edu 404 issues in language education apennae/writings/flote.pdfedu 404 issues in language education...

Penny Coutas October 2004

EDU 404 Issues in Language Education A

FLOTE Module 4B: The Metas

‘Culture Shock’ or ‘Stereotype Shock’? Image from http://emporiumindonesia.com

E-Journal and Tasks

Penelope Coutas 12005795

October 2004


Journal Entry What is Culture?

Throughout my studies at university, ‘culture’ has always been a buzz word. Looking back through study guides for Education, History and Asian Studies units, there is always at least one week specifically set aside for ‘culture.’ In my workplace too, along with words like ‘pedagogy’, ‘inclusivity’ and ‘outcomes’, ‘culture’ will score you big points in a game of meeting bingo. Likewise, something to do with ‘culture’ is an essential criteria on job promotion applications. It is easy to see that ‘culture’ has become a powerful word and concept and yet its definition is highly contested. Some may say that it can never be defined for culture itself is dynamic, which I will discuss later, but for now the major understanding I have come to regarding culture is that whoever is in a position to determine what ‘culture’ actually is has a lot of power in how, and why, culture is discussed, explored, analysed or forgotten in many settings. O’Sullivan et al. (1996) in Key Concepts in Communication and Cultural Studies tell us that the word ‘culture’ comes linguistically from agricultural roots, in that to ‘cultivate’ is to deliberately tend ‘natural’ stock and transform it. For the authors, a definition of culture today still encompasses those agricultural origins. They say that culture is ‘the social production and reproduction of sense, meaning and consciousness’ (O’Sullivan et al., 1996, p. 68). However, the authors also assert that it is impossible to fix on just one definition of culture that ‘fits’ all occasions and contexts. We may well be able to talk about ‘pop culture’, ‘Welsh culture’ and ‘classroom culture’, but these terms may not have much in common. The term ‘culture’ is multi-discursive and you cannot import a fixed definition into any an every context and expect it to make sense (O’Sullivan et al., 1996, p. 68). In other readings I have completed about culture, the sense that it is dynamic predominates. Authors writing in the past decade seem to agree that notions of culture are context-specific, and culture itself is both created in and created by those contexts. I can easily relate to Kramsch’s (1998) ideas on culture, that it involves membership in a discourse community and even after leaving the particular environment those members retain aspects of that culture because in travelling, teaching and reflecting, I certainly take my ‘cultural baggage’ with me! I can also relate to Samovar and Porter’s (1994) views on culture as a deposit of knowledge and values, and Harris and Moran’s (2000) ideas of the problem-solving nature of culture and their ten categories of what this entails. Due to my background in anthropology and social history, all of these definitions make sense to me, and my understandings of culture are a combination of all of them. The ‘Food, Festivals and Folklore’ approach to culture may be one of the most visible in society (especially in looking at displays at Melbourne’s Immigration Museum and various ‘cultural’ websites), but perhaps that is because the conservative, Anglo-Saxon-Australian, urban culture largely perceives ‘culture’ to be those ‘Three F’s’. In reading the literature, I also gained the understanding that notions of culture really are context and discipline specific,


and that there are so many definitions and ideas of what culture actually is that investigators of this issue quickly, to quote Geertz (1973), become ‘suspended in webs of significance’ that seem impossible to make sense of! After reading more about ‘culture’ and what culture ‘really is’, for weeks my own understandings of it became very confused – there are just too many webs of significance! At university, many of my units have been ‘cultural studies’ units that focus on ‘culture as practice’ and in high school the ‘Three F’s’ approach was favoured, with an emphasis on Culture with a capital C. That is not to say that university has escaped the ‘Three F’s’! Multicultural Day each year at Murdoch’s South Street campus is a prime example of how many still perceive and ‘celebrate’ culture. My understandings of culture are very much built on the ‘culture as practices’ idea – that it is created through interaction and in turn creates those interactions. What we do, how we do it, what we say and how we say it and how we adapt to new situations are all ‘culture’ for me. In teaching ‘culture’ in the Indonesian curriculum, I probably ‘deal with’ culture in this way,and I will critique this as a later exercise. What the readings have drawn attention to is that I must really analyse my own understandings of what culture ‘is’ and the culture in which I live in order to develop an ‘intercultural competence’. With all of this new terminology, though, I wonder if it is just a literati way of saying what may seem obvious, and what people with highly developed intrapersonal intelligence have always known – that you must ‘know thyself’ in order to begin to know Others. Recently, I have become interested in the ‘online cultures’ of Indonesian-speaking communities, particularly ‘trendy’ Jakarta youth or gaul. My experiences with ICTs are also shaping my understandings of ‘culture’. Through different internet mediums and texts, I have access to and can participate in this gaul culture – I can even create new language for these experiences. Perhaps an Indonesian acronym I create in chatting with friends today will become as common as ‘lol’ and ‘rofl’ in chat rooms tomorrow. My understandings of ‘culture’ are not bound by countries, territories or neighbourhoods, but are defined by language communities in non-physical form. As a language learner, the opportunity to actively engage with, use and manipulate my cultural knowledge in communication rather than just passively reproducing it is invaluable. This is something I would hope to facilitate for my own students.


Task Review

Audit/review a second language learning program that you have access to / are

or have been associated with. How has culture been treated within this program? Comment on the extent to which you are comfortable with the way

culture has been taught and, if appropriate, include suggested changes. TEE Indonesian & Culture Looking back at how and what I learnt in year twelve Indonesian, it is little wonder that I could not order a coffee at a warung upon visiting Indonesia a year later even though I was very successful in the TEE. In this learning program, culture was taught as separate discipline to the language. I remember writing an essay, in English, about Prambanan temple to satisfy ‘cultural’ requirements, and an essay, in Indonesian about what I would do if I won lotto to satisfy ‘language’ requirements. At the time, I was very comfortable with how culture was explicitly taught in the program. I did not value it, however, feeling that it distracted from language learning and getting through the textbook. It was my belief that in finishing the textbook, I would be prepared for the examination. It did not dawn on me until a year later that although the textbook had prepared me for the exam, I was not prepared for real life conversations and conversational gesture norms! Now I am not comfortable with the way culture was (and is) ‘taught’ in this program. There are so many possibilities for integrating ‘cultural’ aspects within the TEE program. In greeting people, for example, using an appropriate form of address and handshake (hand to heart) is ‘cultural’. Writing an essay about what you think a Jakarta youth might do is they won lotto is ‘cultural’. Attending a Padi concert in Perth, seeking out e-pals, and watching SCTV online are all ‘cultural’ activities. Success in a written structured exam does not mean reliance on only a textbook, rather a richer immersion-style learning process can lead to a greater understanding of how language can be used in different situations, and how culture is transmitted through language. Although this may be described as ‘culture through osmosis’, I believe it needs to be taken further in order to facilitate intercultural awareness. Analysing the why and how of what is presented in texts, and the text-types themselves is important. This does not mean emphasising only the ‘exotic’ differences, but rather the similarities and the why of the ‘interesting’ in an explosion chart. Scaffolding strategies are also important in fostering this awareness – let’s move away from analysing the Other to analysing perceptions and how this is reflected and transmitted in language. Let’s also become active participants in language communities – I am a big advocate of not only developing pen-pal relationships between students in Australia and Indonesia, but also getting Indonesian language learners involved in the Indonesian communities that exist in Australia. Perhaps my future TEE Indonesian learners will never actually


