Language Teacher Research

Diversity, Social Consciousness,and EFL: Transformative

Practice and LanguageTeacher Research

JOHN CLAYTONUniversity of Cincinnati

RESEARCH ISSUEThe purpose of this article is to increase the practical andtheoretical understanding of how critical pedagogy affects studentempowerment, participatory classroom spaces, and awareness ofdiversity content in the English as a foreign language (EFL)classroom. Currently, students enrolled in EFL classes are taughtkey language components of reading, writing, speaking, andlistening. Nevertheless, these students come from cultural,educational, religious, and linguistic backgrounds very differentfrom those of the United States or other native-English-speakingcountries. Though the purpose of such classes is ostensibly toprepare students for academic and social life where English mightbe used (Belcher, 2006; Canagarajah, 2006), they are rarely taughtcontent about the larger social issues that they might encounter(Censotti, 1998), especially as related to issues of diversity (such asthe role of women; gay and lesbian issues; marriage and social roles;religious, linguistic, and ethnic differences). Given the relevance ofthese topics in social and academic life, and often EFL students’ lackof exposure to them, it is therefore not enough for EFL classes tomerely tackle the linguistic components of teaching as though theyexisted in a vacuum.

I found this situation acutely as I taught an intermediate-levelintensive summer seminar EFL class to 13 students (6 male,7 female) at a private university in southern Japan in 2009. Aged 18

TESOL Journal 1.3, September 2010 379

doi: 10.5054/tj.2010.226822

to 70 and all native Japanese speakers (the class was open touniversity students as well as members of the community, thuscreating this wide range of student ages), these students wereinterested in not only the English language but also the cultures inwhich it is spoken. I was surprised, however, to discover theiroverall lack of awareness of the larger social and cultural issues thatcurrently impact daily life, especially in the United States (fromwhich I had come). Although the students understood grammaticaland linguistic concepts at an intermediate level, they had almost nounderstanding at all about the enculturated, diverse, lived settingsin which those concepts might be used.

BACKGROUND LITERATUREPublished research (e.g., Censotti, 1998; Kappra, 1998; Nelson, 1999)for much of the past two decades has shown the importance ofdiversity as content in the second language (L2) classroom, both asexploration and celebration of the diverse backgrounds, attitudes,and practices of classroom participants (Farrell & Jacobs, 2010). Bydiversity, the literature for L2 studies means not only different races,cultures, or languages, but also the multiple and dynamic practices,ways of interacting, sexual or gender differences, and attitudes thatindividual participants bring into the L2 classroom. At the sametime, L2 research has also shown quite clearly the importance of theclassroom space itself in increasing investment in language learning(Pierce, 1995). More than just an emotional factor, investment acts asa key component inhibiting or supporting linguistic proficiency.Nevertheless, this takes place in real settings, with real results; it isthe learning spaces and contexts that condition or supportinvestment, not simply provide the location in which it may occur.As such, for students, native and nonnative speakers alike, theclassroom space can provide the motivated, invested context forovercoming prejudice, misunderstanding, and oppression throughinteraction with students and teachers whose diversity ranges fromthoughts to feelings to the words and gestures used to expressthem.

To address these multiple practices and concepts of diversity, Iimplemented a critical pedagogy (Morrell, 2009) language unit inthe Japanese EFL classroom. Critical pedagogy, defined simply, is a

380 TESOL Journal

set of instructional practices that focuses on the structures present inreal, situated learning spaces (McLaren, 1986) in order to createegalitarian, participatory, and empowered participants, allowingthem to receive language and content learning while interacting asequal partners with others. Dissolving binary and dualisticcategories (such as teacher/student, good/bad, right/wrong, top/bottom), critical pedagogy instead calls for dynamic, fluid, multiplerelationships between participants, questioning even the notion ofjust who or what ‘‘students’’ and ‘‘teachers’’ are. As a key elementof this questioning, critical pedagogy allows students to take controland utilize their power as unique individuals in articulating andgenerating their own learning needs and styles (Giroux, 1988;Freire, 2000).

