MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01CA7151.26C8BD60" This document is a Single File Web Page, also known as a Web Archive file. If you are seeing this message, your browser or editor doesn't support Web Archive files. Please download a browser that supports Web Archive, such as Microsoft Internet Explorer. ------=_NextPart_01CA7151.26C8BD60 Content-Location: file:///C:/228919EE/analysing1...htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Learning English=
as a
foreign language in Brazilian elementary schools: Textbooks and their lesso=
ns
about the world and about learning
Denise Santos=
Textbooks are alwa=
ys
value-laden and reflect worldviews particular to certain social groups. They
are also effective tools in the reproduction and legitimization of these va=
lues
and beliefs. An analysis of latent and manifest content of popular English =
as a
foreign language textbooks in Brazilian elementary schools was carried out.
Three themes were identified in the analysis of text and images in these
materials: representations of a world devoid of problems, representations o=
f a
fragmented world, and representations of learning as an individual process.
These messages reinforce a conservative trend in the focused context. In
addition, they suggest a simplistic and non-critical view of the subject
matter, of learning, and of participation in society in general.
Introduction
Regardless of all the controversy involving textbo=
oks,
three related issues are widely accepted: (1) textbooks do not exist in a
vacuum, and thus reflect particular worldviews; (2) textbook content is lik=
ely
to orient curriculum in general; and (3) textbooks have a great impact on t=
he
learner’s understanding of the knowledge associated with the fields
represented by these materials.
This stud=
y is
framed by these assumptions, and follows the view that the examination of
textbooks can provide information about the worldviews used in the settings=
in
which these books are adopted, including definitions of knowledge, teaching,
learning, and views of social order. Key to this discussion is the argument
that, by projecting images of social practices, textbooks imply views
considered legitimate within the community of users of such materials. Howe=
ver,
these images are always unilateral worldviews peculiar to a certain group
(usually the mainstream) and they do not reflect the entire community’=
;s
ways of seeing the world. Bes=
ides
conveying this notion of legitimacy, textbooks can also influence the
reproduction of dominant values, beliefs, and assumptions about the world a=
nd
about participation in it. Therefore, their examination can aid the assessm=
ent
of preferred worldview in a certain context.
This study seeks to address these issues within the
context of teaching English as a Foreign Language (henceforth, EFL) in
elementary schools in Brazil. In other words, the objective of this paper i=
s to
provide a critical[1]
analysis of popular textbooks in this scenario and to articulate the
assumptions about the world and about foreign language learning embedded in
them. The following questions
guided this investigation:
1. How is the conc=
ept of language
developed in these materials? What does the content tell us about the text&=
#8217;s
implied notions of knowledge? What are the underlying assumptions of studyi=
ng
EFL embedded in these materials? What kind of knowledge is a successful lea=
rner
expected to master through the use of these materials?
2. How is the conc=
ept of learning
addressed in these materials? What theories of learning do they base themse=
lves
upon? What are the most common activities? Do they focus on the individual,=
or
on interaction? Do they treat learning as a purely cognitive function? Do t=
hey
address the social aspects of learning? Do they focus on content or process=
?
3. What do these m=
aterials
tell us about the social world, and implicit and explicit rules and roles in
it? What misconceptions and misrepresentations (if any) are present in these
materials?
The socioeconomic conditions of the early days of
Brazil’s history, based on large properties dominated by one single
person and on slave labour, have had a great impact on the development of s=
ocial
institutions in the country.[2]=
a> Another factor has had a major inf=
luence
in the development of educational traditions in Brazil. Jesuits were in cha=
rge
of the first attempts to formalize education in the country, and their
dominance was felt for about two centuries, from 1549 to 1759. Having the
catechization of the natives as their main goal, Jesuits were also given the
task of educating the elite. In an effort to spread the spirit of the Count=
er
Reformation, the content of their education was essentially against critical
thought. Education had the fundamentally political purpose of reaffirming t=
he
power of authority (either the government or the church), and learning was
based on accumulation of facts to be memorized.
Conservatism can describe Brazilian pedagogical
traditions to this date. Recitation and memorization are still common
practices; classroom furniture is usually arranged into rows, facing the
teachers’ desk and board; teachers tend to make all decisions regardi=
ng
what is to be taught (and how it is to be taught) relying extensively on the
adopted textbook. As Freire explains, ‘the Brazilian tradition ... has
not been to exchange ideas, but to dictate them; not to debate or discuss
themes, but to give lectures; not to work with the student, but to w=
ork on
him, imposing an order to which he has to accommodate’.[3]=
a>
Instructional materials have followed these normat=
ive
patterns since the design of the very first textbooks in the country by the
Jesuits: dictionaries of some of the native languages spoken in Brazil and
their correspondent words in Portuguese. To this date, textbooks tend to
display bodies of information that are believed to have intrinsic value wit=
hin
their disciplines, offering little or no opportunity for learners to reflec=
t on
the applicability of that knowledge to their daily lives.
At the background of this scenario lie the Brazili=
an
National Parameters for Education, which define the educational objectives =
in
the country framed by complex and dynamic notions of language and learning.=
[4]=
a>
This document was issued in 1997, replacing curricular guidelines character=
ized
by an emphasis on skills development and a focus on independent, standardiz=
ed
content of specific disciplines. Its goal is to establish a curricular
reference and to support the local organization of curriculum within each s=
tate
of a country marked by social, geographic and cultural contrast.
