Introduction.
In the co-authored article “Teaching English to Students of Medicine: A Student-Centered Approach,” based on the work-in-progress research report on two different approaches to teaching English to students of medicine, published in the November 2006 issue of The Asian ESP Journal, my colleagues and I offered a wide spectrum of ideas and teaching methods often referred to as “student-centered second language education.” Our efforts, however, seem to lack clarity and have led to some misconceptions. As a result, one of the tutors involved in that study, Seyyed-Abdolhamid Mirhosseini, in a brief note “Real Flowers or Plastic Flowers in Learning Medical English: A Reply to Kashani, Soheili, and Hatmi” published in the April 2007 issue of The Asian ESP Journal has raised a number of concerns that need to be (re)addressed here.
To this end, in this paper, first I attempt to elaborate on the complicated place of the English as Foreign Language (EFL) teacher in the whole spectrum of EFL pedagogy in order to demonstrate why it cannot always be filled by tutors who are insufficiently trained in the area of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL), a point which seems to be often ignored in the literature on student-centered education. Secondly, I try to provide EFL teachers with some useful insights into Paulo Freire’s (1971) ideas which enjoy popularity in the third world countries. This, I hope, will contribute to clarifying some misunderstanding concerning learner-centeredness in general as well as those specifically voiced in Abdol’s (2007) response to our published article.
EFL Pedagogy/Andragogy: The Role of Teachers
EFL pedagogy/andragogy is a complex interdisciplinary area of applied linguistics. In this article, I use the more common term “pedagogy” while I find “andragogy,” developed as a theory of adult education by Knowles (1975), more suitable to refer specifically to adult FL education. To this enterprise, linguistics, sociology, psychology, pedagogy, and educational technology to date have made invaluable contributions. Likewise, research on EFL pedagogy has brought innumerable empirically valid observations to light. Yet, success depends very much on the ability of an EFL educator to isolate and manipulate each particular variable in its own light and in his/her own local teaching/learning context. The variables are numerous, but eventually they all converge on the following interrelated elements: (1) the teacher, (2) the teaching materials, and (3) the learner.
I would like to stress at this point something which seems to be less understood, that the EFL teacher is really required to do a much more complex job than the teacher of other subjects. In cases of such content-based instruction, the input for the student, at least at the basic levels, is a more straightforward communication of the subject matter, commonly in the form of a prescribed textbook. The desired output, besides, is almost identical with the input itself. And the medium of instruction is most often the student’s native language. This, it appears, has a dual utility. On the one hand, it helps the teacher to easily devise his pedagogical techniques; on the other hand, it offers the student a chance to read and review the materials on his own. In addition, there is usually a number of people in the student’s environment whose help he can enlist when he faces particular difficulties. It is also worth noting that the very learning process is often aided by the intense parental and social pressures in favor of education. This is not to say that teaching and learning in the situation indicated above is uncomplicated. Rather, there is, it is claimed here, a number of socio-cultural variables which favor the teacher. In fact, learning is a process of tremendous complexity, and many of the learner-related variables in relation to EFL pedagogy are equally applicable to all formal learning. Nonetheless, there are clear indications that EFL programs must make more conscious uses of these variables.
EFL programs, often wrongly considered to be the same as or similar to other school subjects, appear to be implemented in a very different situation. The input for the EFL student is not so commonly a straightforward description of the language being taught, carrying a bunch of grammatical, phonological, semantic and/or pragmatic rules. Rather, these merely form the theoretical basis on which an EFL course is conventionally designed, although even in such contexts the transactional/communicative function of the language usually takes or should take precedence.
It should also be pointed out that modern EFL language teaching pedagogy hardly uses the native tongue of the student in the class. Hence students cannot independently review a point that has been misunderstood or not understood well. At the same time, there are few people available in an EFL student’s environment who may help him/her resolve the complications in his or her native language. This seems to be a severe disadvantage in EFL contexts. Our native home country, Iran, is no exception, where frequently the kind of help that is often offered is actually detrimental to the very developmental process of second language learning.
Under the present circumstances, the foreign language program itself has to create the needs and pressures central to learning, and the EFL teacher has to conduct her class with an eye to such learner factors as self-evaluation, motivation, verbal intelligence, attitude toward FL speakers, egocentric and ethnocentric tendencies, intro-/extroverted orientations, etc.
It is also essential, at this stage, to note one more aspect of such a foreign language program: its creative output. The student of a foreign language does not use memorized sentences from his course-books for purposes of real communication. Rather, he internalizes the language materials he has been exposed to and creates novel sentences in communicative situations. The instructional task of the EFL teacher is to present language in authentic transactional situations in such a way that the student becomes subtly aware of the underlying structure in materials and can impose his own organization on them. This is done by inferring the input’s rules (not to be confused with “formal grammar” rules) and by generalizing those to other communicative situations. Added to these complexities is the fact that in Iran the national language is usually enough to acquire a “good” education and the acquisition of a foreign language is, unfortunately, not perceived as an essential feature of education in popular thinking. Therefore, there exist none of those social pressures which are often helpful to the teachers of other school subjects.
