TEACHING CULTURE AS BEHAVIOUR
I was preparing for a lecture on cross-cultural communication in the old Russian city of Kursk. A couple of minutes before the bell (beginning and end of classes are marked with a bell ringing all over a place be it a school or a University) a student came up to me and said, "Are you going to give us another talk on how exotic British culture is and how stupid we are to make cultural blunders when abroad?"
Luckily, entertaining students with travellers' tales was not my purpose. I was going to deal with culture as a semi-closed system of behaviour that is shared by community and used for self-identification with others as well as for telling one's kin from aliens. Culture was referred to as a "semi-closed" system because while community members are not immune to absorb foreign ways, community as a whole shows a remarkable ability to resist cultural intrusion. The attempt proved to work well with the audience during the lecture. Below are just a few points made.
Culture as behaviour can be viewed from at least five angles: verbal, non-verbal, affective, implicit-explicit and cognitive.
Verbal behaviour or discourse opens up a lot of opportunities for cultural studies. The first discovery one can make is that standard English discourse does not exist at all, being nobody's culture. In order to mark discourse as a cultural possession, a community has to twist it in their own way. Even Shakespeare, being with the people, followed popular grammar rather than academic prescriptions. Interestingly, modern Global English varieties are all geographically marked and serve for cultural self-identification by speakers from Nigeria, Japan, France, Russia etc. A well-known distinction between interactive discourse ("oiling the wheels of communication') and transactive discourse ("having business done") is culturally attributed too, with interactive discourse playing paradoxically a role for business talk in Asian or Mediterranean culture, and transactive discourse ruling over friendly relations in the USA (this is not to say that Americans are incapable of making friends but business first). Incidentally, some research shows that globalisation of English does not mean disappearance of cultural differences in the regions.

Non-verbal behaviour has a lot of trap-holes to start talking about exotic foreigners from all over who either stand too close to each other, or shrug away from business partners to a safe distance of 25 inches, prefer smell of garlic to fresh breath, gesticulate in a strange way and nod "no" to say "yes". However, non-verbal behaviour is very consistent with a semi-closed cultural system owned by a community. Americans make a lot of eye-contact while in Asia avoiding eye contact is a sign of respect and does not have anything to do with lack of integrity. At one end integrity is a value of conversation, while at the other, rules of politeness matter more in a social dialogue. The same rules of politeness make loud voice unwelcome in China as it is associated with expression of anger. Culturally unaware Chinese may not understand why Americans are raising their voice when closing up a telephone talk. At the same time, Americans associate the heightened volume of voice with an emotional message, and do not understand the reason Italians are talking loudly and adding gestures for saying ordinary things. In the former case, emotions are misinterpreted. In the latter, Anglo-Saxon reservation comes to a cultural clash with a Mediterranean sincerity of expression. Unlike intonation and loudness of voice, body language seldom causes a clash and is on the whole more outspoken. E.g. unfriendly body language is in most cultures universal or may be I need to be better informed. This is not to say that certain body language can not be inappropriate in some cultures.

Implicit-explicit behaviour is hard to define because it exists deeply rooted in the community. E.g. one can hear Americans say, "Don't just stand there! Do something!" This is not simply a phrase but an indication of implicit behaviour with a strong emphasis on action. Years ago I myself was working as a translator with American field engineers who were supervising automatic road-paving machines being assembled for operation in Russia. The first attempts showed that the machines would not work with the local cement and the surface of a newly paved road was all in cracks. While Russian engineers hurried to telephone to Moscow for consultations, the Americans welded on two more vibrators and that was it. Implicit-explicit behaviour comprises rules of politeness (a well known American smile is simply being polite), the art of complimenting people (compliments seem to be improper in Asia), the right to be proud of one's own achievement (in Russia it is commendable to attribute one's success to the colleagues saying "I would have never achieved this without my colleagues" although colleagues have indeed little or nothing to do with your job), etiquette of gender behaviour etc. Chivalry towards women is a value in Russia while it can be viewed obsolete in some Western communities. Women in the West take pity on Asian women because they are allegedly dominated by men and do not even have rights to choose a husband. Women in the East hold a view that it is humiliation to chase a man trying to win his attention, love and eventually get married. For a woman in the East it is humiliation to carry heavy bags together with men on a shopping day.

Affective behaviour is also culturally regulated with stoicism and reservation being values in Anglo-Saxon culture, while open and emphasised expression of one's grief is culturally encouraged in other parts of the world. Cognitive behaviour differs as to how people perceive and map the world around them in terms of time, space, ethos and many more concepts.

Making use of a pun, our own culture is what we miss when it is around and what we miss when it is not. Teaching culture is developing strategies that would enable learners to be aware of what is around both at home and abroad, and to get engaged in a productive cross-cultural dialogue without "a miss". There seems to be three options: to admire and absorb a foreign culture and to lose one's own identity, to recognise and participate in a foreign culture and to be flexible with native and foreign ways, to know and resist a foreign culture and to continue along one's native cultural lines. Whatever the course agenda, acculturation in real setting seems to follow its own route. My former student came to live in the UK some years ago and decided to be entirely British eating exclusively porridge for breakfast and feeling lonely in a strange environment. He ended up with eating boiled jacket potatoes Russian style, staying oneself and doing well (ELTeCS May 2002).

AUTHENTICITY IN LANGUAGE TEACHING: A HALLMARK OF REALISM

During one of my workshops for the English language teachers with the
Russian background, I raised the issue of authenticity. Most of the teachers
suggested that authenticity in language teaching was a hallmark of reality.
My view that authenticity was a hallmark of realism first met with
resistance.

