|
The Language Teacher | |
The relationship between academe and the external community has been a point of contention through the ages. Recently in Japan, many new campuses and schools have been established in suburban and rural areas due to advantageous land prices. This, and the declining student population have further heightened awareness of community relations and continuing education. This article describes a program meant to forge closer ties to the local community and serve its educational needs The following report outlines a 10-week discussion forum, held during the summer of 1997, in which members of the public were invited to Asahikawa National College of Technology to practice their English skills in a discussion format. The program was designed to provide a means for learners to break away from the usual teacher-centered, textbook-dominated environment prevalent in many EFL classrooms, including my own, and move into one whereby the teacher takes on the role of a moderator who guides the initiatives taken by the participants. Although the event didnŐt proceed without problems, it fulfilled the goal of motivating participants to take on more responsibility for acquiring information by themselves and sharing it with others. Impetus of the ProgramThe idea of my college holding a Ministry of Education sponsored series of discussions in English open to the public was quite appealing as it addressed my belief that universities and colleges, at least in Japan, lack sufficient connection to the citizens who financially support them (see Adamson, 1997, for a discussion of the public perception of this issue). So many schools seem to be full of young people who have little motivation to learn and share what they know with others. Higher education in Japan has, for too long, excluded those who often could benefit most: adults who have experienced the real working world. An educational situation in which people with a wide range of ages, backgrounds, abilities, and interests could come together and enjoy an educational discussion seems desirable. I considered carefully the type of participants who would benefit most: autonomous learners with deep social concerns. They would have the responsibility of preparing for the discussion, and deciding if and when to contribute to it. Cotterall (1995, p. 220) asserted that learners, "need to be able to learn on their own because they do not always have access to the kind or amount of individual instruction they need in order to become proficient in the [English] language." With a high degree of motivation from autonomous learners, a variety of social topics could be covered through their language skills. Morgan (1996, p.4), in his report on community-based EFL pedagogy, recognises how "students have social needs that are often interdependent with language skills. Successful lessons occur when language skills are organised as a complement to genuine social concerns and community priorities." In order to test this view, the program would have to be based on a situation in which participants could improve their English skills through the discussion of meaningful topics. Through this experience, it was hoped that the participants would further their communicative competence in English in preparation for future discussions with native English speakers. The main risk in this approach was the possibility that the participantŐs perception of his/her failure to communicate would cause them to drop out of the program. With the support of my colleague, I presented a plan to the Ministry of Education to conduct a discussion forum in which local people could participate in English in discussions on a variety of topics. A Japanese colleague liaised with government and college officials to satisfy application procedures and with the participants to help make the series of discussions run smoothly. PreparationThe plan which was approved by the Ministry of Education was limited to 20 hours of "lesson" time. We chose 10 topics, one for each weekly two-hour discussion. My Japanese colleague and I wanted topics that were closely associated to international themes, partly due to our personal interests and partly to justify their discussion in English. We set out to advertise for approximately 20 participants, focusing on those who had the confidence to express their opinions and feelings in English, and in public. Relevant articles were taken from English-language newspapers in Japan (e.g., The Japan Times, The Daily Yomiuri) as well as those from abroad (e.g., The Boston Globe, The Washington Post) to provide some background information to help participants to prepare for each meeting. More academic sources were also included although great care was taken to avoid those that were inappropriate for nonspecialists. Participants were not required to read them or use them as language activities during the forum as they could have been obstructive to the goal of encouraging individuals to spontaneously organise and express their own views. We were delighted to see the program oversubscribed (22 people finally selected), although we anticipated problems that would likely arise with such a large group. Would the atmosphere be inhibiting? Would participants feel unable to say all the things they want to say? On the other hand, such forums are rarely held in this part of northern Japan and one could imagine a large group is needed in order to simply have enough people who were willing to speak spontaneously. Indeed, helping participants adapt to our format was no easy task as they represented a wide variety of ages (from 22 to 60), professions, and language levels (all intermediate or higher). However, this situation was desirable as it also produced an interesting array of experiences and viewpoints that could be shared. Therefore, a form of assessment or evaluation of participants was viewed as inhibiting since they simply wanted to experience a discussion in a foreign language. As it turned out, they evaluated themselves on the basis of being able to keep up with the brisk pace of the discussions. Role of the ModeratorIn the first meeting, my role as moderator was defined as the person who coordinates discussion by calling on people to speak, clarifies comments, and intervenes occasionally with questions (as if "throwing logs on the fire"). The role sounded pretty heavy-handed but, with some added humor, I tried to encourage attendees to imagine themselves not as passive students but active participants who had at least as much knowledge of the topics as the moderator, if not more. They would have to be conscious of the desire of others to speak, and at the same time be spontaneous in the initiation of questions or comments. TopicsThe following is a list of the weekly topics. Below each of them are four examples of subtopics introduced randomly during the course of the discussion. Week 1. Does the presence of increasing numbers of foreign residents have an overall positive or negative impact on Japanese society?
