This article describes the challenges of transforming a lecture course
in British and American Affairs into one in which students learn about culture
and ways to teach culture experientially and empathetically. The course
is required for second-year students at Gunma Prefectural Women's University
intending to be certified as junior high and senior high school English
instructors. It is a year-long, four-credit course that meets once a week
for ninety minutes. Past enrollments have been between 60-80 students.
I understand active learning to be a student-centered approach which
requires the teacher to be an active facilitator of learning, constantly
in touch with the students' progress, modifying the tasks, and offering
guidance as needed (see Chastain, 1980; Krahnke, 1987; Nunan, 1989). My
large classes make such monitoring seem logistically impossible. Although
I receive feedback from students in their journal entries and end-of-year
questionnaires, I wanted to include the students' participation in a more
in-depth evaluation of my teaching. Drawing on participatory action research
(Auerbach, 1993, 1994) and participatory curriculum development (Kerfoot,
1993), I decided to meet with a focus group of five students over a period
of three months while the course was in progress.
I selected these students because they participated actively and enthusiastically
in class and worked well together as a group. Two of the members were outspoken
graduate students who frequently took charge as discussion leaders. We met
weekly to discuss these topics about the course: their expectations, their
perceptions of my goals, problems I was having, problems they were having,
and possible solutions. At the same time, in order to examine active learning
in other contexts, we each read and summarized two articles I had used as
background in preparing the class.
I had proposed that we write an article together because I felt their
reactions to active learning would be useful to other English teachers.
Since they were all considering careers in English teaching, I also hoped
to demystify research paper writing in English for them. We recorded our
discussions on cassette tape and the students took turns transcribing and
summarizing the recordings. They selected which quotes they wanted to include
in the article, while I edited and wove these together, chose selections
from their class work as examples, added the introduction and wrote up the
reference list. We then met several times to revise this article together.
The following is our joint reflection about the course including what facilitated
and hindered active engagement and critical thinking, written from the students'
perspective.
Benefits of Active Learning (Students: Miho Kitsukawa, Mami Nakamura,
Akemi Sato, Shizue Shimizu, and Reiko Tagohka)
We expected that British and American Affairs would be taught lecture
style. In addition, the title of the class suggested that the lecturer would
give us information on sociological aspects of only the United States and
Britain, such as history, geography, and culture. Some students were naturally
attracted to such themes as we are English literature majors. However, we
found the class was completely different from what we expected, because
we were asked to put ourselves in the place of others and not only think
about issues, but try to empathize with others.
First, we were shocked when the instructor introduced the topic of minority
cultures with articles on how binational children and Korean people were
bullied and discriminated against in Japan. We had known about Koreans in
Japan from newspapers and magazines, but had never focused on how they feel.
We were asked to remember any classmates from our childhoods who were handicapped,
or of a different ethnic background or nationality, and to recall how they
were treated by others in our school. We then role-played a conference between
a binational child who refused to go to school, her teacher, and her mother.
Discussing serious social problems in the context of our own lives in this
way is far from the culture of young Japanese women.
Second, we were led to respond to such issues in movies we watched. In
doing so, we drew not only on factual information but on emotions and metaphors.
For example, we started the class with the metaphor of the "culture
tree," in which the branches and roots represent visible culture, the
trunk represents hidden culture, and the roots show the historical and environmental
bases of culture (Fujiwara, 1995). We used this paradigm to illustrate and
examine the conflicts between the deaf and hearing characters of Sarah and
James in the movie Children of a Lesser God. Next, we discussed where
the responsibility for communication lies between hearing and hearing-impaired
people.
In the second semester, we drew on metaphors of freedom and oppression
from the poetry of American women of color to analyze how Celie unlearns
her internalized oppression in the movie The Color Purple. We were
asked to respond to the movie by writing our own poems about freedom and
oppression using different metaphors that had personal significance for
us. We read our poems in small groups in the class, and then each group
chose one poem to perform for the whole class with gestures and dance.
Third, we worked in groups to research minority cultures in Gunma, Saitama,
and Tokyo based on a similar project used with Spanish language students
at an American university (Robinson-Stuart and Nogon, 1996). In this project,
we had to conduct and transcribe an interview with a member of a minority
group in Japan, describe the interview process, and record our observations
and reflections using excerpts from Donan (1997) as guidelines. We also
had to create a lesson plan for teaching about that minority group in an
English class when we become English instructors. We presented this lesson
plan eight times to other groups in our class during a day-long poster session
and lesson swap.
