use in classroom; real and broad culture information; not specific, not ethinic, not literature. Thrid, most of them were so tired of school chores and teaching, and some of them just wanted a degree for their promotion.

Then, am I a better teacher now? : who can encourage those tired students and disappointed students. At least I can say to them, " I could be a good model to you. And you could be a good model to your students. Because both of us had same experiences of our students, and we, of all men, can understand them well."