Schaidt Ugandan Children's Literature and Its Implications for Cultural and Global Learning in TEFL

An Extensive Reading Project Study
1. Auflage 2018
ISBN: 978-3-8233-0053-3
Verlag: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, Band 3, 517 Seiten

Reihe: Studies in English Language Teaching /Augsburger Studien zur Englischdidaktik

The present study adds to TEFL discourse in several ways. First of all, it contributes to the widening of the canon as it focuses on Ugandan childrens fiction. Secondly, the research connects to the few empirical studies that exist in the field. It provides further implications for cultural and global learning and literary didactics in TEFL derived from insights into the mental processes of a group of Year 9 students in Germany engaging with Ugandan childrens fiction within the scope of an extensive reading project.

Stephanie Schaidt war wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin am Lehrstuhl für Didaktik des Englischen an der Universität Augsburg. Seit Januar 2017 befindet sie sich als Studienreferendarin im baden-württembergischen Schuldienst.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Schaidt, Stephanie

Leseproben

2.2 The Rise of Intercultural Learning
Since the 1980s, the term intercultural learning has been increasingly used across disciplines and school subjects in Germany. Intercultural competence (IC) appears as a cross-subject learning objective in various educational frameworks and curricula. The concept has its roots in pedagogy. The term intercultural education was first used in the USA, in the period between the two World Wars, to refer to programmes that fostered the integration of different ethnic groups into American society (Doyé, 1992, p. 4). In Germany, immigrant pedagogy (Ausländerpädagogik) developed in the 1950s and 1960s and intercultural pedagogy (interkulturelle Pädagogik) in the 1980s (Auernheimer, 2003; Borelli, 1986). In the 1950s and 1960s, immigrant pedagogy aimed at a better integration of children of migrant workers into ‘German’ society. The concept was a reaction to the problems many ‘foreign’ students had at school and their lack of German language skills. It was therefore rather focused on deficits (deficit hypothesis) and aimed at linguistic and cultural assimilation of ‘foreign’ children (see Burwitz-Melzer, 2003, p. 39; Fäcke, 2011, p. 175). In the 1980s, intercultural pedagogy initiated a shift away from a focus on deficits as problems to differences as potentials. The one-sided perspective of ‘the other’ was replaced by an emphasis on mutual learning and living in a multicultural society. Intercultural learning was defined as a learning objective and teaching principle across subjects. ‘German’ and ‘foreign’ students were encouraged to learn from each other (Krumm, 1995, p. 156). Frequently, however, this did not go beyond the integration of culinary specialities or music and dances of the students’ countries of origin into the classroom. Thus, the difference hypothesis is often criticised for stigmatising, exoticising and insufficiently considering political and social-economic contexts and racial discrimination (see Fäcke, 2011, p. 175). Since the 1990s, the concept of cultural learning is also influenced by anti-racist pedagogy (Essed, Mullard, & Essinger, 1991; Essinger, 1993; see also Chapter 2.7) and the pedagogy of diversity (Prengel, 2006). Advocates of anti-racist pedagogy plead for the deconstruction of racist thought patterns and lines of actions. They focus on power inequalities between members of majority and minority groups. Both open and hidden forms of racism are critiqued. It is the aim of the approach that students develop awareness for structural similarities, differences and inequalities. Fäcke and Rösch (Fäcke, 1998; Fäcke & Rösch, 2002; Rösch, 2000) have translated some ideas of anti-racist pedagogy into (foreign) language didactics. Fäcke (2011, p. 176), however, also warns that if it is taken to an extreme, any thoughts or ways of conduct may be considered racist and politically ‘correct’ behaviour does not actually exist. Anti-racist pedagogy is furthermore criticised for tendencies of levelling differences. Auernheimer, therefore, pleads for the synthesis of intercultural and antiracist pedagogies: Solange das Nebeneinander von antirassistischer und interkultureller Erziehung nicht überwunden wird, tendiert letztere zu kulturalistischen Vereinfachungen, während erstere dazu tendiert, das Prinzip der Anerkennung von Andersheit zu vernachlässigen. [As long as the parallel existence of anti-racist and intercultural education is not overcome, the latter is prone to culturalist simplification, while the former neglects the principle of acknowledging otherness.] (2003, p. 22; my translation) The pedagogy of diversity (Alleman-Ghionda, 1997; Prengel, 2006) focuses on the uniqueness of every individual. It