Week 2. Has Japan done enough to make up for its wartime deeds?
Week 3. Does the educational system adequately encourage Japanese young people to take an interest in international affairs?
Week 4. Is Japan a "unique" society in relation to other countrie
Week 5. Does Japan do enough to help less fortunate countries?
Week 6. Can Japan maintain its economic competitiveness?
Week 7. Do Japanese people have enough interest in environmental issues at home or abroad?
Week 8. Does the Japanese Constitution's Article 9 help or hinder Japan's relationship with other countries?
Week 9. How is tourism beneficial for Japanese who want to acquire international understanding?
Week 10. Does the teaching of English in elementary school further children's internationalisation?
FormatAs the moderator, I introduced the topic at the beginning of the discussions. Often I would rephrase the question or clarify with concrete examples of what aspects would likely come up. The participants were one minute each to summarise their views, often based on personal experiences. While this approach might appear to foster a series of mini-speeches and not discussion, it was necessary to help some of the reluctant speakers to "break the ice" and become accustomed to public speaking. The more often they did this successfully, the more confident they would become at making comments more spontaneously during the meeting. At the end of the 20-minute summary section, participants were free to make comments on what was previously said. When the comments dwindled, I introduced a series of sub-questions. For example, in the first topic on foreign residents, I asked participants if they could comment on any positive or negative personal experiences with foreigners they had encountered. Those with something to say either to answer my question or respond to the comments of others, would raise their hands. Raising hands allowed language learners who were still not totally confident in their oral English to organise their thoughts without the pressure of being prematurely interrupted. Subsequently, it prevented domination by more confident speakers. The subtopics were not only designed to encourage participants to keep talking, but also to encourage spontaneous debate and reduce overcautious tendencies. Concerning wartime deeds (Week 2), a sensitive topic to say the least, I introduced a subtopic in the following way: "There is another topic about Koreans being brought to Japan and being forced to work. Did they work here in Hokkaido?" Participants gave historical accounts of their knowledge of Korean building projects without touching on the moral aspects of the situation. Then, I asked whether these laborers were paid or were, in fact, slaves. This set off a debate, with some accepting the notion of Korean slave status while others maintaining that everyone was a slave during that time, including Japanese soldiers. In other instances, however, heated discussion was sparked by questions raised by the participants themselves. In the last 20 minutes of the two-hour discussion, each person made a brief final comment. Throughout the meeting, some people spoke out more than others, but the first and last 20-minute segments guaranteed the participation of each person. EvaluationI distributed a questionnaire at the end of the series of meetings to evaluate the successes and failures of the project. Several of the questions and a general summary of their responses are as follows: 1. Did you enjoy the discussion forum? Please state why or why not? Most of the 18 participants who stayed until the end of the program (four had dropped out previously) stated that they enjoyed it very much. Here are some reasons given:
One participant, who stated that he didn't enjoy the forum so much, felt that the subtopics ("logs on the fire") introduced by the moderator changed too quickly and exacerbated his difficulty in concentrating. I suspect that some others had the same feeling and now realise that I should have allowed the discussion to be carried out at a slower pace. 2. Which topics did you enjoy the most? Please state reasons for your choice(s). The most popular topic was tourism (Week 9). Several participants indicated that their personal experiences as tourists overseas, as well as the lack of seriousness in the discussion, made it particularly enjoyable and easy to relate to. The second most popular was Japan's uniqueness (Week 4). One member came to the conclusion that "Japan is strange" while another appreciated learning about the foreign perception of Japan's uniqueness. 3. Were there any topics that were not interesting? Responses were favorable to most of the topics topics. The least popular were wartime deeds (Week 2) and economic competitiveness (Week 6). One member claimed to have no knowledge of wartime deeds, while another stated his belief that "war deeds of other countries must be discussed." Two members stated they were not interested in economic competitiveness. 