Nevertheless, the literature is not clear about several very practicalissues, which this unit addressed. Though the body of literature isextensive, it is still relatively unclear exactly how EFL teachers canimplement specific lesson plans that could teach such important issuesas diversity (Nelson, 1999). In fact, though the literature is extensiveregarding why nondualistic, participatory frameworks such as criticalpedagogy should be used (especially in English as a second languagestudies), it is still unclear exactly how EFL content issues can beaddressed, especially when students enter the classroom without anadvanced level of L2 metalinguistic or cultural proficiency. Forexample, with the Japanese students in my class, though theirplacement test results put them at an intermediate level, many of themhad never visited a native-English-speaking country, nor did theyhave a practical understanding of English usage, and as such initiallylacked the culturally critical components necessary to see theirlanguage learning in larger contexts.

PROCEDURESIt was therefore the purpose of the lesson to address these gaps inthe Japanese EFL classroom with the key goal of focusing ondiversity content. Further, this lesson focused on the creation of aproductive, participatory learning space, which then allowed for thefree exchange and adaptation of content for students, thusincreasing their individual EFL learning and their comfort indealing with diverse individuals and practices.

Diversity, Social Consciousness, and EFL 381

The class involved three main sets of activities, which alsoaddressed the curriculum dictated by the university (Englishspeaking, listening, reading, and writing). First, students weregiven the topic of Family and Social Life in 21st-Century Japan,which involved the changing role of the family, women in publicand professional life, sexual orientations and marriage, and howthese issues affect the students’ lives. Three types of tasks wereassigned and connected to the curriculum: (1) speaking:5-minute lectures; (2) writing and reading: expository, timed essaywriting; and (3) reading and listening: situated texts, especiallymagazines and newspapers obtained online or from the universitylibrary.

The speaking practice was intended to require students to thinkand to use English by presenting their ideas about an aspect ofdiversity, with little preparation. Given only 5 minutes, studentsdid not have time to memorize a speech, but instead prepared ashort lecture, becoming the teacher for that brief time. They thenwere required to field questions or comments from their peers. Inaddition to valuable public speaking practice, this also gave theclass a chance to discuss the content openly, exchanging ideas aboutwhat exactly diversity meant in a Japanese context and how differentcontexts utilized different definitions.

Next was a timed-writing task. Students were given 1 hour tobrainstorm, organize, outline, and then write a short essay related tothe role of family in 21st-century Japan. This gave them practice inwriting organized, thesis-driven expository papers relatedspecifically to the content. They revised the papers with their peers,reading each other’s paper for content and making comments. Theythen turned the papers in to me, and I checked, corrected, andhelped them to revise. My focus was not on the ideas as such, butinstead on their expression through writing forms and grammar,because I wanted them to feel free to explore their opinions aboutthe content openly, with help only in making that opinion moreintelligible.

Finally, we read and discussed real texts about the topics—newspaper and magazine articles about issues of diversity,including the gay marriage debate in the United States, the rise ofdivorce in Japan, and the demographics of men and women in the

382 TESOL Journal

workplace. With technology in the classroom, we were able to dothis online, which gave students a wealth of freely accessiblematerial that they could also pursue at home.

With each component, one key aspect of the lesson was the wayin which the classroom and the contexts for learning created a spacefor each student to take responsibility for his or her learningthrough participatory exchange. As a physical space, chairs andtables were arranged in a square pattern, with students facing eachother and me sitting among them, with no one ‘‘in front,’’ ‘‘at theback,’’ and so on. As a conceptual space, I simply facilitated andprovided prompts and feedback, but left the students to activelyparticipate with each other. Also, in both the conceptual and thephysical learning space, discussion with me and with every otherstudent was an integral part in the lesson. In the initial5-minute lectures, students discussed and asked each otherquestions; for the writing unit, they talked with each other about thetopic, outlining and brainstorming together their ideas and peerrevising (thus discussing both the content and the structural issuesof their writing); for the readings, students read quietly and thentook turns reading out loud, taking pauses every few minutes todiscuss complex ideas or topics.

