Culture Teaching to Young Learners of English: from Perspectives of Foreign Teachers in a Private English Centre

(1)

Culture Teaching to Young Learners of English: from Perspectives of Foreign Teachers in a Private English

Centre

Thi Tinh Nguyen

Master Degree Programme in Early Language Education for Intercultural Communication

University of Eastern Finland Philosophical Faculty

Master’s thesis in Education 14.6.2021

(2)

University of Eastern Finland, Philosophical Faculty

School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education

Master Degree Programme in Early Language Education for Intercultural Communication Nguyen, Thi Tinh: Culture Teaching to Young Learners of English: from Perspectives of Foreign Teachers in a Private English Centre

Thesis, 111 pages, 02 appendices (06 pages) Thesis instructors, Professor Ritva Kantelinen June 2021

Keywords: Foreign teachers, culture teaching, Intercultural Competence, Young Learners of English (YLEs), private centre

Abstract:

While previous research has investigated teachers’ perceptions about different cultural dimensions in foreign language (FL) classrooms quite extensively in secondary or tertiary education sectors, there is a dire lack of research exploring teachers’ perceptions targeting primary school students, or Young learners of English (YLEs). In Vietnamese context and private sector, such research even becomes rarer. This perceived lack, accompanied by “English fever”

featuring earlier starting age of English learning, excessive hire of foreign teachers and rapid opening of private centers in Vietnam, heightens the need to more attention to be paid to such area.

This study, by using qualitative interviews with nine (09) teachers, both native and non-native, teaching English in a private center, attempts to find out their opinions/ beliefs relating to (1) the conceptualization of culture in FL, (2) the importance of culture teaching to YLEs in FL classrooms, and (3) the possibility of YLEs’ Intercultural Competence (IC) development in FL classroom if Byram’s IC model is used in FL classrooms. The findings reveal: first, while being aware of the pervasive and dynamic nature of culture, FL teachers viewed it as facts and information rather than lived experience. While acknowledging that cultures in FL teaching are

(3)

not necessarily limited to cultures of English-speaking countries, FL teachers do not pay adequate attention to students’ home culture. Second, while most interviewed teachers consider culture teaching to YLEs important for various reasons, culture teaching is peripheral to language teaching in FL classes. Third, while foreign teachers are generally positive about the possibility of developing YLEs’ IC competence in FL classrooms, especially in terms of knowledge and attitudes, they consider developing critical cultural awareness difficult and political education best left untouched in Vietnamese context. In addition to those findings, emerged from data are difficulties foreign teachers perceived when teaching culture to YLEs, which includes (1) time constraints, (2) stereotypes in the textbooks, (3) lack of multimedia equipment, (4) unfamiliar cultural contents and (5) both teachers’ and students’ limited linguistic resources in each other’s language. Some recommendations, mostly based on guiding principles of intercultural teaching by Crozet and Liddicoat (1999), have been put forward in the hope that foreign teachers could better deal with cultural elements in their teaching practice to facilitate YLEs’ Intercultural Competence.

(4)

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Rationales of the Study

Whenever asked about the benefits of learning a foreign language (FL), “broaden the horizons”,

“different visions of life”, “doorway to wisdom” and “He who knows no foreign languages knows nothing of his own" (Goethe, 2012, p.293) are oft-repeated phrases and quotes by language learners, language teachers and alike. What do these really imply? Do these simply indicate alluring possibilities and chances one can do with the language after mastering it, for example going abroad or obtaining wanted information firsthand? Or should those benefits have been reaped during language learning process? And such, mastering a language does not equate with knowing another set of linguistic and lexical resources and then simply putting acquired vocabularies in an accurate way strictly following grammatical rules since this will not suffice, will it? What exactly do language learners can see when their horizons are broadened by knowing another language? What does the relationship between knowing a foreign language and knowing our own have in particular? It seems even in the surface, another language learning rises and moves beyond a mastery of a fixed grammar and vocabulary set. Rather, it runs into having sound knowledge of other’s products, ideas, practices and beliefs as well as a reflection/

reflective comparison between THEM and US. Those are included in the term “Culture”. So, what are the nature of and the relationship between language and culture? And if learning a foreign language has great potential for bringing about such magic effects to language learners, how they can be best achieved?

Learning a foreign langue is not only limited to fulfilling personal growth mentioned above but also to keep up with societal changes, namely, (1) the purpose of learning foreign languages are not confined in understanding literature as well as serving as a privilege and/or a trademark of upper social classes in some developed countries as it was in early days, rather it is now more pragmatic, to communicate effectively and appropriately in the context of globalization; (2) associated with the shift in FL learning goals is the demographic change in groups of language users. Specifically, the foreign language this paper focuses on will be English, which is now estimated that non-native users of English outnumber native English users. While more than 1.5 billion people speak English, only a quarter of them have that language as their mother tongue

(10)

(Stevens, 2019). In other words, the conversations using English as medium of communication between non-native speakers or between a non-native speaker and a native speaker will be heard more frequently than among native speakers themselves every day. To sum up, English has become a communication tool within and across borders between diverse groups of people possessing different linguistic systems, ideas, beliefs and values. With those changes, “culture”

resurfaces again; knowledge about culture is not propositional knowledge as in above- mentioned phrases and quotes but procedural knowledge instead.

As a result, language education has experienced dramatic changes to better accommodate the needs of English users for more effective and appropriate communication in an ever-changing world, of which the role of culture has been redefined and become prominent. Culture has been moved from being a “side product” of language learning to an indispensable part that needs proper attention and treatment to get desirable outcomes in foreign language education.

