That’s all folks!

The time has come for me to lay this topic (Postmodern TEFL) aside. After writing a book, plus fifty articles on the subject (most purposefully kept short), I have come to an end. There is little more to say. Other projects and interests now take my time. Besides, some would say that ‘Postmodernism’ is now ‘passé’ and we’re now in the era of ‘Post-postmodernism’! But to understand this, you first need to understand what postmodernism is about. Hence, my blog.

Pretentious poppycock? As you like, but do take note that major social, political, environmental and geological transformations are currently underfoot as the planet slides into a new geological era – the ‘Anthropocene‘.  That’s ‘Anthro‘, because this new era is of Mankind’s doing – in transforming the biosphere and geology of the planet. Ecological concerns have been expressed, and ignored, since the dawn of modernity (e.g. since Buffon, G-L.L, 1778) as international trade and industry  have deleteriously effected the environment. But to consider resultant transformations since the 1950s (‘the great acceleration’) is truly stupefying –  apocalyptic even.

Such is the legacy of modernity, against which postmodernity reacts. Ignoring the slide into self-destruction for humankind, as collectively we have been prone to do for far too long, now puts the whole planet in peril. Let’s just hope the fourth industrial revolution, now arriving, that will ‘be unlike anything humankind has experienced before’ (see here, read here), saves the day. It’ll be touch-and-go! Don’t dismiss such discussions too quickly. This is not poppycock! Yes, I wish to shock you, dear reader, into taking note!

But here, in this closing blog, I’m talking about TEFL, which, presumably, is harmless and inoffensive – isn’t it? Well, if you’ve read this blog posting in which I quote major TEFL academics (see here), you might think again – or at least, give it a moment’s reflexion. Colonialism and globalisation have been built upon the English language (see here). Also, consider that….

“Without the (British) Empire the industrial revolution would have been physically impossible“.  (Bonneuil, C & Fressoz, J-B. 2013. P.234) 

Plus – this quote by TEFL Professor David Graddol (2006):

‘….economic development and increasing global influence depend almost entirely on the process of globalization and the enhancement of English language proficiency’. 

Surely, these quotes make you stop and pause to reflect for a moment?

The main themes through this Postmodern TEFL blog, to sum up, have been to situate TEFL within a multi-disciplinary, pluralist world in which voices question established, modernist precepts. And modernist precepts are based upon the scientific rationality of the enlightenment.  However, applying these modernist precepts to rationalizing societies (e.g. August Comte’s ‘positivism’) reduces societies and human interactions to ‘atomized’ building blocks and ignores human agency (moods, reflections, motivations, actions etc.). Therein lies the origin, the critique, and philosophical roots of postmodern thought. 

Immanuel Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ (1781), in attacking empiricism (the view that knowledge in obtained only through the senses), early on established a reaction to this modernist viewpoint. Kant’s work was then quickly followed by other philosophers holding non-science based, ‘anti-positivist’ viewpoints – in particular the German philosophers. These alternative, more ‘humanist’ viewpoints (some of whom have been explored within this blog), steered the way to modern day postmodernism. Postmodernism is, therefore, not solely a late 20th century phenomena. Its roots stretch back centuries – even millennia if we consider pre-Socratic thought as a starting point, which some do. Furthermore, the viewpoints of postmodernists, in standing opposed to the viewpoints of empirical modernists, are relevant to the teaching of English as a foreign language. This, I argue, through the blog articles. Grammar rules and structures belong to the domain of modernists. Students learning them are human beings with human concerns, experiences, behaviours and aspirations. My blogs on empathy, phenomenology, and second language identity crises, amongst others, bring this to light. For TEFL theorists, the viewpoints of Stephen Krashen on second language acquisition, as opposed to language development, I hold to be particularly pertinent in this regard.  The postmodern/modern dualism parallels the language acquisition/development dualism.

My arguments hold no great recognition within the world of TEFL. There may be several reasons for this – badly written texts, overly philosophical concepts, barking up the wrong tree (or barking mad!), my ‘every-day teacher’ status within the profession, neither pulpit nor podium etc. But I keep them published on-line and maybe, one day, people may think – ‘hey, didn’t I read about this somewhere before ?’ Well, I can dream, can’t I? Yes, Ok, I acknowledge that several of my ideas are not new. But, in fact, I’m actually quite delighted to slowly discover that some of these ideas have been previously stated. I can’t be so far off plumb with them, then. 

Actually, postmodernism welcomes a multitude of perspectives – and for me, the more challenging the perspective the better. Within the blogs contemporary postmodern thinkers are mentioned and cited. However, although not ‘postmodernists’ as such, I go out by mentioning Christopher Hitchens (who actually called postmodernism ‘mumbo-jumbo’), Naomi Klein and Jared Diamond: All dig deep and shake roots.

If we share Naomi Klein’s optimistic viewpoints that neoliberalism and ‘disaster capitalism’ are in decline as groups rise to challenge corporatism  (1999, 2007), and that a global environmental spirit is pressurizing the climate change deniers to back out of environmentally destructive projects (2014), we are already part of a postmodern world view. 

Christopher Hitchens, or ‘Hitch’, simply challenged any established view, though extremely well-informed, erudite, hard-hitting, acerbic (‘The Hitch slap’) debate   The world needs polemical voices to counter-balance and contradict established viewpoints as we search for our own perceptions of truth. 

Jared Diamond has explored the rise (1997) and fall (2005) of complex societies, and then gone on to compare the advantages and disadvantages of both WEIRD (Western, educated, industrial, rich, developed) societies and ‘non-developed’ societies such as hunter-gatherers and foragers (2012). These  studies are important as a reaction to the assumptions of globalization, to which TEFL plays hand-maid (see here), that it is for global benefit. Very often, as in cases where third world countries end up being resource providers and trash cans for first world countries, this is not the case. Hence my argument that TEFL should also be a promoter of corporate social responsibility (see here). 

Challenge to the world of TEFL does exist and I doff my cap to those individuals and groups involved; they are mentioned several times within my blog articles.  I had hoped to discover such challenge within TEFL Facebook groups. But there, such discussions are marginal and teaching practice remains the core focus of interest. Yes, pedagogical challenge is very much alive and a postmodern teaching eclecticism is thriving. But institutional challenge is less alive, or is even a dirty word. That’s my personal perception.  For whilst a greater interest in global issues is being shown, discussions on ELT corporate social responsibility and the ‘raison d’être’ of ELT remains peripheral. Professor David Graddol’s and Professor John Grey’s raising issues of the links between TEFL, globalization and capitalism, I’ve occasionally cited.  However, important as these issues are to any reflexive teacher in the profession, they are little discussed. Researchers’ and practising teachers’ eyes are turned elsewhere – prioritizing classroom activity.

But outside the world of the classroom and in the ‘life-world’, the fourth industrial revolution (‘industry 4.0’, ‘smart industry’) is upon us. As we enter the ‘anthropocene’, major technological changes are underfoot to dramatically change the world – or so it is reported from conferences around the globe (e.g. The World Economic Forum – see here). 

So – how is the world of ELT responding – technologically and ethically? There are numerous sociological concerns over this ‘new world’, for better and worse. Are business English teachers in the loop on these issues. They should be.  And are we to see a TEFL industry 4.0 too?  To my mind, these are issues that need to be addressed. 

To avoid sounding too negative, and in recognition of those small, but growing, groups that have arisen over the last few years to raise such issues – again I say ‘good for them’. I support them in spirit and reference them frequently in these blogs.

So – should anyone wish to quickly access my articles, here are the links. Some are short, some are long; Some are clear, some (I’m told) verge on incomprehensible being couched in semi-arcane language (really?). Anyway, pick-and-choose as you like – the list is in chronological reverse order. 

_______________________________________________

Postmodern Tefl     What is postmodern TEFL?     Welcome  

  Postmodernists    Anthropology & TEFL    Anthropology & TEFL institutions

 How anthropology can serve TEFL      Language evolution          Voices

 Reactionary       Decentralizing the subject      Plurality

Collaboration     Globalization    Paradigms       Sub-texts 

Phenomenology     A-Z of Hope       Case study       Legitimacy      Empathy

Sex, anthropology and TEFL               All that glitters is not gold 

Postmodernism, anthropology and TEFL           Social change

Second language acquisition              Writings on Postmodern TEFL

Postmodern pedagogy and beyond    Hermes & second language acquisition

Second language identity crisis              The art of TEFL               Masks

Marginalization           Marginalization extra          TEFL ethnomethodology

Primary language acquisition       E is for Empowerment        Hyper-reality

Global change           Postmodern pedagogy       Post-colonialization & TEFL

Trump & TEFL                 Activism & TEFL

Oh, one more thing    Iatefl Besig IASI     ELT & 4IR      Neuroscience & ELT

IATEFL BESIG Krakow presentation       Critical pedagogy         All Change! 

Evolutionary pedagogy & ELT          Native English loses the plot 

Listen, think – ELT 

_________________________________________

The book: Postmodern TEFL  –   (unpublished – sitting on my hard drive). To be honest, in writing the blog articles after the book I learnt so much more, and the book I now consider as a first, rough draft. 

I wish you all well,

Best Regards,

Phil NEWMAN

Social Reform, Woke and ELT

Social Reform, ‘Woke’ and ELT

‘Woke’ activists have been telling us to ‘wake up’ for the past two years: Wake up to issues of discrimination concerning gender, sexual orientation (LGBT) and race. Meanwhile, the ‘‘cancel culture’ has been censoring alternative opinions to those of ‘woke’. Orwellian thought police lurk. Until the Covid-19 crisis the subject of ‘woke’ had been head-line news with U.S. university professors being hounded out of office for their traditional use of gender terms, a recent college chaplain chastised for encouraging freedom of speech with respect to competing identity politics to those of ‘woke’, and an analytical psychiatrist (Jordan Peterson) spot-lighted on TV interviews and chat shows for reporting on gender-related statistical data. Sensitive issues? Yes. More so since the murder in America of George Floyd, which triggered the BLM (Black Lives Matter) movement. Time to ‘wake up’, or have we been awake for a long time?

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times”. So begins ‘A Tale of Two Cities’ by Charles Dickens. “The spring of hope”, he adds. Hope that the enlightenment would bring enormous benefits to humanity with science and technology. ”The winter of despair”, he continues, as the evils of the French Revolution surfaced. And equally, just as the industrial revolution was seen as dawning a new ‘Golden Age’, it was also a harbinger of hell: Slavery, appaling health, housing and working conditions with filthy, rat-infested slums, child-labour and families thrown into abject poverty. over-crowded prisons shipping off inmates by the thousands to the colonies, and the pillaging of the wealth of nations, including the massacres of those nations’ indigenes.

Out of this murky cauldron of utopian ideals and dystopian nightmares arose the Victorian social reformers. Early on, philosopher Jeremy Bentham argued for equal rights and more humane social policies, followed by John Stewart Mill in politically championing liberty and equality. Thomas Paine (author of ‘The Rights of Man”), after witnessing first-hand both the American and French revolutions, influenced the writings of the American Bill of Rights and the French constitution with its maxim: “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité”. Karl Marx, who began his intellectual career by arguing for the rights of German forestry workers before calling for a global workers revolution, should certainly receive a mention.

Then there was factory owner Robert Owen, with his focus on maintaining healthy, well-housed workers whose children received education; an idea taken up by John Cadbury and Joseph Rowntree in building ‘co-operative workers villages’ for their chocolate factory workers. Similar ideals were established by art critic John Ruskin, whose socialist ideals led him to founding educational institutions for both male and female workers. The tide of social reform swept along bringing into the fray slavery abolitionist William Wilberforce, hospital reformer Florence Nightingale, and the founder of the womens’ suffragettes movement, Emily Pankhurst – whose American counter-party, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, pioneered womens’ rights across the pond.

Also in America, the founders of cultural anthropology, Henry Schoolcraft and Lewis Henry Morgan, promoted racial tolerance towards the indigenous native American Indians who had been severely mistreated in the colonization of their lands. Further afield in South East Asia,

to give a global perspective, fighting for social reform in education, female emancipation, and the abolition of sati were Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar. Social reform was occurring worldwide.

The list is long and in the U.K. it stretches a lot further back, through the 17th century days of Diggers and Levellers, through Magna Carta, and onwards beyond. Forwards, it extends into the 20th century civil rights movements. These acquired momentum as the decades passed resulting in trade unions (UK: 1926), women’s suffrage (UK:1928), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the Welfare State (UK: 1948), the shaking off of the colonial mantle as commonwealth countries gained independence, and emancipation as South Africa emerged from the disgrace of aparteid. The listing here is simply to illustrate that the world has been actively ‘woke’ for a long time, with many positive, humanistic outcomes already achieved. Simply put: The trail-blazing fire of each new generation burns on the cinders of the last.

Striving to eliminate discrimination, when directed towards any social grouping, became a central concern of social reform as the 20th century progressed. As the 21st arrived, transgenderism also came under its umbrella. All well and good. The last vestiges of discriminated victims are finally receiving their recognition and (over) dues – if transgenderism fits that mould? But is it – ‘all well and good’? In the media and on-line forums there is a question of doubt; even concern. Certainly, discrimination of any form needs to be spoken out against. But at some point, as is frequently critiqued of ‘woke’, censoring others’ ideas and opinions conflicts with freedoms of speech. Therein lies the polemic. Do we censor certain opinions (i.e. ‘cancel culture’) purely because we find them offensive, or do we ignore those ‘other’ opinions and let them ride by not mounting our high horses?

Within the world of ELT we promote discussion and debate. This, we believe, encourages second language development. We also strive to have good classroom ‘vibes’, in order to reduce anxieties and affective filters, and so aid free expression which enhances the learning process. That’s the theory, anyway. We may add our own opinions, when appropriate, but we do not censor others. Our role as language educators is not to impose particular viewpoints, as some more dictatorial states are prone to do with their institutional students. But certainly, there is a line between the extremes of hate speech and dumbed-down speech in which students are fearful of expressing and exploring their ideas in a second language. Where that line lies, we teachers may have a say. Indeed, we should have a say. Classroom management is our job and responsibility.

ELT classrooms are virtual realities. Discussions and role-plays straddle the divide between ‘make believe’ and ‘believe’. Through language and communication thoughts are created, played with, and moulded. Language and thought can not be separated. Teachers facilitate the development of expression and grammatical precision, but should not dictate beliefs and opinions. Neither should students. Such is my personal opinion.

On the other hand, English language teachers are justified in taking stances. Everyone has a right to raise their voice and stand up for what they believe in. English language teaching has had a long, dubious pedigree ranging from an ethic of civilising barbaric natives to undercover, colonial, British empire expanding ‘cultural diplomacy’. English language

teaching has been intrinsically involved in all the processes of modernisation, industrialisation, globalisation. The profession is as wedded to political philosophy as language is wedded to thought. We, English language teachers, are actors in this play. Actors, who have as much ‘right’ to present personal views as anyone else, with lesson content and direction being very much in our hands. But we do not ‘cancel’ and nor do we censor. Not unless lines are well-and-truly crossed. Previously, teachers followed politically neutral general English pedagogical materials and business English materials that reflected the competitive market place of the times. Now, with the internet, materials are limitless and teaching practice is unrestrained. In fact, zero materials, for many, is the pedagogical Holy Grail. Lesson content flows every which way.

