Three challenges for Mexican ELT experts in

Transcripción

Memorias del XII Encuentro Nacional de Estudios en Lenguas (2011)
ISBN: 978-607-7698-57-9
Three challenges for Mexican ELT experts in public education
Paul Davies
Universidad Autónoma de Tlaxcala
Abstract
The three challenges are 1) keeping up with global developments in ELT-related
theory and ELT methodology, 2) gaining a better understanding of Mexican ELT
contexts, and 3) developing more effective approachesto ELT in those contexts,
particularly in public education. The Mexican ELT experts are those charged with
designing and implementing ELT programmes in public education, from SEP and
public university syllabus designers to the growing number of graduates from
ELT-related degree courses and other ELT professionals teaching and
coordinating courses. Indications are that these experts are meeting the first
challenge well (degree course in public universities, for example, are generally
keeping up well with advances in research, theory and methodology), but they do
not seem to be meeting the second and third challenges at all well: the results of
ELT in public education (and a lot of private education) are still generally
extremely poor. While keeping up with global developments, Mexican ELT
experts are generally failing at local level. This article examines this situation,
and how ELT in Mexican public education might be made significantly more
effective.
INTRODUCTION
This article is based on a talk given at the XII Encuentro Nacional de Estudios en
Lenguas, Universidad Autónoma de Tlaxcala, 2011 and may, in places, bear signs of its
oral and live-audience origins. It is primarily about ELT in public education because
public education serves about 90% of the population: essentially, the results of public
education are much more important than those of private education.
Before addressing the three challenges of the title – 1) keeping up with global
developments in ELT-related theory and ELT methodology, 2) gaining a better
understanding of Mexican ELT contexts, especially in public education, and 3)
developing more effective approaches to ELT in Mexican public education contexts – I
Universidad Autónoma de Tlaxcala - Facultad de Filosofía y Letras |
21
ISBN: 978-607-7698-57-9
will present some background, both in relation to Mexican ELT teaching-learning
contexts and results, and in relation to the experts who have, or should have, a growing
impact on ELT in public education.
The chart below summarizes the different Mexican ELT contexts, both public and
private, with public education, the main focus, in bold type. It shows ELT in public
education historically lagging behind ELT in private education and currently trying to
catch up a little.
Public education – 90% of
full-time students
Private education – 10% of fulltime students
Extra-curricular English
 Public higher education
ELT
 Private higher education
ELT
 Language school/centre ELT
 Common core ELT
 Top rank institutions
 Faculty ELT (ESP?)
 Mid rank institutions
 Private: Anglo, HH,
Interlingua, Quicklearning,
etc.
 Bottom rank institutions
 Public bachillerato ELT
 Public: CELEs, Escuelas
 Private bachillerato ELT
Municipales de Inglés, etc.
 Bilingual ELT
 „Extra‟ ELT
 „Standard‟ ELT
 Public secondary ELT
 Private secondary school
ELT
 Bilingual ELT
 „Extra‟ ELT
 Public primary ELT
(recent)
 Private primary school ELT
 Bilingual ELT
 „Extra‟ ELT
 Public Pre-school ELT
(recent)
 Private Pre-school ELT
Mexican ELT contexts
22
ISBN: 978-607-7698-57-9
ELT in public education is in the process of being extended downwards to all primary
schools, where many, if not most, private schools have long taught English, and preschools, where some have. However, ELT in public education is still mainly what can
be called „standard‟ ELT – just another curricular subject with about 3 hours of class per
week. In contrast, ELT in private education varies from „standard‟ courses, through
courses with more than 3 hours a week and with students divided into groups by level of
English (not school year), to bilingual education and content-based ELT. The conditions
of teaching-learning (group size, for example) are also usually much more favourable in
at least the top half of private education. The expansion downwards of ELT in state
schools is intended to „level the playing field‟ for students in public education compared
with those in private education, but the playing field is still far from level for them (as
also for students in the lower ranks of private schools).
The extension of English downwards in public schools is just one of the latest of many
„ELT initiatives‟ in public education. The chart below presents major ones over the past
four decades. It is sobering to reflect that they have done little to solve the problem of
poor results in English learning in public education. Most students still enter public
higher education (and much private higher education) with little or no functional
English, and public university programs (e.g. common core and faculty programs)
usually start again at beginner level.