Culture in foreign language education was put into spotlight and has been researched for several decades with prominent names as Byram and Kramsch in 90s and then Liddicoat and Sercu in late 90s and early 2000s. A review of existing literature shows that quite a number studies, regardless of whether they are analysis research or advocacy research, have been carried out to redefine culture, its relationship with language and how to deal with cultural dimensions in Foreign language education. However, such studies mostly focus on teenagers and young adults as target groups of learners; dealing with cultural dimensions in Primary education sector has only captured attention recently. Why does this disparity exist? Does it stem the fact that culture and Intercultural Competence sound too advanced and complicated for students in their first and formative years of education to handle and acquire? And as such, teachers do not really dare and care to touch them?

In short, the redefined role of culture in FL teaching and learning, the changing status of English, and the dearth in studies dealing with cultural dimensions when teaching young learners of language (YLL) globally necessitate the need to have more studies investigating what FL teachers

(11)

who directly teach this age group on daily basis really think of culture, its role in language teaching and learning as well how they deal with cultural dimensions in FL classrooms.

In Vietnam, private English centers have been mushroomed due to increasing demand of the more-than 90-million-people market, recruiting teachers of remarkably diverse backgrounds in response to so-called “English Fever” (Butler, 2014, p.16). Parents let their children started learning English as early as possible, especially in big cities such as Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh City, in private centers and more ideally international daycares and schools. Teachers from Western countries are favored not only because of their English proficiency but also of cultural factor.

Culture is something expected together with the language, from students’ perspective (Tran, 2015, p.11). So what do those teachers, pulled and pushed from different sides, really think about culture and teaching culture in FL classrooms, especially to Young Learners age group?

What are their opinions about the possibility of YLEs’ Intercultural Competence development since this competence is so needed to facilitate YLE’s ability of use English appropriately and effectively?

This paper aims to find out answers for this in the context of a private English Center in Hanoi with foreign teachers as informants of study.

1.2 The Significance of the Study

First, this study attempts to contribute to the pool of research on teachers’ perceptions about cultural dimensions in foreign language teaching, especially fill the lack of such research at lower level of education (Primary).

Second, with the findings and discussions from the research, it will provide some implications for first and foremost native and non-native teachers, from other countries but come to Vietnam to teach English, if they care about culture teaching in FL classes for YLEs, and then English centers hiring such teachers. With the current dire lack of research dealing teaching culture to YLEs, Vietnamese English teachers as well as parents can also take a look to see how things happen in a specific center and consider it as a reference, if interested.

(12)

Third, this study has immense personal significance to its author. With 6 years of experience working with teachers coming from different countries in a private center in Hanoi as well as years of tutoring/teaching YLEs herself, this study aids her personal professional growth in several ways since she aims to become Academic Advisor cum teacher in the future: (1) support teachers coming to teach in Vietnam better as an Academic Advisor; (2) gain more confidence and a firm belief in so-called intercultural speaker/ teacher – the role in which the question of native or non-native teachers is barely relevant. With expanded knowledge gained through the research process, there is no doubt that she has a better foundation, at least compared to her old self a year ago, to do her future dream job.

1.3 Definitions of Some Terms

The study is set in a specific context (Vietnam and a private English center) which might be unfamiliar to some. Therefore, some key terms will be defined in this part to aid the understanding of the readers of this research.

Foreign Teachers

Despite the fact that using the word “foreign teachers” is quite confusing as I have been often asked whether I mean “foreign language teachers”. However, Cambridge dictionary defines

“foreign” (adj) as “belonging or connected to a country that is not your own”. If we usually use this adjective to refer to foreign films, foreign books, and foreign lands, for example, why not use it as in foreign teachers? The teachers in this research are the ones whose nationalities are not Vietnamese, but from other countries and have come to Vietnam to teach English. They can be from countries where (1) English is a First Language such as American, Britain, Canada, Australia or New Zealand, or (2) English is a Second language (ESL) – that is, English is recognized as a the official language, such as Singapore, Philippines… or (3) English as a Foreign Languages (EFL) such as Ukraine or Turkish. I once considered using “native and non-native teachers” but it is not good either, since non-native teachers can include Vietnamese teachers which (1) are not participants at all in this research, and (2) their opinions about the topic can be different since they share the same mother tongue and culture, in the most traditional way of defining culture

(13)

as national attributes, with YLEs. Foreign teachers in this study are thus teachers, native and non-native, coming from other countries to Vietnam to teach English.

The reasons for taking those groups of teachers in this research include: First, English is now used as a lingua franca, an international commodity, instead of being owned by any countries.

Second, as a matter of fact, teachers coming to Vietnam to teach English are of diverse backgrounds, not only from English-speaking countries. By including both native and non-native teachers, this research more or less reflects the status quo for English language teaching in private settings in Hanoi in particular or in Vietnam in general.

Young Learners

There are so many ways of defining Young Learners. According to Ellis (2014, p.75), it is “a generic term that encompasses a wide range of learners” and “often used to refer to any learner under the age of 18”. However, grouping such a wide range of age groups with students differs

“in terms of physical, psychological, social, emotional, conceptual, and cognitive development as well as their development of literacy”, as admitted by Ellis herself, will not be helpful.

Another way to describe learners which is widely used in the educational systems is that dividing them into early years/ pre-primary, primary, lower secondary, upper secondary and university / further education.

This research is conducted in the field of foreign language teaching (education); therefore, the term Young Learners here will correspondingly refer to children at primary school age in Vietnam context. This means students from grade 1 to grade 5, equivalent to 6-11 years old.

However, the studied setting is a private center whose courses are based on CEFR levels by using textbooks from international publishing houses, offering official Cambridge YLE tests (Starters, Movers and Flyers) to their students so the term YLEs is expanded to the upper age of 12 (Cambridge Assessment English, 2019, p.6). In short, YLEs in this study will be 6-12 years old.

Private Center

(14)

This term is explained to make distinctions among different types of settings in private sector in Vietnam. Private center here refers to centers, whether joint-stock, foreign invested or franchised, licensed by authorities (Departments of Education and Training) to providing English classes to children. Usually, children attend English classes there twice a week (2 hours each) at weekday evenings and weekends. According to BMI (2019), there are such 450 centers in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. They are also different from private classes conducted by individual teachers and from private schools where the children attend 8am to 4pm weekdays.