In creating each type of activity along the lines of criticalpedagogy research, I transformed the purposes and structures ofthe classroom space to create equitable, motivated, empoweringsettings for interaction. Even if initially shy or hesitant to speak, thestudents were compelled and incentivized to participate, in thateach student had his or her turn to read, write, and speak freely, asdid I (I did all the activities with the students). Four students, inparticular, mentioned explicitly that these practices were helpful tothem. One said that she was initially ‘‘scared of making mistakes’’but saw others (including the teacher!) making mistakes and thuswas less afraid to speak out because we were all ‘‘working like ateam.’’ Another student said that even when making mistakes,being unafraid ‘‘helped us to learn’’ and communicate.

Finally, each participant constructed his or her learning spacealong the lines of his or her own needs, interests, and ideas.Sociolinguistic research (e.g., McKay & Hornberger, 1996) has longestablished the extent to which students naturally construct their

Diversity, Social Consciousness, and EFL 383

language learning according to their historical and material needs.As such, the focus on a participatory, critical learning space in EFLallowed this process to happen unencumbered and in real time.

RESULTSThough I hypothesized based on previous research that a criticalpedagogy framework might create an empowered, communicative,and participatory classroom for understanding diversity in the EFLcontext, the actual results of the unit were still quite surprising tome. I was initially concerned about exactly how students wouldrespond to such notions of diversity, given its potentiallycontroversial or personal content. For example, two male studentshad mentioned that they had ‘‘never met a gay person,’’ and oneeven said that ‘‘there were no gay people in Japan.’’

Nevertheless, by the end of the lesson, students were usingdiversity concepts and language far beyond their initialarticulations. For example, as a result of class discussions about thereal stakes present in the current gay marriage debate and real-world examples of gay and lesbian life (both in the United Statesand in Japan), those two students realized that, in fact, theyprobably did know gay and lesbian individuals. Though this wasbut one example, in each of the definitions and types of diversity weexplored, from different types of thinking to different views onsocial roles, students expanded their views and realized howdiversity impacts situations even as seemingly homogeneous asrural Japan, and they explored those ideas freely with each other.

In this development, we were aided by social and culturalcontexts of which I was initially unaware. The fluid, dynamic spaceof the classroom allowed for this vocalization and for the ways inwhich the content itself adapted to students’ needs, interests, andconcerns. First, students explained to me how Japan culturally is ata crossroads, with a rapidly aging population, a low birth rate, anda rapidly changing dynamic as related to personal and professionaldiversity (especially regarding women in public life, marriage orchildren, and sexual orientation). As such, students were interestedin sharing their opinions and hearing the opinions of other students.The older students in the classroom were interested in hearing theopinions of their younger peers, and the younger students were

384 TESOL Journal

interested in the experiences and wisdom of their oldercounterparts. Further, all of the students were interested in hearingabout how these issues were playing out in real, dynamic ways inthe United States, which was an important place to them in theirlanguage and cultural studies.

The importance of the classroom space for diversity learning isthat it gave these students the playing field on which they couldadvance learning goals while meeting with each other in acomfortable format, conceived and constructed according to theirspecific needs and interests. It also created a playing field onwhich students could meet with me, their instructor. Together wecreated a dynamic, hybrid, and diverse space that in many waysmirrored the types of diversity content we discussed. Forexample, although all the students were native Japanese, everyone of them expressed different views on family, social roles,thinking, and learning, a range of voices in the classroom flowingfreely in open dialogue.

Nevertheless, as EFL instructors, we must conceive of learningspaces within already-established curricula set by the schools inwhich we teach. As such, the individual tasks themselves targetedskills already stated in the curriculum. The manner of theirpresentation, however, and the overall space of the classroomchanged their delivery and their reception. Further, because thelanguage exchanges occurred in English, these individual diverselearning spaces also eliminated cultural bonds related to thestudents’ native language that might otherwise have inhibited theexchange of ideas. For example, Japanese is a language with built-inhonorifics related to age, social standing, and other characteristics.Also, the ways in which younger people have discussions with theirolder counterparts is regulated by a complex, old system of culturalnorms (Kaiser & Ichikawa, 2001). None of these norms exist inEnglish, however, and the students expressed a sense of ‘‘freedom’’(as one student noted) to discuss real opinions without fallingsubject to linguistic or cultural customs that might otherwise haveprevented it. They were thus able to take advantage of the diversityof English itself in order to feel freer to discuss topics and ideas thatthey might not have been able to do in another setting.

