The Role of Culture in English Language Teaching: a Case Study of Schools of the Khasi Community in Semi-Urban Areas.
The Role of Culture in English Language Teaching: A Case Study of Schools of the Khasi Community in Semi-urban Areas.
Introduction
English Language is traditionally viewed as a code made up of words and a series of rules that connect them together. Language learning here, involves only vocabulary learning, and the rules for constructing ‘proper’ sentences. In most schools in Meghalaya, grammar is being taught at a very early age and students are expected to understand complex idiomatic phrases at the secondary level. Linguistic terminologies, rules of grammar, complex vocabulary, proverbs and their meanings have to be learnt by heart for them to overcome their board examinations. Such a situation only confuses the learners at a very early age and demotivates them from learning any further than what they have to write in their examinations. This narrow understanding of language sees it as a body of knowledge which is fixed and finite and does not explore the complexities involved in using language for communication.
When language is seen as ‘open, dynamic, energetic, constantly evolving and personal’ (Shohamy, 2007:5) it acknowledges the rich complexities of communication. Language is no longer a thing to be studied but rather, a way of seeing, understanding and communicating about the world and each language user will use his language differently to do this. Such an expanded view will make the educational process more engaging. The communicative approach to teaching emphasizes elements of communication, including negotiation of meaning, expression, and interpretation (Brown 2000). Speaking is not the only skill that communicative language teaching focuses on but also involves reading, writing, grammar, and culture (Lee & VanPatten, 2003). Brown (2007) also adds that students in such classrooms need to use the target language in a meaningful context. The purpose of Communicative language teaching is to improve the learners’ knowledge of the
Introduction
English Language is traditionally viewed as a code made up of words and a series of rules that connect them together. Language learning here, involves only vocabulary learning, and the rules for constructing ‘proper’ sentences. In most schools in Meghalaya, grammar is being taught at a very early age and students are expected to understand complex idiomatic phrases at the secondary level. Linguistic terminologies, rules of grammar, complex vocabulary, proverbs and their meanings have to be learnt by heart for them to overcome their board examinations. Such a situation only confuses the learners at a very early age and demotivates them from learning any further than what they have to write in their examinations. This narrow understanding of language sees it as a body of knowledge which is fixed and finite and does not explore the complexities involved in using language for communication.
When language is seen as ‘open, dynamic, energetic, constantly evolving and personal’ (Shohamy, 2007:5) it acknowledges the rich complexities of communication. Language is no longer a thing to be studied but rather, a way of seeing, understanding and communicating about the world and each language user will use his language differently to do this. Such an expanded view will make the educational process more engaging. The communicative approach to teaching emphasizes elements of communication, including negotiation of meaning, expression, and interpretation (Brown 2000). Speaking is not the only skill that communicative language teaching focuses on but also involves reading, writing, grammar, and culture (Lee & VanPatten, 2003). Brown (2007) also adds that students in such classrooms need to use the target language in a meaningful context. The purpose of Communicative language teaching is to improve the learners’ knowledge of the
References: Brown, H.D. 2007a. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Clipps: Prentice-Hall Brown, H.D. 2007b. Teaching by Principles. Englewood Clipps: Prentice-Hall Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and Culture. Oxford University Press. Lee, J., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen. New York: McGraw-Hill. Li, Z. G., & Song, M. Y. (2007). The Relationship Between Traditional English grammar teaching and communicative language teaching. US-China Education Review, 4(1), 62–65. NCERT, 2005. National Curriculum Framework, NCERT, New Delhi. Risager, K. 1998. Language Teaching and the Process of European Integration. In M. Byram & M. Fleming (eds). Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective: Approaches through Drama and Ethnography. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Saluveer, E. 2004. Teaching Culture, Strategies for Intercultural Communication. Lincolnwood, III.: National Textbook Company Shohamy, E. (2007) Language Test and Policy Tools in Assessment in Education, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2007, pp. 117–130, Taylor &Francis, Routledge, London Stanovich, Keith. 1986 Mathew Effects in Reading: Some Consequences of Individual Differences in the Acquisition of Literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21 (4), 360-407.