(15)

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Culture and Culture in FL Classrooms 2.1.1 Culture

What is Culture? This one word has been troubling researchers and scholars from different study fields for decades. Different fields have been producing their own definitions to accommodate their research needs and highlight characteristics of the field. For example, anthropologists and sociologists concerns with the whole way different people conduct their lives with Taylor (1871, as cited by Kohler, 2015, p.42) devoted his efforts to work out this definition: “Culture…. is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society”. This outstanding example, though dating back to 19^th century, still overlaps with quite a few recent definitions of culture in which culture is dissected and layered: Capital-C culture and small-c culture (Doye, 1999), subjective culture and objective culture (Triandis, 1989) (as cited in Larzén, 2005, p.23), deep culture and surface culture (Gary Weaver, 1986, cited by Hanley, n.d, p.2). The commonality in all of those structural definitions, regardless of wording, if generally speaking, lies in its two big layers – one is more visible to see (Big-C culture, objective culture or Surface Culture) such as clothing, cuisine, art, laws…. and one is invisible (small-c culture, subjective culture and deep culture) such as values, beliefs, attitudes.

The problem is Taylor viewed culture as quite static, which failed to capture its semiotic nature which later scholars noticed. Geertz stated culture “denotes a historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate and develop their knowledge about and attitudes towards life” (1973, cited by Kohler, 2015, p.44). Geertz definition, seeing culture as something interactive, is influential and favored in intercultural communication and applied linguistics.

So far, looking at both Taylor’s and Geertz’s definitions, culture can be identified (1) as product, process and practice; (2) as ideology and (3) as “a common agreement between the members of a community on the values, norms, rules, role expectations and meanings which guide the

(16)

behavior and communication of the member. Furthermore, it includes the deeds and products which result from the interaction between the members” (Kaikkonen, 2001, as cited in Kantelinen et al., 2009, p.2), looking from perspective of communication and interaction.

Deardorff (2019) stated that there have been approximately 200 definitions of culture. The number of definitions of culture does not really matter. Fathoming culture is a daunting task since it is pervasive, multi-faceted and dynamic in nature. Williams (1985, p.62) admitted “Culture is one of the two three most complicated words in the English language”. Definitions cited above encompass prominent aspects in its own ways of defining culture, which proves useful when the relationship among culture, language and language teaching is examined in the following section, since while structural definitions has merits in analysis and comparison of cultures, definitions stressing its semiotic nature make it closer to the nature of communication and interactions.

2.1.2 Culture and Language

Han (2010, p.76) claimed language is the conduit of culture. Human thoughts are part of culture and language is a medium for that. Culture is also the factor making people, despite knowing thousands of words of other language, trouble communicating with people from that culture.

This is agreeable with Geertz’s definition – language is a pattern to transmit the meaning, or culture. While people can easily master the forms, theirs meaning are not easy to grasp.

Therefore, the overall impression is that culture and language are inseparable, and they complete each other. However, this inextricable relationship involving the most complicated world “culture”, if forced to be disentangle, is also not easy to have its depth and breadth captured.

Culture and language are simultaneously universal and distinctive, which causes teaching dilemmas (Kohler, 2015)

“The relationship between language and culture is characterized variously as integrated, linked and inseparable, but it is also argued that this is too simplistic and a more nuanced

(17)

understanding of the relationship is needed as the two should be considered as separable in some respects.” (p. 26)

The purpose of exploring the two terms and their relationship is to serve the basic for how culture should be treated in the field of language teaching. Capturing the essential features of cultures as defined by previous researchers, Liddicoat and Scarino (2013, pp.11-30) presented it together with different definitions of language in a quite comparable form.

Table 1: Culture and Language by Liddicoat and Scarino (2013)

Language Culture Notes

Language as a structural system This view involves the

formalization of a set of linguistic and usually literate norm. One variety of language is chosen, and native-speaker norm is set.

Viewing language this way leads to the teaching which “privileges a prescriptive, standardized, written code enshrined in authoritative grammars, dictionaries, and style guides” (Liddicoat, 2005a).

Culture as national attributes Culture is bounded by

geographic borders and named in terms of national affiliations.

Culture is simplified and reduced, and associated with the place where it is found. For example, British Culture, American Culture, Australian Culture…

While those two

definitions of language and culture risks being reductive, it makes teaching much easier jobs for language teachers.

Language as a communicative system

With this view, the forms or

linguistics are not solely in focus, it switches to understanding the communication purposes instead.

During the communication process, the speaker will send encoded message to the listener.

Cultures as societal norms

Culture is associated with practices and values that are typical for a particular group of people. Consequently, learning about culture is learning about what a person from a particular cultural group might do and the

The common between these three definitions is

(1) Culture and language are still simplified and relatively static (2) The view is

unilateral. For language, it’s the

(18)

However, in this communication – oriented view, communication is simply the transmission of information.

cultural values hidden behind to justify the acts.

Cultures as symbolic systems With this view, cultures are “a system of shared meanings that make collective sense of

experience”. This means that cultures are the lens through which people agreed upon and treated as a frame to

understand the meanings of communication beyond the literal denotations of the being- used words.

passage of

information from speaker to

listener while for culture, listener observes and interpreting the words and actions of an interlocutor from another cultural paradigm

because practices and values learnt are mostly

stereotypes.

Language as social practice Communication is a creative, cultural act which both interlocutors bring in the

communication via language their social persona. Communication is not merely an exchange of

information but the voices, identity and co-construction between involved parties comes into play.

Cultures as practices Culture is dialogic.

Culture are “dynamic and emergent – they are created through the actions of individuals and in particular through the ways in which they use language”. Cultures are constantly changed through the process of contradicting,

contesting and negotiating.