1972-73
1992-93
2005-6
New SEP
New SEP
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
English
English
curriculum
curriculum
English
curriculum
New SEP
2010-11
2020
SEP National
English Programme
in Basic Education
– from 3rd of Preschool to 3rd of
First public
Secondary
Primary ELT
23
ISBN: 978-607-7698-57-9
PIFIEMS – SEP
First public
university (UA)
Reforms
“Orientaciones para
common
of some UA
la Enseñanza de
core ELT
Prepa ELT
Inglés en Bachillerato”
First UA
First UA
BAs in ELT
MAs in ELT
Developments in ELT in public education since 1972
Moving from Mexican ELT contexts, programs and reforms to the Mexican ELT
experts referred to in the title of this article, the chart below presents the growth of
professionalization in ELT in Mexico over the same four decades.
1973
 No university BAs (Licenciaturas) in ELT (only Normal Superior)
 Only a few reputable ELT training courses in ELT centres (e.g. the bi-cultural centres,
IMNRC and IAMC)
 The first RSA/Cambridge ELT training courses in Mexico (IAMC)
 Foundation of MEXTESOL (after short life of MATE)
1974
 First MEXTESOL National Convention (Tampico)
1976
 First issue of MEXTESOL Journal (contributors in early numbers included van Lier,
Alexander, Celce-Murcia, Rutherford, Harmer, and… many Mexicans, such as Silvia
Gutiérrez, Miriam Rosas, Javier Bravo, Juan Fett, Dolores Curiel, Adalberto Morales,
Joaquín Meza…)
1980s
 *Creation of BAs in ELT in more and more public universities*
1990s and 2000s
 BAs in ELT in almost all public universities, MAs in many
 Many congresses (MEXTESOL, FEULE, ANUPE, RECALE…), some publications
 Some publication by Mexican ELT experts in international journals, etc.
Developments in ELT in public education since 1972
ELT in Mexico has certainly come a long way since 1973, with growing
professionalization especially in the private sector until the 1980s (particularly the US
24
ISBN: 978-607-7698-57-9
and UK bicultural centres), and then, with the creation of BAs in ELT and later MAs in
public universities, in the public sector also. The public sector now produces and
employs an increasing number of what can be called ELT experts. They, or at least the
professional preparation courses they have taken, are generally well up with the global
state of ELT. However, that does not seem necessarily to go with a good understanding
of ELT contexts in Mexican public education, and effective approaches to ELT in those
contexts: generally, results in English language learning in public education are still
poor, except in certain cases such as public university language centres.
In short, Mexican ELT experts seem to be responding well to the first challenge,
keeping up with global developments in ELT, but very inadequately to the second,
local, challenge, gaining better understanding of Mexican ELT contexts, especially in
public education, and the third challenge, developing more effective approaches to ELT
in those contexts. Keeping up (and trying to implement „best theory and practice of
ELT‟) is obviously not enough.
KEEPING UP WITH GLOBAL ELT
A quick glance at some major developments in ELT since 1965 shows that keeping up
is, in itself, a complex task involving the resolution of contradictions and controversies,
and many unresolved questions.
1965+ Acquisition/Interlanguage/Acceptability of error (vs. Behaviorist conditioning
through
imitation and practice, or conscious learning) – Corder, Selinker, Krashen, etc.
1970+ Notions and Functions (vs. Structures/Situations) – Searle, Wilkins, Van Ek, etc.
Beginning of Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, CEF
(Threshold,
Waystage) – Van Ek, Alexander, Fitzpatrick, etc.
1980+ Discourse/Utterances (vs. Text/Sentences) – Widdowson, etc.
1990+ Noticing/Consciousness-Raising/Guided discovery (vs. PPP) – Sharwood-Smith,
Ellis, etc.
Lexis > grammar (vs. Grammar > vocabulary) – D.Willis, Lewis, etc.
Learner strategies, learner training – Ellis & Sinclair, Oxford, Chamot, etc.
2005+ Text types/Genres (compare earlier “situational language”) – Swales, Martin, Rose,
etc.