Far-sighted educators, however, who have realized the importance of foreign languages in the social advancement of Iran note with satisfaction that a new trend is already underway, and it will not be long before bilingualism becomes an ideal trait in every educated person. In fact, after a temporary decline in the early 80’s, the EFL industry in Iran has undergone both quantitative and qualitative changes. The number of learners of English in both public and private sectors has markedly increased, and regular courses in TEFL have been offered by several universities at the M.A. and PhD levels. This has contributed to a scientific attitude towards EFL in both areas of instruction and research.
Freirian Pedagogy and Learner-centeredness: A Response to Mirhosseini (2007)
It was in this context that my colleagues and I framed the educational research project partly reported in the November 2006 issue of The Asian ESP Journal, which has led to an “honest challenge” (p. 85) by Mirhosseini (2007). He has raised a number of questions that I attempt to address here in this article.
Mirhosseini (2007, p. 85) starts out by accusing us of “misrepresenting the educational practice.” His main argument is whether we were allowed at all to call what was practiced “student-centered.” Based on the briefings of the main contractor of the project, and with reference to what we observed in the classrooms, and the course developers’ own reference to Freire’s (1972) ideas, I believe that orientation could be classified as student-centered. Besides, Mirhosseini’s major references in his response article such as Fasheh (2001), Leggo (2004), Norton and Toohey (2004), and Wiske (1998) also offer some evidence whether or not we have been justified in calling that project “student-centered.”
In order to better understand Paulo Freire and his “eclectic” thinking (see Taylor 1993, p. 34), it seems to us that one should refer to the “specific” historical epoch, the sociocultural, and intellectual conditions in which he was ingrained, and the elements which may have formed and/or deformed him: that is, Brazil 1950s’ developmental capitalist nationalism. His rudimentary ideas later developed into what can be referred to as Liberating Theology, an influential movement within Christianity, especially the Roman Catholic Church, which views Jesus Christ as the champion and liberator of poor and oppressed people. It seems to us this, in essence, is an “eclectic” novel conjecture, strongly influenced by Karl Marx. Applying this conceptualization to an understanding of history, Freire (see Gutierrez, 1988, pp. 24-25) holds that:
This understanding provides a dynamic context and broadens the horizons of the desired social changes. In this perspective the unfolding of all the man’s dimensions is demanded -- a man who makes himself throughout his life and throughout history. The gradual conquest of true freedom leads to the creation of a new man and a qualitatively different society. … Christ the Savior liberates man from sin, which is the ultimate root of all disruption of friendship and of all injustice and oppression. Christ makes man truly free … he enables man to live in communion with him; and this is the basis for all human brotherhood.
Paulo Freire, the son of a police officer of the Pernambuco armed forces, and a spiritualist, clearly states “my relationship with Marx never suggested that I abandon Christ." (cf. Lownd, 1995).
The question is whether Freire’s experience primarily in literacy of the lower strata in Brazil in the 1970s is the best choice to educate Iranian medical students, considering the diversity of English language needs they have for successful medical education. In fact, Freire’s educational philosophy can simply not be applicable to us, though it has been an inspiration to many educators in their quest for a more equitable society.
In 1971, Paulo Freire writes (in response to literacy teachers in Chile):
You need above all to have faith in human beings. You need to love. You must be convinced that the fundamental effort of education is to help with the liberation of people, never their domestication. You must be convinced that when people reflect on their domination they begin a first step in changing their relationship to the world. (p.61)
Freire should be, in fact, praised for his emphasis on dialogue and students’ realities as the starting point and his dedication to the oppressed. However, unclear terminology, incongruity between the ethical imperatives he postulates in theory and the real world as well as his attempt to graft his Christian ethical categories onto his Marxist concept of historicity, and finally, overlooking the variety and nuances of social reality, leads to the failure of Freire’s pedagogy to take into account the diverse sources of limitations to human freedom.
I would like to end this section with a reference to Paulo Freire’s mystical language and his use of metaphors taken from Christian sources which may lend itself to a rather simplistic political analysis or to the construct of a pseudo-science of education at the service of a totalitarian theocracy. The following extract cited by Taylor (1993, p. 53) is revealing:
The educator for liberation has to die as the unilateral educator of the educatees, in order to be born again as the educator-educatee of the educatees-educators. An educator is a person who has to live in the deep significance of Easter.
