Co-Constructing Representations of Culture in ESL and EFL Classrooms: Discursive Faultlines in Chile...

Co-Constructing Representationsof Culture in ESL and EFLClassrooms: Discursive Faultlinesin Chile and CaliforniaJULIA MENARD–WARWICK

Based on qualitative research conducted in 3 university English as a foreign language class-rooms in Chile and 3 community college English as a second language classrooms in California,this article examines the approaches used in teaching culture in these classrooms, the differ-ences in how particular cultures (usually national cultures) were represented depending onteaching context, the processes by which these representations of culture were co-constructedby teachers and students, and the extent to which the observed cultural pedagogies seemedto cultivate interculturality. In particular, this article focuses on discursive faultlines (Kramsch,1993), areas of cultural difference or misunderstanding that became manifest in classroomtalk. Although teaching culture was not the primary goal in any of these classes, the teachersgenerally provided space for students to problematize cultural issues; however, this problema-tization did not necessarily lead to interculturality. The article concludes with implications forcultural pedagogies based on the observed interactions.

THIS ARTICLE IS BASED ON QUALITATIVEresearch conducted in six classrooms, three En-glish as a foreign language (EFL) classes at aChilean university, and three English as a sec-ond language1 (ESL) classes in California com-munity colleges. Given that, as Kubota (2003) hasargued, “images of culture (in language educa-tion) are produced by discourses that reflect, le-gitimate or contest unequal relations of power”(p. 16), I set out to examine how culture is dis-cursively represented by language teachers in dif-ferent contexts. However, in analyzing my data,it became clear that in the classrooms I was ob-serving, “images of culture” were frequently co-constructed by the teachers and students througha variety of classroom activities, most of which fo-cused on language skills rather than on culturalknowledge. This article examines key processes

University of California, Department of Linguistics, Davis1 Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616, Email: [email protected]

The Modern Language Journal, 93, i, (2009)0026-7902/09/30–45 $1.50/0C©2009 The Modern Language Journal

through which the cultural representations wereco-constructed.

Most of the time, this co-construction appearedto be a harmonious, consensual process. However,this article explores moments when the teachersor the students, or both, contested each other’scultural representations, moments when discur-sive faultlines became activated (Kramsch, 1993).These tensions are pedagogically valuable be-cause they index the cultural areas that need tobe explored in order to work toward intercultur-ality: “an awareness and a respect of difference,as well as the socioaffective capacity to see one-self through the eyes of others” (Kramsch, 2005,p. 553).

In this article, I define culture as the under-standings and practices that are shared withingroups of people (Phillips, 2003) while not-ing that these shared understandings and prac-tices are loosely bounded, constantly changing,and subjectively experienced (Kramsch, 1998;Kumaravadivelu, 2008). Given that culturalcontent must be discursively constructed in or-der to become a topic of discussion in the class-room (Risager, 2007), I define discursive faultlines(Kramsch, 1993) as areas of cultural difference or

Julia Menard-Warwick 31

misunderstanding that become manifest in class-room talk. Within this general orientation, thisarticle explores the following questions:

1. What approaches to discussing culture aretaken in these classrooms?

2. How are particular cultural groups repre-sented within ESL and EFL classrooms? How arethese representations co-constructed by teachersand students?

3. How do these representations differ betweenthe different teaching contexts?

4. What are some of the discursive faultlines inthese classrooms, and how do the teachers handlethem?

5. To what extent do the pedagogies in theseclassrooms promote interculturality?

In this article, I do not focus on either the teach-ers’ or the students’ ongoing perspectives on cul-ture, or on the semantic/pragmatic differencesin linguistic practice, often referred to as langua-culture(s) (Agar, 1994; see also Risager, 2007), butrather on the (at times contradictory) ways thatthe teachers and students jointly represented cul-tural issues in particular classroom discussions.Although English was the language being taughtin all six classrooms, it seems plausible that simi-lar processes of cultural representation may be atwork in other foreign language (FL) and secondlanguage (L2) settings, regardless of target lan-guage (TL), wherever intermediate-to-advancedstudents discuss cultural issues with their class-mates and teachers.2

CULTURAL REPRESENTATIONIN LANGUAGE EDUCATION

“Culture” in language education has often beenunthinkingly conflated with “nation” (for discus-sion, see Risager, 2007). However, the sharedpractices and perspectives that constitute culturalparticipation can be rooted in regional, ethnic,and religious affiliations—or in membership insubcultural groups that are defined by their prac-tices (e.g., surfers, hip-hop fans, applied lin-guists). To clarify this point, Holliday (1999)made a distinction between what he called “bigcultures”—large, essentialized, abstract groupingsof people, such as nations—and “small cultures,”which he defined as “any cohesive social group-ing” (p. 237), such as an extended family or a pro-fessional organization. In an age of globalization,even small cultural groups (and their associatedpractices and perspectives) may be transnationalin scope (McKay, 2002; Risager, 2007). Moreover,

it is important for language teachers to keep inmind (a) that groups of any size are heteroge-neous and sometimes conflicted, (b) that prac-tices and perspectives inevitably change over time,and (c) that individuals experience cultural par-ticipation subjectively, in accordance with theirsocial positioning (Kramsch, 1998).

In any case, as Risager (2007) pointed out, theinclusion of cultural content in language educa-tion necessarily involves the creation of culturalrepresentations, which “are built up in discourses,3

and . . . convey images or narratives of culture andsociety in particular contexts” (p. 180). Such im-ages may be attractive but trivial, such as the pop-ular view that French is the language of elegancein couture and cuisine . However, as Kubota (1999,2003) pointed out, the discourses that producethese images often arise within unequal power re-lations. For example, English language teachingoften has been connected to notions of progress,enlightenment, and economic opportunity, whichPennycook (1998) termed discourses of colonialism,as well as to newer processes of “McDonaldization”(U.S.-influenced world homogenization; Kumar-avadivelu, 2008, p. 39). Because of such discursiveassociations between the English language andpolitically powerful nations such as the UnitedStates and Great Britain, many learners considerthe language (and associated cultural practicesand perspectives) a significant threat to their localidentities (Canagarajah, 1999; Ryan, 1998, 2003).4

Moreover, the English language teaching pro-fession has been critiqued for constructingdiscursive representations of learners’ culturalidentities (Kubota, 1999; McKay & Wong, 1996)—for example, that Japanese students value “har-mony.” Several authors have described the prob-lems that arise when discourses of culturaldifference lead teachers in L2 settings to ask ado-lescents from immigrant families to explain thecustoms of “their countries,” which they left assmall children (Duff, 2002; Harklau, 1999; Talmy,2004). However, although discourses may be im-posed on learners from above, they also consti-tute semiotic resources for identity construction(Blommaert, 2005; van Lier, 2004), which learn-ers can appropriate and turn to their own ends(Ibrahim, 1999; McKay & Wong). As well as find-ing ways to (counter)represent their own culturalidentities, learners and teachers can employ dis-cursive resources to construct representations ofTL-related cultures—for example, that people inthe United States and Britain are “slaves of sex,money, and alcohol” (Sellami, 2006). Construct-ing such representations offers learners a sense

32 The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009)

of cultural agency, but in actual encounters withother cultural groups, such simplistic views willnot get them beyond using “their own culturalsystem to interpret . . . messages whose intendedmeaning may well be predicated on quite differ-ent cultural assumptions” (Cortazzi & Jin, 1999,p. 197).

Thus, cultural pedagogies in language teach-ing must be seen in transnational perspective(Risager, 2007), situated within “the relationshipsbetween different societies and the effect of theserelationships on repertoires of language users andtheir potential to construct voice” (Blommaert,2005, p. 15). Given the complexity of these re-lationships and given that teaching materialsand activities necessarily “function as a form ofcultural politics by inclusion (or exclusion) ofaspects of social, economic, political, or culturalreality” (Cortazzi & Jin, 1999, p. 200), how shouldlanguage teachers engage cultural issues in theclassroom?