25
ISBN: 978-607-7698-57-9
Some major developments in global ELT since 1965
Elements of that complex and ever-changing panorama have traditionally been
„packaged‟ into approaches or methods, seeking coherence, usually starting from a
specific view of language and/or of language learning, but often also trying to
incorporate as much of the „best‟ theory and practice as possible. The CEF, included in
the above table because of its global influence, is a sort of „package‟ (but not a full
approach or method), trying to lay a strong basis for foreign language syllabuses and
proficiency testing in Europe. It started from a notional-functional view of language
(revolutionary at the time) and an assessment of the foreign language needs of the
citizens of the European Union. Relatively recent „packages‟ constituting full
approaches or methods are presented below.
1975+ Communicative Language Teaching – Abbs & Freebairn, Littlewood, etc.
1980+ The Natural Approach – Krashen & Terrel
1990+ The Lexical Approach – Lewis, etc.
1995+ Task-Based Learning – Skehan, J.Willis, etc.
2000+ Genre-Based Teaching – Bhatia, Martin, Rose, etc.
Some new ELT approaches/methods that have appeared since 1975
In the global development of ELT, in the late 1970s and the 1980s, Communicative
Language Teaching, based on a notional-functional view of language, superseded the
Audio-Lingual Method and Situational Language Teaching (which had superseded
previous approaches and methods). However, CLT did not actually replace ALM and
SLT in all ELT courses using the new CLT syllabuses and textbooks, partly because
notions-functions (as opposed to grammatical structures-usages) were not fully
understood or accepted by all teachers, and also because the methodology of early CLT
was still strong PPP. That meant it was essentially the same as in SLT and progressive
ALM, so there seemed little difference between teaching, for example, the grammatical
structures-usages of comparison with adjectives and the notion-function of making
comparisons, or the grammatical structures-usages of the simple past and the notionfunction of talking about the past. This was certainly the case in most public secondary
school ELT when, from 1992, new SEP CLT syllabuses and approved textbooks based
26
ISBN: 978-607-7698-57-9
on them were introduced. Of course, there was also the added fact that teaching-learning
conditions in most public secondary schools were unfavourable to any kind of ELT at
all. How much difference can a change in syllabus and methodology make for children
in groups of 40, 50 or more, with little or no exposure to English outside the English
classroom, and little or no clear need of English in their futures? Those that progressed
to (public) high school and higher education would find that very few of their subject
teachers there, or students about to graduate, spoke English.
CLT is still nominally the overwhelmingly dominant approach to „professional‟ ELT,
but, for those keeping up with global developments, it is different today from the CLT
of the late 1970s and the 1980s. The Natural Approach, the Lexical Approach, TBL and
Genre-Based Teaching may not have superseded CLT, except in a few places, but
principles and practices from them (and other sources, e.g. learning strategies and
training) have been incorporated into CLT. Progressive CLT today (or call it simply
progressive ELT today) tends not to work mainly through strict PPP cycles of „fasttrack‟ presentation of notional-functional/language items, teacher clarification of the
items, substantial controlled practice of them, and then freer production and use. It tends
to give more exposure to the items in communicative use before focusing on them, then
use learner-discovery approaches to focus on them, and generally encourage more
autonomous learning and use of language, even when that means more error-making at
times, and vocabulary-building work has become more prominent. Also, of course, the
concept of competences has come into ELT from general education.
Accounts and discussion of this progressive CLT-ELT, and the theory and research
behind it, are to be found in The Practice of English language Teaching (Harmer,
2001), Teaching by Principles (Brown, 2006), Second Language Acquisition (Ellis,
1997) and How Language are Learned (Lightbown.& Spada, 2006), among many other
publications. Much of this progressive CLT-ELT is to be found applied in the new
Mexican SEP syllabuses for primary and secondary schools, as well as learning targets
calculated on the CEF estimates of approximate hours needed to reach the different CEF
proficiency levels, A1, A2, B1, etc. Mexican ELT experts are well up with the global
development of ELT. But ELT in Mexican public education still generally produces
27
ISBN: 978-607-7698-57-9
very poor results. This almost certainly has something to do with teaching-learning
contexts, among other things.
GAINING A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF ELT CONTEXTS IN PUBLIC
EDUCATION
A lot is known about ELT in Mexican public education, but it is mostly „common
knowledge‟ (generally very negative) and personal experience as students, teachers,
parents, employers and so on (mixed, but generally also negative). There is little formal
evaluation or research.