4. What other topics of international concern would you have been interested in discussing? Responses included the following: scientific issues, racial discrimination, religion and the national character, aid for North Korea, comparing Japanese lifestyle with those of other countries, Spratly Islands, whaling, Japanese multinational corporations, and Asian issues (especially China). 5. Did you like the meeting format (structure)? What did you like or dislike about it? The responses were mostly positive, and mainly cited the appropriateness of having everyone making opening and closing comments. Individual criticisms/suggestions were varied:
6. Would you like to take part in another forum? Why or why not? All the respondents answered in favor of joining another forum. Here are some reasons why:"
Language AssessmentParticipants indicated that their language ability improved in the following six ways: (1) They practiced making realistic conversations as opposed to those which are contrived through excessive instructional (i.e., teacher and text) guidance. (2) They could speak relatively freely without worrying too much about minor grammar errors. (3) In the future, they could initiate conversations without being directly called upon. (4) They could learn useful technical terms related to the topics through listening to other membersŐ opinions and reading the news articles. (5) They felt that discussion forums were especially useful for Japanese who rarely engage in such activities. (6) They felt encouraged to establish new goals for their English study. Even if communication under pressurised circumstances was difficult, it was regarded as useful training in the pursuit of English language fluency. They appeared to look forward to future English-speaking events in order to have the opportunity to improve on their performance. Areas for ImprovementIn spite of the discussion forum's success, future planners for a similar program may be advised to pay heed to participant criticisms and suggestions. A summary of these points is, at times, riddled with contradictions. Some people believed the forum had lots of variety while others wanted more. Some found the news articles to be difficult while others wanted them to be more detailed. Some people liked the strictly organised structure in which all participants are called upon to speak while others wanted a more free-wheeling debate without excessive moderator interference. There was common feedback, however, that can help organisers of future forums. In general, the exercise of discussion in English on a comprehensive topic is difficult, even for advanced speakers of English. Due to the popularity of the event, more careful initial screening of participants could have helped collect a more cohesive group of confident English speakers. This was not done as it was feared that the program would be under subscribed. Hence, there was a sizable gap between participants' confidence in public speaking as well as language levels, with none falling below what may be regarded as an intermediate level. As the pressure was high, especially for participants lacking in confidence, itŐs important for organisers to keep the atmosphere light and relaxing, even when a "heavy" topic (e.g., wartime deeds) is introduced. As the forum progressed, members gradually began to relax and could contribute more effectively as a result. If more relatively light topics (e.g., tourism) were introduced in the first few forums, it might have helped to prevent some participants from dropping out of the program in the early stages. Another way to lower the pressure would be to initially separate the participants into small groups to discuss the topics as one can experience in educational workshops. A chosen leader could present the views of his/her group. An over dependency on this format, however, may have the detrimental effect of allowing participants to casually slip into their native tongue and not provide them with sufficient opportunities to express their opinions directly to a wider group. The more practice they get in doing this, the easier it will become. Organisers can decide for themselves how much pressure is beneficial for language learners according to their specific circumstances and gain knowledge from listening to others. Finally, with increasing numbers of advanced speakers of English in Japan, discussion forums like the one outlined may be useful in motivating students to continue to study English. In addition, the transition of the role of teacher to moderator or organiser will help introduce greater flexibility in the management of language learning environments.
| |