First, many authors have recommended thatteachers and students problematize cultural rep-resentations. Kubota (1999) advocated a “criticalmulticulturalism” that views culture “as a site ofpolitical and ideological struggles over meaning”(p. 30). Similarly, Harklau (1999) argued for prob-lematizing cultural content in order to “facilitatestudents’ explorations . . . of culture from theirown varied individual backgrounds” (p. 126).Whereas some teachers avoid cultural topics, infear of privileging one culture over another (Duff& Uchida, 1997), or fall back on safe topics like“daily life and routines, traditions, folklore andtourist attractions” (Sercu, 2006, p. 62), studentswill not “develop into multilingually and multi-culturally aware world citizens” (Risager, 2007,p. 1; cf. Kumaravadivelu, 2008) unless they haveopportunities to explore a variety of cultural rep-resentations and perspectives, some of which willnecessarily be conflictual.

Second, many authors have emphasized theimportance of dialogue on these issues (e.g.,Guilherme, 2002; Luk & Lin, 2007). Suchdialogue occurs when “speakers of differentlanguages . . . struggle to keep the channels ofcommunication open in spite or because of theideological differences they recognize and main-tain between them” (Kramsch, 1993, p. 23). Thegoal is “not only to exchange words with peo-ple who speak that language but actually to un-derstand what they mean” (p. 34) and, further-more, to be able to negotiate conflicts with peoplefrom other cultural communities (Zarate, 1997).Because personal representatives of TL cultures

are not always available, dialogue can also occuraround texts containing culturally divergent view-points (Kramsch, 1993).

Third, a number of recent authors have stressedthe importance of dialogue for teaching not justcultural knowledge but interculturality, which in-volves attitudes of curiosity and openness, skills ininterpretation and mediation, and a critical aware-ness of conflicting perspectives (Byram, 1997). Ac-cording to McKay (2002), a key use of English asan international language is “to allow speakers totell others about their ideas and culture” (p. 12).Thus, EFL/ESL teachers may use language ma-terials reflecting local realities or provide spaceto discuss local topics (Cortazzi & Jin, 1999; Luk& Lin, 2007). However, learners may also needto consider materials from other groups in or-der to identify their own cultural resources. Thisprocess can be seen in a study in which a U.S.EFL teacher in Mexico was observed drawing onthe students’ “knowledge about Latin Americanfolk music while at the same time contrasting mu-sic customs in Mexico with those in the UnitedStates” (Ryan, 1998, p. 143).

Thus, a number of pedagogical works haverecommended problematizing cultural con-tent, through dialogue between teachers, stu-dents, and texts, with the goal of developinginterculturality—the ability to see cultural issuesfrom multiple perspectives. However, studies ofNorth American classrooms have observed teach-ers imposing cultural representations on students,who responded with resistance (Duff, 2002; Hark-lau, 1999; Talmy, 2004), whereas studies in Mexicoand Sri Lanka found local teachers and stu-dents alienated by TL-related cultural content(Canagarajah, 1999; Ryan, 1998, 2003). AlthoughEuropean surveys of FL teachers have not uncov-ered the same deep-seated resistance, they havenoted consistently that most teachers lack thetime and confidence to teach cultural themes indepth and instead focus on narrowly linguistic is-sues (e.g., Castro, Sercu, & Mendez Garcıa, 2004;Sercu, 2006). Similarly, a recent Hong Kong studyof “cross-cultural encounters” between “native-English teachers” and local students found thattypical classroom activities “required students toparticipate with only their institutional identi-ties” (Luk & Lin, 2007, p. 196)—for example,reading questions and answers out of textbooks.These challenges index the need for attention tohow language teachers and students nonethelessmanage jointly to construct and contest culturalrepresentations, even in classes largely focused onlanguage skills.


METHODOLOGY

This article comes out of a larger qualitativestudy that was conducted at a small universityin northern Chile and at several adult ESL pro-grams in northern California between 2004 and2006. This research involved multiple interpre-tive case studies of English teachers and theircultural pedagogies in both educational contexts.As Faltis (1997) wrote, “interpretive case studiesin language and education are analytical descrip-tions that illustrate, support or challenge exist-ing theoretical assumptions about teaching andlearning” (p. 146). For this article, I illustrate theintersection of teaching and learning in the co-construction of cultural representations in six lan-guage classrooms.

Data Collection

The data for this article come primarily fromaudiotaped classroom observations and secon-darily from interviews with 3 Chilean universityEFL teachers and 3 California community col-lege ESL instructors.5 As Watson-Gegeo (1997)noted, researchers have long recognized “theimportant role that . . . classrooms play in cul-tural . . . socialization processes” (p. 135). Forexample, Wortham (2001) studied teachers’ class-room narrative representations of student iden-tities, and Luk and Lin (2007) examined cross-cultural events in Hong Kong English classrooms.

For this study, I spent 8 hours in each class-room over several weeks, focusing on how theteachers talked about cultural issues. I took de-tailed notes while observing and expanded theminto full ethnographic field notes immediately af-ter each observation (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). I

TABLE 1Chilean Participant Teachers

Genaro Paloma Adan

Approximate Age Fifties Fifties ThirtiesEducation Doctorate in MATESOL degree In-progress Masters in

Education (U.S.) (U.S.) Teaching English (Chile)

Dates Observed 6/25/05; 7/2/05; 6/21/05; 6/28/05; 6/22/05; 6/28/05;(Total of 8 hours per 7/9/05; 8/20/05 7/5/05; 7/7/05; 7/1/05; 7/5/05;teacher) 7/12/05; 7/14/05; 7/8/05

7/26/05

Dates Interviewed 7/12/05; 7/26/05 7/6/05; 7/29/05 7/4/05; 7/27/05(Total of 3 hours perteacher)

Note. All names are pseudonyms.

transcribed the classroom observation audiotapesselectively, following my thematic coding of thefield notes (see Data Analysis section). I inter-viewed each observed instructor twice. The firstinterviews covered their history of FL study anduse, their experiences as English teachers, theircross-cultural experiences, and their perspectiveson culture in language teaching. In the secondinterviews, I shared my field notes with them, inorder to learn their views on the cultural issues Ihad observed in their classes. The interviews lastedapproximately 1.5 hours; all were audiotaped andtranscribed.

Because I assumed that the students’ greaterlinguistic competence in intermediate to ad-vanced classes than in beginning classes wouldallow more discussion of cultural topics, I lookedfor teachers at that level who were willing tobe observed and interviewed. Through personalcontacts, I recruited California participants at sev-eral adult ESL programs. The California partic-ipants described in this article were all born inthe United States and were teaching intermediateto advanced skills-based community college ESLclasses at the time of the research. The Chileanparticipants were teaching intermediate to ad-vanced general English courses in a teacher ed-ucation department of a small university, wheremy research was arranged by the U.S./Chile Bi-national Fulbright Commission. All were born inChile. Both U.S. and Chilean participants wereaware of my interest in teachers’ cultural identi-ties and pedagogies.

Tables 1 and 2 offer information about (a) thebackgrounds of the participating teachers, (b) myobservations, and (c) my interviews with them.Details about the courses they taught are given inthe Findings section.


TABLE 2U.S. Participant Teachers

Eric Melinda Susanna

Approximate Age Thirties Fifties FortiesEducation MATESOL degree MATESOL degree MATESOL degree

(U.S.) (U.S.) (U.S.)