Candid reflection on experience is a valid approach to trying to understand ELT
contexts. Reflection by readers of this article who teach or have taught English in
Mexico can shed light on certain Mexican ELT context, more so if they themselves
learnt English as a foreign language in Mexico, at school or later in life (not bilingually
as babies and young children). I am prepared to guess that very few readers who have
experience of ELT in Mexican public secondary or high schools have studied in or
taught groups of above elementary level, while many with experience in private schools
have, possibly even of upper intermediate or advanced level. In referring to the level of
groups, I am not talking about what syllabuses propose, but about the real ability of
most students in a group to use English at, say, CEF A2, B1 or B2 levels (upper
elementary, lower intermediate, upper intermediate) and pass corresponding proficiency
tests like Cambridge KET, PET or FCE.
Valid and valuable as candid, individual reflection on personal experience may be, it is
obviously not enough for a professional understanding of ELT contexts. More objective
and rigorous research, evaluation and debate is necessary, and there is little of that on
ELT in Mexico in general and on ELT in Mexican public education in particular. What
there is shows ELT in Mexican public education in a generally very negative light.
In a MEXTESOL Journal article, „Which way in secondary schools?‟ 24 years ago
(Davies, 1987), I tried to assess ELT in public secondary schools and radically
questioned the „system‟– or rather, that system in the English teaching-learning contexts
of most Mexican public secondary schools – and proposed very radical changes.
28
ISBN: 978-607-7698-57-9
González, et al (2004) reported a research project in which, of almost 5,000 new
students in 3 private and 6 public institutions of higher education in Mexico City, 11%
were around CEF B2 level or above, 13% were roughly B1 level, and 76% were A2 or
A1 level (beginner or elementary); the percentages were dramatically better for the top
private institutions and worse for the bottom public ones. This study was a major
contribution to the professional recognition of the situation in key Mexican EFL
contexts, an important step towards understanding them better. Johnson (2006) looked
at students taking beginner English courses at university, and found that those with
more positive experiences in school English courses and more favourable impressions
of their teachers (even if they learned little English) did significantly better in their new
attempt to learn English than those with more negative experiences and more negative
impressions of their teachers; this suggests that ineffectual, unpleasant ELT may not
only waste the time of students (and public or parental money), it may also make future
learning of English considerably more difficult. In another article in MEXTESOL
Journal (Davies, 2007) I surveyed ELT in public primary and secondary schools,
reaching essentially the same conclusions about secondary school ELT as in my
previous article and, based on a British Council research project (Castanedo & Davies,
2004), seeing much more costly risk than solid promise in the growing introduction of
ELT in public primary schools. Dietrich (2007), an American ELT trainer with a
doctorate in education who worked with a group of 7 public school English teachers
and another group of 17 private school teachers in Tamaulipas, concluded that “some
[public school] teachers face challenges which even the most well-conceived [training]
course cannot fully address… [there were] classrooms with gaps of several meters
between the tops of the walls and the roof… students were exposed to rain, cold, and
noise from neighboring classrooms… one classroom had only three walls… some…
came to school having eaten little or nothing…” and there were groups of up to fifty
students.
Ramírez and Moreno (2007), surveying research in foreign language teaching in
Mexico, said more work is needed on “topics that focus on institutional, regional or
national requirements and needs”. This suggests that Ramírez and Moreno think that
ELT research in Mexico – and note that 97% of the 494 projects surveyed carried out in
29
ISBN: 978-607-7698-57-9
public higher education institutions – has neglected urgent local topics that would surely
include ELT in Mexican public education, which serves about 90% of the population. It
could be argued that research into an area of general failure is neither attractive nor
worthwhile, but most people familiar with ELT in public education would probably
recognize that there are surprises to be discovered, like pockets of relative success.
These, compared with the general failure, might hold important possibilities for
improvement of ELT in public education. In that respect, I have written (Davies, 2009):
An example of what research might find [about ELT in public education] and
then explore further is to be found in the González et al. study (2004)
[referred to above]… In the questionnaires, they asked which upper
secondary schools the students came from. They were then able to relate
results in the [English] test to the schools. Students from the following upper
secondary schools, among others, passed … from elementary to lower
intermediate in [these] percentages:
 From UNAM „preparatotias incorporadas‟ (private): 49.9%
 From UNAM „preparatorias‟ (public): 32.9%
 From UVM „preparatorias‟ (private): 23.9%
 From SEP „preparatorias‟ (public): 7.9%”
It is striking that UNAM public high schools came out significantly better (32.9%) than
UVM private schools (23.9%), and enormously better than SEP public schools (7.9%).