takes into account that every person may have multiple identities and thus be both a member of majority and minority groups. Difference is not only looked at on the basis of ethnic background but other categories of discrimination such as sexual orientation or religion are also considered. Prengel (2006, p. 181) notes that the two terms equality and difference are mutually dependent. She argues for an integration of the two by recognising the diversity of individuals on the basis of equality (egalitarian difference). In the 1990s, intercultural learning in the foreign language classroom gained in importance. Many scholars pointed to the strong relationship between language and culture (see Byram, 1997; Kramsch, 1993) and therefore looked at the foreign language classroom as particularly suitable for intercultural learning: Von seiner Aufgabe und seiner Erfahrung her eignet sich aber gerade der Fremdsprachenunterricht für interkulturelles Lernen, zumal er auch die sprachlichen Voraussetzungen für die ‘Grenzüberschreitung zwischen Kulturen’ schafft. [Given its function and background, the foreign language classroom is particularly well suited for intercultural learning because it creates the linguistic framework within which boundaries between cultures can be crossed.] (Buttjes, 1991b, p. 2; my translation) Against the background of a changing concept of culture and various developments in reference disciplines such as pedagogy, learning about cultures was now seen as a process of meaning creation between representatives of different cultures (Delanoy & Volkmann, 2006, p. 13). Building on the Stuttgarter Thesen zur Rolle der Landeskunde (see Chapter 2.1), the learners’ role in the cultural learning process was increasingly taken into account and a more cultural-comparative and culture relativizing approach was sought: Learners should no longer be seen as mere ‘receptacles’ to be filled with factual information. Instead, they are invited to become personally involved in the exploration of English-speaking cultures as self-reflective co-constructors of cultural meanings. (Grimm et al., 2015, p. 158) Intercultural learning intends to foster students’ Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC), which can be understood as a specific communicative competence for intercultural situations. In contrast to many Landeskunde approaches, it targets not only cognitive but also affective and pragmatic learning objectives. The different goals are frequently assigned to the three domains: knowledge, skills and attitudes. In his influential model, Byram (1997) defines ICC in terms of the following objectives: the knowledge about social processes and social interaction concerning both one’s own and other cultures (savoirs) skills of interpreting documents or events from other cultures and relating them to those of one’s own culture (savoir comprendre) skills of acquiring new knowledge about another culture and operating it in real time communication (savoir apprendre/faire) attitudes such as curiosity and openness towards other cultures, the willingness to relativise ones own beliefs and the ability to decentre and change perspectives (savoir être) the ability to evaluate cultural products and processes criticially and to take also a critical perspective on one’s own culture (savoir s’engager). Byram’s model serves as a major reference when defining the teaching/learning objectives of intercultural learning in the foreign language classroom in Germany and it is also used as theoretical background for a number of empirical studies in the field of cultural learning (Burwitz-Melzer, 2003; Eberhardt, 2013; Jäger, 2008). Today, fostering students’ ICC is often considered the core aim of FLT (Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2014, p. 18; Thaler, 2012, p. 271). The main goal of communicative language teaching has therefore been complemented by an intercultural component. These developments are anchored in relevant documents such as the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001), the national educational standards (KMK, 2004, 2014) and the curricula of the different Bundesländer.1 It is generally agreed that FLT should prepare students for real-life intercultural encounters. Bredella defines the aim of intercultural learning in FLT as follows: Im FU sollen die Lernenden auf erste interkulturelle Begegnungen vorbereitet werden und interkulturelle kommunikative Kompetenz erwerben. Ziel ist es, zu verhindern, dass sie in außerschulischen Begegnungssituationen Tabus verletzen und Sanktionen erleiden und dass sie den Äußerungen von Fremden falsche Bedeutungen zuschreiben. [In the foreign language classroom learners should be prepared for intercultural encounters and gain ICC. The aim is to prevent them from violating taboos, suffering disapproval and ascribing the wrong meaning to what foreigners say...