Dates Observed 2/6/06; 2/13/06; 10/12/05; 10/21/05; 9/12/05; 9/14/05;(Total of 8 hours per 2/27/06; 3/6/06 11/4/05; 11/18/05 9/23/05; 9/26/05;teacher) 9/30/05; 10/3/05

Dates Interviewed 3/24/06; 3/31/06 11/9/05; 11/30/05 9/23/05; 11/21/05(Total of 3 hours perteacher)

Note. All names are pseudonyms.

All 6 teachers were of primarily European de-scent, and they had all lived abroad for periodsranging from a few months to 20 years. These fac-tors, as well as their common educational back-grounds and professional experiences, gave thema fair amount in common with each other, as wellas with the researcher. Although I observed theteachers in two national contexts, I did not ob-serve great diversity in teaching practice; othereducators may have contrasting ways of handlingcultural pedagogy. All observed teachers in thepresent study were skilled and experienced, alloccasionally made space for wide-ranging discus-sions, and all found the need at times to curtaildialogue in order to pursue other pedagogicalgoals. In the classroom interactions selected forthis article, I am not comparing the effective-ness of particular teachers. If some interactionsunfold more smoothly than others, it is not be-cause I intended to judge certain teachers as moresuccessful.

One limitation of this study is that I did notinterview the students to get their perspectiveson the observed interactions. From the begin-ning of this study, I intended to concentrate onteacher perspectives on cultural pedagogies. It wasonly after significant data analysis (more than ayear after the classes were observed) that I be-gan to realize how much the students shapedthe cultural representations being constructed inthe classrooms. In writing up the larger study,I concentrated on the teacher perspectives, asinitially planned (Menard-Warwick, in press a,in press b). However, in this article, I exam-ine the joint construction of cultural representa-tions. Although I include the teacher perspectiveson what was happening in the interactions, forthe present study I focus my analysis on the ob-served interactions rather than on the teachers’commentaries.

Data Analysis

In order to avoid anecdotal, impressionisticaccounts of classroom events in qualitative re-search, comprehensive data analysis of the entireset of observed classroom interactions is necessary(Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Faltis, 1997; Watson-Gegeo, 1997). Therefore, I conducted a thematicanalysis of the interview transcripts and classroomfield notes (Boyatzis, 1998), coding data segmentsthat exemplified particular patterns; for example,codes for prevalent topics in my study included“politics” and “gender.” I also coded the class-room data for the source of knowledge about top-ics discussed—that is, “text” or “student” (i.e., astudent’s background knowledge). These codeswere based on themes “at the manifest level (di-rectly observable in the information)” (Boyatzis,1998, p. 4).

However, given that people often talk aboutcultural themes without explicitly labeling themas “cultural,” I also coded themes that were “atthe latent level (underlying the phenomenon)”(Boyatzis, 1998, p. 4). I began by coding data ashaving cultural content when it concerned prac-tices, perspectives, and resulting products (e.g.,works of art) that are shared among groups ofpeople (Phillips, 2003). For example, in the datafrom Paloma’s class (see Excerpt 3), the filmBowling for Columbine (Moore, 2002) is a culturalproduct that exemplifies practices that a studentperceived as typical of the United States. Thus,this discussion was coded as having cultural con-tent. I then coded cultural data for approachestoward culture taken by the participants. Of thevarious approaches I identified while coding,6 theprincipal approaches discussed in this article arecultural change, cultural adaptation, cultural com-parison, and cultural values. I chose to focus onthese particular approaches in order to illustrate


TABLE 3Approaches to Cultural Pedagogy

Approach Definition Context(s)

Cultural Change Discussion of how contemporary practices, Chileproducts, and perspectives differ from thoseof the past

Cultural Adaptation Discussion of the changes that individuals Californiaundergo as they adjust to new contexts

Cultural Comparison Discussion of the ways that practices, Chile, Californiaperspectives, and products of one groupdiffer from or are similar to those of anothergroup

Cultural Values Discussion of what particular groups (e.g., Chile, Californianations) believe or should believe aboutwhat is right and wrong, good and bad,valuable or worthless

similarities and differences between the two con-texts, as well as prevalent patterns of tension. InTable 3, I define these approaches and note thecontext in which they were prevalent.

In order to select data for this article, I codedthe interactions from each classroom that ex-hibited tension (i.e., misunderstandings or dis-agreements between teacher and student[s], orbetween student[s] and the TL-associated cul-ture),7 on the premise that observable tensionin classroom interactions often indexes under-lying discursive faultlines (Kramsch, 1993). Ofthe interactions coded for tension, I selected oneper teacher to illustrate the range of cultural ap-proaches that I had decided to compare (seeTable 3). I then transcribed the selected inter-actions from the audiotapes to ensure that I usedthe participants’ exact words.

FINDINGS

In this section, I present six classroom inter-actions, taken from audiotaped classroom obser-vation transcripts.8 Although I reference the dis-courses that the participants seemed to be using toconstruct cultural representations (Kubota, 1999;McKay & Wong, 1996; Pennycook, 1998; Risager,2007), this is not a fine-grained discourse analysis(for an in-depth discursive look at some Chileanteacher narratives, see Menard-Warwick, inpress b). For information on the transcriptionconventions used, see Table 4.

The interactions are presented in pairs—first aChilean interaction and then a U.S. interaction—juxtaposed for purposes of comparison. Aftereach pair, I present an analysis of the two inter-actions. In the U.S. segments, I mention eitherstudent nationalities, if known, or the region ofthe world from which they came, in order to givean idea of the global diversity of the interactions.9

TABLE 4Transcription Conventions

[. . .] Text omitted[text] Paraphrase or author’s note. . . Trailing intonationItalics Emphasis( ) Transcriptionist doubt(( )) Comment on voice quality or

paralinguistic features (e.g.,laughter, gestures)

All but one of the students in the Chilean seg-ments were Chilean, so I only note nationality forthat one student. All names are pseudonyms. Al-though the students quoted in the interactionstended to speak often in class (many students saidlittle), all of the images of particular cultures andcultural issues that appear in these discussionswere constructed from contributions by multipleparticipants; no matter who had the last word, thecontradictions remained.

Comparing Representations of CulturalTransformation and Adaptation

The first interaction in this subsection illus-trates a typical debate about cultural change inChile (specifically, regarding gender roles); thesecond interaction, in the U.S. classroom, showsmultiple perspectives on the relationship betweenan immigrant father and his son and thus demon-strates differences in immigrant students’ viewson adapting to life in a new country.

Excerpt 1, Gender Differences: Genaro’s Class,Chile, July 9, 2005. Genaro led a professionaldevelopment class designed to help practicingChilean English teachers improve their commu-nication skills in the language. Of 13 students,


ranging in age from perhaps 25 to 65 years, only2 were men. In this lesson, Genaro played a com-mercially produced (British) ESL audiotape ongender differences in mathematical performanceand then asked the class for other gender differ-ences they had noticed. In Excerpt 1, one of theyounger teachers, Tania, began by arguing thatwomen were better at multitasking than men; anolder man, Marco, disagreed:

Marco: Since 10 years ago, I think the situa-1tion has changed, maybe. Now men2are looking after the children very3very well, they are cooking very very4well. [. . .] And now women are more5conservative . . . [. . .]6

Tania: I disagree. There is an image that7men are cooking and cleaning but in8spite of the fact they say that, there9are some of them that take care of10children, there are some who like to11help in cooking, some . An image.12

[After several more turns of argument, and13considerable laughter, Genaro called on Re-14nate, a woman in her fifties.]15