Surely there are lessons in UNAM public high school ELT for UVM and SEP school
ELT.
In the same article (Davies, 2009), I made a radical proposal (“far more in hope than in
expectation” because there is likely to be strong opposition from government, parents,
teachers‟ unions and so on). The proposal was that there should be English courses in
the last two years of state primary school, and no curricular English at all in secondary
school, but instead the option of courses in public language centres (public university,
SEP, municipal language centres), free for all under, say, 16 (school age) and at a
modest cost for those over that age. The idea was, and is (it still seems a sensible option
to me), that all students in public primary schools would get a taste of English, in better
30
ISBN: 978-607-7698-57-9
conditions than now, it is to be hoped (e.g. smaller groups, more rigorously selected and
better coordinated teachers than now in secondary school), and then study of English
would be voluntary, in dedicated foreign language centres. Main arguments behind this
proposal are that voluntary study is generally much more effective than compulsory
study, especially in the poor conditions for the learning of English in most public
schools; that teams of language teachers in dedicated language centres generally work
better than isolated English teachers in schools; and that language centres create a better
atmosphere for learning English, with most staff in them speaking English, compared to
public schools, where the English teachers are usually the only staff members that speak
English.
Of course, that radical proposal for complete restructuring of ELT for people of school
age gives up on a possibility mentioned above, the improvement of ELT in public
education generally by applying lessons from the most successful ELT in state schools,
like the UNAM high schools (research would be needed to confirm exactly what those
lessons are). In fact, I have little hope that ELT in public education can be generally
improved much in the foreseeable future without a very different approach to the
problem. I see the biggest obstacles to successful learning of English in public
education, not in syllabuses and methodology, but in teaching-learning contexts. More
of approximately the same – extending „standard‟ state school ELT downwards to
primary and pre-school rather than radically improving teaching-learning contexts (as in
dedicated language centres) is unlikely to change results much, in my opinion, and it
could simply accumulate negative experience of ELT in students earlier than
now(Johnson, 2006).
In the literature of ELT there is some attention to major differences in context around
the world. Holliday (1994) has written about „BANA‟ (Britain-Australia-North
America) vs. „TESEP‟ (ELT as a regular subject in Tertiary-Secondary-Primary
education) and Canagarajah (1999, 2002) about the „Centre‟ vs. the „Periphery‟ in ELT.
Keeping up with global developments in ELT-related theory and ELT methodology (the
first challenge) tends to mean looking towards BANA (and Europe), the Centre. The
other two challenges mean looking closely at local teaching-learning contexts. Take
ELT in public education in Scandinavia (virtually in BANA/Centre) and Mexico (in
31
ISBN: 978-607-7698-57-9
TESEP/Periphery). In the Scandinavian countries, school groups are relatively small (24
maximum in Denmark), virtually all staff from the school principal down speak English
and most parents do also, virtually all the students have English language radio,
television and Internet at home, the English teachers have a strong command of English,
most with frequent visits to Britain or Ireland and often long stays there, around 80% of
all Danes are functional in English (Graddol, 2006) – compare that last fact with around
18% of all Spaniards – and all Scandinavian students that enter higher education have at
least an intermediate or advanced level of English, like all their teachers. I will leave the
reader to fill in comparative information about ELT and ELL (English language
learning) contexts in Mexico.
Canagarajah and Holliday consider implications of differences between BANA/Centre
and TESEP/Periphery (and local differences within TESEP/Periphery) largely in terms
of course design, course content, methodology and classroom practice. In my radical
proposals (Davies, 1987, 2007 and 2009), I suggest changing the whole system through
which ELT is offered in public education.
DEVELOPING MORE EFFECTIVE APPROACHES TO ELT IN MEXICAN
PUBLIC EDUCATION
Efforts to improve the results of English learning in public education so far (and they
have quite a long history) have consisted mostly of the changing of syllabuses and
methodology in the wake of global developments in ELT, and the establishing of new
programmes of essentially the same „standard‟ type as those that already exist (like the
extension of beginner and elementary level ELT upwards to university „common core‟
programmes, and downwards to public primary and pre-schools). The general, historical
failure of ELT in Mexican state schools (and the state schools of many countries, it
should be said) has been no obstacle to continued investment in these conventional
efforts, while serious research into the reasons for the general, historical failure have
been neglected.