finish a textbook, but I hope that they will be able to order a coffee in a warung and include cultural insights to their exam writings that will set them apart from the Bahasa Tetanggaku memorisers.


Task Critique

Critique how you have dealt with culture in your teaching of a second language. In the FLOTE module, the idea that ‘culture is embedded in language, and language is an expression of culture’ stands out, and not just because it’s in bold and has a cute clipart graphic next to it. Since examining issues of teaching and learning about culture more closely, I have been reflecting on and changing how I ‘deal with’ culture in my teaching of Indonesian. Before beginning this unit, I was very hap-hazard about dealing with culture, trying lots of different strategies, and quite often incorporating cultural outcomes without even realising it – which makes sense since language is culture! This is not necessarily ‘bad’ but in reflection, I do need to move in to facilitating a more critical approach, and make ‘Indonesian culture’ less ‘exotic’. What has worked well o The ‘culture as practices’ works well when exploring gestures and

expectations of behaviour. For example, when students introduce themselves, they not only learn the words but also the gestures. Students discover how to introduce themselves to adults, to teachers, to parents, to mates at a party – the language items, how far away to stand, and how to work out if they are causing offence unintentionally! Another example is when we looked at characteristics and describing words, we practiced the gesture for saying that someone is gila, or crazy. I was very amused to walk past a maths class later that day to see my students making the gila symbol at one another subtly. These ‘culture as practices’ items were seemingly ‘natural’ and necessary to explore when learning the language items, and are hopefully useful!

o Since we use a lot of authentic texts, there are always cultural items to explore in the texts, and the text types themselves. One of my favourite texts at the moment is a taped episode of Indonesian Idol. It uses exactly the same format as Australian Idol, so learners can immediately relate to it and work out what is going on even though they don’t understand a word (yet). The opportunity to examine sweeping shots of Surabaya, the contestants wearing jilbabs, some nominees singing English songs and others singing Indonesian ones (with ‘Inul’ influences!), the ways in which judges and contestants express joy or disappointment… I think I could probably build a term’s work around the one text and still not exhaust it! To look at ‘real culture’ in LOTE, I think you need to give students access to ‘real language’ – but also provide opportunities to question what is ‘real’. Is a commercialised, American-style TV show representative of the ‘real’ Indonesia?

o Last term, the year nines were exploring the topic of ‘finding a friend’ in Indonesian. One activity was for students to post a message on an Indonesian SMU (upper high school) online bulletin board asking for a pen-pal. Of course, being year nines, some boys decided they would be a bit


silly and post under the pseudonym of ‘Santa Clause,’ and use only English (insert my screams of frustration here). They wrote in reply to an Indonesian girl’s posting, ‘I think you’re hot. Please write to me’. They were surprised when the girl wrote back, in Indonesian, ‘Why do you write in English? I speak Indonesian! And what do you mean by ‘hot’? What am I, a fried chicken?’ This lead to the students questioning assumptions that ‘everyone’ online knows English, and that ‘hot’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘cute’ or ‘sexy’ in other cultures. The whole ‘Santa Clause’ pseudonym also lead to future remarks!

o From the hot =/ sexy debate, students were interested in finding out about insults in Indonesian. Of course, as year eights they had all used their brand new dictionaries to find out ‘sex’ and other ‘taboo’ words, often not bothering to reverse-check their vocabulary. It amused me to no end hearing them ask each other to have ‘gender’ in the back of a car etc. In looking at insults, we discovered how English insults do not make sense when translated into Indonesian, and instead, tried to find out what really hurts. Although it was kept PG-rated, it proved an interesting exercise. Students later incorporated this new language into comedy skits (images of the badminton ‘fast server’ will stay with me forever), and were conscious about making their skits funny for an Indonesian audience rather than only an Australian one. In doing this, we explicitly looked at ‘culture,’ but it was always as part of the language.

What needs improving o I often deal with culture through osmosis. Due to the text types, it is always

there, but perhaps I do not capitalise on opportunities to critically analyse perceptions and help develop those ‘intercultural understandings’ enough. I should extend my lesson planning past just the language items and activities, and also explicitly plan for evaluative questioning and critical analysis.

o Although I cringe every time I do it, it is hard to escape using ‘them’ when talking about Indonesian people! It is also hard to stop saying ‘In Indonesia’! I really need to watch myself doing this, and make sure I don’t turn ‘Indonesians’ into the Other, especially since there are native speakers in my classes!! There is such a large Indonesian population in Perth, and Indonesian is spoken outside of Indonesia – what I model unintentionally may turn into students’ intentional output!

o My own understandings of ‘Indonesian’ culture are very Java and Bali-centric because that is where my own experiences of in-country Indonesian culture have taken place. It is important that I make this clear to students, and perhaps talk about ‘Javanese’ culture rather than ‘Indonesian’ in anecdotes etc. I really need to find examples, texts, pictures, realia and other resource items from other regions, and perhaps set up pen-pal networks in different areas. Unfortunately, the television shows I have access to and the resources I’ve collected are all Java Java Java! In the future, I may get students to follow an inquiry-approach to discovering language differences between regions, and get them to find (and create) the resources!


o The area I can improve most in with my dealing of culture in Indonesian teaching are the relief lessons I leave. Since there are never Indonesian-speaking relief teachers available, and it is hard to describe interactive language activities for someone with no language teaching training, the relief lessons I leave are often blackline masters and ‘cultural studies’ worksheets (cringe!). On the occasions I have left ‘language’ worksheet work or self-access guided tasks, students have not attempted them, or the relief teacher has helpfully told them to ‘write it out in English first and translate it later when your teacher gets back’. Recently, I have resorted to leaving ‘cultural studies’ reading comprehensions – and have been amazed by student response. They are always complete, well written (in English) and well thought out. This may have a lot to do with ‘relief teacher culture’ – students expect to do worksheet ‘busy work’ when they have a relief teacher, and are comfortable with the SOSE text-type of a reading comprehension on ‘culture’. Relief teachers are also comfortable with this. In future, if I know I’m going to be away, I need to plan language-rich tasks that can be begun with me, and then finished with the relief teacher.