Language and culture are both dynamic and fluid. They encompass

“the rich complexities of communication”

(Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013).

Working out different ways of defining language and culture will, to some extent, help see their relationship in a clearer and more organized picture. However, there is by no means in reality

(19)

that one person will always have their perception limited or bounded by one way of defining culture or one definition of culture, given its pervasive, multi-faceted and dynamic nature as present in 2.1.1. In other words, it means that people who reckon culture as national attributes will at the same time realize cultures is changing and there are cultural things which not always accurately associated with geographic borders.

2.1.3 Culture in FL Classrooms

Culture is not always adequately dealt with in Language teaching and learning. The reasons can be language teachers usually concern with teaching language and see the rest as “background”

or “context” which has a low priority in their concerns (Byram, 1989, p.2) given time constraints in overcrowded syllabus and “social and cultural bias.. and stereotyping” in textbooks (Litz, 2002, as cited in Addison, 2004, p.65) which should be best avoided (Torikai, 2011, as cited in Addison, 2004, p.68). However, avoiding culture in language learning and teaching is not easy since “the mere content of language is intimately related to culture” (Sapir, 1970, p.219) and thus foreign language instructions are inaccurate and incomplete without the study of culture. So the questions raised about culture in language teaching include (but are not limited to, of course):

(1) What culture should be taught in English teaching?

Culture is so pervasive, which leads to difficulties in covering all aspects of culture. In FL classrooms, which culture (the visible or invisible, for example) or which aspects of culture should be covered? Also, Language is originated in Britain and is native language of BANA countries (Britain, Australia and North American Nations – American and Canada). Does teaching English equate teaching cultures of these countries?

(2) How should culture be taught, given its complex, intricate relationship with the language?

The answers for those two questions will depend on many factors: teaching methods teachers adopt based on their cognitions as well as affordances, and the age groups they are working with, to name a few. The 2.2 section will discuss some popular teaching methods among foreign language teachers.

(20)

2.2 Teaching Culture in Foreign Language Classes

2.2.1 Approaches Concerning Culture in English Language Teaching

Language teaching and learning have evolved dramatically in past few decades. Along with that, the role of culture in language learning has increasingly been acknowledged. As can be seen from the chart of culture and language summarized in Table 2, when language is considered as a structural system, grammar-translation method is widely use. Culture is off focus though some might argue that culture, as high culture, is still dealt with since Literature is cultural product itself. Having said that, if any, the dealing is not proper and was just limited to some culturally colored words appearing in the literacy texts. Gradually, revised purposes of foreign language learning have switched culture from being a byproduct of language education to indispensable part which language teachers find it impossible to ignore in the process of preparing their learners for appropriate and meaningful communication, regardless of learners’ ages and language proficiency level.

Table 2: Aims of Learning a Foreign Language

Aim of learning foreign language Popular teaching method & desired competence

Read literature and study texts in 1930s-1960s

(Language learning was language learning in its objectives and minimum expectation of communicating with native speakers of the language)

Grammar-translation method Grammatical competence

Communicate with native speakers

(This requires knowing what people from a given group are likely to do and see through their actions by understanding the cultural values place behind driving them to act in such ways. The cultural knowledge concerns with a body of knowledge about English speaking countries)

Communicative teaching Approach Communicative competence

Communicate with speakers across the globe Intercultural Language Teaching Intercultural communicative competence

(21)

In the following 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.1.2, two notable language teaching approaches which acknowledge the importance of culture will be presented in more details. These two approaches are chosen to be presented deliberately since they are approaches gaining attentions in Vietnam context recently.

2.2.1.1 Communicative Language Teaching Approach

This approach has emerged since 70s, rooting for the idea that language is for communication.

To communicate well, grammatical competence which was heavily paid attention to in such existing approaches at that time as grammar translation is far from helping students successfully reach the goal of smooth communication. Grammatical and linguistic knowledge – knowing the rules and vocabularies - is not enough. The knowledge of meaning and functions plays a role.

Canale and Swain (1980, p. 4) cited a very interesting example by Hymes (1972) comparing a child in case he/she has only linguistic competence and in case he/she has not only linguistic competence but also knowledge about functions. In the first case, the child would probably be institutionalized for uttering words making no sense while in the latter, knowing of when and how to say to whom appropriately following social conventions prove the child normal and a proper social agent.

Here is the proposed theoretical framework for communicative competence by Canale and Swain (1980, pp.28-32)

Table 3: Communicative Competence by Canale and Swain (1980) Communicative competence

Grammatical competence

knowledge of lexical items and of rules of

morphology, syntax, sentence-grammar

semantics and phonology

Socio linguistic competence

Socialcultural rules and rules of discourse

Strategic competence or communication strategies

Verbal and non-verbal communication strategies.

These strategies then can be

categorized into ones related primarily to grammatical competence and those socialinguistic competence

(22)

Among three components, sociolinguistic competence is the competence concerning with the learning of culture:

“The learners should be taught about the second language culture primarily (although not exclusively) through the social studies program in order to provide them with the sociocultural knowledge of the second language group that is necessary in drawing inferences about the social meanings or values of utterances” (Canale & Swain, 1990, p.28)

Sociolinguistic competence can be subdivided into (1) social rules of language (for example, formality, politeness, and directness), (2) nonverbal behaviors, and (3) cultural references (for example, idioms, expressions and background knowledge). All of these rules, behaviors and references here refer to the norm of native speakers. If interpreting from Canale and Swain’s remark quoted above, this communicative approach acknowledged culture as a dimension of language ability but not integrated it into language in teaching deliberately. This method is also popular in some contexts since it is not rare to see cases in which FL teachers desire their students to speak and behave as if they were native speakers of that language.

