Análisis de la comunicación

Literature abounds on the problematic relationship between policy and practice in different areas of human life and education. In language planning, policy and pedagogy, there is a considerable amount of research that shows that disconnections between policy and pedagogic practices abound across different levels of education in different contexts all over the world. While the crux of the matter seems to manifest mostly in countries where English is not the first language, it is clear from research carried out in BANA countries (Holliday, 1994a) where English is the majority first language that language policy and classroom practice can also sometimes be very much at odds. Research carried out in some states in the US where legislation proscribed bilingual education (Varghese & Stritikus, 2005; Stritikus, 2003; Jong, Gort & Cobb, 2005; Maxwell-Jolly, 2000; Skilton-Sylvester, 2003) reveal that practitioners’ understanding of policy, their beliefs and local contexts both influenced and accounted for the variations in how state- mandated policy was translated into practice. McLaughlin (1987) explains that this is because the dynamic character of the institutional settings in which implementation takes place influences and is in turn influenced by factors like local capacity and the willingness of educational actors to accommodate the policy. Such dynamism is at the centre of the variations that may exist in different settings, in the implementation of the same policy.

Research in non-BANA contexts suggests even more complex issues resulting from the impact of the spread of English on educational policy and practice. The extent to which teachers in these contexts understand or misunderstand policies and how these are translated in their classrooms has been a major preoccupation in ELT. Nunan’s (2003) study of seven Asian countries (China, Hongkong, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan and

Vietnam) indicates that although the emergence of English as a global language is having considerable impact on policies and practices in all countries surveyed, there are significant problems, amongst other things, in the disjunction between curriculum rhetoric and pedagogical reality. Despite considerable country-by-country variations, data reveals that teacher education and English language skills of teachers in public- sector institutions in these countries are inadequate for the successful implementation of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and Task Based Language Teaching (TBLT) to which policy rhetoric subscribes. Nunan’s findings are consistent with those of other studies in Japan (e.g., Kikuchi & Browne 2009; Yoshida 2003; Browne & Wada 1998; Gorsuch 2001; Butler & Iino 2005; Butler 2007), Singapore (e.g., Farrell & Kun’s 2007), Turkey (e.g., Kirkgoz 2008), Brazil (e.g., Bohn 2003) Vietnam (e.g., Nguyen & Nguyen 2007; Nguyen 2011) Hong Kong (Carless 2003; 2004) and Thailand (e.g., Segovia & Hardison 2009; Johnson 1989) which examine teachers’ practical responses to ministerial policy recommending communicative and learner-centred approaches to language teaching. The findings of these studies reveal that despite efforts by the various education authorities to promote innovative pedagogic practices through training, information dissemination, and language proficiency courses, there are still serious discrepancies between official discourse and classroom reality. The reasons for this are varied, ranging from the failure of policy makers to take into account factors like the existence of structural-based assessment demands, teachers’ language proficiency, training levels especially for elementary level teaching, and limited understanding of certain policy decisions as well as the existing teacher-dependent classroom cultures amongst others.

In the African continent, a large amount of discussion has centred on language-in- development issues (see for example Brock-Utne 2010; Brock-Utne & Holmarsdotli 2001; Csapo 1983; Clegg & Afitska 2011; ; Cleghorn & Rollnick, 2002; Owu-Ewie 2006; Rubagumya 1997; Uys, van der Walt, van den Berg & Botha 2007; Williams 2006; Williams & Cooke, 2002; Vavrus, 2002) with researchers highlighting the different roles of L1 and L2 in facilitating or impeding cognitive, social and economic development. Yet as Cleghorn & Rollnick (2002) point out, insights from such research have failed to be incorporated into language-in-education policies or included in teacher education programs’ (p. 348). Education related studies from Africa (e.g. Ampiah, 2008; CONAP 2008; Komba & Nkumbi, 2008; O’Sullivan, 2004; Tembe, 2006; Tchombe, 2004) tend to avoid the choice-of-language debate focusing on general education policy and practice, giving the impression that pedagogic policies designed for European languages can be treated as an integral part of the general educational discussion. Studies examining language teaching policy and practice in Africa, however, reveal incompatibilities between policies which are essentially imported from, or influence by, developments in the North and actual classroom practices in the South. As early as the early years of the independence of most African countries, Strevens (1956) noted:

The biggest language problem in Africa, it seems to me arises from the fact that new processes and techniques are spreading very rapidly over Africa, which may require for their successful and efficient use, a set of linguistic habits of a special sort. These linguistic habits do exist in the places where the processes and techniques come from, but they do not exist in large areas of Africa. (p.74)

In South Africa, for example Schlebusch and Thobedi (2004) report that the Outcome- Based Education (OBE) approach introduced in 1998 promoted student-centred teaching and the use of the communicative approach in ESL teaching, but results from data collected through classroom observations and interviews reveal that deficiencies and

ineffectiveness occur in many classrooms. Ampiah (2008) takes the discussion further by examining the practices of Ghanaian primary school teachers in the light of their adherence to recommended pedagogic practices and reveals that although the pedagogic prescriptions promote participatory teaching and learning, the main method of teaching observed in even the best schools in Ghana were ‘Chalk and talk’ with learners’ participation limited to answering teacher questions. In the same light, O’Sullivan’s (2002; 2004) case studies in Namibia reveal huge mismatches between teachers’ practices and the policy requirements in terms of learner-centred education. In Uganda, the adoption of a communicative approach to teaching the English language places demands on teachers in terms of finding resources and being innovative, demands which they are unable to achieve due to low proficiency and confidence levels, crowded classrooms, lack of materials (Tembe 2006) as well as the lack of libraries and students’ poor exposure to the English language usage (Muthwii, 2001). Over-crowded classrooms, lack of textbooks, low teacher proficiency and qualification and lack of financial and material resources, cultural factors and learner background (O’Sullivan 2004) as impediments to effective policy implementation are common themes in primary education pedagogy in Africa and as studies in Kenya (Sawamura & Sifuna, 2008), Niger (Goza et al., 2008) and Tazania (Komba and Nkumbi 2008) suggest, this is exacerbated by the implementation of the Education for all (EFA) policy through the provision of free primary education.

Despite the rather gloomy picture of the policy-practice relationship painted in the foregoing studies, there is research evidence of successful efforts by teachers to reconcile traditional practices with the demands of new policy at the classroom interface. Ha’s (2004) study of university classroom pedagogies in Vietnam and a comparative

study of foreign language classroom practices in the UK and Korea (Mitchell & Lee, 2003) reveal that although there are interactional differences in the practices of these teachers, these differences are far from being unrelated to CLT. Rather, teachers’ interpretations and practices of communicative language teaching are influenced by and in turn influence other cultural factors that are important in each context. The Vietnamese and Korean teachers in the two studies above are clearly seen as negotiating between the demands of CLT and cultural demands that inform traditional practices. Xinmin & Adamson (2003) recount the mediating and transformation processes of a grassroots teacher (Mr Yang) in the face of new curriculum demands for holistic language development (Wang 1999) through CLT and TBLT in China. Despite not jettisoning his deep rooted beliefs in a predominantly weak form of CLT against TBLT or other strong versions of CLT, Mr Yang

…judiciously selects aspects of the innovative methodology that he feels comfortable with, and that he believes will enhance student learning. He does this by examining his practices and by turning to enterprising [younger] colleagues for support and ideas. At the same time, he tailors his pedagogical innovations to match the constraints of time and the exigencies of the examination system (p. 334)

While the major thrust of the study is to challenge the portrayal, in the literature, of English language teachers in China as mere transmitters of grammatical knowledge bound by textbooks (Maley, 1990; Zhang, 2001) it raises the important issue of how policy implementation can be largely facilitated from a bottom-up perspective, but also through making concessions by taking on board, rather than completely ignoring or rejecting existing practices, as has been the case in many contexts.