Nor has there been much consideration of the different, local Mexican ELT needs (or
lack of them) in the different teaching-learning contexts. The differences are surely
32
ISBN: 978-607-7698-57-9
enormous, from the northern border with the USA to the southern border with
Guatemala, from the resorts and cultural centres that attract many foreign tourists to the
majority of cities and towns that do not, from the big cities with employment
opportunities in modern enterprises for skilled workers and bilingual professionals to
the many cities and towns and the countryside without them. The most recent, slightly
changed, SEP school syllabuses are heavily based on BANA/Centre approaches to ELT
(global developments), with minimal consideration of national and local needs, contexts
and conditions.
If appropriate and effective systems and approaches to ELT in Mexican
public
education are to be developed and implemented, much more research, experimentation,
debate and creative thinking are needed. The figure below suggests a cyclical approach
to developing approaches.
Develop a better understanding of ELT in Mexican public education
– through research and debate, informed by global ELT, but even more by
a growing body of previous research and debate on Mexican public ELT-L.
Identify cases of significantly more successful ELT in public education
– rather than the success of individual teachers, the success of
schools or institutions with consistently better results than average.
Experiment with approaches to ELT based on the most successful cases
in different contexts (urban, rural…) and levels (primary, secondary…)
– preferably after improving contexts in ways that may have been a factor in
the success of the model, e.g. reduced group size, English-speaking principal
or other staff, involvement of English-speaking adult relatives of students.
Disseminate findings and experiences, positive and negative
– through publishing, congresses, etc.
A growing understanding of what works well and what badly in ELT in public
education, and why, and the identification of ELT that produces results at school or
institutional level consistently above average, could lead to experimental imitation of
that ELT in other places, the evaluation of the experiments or pilot projects, and the
results would be disseminated in the professional media and lead back into improved
understanding of ELT in Mexican public education.
As I have indicated above, I believe the concept of “approach to ELT in public
education” should go beyond syllabuses and methodology, to include systems (e.g.
33
ISBN: 978-607-7698-57-9
„standard‟ 3-hour-a-week, school-subject courses, or courses by student level of
English, not school year, or courses in a language centre) and teaching-learning
conditions (e.g. „standard‟ public school groups of 40-50+ students, or half groups of
20-25 students; „standard‟ public school environments in which only the English
teachers speak English, or environments in which it is guaranteed that some other staff
do also, and the students know it). My suspicion is that the general, historical failure of
ELT in Mexican public education resides more in systems and teaching-learning
conditions than in syllabuses and methodology, though they no doubt play their part:
Without an understanding of contexts and the establishing of appropriate systems and
conditions, how can you have appropriate syllabuses and methodology?
Public universities that are doing well at keeping up with global developments in ELTrelated theory and ELT methodology (in a BA programme, for example) should be
doing much more to increase understanding of contexts and how to modify and respond
to them to favour English language teaching and learning more. In particular,
universities that have poor results in their own high school (Prepa) ELT and in their
own „standard‟ ELT programmes („common core‟ English, compulsory faculty
programmes) should do some soul-searching. Most of them have a model of how to
teach English much more successfully than that – their own Language Centres. The
syllabuses and methodology may be very similar in the university high school,
„common core‟ English programme and Language Centre, the same coursebooks may
even be used in some cases, but the systems, conditions and contexts are different and
produce sometimes dramatically different results.
34
ISBN: 978-607-7698-57-9
CONCLUSIONS
Mexican ELT experts (in the SEP and in public universities, for example) are generally
keeping up well with global developments in ELT-related theory and ELT
methodology. However, they do not generally seem to have a good understanding of
Mexican ELT contexts in public education, or at least, if they do, they do not act
appropriately on what they know. Instead of radically modifying, or even abandoning,
ELT where the results are extremely poor, and often also extremely costly, they persist
with a „standard‟ approach, simply updated periodically in the wake of global
developments. Where the teaching-learning conditions are relatively good but results
are poor, more viable approaches may mainly involve changes only to syllabuses,
methodology, teacher coordination and so on. However, where conditions are very
unfavourable, as in many if not most state school, much more radical changes to the
approach are needed. For example, where there are groups of 40, 50 or more children, in
areas with little or no English in the environment outside the English classroom, in
schools where only the English teachers speak English (often at a relatively low level
and with little confidence), ELT is virtually doomed to very poor learning results, or
outright failure in terms of reaching even the lowest CEF levels in real proficiency in
English.