Things to think about o In deciding how, when, and why we look at ‘culture’ in learning and teaching

Indonesian, I have a great deal of power. Students need to have power too – the ‘fried chicken’ unit was so successful because it was student-directed. My Javanese and Balinese understandings of ‘Indonesian culture’ are also very influential.

o As I mentioned in my journal, I often take a ‘culture as practices’ approach, and I need to start taking a more ‘sociolinguistic’ approach, especially for relief lessons!

o I have found that primary school language learners are often more aware of cultural similarities and differences in viewing texts than adolescent learners! In using Indonesian Who Wants to be a Millionaire with year threes to sevens, I found that, overall, they were far more inquisitive and curious about imagery in advertisements etc. than my adolescent learners were. Perhaps the year eights and nines are too hung up on what they don’t understand – and feel so overwhelmed by the language they forget to really ‘view’ the texts. I have been amazed by my primary students so many times, and really need to exploit their language learning ‘ability’ while they’re at that age! With my high school learners, I can implement better scaffolding and give them more structured viewing tasks to build on their VRR skills.


Task Harris & Moran Framework

Select one of the given topics. Use the Harris and Moran framework to identify the cultural knowledge and understandings, and the associated sociolinguistic knowledge that would need to be incorporated within your lessons or program. Program of Work: You’re Looking Good

Students learn how to introduce and describe themselves to others with the goal of creating ‘friendship videos’ (the ‘G’ version of dating videos!) to send to Indonesian pen pals / e-pals.

Target Language: Indonesian Learner Cohort: Early Adolescence

Category Cultural Knowledge and Understandings Sociolinguistic Knowledge

Sense of Self and Space

- Not touching people with your left hand! In fact, not touching anything with your left hand!

- Proximity to people when speaking with them

- Perceptions of bules (white people)

- Formal and informal pronouns and when to use them

- Referring to yourself in the third person

Communication and Language

- Non-verbal ‘meet and greet’ language such as handshakes

- Eye contact - Gestures and their

meanings – focus on characteristics (e.g. saying someone is ‘crazy’ non-verbally)

- When it may not be appropriate to speak!

- Tone and ‘musical’ lilt - How to introduce yourself,

introduce others, describe yourself and describe others appropriately for different settings

- Formal, informal and gaul language and when it is appropriate to use it, and how it conveys what type of person you are (or think you want to be!)

Dress and Appearance

- What not to wear: sandals, sleeveless shirts etc.

- The meaning of thongs in Indonesia!

- The jilbab and other Muslim dress – and

- ‘Sandal’ – what actually constitutes ‘sandal’?

- Describing words, and a look at describing words that don’t translate with the same meaning from English to Indonesian (e.g.


consequent stereotypes - That someone telling you

that you’re “fat” may not necessarily be an insult!

- Whitening lotion - Perceptions of bules - The ‘ideal’ look / ‘trendy’

looks as portrayed in magazines and TV for teenagers

‘hot’ (panas) =/ ‘sexy’ in Indonesian)

- The many ways of describing ‘internal’ characteristics and how there’s many more than in English!

- The hidden meanings’ of ‘Nyonya’ and ‘Tuan’

- Communicating likes/dislikes as related to appearance

Food and Feeding Habits

- Offers of food when visiting others – the importance of teh in Java

- Food for gifts

- Language for accepting offers of food when visiting, or when offering it when being visited.

- Describing likes/dislikes related to food

Time and Time Consciousness

- Jam karet – it may take a long time to get replies to letters/videos!

- Greetings for different parts of the day – how the day is divided

- Belum as ‘not yet’, even if it is very unlikely!

Relationships

- The importance of oleh-oleh

- Family unit types (having grandparents living at home, not ‘nuclear’ families etc.) and social roles within families

- Holding hands in public - The relationship of anak

kos when living in a boarding house as a student

- Terms of address re: hierarchy

- Expressing that you find someone appealing or displeasing

- Describing your family / background

- How to ask someone if you can visit them sometime, from a youth point of view (eg ‘…boleh main di kos Rita?’ - …can I hang out at your place some time?)

Values and Norms

- Social gender roles - Expectations of behaviour

in different settings – how would Indonesian youth expect similar-aged people to act when meeting for the first time at a party? At school? In the street? Is it appropriate to approach

- Appropriate language type / formality

- Terms of address - Compliments and insults - “Oh you’re so fat!” as a

possible compliment - Analyse own ‘values and

norms’ that are transmitted through language without turning it


strangers regardless of age?

- What people perceive as ‘normal’ highly influences how they think, and respond to new situations

into an ‘us’ and ‘them’ exercise.

Beliefs and Attitudes

- The importance of having a religion (or at least saying you do!)

- Kampung and kos life

- Expressing and describing your religion

- “Where do you come from” meaning more than just asking about a place, but that your answer provides a host of ‘cultural’ information and assumptions

- “I live in ____” and kampungs: what does this mean?

Mental Processes and Learning

- What school is like in Indonesia, and what English language learning is like there – since they will be sending videos to students

- Culture influences how we think and the mental processes we follow… how, why, when?

- Classroom commands and classroom language

- Enquiring about other peoples’ studies

- Describing likes/dislikes related to studies

Work Habits and Practices

- That the dreams and ‘ideal jobs’ etc. of Indonesian youth may be different to Australian youth due to context – why?

- The social status awarded to different occupations

- Appearance at the workplace, and appearance at school

- That you don’t need to be specific about the work your parents, or that you eventually want to do to be understood.