2.2.1.2 Intercultural Language Teaching

Using “native level as attainment yardstick”, as in CLT, is not really reasonable since even native speakers, with full alleged advantages, can variably attain different levels of proficiency with different aspects of their First Language (L1), as argued by Keeley (2016, p.38). Drilling learners in native-like proficiency level in their foreign language learning will somehow demotivate them and unconsciously promote so-called “native privileges”. In addition, that a variety of English or

“Englishes” are widely accepted, which coupled with other such factors as communication needs, cultural factor and identity in the context of globalization, makes achieving “native-like” level even less desirable for L2 learners and become a choice (British Council, 1978, pp.11-12). In response to the fact that it is impractical and unrealistic for every language learner to achieve native-like proficiency level, Intercultural Language Teaching (ICL) approach has been promoted initially by Byram and Liddicoat et al. since 1990s.

Five principles of Intercultural language teaching by Crozet and Liddicoat (1999, p.120):

(23)

• Culture should be taught explicitly since culture learning requires intellectual effort. The culture in the language is not acquired through osmosis. The use of 1^st language is allowed. The comparison between students’ L1 language/culture and target language cultures proves effective in learning.

• Native speakers are not the norm but the bilingual/ multilingual speaker instead.

ESL education is about supporting learner to find the “third place” or to be more exact, a

“meeting place” between different cultures. “Assimilationist” approaches to teaching English are irrelevant. The learners’ identity is also paid attention.

• Role of teachers and learners are redefined. The “third place” is also applied to language educators and teachers. Teachers, as well as learners, are learners of culture.

The best classroom environment is learner-centered but students’ being taught about culture by well-informed teachers is not undermined.

• Conceptual and experiential learning is required to help students achieved Intercultural competence: students can learn through exposure or through traditional language programs. Micro-levels of culture as entwined in language should be delved into.

• New approaches to language testing are needed to assess intercultural competence – that is, curriculum documents and assessment should include cultural content specifically.

Compared to CLT, in addition in the difference in norm are the differences in the emphasized areas of language, the view of language and culture and the redefined roles of teachers and learners. In CLT, aspects of culture it deals with are only aspects especially important to communication (for example, nonverbal behaviors as a part of communication strategies) to support language functions. Teachers are facilitators who create situations likely to promote communication and students are communicators.

2.2.2 Intercultural Competence

With intercultural language teaching, culture is an integrated, not supplement, part in teaching and the purpose of dealing with culture is to help learners develop Intercultural Competence

(24)

which also contributes to the development of other competences enabling learners as a whole to communicate appropriately and effectively in various cultural contexts.

The distinguishing between two terms: Intercultural competence (IC) and Intercultural Communication Competence, based on Byram (2015, pp. 38-39), will help ease the confusion, if any, in this section. While both competences refer to the ability to communicate successfully with people of other social groups, IC does not involve the use of different languages. In other words, if two or more people speak the same languages but from different social groups meet and engage with each other, they need IC to negotiate their own assumptions and knowledge they have each other. Meanwhile, when people speak different languages, regardless of where they live, are in contact with each other, they need ICC – a competence includes not only Intercultural Competences but also other competences regarding the language use as well.

Applying into the context of language learning discussed so far: Foreign language teaching equates to Teaching culture and Language to develop Intercultural Communication Competence which includes competences from teaching language and intercultural competence from teaching culture. Again, this is a very simplified way to explain. Language and culture have close relationship and different competences making up Intercultural communication also interact with each other.

2.2.2.1 Byram’s Intercultural Competence Model

Byram’s definition of Intercultural Communication Competence (1997, p.73), in relation with teaching culture in foreign language teaching, consists of 4 component competences: Linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence and Intercultural competence (as shown in Figure 1).

Figure 1: Byram’s ICC model (1997)

(25)

If compared Communicative Competence, from CLT, Intercultural competence is a big part added. One more thing to note is that components in Commutative competence are not interpreted the same in nature with linguistic, sociolinguistic and discourse competences in Byram’s ICC model due to the difference in the reference point – the former uses native speaker yardstick while the later concerns with teachers’ and learners’ acting interculturally.

Regarding Intercultural Competence, a 5-factor model was then developed to guide teachers about what should be developed in their learners in foreign language teaching (Byram, 2003, p.62):

Table 4: Byram’s factors in Intercultural Competence, 2003 Attitudes

(Savoir être)

Curiosity and openness, readiness to suspend disbelief about other cultures and belief about one’s own

Knowledge (Savoirs)

Of social groups and their products and practices in one’s own and in one’s interlocutor’s country, and of the general processes of societal and individual interaction

Skills of interpreting and relating

(Savoir compredre)

Ability to interpret a document and event from another culture, to explain it and relate it to documents from one own

Skills of discovery and interaction

(Savoir apprendre/faire)

Ability to acquire new knowledge of a culture and cultural practices and the ability to operate knowledge, attitudes and skills under the constrains of real-time communication and interaction

Critical cultural awareness / political education

(Savoir s’engager)

An ability to evaluate critically and on the basis of explicit criteria perspectives, practices and products in one’s own and other cultures and countries.

Some restrictions in the model are voiced by researchers. First, his model downplays the diversity and complexity of culture (Hoff, 2020, p.58) since Byram associated the word “culture”

(26)

and “country” in his description. Equating culture with national cultures in this case results in the loss of culture’s living vitality, especially in the context of globalization (Matsuo, 2012, p.59).

Second, IC is another term which is built on an already ill-defined complex term “Culture” and the model is useful for theorists, not benefiting practicing teachers in their daily practices (Matsuo, p. 57).