There needs to be much more research, experimentation, debate, creative thinking and
realistic decision-taking about ELT in Mexican public education. I have proposed
(Davies, 2007, 2009) reducing the years of ELT in basic education to the last two years
of primary school (but improving its quality) and then making it widely available, and
free for school-age children and adolescents, through public language centres, with
much more favourable conditions and better ELT than as a regular subject in most state
schools. Public universities have shown that high-quality ELT can be offered by public
institutions through language centres. My proposal, like any other, should be subjected
to experimental piloting and evaluation (i.e. research) and debate, but, so far, such
radical assessments of current ELT in public education, and such radical alternatives,
appear not even to have been taken into consideration.
35
ISBN: 978-607-7698-57-9
References
Brown, H.D. (2006). Teaching by Principles. Pearson Longman
Canagarajah, A. Suresh (1999), Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching,
Oxford University Press
Canagarajah, A. Suresh (2002). “Globalization, Methods and Practice in Periphery
Classrooms.” In Globalization and Language Teaching. Ed. David Block and
Deborah Cameron. Routledge
Castanedo, M.L. & Davies, P. (2004). Public primary English language teaching in
Mexico. Internal document, British Council Mexico [previously available through
the British Council Mexico website, http://www.britishcouncil.org/mexico.htm]
Davies, P. (1987). Which way in secondary schools? MEXTESOL Journa
Davies, P. (2007). La enseñanza del inglés en las escuelas públicas secundarias y
primarias en México (The teaching of English in secondary and primary schools
in Mexico). MEXTESOL Journal 31/2
Davies, P. (2009). „Strategic Management of ELT in Public Educational Systems:
Trying to Reduce Failure, Increase Success‟. TESL-EJ 12/3
Dietrich, S.E. (2007). Professional development and English language teaching in
Tamaulipas: Describing the training and challenges of two groups of teachers.
MEXTESOL Journal 31/2
Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press
González Robles, R., Vivaldo Lima, J. & Castillo Morales, A. (2004). Competencia
lingüística en inglés de estudiantes de primer ingreso a las instituciones de
educación superior del área metropolitana de la ciudad de México (English
language proficiency of students from first entry to higher education institutions
in the metropolitan area of Mexico City) Mexico City: ANUIES and UAM,
Ixtapalapa
36
ISBN: 978-607-7698-57-9
Graddol, D. (2006). English next: Why global English may mean the end of ‘English as
a foreign language’. London: British Council
Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English language Teaching. Longman
Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Johnson, C.R. (2006). El papel de la motivación, la ansiedad y la auto eficacia del
estudiante básico en la adquisición del inglés como lengua extranjera de
estudiantes mexicanos universitarios (The role of motivation, anxiety and selfefficacy of the basic student in the acquisition of English as a foreign language of
Mexican university students). Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Puebla: Benemérita
Universidad Autónoma de Puebla.
Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (1999). How Languages are Learned, Revised Edition.
Oxford University Press
Ramírez Romero, J.L. & M.E. Moreno Glockner (2007). Research in foreign language
teaching in Mexico: A new path to professionalization. MEXTESOL Journal
31/2
Autor
Mtro. Paul Davis Beal
Paul Davis has worked in ELT in Spain and Mexico since 1963. In Mexico since 1965,
he has taught and done teacher training and consultancy work at public secondary, prepa
and university levels. He has published widely (ELT textbooks, methodology books and
articles) and has given academic presentations all over Mexico and Latin America. He
has founding member of MEXTESOL and National President in 1980-81. He currently
teaches on the MA in Modern Languages and Discourse Studies at the Universidad
Autónoma de Tlaxcala.
37

Three challenges for Mexican ELT experts in

Transcripción

Documentos relacionados

Safety transformers for halogen lamps. Class I Transformadores de

1 dirección DALI, 4 canales