* Items in green have been added as part of the later task on ILT and Harris & Moran. A category that could be added to the list is ‘living abode’ or something similar. In many cultures the style of housing you live in can be an expression of that culture. For example, the kampung is very significant in Java, and whether you live in a kos (small boarding house), a rumah (house), or an apartmen


(apartment) tells others a lot about your lifestyle, background and ‘culture’. Throughout Indonesia, the architecture in different regions can also an expression of local cultural identity and traditions (just think of Taman Mini Indonesia Indah!). In my own experience, upon telling people I lived in a kos, they could immediately make the assumptions that I was a student (living like an Indonesian student and not a rich bule), that I lived in a female-only environment, and that there were strict visiting hours. Being an anak kos (‘kos mate’) became essential to perceptions of my identity and how I ‘looked’ or ‘appeared’ to others. There are probably many more knowledges and understandings I could (and should) add to this table! There are also many that we would never explicitly ‘cover’ in class due to time constraints but in using this framework, I have become more aware of what could be incorporated. At times, I also made things ‘fit’ the categories given by Harris and Moran, which is problematic. I believe that ‘cultural’ items should also develop ‘naturally’ from the texts, and questions and issues students raise for themselves. The Harris and Moran framework is excellent for planning, but I would add to it as the program progressed, or better yet, get students to add to their own version of the framework as a process of assisted reflection. Students creating and adapting their own framework would be one way of helping learners build an appreciation of the characteristics of culture. However, it could also backfire and turn the ‘target culture’ into an Othering exercise, or worse still, a ‘cultural studies’ one, even if it was done in the target language. I think use of this framework with students would be worthwhile, but it would also have to be approached with caution as it may well reinforce stereotypes. I would use the framework over a long period of time, and not as a stand-alone exercise, getting students to add, subtract and change entries to their own version as their language learning progressed. That students identify stereotypes later that they originally thought were representative of ‘Indonesian culture’ would be a rewarding exercise, and aid in development of intercultural communicative competence. As a long-term compilation, documentation of student development would also be possible, and students would be able to reflect on previous understandings with greater ease.


Journal Entry Development of Intercultural Communicative Competence

In your e-journal comment on the three models presented

When I first heard about ‘metaculture’, ‘interculturality’, and ‘intercultural communicative competence’ with its aim of facilitating the development of a ‘third space’ from which to analyse cultures, I immediately thought of Playstation games. A few years ago, the advertising machine for Playstation was all about the ‘Third Place’, and getting players to escape from ‘real life’ to exist in a virtual space of gameplay. My understandings of developing intercultural communicative competence are very Playstation-like. Participation in target language communities requires access (booting up), responding to models (the help files), following established norms and values (the ‘rules’ of the game), practice (gameplay), experimenting and taking risks (you can save the game and reboot), and exploring new worlds where the ‘normal rules’ of your own everyday life don’t apply. Success in these new ‘worlds’, virtual or not, requires and develops intercultural communicative competence. According to Kramsch (1998) and Liddicoat, Crozet and Lo Bianco (1999), the desired outcome of developing native-speaker-like fluency for language learners is outdated and inappropriate. These researchers argue that the focus should instead be on the ‘intercultural speaker’ as the most desired outcome in language teaching and learning. This is not just a token gesture, though;

Intercultural language learning is not simply a ‘method’ of ‘embedding’ language, culture and learning, but rather an overall orientation, a way of thinking and doing, a stance and an overall perspective, which influences all decisions regarding curriculum (Liddicoat et al., 2003, p. 57)

The knowledges, understandings and behaviours outlined by Kern (2000), Scarino (2000) and Browett and Bresnehan (2001) assist development of intercultural speaker strategies. However, although this provides a framework for cultural analysis and ‘understandings’, I wonder if it is truly possible to facilitate intercultural communicative competence without giving the opportunity to experience ‘other’ cultures first-hand? The three models presented in the readings that chart the process of developing intercultural communicative competence emphasise the need to participate in and with (not ‘about’) the ‘target culture’ as interculturality is a dynamic and interpersonal process. The first model by Howell (1982) describes learners moving through phases of ‘Unconscious Incompetence’, ‘Conscious Incompetence’, ‘Conscious Competence’ and then finally ‘Unconscious Competence’. I can relate well to this continuum – by the end of my in-country study, I had developed some ‘unconscious competence’ attributes, and I still cannot eat with my left hand! I am also very aware of my conscious incompetence, and it makes me uncomfortable when in an Indonesian context,


but in situations of conscious competence, I feel powerful. In using this model, though, I can see that learners, or even ‘native speakers’, may exist in more than one phase at any one time. My students often demonstrate ‘unconscious incompetence’, but at the same time may also demonstrate some ‘conscious competence’ in acting in some way they’ve discovered is ‘culturally appropriate’. For example, in a recent ‘bargaining’ role-play, three girls used culturally-specific gestures but at the same time were wearing culturally inappropriate clothing for a ‘real’ Indonesian setting (and they had ‘dressed up!’). Many of my early adolescent learners have also not yet developed the analytical or reflective skills realise their ‘conscious incompetence’. This process takes time! What concerns me about this model is that ‘conscious incompetence’ comes across as a negative yet, sometimes, that ‘conscious incompetence’ may be because of our own cultural background and belief and value system. The NALSAS (1999, p. 69) model that ‘links growth and development of intercultural understandings with the development of autonomy in language learners’ is also somewhat problematic. I agree that as learners develop higher-order language learning strategies and analytical skills we also develop higher-order intercultural understandings, but find the ‘jump’ between the third and fourth process stages a very big leap! Moving from being a ‘tourist’ to ‘culturally literate’ in another cultural context is a huge step. The NALSAS model also focuses on the singular – ‘another culture’, ‘another society’, when surely if you have developed some form of intercultural communicative competence, those skills are transferable to cultures and societies. I have also found that people can develop relationships with the target culture whilst still having stereotypical views of that culture, which crosses phases according to the NALSAS model. Those relationships may challenge stereotypical views, or they may reinforce them, but always develop cultural understandings. Finally, the Rankin (2002) model also presents ‘huge jumps’, but is the one I most relate to, having experienced each position in the model. I assume that the processes in Rankin’s model take place through the target language, and the move from tourist to transgressor also means development in language. What happens with language students who never go to the target country, though? Can they still be a ‘traveller’? Can ‘native speakers’ also be tourists within their own countries and cultures? The three models are based on the idea that intercultural communicative competence develops on a continuum much like metalanguage and ‘fluency’, but I am not sure that it is truly lineal. Participants in, observers, speakers, and creators of culture do not progress from one stage to another in order – they go back and forth and create and recreate assumptions, practices and processes. The skills to do this are part of developing ‘intercultural competence’ or, at least, ‘intercultural awareness’. My model of this would turn into a mess of lines and arrows! In the Asian Languages Professional Learning Project Phase One (2004, p. 17), the authors offer a cyclical pathway for developing intercultural competence


(see Figure 1) which occurs through language. However, the authors of the ALPLP reference material also assert the need to assess cultural competence, and detail methods for doing so in the form of attitudinal, culture assimilator, and culture awareness tests. I find this idea highly problematic, and at odds with their developmental model! How can you give ‘cultural awareness’ a score, and who decides what ‘best practice’ or ‘culture’ actually is?