Byram was ambitious to work out a general framework which can be applied for different locations of learning, which seemed to be the root of the criticisms. While understanding why those criticisms are directed towards Byram’s IC model, I personally appreciate the model, especially if looking at the other sides of the above-cited comments. For the former criticism, undeniably that viewing culture as such offers the stability of concept in teaching, making teaching about culture easier for teachers. In addition, focusing on differences between cultures will easily arose students’ curiosity. Jeopardy is that developing curiosity is something deeper and richer though. For the latter criticism, it is true that no practical tips can be learnt from the model. However, it, at the same time, offers benefits since being a general framework that has a wide range of applications, in different contexts, different levels of teaching and for different types of language learning. The application is flexible and wide open to interpretation. This is the same with Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) which only lays principles for teachers to follow without any concrete, practical guidelines, resulting in widely different practices in classrooms. IC model, as an individual-oriented list model, is not a bad thing when many factors involved in teaching and make teachers to mediate their daily practices. Furthermore, despite her critical remarks, Natsuo also acknowledged that the framework definitely “raise the consciousness about the need to highlight the cultural dimension in language teaching, the inclusion of intercultural competence objectives and the identification of the components and scope of competences” (p.58).

Teachers are not naïve to believe in a single model to dictate their teaching practices. There is no thing called “one-fits-all” solution since different teaching contexts with different groups of students require teachers to change their teaching methods to reach the teaching outcome. For the counter-arguments I have put forward so far, Byram’s IC model will be used in this research

(27)

to explore teachers’ opinions about the possibility of YLEs’ IC development in FL classrooms, or more specific, they will give opinions based on their experiences with their students in the studied setting to evaluate the extent their YLEs are capable to achieve in each component in Byram’s IC model.

2.2.2.2 Other Definitions of Intercultural Competence

Other way of understanding IC, in addition to Byram’s IC model, is the explanation by Liddicoat and Scarino (2013, pp. 23-24), Intercultural competence involves at least the following:

• Accepting that one’s practices are influenced by the cultures in which one participates and so are those of one’s interlocutors;

• Accepting that there is no one right way to do things;

• Valuing one’s own culture and other cultures;

• Using language to explore culture;

• Finding personal ways of engaging in intercultural interaction;

• Using one’s existing knowledge of cultures as a resource for learning about new culture;

• Finding a personal intercultural style and identity.

Not presented with clear, different aspects as in Byram’s componential model but Liddicoat and Scarino’s have some overlaps with Byram’s: (1) positive attitude towards other cultures and own cultures are desired; (2) Personal styles and identity are important; (3) influences culture have on people’s practices should be understood; and (4) skills of discovery and interaction play essential role. Chambers (2001, as cited in Larzén, p. 34) also confirmed commonalities in the two model when he specifies the three principles qualities of intercultural speakers interpreted from Byram’s model as: “(1) A multilingual competence, (2) A sensitivity to the identities present in interlingual and cross-frontier interaction, and (3) An ability to mediate/ relate own and other cultures”. However, while Byram’s model shows more about the teaching objectives, the wording by Liddicoat and Scarino gives implications for a pathway to develop IC.

If not playing the role of learners but as a speaker, interculturality or to be intercultural speakers will be the objective of language users. Language speakers are not expected to be native-like. To

(28)

understand the term “interculturality” – which is normally placed next to another term Pluriculturalism, two definitions by Council of Europe (2009) are cited below:

“Pluriculturalism involves identifying with at least some of the values, beliefs and/or practices of two or more cultures, as well as acquiring the competences which are necessary for actively participating in those cultures” (p.9).

“Interculturality refers to the capacity to experience and analyse cultural otherness, and to use this experience to reflect on matters that are usually taken for granted within one’s own culture and environment.” (p.10).

The differences between these terms are illustrated in the table 5:

Table 5: Pluriculturality and Interculturality Pluriculturality

A person is Pluricultural when he or she…….

Interculturality

A person who develops interculturality will…….

• Has identity and participate in multiple cultures

• not involve identifying with other cultural groups or adopting their cultural practices

• is an active member of different cultures

• acts as mediators among different people of different cultures

• Function effectively within each culture he/she participates.

(Emphasis on identity and Pluriculturality can be expressed in a number of ways:

Affirming multiple culture allegiances regardless of context, code-switching, or hybridity)

• Function effectively and achieve interactional and transactional goals in situation where cultural awareness and difference are involved

(emphasis on communication, contact, the interrelation between…. the cultures) (Tubino, 2015, as cited in Deardorff, 2009, p.258)

• Needs to share some of values, beliefs and practices of the cultures, and acquires linguistics and behavior

competences to ensure active participation in cultures.

• Develop cognitive, affective and behavior competences.

(29)

Comparing two terms, the concerns about identities, the nature of interactions and communication as well as aspects to be an intercultural speaker become clearer. A concrete example is that a non-native speaker whose language proficiency is so advanced and whose behaviors are so similar to natives that when he was with native speakers of other language, native speakers do not realize that he is nonnative. That non-native speaker actually uses tactics and tries to be like native speakers. In that case, he is pluricultural. Intercultural speakers will not try to pretend to be native themselves.

2.3 Teaching Culture and Young Learners of Language (YLL) 2.3.1 Why Culture Teaching to YLL?

“Culture is the everyday lifestyle of people who use the language” said Larsen-Freeman (2000, p.162). It therefore sounds extremely odd not to teach culture to language learners, even from the very young age when they start learning the language.

The benefits of having culture as an integral part of foreign language learning are numerous (cultures being taught should not only be cultures of others but also culture of learners’ home country). First, learning about cultures helps students develop cultural awareness and intercultural learning that are included in educational and language teaching policies of countries in European Union to promote international understanding and world peace (Brewster et al, 2004, p. 146) and avoid stereotyping. Second, culture knowledge will improve learners’

communicative competence or the ability to use language to communicate successfully in different social contexts. If students are provided with vocabulary related to their local environment, their homeland and its cultural wealth and traditions as well as others, they will be more active and talkative and it is much likely that communication in foreign language will be two-way (Vickov, 2007, p.106). Third, learning about both home and abroad cultures also raises their level of aspiration and motivation, especially for young learners as this is the age which they start to discover their local and wider environment. Fourth, through cultures, class activities can be varied, thinking skills can be introduced through comparison between cultures and

(30)

sometimes cultural questions stimulate students’ language enhancement activities to be able to find out answers.