Insofar as the question of “student-centeredness” is concerned, I should refer the readers to Freire’s criticism of the traditional educational system whose “undemocratic” and “teacher-centered” methodologies, termed “banking pedagogies” by Freire (1972), treat students as vacuums just waiting to be filled up with the teacher’s expertise. These “top-to-bottom” traditional teaching strategies stifle creativity, induce the dependence of learners on their teachers, and encourage an uncritical acceptance of knowledge from experts, often creating “undemocratic” and “un-collaborative” social relationships. Besides, Freire (1972) insists that any educational endeavor must start from the thematic realities of the student. He proposes a “pedagogy in which students and teachers share a horizontal relationship, in which even the teachers learn through the educational process” (Smith, 2002).
Similarly, adult learning theorists of a humanist and constructivist school propose a “learner-centered” pedagogy which values the students’ unique realities that are often multifaceted and reflect every learner’s differing needs, beliefs, abilities, as well as their motivations and prior knowledge. Therefore, as a bottom-up educator, Freire’s ideas can simply be translated into a student-centered theory in foreign language pedagogy/andragogy.
Mirhosseini’s second question (p. 108) asks “Why did people [subjects] with two radically different types of learning experiences have to take the same test?” In response, first, Iranian law dictates that all medical students should pass certain tests at a national level. Accordingly, schools should provide them with appropriate learning situations to achieve such goals. Second, it is generally the norm that candidates’ English knowledge is measured by standardized tests, regardless of their widely varied personal learning experiences. In fact, nobody questions the “types of learning experiences” of those who sit for the TOEFL or IELTS or Michigan, FCE, CPE tests. Candidates from different nationalities who learn English through a wide variety of methodologies, by teachers of different teaching backgrounds, and through different textbooks, take such standardized tests to measure the level of their English knowledge. Third, do better ways exist to examine how well different teaching-learning methods may contribute to better student achievement than assessing their English abilities through such standard tests?
Mirhosseini’s next comment is of greater interest. He asserts that “what the authors label as a “‘student-centered approach' is what I would name a real flower” (p. 108). These terms real flower and plastic flower are borrowedfrom Muinr Fasheh (2001). It appears, however, that the smell of Mirhosseini’s real flowers soon became intolerable for his whole group who stopped the course after some time. Thereafter, our college, which used to be ranked first on 16 consequent national comprehensive exams run by the Ministry of Health and Medical Education at the end of the basic science phase was demoted to the sixth rank mostly due to the efforts of the community of scholars who were “pursuing an honest challenge to bring about transformations in the institutionally ossified practices of English language education at Tehran University of Medical Sciences” (Mirhosseini, 2007, p. 107). Then, he raises an important point:
What would it mean to correlate interval-scale type scores based on 'standardized objective tests’ with nominal/ordinal type grades based on a ‘subjective evaluation system’? “Would it be reasonable to expect any kind of go-togetherness? (Mirhosseini, 2007, p. 109)
In our research report, in fact, all measures are clearly shown to be based on an interval scale. Besides, Table 2 in our original article (Kashani et al, 2006, page 91) shows no significant correlation between the scores of the same students on the final exams of the three English courses the students took consequently. General English, medical English 1 and medical English 2 tests were all rated by the student-centered team and reported to the school dean of education (i.e., the lack of internal consistency). Furthermore, neither did the said scores show any meaningful correlation with the students’ performance on the standardized screening test of September 2002, nor with the scores on the English test administered by the Ministry of Health in March 2005 (i.e., the lack of external consistency).
Mirhosseini also accuses us of “limiting ‘student-centeredness’ to older students” which apparently “is a major cornerstone of the authors’ discussions and conclusion” (p.110). He also asks: “could we view people who are selected as the national top students … as people not mature enough for an approach which requires some maturity on the side of the students?” (Mirhosseini, 2007, p. 111). Here he is referring to that part of our article where we stated that:
… it seems to us that students at the lower end of the proficiency continuum would benefit more from the established curriculum with its regular monitoring and objective evaluation system but would be obviously harmed in a costly, though lenient, student-centered approach employing younger facilitators and/or teachers.
(Kashani et al, 2006, p. 91).
And, with reference to the students at the upper end of the proficiency continuum, we maintained that:
…. these students, being interested in English language and enjoying a fairly good knowledge of it, seem to be mature enough to take responsibility for their learning and, being so, they might benefit from any English program regardless of how well-structured such programs might be. (Kashani et al, 2006, p. 91).
As clearly expressed here, we are concerned here not with the student’s actual age but with the richness of their EFL learning experience. Thus we proposed that “a student-centered approach requires the learners to accept responsibility for their learning, but taking responsibility can be expected from only mature learners” (Kashani et al, 2006, p.92). It appears that Mirhosseini has failed to see that, in this context, the age of those regarded as national top students is irrelevant. One may select the ten or the eighteen-year-old national top students, but if they are placed at the beginner level for their English learning experience, they might be considered not mature enough to accept the responsibility for a certain job. Finally, Mirhosseini says:
The authors interestingly refer to the students whose scores were analyzed as “participants” (p. 88). However, I failed in my search through the paper for evidence of any type of ‘participation’. I doubt that any of the students of either group or any of the people involved in the so called ‘student-centered approach’ were even basically aware of this research. (Mirhosseini, 2007, p. 111).