Taking a professional back-seat, in group discussion, has important pedagogical value. ‘Allowing’ debates to organically evolve without our explicit input, is part of our classroom management tool-kit. ‘Cancelling’ opinions, in our ‘virtual reality’ classrooms, only reduces the freedom to engage in free speech and thereby develop second language skills. Pro-actively proselytizing ‘woke’ is also an act of free speech: An act upon which various opinions can be offered. Offered, that is, without being cancelled.

The same holds true for the ELT on-line forums. Freedom of speech is a ‘right of man’ – and woman – and whatever gender students and/or teachers associate with. Cancelling freedom of speech is a rejection of democracy. Social reformers have fought long and hard for democratic freedoms. Now is not the time to reject them. It is never the time

In Defence of Rhetoric

(Published in EFL magazine. April 2021: https://eflmagazine.com/in-defence-of-rhetoric-in-the-efl-classroom/)

Rhetoric is a fringe subject in ELT. This is evident from its sparse inclusion in pedagogical ELT books. When included it’s always in disguise: English for persuasion, developing an argument…etc. Rhetoric techniques per se are very rarely discussed.

Rhetoric, as a subject relevent to ELT, is viewed with indifference, and even intolerance: I was recently ejected from a Facebook group for just raising the subject, which I admit was quite a revelatory shock. Perhaps ‘avoidance of the unknown’ is a more precise term to ‘indifference’? Or: ‘ignored as an irrelevence’? Or even : ‘shunned as an outdated concept, steeped in classicism and lacking a role in today’s modern world.”? Such views, I argue, are grossly mistaken.

Rhetoric has been viewed with suspicion since its inception by the ancient Greek sophist, Protagoras: Or that snake in the garden of Eden who persuaded Adam with its slithering forked-tongue, Famously, of course, Socrates was made to drink the cup of hemlock, and die, for using his verbal art of persuasion to lead the young away from established ideas. To the uninitiated, rhetoric has had that reputation for the abusive use of verbal power tinged with sorcery and mysticism. Heretics have died for putting it to use. To the adept, rhetoric simply involves using mundane ‘tricks-of-the-trade’. When Aristotle analyzed the subject, he found nothing overly mysterious. Just common sense logos, ethos, and pathos. i.e . rationality, morality, and emotion.

But the image of a slippery, silver-tongued salesman slickly seducing with carefully crafted words, remains to remind us of those sensual, singing Sirens whose sweet lulling voices lured Odysseus’s boat onto treacherous rocks. Be careful! Don’t be spellbound, hynotized or led astray by clever words! Lies. They’re all damned lies! Devices for politicians to sweeten unsavoury policies for public consumption. Rhetoric, applied as such, is a dirty word.

But really? Rhetoric? A dirty word? No way! How can Shakespeare’s mastery of his wordsmithing craft, employing as it does numerous rhetoric tools, be called ‘dirty’? Do not the adjectives eloquent, elegant and exquisite more precisely spring to mind to describe his sublime artistry? Or speaking more contemporaneously, how can Stephen Fry’s story-telling, in which rhetoric devices are effortlessly used with wit and sophistication, like those of Oscar Wilde, the historical figure Mr. Fry most adores – be considered ‘dirty’? It can’t. Should I name more virtuoso connoisseurs in this fine art of embroidering words and phrases? The list would really be quite long.

Yet rhetoric, as a subject to be studied systematically, has long gone out of fashion. Although I doubt it was ever taught in the world of ELT. As the 19^th century, with classical scholasticism and literary romanticism, faded away into a new century’s hard-edged realism, rhetoric naturally lost its ‘reason to be’ and largely vanished from the school syllabus. (Forsyth, M. 2013)

Rhetoric, then, should perhaps be left to those bygone days. These days it’s an old-fashioned aptitude, or attitude. Or an art form like beautiful, calligraphic hand-writing. These days it is obsolete and unneeded, especially now that communicating by SMS is here and set to stay. RIP rhetoric.

‘Philistines!’ I feel bound to repost. Just as the old-time expertise of cabinet-makers, silk-screen printers, knitters and blacksmiths are skills to preserve, for the simple sake of heritage if for nothing else, the techniques of wordsmithing are also skills to be retained. Language holds and preserves our history, our culture, our humanity. Isn’t it a shame then, to reduce the richness of language to the bland simplicity of text messaging, or twitter twaddling? From public orators, conference presenters and after-dinner speakers, to writers of fun and fantasy and engagers in philosophic debates – isn’t the expert usage of words a highly-skilled craft that should be passed on? A craft we should try our utmost, as EL teachers, to teach students in their L2s – even if just to a tiny degree?

For many students, this is THE English language challenge. Whilst being pragmatic and setting reasonable language acquisition goals, students wish to reach for the stars and think big. So, screw those who thinks this is being pretentious. Let’s aid and encourage our students to prepare for that flawless presentation. To grab the language skills needed to discuss in-depth ideas. To gain the lingusitic confidence to entertain business guests over lunch with anecdotes and banter. To write up research reports, or articles for the company magazine, with style and impeccable English. For any or all of these practical affairs – students benefit from employing techniques of rhetoric in their prose.

Rhetoric is fun, or so it should be : Not a torment, a headache, or a curse. Playing with language is where comedy begins. Sure, ‘language games’ can also be very serious, in the jostling and jousting of every day life (Wittgenstein.1953). Plus, language can be considered as a train on which your ideas are carried (Whorf.1956), and a house for your being (Heidegger. 1947). So treat it tenderly and treat it with care. Adorn it with rhetoric, enrich it with ‘living metaphor’ (Ricouer. 1975) ; water it, nurture it, help it grow in the imaginative and creative fertile soils of your students’ L2s.

Listen ! Your language is your persona, like the clothes that you wear. Dress it up occassionally for your presentation of self. Learn a few rhetoric tricks of the trade and give yourself a personal treat. Feel good, feel smart. Strut your rhetorical stuff on the sunny side of the lingusitic street. You are the language you speak. Speak the finely-tuned language that you craft. Craft with devotion to the phrases you carve. Carve carefully and precisely with rhetoric. It’s a must for your tool kit if you want to communicate better than well.

Are you spotting the rhetoric devices liberally thrown into this text? Then, ask not what these devices do for the text, ask what the text does for these devices. We shall promote rhetoric in speaking and writing. We shall promote rhetoric in the classrooms. We shall promote rhetoric in the social-networking channels and media articles. I have a dream…

Is rhetoric important ?

Yes, to speech-writers and website developers seeking catchy lines that draw you into whatever they’re saying or promoting. Yes, to advertisers and newspaper editors seeking punchy headlines and slogans that long remain in your mind. Yes, to evangelists, business executives and political leaders wishing to convince their listeners that what they say is true. Yes, to authors and playwrights scribbling down canny linguistic formulations purely for the entertainment value they’re giving to the world.

Is rhetoric teachable in the world of ELT ?

Ah ! ‘There’s the rub’. Outside the world of ELT, rhetoric is once more being promoted ; be this at TEDtalks conferences or in short, fun paperback books – such as Mark Forsyth’s ‘The Elements of Eloquence’ (2013) cited above. Within this witty manual, I should perhaps mention, thirty-nine rhetorical techniques are humourously enunciated and it’s well worth a read. Concerning the TEDtalks : Speech writer Simon Lancaster’s exploration is a jolly joyful wheeze, whilst Richard Greene forcefully adds the vital ingredient of ‘passionate speaking from the heart’ to bolster any talk. I wholeheartedly agree.

But concerning ELT – it’s a question I ponder as I sit at my desk. And to be quite honest, I see no reason why not, Playing with language is an enjoyable task. We can do this in writing, and we can do this in speaking. Both support language development in each other’s arenas. Sure, like anything we start out simple, with similes and metaphors, before tackling litotes, anadiploses, chiasmuses, zeugmas and other strange bed fellows. Strange and exotic they may well sound, but when you get to know them I promise you they’re not. They’re family and friends.

So don’t run a mile at the term ‘rhetorical’,

Expressions can be comical as well as allegorical.

Learning this skill is a communicative craft,

Critics may say it’s all unecessarily flowery,

But then I say they’re daft.

Bring it on !

Listen, Think – ELT

I don’t write about pedagogy per se. On this subject I bow to the more learned. However, for once, I feel the need to. The reason being that I recently heard a webinar comment that ‘teachers should stop thinking whilst listening to students’. In response my mind raced over all the thinking that goes on in my own mind whilst listening to students. I’m sure I’m not alone on this? Surely such thoughts pass through all English language teachers in one form or another? So I’ve decided to list them.

Actually, before I present my list, I do get the webinar presenter’s point – that by stopping our own thoughts we can engage more with the thoughts of our English language students. This relates to the empathic methodology of phenomenology (blogged here) in which we disengage our own value-judgements to better take on board those of our students. But listening as language teachers entails so much more. I’m referring in particular to those one-to-one situations. I believe this was the webinar presenter’s language coaching viewpoint.

Of course, thinking can be conscious or sub-conscious, objective or subjective, rational or intuitive. All is engaged during teacher-student inter-actions. In fact, thinking about it, we have a very difficult job. Not only do we focus on the content of our students’ discourses, but also on the linguistic, phonological, and pedagogical aspects too. Our intellectual grey matter really is getting a mental gymnastics work-out and being employed to its utmost.

We’re hearing anecdotes, descriptions, explanations, presentations, opinions, concerns, complaints, role-play improvisations – and we’re hearing emotions. To show students that they’re not speaking to brick walls, we respond – perhaps with appropriate prompts; perhaps with pertinent questions, perhaps as ‘devils advocate’, perhaps with our own understandings to make the exchange more dialogic, perhaps (in business English) with our own insights as we veer to a more management consultancy role and become sounding boards upon which students can bounce around ideas. Plus, of course, we input vocabulary and correct errors. There is so much going on in any student-teacher exchange – far more than simple passive listening.

So, here’s my list;

Body language – Do we sit forward, head up and straight-backed with hands clasped or do we lean back in the chair, one foot reclining on the other knee, whilst excessively gesticulating? Do we mirror tensed up students’ body language, or do we relax our shoulders and subtly adopt a more ‘cool pose’, subliminally inviting students to mirror our body language and chill out themselves. (The action of mirror neurons). Many variations exist. Our body language choice is conscious. They occur in response to our students and the tone of our engagements. Are we putting students at ease? Are we engaging in heady debate with a steely-eyed skilled negotiator? Are we chewing the fat in social conversation? Are we helping professional students practice forthcoming sales-pitch presentations?

Facial language – We smile, we nod, we tilt our heads forward – and side-wards, Our mouths soundlessly open and close. Our lips tighten, rotate and push out. Our jaws drop and swivel. Our cheeks tense, suck in and puff out. Our eyes open wide – or maybe peer and squint. Eyebrows are raised or furrowed. Eye contact is held, then appropriately broken. Facial signals are multitudinous. The face contains the largest amount of muscles. Even a blank, motionless poker face is giving some sort of signal to the receiver. Conscious or unconscious? Intentionality with just a slight touch of exaggeration in order to remain natural and convivial? Think about it. However you define ‘thinking’, as English teachers – we do think about it, whether consciously or not.

Time – But how long do we allow this student speaking period to last? Practice is important without a doubt, but there may be other objectives to reach within a lesson. Do we subtly steer students towards those objectives as we converse, perhaps by quizzing them about a past situation (for example), to work on past simple structure, or do we seamlessly guide the topic into a reading or listening activity. Perhaps neither. Perhaps it’s time to call a halt for error correction time, or simply: “And now for something completely different”. Then again, maybe a coffee break is due and a change of location and discourse tone is deemed appropriate. Or perhaps the lesson end is approaching and your winding up strategy needs to be considered. Which one do you use? Can you fit in time to guide them towards the homework you wish to set and hear their feedback too? These are all conscious decisions. Lesson plans are malleable and we have to think on our feet as we share control with our students. Besides, the next student will shortly be arriving, or we take off to a different company and we’re beginning to think ahead. We never stop thinking.

Language input – To moderate or not to moderate, that is the question. Personally, following Steve Krashen’s comprehensible input theory, I do. I think it’s crazy not to. But even then, we have to consider to what degree. Level +1, says Krashen. Where exactly is the student’s level on that day, at that moment in time? Understanding this is a symbiotic process, and for us teachers that follow the theory we gently upgrade our language as students progress, and possibly down-grade as they temporarily regress. We moderate in terms of speed, articulation, and language complexity. But do we input language by throwing in new (or previously seen) terms and phrases during discourse – or by guiding students to areas where they will have to dig deep to find the language hidden in their passive memories and then supplying the terms when they’re not found – or by ‘negotiation of meaning’ (NoM) – or by using such techniques as scaffolding – or mind-map creating – or white-board diagrams with terms written out – or text analysis – or Cuisinaire rods – or word cards – or crosswords – or dictation games – or any other activity to be found within the vast range of EL pedagogical books. Those are decisions to be consciously made and thought about. For teachers teaching unplugged, they are thought about continuously, on the hoof, as lessons progress. We don’t stop thinking.

Error correction – We think of all those open question markers. When, what, where, why, how…. do we correct? Timing can be critical. We don’t want to disturb a student’s spontaneously flowing discourse, but a quick pointing over a back shoulder to show they’ve missed a past conjugation may be appropriate. Perhaps later, when you’ve both run out of steam, and before moving on, an error correction time is sensed. Just a brief ‘time-out’ to quickly clarify a few points. Or do you delve heavily into the subject and let your teaching auto-pilot take over as you apply one of your favourite techniques for detailing a grammar point? Or maybe you move to a unit in a book, with a listening, and let the book take over? Then again, we have to be sensitive. Choosing diplomatic language to point out errors may be the best way for students who tense up to any form of criticism. A neutral ‘I don’t agree’ type expression may work for the vast majority. A simple ‘no’ may be best for those who like to told directly when they are wrong. As I said in my first paragraph, I normally leave the more learned to write about pedagogy. If that is you – I’m sure you’ll agree that error correction techniques is something you think about – before, during, and after lessons.

Materials – Are we going unplugged in one-to-one lessons – whether we call these coaching sessions or not – and just letting the lessons unfold under our ‘expert guidance’? Are we having materials on stand-by, or resources we can quickly access as needs be? Are these resources that we’ve picked up over the years and kept in mind, ready to be dropped into a lesson when the time is right? Are we following a unit from a book? Are we following a lesson model – as some language companies promote with their own ‘methods’? Maybe we blend all as our years of experience kick in. These too are all conscious decisions we think about.