Renate: I should say that women, we as16women (are blamed for the produc-17tion of this chauvinism). Because we18raise our boys traditionally in that19way. [. . .] The girls are supposed to20help their mother at home and the21boys [. . .] are supposed to . . . [. . .]22play football, yeah, or take care of23the garden. [. . .] I have tried to24change this with my son [. . .] Be-25cause as Marco said, times change26today. And . . . maybe 100 years ago,2750 years ago men were the support-28ers . . . [. . .] of the house , you know,29and women were supposed to be at30home, supporting the children, and31do the cooking and do cleaning and32everything, but now with just one33wage, a family cannot live . [. . .]They34have to work both of them . . . [. . .]35and that’s why both of them have36to help in the house and with the37children, and that’s why we have to38change our concept of life now.39

Genaro: All right. The goals and concepts40are changing because society itself41has changed a lot.42

Excerpt 2, Immigrant “Illiteracy,” Eric’s Class,California, February 13, 2006. Eric taught anadvanced ESL reading class at a suburban com-munity college, attended by adult immigrants, themajority of whom were women under the age of40. Most of the students were Eastern European,but some came from Latin America and SouthAsia. The students who participate in the discus-sion in Excerpt 2 include Saul, a middle-aged Mex-ican man, Gabriel, a young Armenian man, andStefania, a middle-aged woman from Eastern Eu-rope. The class was discussing a textbook readingabout a son’s relationship with his “illiterate” fa-ther (Lopez, 1995), and Eric asked why the authorwould have written this essay.

Saul: I think he try to show some situa-43tion about the . . . many immigrants44come to the U.S., and they are illit-45erate in Mexico, and they have to46try to a better life right here.47

Eric: So it’s about Mexicans? And immi-48grants? How about, let me ask you49a question. How many liked this50story? ((A number of hands went51up)). Most people liked this story.52And how many people are from53Mexico? Only two of you. [. . .] An-54other question. How many of you55had il literate parents? ((No hands56went up)).57

Saul: [. . .] [My father] went to work in58the U.S. and he had many partners,59who never write, I mean he had to60do letters for them to their family,61he had to read letters from their62family . . .63

Eric: So from your experience, you are64familiar with this situation but for65the rest of us, we’re not Mexican,66our parents weren’t illiterate but we67like this story, so why do we like this68story? [. . .]69

Gabriel: Father–son relationship. [. . .]70Maybe there was something else,71that the father should know some-72thing, that he don’t know, that we73are the one knowing. It doesn’t74have to be writing or reading. [. . .]75

Eric: Ahh, this question of . . . the father76being illiterate . . . that’s just an ex-77ample! [. . .] We are all children78and we all have expectations about79our parents, and often our parents80


do not meet our expectations. [. . .]81This is a very specific story, a very82specific example, but we all like it,83we connect to it, it has a universal84feeling.85

Stefania: Probably we don’t have a problem86with illiterate but when we coming87here, we know how write and read,88but we don’t know nothing about89English, so it is like being illiterate.90

Gabriel: ((sotto voce)) Who says we don’t91know nothing about English?92

In both Excerpts 1 and 2, the issue of change,whether societal or individual, was introducedby the students, not by the teacher. Indeed, inthe follow-up interview with each instructor, bothteachers stated that they had met other pedagogi-cal goals through the interaction. Genaro felt thatdiscussing a controversial issue was a good way tomake the students speak freely, without worryingabout their grammar. This spontaneity was an im-portant goal for the class because the studentsthemselves taught English grammar rules 5 daysa week. Eric, as a reading teacher, wanted his stu-dents to see that the text was about issues deeperthan what appeared on the surface. Thus, he wasdelighted when Gabriel (70–75) suggested thatthe story was about parental inadequacy ratherthan literacy or immigration.

Nevertheless, when the students connected theaudio recording in Genaro’s class or the readingpassage in Eric’s class to their own lives, theirpriority became representing their own experi-ences accurately. In order to do so, the Chileansdrew on current gender discourses: Marco (1–6)wanted the women in the class to acknowledgethat men have become more involved in house-work; Tania (7–12) refused to concede the point;then Renate (16–39) presented a more nuancedanalysis in which she suggested that, due to eco-nomic changes in society, both women and menhave needed to change their gendered practices.When Genaro (40–42) summarized, he seized onthe only point that most people seemed to agreeon: “Society itself has changed a lot.” In this dis-cussion about Chile, the national culture was rep-resented as torn between different groups: menversus women, traditional versus nontraditionalthinkers.

Eric, in his California class, played a more ac-tive role in the interaction than Genaro did inthe Chilean class. Specifically, he tried to steerthe conversation away from the problems ofimmigrants because he wanted to reach a deeper

level of abstraction. Drawing on a traditional liter-ary discourse of universal themes (76–85), he en-couraged Gabriel’s response (70–75) over Saul’s(43–47). In so doing, however, he implied that ev-eryone in the class should identify with the sonrather than with the father in the story. As he saysin lines (78–79), “We are all children.” Stefania,who had grown children of her own (Eric was sin-gle and comparatively young), came up with analternate analysis (86–90), in which illiteracy be-came a metaphor for all the ways that adult immi-grants find their previous knowledge inadequate,an analysis with which Gabriel (also young andsingle) refused to identify (91–92).

In both classes, talk of transformations in fam-ily relationships triggered discursive faultlines, asstudents with different social positions (men vs.women, parents vs. adult children) drew on dif-ferent discourses to represent the changes fromtheir own viewpoints. However, the Chileans hadall lived in the same society during the time whenthe changes had taken place, whereas many of theCalifornian students were immigrants who hadrecently arrived from other countries. These stu-dents were facing the very individual process ofadjusting to life in a new country, a process thatGenaro’s students had not experienced.10

Comparing Representations of Differences BetweenNations

In Excerpt 3, the Chilean students discuss prob-lems with classroom violence in their own coun-try, but then they begin sharing what they haveheard in the media about gun violence in theUnited States. Their teacher offers them a morecomplex view of U.S. “gun culture” before lead-ing them back to the official topic of discussion.In Excerpt 4, one student tries to introduce into adiscussion about homelessness her personal expe-riences with homeless people both in Californiaand in her country. However, her comments arejudged as incorrect or irrelevant, and the teacherpoints out a passage in the textbook that contra-dicts her views.

Excerpt 3, Classroom Violence, Paloma’s Class,Chile, July 26, 2005. Paloma taught an ad-vanced English class for fifth-year undergraduatestudents. Of the approximately 20 students in at-tendance, the majority were female and in theirtwenties, and all but one were Chilean, the excep-tion being Ming, a young man from Taiwan. Allof the students were prospective English teach-ers at the end of their last semester of Englishinstruction before entering the workforce. In thislesson they were in pairs discussing how to prevent


classroom violence. In Excerpt 3, when Palomaasked the students to report back to the class, Elizasummarized her partner’s comments:

Eliza: He was telling me about . . . on93the TV it said there are students,94young students who bring those95type of [. . .] weapons, although96they are an exception, I mean they97are not like in the States [. . .]98

[Paloma reminded the class that they had99discussed this topic last month.]100

Paloma: I remember we said that not all101kids do that in the States, but102many do. But why is it that many103do in the States?104

Ming: They (perceive) that somebody105just bothers them, you know, and106they feel kind of unfair [. . .] and107maybe they ask the teacher to help108them, and then they believe the109teacher didn’t help them, and so110they just find the final solution.111[. . .]112

Eliza: I don’t know about this, but Ce-113sar was telling me, in the States114you can find stores where they sell115guns.116

Paloma: Stores! That’s what we said last117month. That’s exactly the . . .118access to buying, the access to buy-119ing! And many argue against that120in the States, so I don’t want you121to think that’s the culture of every-122body, you know, supporting guns.123[. . .]124