Figure 1: A pathway for developing intercultural competence (DEST, 2004a, p. 17)

If culture is dynamic, then surely intercultural understandings and development are dynamic too. If culture is embodied in what people do and the ways in which they use what they know, then intercultural communicative competence develops from this, and not necessarily in a lineal form of progression from one stage to another. I believe development of intercultural communicative competence is best facilitated through opportunities for active and ‘real’ communication, not just ‘language practice’ – through a system of inputs, interpretations, outputs and reflection that are meaningful and relate to real life. Intercultural relationships are very important in constructions of our own identity and Others’, and those relationships are always sites of non-lineal negotiation, and are expressed through language.


Task Challenging Stereotypes

Think about your TL and the communities that speak it. List common

stereotypes often associated with these people and their communities. Taking account of the elements associated with the development of intercultural communicative competence, devise a number of classroom activities /

strategies to contest these stereotypes. Stereotypes o Indonesians (except for the Balinese) are Muslim, therefore they are

terrorists. o Muslim women wear jilbabs and have no freedom o Indonesia is corrupt o “You buy, you buy!” o Backwards / ‘Noble Savage’ o Bali is not in Indonesia o Bali as a holiday island for foreigners o People live in jungles in Indonesia o Everyone eats rice in Indonesia o Indonesian people live in small huts with thatched roofs and grow rice whilst

wearing funny hats o Australians freed East Timor from the oppressive Indonesian government Listing stereotypes or common assumptions is a lot harder than I thought. When I think ‘Indonesia’, what immediately springs to mind are not necessarily stereotypes, but rather my friends there and experiences living and studying in-country. When I hear stereotypes, I recognise them and cringe, but having to list them off the top of my head I found very difficult! So, I did what any student with their online ‘blog’ running in the background would do and asked online lurkers what immediately springs to mind when they think of ‘Indonesia’ and received the following responses: o Bali o Hawkers o Terrorism o Indonesians don’t like Australians o Orang Utans o Temples o Indonesian Dancers o Cheap shopping Humour and jokes also tell us a lot about stereotypes. The following is a common joke that makes its way around the Expat community in Indonesia time and time again. I think it reveals a lot about what ‘foreigners’ think about Indonesia after living the Expat lifestyle (culture) in Indonesia, which in turn


influences the images and stereotypes they portray to others about Indonesian culture as an ‘authority’: “You know you’ve been in Indonesia too long when: • You can kill cockroaches with your bare feet • The footprints on the toilet seat are your own • You no longer wait in line, but immediately go to the head of the queue • You stop at the bottom of the escalator to plan your day • You habitually punch all the buttons as you leave the lift • You're willing to pay to use a toilet you wouldn't go to within a kilometer of at home • It is no longer surprising that the only decision made at a meeting is the time and venue for

the next meeting • You no longer wonder how someone making US$200 per month can drive a Mercedes • You accept the fact that you have to queue to get your number for the next queue • You have considered buying a motorcycle for the next family car • You accept without question the mechanic's analysis that the car is "broken" and that it will

cost you a lot of money to get it fixed • You think the Proton and Kijang are stylish and well built cars • You walk to the pub with your arm around your mate • You answer the telephone with "Hello" more than 2 times • You are quite content to repeat your order six times in a restaurant that only has four items

on the menu • A T-bone steak and rice sounds just fine • You believe everything you read in the local newspaper • You ignore traffic signals, stop signs and copy watch peddlers • If when listening to the pilot prove he can't speak English, you no longer wonder if he can

understand the Air Traffic Controllers • You regard it as part of an adventure when the waiter exactly repeats your order and the

cook makes something completely different • You're not surprised when three men with a ladder show up to change a light bulb • When crossing a busy street you believe that a limp wrist motion with your right arm creates

a force field that repels oncoming traffic • Suitable family entertainment for Friday night is to dress the whole family in dark clothing

and dash back and forth across Jalan Sudirman and other busy streets • You think it's logical to dry your hands with Kleenex • When dining with your family at a Mexican restaurant, the table next to you is occupied by

an overweight, bald, fifty-something Australian petroleum worker who has each of his arms around a teenaged Sundanese girl

• While at an Indonesian night spot you listen to the FEMALE singer singing "honky tonk woman", and she appears to be unaware that she just sang the line "I met a gin-soaked bar-room queen in Memphis, she tried to take me upstairs for the ride, . . ."

• You find yourself getting upset with inflation because the price of the buffet in a five-star hotel is now nearly ten dollars

• Going out for a drink with your coworker, he shows up with his girlfriend, even though you are on a first name basis with his wife

• Someone tells you that 10 kbs is a "pretty good download speed" • You can walk into a five-star hotel lobby unshaven, in jogging shorts, ratty t-shirt and flip-

flops and DON'T get an awkward glance from the management. • A bathroom with four attendants is so disgustingly filthy that you wouldn't step into it back

home ... and one of those attendants sole job is to hand you flimsy, single-ply toilet paper to dry your hands.

• You look left, right, backwards, forwards, up and down before crossing a one way street. • You've seen every Hollywood blockbuster three weeks before its premier • You sing along with the Dancow adverts on TV • You know most of the characters in the sinetrons • You ARE one of the characters in the sinetrons • You pick your nose in public”


From: http://www.expat.or.id/info/toolonginindonesia.html, Accessed September 19, 2004. Some Task / Text Ideas o In studying ‘Indonesian music’, do not just look at gamelan and other

‘traditional’ music! In ths same way, do not just look at Sheila on 7 and other pop bands. Campur Sari, Dangdut, Musik Pop, Musik Klasik, Musik Gamelan and more are all ‘Indonesian music’. Tasks that use a music text should not only be of one music-type during the course of a learning program.

o Be very careful of clipart and pictures used in worksheets – what images of Indonesia do they represent? I have a habit of using Javanese and Balinese images to ‘jazz up’ information and task sheets because I have them readily available. I need to find more pictures, or better yet, get students to find them from Indonesian sources.

o Use of a range of viewing texts, and use of many authentic viewing texts from different regions. Learners need opportunity to compare and contrast text types for different audiences in order to create ideas about ‘culture’.

o Having students actively seek out Indonesian friends, e-pals and/or pen-pals – real relationships can do more to develop intercultural communicative competence than the best text use ever will.

o Participation in Indonesian online chat communities, accessing online sites, posting on Indonesian bulletin boards, sending SMSes to bands, writing fan mail and receiving replies, and many other ‘ICT-focused’ language learning tasks can do much to debunk stereotypes because they require active participation in language communities and are accessible from school and home environments.

o In-country study! o Analysis and creation of Indonesian jokes, and jokes about Indonesians (in

the TL). o Including cultural ‘elements’ in role-play scenarios that require problem-

solving. For example, in creating skits, students use the format of an Indonesian sinetron and their problem to solve is a ‘typically Indonesian’ one.