Admin. – Love it or hate it, it’s part of the job and has to be thought about. Getting students’ signatures for attendance mean we get paid. Depending on company and/or country (I’m in bureaucracy-rich France) administration can be onerous in terms of setting up contracts and payment agreements – more so if you’re independent than for those who benefit from language company administrators doing this work. But for all, we have the post-lesson write ups to do, and post-course reports – not to mention pre-course needs analyses. For many, especially the non-independent teachers, what has been written prior to a lesson, either by ourselves, a colleague, or whoever conducted the initial needs analysis, is a guide. Perhaps this is also true for the previous post-course report. Are these write-ups and reports to be listened to, reflected upon, validated, added to, and passed on? Are the pre-course aims and objectives being steered towards? I mention this as a final point because it is part of teachers lives to think about these things. We kick ourselves when we forget to get the student’s signature. With all the other thinking that is going on out minds, we need to leave space (somewhere?) for this aspect too.

Well, I guess that’s it. Possibly, as I think about what I have written, I will modify or add to it. I always do. That’s because I think – and therefore I am – an English language teacher.

Native English loses the plot

Native English is spoken by 430 million people. English as a lingua-franca, is spoken by 2 billion people (see Wikipedia). Native English and lingua-franca English differ enormously in terms of expression and complexity. Native English, the dominant language from which lingua-franca English stems, retains its full range of language genres and registers. English as a lingua-franca prunes the native language down to the bare essentials. This is to aid ‘mutual intelligibility’ amongst native and non-native speakers. 

All lingua-francas involve language simplifications and reductions of dominant stem languages. In this way they are similar to pidgin languages. However, whilst both lingua-francas and pidgins have no native speakers, pidgins are more impromptu mishmashes of different languages. Should native speakers of pidgins arise over the course of a number of generations, pidgins then become re-classified as ‘creoles’. (Trudgill,P. 1974) This is mentioned as a side issue.

Lingua-francas are functional. They ease inter-cultural exchange, particularly in the commercial domain. For historical/political reasons English has become the world’s number one lingua-franca (see here). For the majority of commercial interactions, lingua-fracas suffice. They are practical and serve their purposes. Very few non-native speakers can, or need to, speak the native language of native speakers with their full complexities.

Viewing language as a complex game, with rules and moves dependent upon contexts, was a concept developed by the philosopher: Ludwig Wittgenstein (1953).  Social activities occur within specific contexts which give meaning to language. Language is a shared, communal activity in which joint understanding is created. ‘Getting’ the meaning involves being part of that language community, in that specific context. For an analogy, think of ‘being in on the joke’. Language and context combine to create understanding.

Business is also a game; a serious socially interactive game conducted in set contexts through the medium of language. As a player you need to be ‘in on the game’ not to be at a loss. Language rules, in playing the business game, may be verbal or non-verbal. Body language, dress codes and gestures, whilst culturally specific, are jointly understood symbolic forms of language. The game of business occurs within the contexts of meetings, presentations, negotiations and any form of telecommunication. Socio-professional language of greetings and small talk also play an active role in creating the contexts. They foster and promote mutual trust and understandings in preparation for the business ‘hard talk’.  

Interpreters may be of some assistance. But pitching products and companies through a third-party middleman loses oratory effects, loses the person-person direct contact, loses the rapid cross-fire of discussions, and make arguments for-and-against open to misinterpretation. Interpreters have important roles to play, but less so in the cut-and-thrust of business meetings and negotiations.

So – the scene is set, the context created, and the ‘hard talk’ begins. Linguistic tools and commercial bargaining strategies are deployed to the full. The rules of the game are understood. The players set out to make their best moves, preferably to reach a win-win.

However, in many cases, native English speakers, naturally more adept at employing all the language moves at their disposal, quickly gain the upper-hand. This is particularly true when they speak their native language during business exchanges rather than the functional lingua-franca designed for mutual intelligibility. It’s unfair. It’s unwittingly exclusive in not creating a ‘language community context’ of shared understanding. It is not promoting an equitable win-win. The upper-hand gained is both in strategic negotiating terms and in psychological terms. Non-native speakers are frequently caught on the back foot during these business exchanges and loss for words, anxiety, and feelings of inadequacy frequently result (explored here).

The insensitive native English speaker, often unaware of mutual un-intelligibility issues, blindly pursues his commercial objectives in his native language rather than resorting to a more mutually intelligible lingua-franca. His presentation pitch has been honed to perfection in advance and his negotiating strategy has been well-rehearsed. But he doesn’t notice that his message is not quite getting across with its intended efficacy. What’s going wrong?

What’s going wrong is that he’s just not aware of communication issues. He only sees the heads politely nodding, and not the furrowed brows of confusion. His counter-parties at the meeting all greeted him with reasonable English, which was a pleasant start, and so he’s ploughed on at full-steam ahead. But his counter-parties, despite years of language teachers’ prior helps and encouragements, haven’t reached the heady C2 bilingual levels where the language games of native speakers are employed to their full extent. They’re now struggling to follow his thread, nonplussed by his humorous asides, bedazzled by the speed and complexity of his oral delivery.

Rare it is to find non-native speakers using second languages like the natives. That is really, a highly advanced level. More common it is for non-native speakers to be engaging in international transactions for their companies at B2/C1 levels. Reaching these levels is, of course, highly applaudable and in a majority of socio-professional contexts, quite adequate. But in getting down to the nitty-gritty of business discussions – some form of lingua-franca is required. In other words: Language simplification and reduction, as defined above. That way mutual intelligibility can be achieved and business meetings can have successful outcomes.

Yet, native speakers (often unconsciously) retain their competitive linguistic advantage by not simplifying or reducing their expression. Presumably, because that goes against the grain of their developed, marketing, rhetorical skills. And since they have never been trained to reduce and simplify, business exchange playing fields are never quite level between native and non-native speakers. Comprehension difficulties result, professional meetings can fail and business can be lost.

For this reason, non-native English speakers may prefer to conduct business between themselves, with other non-native speaking companies, in the English lingua-franca, rather than with native English speaking business professionals. Consequently, Anglophone companies lose out on business opportunities. (The Business Insider. 2006).

On the global scale of international business affairs, this is a big issue for native English speaking companies, although it’s a big issues that can be easily rectified. But anglophone companies are slow to wake up and listen – as they scratch their heads wondering why they failed to win contracts.

On the other hand, non-native English speakers, our business English students, are ‘making the effort’ to improve their English language skills in order to reduce the native English/ non-native English language gap. The idea of native English speakers learning to speak ‘English as a foreign language’ (EFL) does sound comical (sketch: see here), but native English speakers do need to ‘make the effort’ in their own English language communication skills – especially if they don’t want to lose those business opportunities.

To stay in the game, then, and to re-iterate, native English speaking company employees, who are engaged in international business exchange, need to moderate (simplify and reduce) their language. In other words, they too need to learn to speak English lingua-franca. Not ‘globish’ (see here), which is too restrictive in stripping down English vocabulary to a mere 1,500 words. As we English language teachers know, language is more than vocabulary lists. But, nevertheless, the basics of English language communication, spoken clearly, without all the superfluous play-on-words padding. This is something that should be learnt during their college/ university studies. It isn’t. Instead, it is passed over, when a few useful language simplifying tips, quickly learnt, could help future business prospects to succeed.

Yes, this is a case of learning: Learning that their native English contains a whole range of idioms, phrasal verbs, colloquialisms, regionalisms, slang, and vocabulary to meet a wide variety of social and professional situations all often contained within complex syntactical structures which are executed with precision, reflex and at high speed. Colourful and creative this language may be, it doesn’t aid mutual intelligibility. Learning that such expressions lie outside the comprehension range of most non-native English speakers. Learning too, that native English employs a wide range of phonological tools – such as intonation, stress, rhythm – contained within a variety of very different accents – to give extra nuance to discourse; nuances that may well be missed. And learning that non-native speakers are soon swimming when exposed to all these linguistic devices used collectively and simultaneously – and that it is no wonder if they retire from the game of international commerce with native English speakers and go elsewhere.

Without such awareness training, it is no surprise that non-native English speakers may prefer to conduct business with other non-native English speakers. That way ‘mutual intelligibility’ can ensue and business proposals be discussed – albeit through some simplified and reduced lingua-franca. If native English business professionals miss out on the game, miss out on the contracts, and miss out on the financial rewards of international business deals, through not learning to speak a more moderate lingua-franca – they have only themselves to blame. (The Business Insider. op cit)

This may sound a harsh assessment. However, I am writing for Business English teaching professionals who, I believe, have all heard the following complaints from their business English students concerning their contacts with native English speakers in professional contexts.

• “When asked to slow down, they do slow down- for ten seconds, and then speed up again.”
• “They don’t articulate when they speak.”
• “Their accent is incomprehensible.”
• “They use a lot of complex vocabulary & expressions.”
• “They use complex syntactical structures.”

For the majority of our Business English language students, the objective is to learn English as a tool – ‘to get the job done’. ‘The job’ being that of setting up, overseeing and following international (B2B or B2C) projects. Acquiring the ability to do this is central to the operation of their companies, not to mention for their own job advancements. They are less interested in learning to be fluent in the regional and dialectical English language spoken in the street markets of London, the Appalachian mountains of America, or the Hinglish of Bollywood (see here).

David Crystal once (2003) stated that:

Within the whole of human history a global language can emerge only once – and this is it’.

Similarly, linguist John McWorter wrote (2007):

“English is dominant in a way that no language has ever been before. It is vastly unclear to me what actual mechanism could uproot English given conditions as they are.”

The survival of the English language rests on its adaptability to change with the times. This is not to argue for a simplification, or standardisation, of the English language. Its richness is in it’s diversity and it stands as one on humanity’s cultural treasures. All languages contain the cultural history of their native speakers and English is no exception. But adaptability is, and always has been, the English language’s strong point. That is to say, its ability to change with the times, and to absorb and blend with other languages; even to mutate. Should the English language lose these abilities, it could be in danger of being uprooted as the global lingua-franca.

Today, as the 21st century progresses and the fourth industrial revolution is entered into, professional English language learning rests upon three pillars: English for business purposes (EBP), Business English as a lingua-franca (BELF), computer mediated communication (CMC). (Harvard Business Review. 2012).

These are not isolated categories. English for business purposes (EBP), including the language of meetings, presentation, negotiations, crosses over with English for special purposes (ESP) – as students develop their English language abilities within their own specific fields. And, more and more, computer mediated communication (CMC), in this age of digitisation, enters all fields. From software & web development language to search engine optimisation (SEO), the internet of things (IoT), cloud computing, data-mining, geo-localisation, artificial intelligence (AI), Voice user interface (VUI), blockchain, digital footprint… these English language based CMC terms, and there are many more, have infused into the language of IT and become part of the global lingua-franca currency in all language. They are current terms and expressions for the current times, increasingly as globally understood as the words: Taxi, beer and burger.

So, to conclude, the pillar of ‘English as a lingua-franca’ (BELF) is where energies need to be concentrated: Not so much by non-native speaking business professionals who are already working hard to develop their English language skills, but by native English speakers themselves. They too need to ‘make the effort’.

The practice of moderating language for non-native speakers may be natural for English language teachers in applying the language acquisition principles of ‘comprehensible input theory’ (Krashen, S.). For others, especially business professionals, the basic elements of the message need to be got across.

The alternative is that international business deals go elsewhere and native English loses the plot.

__________________________________

Evolutionary Pedagogy & ELT

World reknowned linguist Noam Chomsky will go down in history for his ‘universal grammar’ (UG) theory, with its linguistic ‘deep structure’ contained within a cerebral ‘language acquisition device’ (LAD).

Chomsky is an ‘innatist’, or ‘nativist’, believing that a language ‘instinct’ is embedded in the structure of all homo sapiens minds. Babies are born, innatists believe, ready to sponge up language, because fundamental grammatical structures are already in place, in minds, prior to births.  Cerebral ‘language acquisition devices‘, termed as such by Chomsky, enable this sponging up of language once babies are born. Personally, I prefer the term ‘facilities’ to ‘devices’.  But Chomsky also used the metaphor of a ‘black box‘ to  describe how children, during an early ‘critical period of language development‘ (from birth to puberty) could know so much, so quickly, when language input at their young, tender ages is so sparse. That knowledge, he argued, is supplied by the contents of the metaphorical ‘black box’:  His ‘poverty-of-the-stimulus‘ argument.

There is plenty of evidence to support Chomsky’s ideas and for linguists this is very persuasive, being steeped, as these ideas are, in highly complex linguistic analyses – on which Chomsky is the expert.

But, in stepping outside the linguistics box, the childhood language acquisition story takes numerous twists and turns. Other opinions exist to explain the remarkable rapidity with which children learn their mother tongue languages. In brief, opposing arguments look to what goes on outside children’s minds, rather than inside.

First must be mentioned the behaviourist perspective.  I say first, because reacting to the Pavlovian, stimulus-response pedagogy of behaviouralism,  as developped by B.F Skinner (1957), was Chomsky’s original intellectual stimulus (1959). He didn’t agree at all with this pedagogical method. Primary language learning (L1), he said,  was a process of ‘mentalese‘: A mental activity performed by the internal hardware of the brain;  the neurological mechanics of which were already in place at the moment of birth, in the metaphorical ‘black box’.

Indeed, within the realm of ELT and secondary language learning (L2), behaviouralism, with its focus of learning by rote (e.g. audio-lingual’s ‘listen & repeat’) has largely fallen out of favour. It is now generally agreed that languages are far too complex to be learnt parrot style. Creativity and improvisation, through discourse (‘the communicative method‘), has become the more accepted approach employed by language teachers, with Steve Krashen’s ‘comprehensible input theory‘ (1977) continuing to provide the blue-print: Krashen’s theory focusing more on the exterior, social input to language acquisition’ (primary & secondary) than Chomsky’s focus on cognitive factors.

This brings us back to an earlier, second take on behaviouralism. This came from the French child psychologist: Jean Piaget (1936). Children’s brains are formed through stages of maturation, claimed Piaget, in which children acquire language through social interaction and not through some ‘language acquisition device‘. From the starting block of birth, learning occurs a posteriori, in developmental steps.

Incidentally, consider the contemporary neurological perspective:  Intellectually speaking, babies are born too early. This is an evolutionary by-product of bipedalism, which affected the morphology of female pelvises and birth canals. Once born, babies’ brains still need time to fully function. In biological terms this is largely due to the process of ‘myelination‘: The building up of a fatty deposit on the outside of neurones for the transmission of neural messages. For a metaphor, think of plastic cabling around electrical wires. This biological process proceeds as babies develop into children, as the neurones make connections and link up, according to whatever cultural environment they are born into.

The difference between Chomsky’s and Piaget’s analyses led to the famed ‘Chomsky/Piaget debate’, held at a conference in Paris, 1975.   The term ‘debate‘, according to Chomsky, being more of a publishers’ marketing tool. A ‘friendly discussion’ may be more appropriate.