Since the publication of the National Parameters f=
or
Education, an agency of the Brazilian Ministry of Education has been involv=
ed
in annual analyses of a number of textbooks in all required subject areas at
the elementary levels in the country – namely, Portuguese, Mathematic=
s,
Social Studies, and Science. No investigation has yet been carried out on
foreign language materials since this discipline is not compulsory at the
elementary level in Brazilian schools. The results of these evaluations
indicate that, although there has been some improvement in the quality of t=
he
analyzed textbooks in the past years, most available materials do not empha=
size
the social uses of knowledge, that is, the significant and contextualized
application of a certain body of information in their respective discipline=
s.
These considerations lead us to another important
notion, namely the role of the English language in the Brazilian society.
According to Kachru, Brazil is part of the expanding circle regarding the
spread of English, that is, it is a country where English is not a mother
tongue (the inner circle), and its use has never been institutionalized as a
second language (the outer circle).[5]=
a>
This model highlights the different uses of English around the world and
challenges the neutrality and standardization usually associated with its
spread calling for [DS1]s=
ituated
articulations of the role of English in each context of use.
In this respect, it is worth noting that, for the =
last
five decades, Brazil has experienced the enormous influence of American
culture. Not only has the Portuguese language incorporated English features,
but also there has been a significant import of American values. Learning
English nowadays is a prerequisite to having access to better jobs and to
cultural media, which in turn builds an implicit belief that this language =
is a
prerequisite to power, popularity, and success.
But the influence of the English language reaches
various levels of Brazilian society. Following a typically Brazilian tenden=
cy
to assume the attitude of the ‘colonized’,[6]=
a>
some people believe that, by using the English language, they will be achie=
ving
a higher level of social status and prestige. English names are given to
babies, businesses, and products; English words are often displayed on clot=
hes
and advertisements. Middle- and upper-class citizens often attend private
English institutes and yet, due to enormous social contrasts in the Brazili=
an
society, it is only a minority of the population which actually develops
proficiency in the language.
Finally, it is important to highlight that EFL is =
not
specifically tied to the boundaries of the National Parameters for Educatio=
n.
The teaching of a modern foreign language is mandatory in the country as of=
the
beginning of secondary school (around age 11), for seven years, but English=
is
by far the most widely taught foreign language (followed by Spanish, and
French). However, there are a
number of schools that offer EFL instruction as early as preschool level.
Adopted textbooks tend to be written by Brazilians and published by local
publishers, due to their lower prices (compared to imported textbooks) and =
to
their easier distribution in remote areas of the country.
The teacher’s versions of the three best-sel=
ling
series sold and developed in Brazil were gathered (see Appendix). In this s=
tudy
these series will be referred to as Series A, B, and C. Each of these three
series included four books, designed for the four years of the elementary l=
evel
of schooling in Brazil (aiming at an audience ranging on average from 7 to =
10
years of age). Ancillary materials such as audiotapes, videotapes, flashcar=
ds,
posters, and readers were not systematically analysed. Content analysis focused on the th=
emes
reinforced in these twelve textbooks, on their latent messages, suggested by
the visual aids, as well as on the pedagogical orientations suggested in
activities and/or directions provided in the teacher’s manuals. In or=
der
to do so, each textbook was examined five times, and each of these readings=
had
different objectives.
The first reading aimed at achieving a general ide=
a of
the overall structure of the student’s edition of these materials,
observing the organization of content, and the main themes regarding notion=
s of
knowledge and language use.
Following this first reading the books were examined again, this time
with special attention to their illustrations, the assumptions they made, w=
hat
they took for granted, in an attempt to identify recurrent themes and
potentially problematic misinterpretations. This second reading required a =
more
systematic analysis of teachers’ and students’ roles as portray=
ed
in the illustrations. Formal counts were taken of the portrayals of
students’ interactions (with whom they interacted and what they did
during these interactions) and teachers’ actions. For the purpose of =
this
analysis, students were identified in Series B and C through the use of
uniforms (at schools or on their way to or from school these children were
always wearing uniforms) or through the association of school-related
activities (e.g., doing homework or studying for a test). The students
illustrated in Series A did not wear uniforms; therefore, their identificat=
ion
was done through the association of these individuals with school scenarios
(the whole school, classrooms, school playgrounds, or field trips) or tasks
(worksheets, homework, and tests). As to teachers, they had one or more
symbolic features in their representation in all the illustrations in the
twelve analyzed books: pointers, glasses, and uniforms were the features
associated with teachers in the sample.
A third examination focused on specifically
pedagogical issues, particularly general tendencies regarding the expectati=
ons
of students and teachers whilst using these textbooks. Directions in the
teacher’s manuals were relevant sources of data.
The fourth reading added more numerical data to the
investigation following Applebee’s method of considering each activit=
y as
a unit of analyses. [7] According to Applebee, an activity=
is
‘a question, suggestion, or directive that might be separately assign=
ed
by the teacher or chosen by the student’.[8]=
a>
Each activity was categorized on three levels. Authenticity was categorized=
as
either authentic (allowing different responses) or recitation (when there is
only one ‘correct’ answer). Content was categorized according to
the emphasis of each activity, namely vocabulary, structures (or a combinat=
ion
of these two), functions, or song. Finally, connectivity refers to the exte=
nt
to which an activity bears some kind of relationship with another activity.=
It
can be unrelated to other activities, part of a set (requiring a similar ta=
sk,
but not building on another activity), or cumulative (building on one or mo=
re
previous activities).
A final reading focussed on on the authors’ messages to t=
he
prospective users of their textbooks (including both teachers and students),
and on what the designers of these materials claimed to be doing.