Cristobal: If you go to Canada there is also125availability of guns [. . .] but peo-126ple they do not kill each other.127(Michael Moore) went around128opening doors of people’s houses129and nobody . . . And if he did that130in the States maybe he would be131shot. [. . .]132

Paloma: Excellent point, excellent point,133because if you have two neigh-134boring countries that have ac-135cess to guns, and you have one136that reacts violently, you wonder137what’s behind that. Then you have138to go back and study the cul-139ture, and how they arrived in140

the United States . . . You know,141there’s a whole history there to un-142derstand the violence.143

Excerpt 4, Homelessness, Melinda’s Class, Califor-nia, November 4, 2005. Melinda taught an inter-mediate ESL reading class at a suburban commu-nity college. The class was attended by about 30adult immigrants, and there were approximatelyequal numbers of men and women, who camefrom Eastern Europe, East and Southeast Asia,the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. InExcerpt 4, the students who participate most ac-tively are Sabah, a young woman from Africa,and Pavel, a young man from Eastern Europe.The class had been reading an ESL adaptation ofJohn Grisham’s novel The Street Lawyer (2001). Inthis lesson they were creating a group outline onhomelessness (an important theme in the novel),classifying statements as problems or solutions. Asone way of alleviating the problems of homeless-ness (i.e., one “solution”), a student suggested giv-ing toys to children. Sabah disagreed:

Sabah: It’s not necessary, toys, yeah?144

Pavel: Toys? You know, for children.145

Melinda: You don’t think they’re necessary?146[. . .] That’s another controversial147subject we could talk about. But I148believe toys are the way that chil-149dren learn, and if they don’t have150toys then some of their learning suf-151fers.152

Sabah: But when I saw homeless, not poor153children, I saw old women or men.154[. . .]155

Melinda: In The Street Lawyer were there156homeless children?157

Students: Yes!158

Melinda: Where did the people go with their159homeless children?160

Sabah: (But no on the street . . . )161

Pavel: Shelter!162

Melinda: To the shelter! Do you think home-163less children will stand on the street164and ask for money?165

Students: No. Maybe.166

Sabah: In my country.167

Pavel: Sometimes.168

Melinda: Sometimes. Sometimes.169


[During several more turns in which stu-170dents brainstorm problems and solutions, “liv-171ing in cars” is presented as part of the prob-172lem.]173

Sabah: But homeless have cars? I don’t174think so.175

Pavel: Old cars, maybe. [. . .]176

Melinda: Do you think homeless people have177cars? Sabah is surprised by that.178

Sabah: If you have a car you are rich!!!179

Student: Old car.180

Pavel: Rich, no. ((Students laughing))181

Melinda: Maybe if you have a car you182are rich? ((Students laughing)). In183[this area]?184

Sabah: You might sleep in the street!185

Melinda: Almost everybody has a car.186

Pavel: $(900), they are cheap.187

Melinda: Let’s go back to The Street Lawyer .188Can you find the place in the book189that talks about Lante and her chil-190dren [a homeless family]?191

Again, in Excerpts 3 and 4, discursive fault-lines became apparent as the students introducedtheir ideas about a topic under discussion that wasbased on sources outside the classroom. In theChilean class, the information came from mediareports about the United States, and in the Cal-ifornia class, the students’ ideas about the topicarose from her personal observations. Neitherteacher had a goal of making cultural compar-isons: Paloma wanted her students to focus onviolence prevention strategies, and Melinda wasteaching textual organization.

In Paloma’s class, the tension existed betweenthe participants and the TL culture. Althoughthe official topic was violence in Chilean schools,Paloma was willing to entertain the topic of U.S.gun violence when Eliza introduced it (96–98).Although her students used a common interna-tional discourse about U.S. violence throughoutthe excerpt, Paloma took the opportunity to steerher students away from seeing the United Statesas a homogeneous collection of “gun nuts” (117–124). Nevertheless, in an interview, she said shepursued this topic with her students because “ifthere is anything that I can say, not favorable, forthe U.S., at this point would be this war.” Thus, itwas her concern about the Iraq war that led her

to speak against U.S. violence, although it was notthe lesson topic.

However, in Melinda’s class, the primary ten-sion resided between Sabah and the textbook’sfictional representation of homelessness in theUnited States (Grisham, 2001). Melinda did nottake advantage of the opportunity to comparepoverty in the United States with poverty inother countries. She did not do so, first, be-cause Sabah, in Melinda’s opinion, often spokewithout thinking and, second, Sabah’s specificremarks (in lines 153–155 that she had neverseen homeless children in the United States,and in line 174 that homeless people do notown cars) appeared to indicate that she hadnot done her reading homework, which wasan account of a homeless mother and herchildren living (and dying) in their car. (It isalso possible that Sabah had read the text butdid not believe that it represented reality.) Thus,Melinda’s priority was to correct Sabah’s assump-tions rather than to explore the larger ques-tion Sabah was raising about differences betweenpoverty in California and in her homeland. As aneducator, I recognize that the lesson was focusedon textual organization, but as a researcher, I can-not help noting the missed opportunity for inter-cultural understanding.

Comparing Representations of Cultural Values

In both Excerpts 5 and 6, the studentsand teachers discuss political issues (which arenonetheless cultural, in that they concern sharedperspectives): the consequences of economicgrowth in Chile and whether the U.S. educationalsystem really provides opportunity for all. In bothinteractions, the students are on task, discussingquestions posed by the teacher, but in both class-rooms, the students’ different positionings inrelation to controversial issues bring a certainvolatility.

Excerpt 5, Natural Resources Versus Human Val-ues, Adan’s Class, Chile, July 8, 2005. Adan taughta high-intermediate general English class forfourth-year undergraduate students preparing tobecome English teachers. There were about 20students in his class, all Chilean and mostly in theirtwenties, with about equal numbers of women andmen. They had read an article from an ESL text-book about affluence and waste in the UnitedStates (Datesman, Crandall, & Kearny, 1997), af-ter which they discussed the opinion questionsat the end of the article. The first question waswhether natural resources or human values weremore important for economic growth:


Guillermo: I think the economic growth is192related to capitalism, because no193important the value of the peo-194ple [. . .] the only point is to make195people produce and produce and196produce and produce. [. . .]197

Luisa: On the other hand, if you have198a natural resource, and if it’s ex-199ploited in a good way? [. . .] It has200advantage, for instance it . . . a nat-201ural resource has to . . . it brings202opportunity to have, to pay bet-203ter . . . jobs? [. . .]204

Adan: It’s a good thing, right? [. . .] Now,205what about our country. Do you206think that we are having here in207Chile a sort of balanced economic208growth?209

Luisa: No. Because for example, copper?210[. . .] Copper is sold to other coun-211tries, natural resources is not well212developed in Chile, and it is the213most important natural resource214that we have.215

Adan: Yes, it’s like the most important216source of income. In the coun-217try. That’s true. OK, any other218opinions of Chile? Our economic219growth?220

Celina: In the case of the amount of money221that people earn, there is a group222that earns a lot of money and the223rest of the people earn less, and224the difference is . . . (big)?225

[Several turns in which people agree with226Celina about economic inequities; Adan then227brings up environmental concerns.]228

Adan: I don’t know, this country is pro-229ducing and producing and pro-230ducing a lot of income and in-231come, but I am not sure that those232resources will last forever if we233look at the way in which things234are being exploited, right? [. . .]235Every day in the news, or every236month we have new figures of the237economic growth that Chile is liv-238ing, as you said, it is mostly based239on capitalist strategies. Which I240think is not wrong but everything241has to be sustainable, balanced.242There must be balance between243both things. Hmm?244