In viewing this second take on behaviouralism (plus Krashen’s social interaction viewpoint) we now encounter the terms ‘evolution’ and ‘cultural environment’. These are terms on which any Chomskyian linguistic analysis does not take into account; as several researchers in this field of enquiry have previously noted. Steve Pinker, for example, whilst going a long way in following innatist theories, notes Chomsky’s omission of evolutionary perspectives e.g. Darwinian theories concerning natural selection.

To evolutionary psychologists, this is a major omission. John  Dunbar (2007), for example, explores the metaphor of baking a cake. The final cake is a result of the ingredients and the hot oven (‘cultural environment’) into which it is placed. So it is with language, and psychological developments, embedded as they are within cultures. The extensive library of books and articles exploring the symbiotic relationship between language and culture provides a vast acreage of supporting documentation.

Besides, as neurologist Terence Deacon argued (1997), young children quickly learn to use computers, through a process of trial and error, with no inkling of any computer programming language. These are embedded deep within the computers ‘mind’; not the minds of children. ‘Mentalese by proxy’, we could say.  This is not to dispute Chomsky, but to suggest that the languages we use to speak and write are the communicative interfaces. Only computer experts and linguists understand ‘how’ they work. This knowledge is not necessary in our daily lives.  Indeed, Terence Deacon takes this one step further and argues that languages themselves evolve to facilitate ease of use, just as computer interfaces become increasingly user-friendly. Indeed, they evolve and are passed on through the bottleneck of childhood. ‘Parasitic viruses’ is the metaphor he uses to describe the way in which languages attach themselves to children, and mutate, in order to survive.

It is, perhaps, therefore, a clichéd truism to say that we (homo sapiens) are an admixture of ingredients (biology, genetics, morphology, neurology, language) blending and transforming in the cultures (ovens) within which we are born and grow up. The evolutionary aspect to this tale is that cultures and environments change over time. To be more precise, over extraordinary long periods of time. Recent studies by neuro-palaeontologists are placing the onset of language with homo ergaster circa: 1.7 – 1.4M yrs  bp (before present). (see here)

The big revolutionary linguistic breakthrough, for homo sapiens, in distinguishing their language potentials from those of other life forms, including primates, came about during the mid-paleolithic period (200K – 45K bp), or – the ‘tectonic phase‘ (Renfrew, C. 1996); many thousands of years after homo ergaster became the first language using hominid.  This was a time when the symbolic potential of language came to its fore (homo symbolicus. Cassirer, E. 1944); as explored in more detail in a previous blog (see here).

Similarly, I have previously explored research into language and the neurology of the brain (see here), which itself has a long history.  Inter-disciplinary considerations of linguistics, cultural environments, evolution and neurology provide us with a more rounded picture of our special, homo sapiens species-specific language attribute that sets us apart in the animal kingdom.

In terms, then, of the evolutionary perspective (as per this blog), there have been four major environmental changes in the long history of the evolution of homo sapiens from its hominid ancestors.

1. Changing natural habitat within Africa in which our more primate form ancestors descended from the trees and developed bipedalism to search for food on the plains.
2. Savannah living. The control of fire and discovery of cooking, along with the development of stone tool making, which lead to greater calorific intake and increased brain size.
3. Mid-paleolithic climate change & ice age. The symbolic use of language
4. . The agricultural revolution: Farming. The Neolithic Age.

Avoiding the great explosion of art and technology seen during the upper-Palaeolithic, it is now to the last point on this list that I turn.

Agriculture transformed societies. Through natural selection, following Darwinism, those who were more adapted to this new life-style survived and passed on their genes to their off-spring.

This feedback loop between culture and genetics is most clearly seen with the advent of pastoralism. Prior to pastoralism homo sapiens were ‘lactose intolerant’.  Most animals lose their lactose tolerance after weaning, and many people, in different cultures, continue to be lactose intolerant today. But with the arrival of animal husbandry, particularly for those bands of wandering nomads on the Eurasian Steppes (Anthony, D.W. 2007), those few individuals with the genetic make up to be lactose tolerant could digest milk, (probably through the intermediary step of eating cheese).  They survived statistically better than their lactose intolerant neighbours and this genetic modification was then passed on through their genes.

This is a biological example.

Humans, like all living species, adapt and modify according to their cultural environments. But this is not such a cut-and-dried affair. On the large historical scale, pastoralism and agriculture are relatively recent: only 10,000 years ago.  Furthermore, not all global cultures change at the same time, or in the same way.

The picture, therefore, is complex. Whilst research continue to unravel this story, evolutionary psychologists focus on the distinctions between the ‘hunter-gather’ communities, the farming and the pastoral communities.  The life-styles, the cultures, and the outlooks on life were quite different.  Anthropological research into modern day hunter-gather, farming, and pastoral communities proves invaluable because, prior to the ‘invention of farming’, all homo sapiens were hunter-gathers’, and a number of these communities continue to exist today.

According to evolutionary psychologists, cultures and psychologies differ according to environments. Just as lactose tolerance developed as a result of pastoralism, subsistence methods and psychological profiles developed in accordance to environments in which humans lived. This is applying the principles of natural selection. Adapt to survive. Survive to pass on your genes.

Perhaps rightly so, Noam Chomsky (here at 92 years) remains cautious about accepting the theories of evolutionary psychologists, for the genetic under-pinings are complex and not yet fully understood. Links between genetic make up and personal characteristics are not on solid ground.  Likewise, though the ‘language gene’ FOXP2 was announced a couple of decades ago, it quickly became held in suspicion. So, the picture of ‘language’, evolution and personal psychologies is far more complex than finding a simple location of a gene on a chromosome.

However, whilst not completely understanding the mechanics, the end result can be observed. Anyway, who needs to understand the mechanics of a car to drive?  Hence, see here some observable data:

Adapted from: Hofer, A. Evolutionary psychology. The missing piece.

This makes sense. Hunter-gatherers need to be highly vigilant and hyper-focused in their stalking and foraging. At the same time their attentions need to be easily distracted as new potential prey, or dangerous predators, arrive.  Farmers, on the other hand, need to be more routine-based, structuring their days to daily tasks, upon which they need to teach their children as soon as they too can become active.  Pastoralists form a middle-ground in not completely settling down:  Tied to fixed village-based communities, yet tied to their herds which may need to roam far and wide in the search of food and water.

On a moments reflection, as a male homo sapiens brought up in an industrialized, modern, Western European country, I certainly see elements of hunter-gatherer in me. However,  if there is any connection of personality types to genetics, then I have surely inherited genes from all three types: Hunter-gatherer, farmer, pastoralist.

How does this relate to pedagogy?

Schooling that expects pupils/students to conform, to follow lesson routines, to be teacher-centred – suit those with the farming-type personalities. This is the schooling that traditionally has dominated education in western societies. Hunter-gather-type personalities can have great difficulties fitting in to this style of educational regime. These are the ‘problematic’, rebellious students. These are the students that Hofer defines as ‘orchids‘.  Either they can be extremely talented, hyper-focused, creative auto-didacts.  Or, if made to conform, they can wilt, not fit in and show symptoms of attention deficit hyper-activity disorder (ADHD. See chart).

Instantly, this brings to mind the famous TEDtalks by Sir Ken Robinson (2006): Do schools kill creativity? (see here).  It was a talk in which Sir Ken Robinson asked schools and educators to re-evaluate their pedagogy in order to bring out the best in children by not stifling energies and creativities. By allowing those ‘hunter-gatherer’ orchid-type minds to bloom and flourish, and not to wilt.

Sir Ken’s talk had the desired effect. New radical ideas have been introduced into mainstream teaching. And they are still being introduced to help the current generation of school children gain today’s, and tomorrows, 4th industrial revolution skills.

Within ELT, the trend has increasingly been towards student-centred teaching. This is ‘the communicative method‘. This is ‘task-based‘ and ‘project-based‘ learning. This is the adoption of AI technologies into the ELT classrooms.  These are approaches far away from learning grammar rules and vocabulary lists by rote in front of a teacher standing in front of a black/whiteboard.  This is all a result of responding more closely to the way children, and adults, learn better.

For some, the farmer-types, conformity and structure may work better. They have their own valued contributions to make towards the smooth functioning of societies.

For others, the hunter-gatherer types, let them roam free, get distracted and become hyper-focused.  Then their individual strengths and creativities will shine.

Phil April 2020.

All change!

It has now been stated many times, as I’m sure we’re all aware, that technological innovations are multiplying and advancing as we enter the 4th Industrial revolution.    Here, in this blog, I’m addressing the question of how we deal with this change, experientially, whether as English language teachers or as students.

Firstly – I kick off with three quotes:

1. “There is nothing permanent, except change. ”  (Heraclitus)

    This quote I’ve cited numerous times throughout my blog articles, as I’ve explored English language teaching practices,  postmodernism, and most recently – the 4th Industrial Revolution. Change is endemic, unavoidable, and inevitable. But….

   2.  “Nobody has a clue ….what the world will look like in five years’ time. And yet, we’re meant to be educating them (children) for it.”   (Sir Ken Robinson)

   This quote is from Sir Ken Robinson’s  famed TEDtalks speech of 2006. And how the world has changed since then! Now, we have a 16/17 year old school girl (Greta Thurnburg) educating the world and world leaders. Now – we see children, or teenagers at least, innovating, filing for patents, setting up companies, and becoming multi-millionaire entrepreneurs… as never before. Which leads to quote number three:

   3. “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.”   (Nelson Mandela)

    Nelson Mandela, of course, was referring to social change.  Greta Thurnburg too strives to effect social change, in terms of changing environmental practices to save our planet.  Technological change, on the other hand, is the concern for many of today’s up-and-coming geeky whizz kids that are putting us older generation dinosaurs to shame. Fossilized in our old stone-age practices (relatively speaking), we’ll soon become extinct. At least, if we too don’t change.

I’ve not counted (lol!), but thousands upon thousands of books have been written about ‘change’ through the ages. These include sociological, historical, political, philosophical, educational, technological and spiritual treatise. Considering change is part-and-parcel of considering our human condition, whether we take the more teleological western perspective of progressing towards some end goal, or the more oriental, cyclic perspective of life, death, and regeneration, the changing seasons and the revolving cosmos.

When we consider change, by definition we are considering a change from state A to state B.  Educationally (as is my interest as an ELT teacher), we’re asking how to prepare students for that transition to state B. Or, indeed, how they become part of driving that transition to state B.

This is all well-and-good, and part of our daily work, except that when state B arrives, then the transition to state C begins, and onwards to state D … ad infinitum.

Throughout my own personal life-time I have passed through a number of these states. I remember using a slide-rule to perform mathematical calculations, plus a simple pen-and-paper! That’s how they used to be done. I learnt the old imperial methods of measurement before the metric system was introduced in 1970.  Then we had those old tatty school books full of log tables and trigonometry tables (cos, sine, tan etc) that took a while to learn how to use. I remember too being proudly shown our school’s first computer – an enormous machine that took up half a room and hummed as the valves warmed up. Desk top computers, on which we learnt Basic, Fortran and Cobol programming languages came a lot later, and later still the world wide web appeared with increasingly easy-to-use computer interfaces. Now it’s all ‘apps’ downloaded onto mobile phones, with desk tops and lap tops slowly disappearing from view. “All change!”

This brief personal history spans 50 years. During this time I’ve experienced a lot of technological, as well as social, political, environmental and personal change. That’s to be expected. 50 years, after all, is quite a long time. And change has been on-going from A to B to C … incrementally, even imperceptibly.

Was I, or were my peers, prepared for all this change? I don’t just mean ‘educationally’, to respond to the new states as they arrived, but for ‘change’ itself; change per se.  I rephrase the questions as follows.

1. How do we prepare for ‘change’ as it occurs, experientially speaking?

Maybe we don’t wish for change and are quite happy with how things are. Maybe we don’t like change and we resist it, preferring the ‘old, traditional ways’.  But if we miss the boat when change is happening, do we then have to rush to catch up later?  Or are we left behind with less employment potential to offer in the jobs market. How do we feel then?

   2. How do we cope with incessant change, coming at increasing speeds? 

We talk about preparing students to enter the world of the 4th Industrial Revolution with all the technological advances that entails. But once prepared there’s no time for them to rest on laurels for the 5th Industrial revolution will be coming fast on its tail; then the 6th….

The question of preparing for change, particularly these days, is not simply of change from state A to state B. Rather it is a question of being prepared for constant change, coming quickly. Be that incremental or revolutionary, the wheel of change is never at rest. The wheel of change is gathering speed and hurtling along at a pace. It’s a headlong competitive rush to innovate and design; launch, promote, market and sell. Commodification and excess production lead the way. High financial awards await. See here. 

Do we ever now feel that enough-is-enough’; that all this technological change is removing us from our natural environment and community values; that ‘the good ol’ days’ were better; that marketing is influencing society too much to buy all the latest gadgets which we can hardly afford and which the children demand to be ‘in’ with their peers? Or do we just love it all, rushing out to buy the latest products when they appear, then wondering how we ever survived without them?

Within Business English lesson,  in terms of company or industry management practices, the question of ‘change management’ frequently arises. There we see the process of  ‘denial, resistance, dialogue, acceptance, and commitment’ towards any change proposed by management. In other words, change is not automatically accepted. ‘Change’ changes patterns of work, roles and duties. ‘Change’ changes us. It changes ‘who we are’, in the words of Klauss Schwab* in referring to the 4th Industrial Revolution.  No wonder, then, that a degree of grumbling in company ranks can ensue.

‘Change’ implies a leaving behind of the old, of which we are familiar and comfortable, and entering the new.  At work there is generally no ‘rite of passage’ in the anthropological sense with heavily-signified ceremonial procedures. There’s just a mundane, unsignified, adoption and assimilation of new practices and tools-of-the-trade.

For change in ‘social status’, on the contrary, rites-of-passage serve as both experiential and ontological role markers (i.e. personally perceptions of selfhood) – whilst providing evidence to the wider community of change in social status.  Think of bar-Mitzvah’s or weddings as prime examples.

Group acceptance, following adoption of new technological gadgets, fashion items etc., can have social significance – as marketers are so well aware in promoting their brands.  But there is no rite-of-passage, employing ceremonial symbolic acts, to advertise incorporation into any group as a user of such new technologies.  Possession of such items, in itself, serves this function. To have the latest mobile phone is to be a modern, cool, technophile millennial (or now – generation Z) in touch with the modern world of apps. and social-networking. Not to have the latest mobile phone (or not having any mobile phone!) is to be an old, out-of-touch, fuddy-duddy technophobe.

New technologies and technological tools are coming at us thick-and-fast. Staying ‘with it’ is a case of sink-or-swim. So, again we have the question:

‘How do we help students and pupils to prepare and cope with all this incessant change?