In this study a person’s first language will be
referred to as L1; an additional language, developed after L1 acquisition, =
will
be indicated as L2. A “foreign language” is defined here as a
“non-native language taught in school that has no status as a routine=
medium
of communication in that country”.[9]=
span>
This = analysis revealed three major themes in the sample:
1. Representations of a world devoid of problems;
2. Representations of a fragmented world; and
3. Representations of learning as an individual process.
Evide= nce of these themes was found during all the readings of the materials, being pres= ent in all the twelve textbooks analyzed. Each of these themes, in turn, was characterized by different patterns, as discussed below.
According to the examined textbooks, the world is a
perfect place. This absence of conflicts is revealed through the representa=
tion
of four main notions: schools as harmonious places, standardization among
elements of the same group, L1 and L2 as identical systems, and meanings as
stable and unproblematic notions. =
span>
The three analyzed EFL series portray schools as t=
idy,
spacious, and clean environments in which teachers and students engage in
harmonious relationships. As depicted in their illustrations, classroom
furniture is always orderly arranged in rows, students’ backpacks and
lunch boxes often lay tidily on the floor next to a desk, and school objects
(pens, pencils, rulers, erasers, etc.) tend to be regularly arranged on tab=
les
and desks. The following excerpt, taken from a text entitled ‘My
School’, found in Series B, is typical in its unproblematic
representation of schooling:
I study in a big s=
chool.
The name of my school is Sunshine. It has many classes, a large playground,=
a
secretary and a good bar[10]<=
/a>.
I study in the morning. I study English, Portuguese, Mathematics, History,
Geography and Drawing. The teachers are very good. I am very happy to study
here.
In this idealized description, words such as
‘big’, ‘many’, ‘large’, ‘goodR=
17;,
and ‘happy’ emphasize positive characteristics of the described
setting, as well as the satisfaction found by students who have the chance =
to
attend such a perfect school. The illustrations that accompany this text
reinforce this idea of happiness. The students who are about to enter school
greet each other with a smile on their faces, parents outside school also t=
alk
enthusiastically, and even the rising sun is smiling at the background of t=
his
scene. In the classroom with furniture arranged in rows, four students (wea=
ring
uniforms) also smile and look to the front of the class; on the playground =
two
of these children play happily, but this time they are not wearing uniforms=
. In
the school office, the secretary types with a smile on her face, and her de=
sk
is clean and tidy. The images=
and
discourse emphasized here imply the presence of harmonious relationships and
absence of conflicts in school settings. This unproblematic representation =
of
schools highlights dominant values regarding the association of schooling w=
ith
other notions such as a life of success, abundant benefits, and happiness. =
In
such an ideal scenario, everybody is glad (including the sun in its personi=
fied
representation), and apparently there are no major problems.
Another feature of this perfect world is that the
elements of a same group tend to be standardized, as also suggested by the
illustrations that accompany the text “My school.” In the
classroom, represented as the domain of studying, students (elements of the
major set of “learners”) wear uniforms and engage in the same
activity. On school playgroun=
ds
however, the same students do not reveal the same uniformity: they wear
different clothes, and do different things, as if while playing these child=
ren
did not belong to the same set of identical elements anymore. This suggests
that a more formal learning environment presupposes some standardization an=
d is
likely to have an impact on a number of pedagogical practices, from choice =
of
content to measures of assessment, also involving methodological issues.
It is important to emphasize that this notion of
standardization among elements of the same group tends to occur in the
representation of other groups as well. For example, in the same scene or
activity (and often throughout the unit), the animals that belong to the sa=
me
category are often identical, that is, all lions look the same, all birds l=
ook
the same, all monkeys look the same, etc. This simplistic representation oc=
curs
repeatedly in Series A, B, and C.
The same standardization occurs in the representat=
ion
of school objects in the analyzed series. These objects are frequently
identical within the same group (that is, in the same scene or activity, the
pens tend to be identical, the books tend to be identical, etc.). Such homogeneity tends to occur in=
the
illustrations of other groups throughout the twelve textbooks, such as ball=
s,
dolls, kites (and other toys), or pears, apples, bananas (and other fruits)=
.
Analyses of all the instances in the sample during
which prospective users of these books were asked to identify the number of
elements in a certain group revealed an emphasis on identical representatio=
ns
as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Represen=
tations
of elements within the same group, per series.
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:150%;letter-spacing:.6pt;mso-ansi-lan=
guage:
EN-US'>
L1 and L2 as ident=
ical
systems
Another aspect of the idealized world portrayed in=
the
sample is the unproblematic correspondence between students’ L1 (Port=
uguese)
and the target language (English). In the analyzed textbooks, L1 and L2 ten=
d to
be treated as identical systems at various levels. The four volumes of Seri=
es A
include a dictionary that contains the English words used together with the
translation in Portuguese of their meanings, implying there is a one to one
correspondence among these words at all times. Series B projects this
oversimplified view of two different languages in its directions at the
beginning of each unit, ‘Let’s learn how to say this and that in
English today’. The fact that ‘this’ or ‘that’
may be differently conceptualized in the two languages (not to mention the =
fact
that there will be variations in these conceptions among speakers of the sa=
me
language) is never considered. Series C also implies an equivalence between=
the
two languages that resides at purely lexical and structural levels. In all =
the
volumes, after introducing the focused vocabulary of each lesson, there is a
section called ‘Vamos conversar?’ (‘Let’s
talk’). According to the proposed activities, this talk is composed of
teacher-student exchanges during which the former asks questions in Portugu=
ese,
for example: ‘Hoje é o aniversário de Tom. Como ele
falou isso?; Como perguntamos a idade de uma pessoa?’ (‘Tod=
ay
is Tom’s birthday. How did he say that?; How do we ask someone’s
age?’). The students are supposed to answer questions in English,
demonstrating the incorporation of the new code that can be used in the same
straightforward, simplistic, world.