Excerpt 6, Education and Discrimination, Su-sanna’s Class, California, September 21, 2005. Su-sanna taught an advanced ESL reading class atan urban community college. The class was at-tended by about 30 adult immigrants, the major-ity of whom were women under 40 years of age.The students came from Eastern Europe, East andSoutheast Asia, the Middle East, and Latin Amer-ica. Of the students who participate in Excerpt 6,Veronica is a young woman from Mexico, Hassanis a young Afghan man, Yakov is a middle-agedman from Eastern Europe, and Anet is a youngwoman from Armenia. They had read several arti-cles on the topic of education and had been askedto discuss related questions in small groups. As thegroups reported to the class, Susanna found thateveryone had agreed on the first question: thatall children had a right to an education. Whenshe asked for reasons to support this argument,Hassan argued that education would reduce dis-crimination. Veronica disagreed:

Veronica: You know in Texas (they) [. . .]245made a law to deny education to dif-246ferent people who come from an-247other place.11 (So all the educated248people didn’t stop this.)249

Susanna: OK, so Veronica just made a point250that right now in Texas, is it the gov-251ernor that’s doing this? [. . .] And is252it against illegal immigrants? [. . .]253Yeah, that’s what I thought. OK, so254he’s making a law that says that ed-255ucation in the United States should256not be available to illegal immi-257grants. [. . .] Any idea what his rea-258soning would be? [. . .]259

Hassan: To get the vote and the support of260the people that they are against im-261migrants.262

Susanna: OK, so maybe he’s doing it for po-263litical reasons [. . .] What kind of264logical argument can the governor265use?266

Yakov: Maybe some reason that . . . because267the government wants to help poor268immigrants with law that (they be)269legal. [. . .]270

Susanna: Right. [. . .] I am sure the governor271is using the argument that “Hey,272they are not here legally, so why273should they benefit?”274

Veronica: [. . .]. But children doesn’t have a275fault (that the parents come) . . .276


Susanna: So it’s not the child’s fault that277the parents came here illegally.278So that’s a good counterargument.279[. . .] Are there any other ways you280could respond?281

Hassan: Yeah! There is a United Nations282human rights declaration that says283that every children has the right284of education, it doesn’t matter if285they are illegal or legal [. . .] And286America is one of 10 countries that287signed that declaration.288

Susanna: OK! And I think that’s a very good289argument also.290

Anet: And I think some of the countries,291children they don’t have opportu-292nity to go to school but America, it293provides more opportunity for chil-294dren to go to school. [. . .] Because295I wanted to get a good education296there but it was too expensive, and297I didn’t have more opportunity. But298here the government helps you to299get to your goal. [. . .]300

Susanna: OK, so that is a great strength of the301United States.302

In the two events in these excerpts, there wascomparatively little tension between the teach-ers’ goals for the lesson and the issues underdiscussion: The tension lay in the juxtaposi-tion of competing discourses (e.g., capitalist vs.anticapitalist). Adan told me when I interviewedhim that he was concerned about Guillermo’s cri-tique of capitalism (192–197):

The fact that they’re all going to be teachers of English[. . .] they shouldn’t feel this rejection towards the cap-italist world [. . .] I mean they should feel, not iden-tified with the American culture, but they should befriendly [. . .] towards the values of the American cul-ture. (For further discussion of this issue, see Menard-Warwick, in press b.)

Thus Adan, in line 205, supported the pro-growthstance that Luisa had taken in lines 198–204. Thisreasoning also may explain why he based his owncritique of the Chilean economy (229–244) onthe environmental issues from the U.S. textbook(Datesman et al., 1997) rather than on the finan-cial inequities raised by students.

Susanna, in contrast, was unconcerned aboutthe substance of her students’ opinions. As shetold me, “I usually don’t try to weigh in on oneside, I usually . . . try to play a little bit more of

the devil’s advocate, where I get them to thinkabout a lot of different things.” Thus, her re-sponse to controversy was somewhat similar toGenaro’s, but like Adan, her summation of thediscussion at the end (301–302) avoided someof the trickier issues that had been raised. Justas Chile was represented in Genaro’s and Adan’sclasses as fraught with division, this discussion inSusanna’s class referenced a number of contro-versies in contemporary U.S. society. In this shortinteraction, discursive faultlines appeared repeat-edly: (a) in lines 245–266 between the students’agreed upon values and those of U.S. politicians;(b) in lines 267–270 between legal and illegal im-migrants; (c) in lines 275–276 between undoc-umented immigrant children and their parents;(d) in lines 282–288 between the values of theUnited States and of the United Nations; and, fi-nally, (e) in lines 291–300 between students ableand unable to take advantage of U.S. opportu-nities. None of these controversies was resolved,although Susanna let Anet’s comment about ed-ucational opportunity stand as the last word. Theresulting representation of the U.S. educationalsystem juxtaposed many of the most prevalent andcontradictory discourses in contemporary U.S.society.

DISCUSSION

In this section I review the answers to my re-search questions, specifically (a) the approachesthat were used in the ESL and EFL classrooms todiscuss culture and represent particular cultures,(b) the location of certain discursive faultlines inthe classes and the ways that teachers handledthem, and, finally, (c) the extent to which theobserved cultural pedagogies seemed to cultivateinterculturality. In addition, I relate these find-ings to questions of cultural pedagogy raised inthe literature.

One goal of this article was to illustrate therange of approaches to cultural representationused in these two teaching contexts. Thus, I (a)contrasted a discussion of cultural change in Chilewith a discussion about cultural adaptation in theUnited States, (b) juxtaposed two instances of cul-tural comparison between the United States andthe students’ own countries, and (c) paired dis-cussions of the cultural values inherent in certainpolitical controversies in the United States and inChile. I chose these interactions as examples ofclassroom tensions in order to explore the ideathat uncovering discursive faultlines (Kramsch,1993) is necessary for intercultural understand-ing to develop.


Although the literature has suggested that theEnglish language itself may be a source of discur-sive tension (e.g., Canagarajah, 1999), this was nota finding of this study. Tensions tended to arise (a)when students presented their own knowledge,which they had acquired from personal experi-ence or electronic media; (b) when the teachers’agendas differed from those of the students; or(c) when participants from different social posi-tions had different stakes in the issues under dis-cussion. Under these conditions of tension, theimages of particular cultures constructed in theclassroom were often based on contributions tothe discussion made by several different individu-als, each drawing from different discourses. Theythus tended to be convergent rather than coher-ent (Kramsch, 1998).

The cultural representations that the studentsand teachers constructed in these classrooms weregenerally of national cultures; the two nationalcultures that they tended to discuss at greatestlength, and with greatest heat, were Chile (inChile) and the United States (in both contexts).12

Thus, the Chilean classrooms were in line withcurrent pedagogical recommendations that learn-ers engage with their own culture as well as withthe target culture (e.g., McKay, 2002). In the Cal-ifornia classrooms, talk about the students’ owncultures was less common than in the Chileanclassrooms, and usually what the immigrant learn-ers had to say about their countries of originwas accepted respectfully but not dwelt on. Un-like the findings from other studies (Duff, 2002;Harklau, 1999; Talmy, 2004), in my observationsnone of the California teachers made much effortto ask the students in-depth questions about theircountries. There was some talk about other partsof the world: Melinda’s students discussed thecollege fair, which featured student-created ex-hibits about their homelands; Eric’s students reada book that took place in England; Paloma’s classdebated the causes of the current London sub-way bombings; and a textbook in Adan’s class hadsome information about tourism in Europe.