The concept of "authentic English" is hard to define as "language reality".
Authentic English is no longer limited to the British Isles and not even to
other English speaking countries. One can unmistakably recognise English
spoken by a French person, a Chinese or an African. English used in the UK
schools and Universities no longer excludes local accents or regional
dialects. Even BBC English allows varieties. Standard English has become a
purely educational notion and exists rather in the course-books created by
the authors for the purpose of teaching. In order to achieve this purpose,
the authors have to model the language use in the real world by creating a
target "gestalt" in the learners' minds They are approaching real language
use, perhaps, never achieving it. This is the realism of the language
material in teaching.

Another area of authenticity is the communicative teaching procedure. A
classical technique of information/opinion gap, which is regarded as truly
communicative, in most cases of reality simply does not exist. It is hard to
imagine one person asking the other about the train schedule for the odd
days and giving the schedule for the even days instead. Yet, the realism of
teaching strongly supports the idea of information gap as well as of other
techniques, though they can seldom or never occur in real life. Some of them
can be even non-communicative at all but necessary as required by the
realism of teaching and learning.

Yet another field of authenticity is the learner language. A language
learner producing error-free, long and well-memorised texts does not sound
very authentic, although the memorised texts can be speeches from the
British Parliament. Authentic learner language with inaccuracies and lack of
idioms is what many teachers perhaps do not like but have to put up with for
the same reason of realism. It's the hallmark of realism that makes learner
language during a demonstration lesson sometimes different to a lesson
behind the closed doors.

All the above considerations made me suggest that authenticity in language
teaching is a hallmark of realism, rather than that of reality. Language
teaching is a reality in reality. Perhaps, it has its own hallmark of
authenticity, as the whole pedagogy is the art of achieving what is
realistic.
Dr. Radislav Millrood
Head of ELT Department at Tambov State University
(first published in ELTeCS-L Digest 21 January, 2001)

CAN UNSUCCESSFUL LEARNERS EVER BECOME ACHIEVERS?
Unsuccessful learners are those who fail to progress in English language studies. Unsuccessful learners make up to 70% in Russia's mainstream schools and 30% in language learning selective schools (this data can be challanged of course).


One of the suggested remedies is to study the strategies of successful learners and to recommend them to those who fail. This reminds me of trying to offer a person clothes in the wrong size.


Teachers usually describe unsuccessful learners as unwilling to study though capable, able to cope with the task but lazy and destroying classroom environment. The unsuccessful learners describe themselves as willing to study but unable to cope with the tasks, losing confidence and struggling to adapt to classroom environment though without a result.

Research shows at least three reasons for underachievement in language learners, including lack of congruence between teacher and learner styles, learning disabilities and unfavourable learning environment.

In three cases out of four lack of congruence between teacher and learner is the reason for academic failure. These learners have high or normal memory as well as high or normal ability to logical reasoning. Only in one case out of four will the learners have poor memory and poor analytic skills, thus demonstrating low learning aptitude. The following areas of congruence in teacher and learner style seem particularly sensitive: field-dependence VS: field independence, serial learning VS: holistic learning and field-sensitivity VS: field-insensitivity.

Learning disability as a cause of failure is a disorder in one or more of the basic cognitive processes with general intelligence staying within the norm. Learning disability can be found in impaired communication, language acquisition and thought processes. It creates a gap between learners true capacity and actual achievement. This disorder is subject to improvement through pedagogical intervention.

Communication disability can be caused by introversion or even autism in learners. Language acquisition disability can be conditioned by dyslexia, which is especially evident in English due to difficult and diverse spelling rules. Thought processes can be infringed by the attention deficit disorder.
Learning environment as a factor of success or failure can include learner self-esteem, learner-teacher attitudes, learner motivation, presence or absence of supportive strategies.

Techniques for supportive environment can include scaffolding the learner, learner accommodation (pairing with successful partners), task analysis (step-by-step instruction), explicit instruction (clear goals and simple ways towards the goals), learning strategies (choosing one' own individual strategies of success), active learning (following one' interests and choices).

The model of pedagogical intervention in the unsuccessful learners starts with the projected learner image. This involved diagnosis into learning style, disability and environment. Unsuccessful learners become potential achievers through congruence of teacher-learner styles, laddering the learner by using scaffolding techniques and creating supportive environment in the classroom.

Why not study the strategies that unsuccessful learners use themselves in order to survive in the classroom environment? Perhaps these will give us the cues to understanding the ways of successful instruction? May be these strategies are the missing and neglected cornerstone in building success and enhancing achievement?


The following poem, written after one of the visited lessons, expresses the feelings of an unsuccessful learner in the English language classroom:
I am sitting in the classroom
With that boring feeling inside
How I'd love to be with them
Easy going with the tide!
The teacher thinks I am lazy
Perhaps I really am?
May be I am different from them
Because I can't and they can?
Why all this useless trying?
I'd rather be myself!
Let this book of English
Gather dust on the shelf.
Let them enjoy it
If they really want
I will have fun instead.
I won't study! I WONT'T !!!

It is professional challenge for teachers to address learners' needs and to re-write this poem with a happier ending, turning unsuccessful failing students into potential achievers.
Dr. Radislav Millrood
Head of ELT at the University of Tambov (abstract of the report made in Krasnoyarsk - Siberia in February 2001 at the conference of regional association of English language teachers).


WHIY FOREIGN TRAINING IS FAILING RUSSIA'S TEACHERS
First published in The Guardian Weekly
Friday January 21, 2000

A British university recently completed a joint teacher-training project in my home city of Tambov in central Russia. British colleagues and local professionals ran training workshops, organised study trips to Britain, wrote and published teachersĂ