Topic and Research Questions

       Much has been written about the pedagogical differences in second language teaching between China and west. This case study investigates how a western-trained Chinese EFL teacher has adjusted to teaching in China. Specifically, what are the teacher’s beliefs and perceptions about teaching in China; how has she adjusted herself or overcome pedagogical differences between the two culture? How does she manage conflicts that she encounters in her real teaching activity? What strategies has she developed to teach her students effectively?

Objective

  To investigate one western trained university in-service EFL teacher—Laura’s beliefs and perceptions on Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and her real teaching practice;

  To examine the current situation of CLT implementation in Chinese university;

  To gain an insight into socio-cultural differences between western and Chinese contexts through one individual teacher’s experience;

  To attain possible solutions or suggestions for better ESL teaching-learning in China in the future.

Theoretical framework

   The lenses that the present study uses to analyze data are Freeman and Johnson’s tripartite teacher knowledge based framework and Robertson’s notion of glocalization.

   According to Freeman and Johnson (1998), the teacher is one element shaping students’ learning. A teacher is the key point to understanding language teaching and learning. Teachers’ beliefs and experiences influence their teaching. The real teaching of each teacher is influenced by their memories (prior knowledge) as students or as language learners. Teachers learn how to teach not only in teacher education programs, but also in the process of participation in the social practices and contexts associated with learning and teaching.

    Freeman and Johnson (1998) divided three domains to describe the complex terrain in which language teachers practice their teaching: the teacher-learner, the social context, and the pedagogical process. The teacher –learner domain emphasizes teachers as learners of language teaching. The social context domain argues schools as the social and cultural contexts for teacher learning is critical to establishing an effective knowledge base. The third domain is the activity of teaching. This domain underlines the interrelationship between teacher-learners, schools and schooling with the activity of teaching and learning. Teacher-learners participate in the teaching and learning activity, and schools create communities of practice for teacher-learners. Freeman and Johnson’s tripartite teacher knowledge base framework guides the researcher to understand the significance of teachers’ knowledge and beliefs, and how they make sense of their teaching in their contexts.

   The second lens the present study uses is the notion “glocalization”. Since locality as one aspect of globalization has largely been neglect in the context. Robertson proposed the notion of “glocalization” in 1992; he argued that globalization neglects locality, whereas glocalization is the co-presence of both universalizing and particularizing tendencies. “The notion of glocalization has involved the simultaneity and the interpenetration of the global and the local—the universal and the particular” (Featherstone, 1995, p.30).

    Canagarajah (2005) further clarified that the codes, discourses, and practices derived from the West are accepted as the standard under the name of “globalization”. This phenomenon largely ignored the power of local knowledge in global processes. In the mean time, the counteraction of globalization can empower the local and make it heard by the world. However, this phenomenon is hindered by forces of globalization such as English-dominated communication. There is a call for consideration of local knowledge, since it is context-bound, community-specific, and it is generated ground-up through social practice in everyday life. By deconstructing dominant knowledge, localization encourages reconstruction of local knowledge for contemporary needs.

    The notion of glocalization provides a new perspective to analyze and understand western-trained Chinese EFL teachers. Thus, the present study uses those two lenses to analyze data.

Anderson, J. (1993). Is a Communicative approach practical for teaching English in China? Pros and cons. System, 21(4), 471-480. Brady, B., & Gulikers, G. (2004). Enhancing the MA in TESOL practicum course for non-native English speaking student teachers. In L. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from experience: Perspecitves on nonnative English-speaking professionals (pp. 206-229). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press. Braine, G. (2010). Non-native speaker teachers: Research, pedagogy and professional growth. New York, NY: Routledge. Burnaby, B., & Sun, Y.L. (1989). Chinese teachers’ view of Western language teaching: Context informs paradigms. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2), 219-238. Canagarajah, A.S (Ed.). (2005). Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical basis of communicative approaches to second language learning and testing. Applied Linguistic, 1, 1-47. Cowan, J., Light, R., Mathews, B., & Tucker, G. (1979). English teaching in China: A recent survey. TESOL Quarterly, 12(4), 465-482. Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397-417. Friedman, T.L. (1999). The Lexus and the olive tree: Understanding globalization. New York: NY: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Han, Y. (1993). On the teacher (J.G. Luo, Trans.). English Language Learning, 9, 56. He, D., &Zhang, Q. (2010). Native speaker norms and China English: From the perspective of learners and teachers in China. TESOL Quarterly, 44(4), 769-789. Hu, G. (2010). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: the case of communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum,15(2), 93-105. Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publisher. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniques and principles in language teaching. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Rao, Z. (1996). Reconciling communicative approaches to the teaching of English with traditional Chinese methods. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(4), 458-471. Rao, Z. (2002). Chinese students’ perceptions of communicative and non-communicative activities in EFL classroom. System, 30, 85-105. Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In Featherstone, M., Lash, S., & Robertson, R. (Eds.). Global modernities. (pp.25-44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Scott, J., & Marshall, G. (2009). A dictionary of sociology (2 rev. ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.