Foreword
Welcome
to the December issue of the Asian EFL
Journal. Again we feel privileged to
be able to present such a broad range
of papers from a variety of cultural
perspectives. Our editorial aim is not
to attempt to reconcile this diversity
but rather to celebrate it.
In
this edition we start with several papers
that consider the need to re-evaluate
the role of teachers. In an age in which
EFL in danger of being defined as a
product, the important role that teachers
play in society is increasingly underestimated.
Sandwiched between student surveys and
administrative appraisals, teachers
may increasingly feel that their unique
professional knowledge is not being
taken seriously. Hong Wang and Liying
Cheng point out that teachers are important
stakeholders in their institutions and
remind us that "the significant
role teachers should play in curriculum
reform must not be overlooked if successful
implementation and sustainability are
to be achieved." In Hu Chin's paper
also in this volume, we find an interesting
echo from one of the informants who
complains "The teachers are always
meant to be blamed".
Research
is arguably of little use if it pulls
its punches. Mohamed Al-Okda from Oman
cannot be accused of doing that when
he asserts that "curriculum development
in almost all Arab countries follows
a top-down model in which teacher involvement
is confined to the implementation of
pre-designed packages of teaching materials."
In this paper, it is argued that neither
a top-down strategy, nor a bottom-up
one will be effective in bringing about
sustainable educational reform. The
former can lead to teacher resistance
to or misinterpretation of innovative
features; and the latter can result
in overly local and small-scale endeavors
of educational reform." Al-Okda
provides a model for the Omani context
illustrating "how task-based teacher
research can be encouraged and systematized
in schools to allow for teacher initiatives
to feed in subsequent top-down attempts
to develop curricula." Hu Chin
provides us with a fine example of an
attempt by student teachers themselves
to overcome intercultural difficulties:
in this case, the "isolation, frustration,
and exclusion" felt by non-native
students in the process of learning
to teach English in U.S. graduate programs.
The formation of a collaborative teacher
study group "effectively tore down
the walls of isolation", allowing
participants to find their voice in
English. As one participant so eloquently
puts it, "My voice is imprisoned
in my not-quite-perfect English."
It
is noteworthy that the authors of all
these early papers suggest constructive
solutions to the problems they raise.
In a similar spirit of constructive
problem solving, John Adamson investigates
teacher development in EFL, specifically
referring to the Thai and Japanese contexts
at the tertiary level arguing that "teacher
development for native speaker teachers
of English would benefit from gaining
local knowledge of the norms of classroom
behavior and a background to the history
of EFL in that country." Adamson's
paper addresses an important consideration
for long-term expatriates. In contrast,
the next paper unambiguously proposes
a communicative paradigm within an Asian
context and reports demonstrable success.
The difference may be the type of course
described and the length of stay. Wighting,
Nisbet and Tindall share their successful
EFL summer camp experience in China
with us in their case study. I hope
readers will find it stimulating to
read this piece alongside Adamson's
and in relation to the first PhD published
in AEJ. We provide the abstract here.
It is not surprising that EFL in a country
of the size and importance of China
will lead to a variety of approaches
in different contexts. In her PhD, Xiuping
Li provides a fascinating thesis on
the much maligned but much practiced
use of rote learning in relation to
vocabulary learning strategies. A doctoral
thesis cannot be summarized in a few
lines, but one reason why it is worth
the effort of reading such a detailed
and comprehensive manuscript (available
in our thesis section online) is that
Xiuping convincingly challenges some
of our preconceived notions about learning
and helps us to understand how cultural
"tradition" and "modern"
approaches can, and indeed should, be
harmonized in both research and teaching
and learning practice.
In
the September issue, we appealed for
contributions on the notion of competence
in relation to English taught for international
communication. In this December issue,
Joanne Rajadurai from Malaysia provides
a detailed re-appraisal of Kachru's
much cited Concentric Circles Model,
which she suggests has led to "a
reappraisal of dominant concepts, models
and practices in sociolinguistics, SLA
and TESOL." Her carefully and cogently
argued paper "takes on a critical
re-examination of the model, and discusses
some of its intrinsic and perhaps unforeseen
shortcomings, typified in its centre-periphery
framework and its geo-historic bases".