Although the instructor gave us contact information on various groups
for this ethnographic research project, the specific focus and actual implementation
were up to us. That is, we had to find members of a minority group to research,
divide tasks among us, plan, carry out, and write up the research completely
outside class. At first, it seemed complicated and overwhelming. Drawing
on our experiences with the kinds of learning we had done in elementary
school however, helped us to put the project in context. Akemi, a focus
group member, observed,
In Japanese elementary schools, it is common to do similar kinds of
projects at a simpler level, such as group work, field trips, and interviews.
By the time we get to junior high, though, classes change to lecture style
in preparation for entrance exams.
We regret this, because working on group projects and doing research
in the community gives us more chances to learn than just by listening to
a lecture. We feel more involved when we are given the chance to take risks,
make choices, and innovate according to our particular interests.
We understand now that the instructor is using a problem-posing approach
in the class (Auerbach, 1993, 1995; Auerbach and Wallerstein, 1987). That
is, she is presenting us with real and difficult problems related not only
to people in foreign countries but to us here in our own university and
community. As another member, Mami, deducted, "The instructor wants
to change this class from being about just English cultures into worldwide
culture, because now English-speaking people are increasing more and more
all over the world." The instructor gives us the opportunity and tools
to look, think, feel and act by ourselves to solve problems, and to express
our opinions in a variety of different modes.
In this course, for example, one of the main themes is cultural relativity
and the conflict between cultural rights and human rights. This theme seems
abstract, but through active learning we were able to connect it to our
own lives. Akemi put it this way: "I think that prejudice is deeper
than politics and the economy, and that the problem of prejudice is similar
throughout the world. I really think the problem is in myself." Each
culture naturally emphasizes certain values over others. Value judgments
give rise to conflicts, and as people from different cultures spread out
more and more throughout the world, these conflicts cannot be kept at a
distance.
One example from our class is the problem of female genital mutilation
(FGM) which our instructor introduced through the documentary film Warrior
Marks. People from cultures that practice FGM are now living around
the world, even in Japan. Should they be allowed to continue the practice
here? How should we cope with women who have already experienced FGM and
who need medical care in Japan? We debated these topics heatedly and wrote
letters to then Prime Minister Hashimoto expressing our opinion.
Is there no resolution for such problems? Or is there some way to get
around them? The instructor showed us many conflicts in Japan and in the
world, and gave us just a few examples of how to solve them, drawing on
sociology, psychology, and international ethics and law (Joseph, 1996; Reardon,
1995). We were encouraged, however, to reach our own answers through deliberate
discussion. Having to come up with our own solutions forced us to discuss
even more earnestly.
Problems With Implementing Active Learning (Students)
We were surprised at some of the things our instructor worried about
in relation to our class. For example, she was concerned about structuring
and monitoring group work, how to evaluate us, and class content, all of
which we were satisfied with. We were more concerned with the pace of the
class, which we felt was too fast, and the amount of homework, which we
felt was too much. We recommended that she cut the amount of material and
homework by half the next year, speak more slowly, and give us more time
to take notes and work on projects in class.
It seems in general that our instructor feared that she was giving us
too much freedom, but we felt the problems that came up could be solved
by fine tuning rather than overhauling her methods. Modeling assignments
and providing clearer examples would have helped groups that were floundering.
Furthermore, although it is true that some groups failed to work cooperatively,
and a few members ended up doing all the work, that was also part of the
learning process. Bringing up such problems for class discussion and asking
students for solutions would have been a better approach than the instructor
deciding who should be in groups or intervening directly in particular groups.
We also didn't agree with Kinsella (1996) that the instructor needs to be
sensitive to the learning styles of students when introducing group work
because this was the only class in which we had to work in groups in the
university, and we had many opportunities to work individually in other
classes.
The instructor was also concerned about the difficulty level of the authentic
materials and whether she should be using a textbook designed for EFL students
instead with lots of language-related exercises. We discouraged her from
switching to an EFL textbook as it would remind us too much of our English
communication classes and detract from the excitement we felt at encountering
the English-speaking world directly. It is important to have classes like
this in which we do not learn English per se but apply the English we have
already learned. Moreover, we felt the content of the class was important
regardless of which language we used to interact with it. If some students
needed to use Japanese to clarify the content, carry out the projects, and
discuss their opinions, that was okay. They were still getting a lot out
of the class.
Finally, the instructor wanted to know whether we were satisfied with
the portfolio method she used for evaluating our written work and class
notes (McNamara and Deane, 1995). We answered that we preferred it to a
written test because it gave us the satisfaction of seeing how our opinions
became clearer over the year. We also countered that it would be impossible
to test the course content objectively anyway, as the whole premise of the
course was that we could come up with new and creative solutions for problems
that hadn't occurred to the instructor. We could have improved our written
work and learned even more, however, if we had had a chance to exchange
our journals and reports with our classmates and give each other feedback
before turning them in.