Of special interest are instances when differences
between the two languages are unavoidable. How do these materials deal with
these problems? Since the three series do not give attention to differences=
in
broader conceptualizations between the two languages, this discussion can o=
nly
consider the structural level of the text. All the teacher’s manuals =
in
the analyzed volumes encourage teachers to emphasize structural differences
between the two languages (for example, position of adjectives in relation =
to
nouns; presence or absence of adjective agreement; presence or absence of
gender in nouns) by “explaining” these variations. On these
occasions, “explaining” means making it clear that one language
follows a pattern and that the other follows a different one. Variations wi=
thin
the same language are never highlighted (for example, “the blue
bird” versus “color the bird blue”). Students are led to assume that, by
knowing about the special conventions of the new code, they are also master=
ing
all the information they need.
This unproblematic correspondence between L1 and L2
has another dimension relevant to this study. Throughout the analyzed
textbooks, it is never made clear what the English language is, where it is
spoken, by whom, or why the users of these materials are studying it. This
omission is likely to create some unarticulated problems. For example, in t=
he
text “My school” mentioned earlier, the text is in English, the=
re
is the American flag in front of the illustrated school, and yet the studen=
ts
are wearing typically Brazilian uniforms, they go to school “in the
morning” (a clear reference to the Brazilian educational system,
according to which students attend school either in the morning or in the
afternoon), and they even have Portuguese (the language spoken in Brazil) a=
s a
school subject.
Apart from a brief note in the teacher’s man=
ual
in Series B, suggesting that teachers should call students’ attention=
to
the fact that many languages are spoken around the world, and that English<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> ‘is one of the most importan=
t [languages]
in the world nowadays’, there is never a concern to turn EFL into a t=
opic
of conversation during classes. This ommision is parallelled by the fact th=
at
other social structures and practices in the analyzed volumes are typically
Brazilian in their representation (for example, birthday parties, houses and
furniture, months and what they represent), leaving the impression that
learning a foreign language is actually the use of new code for the same
(perfect) world.
In th= e world represented in the analyzed textbooks, instability of meanings or misunderstandings is not likely to occur. It is assumed that hearers and readers will decode the messages in the exact way intended by speakers and writers. This certainty neglects potential problems in the accomplishment of some proposed activities in these volumes. For example, in Series B, studen= ts are often invited to write adjectives to describe some scenes. According to answers indicated as correct in the teacher’s manual, it is mistakenly assumed that the word ‘bad’ can only convey a negative connotat= ion and that the words ‘new’ and ‘old’ are to be associ= ated with ‘in perfect condition’ and ‘broken’, respectiv= ely.
A rather intriguing representation of meanings as
unproblematic notions is found in Series C, in an activity through which
students are expected to practice their knowledge of numbers in English: a
number of pictures is displayed and learners are asked to highlight the wor=
d (‘one’,
‘two’, ‘three’, ‘four’, or
‘five’) that matches each picture. In one of the pictures, the
façade of a school is illustrated: it is composed of a roof, four
identical windows, a plaque containing the word ‘school’, and a
door which in turn has two glass windows and two handles. At the front of t=
he
school one can see two steps, a pathway, two walls and two trees. It is
surprising to notice that as early as in their second year of schooling
children are supposed to perceive “school” as the main (and onl=
y)
visual cue in the picture and mark ‘one’ as the right answer, as
the teacher’s manual suggests. The fact that there are other possible
answers (for example, four or two, referring to windows and trees,
respectively) is not even mentioned, probably having been neglected not onl=
y by
the author of the book but also by all the reviewers and editors of the ser=
ies,
reinforcing the fact that enculturation to school conventions has long-term
consequences. This particular example is remarkable in its illustration of =
the
notion of stability of meaning; it also points to the assumption that
correctness and truth reside in schools.
The second theme involves the portrayal of a world
marked by fragmentation at various levels. While the absence of problems is=
a
message clearly displayed in the sample, this second message is never
explicitly formulated. However, its existence (together with the inattentio=
n to
it) seems to be operative in the building of the notion of the perfect
world. Fragmentation is revea=
led in
the analyzed materials through the representation of four notions: schools =
as
disconnected social institutions, isolated disciplines as the embodiment of
knowledge, EFL as a collection of independent items, and learning as a sequence of distinct stages.
In the three examined series, schools are portraye=
d as
independent settings not connected with other environments children are lik=
ely
to take part in. According to an activity proposed in Series B, a school is=
the
‘place where boys and girls study every day, except on =
the
weekends, where many teachers work, giving explanations about many s=
ubjects’,
in striking opposition to more informal environments such as parks, defined=
as
follows: ‘The place reserved for leisure, where there are many tre=
es
and birds, and where boys and girls like to play: they
take their toys there, they exercise, play ball, fly kites=
,
ride their bikes, talk, rest, etc’. [11]
In the three series, teachers (as representative of
schools) are usually portrayed within the domains of these institutional
settings, and are not likely to be present in other contexts. In other words, schools are the pl=
aces
where “explanations” can be found, in spite of the fact that th=
e need
for, or the appropriateness of, these explanations is never discussed. At
parks, boys and girls may play and talk, but are not likely to find answers=
to
their questions there. At schools, on the other hand, they will find the
knowledge (transmitted by teachers) whose value and suitability has been
established a priori.