Well, considering  ‘the young’, they are remarkably resilient, having grown up in this world of constant technological innovation; especially in this digital age.  As a result, they are far better equipped than the old at coping with all this modern change.

Pop music offers a useful comparison: The rotation of top hits performed by top artists, or bands, on the hit parade is constant.  Fast-and-furious, we might say. Some survive longer on the turntable, whilst the majority fall off into obscurity as quickly as they arose. This is an accepted fact, especially amongst the young in terms of their personal preferences and loyalties, unconcerned about the key role of  marketing. That’s by-the-by.  The young cope with this constant stream of new musical sounds, idols and genres without a moments thought. And such an assortment too!

Back in the nineties I had a young man teach me about all the different musical genres that were popular at the time: Dance, trance, hip-hop, house, acid-house, drum-and-bass… The list went on as the young man explained their differences. But a number of these genres were quite ephemeral. ‘Here today, gone tomorrow’, you might say:  Now discarded, or resting in the CD collections of the greatly diminished number of aficionados.   Times change.  Allegiances change.  All is ephemeral: Postmodernism in action.

So it is with the young in coping with technological change. Or maybe not solely ‘the young’? Questions of selfhood, ontology, ‘being-and-becoming’,  don’t really come into it. You like what you like. When you stop liking – you move on. It’s that simple. ‘Nothing to get hung about’ (The Beatles’).

Ontology and questions of ‘self’ within English language learning I discussed here – in referring to the identity crises/ language blocks that students may go through as they learn to conduct their professional lives in second languages.  Such ‘crises’ can be very real.  But questions of self-hood in this rapidly changing, ephemeral world of the 4th Industrial Revolution, for the moment – remain ‘questions’. Will self-identities too be ephemeral?  And what of cultural identities? Such questions lead us back into postmodern concerns – of which I have written much.

Perhaps our role as educators, especially with the young, is to simply learn from them. They are, after all, more in tune with this modern age than we. This doesn’t mean to stop being educators, but to provide the young (plus adult students) with the resources they need to develop their tastes and interests as they see fit. We, as English language teachers, do not teach innovation. In our own ways, we foster it. We help it grow.  During lessons we enable students to explore their own creativities – in English. This parallels very much the sentiments of Sir Ken Robinson in his TEDtalks speech.

As a business English teacher, my ultimate goal is to aid students’ creativities within their own professional environments.  My role here is in helping students communicate in English. It could be called a side-skill, but it’s a skill many feel impelled to develop in order to improve their functioning in professional environments: A communicative tool aiding inter-national collaboration to explore and push their workplace creativities.

Again, as a musical metaphor, remember every musical resource was put at ‘The Beatles’ disposal back in the 1960s to explore their creativities. And, left to their own devices, what a wealth of superb, timeless, unforgettable music resulted. Stifling exploration by setting agendas concerning how things ‘should be done’ is counter-productive. English language skills are part of our students tool-kits with which they create and engage in business – or will eventually do if now, currently, school children. Assistance & facilitation is our role. So …

“Please, get out of the new way if you can’t lend a hand”. (Bob Dylan)

More and more, within ELT, we consider ourselves as facilitators. ‘Students teach and teachers learn’.  I’ve stated this several times in these blogs before. Through students teaching teachers, we teachers are lending hands to the development of our students’ English language skills:  Skills that are needed for them to perform in the 21st century international market place.

So – we trust them. As teachers to adult professionals we have no other choice. We acknowledge their professionalism and let them get on with it, providing the English language assistance they need and ask for, with support and encouragement. Our guidance comes from giving our students opportunities to bounce their ideas around – in English, whilst also aiding in the development of such soft skills as collaboration, teamwork, listening and empathy. Yes, whilst also developing expression, pronunciation, comprehension, fluidity and precision.

I am not a school teacher but I surmise that the same is true for school children. We give them the support they need, and let them get on with it, interrupting and interfering as little as possible – only when asked. Our guidance, perhaps, comes from seeing the wider picture as gained from our own training and life experience. I hand over here to those more directly in this line of the teaching profession.

That’s how our students cope with all this in-coming change. It’s their world and they’re building it. Trust them and trust the children. They can probably do a better job of designing and developing the world than our generation has done!

__________________________

*Klaus Schwab – President and founder of World Economic Forum

 

Critical Pedagogy

Five years ago, when I began this blog, its ‘raison d’être’ was to tighten up my thoughts regarding ‘Postmodern TEFL’ – a term I’d used to title a draft copy of a book that never reached publication. Writing helps me think. So, intellectually, the exercise has been useful. However, I now understand that the more widely recognized term employed within academic circles is – ‘critical pedagogy’. “Well!”, I say, in mock indignation, ‘They could’ve told me!” I may be joking, but all the same, academic writings are not openly displayed or discussed on the social networking sites. They have to be ‘found’.

Actually, I’m rather pleased to discover this term.  I’m happy to see that the subject is being discussed; within academic circles at least.  As a result, I can now search the net and find numerous articles on this subject which parallel my own thoughts, albeit written more eloquently and academically than mine. Yes, it is most pleasing to see that my own thoughts and conclusions run alongside those discussed within academia.

From time-to-time, within my blogs, I have referenced the works of Professors John Gray and David Block. This is especially true when writing about the more contentious, political  issues within the world of TEFL. And whilst they remain the ‘big names’ in this field, I have decided to list a number of other more recent contributors to the discussion – should anyone wish to dig deeper.

The following can be found and downloaded from the academia.edu site:

Gray, J., O’Regan, J. P. & Wallace, C. (2018). Education and the discourse of global neoliberalism.  See here

Block, D. Political economy in applied linguistics research (2017). See here

Steve Brown. Which side are you on?   Also published in IATEFL Voices July/ August. 2019. See here.   

Marnie Holoborow.   Neoliberalism : The Wiley Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics.   See here.

Pau Bori. Language Textbooks in the era of Neoliberalism. See here

Joseph Ernest Mambu. Countering Hegemonic ELT Materials. See here

Esmay Babii. Ideology in English Teaching (ppt). See here

Esmay Babaii. Traces of neoliberalism in English teaching materials. See here

I also previously mentioned the works and ideas of TEFL academics here  and here.

Elsewhere, if ‘Google Scholar’ is your search engine,  a wealth of material on the subject can be found – although it is not always for free!

Then there is the large range of scholarly textbooks (e.g. see Amazon) exploring critical pedagogy and social/educational reform.  Unfortunately, they are rather pricey, though. Perhaps not the best way to encourage practicing educators/ ELT teachers to get on board.

However, all this seems to suggest that the subject of ‘critical pedagogy’ has risen in prominence, within academic circles, from the days when Professors Block and Gray were first covering it in depth.  It has since broadened. In this regard, and of particular interest are the articles from non-occidental countries criticising the centrality of Anglo-American neoliberal discourse within pedagogical materials. As the now famous quote from an old International House brochure once stated:

“First we sent gun-boats and missionaries. Then we sent  English language teachers.” 

Neither is it to be forgetten that the British Council was first established under the guise of ‘cultural diplomacy’. That is to say, providing education to citizens of British Commonwealth, and beyond, was not primarily an act of humanitarian philanthropy. Rather, it was an act of pragmatic foreign policy, serving British interests by forging (commercial) links around the world. This was to be accomplished by infusing the English language across the pink areas of the colonial map of the empire.  Change language and you change ways of thinking, the theory went, in alignment with the Whorfianism then in vogue.  It worked.  Linguistic imperialism gave Britain, or the anglo-american world anyway,  the upper edge  in global commercial affairs.  And once rolling, many other institutions then joined the ELT global snowball. This subtle infusion of the English language into world cultures subsequently resulted in anglo-american neoliberal ideologies spreading around the world.  Of course, as we well know, the economic giant (the US) has  particularly benefitted with Disney, Holloywood, McDonalds, Coca Cola and Starbucks, plus the tendrils of GAFAM,  slyly slinking into  every nook-and-cranny of global infrastructure and taking root. It appears they are irresistable – just like the western published ELT books which “seem to have a magical hold on both teachers and learners, both of whom just could not do without“. (Kumaravadivelu, B. 2012).

So – linguistic imperialism? Clever strategy or subtle sleight of hand? A master stroke, perhaps? Maybe. However the end result has been an increased presence of anglo-american world view (‘coca-colonialization’) around the world; an increased market-based homogenity;  a reduction in the heterogeneity of traditional cultures, customs and languages, and an insular lack of interest, within anglo-american countries, in other countries’ cultural affairs and their languages. Native English speakers, collectively, have a poor record of learning other languages. “Well, everyone speaks English, don’t they!”

The story of colonialism and ELT. goes back a long way (see here).  Now, in response, a critical pedagogy has arisen. Good! And this is especially ‘good’ when, in Michel Breen’s words:

“ELT became linked to this new capitalism, implicated in the global shift towards massive wealth disparity”.

I highlighted the subject of ‘critical pedagogy’ (before I had met the term) during my presentation at the IATEFL Kracow conference of 2019. My objective there was to consider a future discourse of ELT  as we enter the 4th industrial revolution. Personally speaking, ‘conscious capitalism’ (‘capitalism with a conscience‘)  seems a viable alternative to the current, global, neoliberal, self-interested, profit-maximizing capitalism. A concern for the stakeholders of business rather than the shareholders. I agree – these are big questions to be asking and big proposals to be forwarding at an ELT conference. But Steve Brown (see above) also argues for the ‘emancipatory potential‘ of ELT – if considered seriously and promulgated by the millions (?) of ELT teachers around the world. I’m glad I’m not alone in this opinion!

Whilst I may have run out of blogging steam, my blog on Postmodern TEFL has slowly (very slowly!) ticked along. Yes, I have delved into other parallel issues to ‘critical pedagogy’ within my writings. This is because I have deemed ‘Postmodern TEFL’ to stretch wider than just being critical of the neoliberal discourse within pedagogical materials.

But ‘critical pedagogy’ is seeing a surge of interest, if the number of academic articles on the subject is any indication. I was not aware of this term until a couple of weeks ago – and I surmise that most of my TEFL colleagues around the world are also not aware. The problematic, then, is getting the subject out of the academic journals and on-line academic sites, and into the arena of public ELT discussion.

If ELT is to have any ’emancipatory potential’ (Steve Brown. Ibid), the subject needs opening up. But don’t just take my word for it (though yes, do read my blog!) –  read up on the subject elsewhere and discuss it with colleagues. See the links above.

Human agency, or action, is needed to bring about social change.

Do nothing and the world changes without us.

Other areas of ELT are changing e.g. increasing use of IT software apps./ language coaching/ the welcoming of NNESTs into the profession.

This area too needs serious consideration;

This is Postmodern TEFL.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Presentation (IATEFL BESIG): ELT & 4IR

Presentation sides: Krakow

__________________

Presentation Summary:

 

__________________

Presentation text (Long version): 

Good morning, ladies & gentlemen. Gin Dobré.

The United Nations published a report this week stating that 1 million species are now on the brink of extinction. That’s my shock opener before we go any further. A sobering thought.

So – it’s a great pleasure to be here in your beautiful city at such an important time – for we are now standing “on the brink of the 4th Industrial Revolution”. (A phrase I take from Klauss Swaab, President and founder of the World Economic forum.

Despite the irony, this is an important topic, because if you’re like me –

– our students are talking about it
– Our students are attending conferences & training courses to learn about it
– Our students are designing & shaping it

So – we need to be in the loop. And by browsing around the net and watching TEDtalks – we see amazing new developments coming onto the market. We are in the loop. The big news is: You ‘aint seen nothing yet!  We’re just opening up the flood-gates – of the 4th Industrial Revolution. It’s gonna change the world, and it’s gonna change us – as individuals, perhaps even more than computers have changed the world and us in the last 30 years.

No – I haven’t my forgotten my shock opener. I’ll be back to it in a bit.
______________________________________________

This talk, then, is about technological change, about which change management is a central issue and important lesson content. But it’s also about change on the global scale – ensuring global equality, adopting environmental and social action plans (ESAPs). To make globalization work, we need to think global.

Do you know the story Greek ship, flying an Italian flag, built in a French shipyard, with a Russian Captain and a Liberian Crew, carrying Japanese cargo and docked in a Sao Paolo port? That’s globalization – not to mention the trillions of dollars exchanged every day on the foreign exchange markets.

Over the last 2 centuries, globalization has been an enormous positive force – in alleviating global poverty, raising standards of living, per capita incomes and ‘well-being’.

But it has to be made to work – for all – as we enter the 4th Industrial Revolution. 

Inter-dependency needs to be balanced.

And whilst globalization has served ELT, ELT has served globalization.

So – we have a role to play. Let’s roll!
___________________________________________

So, yes, this talk is also about new technology – along with questions of access to technology, information, education, knowledge & power. It’s about the challenge in facing global inequalities & disparities.  About social and environmental responsibility. I stand here before you, Ladies & Gentlemen, as a business English teacher like you – not with the aim of oiling the cogs of international trade for the benefit of the rich & powerful, the plutocrats & oligarchs, but for a global, social & environmental ethic.

The World Economic Forum’s program is to embed new technologies with social values and to encourage a multi-stakeholder approach.

What is the goal, or ‘discourse’, of BELT?
___________________________________

Technology alone does not determine social change. 

It exists alongside social & environmental issues. 

It also exists within the ‘mind-set’, ‘the way of thinking’, of the times: The zeitgeist.

Of course, the current neo-liberal ‘discourse’ is one in which all, including information, and education are commodified according to market principles – and the Marxist line is that a dominant elite create this ‘neo-liberal discourse’ – to serve their own hegemonic self-interests.

But, standing here  on the brink of the 4th industrial Revolution – I feel a more positive wind in the air, finally! It’s in the social and environmental values coming to replace individualistic, materialistic concerns.

_______________________________________________

So – I’m going run you through the central pillars of the previous Industrial Revolutions – industrialization, capitalism & modernity through which the English language has been central – or indeed, instrumental.  This is to give context as we step across the brink into the 4th Industrial Revolution.

But I’ll be brief – I promise. The point is to focus on the changing ‘discourse’ of ELT. 

_______________________________________________

So – you know that we’ve already had three industrial revolutions – right?
The 1st industrial revolution (funded by slavery and overseas plunder) was based on steam and coal..
Housing & working conditions were abominable.
Life expectancy plummeted; infant mortality soared.

____________________________________________________

And the role of English language?

This was the age of exploration, discovery & conquest, in which European nations set off in search of the wealth of (other) nations. This was morally justified on the pre-text that we would be ‘enriching those other nations with the treasures of our tongue’. I’m quoting from an old poem.

This was the moral base of imperialism. Giving other nations the benefit of our language, and culture, so we could occupy their lands and exploit their resources.

____________________________________________________

The second Industrial revolution, the Age of Empire, saw this moralistic, imperialist attitude become the norm – as displayed at the great exhibitions of London, Paris and Chicago where humanity was presented on an evolutionary scale from the ignorant indigenes of Australia & Africa – to the superior, civilized West.

