An Asian observation on the use of English in lessons Pramod Kanakath  ;   An English language teacher living in Jakarta

JAKARTA POST, 30 Agustus 2014

                                                                                                                       

While invigilating an end-of-term examination in Indonesia recently, I noticed a student grappling with a question in his science paper. The question was this: “Suggest the advantages of having mass spawning occurring only at certain times of the year and not all year around”. The word “spawning” perplexed the student. In another science exam, another student had difficulty with the term “permeable” from the phrase “partially permeable membranes”. Both students (of different ability levels) were forced to make a May Day call to the invigilator, but to little avail. They might have been able to answer the question but for the English vocabulary! As an English teacher (Cambridge curriculum), I assumed that the more common word in science lessons might have been “breeding”. There must be even more technical jargon in subjects such as science, math, humanities and other non-language subjects, and it must give students nightmares. I have come across this predicament in at least three Asian countries where I have taught. The common factor is that even the most intelligent student at times finds her or himself hooked by a villainous word. The subsequent problem that this generates is subject teachers passing the ball to English language teachers. Often, during exam performance analyses, fingers are pointed at the English department for students’ lack of language skills. How far can this contention be justified? Wouldn’t it be more productive for the subject teachers to join hands with the English teachers to tackle the “English problem”? Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) became vibrant in the curricula of non-English-speaking countries as early as the 1990s, although the concept was probably there from the Babylonian period. One of its objectives was to boost students’ language skills and thereby pave the way for a more effective communicative approach to the teaching-learning process. David Marsh, who invented the acronym, talked about CLIL’s dual purposes: language development and subject learning. In such a program, every teacher becomes an English teacher in one way or the other. Words related to particular subjects are spoken and listened to, read and written only during those lessons. Subject teachers have a much bigger task than teaching mathematical sums and historical records. English words need to be articulated clearly and concisely in classrooms so that there is a healthy interaction without resorting to language employing fragmentary phrases and one-word responses. Many teachers even use the CLIL method without realizing it. However, many need to be more competent in using English themselves. This would drive us toward bilingualism, which has been found to be useful in terms of brain imaging and skills such as multi-tasking. Angela Rogers from the UK, a CLIL trainer and an experienced English teacher based in Indonesia, also speaks about the advantages of bilingualism in her essay on CLIL and multilingual teaching in schools (Multilingualism in education: the role of first language, Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2014). Taking refuge in the first language does not adhere to the principles set by these experts. Bilingualism becomes a forced option and does not facilitate a healthy interaction from which students can benefit linguistically. It creates a lackadaisical lesson rather than facilitating constructive bilingual learning. This might even result in the loss of both the first and the foreign language. One of the primary and mandatory solutions to the problem is maximizing the reach of CLIL training for teachers who may be using CLIL teaching for a number of years without exposure to expertise. Asian countries are in need of more CLIL experts who may be capable of making vast changes to the way lessons are delivered in classrooms. The training should take place periodically, focusing on the requirements of different subjects. The teachers should give a clear idea to the trainer of the difficulties their students face in understanding the language. This will produce very fruitful sessions. Another solution would be purely internal to schools. It would be a good idea for subject teachers to closely collaborate with English teachers within schools to discuss terminology, expressions and sentence structures that students find difficult to cope with while learning subjects. This can be mutually beneficial; the English teachers may create worksheets based on the language used in science and history lessons. At the same time, students may get an opportunity to take another look at their subjects while boosting their language skills. Finally, the onus rests on individual schools to hire experts and treat CLIL with greater enthusiasm if they wish to see their students master a foreign language and create new paths for smoother learning. The issue needs to be discussed at managerial and academic levels to find out the real classroom needs when subjects are being taught in a foreign language. What schools need to keep in mind is that most students do suffer from a lack of comprehension when learning subjects in a foreign language; English in the case of most Asian countries. Left with a few ideas in the first language and a few in a foreign language, the average student may find her or himself in limbo. English being the global language and considered to be the passport to good jobs in countries like Indonesia, there needs to be a better effort to create more viable learning support. ●