Long ago Dewey pointed out that a school should be=
a
place where a living person could interact with a living environment, and
engage in living rather than mere studying. [12]
However, the analyzed textbooks portray a world in which studying and living
tend to be dissociated. Moreover, studying is represented as a set of rules=
of
behavior that is to be learned by students as well, a phenomenon that Heath
describes as ‘to learn school, meaning its rules and
expectations’. [13]
To learn, school [DS2]i=
nvolves
learning to accept fragmentation and disconnection as natural characteristi=
cs
of the world. This message is not always so explicit as it is in an activit=
y in
Series C that clearly invites students, ‘Vamos brincar de escolinh=
a?’
(‘Let’s play school!’). In that activity, ‘play
school’ means to write isolated words and label pictures that
characterize school life (such as ‘pencil’, ‘pen’,
‘book’, ‘desk’, ‘teacher’, and
‘student’, among others). In the illustration, the objects are
orderly arranged on the desk, the smiling teacher is pointing to the word
‘school’ on the board, and the happy student seems to be clearly
thankful for the opportunity of having access to =
that
worthy world of knowledge.
The view of knowledge represented in the analyzed
materials reveals implicit assumptions of schools as the locus of knowledge=
, as
noted earlier. Yet knowledge is in turn divided into independent disciplines
(the various school subjects), all of which represent the canon within their
own domain.
Both Series A and Series B reinforce this view of =
the
canon as independent bodies of knowledge from various disciplines through t=
he
pictorial representation of school subjects as fragmented and isolated worl=
ds
symbolized by their textbooks. In these illustrations Portuguese (the
students’ native language) as a discipline is represented by disconne=
cted
letters, emphasizing the role of written literacy as the most valuable
representation of knowledge. The English language is represented by the fla=
gs
of the United Sates and the United Kingdom, and although there is an indica=
tion
that the foreign language is likely to open doors to a new world (as implie=
d by
the flags), there is no clue regarding the connection between the learner a=
nd
the knowledge. Mismatches also occur in the representation of mathematics
(viewed as isolated numbers or as a too complex calculation for the prospec=
tive
users of the focused material involving the square root of a given number) =
and
science (viewed as independent snapshots of tubes, body organs, or even an
atom), illustrating Dewey’s view that ‘only in education, never=
in
the life of the farmer, sailor, merchant, physician, or laboratory
experimenter, does knowledge mean primarily a source of information aloof f=
rom
doing’.[14]
In terms of organization, the sample revealed a
tendency to treat knowledge of the English language as a collection of inde=
pendent
bodies of information. In all the volumes, content is organized around
pre-defined vocabulary items, situations, grammar categories, structures or
functions of the language (that is, ‘information aloof from doingR=
17;,
using Dewey’s terms), with no internal consistency within the same
series, and no apparent connection among topics. In general, the analysis of
the sequences of content in these three series demonstrated that the chosen
topics could be easily reordered or removed, indicating that the parts chos=
en
to represent the universe of L2 are nothing but arbitrary choices of lexical
and structural items, ignoring students’ actual needs outside the
classroom or their experience regarding EFL.
As Applebee explains, ‘curriculum development
reinforces this emphasis on characteristics of, rather than participation i=
n, a
tradition of discourse. The typic=
al
approach to curriculum requires first a thorough parsing of what students
should know, and second the organization of those parts into elaborate scope
and sequence charts that specify the order in which that content should be
taught’.[15]
This statement brings to the surface two further aspects: the definition of=
the
topics that orient instruction and the reasons behind the choices involving
progression of content. The a=
uthors
of Series A claim to move from the more familiar topics (‘from toys, =
from
family, from school’) to the more unfamiliar ones (‘nature, not=
ions
of space and time, etc.’), and the author of Series C argues that the
proposed themes ‘explore children’s interests and experiences
during different stages of their lives’. The first volumes of these t=
wo
series are typical in their lack of integration among topics around which
instruction is oriented. Series A focuses on the following topics, in this
order: toys, family/colors, school/numbers, places to go/sports;
nature/numbers/colors, animals/colors, food/colors/numbers, human body/numb=
ers.
Series C is organized around these topics, in this order: greetings, school,
animals, colours, numbers, fruit, family, toys, nature, and objects used du=
ring
meals. These topics and these sequences indicate that the notion of familia=
rity
or the discussion with what coincides with the interest and the experience =
of
children cannot be generalized to all the users of these materials. The aut=
hor
of Series B does not justify her choice of topics in any way, but the
organization of content in the first volume of this series is also
characterized by fragmentation. The table of contents lists these topics, in
this order: Greetings (good morning, good afternoon, god bye); school/boy/g=
irl;
house/red/green; teacher/book/pencil; ball/yellow/blue; sentences in the
structure: The ... is ...; cat/dog/bird/black; tree/fruit;
monkey/orange/banana; apple/pear/mango; flower/white/brown; numbers: one, t=
wo,
three; numbers: one, two, three, four, five, six.
From thes=
e three
sequences it is clear that content is primarily organized around disconnect=
ed
vocabulary in all the analyzed series. Analyses of the content of the
activities proposed in the textbooks established an emphasis on vocabulary =
or
structure (Figure 2).[DS3]<=
span
lang=3DSV style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:150%'>
Figure 2. Content emphasized, per series.