She further suggests "that for
a model to be relevant, it must focus
on individual speakers, their communicative
competence and patterns of interaction."
Her paper also considers the implications
for classroom pedagogy.
Evelyn
Doman also provides us with food for
thought, broadening the competence debate
to a consideration of the direction
of SLA research. She argues that "The
role of social context in language learning
needs to be reconsidered and re-evaluated.
It is time to reopen the debate on this
subject and to consider where SLA is
moving in the 21st century." Her
discussion also considers another theme
of the earlier papers of this issue,
the importance of a practitioners' perspective.
"It is hoped that not only researchers
but also practitioners in this field
will undertake further empirically-based
quantitative and qualitative research
in their investigations of contextual
vs. cognitive approaches."
For
the December issue, the Asian EFL Journal
has also had responses to its appeal
for articles describing good practice.
Ann Dashwood proposes her approach to
classroom discourse analysis underlining
the fact that "turns of talk facilitate
the meaning-making process as students
and teachers collaboratively come to
understand the discourse of knowledge
they are co-constructing". She
emphasizes the practical value of discourse
analysis for teachers. Her analysis
reveals that "there is potential
for teachers to facilitate student talk
when the teacher provides alternatives
to a follow-up question." In her
study, alternatives to questions led
to "increased length of turns in
students' collaborative talk."
Such findings have clear implications
for teacher training courses.
Reima
Sado Al-Jarf from Saudi Arabia, shows
us in admirable detail how solutions
to practical constraints can be found
by resourceful practitioners within
their own teaching contexts. Her study,
which we believe could be adapted and
replicated in many contexts, concludes
that "in learning environments
where technology is unavailable to EFL
students and instructors, use of an
online course from home as a supplement
to in-class techniques helps motivate
and enhance EFL students' learning and
mastery of English grammar."
Pedro
Luchini's piece addresses pronunciation
teaching from a task-based perspective
in an Asian context. Task-based Learning
is our 2006 conference theme and this
is one of several in this issue to address
the theme. The purpose of his paper
is "to critically analyze what
some pronunciation teachers are currently
doing in some Asian contexts and, in
view of their contribution to the profession
and their results obtained, propose
a state-of-the-art methodology for teaching
English pronunciation founded upon the
combination of fluency- with accuracy-focused
tasks."
In
his insightful first contribution to
Asian EFL, our new advisor, Francis
Mangubhai, provides us with very useful
hints from the field of immersion language
teaching, arguing that "EFL teachers
can also use techniques used by immersion
language teachers in their classrooms.
In doing so, teachers will increase
the amount of input in the SL provided
to their students, make their classroom
rich with comprehensible input and thus
potentially achieve a better language
outcome."
The
final piece in this issue, the editorial
opinion piece by Huw Jarvis (a keynote
speaker at our next conference), considers
the role of computer technology. Jarvis
also contributes to the competence debate
by maintaining that computer technology
has gone beyond the point where it is
merely to be seen as a means of support
for EFL teachers. In his view, the language
itself has been influenced by the advance
of the digital revolution, and any debate
into competence will need to take this
into account.
Finally
I would like to point out that the order
in which papers appear in this addition
has nothing to do with our perception
of their quality. All papers have been
through the same increasingly rigorous
process. We would like to thank all
our authors for their patience in responding
to reviewers' comments and for contributing
to the Asian EFL Journal's continuing
efforts to provide variety and quality.
Several of December's authors submitted
almost a year before seeing their paper
online. I would also like to say a special
end of year thank you to our editorial
team of volunteers who continue to cope
so efficiently with the ever-increasing
flow of submissions. They too have contributed,
often in essential ways, to the content
of these papers.
Dr.
Roger Nunn
Senior Associate Editor