Conclusions
Students
We expected to take it easy in British and American Affairs and listen
to some interesting lectures. Instead, we spent countless hours inside and
outside of class thinking and writing in our journals and planning and carrying
out an ethnographic research project. Despite the extra effort however,
we feel that an active learning approach was the best way to critically
examine social problems in our own and other cultures. Trying a different
learning style, one that we hadn't used since our childhood, also forced
us to reflect on our learning in general. As Shizue noted, "Usually
in my classes at this university, I do my homework and attend the class
and go over it at home. It's a very passive style, I think." After
taking British and American Affairs this year, we long for more variety
in teaching methods and wish we had the opportunity to state our opinions
more freely in other classes as well.
Why do most courses remain lectures? We can't deny that the traditionally
high status of teachers in Japanese culture perpetuates this tendency in
spite of our growing dissatisfaction. As Akemi complained, "I want
to have more opportunities to speak in class. Instructors are friendly to
us here compared to other universities, but we can't break through the hierarchical
relationship between instructors and students."
Are our expectations and behavior as students also partly to blame? Our
instructor asked us if we respected a teacher who didn't totally control
the class. We can't speak for all students, but we at least respect teachers
for helping us to learn rather than for simply being authorities. Mami put
it this way: "I don't care whether the instructor controls the class
or not, as long as the instructor expects a lot of us. The worst thing is
when instructors underestimate our abilities to think critically and do
sophisticated work." In our opinion then, more open communication and
trust must be developed between instructors and students before active learning
can occur.
Instructor
The approach to participatory curriculum change we have described here
is limited in that it involved only five hand-picked students. However,
anonymous written course evaluations, while giving each student an equal
chance to voice her opinion, usually don't give instructors enough information
to feel confident in making ambitious changes in course format and teaching
style. Also, because of their very anonymity, questionnaires may relieve
students of responsibility for giving thoughtful input. Finally, even when
a student provides comments or suggestions it is impossible to follow up
on them or respond to them with that student, so that the instructor may
end up merely puzzled.
In contrast, the focus group students and I built up a deeper rapport
and understanding of each other's concerns and needs that made it possible
to discuss the course without threatening each other's egos. I can't deny
that I sometimes felt very vulnerable during this process as I forced myself
to listen patiently and non-judgmentally to their discussions. In the end,
however, I felt they helped me untangle certain instructional issues I had
been deliberating for years.
In addition, beyond the British and American Affairs course, my understanding
of the term active learning has also changed. I now think it is not something
I get students to do, but is rather a byproduct of my own active development
as a teacher. My question to myself has subsequently shifted from my initial,
"What's wrong with my students?" to a potentially more fruitful
one: "How can I create a learning environment in which students can
become active and autonomous?" I believe more than ever that this question
can only be answered in partnership with students.
References
Auerbach, E. (1993). Putting the P back in participatory.
TESOL Quarterly, 27, 543-548.
Auerbach, E. (1994). Participatory action research. In
A. Cumming, (Ed.), Alternatives in TESOL research: Descriptive, interpretive,
and ideological orientations. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 693-703.
Auerbach, E. (1995). The politics of the ESL classroom:
Issues of power in pedagogical choices. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Power
and inequality in language education (pp. 9-33). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Auerbach, E., & Wallerstein, N. (1987). ESL for
action: Problem-posing at work. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Chastain, K. (1980). Toward a philosophy of second-language
learning. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Donan, L. (1997). Students as ethnographers. In D.T. Griffee
and D. Nunan (Eds.), Classroom teachers and classroom research (pp.
99-108). Tokyo: The Japan Association for Language Teaching.
Fujiwara, B. (1995). Giving cultural concepts depths and
vitality. In K. Kitao, S. K Kitao, J. H. Miller, J. Carpenter, and C. Rinnert,
(Eds.), Culture and communication (pp. 19-32). Kyoto: Yamaguchi Shoten.
Joseph, C. (1996). Compassionate accountability: An embodied
consideration of female genital mutilation. The Journal of Psychohistory,
24 (1), 2-17.
Kerfoot, C. (1993). Participatory education in a South
African context: Contradictions and challenges. TESOL Quarterly, 27,
431-447.
Kinsella, K. (1996). Designing group work that supports
and enhances diverse classroom styles. TESOL Journal, 6 (1), 24-30.
Krahnke, K. (1987). Approaches to syllabus design for
foreign language teaching. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Regents.
McNamara, M.J., & Deane, D. (1995). Self-assessment
activities: Toward autonomy in language learning. TESOL Journal, 5
(1), 17-21.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative
classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reardon, B.A. (1995). Educating for human dignity: Learning
about rights and responsibilities. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Robinson-Stuart, G. & Nogon, H. (1996). Second culture
acquisition: Ethnography in the foreign language classroom. The Modern
Language Journal, 80, 431-449.