It was in the classroom co-constructions oflife in the United States and in Chile, however,that discursive faultlines became most apparent.Moreover, both nations were represented as inter-nally divided rather than as homogeneous andconsensual—as, for example, when Tania andMarco argued about whether Chilean men dohousework (Excerpt 1, lines 1–12). Pictures of theUnited States were likewise convergent: The stu-dents saw it as a land of violence (Excerpt 3), dis-crimination (Excerpt 6), poverty (Excerpt 4), andopportunity (Excerpt 6). Whether or not it was

the goal of the teacher in a particular activity, im-ages of life in contemporary Chile and the UnitedStates were often problematized by students withdivergent viewpoints, an approach that Harklau(1999) and Kubota (1999) recommended. Onedifference between the two educational contextsin this regard was that the immigrants in Califor-nia had a chance to differentiate U.S. media im-ages from their own experiences, whereas the stu-dents in Chile had very little opportunity to makethese kinds of distinctions. However, although theChilean students could never be sure about thedifferences between U.S. media images and livedreality, they evaluated media images according totheir own values (Excerpt 3).

How were these classroom representations ofculture constructed? They were constructed frompersonal experiences, but also from discourses:commonly available ways of referring to andevaluating groups of people, nations, and issues(Kubota, 1999; McKay & Wong, 1996; Pennycook,1998). Multiple, contradictory discourses aresemiotic resources (Blommaert, 2005; van Lier,2004) available as raw materials for speakers touse in constructing their own cultural representa-tions. At times, all of the classes in this study cameto exemplify Kubota’s contention that cultureshould be seen as “a site of political and ideologi-cal struggles over meaning” (p. 30). The studentsnot only shared their own opinions, but problema-tized each others’ ideas—as when Veronica usedthe proposed Texas law to counter Hassan’s as-sertion that educated people were less likely todiscriminate (Excerpt 6, lines 245–249).

The teachers handled these cultural represen-tations in a variety of ways. Teaching culture wasnot a central curricular objective in any of theclasses, a fact that I knew when I began this project,and I am not now arguing that it should have been.As European FL survey research has pointed out(e.g., Sercu, 2006), it can be difficult to addressculture in language classes because there are al-ways other priorities and there is never enoughtime. It is perhaps for these reasons that the waysin which the teachers in the present study han-dled the emerging discursive faultlines tendedto depend on their agenda for the activity theywere conducting. For example, if speaking prac-tice was the goal, they were likely to accept what-ever the students said and encourage them tosay more. They also at times used their power asteachers to make short authoritative statements, asAdan did about capitalism and sustainability. Nev-ertheless, many students insisted on promotingtheir own views, as when Stefania refused to iden-tify with Eric’s “universal” interpretation of the


conflict between the father and son (Excerpt 2,lines 86–90). Thus, dialogue addressing culturalconflict certainly happened in these classes, but itwas not a top priority.

Although addressing cultural tensions throughdialogues like these may be essential for teach-ing intercultural competence, it may not be suffi-cient. Indeed, in the classrooms observed in thepresent study, it was difficult to perceive progresstoward the development of interculturality, thecomplex understanding of difference (Byram,1997; Kramsch, 2005). Too often, discussion ac-tivities left “the students in their native culturalmindsets and failed to engage them in makingsense of a reality other than their own” (Kramsch,1993, p. 27). The students often seemed moreconcerned with convincing others of the correct-ness of their own evaluations than with listen-ing to their classmates. Moreover, the teachers’desires for a collaborative atmosphere often ledthem to “paper over” differences before goingon to the next activity. Nevertheless, at least somestudents in each observed class were able toappropriate English for their own purposes, torepresent their own realities (Canagarajah, 1999).Whether these debates along cultural faultlineshelped anyone to understand realities other thantheir own or to see their own culture through theeyes of another (Kramsch, 2005) was harder todetermine.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONSFOR CULTURAL PEDAGOGIES

In the literature on appropriate cultural peda-gogies, three recommendations stand out: prob-lematizing cultural representations (Harklau,1999; Kubota, 1999, 2003), encouraging dialogue(Guilherme, 2002; Kramsch, 1993), and pro-moting interculturality (Byram, 1997; Kramsch,2005). In this section, I suggest ways to implementthese recommendations, based on what seemedto be effective or ineffective in the observedclasses. Although teaching culture is not top pri-ority for most language teachers (Sercu, 2006), Iwould argue that every lesson contains represen-tations of culture (Cortazzi & Jin, 1999). In somecircumstances (from extreme political unrest toadministrative pressure to cover grammar points),teachers may just need to ensure that representa-tions are noncontroversial. However, confrontingdifficult issues in class can help prepare learnersto use the TL in encounters with people fromother cultural groups.

My observations suggest that in classes in whichthere are outspoken students, teachers may not

have to problematize representations of culturesand cultural issues. It may be enough to leavespace for the students to do so, as Sabah did whenshe questioned whether homeless people couldafford cars (Excerpt 4, line 176). In such classes,the teacher’s role can be (a) to ask students toelaborate or provide evidence for their views, (b)to make sure students with unpopular viewpointsare heard, and (c) to find places for shy students toshare their ideas. However, in other contexts withmore reserved students, teachers may need to payattention to subtle cues of student discomfort orresistance in order to determine unresolved cul-tural tensions (Harklau, 1999). On noting areasof tension, teachers can then hold up certain as-pects of representations (e.g., assertions in texts)for particular scrutiny. Allowing written as well asoral answers, or at times encouraging students torespond in their first languages, can help thembegin to share ideas on these issues. As studentsbegin to point out contradictions between theirown experiences and the assertions of a text, theteacher, or their classmates, the teacher can high-light these contradictions, with the aim of helpingstudents to see all representations as partial andprovisional.

However, this process of problematizationneeds to go beyond simple critique to involvedialogue. For students to realize that their ownexperiences and opinions are valid but necessar-ily partial, it is important that discussions aroundcultural representations be more than occasionsfor speaking practice; they should also provideopportunities for listening and comprehending(Kramsch, 1993). Therefore, teachers should tryto ensure that learners respond to comments thatwere made previously in the class or in the text,rather than simply present preexisting views. Thiskind of responsiveness can be seen in Genaro’sclass when Renate brought in her personal experi-ences with gender issues (Excerpt 1, lines 16–39)in order to synthesize Marco’s and Tania’s con-tradictory statements about cultural change andcontinuity (1–12). Teachers can facilitate this typeof response by paraphrasing statements that havebeen made and by inviting comment, as when Su-sanna asked her students to speculate about themotivations behind the Texas law (Excerpt 6, lines256–259).

Such dialogue is essential to the developmentof interculturality. In confronting discriminatorylaws like the one mentioned by Veronica (Excerpt6, lines 245–249), immigrant students need notonly to understand why they are wrong in theeyes of the United Nations, as Hassan did (Ex-cerpt 6, lines 282–288), but also to comprehend


the political discourses underlying such laws, suchas (in the United States) “taxpayers’ rights” and“securing our borders.” Interculturality does notmean agreement; it means understanding, and itcan be essential to the development of respon-sive action. For example, Ming’s insights aboutU.S. schoolchildren who carry guns (Excerpt 3,lines 105–112) could help him find ways of han-dling the similar, although usually less deadly, sit-uations that arise in the Chilean schools where hewas soon to be a teacher.

Thus, my observations of these six classroomsin California and Chile suggest that many L2and FL students and teachers are finding nu-merous ways to question and reconstruct cul-tural representations as they enter into dialoguewith each other, with course texts, and with themedia. Although members of classroom commu-nities could achieve a greater degree of intercul-turality if they spent more time listening to eachother, the observations in the present study pro-vide concrete examples of how language learnersappropriate global discourses to their ownends (Canagarajah, 1999; Pennycook, 1998). Thisstudy shows that, despite unequal relationshipsbetween societies, many learners indeed findways to construct voices in their L2s (Blommaert,2005).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was funded by the U.S./Chile Bina-tional Fulbright Commission, and by a grant from theUniversity of California, Davis. I am deeply thankful toall the teachers who participated in this research.