Having said that, given the complexities and intricacies of culture and intercultural competence – the desired competence resulted from integrating culture into language - which includes “critical”

cultural awareness requiring higher-order thinking skills, culture and intercultural competence are considered better suited to students of higher levels in the educational system instead of students in their first formative years of education. Some really concern about whether YLEs can have a grasp of culture and develop IC. Undeniably, YLEs have some limitations due to their age and cognitive immaturity since they are still in the process of making sense of the world (first their immediate environment and then wider contexts). Nevertheless, language and culture closely link to each other (presented in 2.1.2) so ignorance of cultural contents and elements since the first days of language learning journey is absolutely impossible. Follow will be some other theoretical justifications for teaching culture to YLEs, particularly taking their characteristics into account.

The table 6 compiled by Dr Shin (2019) from George Mason University is a helpful summary of Piaget’s (1963) stages of child development and Curtain and Dahlberg’s (2016) approaches for teaching a foreign language which educators are surely familiar themselves with:

Table 6: Dr Shin’s Summary (2019) Age

Stages of Cognitive Development Piaget (1963)

Approach to teaching a foreign Language Curtain & Dahlberg (2016)

2-4 years old

Preoperational Stage (2- 7)

- Are extremely egocentric

- Develop memory and imagination

Preschool students (2-4)

- Absorb languages effortlessly - Adept imitators of speech sounds

- Self-centered, do not work well in groups - Respond well to concrete experiences and

large motor involvement in language

(31)

- Do not think logically

learning

5-7 years old

Primary students (5-7)

- Learn best with concrete experiences and immediate goals

- Learn new concepts and vocabulary better when presented as pairs of binary

opposites

- Like to name objects, define words, and learn about things in their own world - Learning through oral language; can

develop good oral skills, pronunciation, and intonation with good models Concrete Operations

Stage (7-11)

- Show intelligence through logical and organized thought related to concrete objects

- Can reverse their thinking through reasoning

7-11 years old

Intermediate students (8-11)

- Begin to understand cause and effect - Can work well in groups; may not like to

partner with opposite sex

- Need contact for language learning; can bring together vocabulary and functional chunks learned in earlier years and can apply them in more complex situations

11 and up

Formal Operations Stage (11 and up)

- Show intelligence through logical use of symbols related to abstract

concepts

- Can hypothesis &

use deductive reasoning

Early Adolescent Students (11 and up) - Are undergoing major development

changes on widely differing timetables - Need encouragement to develop positive

self-imagine

- Respond well to opportunities to learn in exhaustive detail about subjects that interest them

(32)

Based on the table, it is obvious that from the age of 7 onwards, YLEs demonstrate the ability to think in a logical and organized way as well as to reason to produce fine judgments. When learning English, they are also capable of activating learnt knowledge and apply them in more complex situations. These abilities are heightened when they are 11 and up. That cognitive development of students above age 7 is suitable for Higher-order thinking skills (HOTs), for them to be critical, is thus undisputable. Meanwhile, when students are below 7 years old, they are extremely egocentric and not capable of thinking logically.

However, cognitive development of the primary school-aged students is, to some extent, underestimated. Piaget’s statement of their lack of logical thinking for children under 7 has been receiving quite a lot of criticism. Donalson (1978) in his book Children’s Minds pointed out two major problems with Piaglet’s experiments leading him to reach that unsatisfactory assessment (cited in Printer, 2017, pp. 7-10). The fact that children were not able to perform desired actions in the experiments was caused by the confusion of the language of the given instructions and the unfamiliar contexts rather than by their being unable to think. Students’ performance much improved when these two factors were changed. In other words, social and environmental factors do affect how children think, but they were placed little emphasis in Piagetian development theory. Piagetian theory also faces other criticisms for making that clear-cut between stages of development as well as for generalization (Printer, 2017, p. 10) as Linse and Nunam (2005, p.5) implied inconsistence development, not only between children but also within a child in different aspects (cognitive, physical, emotional and social). All these factors interact and impact a child’s learning. Lev Vygotsky with his famous social constructivism proved that children are unique and possess great potential for learning if they receive support and help from a more knowledgeable partner – the process called scaffolding. Arguments for the ability to think in children under age 7 strengthen the idea that children above 7 will manage HOTs which are required to achieve IC.

Furthermore, attitudes – one main component of IC are shaped very early. Cited Curtain and Dahlberg, Savic (2013, p.41) stated that “attitudes toward nations and groups perceived as

(33)

“other” must be developed by the age of ten, when children are in the process of moving from egocentricity to reciprocity and information received before this age is eagerly received……learners in grades 3-5 become more receptive to information about people who are different from themselves”. In addition, cited Connolly (1998) and Brown (19998), Dervin (20015, p.81) confirmed if children live in multi-cultural environments, concepts such as racism, discriminations can be grasped, and prejudicial thoughts are formed as early as 3 years old. If culture is either left untouched or insufficiently/ adequately taught, desirable attitudes (openness, curiosity…) will not achieved and it will turn to be a more uphill task later.

In addition, students themselves when asked also voiced their interest and curiosity in learning about other cultures (Driscol, Earl & Cable, 2013, pp. 154-156), their emotions correlate with their cognitions concerning societal institutions, systems, and groups since children’s cognitions about those are not always emotionally neutral (Barrett & Buchanan-Barrow, 2005, p.4). In other words, helping students develop positive attitudes at this early age brings two-fold benefits:

foundation for desirable attitudes towards otherness later in their lives and motivational factor for acquisition of societal understanding, including their own and others.

