English Language Teaching in its Social Context

ETHNOGRAPHY OF A SRI LANKAN CLASSROOM 213teaching is structured into English for specific purposes (ESP), catering to the diffcrentsubject specialties. The first-year coursc is based on English for general purposes (EGP),providing practicc in all four skills.Because the course is structured around a core text, it is necessary to discuss theorganization of American Kernel Lessons (AKL): Intermediate (O’Ncill, Kingbury, Yeadon, andCornelius, 1978). We have to remember that such prepackaged material, which comes witha teachers’ manual, testing lat, and audiotapes for listening comprehension, represents “adirect assault on the traditional role of thc teacher as an intellectual whose function is toconceptualize, design and implement learning experiences suited to the specificity and needsof a particular classroom cxperiencc” (Aronowitz and Giroux, 1985, p. 149). Althoughteachers in thc University of Jaffna realize these problems, the limitations of time, funds,stationery, and printing facilities in war-torn Jaffna eventually drive thcm to use tcxts such asAKL which have been amply gifted by Western agencies such as the Asia Foundation. If existingbooks become dated, teachers have to simply wait for the next consignment of material.As thc title implics, the text is targeted towards intermediatc-level students and focuseson the tenses, using eclectic methods organized around a predominantly situational approach(see Richards and Rodgcrs, 1986). Each unit contains five parts. Part A introduces thegrammatical item for that unit through a set of“situations,” accompanied by visuals. Part B,labeled Formation and Manipulation, introduces the grammatical item more overtly andprovides pattern practice. Part C is a serialized detective story that introduces newvocabulary in addition to providing practice in reading/listening comprehension. Part Dpresents a conversation for role playing, whereas the final part contains guided composition.The last two parts also provide grammar revision exercises. Though grammar is presentedovcrtly in some sections, in most others, students are encouraged to formulatc their ownhypotheses inductively through activc use of the language in specific skills.It is also necessary to analyze the ideologies that structure the text in order to place incontext the attitudes and responscs of the students to the course. What stands out in thenote, “To the Student andTeacher,”in the beginning of the text is the concern with providingadequate “practice” so that studcnts will “progress” in the “fundamentals of English” whichintermediate students “still cannot seem to use correctly, easily and as automatically as theywould like” (O’Neill et a/. , 1978, p. vi). The language echoes behaviorism and assumes thatwith sufficient drill, students can be made to display habit-oriented automatic responses.Furthermore, the fundamcntals of English are considered autonomous, value-frecgrammatical structurcs (in thc fashion of U. S. structuralism), ignoring the culture andideologies that inform the language or the textbook. Thc students themselves are isolatedfrom their social contcxt, and there is no consitlcration of how their own linguistic andcultural backgrounds can affect or enhance their Icarning. In its concern with correctness(which, of coursc, is based on standard U.S. English rather than on the Englishes studentsbring with them), the textbook empowers the teacher as the sole authority in the classroomto regulate, discipline, and arbitrate the learning process. Such assumptions amount to whatGiroux (1 983) has identified as instrumental ideology (p. 209). Though AKL acknowledgesthe need to make learning an “enjoyable experience” and also provides opportunities forcollaborative pair work, these attempts provide only occasional relief from the largelypositivistic pedagogy.In fairncss to AKL, we have to note that certain scctions are influenced by the notion ofcommunicative compctcnce with advice to students that “thc situations themsclves arc mor?important than isolated words” (O’Neill et a/., 1978, p. v). However, the interactions andthe discourse employed in such situations assume an urbanized, technocratic, Westernculture that is alien to the students. Even such simple spcech activities as conversations arc