It occurs to me that every task you do in a language classroom involves cultural elements, and over time, these will hopefully contest common stereotypes. However, in actively seeking to contest those stereotypes, would I just be creating new stereotypes and force-feeding students my understandings of ‘Indonesian culture’? It would be better for students to draw their own conclusions and follow an inquiry approach to learning about culture – my aim would be to facilitate development of intercultural language through strategy modeling, choice of text and task, and other ‘scaffolding’ techniques.


Journal Entry Crozet’s Communicative Profile

(Includes Task: Communicative Profile)

In your e-journal comment on the five categories used by Crozet in her communicative profile. Do they reflect the dimensions associated with verbal

interaction? How does this profile compare with the Harris and Moran framework, and which do you feel is more useful for you in your learning and

teaching context? In reading Crozet’s communicative profile of ‘French conversational ethnolects living in France’, I gained the impression that French speakers are wordy, passionate and emotional in their language use. Although they claim an egalitarian ethos, ‘keeping up appearances’ is important, hence the use of flattery. My understandings of France and French culture on which I base my reading of her analysis, though, are highly stereotypical. I have never studied French, France, French Canada or anything to do with French-speaking peoples in any amount of depth. My knowledge of France largely comes from fiction novels, Hollywood blockbusters, and Amelie. Because of this, I do not really have a basis on which to judge if Crozet’s analysis would match my own – it does match the imagery I’ve gained from novels and movies, but would it match my own understandings if I had a French ethnolect speaker as a friend? In presenting a communicative profile of French conversational ethnolects living in France, Crozet is presenting a very general view. I wonder if French youth and World War II veterans living in France even speak the same ‘language’, or operate in the same cultural worlds, and if their language communities would ‘fit’ this profile. Using a profile like Crozet’s might help provide a framework for analysis, but it may also help reinforce stereotypes or present something that is actually very complex as too simplistic. Then again, as language learners, we often need something ‘simplistic’ and ‘straight forward’ to begin with! I am sure Crozet could extend her analysis using these categories, and someone has probably done so somewhere. Being presented with a ‘Wikipedia’ on French language norms would be overwhelming as a language learner, and being expected to construct one even more so! The categories used by Crozet do reflect the dimensions associated with verbal interaction, albeit on a simplistic level. She covers the type of speech, the relationships within the speech community, ‘rules’, ‘norms’ and affective influences, i.e. the regulatory and emotive functions of language. Is this all there is to a language, though? What about the manner in which people use the language – is it clear, do they avoid ambiguities? Is it a half-empty or a half-full approach to wording? What about gender differences? What other semiotic factors are associated with verbal interaction in the language? If I were to use Crozet’s framework to construct a communicative profile for Indonesian, it would look something like this:


Level of

Verbosity Interpersonal Relationships

Rules of Politeness

Level of Ritualisation

Emotions & Feelings

‘Medium’ level of verbosity. Nonverbal communication is very important, and speakers take ‘shortcuts’ in language use by using acronyms and ‘missing’ words if the meaning is obvious and can be implied.

Hierarchical society in lines of social, religious, and occupational roles, education level and age. Formality level of language use depends on environment and speaker contexts.

Positive politeness. Importance in having some sort of answer to questions, and taking an optimistic approach. Respect conveyed through language very important.

High degree of ritualisation in some contexts, particularly ‘formal’ situations. Honouring of traditional social codes amongst conservative members, but creation of new codes amongst youth.

Buffered emotional ethos: emotions are conveyed to a third-party to pass on to the intended recipient. Valuing of intrapersonal intelligences. ‘Chicken Soup for the Soul’ followers.

There are many issues with my profile, however. I found it difficult to judge the ‘levels’ – I found myself comparing Indonesian to English and French in order to do so. This profile is also very general and based on my Java-centric understandings of Indonesian language and culture. This probably does not apply for many other Indonesian language speaking communities, and does not transgress age and socio-economic boundaries even within Java. It is difficult to compare Crozet’s profile to the Harris and Moran framework. Crozet’s profile is language focused as an exercise in socio-linguistics, and Harris and Moran’s framework seems very ‘cultural studies’ focused in comparison. Crozet’s is also limited to verbal communication whereas Harris and Moran’s takes non-verbal and other metalanguage elements into consideration. In my learning and teaching context, I feel that a combination of the two would be most useful. Crozet’s profile complements the ‘sociolinguistic knowledge’ category of Harris and Moran’s framework, and extends upon it, whilst emphasising the absolute centrality of language in any exploration of culture. In terms of wording, Harris and Moran’s framework is easier to understand for students – I had to look up what ‘verbosity’ meant, and it took me a while to work out what Crozet meant in her categories of ‘levels of ritualisation’ and ‘emotions and feelings’. It probably would have helped a great deal to read more of her writings on speech communities and the profile. The easiest-to-understand framework for students would of course be a self-directed creation, and just like using the Harris and Moran framework in a classroom context, I would see this as a long-term ‘project’ (see earlier journal entry). Attempting to create a communicative profile for Indonesian based on Crozet’s example has been an interesting exercise – it has made me realise just how


much I don’t know about Indonesian linguistics and socio-linguistics, and how Java-centric my limited understandings are. This has also made me more aware of how I transmit ‘Indonesian culture’ in my classroom context, and how careful I need to be in making students aware of my bias and help them employ strategies to form their own conclusions about ‘Indonesian’ culture based on meaningful real-life interactions and communications.


Journal Entry SMART Learning

(Includes Task: SMART learning task) In your e-journal comment on SMART learning. To what extent do you consider

this to be a useful model for your students to use as they think about, and develop their L2 learning strategies? Does the model need to be modified –

how, and why?