Bryam (2008) in his book From Foreign Language Education to Education for Intercultural Citizenship: Essays and Reflections summarized findings from other authors’ works to prove it is “desirable and possible” to include IC in teaching languages at Primary school. Reid (2020) strongly stated: “Based on many studies including mine, I claim that cultural aspects need to be taught right from the beginning of foreign language education and at every age level, which need to be of course carefully considered and adjusted to the age and proficiency level.” Moloney (2007) conducted a research involving 49 year 6 students and 4 teachers in Sydney Australia with data gathered qualitatively from student focus group interviews, teacher interviews and classroom observations. The findings of the studies confirmed students’ development in intercultural competence. They show understanding of language culture and identity (p. iii).

Some indicators were recorded: students perceived themselves as a “purposeful interactive communicator”; grasp the idea that language is the form of meaning and gladly, they demonstrated metalinguistic curiosity and skills. Some were even able to critical reflect and

(34)

negotiated their identity as a non-native language user. Therefore, it is no longer the question of

“whether we should”, rather it is the question of “what to teach” and “how to teach” when it comes to culture teaching and developing YLEs’ IC in FL classrooms.

2.3.2 What and How to Teach with this Age Group?

Byram (2008) confirmed aspects which are really appropriate to teach for Primary school-aged students based on his own model of IC (p.6). Those are as follows:

(1) Savoirs (knowledge): Primary school students have already possessed some knowledge about their own cultures and get the sense of how to behave appropriately and effectively in some social contexts.

(2) Savoir apprendre/ faire (discovery and interaction): primary school students who gradually mature and equipped with skills along academic years are capable of asking pertinent questions, comparing different things, analyzing and utilize their faculties to answer not only the question “what”, but also so “how” and “why”.

(3) Savoir être (intercultural attitudes): Children are open and curious. As mentioned above, information absorbed in this growth is generally not yet received through the lens filled with stereotypes or biases.

Byram’s suggested aspects have been supplemented by other scholars and researchers who have added further information about and made each of these three factors (or Savoir) clearer and in more details.

Knowledge

Curtain and Pesola (1994, as cited in Byram, 2008, p.81) claimed it would be a good idea to keep in mind 3 subcategories of culture as possible focuses when dealing with cultures for YLL:

Cultural symbols; cultural products and cultural practices.

However, these three subgroups of cultures above are related to which culture or cultures of which country? Home culture (the culture of learners), target culture (cultures of English- speaking countries) or International Culture (culture of different countries around the world)?

Matic (2013, pp.28-31) and Tomovic (2013, pp.55-59) discussed this issue weighing advantages

(35)

and disadvantages of teaching different cultures to YLL. While a number of researchers highlighted (11) the lack of linguistic resources enabling FL learners to express themselves and their lives and (2) the demotivation of learning in case ELT textbooks only present target cultures, solely proving information of local culture will be quite unrealistic in this flat world and the widespread use of materials appears impossible since it is context-specific. Furthermore, English, in addition to be used as native language in several countries, is even increasingly used as lingua franca in many countries around the globe as Jamaica, India, Sri Lanka, Singapore and Malaysia, to name a few. Which cultures will be chosen in that case? Both Matic and Tomovic then advocated for the supplement of materials to redress the presentations of culture in ELT coursebooks. Having a balanced presentation of different cultures offers considerable benefits:

equipping students with linguistic resources to talk about themselves; increasing their awareness and develop their curiosity, and notably promoting their own cultural identity as argued by Vickov (2007), Stojkovic and Zivkovic (2013). In addition, researches have found that cultures depicted in the textbooks only revolve around pleasant cultural aspects, leading to misperceptions in learners’ minds (Huhn, 1978, cited by Reid, 2015). Therefore, realistic, accurate, contemporary and factual information should also be presented to the learners. For example, FL teachers can let students read about the life of a poor boy and carefully monitor group discussion to make sure students are not making fun of the character life. The important thing is raising awareness of the differences, not evaluation of differences from biased and ethnocentric perspectives.

All things considered, Byram’s citation of Risager and Andersen for the best characteristics of picture of cultures (both home and abroad) (1997, p.126) can be a good conclusion. Cultures presented should be (1) balanced and comprehensive; (2) at micro and macro level; and (3) positive and negative.

The Intercultural Attitudes and Skills of Discovery and Interaction

These savoirs can be developed using class activities. Activities, whatever forms they have, should aim at 7 desirable outcomes and goals, as stated by Peter Doye (1999, cited in Byram, 2008, p. 82):

(36)

(1) The selection of learner-appropriate contents;

(2) Relativizing the opposition of US and THEM;

(3) Taking perspectives and decentering;

(4) Modifying stereotypes;

(5) Unlearning prejudices;

(6) Preventing discrimination;

(7) Acquiring tolerance

How to achieve these outcomes? Other scholars, educators and teachers have been building the knowledge of this field by suggesting appropriate, concrete techniques for this age group such as Matic (2013) with story-telling as a means of raising cultural awareness; Berninghausen and Minshawi (2014, p.254) with quite diverse strategies, ranging from systematic awareness building (discussion about own values and norms, discussion about own view, biases and prejudices) to tactical conveyance of knowledge (getting to know rules, values in other cultures..) and strategic practice in acting intercultural (case studies, active listening, simulation games..). Simulation games also gain support from Nash and Brown (2012, p.2) when they argued it is a kind of experimental learning. Although it is not really authentic, it somehow, with children’s rich imagination, produces certain positive effect.

Some more techniques to teach culture in light of intercultural teaching to Young Learners by Reid (2015): comparison method, cultural assimilation, cultural capsule, drama, TPR, cultural island, reformulation, noticing, treasure hunt, prediction, role play, research, songs, games, portfolio, field trip can be considered:

• Comparison method (not only compare factual information between typical day at schools between countries but others like greetings, addressing people, polite requests, proper use of please and thank you, nonverbal communication (raising hand to answer questions..) should be discussed.

• Cultural assimilation: greeting kisses in different cultures and then teachers need to emphasize that even in one culture, greeting kiss can be different.

Culture Teaching to Young Learners of English: from Perspectives of Foreign Teachers in a Private English Centre