It is imp=
ortant
to point out that all the activities proposed in the analyzed textbooks foc=
used
on EFL as products, only: vocabulary is introduced and reinforced as words =
to
be added to the students’ lexical repertoire, structures are shown and
practiced as formulas to be retained, and functions are treated as scripts =
to
be memorized. By emphasizing ready-made products at the expense of ongoing
processes, the activities in the three series never attempt to link the foc=
used
content with a broader discussion of the relevance of such information, or =
of
the practices implemented during the learning process. This orientation ‘encourages=
a
narrowing focus from learning to what must be learned’[16] and neglects t=
he
fact that definitions of know=
ledge
must involve not only what it is to be known, but also how knowledge is
acquired and what knowers are supposed to do with what they know, not to
mention the discussions on sources, need, and applicability of these bodies of information.
The tende=
ncy to
ignore interconnectedness and relationship among parts that characterize a
certain whole is also perceived in the lack of connections among activities
suggested in the sample. Analyses of connectivity among the activities prop=
osed
in the sample were carried out. These activities were categorized as unrela=
ted
(when there was no relationship among them), part of a set (when they requi=
red
similar tasks, but did not build on one another), or cumulative (when they
built on previous activities). As
Figure 3 indicates, there is an overwhelming emphasis on unrelated activiti=
es
in the sample, which reinforces the notion that what counts as knowing EFL =
is
students’ ability to show that they have stored the knowledge they ha=
ve
been introduced to, and that they can reproduce such knowledge when and as
required. The ability to actively construct knowledge, to come to one’=
;s
own conclusions, to develop a more holistic understanding of the subject ma=
tter
does not seem to be a concern.
Figure 3.Connectivity among
activities, per series.
In the three series, the disconnected topics and
activities described above tend to be implemented through also disconnected
practices, suggesting that learning is a progression of distinct stages. In
general the learning of a foreign language is seen as the assimilation of
isolated words, then phrases, then longer sentences. Concerning L2 structur=
es,
the affirmative form is always introduced before the interrogative and the
negative (in this order). These patterns show that there is a failure to
acknowledge the learning of a foreign language as a complex, dynamic, integ=
ral,
process: instead, what is emphasized is a developmental sequence that needs=
to
meet some requirements before the next step is taken. The fact that prospec=
tive
users of these materials already possess oral and written literacy in their=
own
L1 is disregarded.
Such neglect offers an indication that the develop=
ment
of oral skills is always a prerequisite to the development of written ones.=
The
three series are built on this assumption, and as the author of Series B
explains, ‘each unit can be studied in two distinct phases: oral and
written. In the oral phase, students have been encouraged to develop
observation, memorization, and conversation; in the written phase, they have
the chance to read the exercises and solve them, thus consolidating their
learning.’ (my translation). In other words, there is a prevailing ef=
fort
in the three series to provide extensive and continual input (first orally,
then, written) so that studen=
ts can
assimilate the content. By implying an equivalence in both L1 and L2
development, this assumption overlooks major constraints that characterize
foreign language instruction that takes place in the classroom, such as lit=
tle
time of exposure to the language, or too large a number of students in the =
classroom.
As a consequence, speaking receives rather problematic definitions and
treatment in the three series.
In Series A, for example, the authors argue that
‘an efficient oral practice makes students more comfortable to speak a
foreign language’ (my translation). However, the oral practice the se=
ries
suggests is built upon mechanical drills (involving repetition, substitutio=
n,
and transformation of sentences) that emphasize training and memorization of
independent sequences of words. Series B also focuses on oral input of
independent items (mainly, isolated words), introducing each unit through a
‘conversa dirigida’ (‘guided conversation’)
that, according to the script provided in the teacher’s manual, is
actually a practice oriented by behaviorist notions characterized by
stimulus-response. An also problematic trend occurs in Series C: throughout=
the
four volumes, a section entitled ‘Vamos conversar?’
(‘Let’s talk’) provides questions through which teachers =
can
check students’ assimilation of the valuable knowledge (often represe=
nted
by vocabulary items) previously introduced.
Thus, according to the three best-selling EFL text=
book
series for the Brazilian elementary school, speaking a foreign language is a
matter of word memorization, recognition, and reproduction. When more compl=
ex
structures are introduced, they are not necessarily the expression (let alo=
ne
the mediation) of more complex ideas. They are treated as fragmented and
isolated content, introduced by means of bottom-up practices and reinforced=
through
mechanical activities.
The analyzed volumes suggest that learning is a
primarily individual enterprise. This theme is revealed through the emphasi=
s of
individualism in the representation of two notions: hierarchies of individu=
al
expertise and classroom practices as non-interactive routines.
Analyses of content and teaching suggestions in the
sample indicated that teachers’ major role is to initiate students in=
to
the world of valuable knowledge by providing linguistic input, asking
known-answer questions, and privileging the quantity of students’ out=
put
at the expense of its quality. Precise directions in the teacher’s
manuals that accompany all the volumes seem to guarantee the accomplishment=
of
these roles very easily, leaving the impression that anybody who follows su=
ch
prescribed (one size fits all) script will necessarily fulfill all the
objectives.
Distinct hierarchies of individual expertise are revealed,
thus: first, there are the most knowledgeable of all, the authors of these
textbooks, who apparently know what information students are expected to kn=
ow,
and who provide teachers with scripts to be followed and with the correct
answers to be given by students. These scripts rarely encourage teachers=
217;
or students’ self expression or critical thought. Rarely do they fore=
see
the possibility of becoming in practice something different from the one
outlined in the manual: on one extreme, there is a brief note given by the
author of Series C who says that the suggestions in the teacher’s man=
ual
‘should be used according to each teacher’s interests and adapt=
ed
to specific audiences.’ (my translation); on another, there is the sc=
ript
provided in Series B, which even foresees the answers that will be given by
students during the class, as illustrated by the following excerpt from the
teacher’s manual, which provides directions on how to practice the wo=
rds
‘red’ and ‘ball’. My translations are given in
brackets.