This comment is perplexing to us since participants in a school which runs two different English language teaching programs involving primarily more than 100 learners would naturally interact and become aware of the various programs in operation. To counter this claim in concrete terms, I would like to refer to preparations at the very outset of the project. In November of 2002, in the presence of the project coordinator, all participants were briefed on the project, which was about to be launched, by the Director of Language Studies of the university language center. In January of the following year, when the first set of data were collected from the two groups, detailed explanations were given to participants to assure them that their answers to the specific questions would never affect their final exam scores. During the following years it was a major source of complaint by the students who wanted to join or leave Groups I/II. Much controversy was seen at all meetings of the project directors and language center officials held in the office of the vice-president for education. That was, in fact, one reason why the authors of the first report on this project noted that “administrators would serve the university more effectively, it seems to us, if they apply research findings for the betterment of the educational plan of action in all departments” (Kashani et al, 2006, p. 94). This was obviously not heard. In September 2006, despite the dissemination of the lucid findings of the research, as might be expected in many developing countries, the established English syllabus at the medical school was ordered to stop. The student-centered project took the responsibility for all English courses at that school.
Conclusion
To support my claims here, I should like to refer to the study by Meshkani et al. (2007). It is interesting to note that in their qualitative study, the participants in the study were asked to comment on the quality of their “general medical curriculum” in the university, but, interestingly, made some side-comments on their “English courses.” Specifically, they report that “all students in focus groups complained of [about] the content of their language courses” (p. 17). Students are directly quoted as complaining that “Instead of English, the teachers taught us research methods and Persian essay writing” (p.19). Most “students believe that the new approach to teaching English does not meet medical students’ needs” (p.34). “The content of the new approach does not help students with reading comprehension and lectures” (p. 36). Furthermore, the students’ representatives in their focus group discussions complained that “the new approach is neither general English nor academic English” (p.143). Male students claimed that “in general, the new approach to teaching English is of no use” (p. 160).
I would like to end this short review of Mirhosseini’s Real Flowers or Plastic Flowers in Learning Medical English with an emphasis on our message in our original article that teaching approaches are to be tested for different proficiency levels and that the same approach might not be equally helpful to different learning groups. Students at different learning levels appear to benefit more from different level-specific evaluation systems.
Acknowledgement
I am grateful to Dr. A. Kaviani who kindly read the first draft of this paper and made invaluable comments, Mr. A. Shamim for his detailed and heartwarming comments, and Dr. Hasan Ansary who did all he could to give shape to this article and make its publication a reality. Thanks are also extended to the anonymous reviewers whose comments helped to refine this response.
References
Fasheh, M. (2001). A personal journey of an intimate relationship between learning and unlearning. Retrieved July 15, 2007, www.almoultaqa.com/ar24.aspx.
Freire, P. (1971). To the coordinator of a culture circle. Convergence. 4(1), pp. 61-62.
Graman, T. (1988). Education for humanization: Applying Paulo Freire's pedagogy to learning a second language. Harvard Educational Review, 58(4), 25-40.
Gutierrez, G. (1988). A theology of liberation. (Sister Caridad Inda and J. Eagleson, Trans.) Marykoll, New York: Orbis Books.
Kashani, A. S., Soheili, S. & Hatmi, Z. N. (2006). Teaching English to students of medicine: A student-centered approach. Asian ESP Journal, 3(2), 85-98.
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall/Cambridge.
Lownd, P. (1995). Freire's life and work. A brief biography of Paulo Freire retrieved June 20, 2007, from
www.paulofreireinstitute.org/Documents/PF-life_and_work_by_Peter.html
Meshkani, Z., Emami R. H, Mirzazadeh, A. (2007). Challenges in the school of medicine Curriculum from stakeholders’ viewpoints. Unpublished master’s thesis, Medical Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Mirhosseini, S. A. (2007). Real flowers or plastic flowers in learning medical English: A reply to Kashani, Soheili, and Hatmi. Asian ESP Journal, 3 (1), 85-98.
Shor, I. (1993). Education is politics. In P. Leonard & P. Mclarin (Eds.),Paulo Freire: A critical encounter (pp. 25-35). New York: Routledge.
Smith, M.K. (2002). Paulo Freire and informal education. The encyclopedia of informal education. [www.infed.org/thinkers/et-freir.htm]
Taylor, P. (1993). The texts of Paulo Freire. Buckingham: Open University Press.
|