ELT was now about civilizing savage natives by showing them the ‘mischief and folly of their barbaric ways’ to quote an American commissioner for American – Indian Affairs. 1880. And I’m sure we all know the story of how ‘The West was won’ – through deculturalization, forced assimilation & worse.

Then, with mass migrations into America, in which an English language test was taken to gain American citizenship, the population exploded. And as America became an economic & political world leader, the English language became the world language. 

Technologically, the 2nd Revolution saw immense progress. 

Positively – social reformers fighting for social justice worked tirelessly to improve living conditions – within work, homes, prisons, or education.  Child-labour and slavery were abolished.  And slowly, life-expectancy, per capita incomes and standards of living rose.

Then, as nation states came into being, the world fell into Nationalism and war.
______________________________________________________

War, of course, is terrible. But, in terms of innovation, the world benefitted. 

The 3rd Industrial Revolution kicked off  as cities were rebuilt and a new age of innovation and prosperity began.

This was the nuclear age, the space age, the digital age, the information age, the age of mass tourism, mass consumerism and globalization. With increased global standards-of-living and opportunities – the utopian image looked rosy.

But this was also to become the age of mass pollution and climate change leading to loss of bio-diversity, environmental degradation – we entered the Anthropocene epoch – the dystopian image began to take on a distinctly apocalyptic hue.

We had trod the path from ‘The Age of Reason’ to ‘The age of Stupid’.

“1,500 jets fly to a conference in Switzerland to hear David Attenborough talk about how we’re wrecking the planet?” (quote: Rutger Bregman). Remember now my shock opener. 

So – hands up those of you who have come here in private jets. 

Good for you. I left mine at home too. 

And what about ELT in this period? Well, in terms of pedagogy that’s well documented – as you can see. I don’t need to go into this. 

________________________________________________________

But what about ELT’s central discourse? Well, a certain colonial attitude lingered (funny hippies slide) as we entered the ‘post-colonial period’,  and the ELT was promoted by the British Foreign Office, through setting up the British Council (1934), to serve British interests. Known as ‘cultural diplomacy’. 

After the wars, to quote David Graddol:

“There was a post-war trend within ELT towards social justice, but it then ran into neo-liberalism -leading to an exponential rise within ELT teaching and publishing.”

Michael Breen put this in stronger terms

“ELT became ‘co-terminus with this new capitalism’, implicated in the global shift towards massive wealth disparity”.

A trend set to continue. By 2030 – 1% owning 2/3 of the world’s wealth. That’s definitely not globalization working for the benefit of all

_________________________________________________________________

---

So – let’s flip the coin and turn positive:
Times change – and so does the discourse of ELT.
Globalization achieved, the English language has become the ‘lingua franca’ of global commerce.
Discrimination against NNESTs countered.
Global issues of social justice have again come to the forefront.
Yes, there is a positive wind in the air.

________________________________________

Now, let’s move forward into the 4th Industrial Revolution: Ready?

First image – (anyone know?)
Yeah – a quantum computer and a gene-editing tool.
Both, I feel, are emblematic tools of the future.

The quantum computer (in early stage of development) – uses strange, weird quantum algorithms and is predicted to be able to solve problems too complex for normal computers, whilst operating alongside super computers e.g. IBM Summit at 200 petaflops/sec 

In addition to theoretical areas of research, such as particle physics & astro-physics, more practically – weather forecasting, data encryption & materials science. This is of particular importance in developing advanced materials for the transition to sustainable renewable energy sources… by helping to solve the problems of capture, transfer and storage. This is of key importance in fighting climate change.

The gene-editing tool – is predicted to greatly extend life-expectancy, prevent medical issues at source via predictive medicine, and create precision medicines to match individual genetic traits. (e.g. Huntingdon’s)

It will also create new solutions for crop management, creating disease or pest proof crops that produce bigger and more for harvest. This is so important when we’ll need to produce as much food in the next 50 years as we have in the last 10,000 years and, in France, the suicide rate amongst farmers is extraordinarily high due to productivity and economic pressures.

The subject that most commonly arises in class when I mention the 4th industrial revolution is – ‘the internet of things’: IoT. This is a great ‘Internetization of industry’ – providing traceability, of individual components through supply chain. This will completely change logistics operations, through automatization – whether in industry, supermarkets, or hospitals. And with components and robots communicating with each other down the supply chain, human operators won’t be needed. Goodbye to all those boring, routine jobs.

And, of course, all of this requires data. Expected to reach 40 ZB by 2020.
________________________________________________________

But let’s take a pause before we get too carried away.

Let’s consider – the effect on jobs these new technologies may bring. The job losses. With voice recognition software, direct translation, Alexa and android receptionists, waiters, personal assistants – English teachers also may have cause for concern! 

Let’s consider – a world controlled by robots, especially artificially intelligent robots, that see, hear, understand and think. What consequences could result?

Let’s consider – uncontrollable quantum computers – with complex reasoning beyond human comprehension, with non-human bias and with no compassion. Will we be opening Pandora’s box?

As Stephen Hawking once said:

“Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. Unfortunately, it might also be the last”.

Let’s consider – the long-term unknowns in genetically ‘meddling with nature’.

These are serious concerns of IT & agro-chemical companies.

One of my agro-chemical companies has recently employed an environmentalist to help them keep on the ethical and environmental straight-and-narrow. A great act of corporate social responsibility – of conscious capitalism.
_______________________________________________

Yes – the technology is leading to wonderful new devices, from self-driving cars to domestic androids. But – the tales of Prometheus and Frankenstein serve as warnings in how far we push nature – as our current climatic predicament shows.

Consider neuro-technologies – embedding ‘nano-bots’ directly into the brain. Yes, this can greatly help in dealing with neurological diseases; in expanding the senses; in enabling paraplegics to walk and the blind to see; in supporting memory and learning – as an ‘internet of thought’ is created through a brain/cloud interface.

But there are questions of data collection & brain monitoring –

Imagine what a hacker could do! Imagine what a rogue government could do!

___________________________________________________________

VR & AR – Great ‘immersive’ tools for education and training in safe controlled environments.
– Trauma patients can re-live experiences in safety and come to terms with them.

But there are question concerning users’ social isolation
There are questions about on-line tracking of hand & eye movements– for manipulative marketing.
_______________________________________________________________

Drones – enabling acres of fields to be planted every day, monitoring the life in our oceans, delivering medical supplies where access is difficult.

But – in the wrong hands they can wreak enormous damage. Already rogue drones are coming frightenly close to passenger planes, military drones may mistake friend for foe, and dictatorships buying them up to subdue their populace, as numerous dystopian films have portrayed.
_________________________________________________________________

I could continue with the pros and cons of all the new technology.

New technology can be flashy & exciting, but it also comes with risks.
There are huge questions concerning data mining by marketers, of intellectual property, of privacy. Privacy matters – or else we enter the big-brother state.
_____________________________________________________________

And what makes this technological advance so special? How can we talk about a 4th Industrial ‘Revolution’ and not just an ‘evolution’?

The reason is – the coming together of all these technologies. A ‘joining of the dots’.  Plus, the speed and scope of the technological breakthroughs is at a rate never seen before. Combined with the enormous growth in processing and storage capabilities, this is disrupting all areas from industry to leisure, management to governance. 

_______________________________________________________

Plus, of course – we return to the questions about “who benefits from all this?”

Is this leading to a society top-heavy in technology, but with continued, or greater access disparities – to the technologies, to wealth, to social benefits and well-being? 

These are the challenges of the 4th Industrial revolution.

_______________________________________________________

Have you seen the TEDtalks on this question with the middle class, white collar, skilled IT technicians (called Teds) compared with the blue collar, lower middle-class worker (called Bills)?

Increasingly, with the new technologies, the Bills come under threat from job losses, marriage breakdowns, homelessness, prison. That’s the statistical prediction.

And what about climate change – as capitalism’s central thesis of infinite growth leads to over-exploitation of natural resources. I don’t think I need to spell out the dangers and need for action here.

These are the issues facing us as we enter the 4th Industrial Revolution.

__________________________________________________________

But – to be positive and pro-active, as millions across the world are:

These are the issues tackled by companies practicing ‘conscious capitalism’ investing in communities, ploughing profits back into society, carefully considering their impacts on the environment.

These are the issues encouraging technicians to design for the benefit of developing countries, for social and environmental issues.

These are the issues turning business away from shareholder centred, to stakeholder centred.

These are the issues inspiring our children to skip school to make their voices heard on the streets.

These are the issues encouraging millennials to bank & buy with a conscience.

These are the issues that the World Economic Forum is facing in ‘shaping the 4th Industrial Revolution’.

This is why we, as BE professionals, also need to be in the loop – facing these issues.

I think we are – as recent ELT discussions and presentations have shown – and we have a particular role to play in the promotion of social & environmental concerns – through our language teaching. 
__________________________________________________

This latest step, as we stand ‘on the brink of the 4th Industrial Revolution” with our students – is a step on a road that has stretched from the purely exploitative – to the imperialist – to the colonialist – to the neo-liberalist.

This latest step is to the greater awareness of global and social issues…

– Giving equal opportunities and access to the benefits of technology, information and education, regardless of gender or ethnic identity

The future is not to be decided by a chosen few, the rich & powerful, the dominant elite.

The future is too be decided by all involved. We are all stakeholders with vested interests in our planet’s future. And globally, that involves giving indigenous peoples of developing countries a voice. It is they who provide resources to the prosperous west. ________________________________________________

In terms of pedagogy – yes, we have seen the recent move into soft skills – to get the job done.

And more traditional language skills, such as ‘functional language’, will continue to hold importance – to get the job done. Or so I imagine.

But lexically, perhaps there also needs to be a shift, to incorporate, through language, concepts and critical thinking activities relating to these issues of social justice.

______________________________________________________

I did a quick internet search before coming to find what percentage of profits ELT publishing companies gave towards humanitarian aid, or environmental projects – and nothing turned up. I’d appreciate an answer to that one. 

Plus – a quick hand show of hands for ELT teachers… Thank-you.

Now – for anyone who owns a language teaching company. Right.

Teachers – you win outright. Why is that? 

Perhaps, those ELT language centre owners & directors should take a leaf out of their conscientious teachers’ books.  Actively being green and socially responsible, is good for business. It’s a win-win.  Note your actions on your websites. It looks good.

So, this is my question to consider. How do we go forward in this latest discourse of ELT, on entering the 4th Industrial Revolution, with ELT and globalization acting in tandem? Not just as individual ELT teachers, but in promoting these values through the institutions we serve – our language centres & the businesses in which we teach. 

______________________________________________

Oh – and one final point for linguists: These issues, this new ‘discourse’, is a rising sentiment, a rising consciousness, gaining a voice through language – which, really, is a rebuttal of Whorfianism, which states that language gives rise to thought.

But to my mind – language and thought arise in tandem.
“Change your language, change your mind”.
And there’s neurological evidence to the truth of that statement.

So – the 4th Industrial Revolution is not just about technology. 

Technology exists alongside social & environmental issues. 

To help our students design & create an equitable future, these issues become the language of the classroom. ELT has always played a role in shaping the world – and that means us, here today. 

Thank-you for listening. It has been a pleasure for me for come here and speak on such a subject. It’s also personally important for me to feel that  (in my own, small way), I am individually contributing, through this presentation, to a more equitable world. I invite you to do the same. We’re all drops in the ocean, but through ELT – we make up a lot of drops!

No – if there’s any time left – I’m happy to take any questions.

Neuroscience & ELT

From ELT and the 4th Industrial Revolution (here) –  to ELT and neuroscience. Apparently, radical, revolutionary changes are afoot in the world of TEFL. This blog examines the impact of neuroscience on ELT. In particular, the blog explores neuroscience in the context of language coaching. This is purportedly new within ELT. But just ‘how new’ is it? 

Actually, radical, revolutionary changes are quite frequently announced.  I know, I’ve seen a few in my own lifetime.  My first would be the 1960s ‘age of Aquarius’ with its free-living hippies shaking off the constraints of the post-war generation as a brave new world rose from the ashes.  I was too young to appreciate it at the time, though. And then the dream was over and the hippies found day jobs.

Intellectually, it was the writings of Fritjof Capra that captivated me in my early twenties. The world was at a revolutionary turning point, he declared. Mechanistic outlooks were out. A modern, holistic, ‘systems view’ of life was in – strongly based on the work of biologist: Gregory Bateson. And this ‘systems view’ was to merge Western science with mystical, oriental philosophies. I found it all quite exciting at the time and if I’d been more politically minded I would have joined the Green party and CND; such were my leanings. Instead, in my thirties, I chose to return to university to study anthropology, concentrating on ‘traditional’ societies.  Not a clever career choice, I know, but I’ve no regrets – and its teaching can be of value to ELT (blogged here).

And so – where will neuroscience stand in this new world, as it learns more about the most complex object in the known universe – the brain? For each brain, with its trillions of neural connections, is as individual as a snowflake (Eagleman, D. 2015). More importantly, to the theme of my blogs, how will neuroscience change language teaching? Do we passively wait on the side-lines for the effects to appear, or do we actively become part of some neuroscience/ELT revolution – influencing the path it takes?  

As it stands, neuroscience goes back to pre-literate eras. No-one knows who was the first person to muse upon the mass of grey matter emanating from a split skull on a battle field or sacrificial site. But it is known that the ancient Celts would mix brain with mud to give their projectiles extra potency in battle, whilst the ancient Greeks (according to Homer) believed that the brain contained ‘life-force’ and the intellectual ‘mind’ was actually contained within the lungs. That made sense: Thoughts were held within speech which was propelled by the lungs. Indian yogis held (or ‘hold’) the same notion in controlling breath (‘prana’) to control mental states. Earlier still, the ancient Egyptians held that learning should be ‘done by heart’ – an idiom we still stand by today. Then Hippocrates (4th century B.C.), forefather of modern medicine, instigated a more systematic approach to neurology and came to be recognized as the earliest true pioneer. Side-by-side, ancient Greek philosophizing about the nature of mind kicked off a strand of philosophy (philosophy of mind), of which neuroscience is one minor sub-section. And this philosophical strand has continued, through the ages, up to the present day. 

For millennia, then, philosophers of all persuasions have mused on ‘the mind’. In the midst of 17th century superstitions, Galileo Galilei (‘The ‘father of modern science’) was the first to approach the subject of mind and perception with a more modern, rational enquiry. Galileo was actually continuing a line of enquiry into mind and memory that employed mnenomic methods based on association, as detailed by Aristotle, and under Peter of Ravenna and Giordano Bruno (burnt at the stake as a heretic: Rome. 1600), had gained popularity during the Europen Renaissance. Indeed, acute memory was then suspiciously regarded as a mystical craft, with occult undertones. For practioners it was a (hermetic) visual memory storage system available to all through specific brain-training. The more ‘mystical-minded’ should check out the Anthroposophical Society, set up by Rudolf Steiner (early 2Oth century), in which spirituality per se is used to develop mental faculties. ‘Waldorf’ schools, using Steiners way’, continue to exist, closely aligned with ‘Motessori’ and ‘Reggio’ schools. Educationally, I understand, they are successful ventures. 

