Values in ELT - English Language Teaching (con't 2)

In addition, although a lot of English teaching goes on in national educational systems, an exceptionally large percentage is conducted outside of primary and secondary public education: In private schools, in university programs that themselves are marginalized, in community programs, and so on. Many teachers (myself included) do not hold a teaching qualification recognized by the state, and for all teachers, including those in public K–12 education, the knowledge base of English language teaching is fundamentally different from that of content subjects such as history or chemistry. Whereas in these subjects a major part of knowledge involves knowing facts, knowing a language primarily involves a skill—it is a process-centered knowledge base. In many contexts this sets teachers apart from their colleagues, for they are often judged not so much on the basis of their specialized knowledge (and much less their teaching ability) but on their own skill in using the language. All these things set ELT and its teachers apart from general education. This fact, too, has a significant impact on the moral dimension of language teaching. Such factors, then, lend the moral dimension of language teaching a particular character, one that colors our work and our moral analysis of it in highly complex and polyvalent—that is, multi-valued—ways. Though this complexity and polyvalence cannot be avoided or ignored, it does matter what position one takes on moral matters. I wish to make my own position clear. I believe firmly in the dignity of all learners, and in the need to support the empowerment of learners both inside and outside class. Like many teachers, I found myself drawn to this occupation because I find it fascinating and invigorating to work with people from different cultures, and I feel a moral duty to be their advocate. However, I also feel a moral duty to acknowledge and face up to the ambiguity and polyvalence of what we do—in other words, that blithely accepting “empowerment,” for example, as an uncomplicated and unalloyed good serves neither our own cause nor the interests of our students. It is only by confronting the moral complexity and ambiguity of our teaching that we can hope to identify the good and right things to do in any given set of circumstances, that is, to know the right way to teach. I realize that this is an unpopular position to take, yet I believe it does reflect the truth. It certainty captures my own experience—1 have frequently felt like a child in radically different cultural settings. However, I wish to emphasize that this view of students in no way justifies infantilism in classroom methodology or materials. I believe very firmly that adult students must at all times be treated as adults. Our difficulty as teachers—another moral dilemma that we face—is finding ways to do this with students whose linguistic proficiency runs so far behind their intellectual abilities.