NOTES

1In second language (L2) teaching, the language be-ing taught is widely used in the society in which thelearners currently reside, whereas in foreign language(FL) teaching, the language being taught has restricteduses in the society in which the learners live.

2Although qualitative case study research is not gen-eralizable in a statistical sense, “case study methods dopresent evidence for readers to make generalizationsbased on the particulars of the case. . . . Within the casethere are features and events that readers can find insimilar settings” (Faltis, 1997).

3Discourses may be defined as common ways of refer-ring to and evaluating particular topics.

4Other languages with colonial histories (e.g., Frenchor Japanese) undoubtedly pose similar cultural threatsto the identities of certain learners, but threats posed bylanguages other than English have not received muchattention in the literature.

5In my larger study, I also observed and interviewedtwo California adult school instructors. I interviewed,but did not observe, 15 other practicing or prospectiveChilean English teachers.

6Approaches that I observed, but will not discuss here,include nonevaluative description of practices or prod-ucts, discussion of students’ cultural identities, and dis-cussions of metacultural issues such as stereotyping.

7It was most common for the participants to referencenational cultures rather than subcultural groups.

8I have removed fillers (e.g., uhh), false starts, pauses,and most repetitions.

9I did not survey the students for their nationalities,but the nationalities were sometimes mentioned in theclassroom.

10Few of the students had even traveled to an English-speaking country.

11To the best of my knowledge, Veronica was not re-ferring to a current Texas law, but to one overturned bythe U.S. Supreme Court in 1982 (Tallman, 2005). Thislaw was in the news in 2005 because John Roberts, thena nominee for the Supreme Court, had supported theoverturned Texas law.

12In other teaching contexts, there will undoubtedlybe more focus on other English-speaking countries.

REFERENCES

Agar, M. (1994). Language shock: Understanding the cul-ture of conversation. New York: William Morrow.

Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse . Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative researchfor education: An introduction to theory and methods(3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative informa-tion: Thematic analysis and code development . Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Byram, M. (1997). The intercultural dimension in “lan-guage learning for European citizenship.” In M.Byram & G. Zarate (Eds.), The sociocultural and in-tercultural dimension of language learning and teach-ing (pp. 17–20). Strasbourg, France: Council ofEurope Publishing.

Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperial-ism in English teaching . Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Castro, P., Sercu, L., & Mendez Garcıa, M. C. (2004).Integrating language-and-culture teaching: An in-vestigation of Spanish teachers’ perceptions of theobjectives of foreign language education. Intercul-tural Education, 15, 91–104.

Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1999). Cultural mirrors: Materialsand methods in the EFL classroom. In E. Hinkel(Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learn-ing (pp. 196–219). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Datesman, M., Crandall, J., & Kearny, E. N. (1997). TheAmerican ways: An introduction to American culture .White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.


Duff, P. A. (2002). The discursive co-construction ofknowledge, identity, and difference: An ethnog-raphy of communication in the high school main-stream. Applied Linguistics, 23, 289–322.

Duff, P. A., & Uchida, Y. (1997). The negotiation ofteachers’ sociocultural identities and practices inpostsecondary EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly,31, 451–486.

Faltis, C. (1997). Case study methods in researching lan-guage and education. In N. H. Hornberger & D.Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and edu-cation (Vol. 8, pp. 145–152). Dordrecht, Nether-lands: Kluwer Academic.

Grisham, J. (2001). The street lawyer (retold by M. Dean).White Plains, NY: Pearson ESL.

Guilherme, M. (2002). Critical citizens for an interculturalworld: Foreign language education as cultural politics.Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Harklau, L. (1999). Representing culture in the ESLwriting classroom. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture insecond language teaching and learning (pp. 109–130). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics,20, 237–264.

Ibrahim, A. (1999). Becoming Black: Rap and hip-hop,race, gender, identity and the politics of ESL learn-ing. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 349–369.

Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teach-ing . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture . Oxford: Ox-ford University Press.

Kramsch, C. (2005). Post 9/11: Foreign languages be-tween knowledge and power. Applied Linguistics,26, 545–567.

Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by dis-courses: Implications for applied linguistics re-search and ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 9–35.

Kubota, R. (2003). Unfinished knowledge: The story ofBarbara. College ESL, 10, 11–21.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2008). Cultural globalization andlanguage education. New Haven, CT: Yale Univer-sity Press.

Lopez, E. H. (1995). The problem of fathers and sons.In J. Baker-Gonzalez & E. K. Blau (Eds.), Build-ing understanding: A thematic approach to readingcomprehension (pp. 39–43). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Luk, J. C. M., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2007). Classroom interactionsas cross-cultural encounters. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an internationallanguage: Rethinking goals and approaches. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

McKay, S. L., & Wong, S. C. (1996). Multiple discourses,multiple identities: Investment and agency insecond-language learning among Chinese adoles-cent immigrant students. Harvard Educational Re-view, 66(3), 577–608.

Menard-Warwick, J. (in press a). The cultural and inter-cultural identities of transnational English teach-ers: Two case studies from the Americas. TESOLQuarterly.

Menard-Warwick, J. (in press b). The dad in theChe Guevara t-shirt: Narratives of Chilean En-glish teachers. Critical Inquiry in LanguageStudies.

Moore, M. (Writer/Director). (2002). Bowling forColumbine [Motion picture]. United States: DogEat Dog Films.

Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colo-nialism. London: Routledge.

Phillips, J. K. (2003). National standards for foreign lan-guage learning. In D. L. Lange & R. M. Paige(Eds.), Culture as the core: Perspectives on culturein second language learning (pp. 161–171). Green-wich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Risager, K. (2007). Language and culture pedagogy: Froma national to a transnational paradigm. Clevedon,UK: Multilingual Matters.

Ryan, P. M. (1998). Cultural knowledge and for-eign language teachers: A case study of a na-tive speaker of English and a native speaker ofSpanish. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 11,135–153.

Ryan, P. M. (2003). Foreign language teachers and theirrole as mediators of language-and-culture: A studyin Mexico. Estudios de Linguistica Aplicada, 37 , 99–118.

Sellami, A. (2006). Slaves of sex, money, and alcohol:(Re-)locating the target culture of TESOL. In J.Edge (Ed.), (Re-)locating TESOL in an age of empire(pp. 171–194). Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmil-lan.

Sercu, L. (2006). The foreign language and intercul-tural competence teacher: The acquisition of anew professional identity. Intercultural Education,17 , 55–72.

Tallman, A. M. (2005). Written testimony of AnnMarie Tallman, President and General Counsel ofMALDEF, regarding the nomination of John G.Roberts, Jr. as Chief Justice of the United Statesof America, September 15, 2005. United StatesSenate Judiciary Committee. Retrieved Septem-ber 22, 2008, from http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1611&wit_id=4618.

Talmy, S. (2004). Forever FOB: The cultural produc-tion of ESL in a high school. Pragmatics, 14,149–172.

van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of languagelearning: A sociocultural perspective . Boston: KluwerAcademic.

Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1997). Classroom ethnography. InN. H. Hornberger & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopediaof language and education (Vol. 8, pp. 135–144).Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Wortham, S. (2001). Narratives in action: A strategy forresearch and analysis. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Zarate, G. (1997). Introduction. In M. Byram &G. Zarate (Eds.), The sociocultural and intercul-tural dimension of language learning and teaching(pp. 7–14). Strasbourg, France: Council of EuropePublishing.

Co-Constructing Representations of Culture in ESL and EFL Classrooms: Discursive Faultlines in Chile...

Education

Transcript of Co-Constructing Representations of Culture in ESL and EFL Classrooms: Discursive Faultlines in Chile...