 So, in this sense, neuroscience is nothing new. In fact, humankind has been pondering on the issue of – ‘how, or why, we think what we think’ – possibly for as long as there has been humankind.  But what is new, or post-enlightenment, is the modern scientific approach to those musings in examining the nuts-and-bolts working of the brain itself. Really getting down into thought’s engine room, so to speak. For sure, as the science has evolved over the centuries some terrible methods have been employed to deal with mental maladies. Trepanning, for example – the opening up of the skull to let those maladies escape. Lobotomies – removing parts of the brain of ‘crazy people’. The science of ‘physiognomy’ – stating that head shapes reflect personal characteristics. Criminals, of course, have ugly heads and faces you know. But neuroscientists are far more humane in their research these days! 

The ‘real’ modern day science of the brain is said to begin with Paul Broca (1865) and Carl Wernicke (1874). Both men were interested in patients who had suffered language loss (‘aphasias’) and post-mortem examinations showed their brains to have suffered damage in specific regions of the brain. These regions are now known, not surprisingly, as ‘Broca’s region’ and ‘Wernicke’s region’: Damage to each area causing different types of language loss. This suggested that the brain was compartmentalised for different skills sets. Then in 1887 Santiago Ramón y Cajal took photo-microscopy images of the brain, showing its stunning complexity. Sigmund Freud too began his studies, on the unconscious human psyche, in the 1880s. Thus began modern day ‘neuroscience’ and like all sciences, it progressed by degrees (see Eagleman, D. op. cit).

The most famous contemporary neurologist/ psychiatrist, Oliver Sacks (author: ‘The man who mistook his wife for a hat’), cites Hughlings Jackson, Henry Head, Kurt Goldstein and A.R.Lauria as the fathers of modern day neurology, their lives spanning from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century. Their work was painstakingly methodical, taking the long-winded phenomenological approach of recording patient case studies in order to trace causes (aetiologies), developments and treatments of brain pathologies: An approach that Oliver Sacks later copied. Plus – not to forget, and following a similar phenomenological approach – the ground breaking work of psychiatrist/mid-60s guru R.D.Laing; particularly with his work and published writings on schizophrenia. Contentious, perhaps, but all part of the long story of gaining understanding about – ‘Brain-and-the- Mind’. 

The 1960s saw the ‘cognitive revolution’. In particular, this was sparked by Noam Chomsky reacting against the precepts of behaviouralism as previously developed by B.F. Skinner. Chomsky was an ‘innatist’, or ‘nativist’, believing that the mechanics of the mind steer all perceptions, and that all humans are born with such mechanics already in place. Hence the reason why children can learn language, despite its grammatical complexity, very quickly. This notion was very radical at the time and differed from the then current opinions of child psychologist Jean Piaget, who believed that children acquire cognitive skills, including language skills, in successive stages of maturation (Also: Vygotsky. 1934 et al).  The difference between the two ‘thinkers’ then led to the famed ‘Chomsky-Piaget debate’ at a conference near Paris in 1975. So, again I stress that theories surrounding neurolanguage have been with us for a long time! 

Then there are those laboratory researchers who have  spent thousands of monotonous laboratory hours studying fruit flies to understand genetic processes of genes on chromosomes activating specific proteins, with the goal of understanding foetal brain development processes (’embryogenesis’). In their own ways, they too have contributed greatly to our understanding of neurology and neurolinguistics (see Ridley, M. 1999. Deacon, T. 1997). At the embryonic stage, until certain genes trigger certain responses, vertebrates’ brains are all the same.

Then, in a similar area of neurology, you have the work of neuro-endocrinologists, such as Dick Swaab (e.g. 2014) who has spent a lifetime focusing on the growth of the foetal brain through the genetic activation of hormones: in particular through the mechanisms of the pituitary gland embedded within the brain. His work leads to deeply philosophical, or existential, questions by exploring ‘how we become who we are’ – including our gender, sexuality, memory, religious inclinations, finding love partners: For better or worse – “We are our brains”. But any exploration of ‘Mind’ is sure to involve philosophical musings, including the debate between free-will and determinism.  It’s unavoidable.

Yet again, other neuroscientists have examined the workings of neurons, dendrites and axons as incoming sensory data stimulates parts of the brain and messages are exchanged, by neural transmitters across neurone synapses, throughout the neural pathways. Beautiful objects they are, when photographed well. But block those neural pathways, which can be done, and intellectual/brain activity too is blocked. Block, or (in extreme cases of epilepsy) even ‘cut’ – the bundle of 200 million nerve fibres (axons) connecting left and right brain hemispheres (corpus callosum) and, incredibly, the brain still operates – not exactly normally, and now replaced with drug therapies, but once justified in those extreme cases. Such research provides valuable understandings about the workings of the brain. It’s time-consuming research, but then, strict scientific methodologies generally are – time-consuming.

In parallel, the generations of psychologists and linguists (including contemporary evolutionary psychologists/linguists developing from E.O Wilson’s Sociobiology. 1975), anthropologists, cognitive archaeologists (e.g. Sir Colin Renfrew et al), philosophers of language and ELT researchers (et al) who have studied, analysed and debated data within their fields with the (unobtainable?) objective of reaching consensus, have also followed time-consuming methodologies.  This is the scientific method.  Tight, logical, factual reasoning is used to try and finally reach, with a degree of confidence, a consensus of opinion. Yes, I include qualitative research in which reflexive, experienced language teachers also have much to add from their years at the whiteboard. So, there are no quick answers in neuroscience, and/or neuro-linguistics; just a slow train chuffing through the plains of meticulous research like any other science. And yes, the research, the writing of academic articles and papers, the discussions and debates, continues to go on – for in reality:  “Consensus is a horizon we never reach‘ (Jean-François Lyotard. 1979).  Good! Academic enquiry survives. 

Neurology and neuroscience has been with us for a long time! And so – the first place to start looking at language and the brain is through past research – depending on how deep one wishes to go. There is, I restate, plenty of it! For a general introduction, the works of Steve Pinker, Daniel Everett and David Eagleman (op cit.) are good places to begin. For an evolutionary perspective, see Steve Mithan (1996, 2005). Youtube too has a good resource of videos on neuroscience and language; introductory and more advanced.

[Alternative, postmodern viewpoint: Lyotard, J-F. 1978. A Report on Knowledge]

To a degree the same has been true for ‘language coaching’. It too has been around as a concept for quite some time. A quick Wikipedia search reveals that language coaching ideas ‘may’ have originated from previous coaching models such as GROW (Goal, Reality, Obstacles & Options, Way Forward), which itself grew out of ‘The Inner Game’ – a training method initially developed by Timothy Gallwey in the 1970s for sports, but also applied to business, health and education. And, by applying understandings gained from neuroscience, principles of language coaching have now been taken a step further forward, by Rachel Paling, under her trademarked name of:  ‘Neurolanguage Coaching’. Quote:

“Neurolanguage Coaching™ is the efficient and fast transfer of language knowledge and skills from the Language Coach to the Language Coachee with sustainable effects facilitated by brain-based coaching and coaching principles and neuroscience.”

                                                                                     © 2012 Rachel M. Paling

So, today,  EL teachers such as Rachel Paling are waking up to the pedagogical value of neuroscience – and this is especially true when blended with previous ELT research into second language acquisition and ‘soft skills’ issues. In following Rachel Paling’s own writings on the subject, I can see her uncovering areas of interest to ELT with which I have not personally engaged. That makes the subject so much the more exciting and I share Rachel Paling’s passion for the subject. It’s a huge subject, rich and fruitful, providing invaluable insight into the language learning process.  Shamelessly plugging my own writings – I have previously blogged some of thes issues under phenomenology, empathy, second language identity crises and TEFL ethnomethodology. I’m not a primary researcher, I hasten to add. I just report on  findings and argue for their relevance in the world of ELT. 

It must also be stated that a significant number of ELT professionals, including the very experienced, don’t endorse ‘Neurolanguage Coaching™’ – in private. Indeed, there are those who are silently quite vehemently opposed to it. In public, however, they withhold their opinions. To my mind, this is to the detriment of the profession. All other fields, academic and scientific, advance through open debate. So should it be for ELT. I find this lack of open, academic ELT engagement with the subject quite disappointing. In fact, I find it incomprehensible, ranking ELT, as a profession, less than its academic cousins.

Returning, then, to neuroscience research and its evolving results concerning language.  Well, the early suggestion was that the brain was compartmentalized for different skill sets.  This theory had a good innings, until it boomed-and-bust in the 1970s under Gerald Gardner with his ‘multiple intelligence theory’. It didn’t go down well at the time and was soon rejected. There was an inkling that the brain was far more holistic in its operations than an organizational structures with different independent departments. Fritjof Capra’s ‘systems theory’ was holding strong. As a result, for many, the notion of different parts of the brain serving different functions was thrown out with the bath water. 

Paleo-anthropologist Steve Mithan (op. cit.) presented his own variation on the ‘multiple intelligence theory in the 1990s (blogged here) in exploring the development of intelligence within the homo species’. But again the idea that certain parts of the brain were responsible for certain mental activities was still held with some suspicion.  Perhaps his argument, of evolving mental modules coalescing sometime around the middle paleolithic era, was not sufficiently read and his variation on the multiple intelligence baby has remained largely within the realms of paleo-anthropology.

(Also see Jared Diamond: 1997 &   here: ‘The Great Leap‘)

The preferred notion has become one of ‘neural networks’, with a variety of brain regions lighting up on CAT scans when undergoing various mental tasks. Actually, this is not so different from what Steve Mithan was proposing – as he still does.  And today we see a blend of both theories: Certain areas are responsible for certain tasks, but to undergo even basic tasks, networking between different regions come into play, connected by the neural networks. The systems theory of Fritjof Capra, yet still holding strong. 

Language is one of the most complex activities for the brain to undergo. Depending on different language tasks, socio-linguistic situations and individual psychologies, CAT scans show brains light up like birds’ eye views of modern cities’ illuminations at night. Are we looking at a Bombay or a New York? That depends on many factors.

Then again, we do now know (as just stated), that certain areas are central to certain tasks. And as the human brain has developed over evolutionary time, new areas have bloomed upon the old. Again, I reference Steve Mithan. The oldest evolutionary part of the brain that all vertebrates have is the brain stem – governing basic survival instincts. The most modern part is the cerebral cortex, divided into four ‘lobes’ of which the intellectual, problem-solving frontal cortex is the most recent. The other three being the temporary, parietal and occipital lobes.  Then there’s the older limbic system dealing with emotional reactions comprising, amongst others, of the hippocampus (controlling memory storage) and the amygdala (controlling the emissions of hormones e.g. cortisone, in reaction to fear, and pleasure giving dopamine, calmness giving oxytocin). Of course, this is all a great simplification. 

Why humans (i.e. homo sapiens more than our other hominid predecessors) have complex, symbolic language is a puzzle in itself than requires a deep neurological analysis. The structure & morphology of the brain, the genetic switching on-and-off of particular proteins during embryogenesis to form our human brains,  the paleo-anthropological evolutionary history, neurological pathologies (aphasias, strokes, Alzheimer’s. Parkinson’s etc.) and their therapeutic therapies (e.g. ‘melodic intonation therapy’ in activating mirror neurones), the brain’s ‘neuroplasticity’ (changing form in response to life experience) … These are subjects I have skimmed over in previous blogs (e.g. see here), largely because ‘skimming’ is as deep as I can go. But to merge neuroscience with ELT, they are all necessarily part of the process. 

—————

Now, as ‘The Postmodern Guy’, many of my posts have been critical of  modernism’s emphasis on hard sciences. Personally, I’ve taken on a more humanistic approach, shunning the quantitative in favour of the qualitative. I’ve concentrated on empathic, intuitive, caring, collaborative, human inter-action and the micro-political, pluralistic aspects to social life. And I’ve held that these factors have important impart on second language acquisition (see previous blogs). But these aspects are not lost as neuroscience advances. Indeed, they have been central to the development of neurology in which there is a coming together of the scientific approach with person-centred approach. As noted above, many of neurology’s researchers and practitioners have adopted phenomenological approaches to their work for both socio- and psycholinguistic factors influence the brain’s neural functioning. 

Within ELT, this concept is not radical and revolutionary.  There has been a slow development of different disciplines coming together, helping us to understand the brain, and enabling an acquired greater understanding to benefit English language teaching. For example, this key 2001 paper on ‘connectionism’ by Nick Ellis (here) shows that ELT research, into language and the brain, has been going on for some time.  Also, the late, great Caleb Gattegno, innovator of ‘The Silent Way’, approached the dynamics of mind back in the 1950s.  So, in fact, neuroscience and language learning also goes back a long way.

In terms of pure linguistics, Chomsky’s ‘universal grammar’ (UG) hypothesis first saw light in the 1960s, although the concept goes back to Francis Bacon (1245), whilst discussions on a priori and a posteriori knowledge were philosophized on by Leibnitz (1645) and first recorded by Euclid (300 B.C.). And it continues to be discussed and debated.  It has not been discarded. In fact, a recent study (2018) has shown that 5 month old babies can understand quite complex grammatical language structures (see here). To ‘merge’ Chomsky’s linguistics with genetics and inner workings of the brain, see Berwick & Chomsky. 2016. Why Only Us. 

We can also see that the hypothesis of a cerebral ‘language acquisition device’ is quite strongly grounded in TEFL theory (e.g. Ellis, R. 1997), especially since ‘mentalism’ offers a better explanatory approach to secondary language acquisition than it’s predecessor – ‘behaviourism’. Indeed, L2 inference from L1 (i.e. inherent understanding of primary language structures) can be used as a teaching tool.

Furthermore, by integrating the socio- and psycholinguistic factors into language teaching, through the ‘symbiotic method’ and involving a ‘soft skills’ approach (as previously blogged), teachers are led towards a more discursive, empathic, coaching role.

But, again, these ideas are not new: 

Steve Pinker (1994):  “Language emerges from human minds inter-acting with each other”.

Mikhail Bhakhtin (1940s): “Truth is born between people collectively searching for truth, in the process of their dialogic interaction.”

Over fifty years separate those two quotes.  So, these ideas, in themselves, are not radical and revolutionary.  ‘Soft skills’ have been included in pedagogical books for some time. Now, today, as communicative, team-building, and networking skills are more highly sought after by employers than strong linguistic skills, these ideas are showing a resurgence of interest. This ties in with a new business ‘mindset’ discussed in my previous blog, sought after by members of the World Economic Forum as we enter the 4th Industrial Revolution. That is too say, ‘a merging of new technologies with societal values’. 