The SMART learning model of SMART Net, developed by Mohamed Amin Embi (1998), is described as the ‘world’s first virtual model of learning-to-learn languages designed to assist language teachers and learners discover strategies for successful language learning’ (Embi, 2002). It consists of an ‘awareness training model’ for the learning of English, Malay and Arabic using a five-step framework for exploring learning strategies: Social Learning Strategies: strategies for learning with others

Metacognitive Learning Strategies: strategies for managing language learning

Affective Learning Strategies: strategies for lowering anxiety when learning a language

Remembering Strategies: strategies for memorising language materials Test Preparation Strategies: strategies for preparing for language

Examinations In SMART Net, language learners complete a ‘SMART questionnaire’ as a way of surveying their learning styles and preferences and then, according to the author, they will be more aware of how they learn and where they could go from there in developing a metalanguage and metalinguistics skills. I feel that the SMART learning model can be useful for students to utilise when examining their language learning strategies, but is also very limited. It has a major advantage in providing a straight-forward framework to guide examination of language learning strategies and awareness of metalanguage. However, I feel that Embi’s model falls short of its ‘revolutionary’ claims. Firstly, SMART Net and the SMART questionnaire that are so well promoted by the author are inaccessible. It has not been online for quite some time meaning newcomers to this framework cannot implement it, or use it except in a superficial level based on his writings only. M. Amin Embi is currently the coordinator of the ‘ELT Teacher Resource Center’ at http://www.eltrec.ukm.my/default.asp , which aims to provide online resources for English language teachers, but again there is no way of accessing the SMART Net materials. In one section, there are ‘instruments for identifying learning strategies’ in which students rank from one to five how often they use a particular strategy, but this was the only SMART model associated resource I could find. Many of the strategies listed are very specific to Malay contexts – that Part A and Part B strategies are seen as separate is because of the prominent teaching styles used in English classes in Malaysia. The survey would need to be adapted to suit Australian contexts and expectations of language learners.


If the SMART Questionnaire and other SMART Net resources were more accessible, it would be far more useful for language students and teachers. Even without a better understanding of his profile, though, I found my own using the SMART model to look at some of my own language learning strategies to be a good reflective exercise:

Social Learning Strategies

- Finding other Indonesian speakers to practice with - Attending structured Indonesian communicative

classes and gamelan lessons - Chatting online with Indonesian speakers - SMSing Indonesian speakers in Indonesian - Talking about Indonesian learning strategies with

other Indonesian learners to discover new ones - View, read and listen to Indonesian texts with other

people, and then discuss them in the TL - Attend Indonesian and non-Indonesian social events

with Indonesian community members

Metacognitive Learning Strategies

- Plan responses to writing tasks before ‘beginning’ them

- Self-check and self-evaluate as I am completing any kind of language task

- If one strategy for meaning-making (either decoding or creating) is not ‘working’, I’ll try a different one

- Use a range of strategies - Seek out new strategies - Combine strategies - Reflect on my learning strategies

Affective Learning Strategies

- I often use my language skills in environments I am familiar with. In new environments I tend to observe for a period before participating

- Identify peer support when experiencing new environments and learning contexts

- Practice in ‘safe’ environments before using language skills in ‘new’ environments (for example, practicing a speech before giving it)

- Repair and self-assist strategies - Use of humour

Remembering Learning Strategies

- Lots of access to texts and seeking out of similar genres that will use the same vocabularies

- Use of images - Mnemonics and cognates - Settings: ‘what was it I was reading when I was at the

beach that time….?’ - Creating acronyms and patterns - Seeking out opportunities to practice

Test Preparation Strategies

- Lots of panic and lots of stress -> motivation! - Practice, practice, practice, practice, practice - Revision of past test papers and possible test-text-

types - Finding out what style the test will be and how I will

be assessed -> assessment driven learning strategies

- All of the SMAR (assessment should be on-going and


encourage continuous and cumulative language learning!!)

However, using the SMART model is only one step in developing L2 learning strategies. I very much agree with Anderson (2000) in that ‘metacognition is not a linear process that moves from preparing and planning to evaluating’, and there is always need to take action and try a range of strategies based on reflection. The SMART model helps learners identify their current learning strategies, but does not really provide a framework for evaluating the usefulness of those strategies and whether they’re being used in a systematic way, identifying why we need strategies, where those strategies are needed, and other ‘teacher and learner responsibilities’. The language used in the SMART model is also difficult to understand – my students would stare blankly at ‘Metacognitive’ and although I hope some of them would think to use an English dictionary, I doubt an Oxford definition of ‘metacognition’ would help at all. It would be more useful for learners to create their own SMARTs, and preferably undertake it as a language exercise, thereby using language to learn about language use. Another problem with the model is that application and choice of language learning strategies is also often text and task specific. What SMARTs you use and how SMART you are depends on context. The SMART model does not really allow for exploration of this fact. Finally, the most major, and essential, omission from the SMART model is that buzz word ‘culture’. Language is culture and so metalanguage is also cultural. What SMARTs we have, and what SMARTs we use are often a product of our culture and our metacultural communicative competences and understandings. Then again, perhaps this is implicit in the mode, but it could be made explicit. The SMART model may be ideal for the teaching of English in Malay contexts (and indeed, many agree it is ideal!), but in transferring it to other languages it may not be so effective because of learner background contexts. Overall, using a model has helped me reflect on my language learning strategies, so I now plan on using some sort of model in class for students to look at their language learning strategies - or to use another ‘buzz word’, to help ‘scaffold’ their reflections. However, I also hope to develop this model in negotiation with my students as a language practice and language use exercise. Perhaps we could begin with a card cluster and then create categories (which may even form a cute-sounding, sorry, meaningful, acronym!) drawn out from placing those cards on a continuum or classification table (LRS, VRR, W??). We could have ‘competitions’ to see who can ‘invent’ the ‘most useful’ strategy (which could also lead to debate about what makes it ‘most’ useful) to add to our model, and add even more as we explore new text and task types. Bring on next term!


Task EASE in Learning Task

Think of a specific L2 learner group and the outcomes towards which they

would be working. Under each of the 4 headings of the EASE model list skills and strategies that learners would need in order to be able to achieve the

desired outcomes. Learner Group: Year 9 Indonesian

Outcomes:

Telephone conversations: - Learners will be able to make plans with a

friend over the phone regarding activity/ies for the following day.

- Learners will be introduced to Indonesian ‘phone culture’ including (but not limited to) how to initiate and answer phone calls, what phones are like, and when and how they are used in Indonesian settings.

- Learners will begin to develop some self-assist and repair strategies in conducting telephone conversations.

- Learners will explore after school and weekend activities that appeal to their own personal interests.

Execute Communicative Tasks

- Assist strategies such as asking the interlocutor to slow down, simplify or clarify meaning.

- Taking risks and having a go! - Use formulaic language structures and functions

covered in class with support (such as scripts and notes), with minimal support, and with no support.