- O que voc&eci=
rc;
pintou aqui, José? (What have you coloured here, José?)
- Pintei uma re=
d ball.
(I’ve coloured a red ball.)
- Parabé=
ns,
Patricia, pelo seu desenho. O que mostra essa figura?
(Congratulations on your drawing,
Patricia. What does the picture show?)
- Ela mostra um=
a red
ball. (It shows a red ball.)
- Os meninos
estão usando o que no seu jogo de futebol?
(What are the boys=
using
in their soccer game?)
&nb=
sp; -
Eles estão usando uma red ball. (They’re using a red ball=
.)
In both extremes, though, there is the suggestion =
that
the authors are providing teachers with the necessary skills to use their
materials appropriately, and this fact unfolds a second level of expertise:=
the
teachers themselves who will be, to their students, the embodiment of valua=
ble
knowledge and truth. The view of teachers as experts, whose task is to init=
iate
students into the world of knowers, is also supported by the portrayal of
teachers in the illustrations found in the sample. Figure 4 presents more
details about the actions carried out by the illustrated teachers in the
examined textbooks and it reveals a tendency in the sample to represent the=
se
professionals displaying their expertise in various ways, for example, by
reinforcing (pointing or calling attention to) the valuable knowledge that =
is
displayed on the board or on the task to be carried out. Other manifestatio=
ns
of teachers’ expertise occur through the portrayal of teachers’
lecturing, dictating, modeling, asking or answering known-answer questions,
saying “I’m a teacher,” or providing specific directions =
to
students regarding how and when they are supposed to use their knowledge.
Figure 4. Teachers’ roles as portrayed in Series A,=
B,
and C.
Of special interest are the words “I’m=
a
teacher” said by the instructors portrayed in Series A several times,
reinforcing the notion that teachers are the authoritative representation of
knowledge and that they will lead students to the valuable world of wisdom.
Only once, among all the illustrations present in the twelve analyzed volum=
es,
does a teacher actually listen to her student. Another recurring pattern is=
the
portrayal of teachers, in the three series, as recipients of some kind of
homage coming from their students. This representation reinforces this noti=
on
of hierarchies of individual expertise, and a new level can be discussed at
this point: in the analyzed textbooks, the students are experts only when t=
hey
can reproduce the same knowledge transmitted by their teacher -- and they h=
ave
to be thankful for that opportunity.
The focus on individualism in schools is also reve=
aled
through the analyses of the activities and illustrations present in the
materials. The emphasis on individual performances of teachers and students=
, at
the expense of more complex social interactions, has a very problematic
dimension: In general, it is assumed that the whole class should achieve the
same learning outcomes as revealed in an overwhelming emphasis on recitation
activities, as shown in Figure 5. Authentic activities are defined here as
those which allow different responses; recitation activities are the ones w=
hich
expect only one ‘correct’ answer.
Figure 5.Expected responses, per
series.
It has been argued that current paradigms in L2
instruction define learning as a message transfer mechanism, focusing on in=
put
and output, and treating teachers and students as individual participants w=
ho
do not actually engage in joint construction of meaning. This is also the v=
iew
reinforced in the analyzed materials, in which learning is seen as the resu=
lt
of purely cognitive processing. In the teacher’s manuals that accompa=
ny
the analyzed volumes, verbs such as ‘explain’, ‘present’, ‘reinforce’, ‘repeat’, and
‘train’, are common ones. Within the books, the illustrated
teachers often say, ‘Pay attention!’, ‘Look!’, or
‘Remember!’, reinforcing roles marked by individualism in the
teaching/learning process: if students and teachers carry out their roles
appropriately, learning will occur. If there is failure in this process, su=
ch
problem can be attributed to either teachers (who have not provided adequate
input, or asked the suitable questions, or given enough reinforcement of
content) or to students (who have not paid enough attention to, or looked a=
t,
or remembered, the valuable knowledge transmitted by their teachers).
In short, these textbooks do not foster relevant
interactions among students, or between teachers and students. They value t=
he
knowledge supposedly held by individual experts, whose task is to transmit =
this
same knowledge to others. Language is used (by teachers as well as students=
) as
a mechanical resource, not aiming at communication or self-regulation, but
clearly communicating the message, ‘I have grasped the valuable knowl=
edge
you have given to me and I am happy and grateful’.
This study aims to articulate explicit and implicit
messages embedded in popular English as a foreign language textbooks in
Brazilian elementary schools. Textbooks, as representatives of educational
discourse, can provide significant information about expected roles and rul=
es
in their context of use. They also unveil shared understandings among membe=
rs
of a certain social group, including their definitions of knowledge, school=
ing,
learning, language use, and participation in society in broader terms. In o=
ther
words, the messages given by textbooks go beyond the realm of specific subj=
ect
matters. They also teach lessons about the world and about learning in gene=
ral.
Before assessing the findings of this study it is
necessary to sound a cautionary note. I would like to point out that this s=
tudy
is limited within the very methodological approach that gives form to it.
Content analyses of textbooks can be relevant sources of information regard=
ing
content, form, and implicit messages embedded in these materials, but one c=
an
never be fully sure about how these materials are going to be actually
implemented in the classroom, or about how learners are going to make sense=
of
these lessons in the long run. A second limitation resides in the absence o=
f a
second investigator’s analysis of the sample. I tried to minimize the=
effects
of my bias through the various readings I carried out, each of which had a
different focus. By doing so, I could triangulate the data and define what
themes emerged from the readings of these materials more consistently.