But, perhaps combining all these ideas together under the rubric of ‘neurolanguage coaching’ is new?

For sure, collectively, these ideas call for a new approach (‘language coaching’) to the teaching of English – and other languages – and I support any codification of these ideas in structuring language coaching courses for teacher development. This is being active in the promotion of new neurolinguistics teaching methods and not simply standing idly by to see what comes. 

Or – perhaps these ideas, in being conjoined under the rubric ‘neurolanguage coaching’, are not new?

Perhaps all good teachers employ an empathic attitude, a symbiotic approach; are wary of setting off anxieties and ‘affective filters’ (Krashen, S); set learning goals, and help students find ways to overcome language learning obstacles – even if they’re not aware of brain processes underlying these activities.

Such objections, as I have heard expressed, are reasonable. Remember too – ‘neurolinguistics programming’ also had its run as a ‘radical and revolutionary’ teaching technique, before coming under academic scrutiny and being denounced as a pseudoscience with little to offer. Debateable as some may find that critique (perhaps some usages of NLP, in some circumstances, can be beneficial?), academic scrutiny is part-and-parcel of intellectual and scientific progress. New ideas only last if they can stand the test of time and absorb intellectual enquiry. Like that slow train chuffing across the plains, scientific methodologies are time-consuming in reaching their destinations, which forever appear just over the horizon. 

To answer this question with respect to neurolanguage coaching, one would need to attend a Neurolanguage training course, learn its particular techniques, put them into practice, and observe the results. That I have not done, although I have read the glowing reviews and read Rachel Paling’s book (‘Neurolanguage Coaching’), which explains the precepts and method of her ELT approach.  So I comment no further and as ‘The Postmodern Guy’, I keep an open mind. 

However, the thesis that language and the brain are intimately related is uncontested. It really is ‘stating the obvious’. In which case, the language teaching Holy Grail is an understanding of the brain that could give a smoother, quicker ride to the language learning process. Achievable? Fact or fiction? Has ‘Neurolanguage Coaching’ found that Holy Grail?  Evidently, many adherent now believe so.  

Actually, I feel rather grateful towards Rachel Paling. Yes, she’s making a business out of her ‘Neurolanguage Coaching’ (fair enough), but she’s also helped me feel that I’m not completely veering off track with my own ideas since they’re on a parallel with her own. Our ideas, however, are not radically new.  Rather, they have a long distant provenance stretching back in time through the ages. 

But, as with all ‘scientific’ methodologies, ‘pedagogies’ too, generally, advance through debate. We need to be open to that. The ‘big names’ of the geneses of these ideas all openly put their ideas forward in the spirit of knowledge advancement. And all accepted critique. It’s part of the game. That’s how understandings are ironed out and fine-tuned. It may be time-consuming, but it needs to happen. 

Concerning the future – the subject of neuroscience is part of 4th Industrial Revolution discussions. This is due to advances in nano- and neurotechnology, with brain implants blurring the distinction between ‘Man and Machine’.

But imagine this: Consciousness results from the sum total of all our neurone interactions, most of which is unconscious. Research laboratories are now taking slivers of rat brains to record their neural make ups – with the end-goal of making digitalized 3D models. To do the same for a human brain would require at least a ‘zettabyte’ of digital storage capacity (10²¹ bytes). This is the same as using all the storage capacity of all the computers in the world put together. That’s how complex our brains are. But quantum and super-computers are arriving which will advance storage capacity exponentially. If, or when, human brains can be digitalized, your consciousness will be able to leave your brain and exist on other substrates. Your consciousness can then be transmitted across the world, and even – out of the world. (Eagleman, D. op cit. & his recent BBC series: ‘The Brain’).

“Beam me up, Scotty!”.

Finally, though not quite so sci-fi, and this may be the most important message from any study of neuroscience, or Neurolanguage Coaching: By understanding more about how our brains work, we are more in control of our perceptions and emotions. This does not necessarily involve a deep, academic understanding and it could help us deal better with daily life situations – including anxieties in communicating in a second language. 

A simple message – but one worth listening to. 

So – similar to my raising of the question of the 4th Industrial Revolution and ELT in my previous blog, my thoughts presented within this blog are also open and welcoming of active discussion in the spirit of ELT knowledge advancement. 

This is, after all – Postmodern TEFL. 

_____________________________________________

ELT & 4IR

This blog concerns the 4th Industrial Revolution (4IR, Industry 4.0, smart industry) and ELT. This subject has not yet widely entered ELT discussions. Yes, several aspects of 4IR have ‘individually’ entered ELT discussions, but these have not been tied together under the wider rubric of 4IR –  termed as such by the World Economic Forum (WEF). Technological advances are only part of the story. More important is how social values will be embedded within the new technology as it arrives. This is a central concern of the WEF (World Economic Forum). This should also be the concern of ELT. This is particularly so because the growth of ELT has not been divorced from processes of globalization and ELT continues to be entwined with global issues. (see previous blogs). 

Revolutions, by definition, transform societies. The 4th Industrial Revolution is predicted to do the same. What is the 4th Industrial Revolution, how will it change society, and what is the role of ELT within this transformation?

These are questions I explore in this blog, without presuming to be an authority on the subject. My explorations are necessarily very brief.  Any internet search will open a plethora of doors on the subject from which to learn.  I write this blog with the aim of filling a  perceived gap in ELT discussions – see previous blog here. 

So, to start:  If we are now ‘on the brink of the 4th Industrial Revolution’ (Schwab, K. 2018), what were the 1st, 2nd and 3rd industrial revolutions?  This question necessarily invokes both the technological and sociological aspects.  In brief…

The 1st Industrial Revolution (1750-1850) entailed the onset of mechanized production (i.e. industrialization), largely through the introduction of steam power (James Watt). This led production away from cottage industries to mass producing factories. Initially, it was largely funded by slavery & overseas plunder. To supply the work force – a great urbanization was instigated; partly through ‘the enclosures act’ depriving people of common land.  Working conditions, including enforced child labour,  in textiles mills, coal mines and metal working factories were terrible. Life expectancy was not high. Housing conditions also were terrible with workers’ families packed into over-crowded, rat infested slums (Engels, F. 1854); whilst rivers and the air became terribly polluted. 

The 2nd Industrial Revolution (1850-1930) was based on oil and electricity. Vehicles took to the roads and airplanes to the skies, whilst the telegraph, telephones, radios and televisions took to the homes. Medical advances (hygiene, vaccines & antibiotics) improved life-expectancy and fertilizers increased food production. Manufacturing became organized under principles of ‘Scientific Management’ (‘Taylorism’). In Britain, social reformers fought for more humane living and working conditions (e.g. Ashley Cooper, Elizabeth Fry, Florence Nightingale, William Wilberforce et al).  Then nationalism reared its ugly head and the world fell into war. 

The 3rd industrial Revolution (1930 – now), after the horrors of two world wars, built up modern cities, invested in innovation, and triggered the digital age – i.e. computerization and the internet. As with the two previous industrial revolutions, this dramatically changed working lives and social structures. The ‘World Wide Web’ consolidated globalization, making the world an instantly accessible global market place – for individuals and businesses. The ‘information society’ was born. Communication because the nexus of modern society. Politically – monetarism competed with communism and corporate capitalism, based on a self-interested neo-liberalism,  took the lead. Certainly it was challenged, by ‘The Greens’, the left and more socially-minded individuals, but its values became firmly, politically and economically embedded.  

Taken together, the three previous industrial revolutions have significantly raised living conditions (‘well-being’), including life expectancies, around the world, whilst generating wealth and opportunities. This later point has been particularly true in developed countries – but for some more than others!  Distribution of benefits and profits has not always been, exactly, equal! A neo-liberal philosophy has ensured that.  At the same time, politics has frequently polarized and divided societies, internally and externally, creating conflicts reaching global proportions. Politics, economics, technology and social well-being are all deeply inter-meshed. 

So – to enter the 4th Industrial Revolution (now – future): 

Technologically, the 4th Industrial Revolution certainly brings with it many useful, and fun, classroom gadgets. But a fuller list of 4IR technologies includes  – artificial intelligence (AI), virtual & augmented realities (VR & AR), quantum computing, big data, robotics, 3D & 4D printing, biotechnologies & gene editing, nanotechnologies, neurotechnologies, advanced materials (especially for energy capture, storage & transmission), drones, geoengineering, ‘the internet of things’ (tracing components through the supply chain), blockchain (tracing administrative documents through complex transactions), crypto-currencies … and probably more.  

Perhaps, most importantly, there is a ‘joining of the dots’ (Schwab, K. 2018. op.cit) concerning these new technologies – that is to say, a combining of these new technologies.  Plus, the separation between human and machine is being breached. This is true – physically, with neural inputs giving amputees and paraplegics the chance to regain active legs (for example), and psychologically, as smart phones increasingly figure in all human operations in never being put down and leaving hands and eyes. Remember, we are just at the brink of the 4th industrial revolution. For predictions on where it is taking us, visit the WEF website. See here.  

Simultaneous to the turning of Industrial Revolutions has been the development of English language teaching, and I strongly recommend Scott Thornbury’s excellent plenary (2012, S.Korea) on this subject found on YouTube. See here. Also at IATEFL conference – here. 

My own addition is the following three quotes, previously cited here: 

“And who, in time, knows whither we may vent
The treasures of our tongue, to what strange shores
This gain of our best glory shall be sent
To enrich unknowing nations with our stores?“
(Musophilus. Samuel Daniel. 1599)

“The first step to be taken towards civilization, towards teaching the Indians the mischief and the folly of continuing in their barbarous practices, is to teach them the English language“.  (quoted in Diamond, J. 2004)

“You must not refuse a cup of tea, otherwise you are considered an exotic and barbarous bird without any hope of ever being able to take your place in civilized society”.       (Passport to Britain. 1967 – an ELT pedagogical book) 

I quote these examples (again) to show changing attitudes to the English language and English language teaching. This, as is also well-documented, has evolved from the ‘dual translation method’, to the audio-lingual method, to the ‘communicative method’, ‘blended learning’ and ‘teaching unplugged’. My summary is brief! Thankfully, those above quotes now shock us when we read them. 

The examples also show that language, English language teaching, and culture all  evolve together with time.  Which, language or culture, steers the way – is the Whorfian debate. This is now an old debate, but under ‘neo-Whorfianism’ is showing a resurgence of interest. Does language shape thought, or does thought shape language? See here.

This is an important point to consider, as teachers and/ or as publishers, for the English language we teach arguably influences global culture. Three more quotes:

‘One third of the world’s population will soon be studying English in this multibillion dollar industry’ (Graddol, D).

“The global explosion of commercial English language teaching (ELT) is largely coterminous with the arrival of the so-called new capitalism…. Central to the exponential rise in commercial ELT is the development of a sizeable and financially lucrative publishing industry” (Gray, J)

“We are reminded that schools and universities, through their institutional discourse, sustain and perpetuate the world view, values and interests (or hegemony) of those who happen to be the rich and powerful at the time… Through such discourse, citizens are also constructed. And these constructions serve the hegemony of the dominant elite in a society” (Breen, M.P)

We can not escape the fact that the teaching of English is a political act. 

Technology too is political. The technology that is developed shapes human societies. This is a deliberate act. Technology does not evolve independent of human intervention. Choices are made. Hence the title of Klaus Schwab ‘s book (President & founder of the WEF): “Shaping the 4th Industrial Revolution”.  The goal of the WEF, its members being leading experts from all areas – science, technology, business, humanitarianism, environmentalism etc., in ‘shaping’ this future, is to embed technology with social values. This is an objective previously ignored – or not  at all prioritized. 

This requires a new mindset, which ELT has begun to take on board. ‘Communication skills’ and ‘soft skills’ are coming to the fore over linguistic skills – as explored during the 2018 IATEFL BESIG conference. Michael Carrier, for example, expanded on a new business mindset in moving from the fighting perspective of ‘beating the competition’ and ‘defending current positions’ to ‘innovating’ and ‘creating new opportunities’. Rachel Paling, on the other hand, concentrated on ‘neurolanguage’, the brain’s adaptable plasticity, and language coaching through empathic skills. For my own blogs on related issues see here, here, here, here). And putting these new ideas into pedagogical practice, Evan Frendo presented the new, excellent, Business Partner’s series which I’ve started to use and now also highly recommend.  

Neuroscience accepts that words can physically change the brain (see here).  ‘Change your language, change your brain‘ (see here).  Empathic brains, with strong inter-personnel communication skills, differ from competitive, goal-orientated, self-interested brains. As we enter the 4th Industrial Revolution, and strive to embed social values in technology, mindsets, especially business mindsets, also need to change. And this is where ELT comes in.

ELT, through teaching materials and teachers, presents language to students. The language absorbed and put into practice, effects thought and culture – as the neo-Whorfians argue. And when…

‘….economic development and increasing global influence depend almost entirely on the process of globalization and the enhancement of English language proficiency’. (Graddol, D. 2006)

… the language we teach has great influence on the global world we live in. ELT, then, or BELF, has a strong role to play in changing mindsets and aiding the embedding of new technologies with social values. The technology introduced with the 1st Industrial Revolution had no thought for social values. The mindset of the 18th – 19th century industry leaders was one of using new technologies for their own self-interest, with little or no concern towards the lives of the workers or environmental degradation. Social reforms, the welfare state, trade unions etc. have increasingly improved health, wealth and well-being of the ‘common people’, but it’s been a push-and-pull battle every step of the way. 

Now – with major social, political, environmental and geological transformations currently underfoot as the planet slides into a new geological era – the ‘Anthropocene’ (see here), we have few baskets left in which to lay our eggs, especially if we wish future generations to have decent ‘qualities of lives’. This is the concern of the WEF in guiding us into the 4th Industrial Revolution.  In changing mindsets, through English language teaching, as English teachers across the world guiding English language learners, ELT also has a role to play.

This should be institutionally discussed. 

My previous blog quoted Rob Howard on this subject (see here): 

“It’s not yet talked about much, because Scott Thornbury hasn’t talked about it. Once he presents on the subject, then everyone will be talking about it“. (Quoted with permission)

Well, with great respect – because Professor Scott Thornbury is such a mine of information on all ELT related topics, this subject (in my opinion) needs airing with or without him.  Most preferably with!  

_____________________________________________

Postscript:  For all ELT teachers who love collocations, the subject of 4IR is full of them and they wonderfully encapsulate the main issues. Here are a few:

***********************

emerging technologies   cultural diversity    equal opportunities     

climate change   environmental impact    natural resources    

sustainable development   human rights    technological progress  

  global challenges    global supply chains   emerging economies

ethical considerations     global inequalities      citizens’ rights    

 wealth distribution    socially beneficial technologies  social values  

values-based approach  inclusive solutions    corporate social responsibility      

collaborative action    multistakeholder approach  global disparities

_________________________________________________________