- Manipulate formulaic language structures covered in class to extend conversations.

- ‘Bounce off’ the interlocutor: use their keywords, rephrase their questions to create answers etc.

- Use English cognates where necessary and experiment with creating ‘Indonesian sounding English words’ for newer concepts (especially regarding technology).

- Use familiar (safe and supportive) contexts and environments in which to practice at first.

- Apply knowledges, strategies and understandings and experiment as confidence builds.

Access, decode, and make meaning

- Recognise purpose and context and link to existing knowledges.

- Use familiar text types in the TL such as mobile phone menus (decode text based on prior knowledge).

- Infer and create meaning by using knowledge of the telephone ‘text type’ and conventions.


- Listen for patterns in speech - Listen for English cognates, mnemonics,

keywords and other recognisable/studied language in order to infer meaning.

- Ask the interlocutor to help you understand and make meaning – it’s a two-way process!

Support learning and acquisition of L2

- Find texts and other reference sources that detail language functions (textbooks, the yellow pages, friends, taped conversations etc.) to form a framework.

- Put mobile phone into Indonesian language mode. - Find out common SMS acronyms in the TL and

practice using them (telephone conversations aren’t only speech)

- Explore the telephone conversation ‘text type’ – what are expected conventions? (Openings, closings etc.). What are common language patterns in this text type?

- Practice, practice, practice, practice - Practice in real situations (e.g. use a GoTalk!

phone card to phone your epal!) - Use walkie-talkies in the school context to create a

synchronous conversation where you are not in the same room as the interlocutor – maximise opportunities for real language use.

Educate self

- Check that the interlocutor understands speaker’s meaning – ‘You understand me?’ ‘Get it?’ ‘What do you think?’ (but in the TL of course!)

- Have a goal in mind to use language in a real situation (motivation).

- Ask peers to ‘evaluate’ (‘tell me what you think…’) and offer suggestions.

- Reflect on performance and suggest avenues for ‘improvement’, and then take action from this reflection.

- Evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies you used in completing this task and achieving (or working towards) the outcomes. Take action from this evaluation.

Commentary I had never thought of approaching planning for a ‘unit’ or ‘outcome’ of work from a learner’s strategy perspective. I usually approach planning (by myself or in collaboration with learners) from a language function perspective. The EASE model has made me really focus on skill development, and not just ‘language’ features and functions. If I did not have any experience learning a language myself, though, I would find this task very difficult! No wonder native speakers of a language who then teach that language as a L2 often have difficulty in ‘breaking down’ skill components from a learner’s perspective! I have probably missed a lot of possible strategies and skills, been far too optimistic with what my year nines would actually do (although there is a wide range of learner levels within the class) and have no doubt included strategies beyond some learners’ metalinguistic developmental stage. Then again, it is ‘easiest’ if this


model is treated as dynamic, and changes can be made as the necessity arises. I found the EASE model more effective than the SMART for planning – it is more specific and occurs within a language context: the task and text types determine linguistic and cultural items, the model emphasises the skills and strategies needed for success. Students would probably find the EASE model much easier to follow, adapt and use than the SMART one, especially if it was portrayed diagrammatically (such as the ‘ICP ladders’ developed for the SOSE learning area). It is tempting to add a second column to the framework to include ‘language functions’ and specific ‘lingo’ for the telephone conversation text-type which would provide a scaffold for learners to build on. Then again, if the focus is on strategies and skills, then learners should be following an almost inquiry-approach to find out conventions of the text type themselves (with guidance and support as needed). Finally, as a language learner myself, I would have found it beneficial to complete this exercise in my TL – this would have made me think and operate within the L2 and recognise skill, strategy and language needs from a different linguistic and cultural perspective. Next time!


References Anderson, Neil J. (2002). The Role of Metacognition in Second Language Teaching and Learning. CAL Digest. Available via WWW: http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/0110anderson.html . Accessed 28 September, 2004. Crozet, C. (2003). A conceptual framework to help teachers identify where culture is located in language use. In J. Lo Bianco and C. Crozet (Eds.), Teaching Invisible Culture. Melbourne: Language Australia Ltd. Department of Education, Science and Training. (2004). Asian Languages Professional Learning Project: Phase 1 – Languages Methodology Professional learning programme: Resources for implementation teams. Canberra: DEST. Department of Education, Science and Training. (2004). Asian Languages Professional Learning Project: Phase 2 – Supporting Asian Languages within Schools: Resources for Participants. Canberra: DEST. Department of Education, Science and Training (NALSAS), (2001). A Literature Search and Analysis of the Benefits of Learning a Language Other Than English to Literacy Development in English. Canberra: DEST. DeVito, J. (1992). The Interpersonal Communication Book (6th ed.). New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Embi, Mohamed Amin. (2002). SMART Net. Available via WWW: http://www.fpbahasa.ukm.my/eltrec/e_modules_view.asp?MOD_ID=31 . Accessed 28 September, 2004. Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: selected essays by Clifford Geertz. New York: Basic Books. Kramsch, C. (1994). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Liddicoat, A. (2001). Learning and Language, Learning about Language, Learning to be Literate. Babel. 35, 3, 12-16. Liddicoat, A., Papademetre, L., Scarino, A. & Kohler, M. (2003). Report on Intercultural Language Learning. Canberra: DEST. Available via WWW: http://www.curriculum.edu.au/nalsas/pdf/intercultural.pdf . Accessed 14 September, 2004.


Lo Bianco, J., & Crozet, C. (Eds.) (2003). Teaching Invisible Culture. Melbourne: Language Australia Ltd. Lo Bianco, J., Liddicoat, A. & Crozet, C. (Eds.) 1999. Striving for the Third Place: Intercultural Competence through Language Education, Melbourne: Language Australia. Mohamed Amin Embi. (1998). SMART English Learning via SMART Net. Providing Seminar Pendidikan Kebangsaan, Institut Teknologi Tun Hussein On. National Asian languages and Studies in Australian Schools Taskforce. (1999). Pathways for Australian School Students to Achieve High Levels of Proficiency in Asian language. Sydney: NSW Dept of Education and Training. O’Sullivan, T., Hartley, J., Saunders, D., Montgomery, M., and Fiske, J. (1994). Key Concepts in Communication and Cultural Studies. London: Routledge. Oxford, R. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: a synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training. System, 17, 235-247. Oxford. R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Rowley: Newsbury House.

edu 404 issues in language education apennae/writings/flote.pdfedu 404 issues in language education...

Documents