Diversity, Social Consciousness, and EFL 385

Finally, the nondualistic structure based on empoweredparticipation helped the students not be afraid of making mistakesor being judged negatively for their opinions. Three of the olderfemale students (aged 55–65 years), for example, noted how initiallythey had been hesitant to speak in class, especially because they hadfelt uncomfortable that they would ‘‘have so little in common withthe younger students’’ that they ‘‘felt uncomfortable sharing theiropinions.’’ As the unit progressed, however, each mentioned howthe classroom space and its activities allowed them to findcommonality, even despite their age differences. In this way, thestudents were not waiting passively for the instructor, but insteadactively pursued questions and learning that fit with their ownneeds and interests.

REFLECTIONWith this unit, what I believe was most useful to me as an instructorand as a researcher was that the focus on multiple participatorylearning spaces allowed me to adapt the curriculum andinstructional methods to address a definite need in EFL studies (agreater understanding of diversity content). Much more thansimply changing the focus to a student-centered approach, insteadthe emphasis was in how each student constructed his or her ownspace, in relation to their own needs and interests, in order to betterunderstand the many types of diversity discussed.

In implementing this lesson, there was a lot to be learned aboutinstructional practice. For example, I learned that in using criticalpedagogy with a focus on learning spaces in EFL, I not only canhelp create a more participatory atmosphere where students takecontrol and learn diversity ‘‘diversely,’’ but also take the pressureoff of myself as the teacher to be the sole body and arbiter of Englishknowledge in the class, assuming that whatever instructionalmethods I apply are the only ones the students may need in order tounderstand the content best. Instead, students come into theclassroom able to share, use, and incorporate their own experiences,becoming teachers themselves, in helping themselves and otherslearn. Conceiving of tasks and activities in a classroom space thatallows them to flow freely allowed me to become a fellowparticipant, not just an instructor. Just as students helped

386 TESOL Journal

themselves and others see how their own lived experiences impacttheir English learning, I did the same through my lived experiencesas a native English speaker.

This critical dynamic of power, participation, and thelanguage space allowed me as the instructor to reflect on my ownpractice, but it allowed students to reflect on their practices aswell. In this way, this summer seminar eliminated the dualismsthat have typified much of EFL education practice, becoming lesscategorical opposites of teacher and student, native andnonnative, advanced or beginner, and instead something closer topartners working together for real, diverse, dynamic, linguisticexchange.

THE AUTHORJohn Clayton is currently an instructor in the Center for ESL at theUniversity of Cincinnati, having taught in EFL and ESL settings inthe United States and Japan. Among his research interests arecritical pedagogy in education practice, sociolinguistics, and howthe spaces and contexts of the classroom affect student attitudesabout language learning.

REFERENCESBelcher, D. (2006). English for specific purposes: Teaching to

perceived needs in worlds of work, study, and everyday life.TESOL Quarterly, 40, 133–156. doi:10.2307/40264514

Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). TESOL at forty: What are the issues?TESOL Quarterly, 40, 9–34. doi:10.2307/40264509

Censotti, E. (1998). Out in the classroom. Outside In, 4(1), 11.Farrell, T., & Jacobs, G. (2010). Essentials for successful language

teaching. London, England: Continuum.Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniv. ed.). London,

England: Continuum.Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical

pedagogy of learning. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.Kaiser, S., & Ichikawa, Y. (2001). Japanese: A comprehensive grammar.

London, England: Routledge.Kappra, R. (1998). Addressing heterosexism in the IEP classroom.

TESOL Matters, 8(6), 19.

Diversity, Social Consciousness, and EFL 387

McKay, S., & Hornberger, N. (Eds.). (1996). Sociolinguistics andlanguage teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge UniversityPress.

McLaren, P. (1986). Schooling as a ritual performance. London,England: Routledge.

Morrell, E. (2009). Critical research and the future of literacyeducation. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53, 96–104. doi:10.1598/JAAL.53.2.1

Nelson, C. (1999). Sexual identities in ESL: Queer theory andclassroom inquiry. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 371–391. doi:10.2307/3587670

Pierce, B. (1995). Social identity and language learning. TESOLQuarterly, 29, 9–31. doi:10.2307/3587803

388 TESOL Journal