Three major themes emerged from the analysis. First, there is the suggestion tha=
t the
world is a perfect place, where there are no apparent conflicts to be solve=
d.
In that world, people, animals, places, and objects are marked by homogenei=
ty
and relationships are free from difficulties. In addition, everybody seems =
to
share the understanding of the same fixed meanings and universal truth.
The second message is that the world is fragmented=
at
various levels. Settings that characterize social life are portrayed as
isolated places, being schools, for example, disconnected from other
environments. In schools, knowledge is treated as a sum of independent
disciplines. EFL, one of these disciplines, is dealt with as a collection of
bodies of information, acquired through the accomplishment of mostly unrela=
ted
activities. In general, learning is associated with the ability to reproduce
vocabulary and structures in decontextualized and disconnected tasks.
This fragmentation is unarticulated and does not s=
eem
to pose problems either to the users of or to the people described in these
materials. This fact somehow reinforces the portrayal of the perfect world.=
By
ignoring more holistic representations, and by neglecting the necessary
relationships among parts that characterize broader notions, the text’=
;s
private ways of seeing the world and the social relations that occur in it =
are
implied as the correct, and only, views. And because the described views are
predominantly the ones of a more privileged social class, the message given=
is
that efforts to transform dominant traditions are absolutely unnecessary.
The third message supports this conservative empha=
sis.
Enculturation to school conventions includes a perception that school routi=
nes
are characterized by rules and roles marked by individualism. The textbooks
suggest that knowledge is possessed by individual experts, that it is to be
acquired through relations that are eminently individual, and that it is to=
be
reproduced in private routines that offer no chances of change.
The textbooks, besides teaching EFL lessons, also
teach more fundamental lessons to their users. It is indeed important that
materials developers and teachers, while designing and using textbooks, ask
themselves what kind of language users they are helping form. Yet it is also
essential that these questions be asked as well: What kind of learners are =
we
helping raise? What kind of citizens are we helping develop? ‘The
language user’ ,
‘the R=
16;the
learner,’ and ‘the citizen’ are different but interdepend=
ent
identities developed by the same individual. In this respect, the results of
this study indicate that popular EFL textbooks in Brazilian elementary scho=
ols
are likely to teach children to become uncritical people, numb to the
complexities that characterize life in social groups. Through the content a=
nd
activities proposed the language user is led to assume that language is
convention only (with no space for creation and error), that meanings are
stable, and that communication is unproblematic. Similarly, a foreign langu=
age
is suggested to be a simplistic set of codes that can be easily incorporate=
d to
these users’ also unproblematic conception of language. Under this vi=
ew,
a foreign language has nothing to add to this conception, dismissing
Vygotsky’s notion that ‘a foreign language facilitates masterin=
g of
higher forms of the native language’.[17]<=
/a>
Accordingly, the users of these materials are unli=
kely
to become aware of the relevance of social exchanges as a prerequisite for =
true
learning, of the holistic character of knowledge, and above all of their ro=
le
as responsible agents in the learning process. In this respect, the message given=
is
that teachers and students are independent elements and that learning is
mastering ready-made information (but never discussing either the relevance=
of
this information or the practices implemented in its acquisition). These
textbooks also imply that it is ‘natural’ to have different way=
s of
learning in and out of school.
The discussion of what kind of citizens the analyzed
textbooks are helping develop is quite relevant in the Brazilian context, d=
ue
to a paradoxical relation involving the audience of these materials: On the=
one
hand, students who learn EFL in elementary schools are likely to be privile=
ged
members of the Brazilian society; on the other hands, these same learners a=
re
led to incorporate early in their lives the notion that knowledge of the
English language is the gateway to a more powerful world than theirs. Howev=
er,
this tension is never clearly articulated. Learners are not invited to
establish connections between EFL and their own worlds. Moreover, these
materials suggest that the new world (symbolized by EFL) is also unproblema=
tic
and can be achieved through the incorporation of a body of simplistic,
disconnected information.
Overall, the messages do not inform the user that
literacy, and learning, and citizenship, involve realization and critical
evaluation of the practices associated with membership with both the micro-=
and
macro-dimensions of social groups. The language users-learners-citizens that
take these worldviews for granted will probably reproduce their dominant
position in the Brazilian society, and will not develop necessary tools to =
help
their group obtain the passport to a more prestigious world.
These perceptions challenge the practices (at both
macro and micro levels) proposed by the Brazilian National Parameters for
Education, whose guidelines attempt to address the rapid changes and the im=
pact
of globalization which characterizes the beginning of this new millennium. =
In
this respect, this work opens up avenues for further research on currently
produced and used materials not only in Brazil, but also in other education=
al
scenarios in which EFL has a prominent role; in addition, these findings al=
so
point to the need for in-depth examinations of practitioners’ operationaliz=
ations
of these materials.
Different times require new social relations. They
also reveal new ways of representing the world, and presuppose new mechanis=
ms
to enable social members to cope with new needs. What forthcoming generatio=
ns
will be required to know, or do, in years to come, cannot be known. But bec=
ause
education is a process aiming at the future, awareness of the complexities =
of
an increasingly pluralistic world seems to be a fundamental concern of
educational enterprises. Textbooks can become major allies in this process =
of
awareness by incorporating both these complex notions and a critical
conversation on these complexities.
Page: 1
[DS1]<=
/span>replace with “spread, calling for”?
Page: 1
[DS2]<=
/span>Please replace “To learn, school” with “ =
216;To
learn school’ in the sample ”.
Page: 1
[DS3]<=
/span>please delete one of the two final stops.