Oxford, R., Massey, R.., & Anand, S. (2005). Transforming

23 Pages·2004·0.4 MB·English

Oxford,Massey,andAnand,9/14/02,Page1
TransformingTeacher-StudentStyleRelationships: TowardaMoreWelcoming
andDiverseClassroomDiscourse
RebeccaOxford
RebeccaMassey
SupreetAnand
NOTE:Aslightlyabridgedversionofthispaperwaspublishedas:
Oxford,R.,Massey,R..,& Anand,S.(2005).Transformingteacher-studentstylerelationships: Towarda
morewelcominganddiverseclassroomdiscourse.InJ.Frodesen&C.Holten,Eds.,Thepowerofcontextin
languageteachingandlearning(pp.249-266).Boston:Thomson/Heinle.
Consciousnessbecomesconsciousness...onlyintheprocessofsocialinteraction.Bakhtin(TheBakhtinReader,1994,p.52)
Our goal is to weave Mikhail Bakhtin’s key concepts into a theoretical framework that illuminates L2 teacher-studentstyle
harmonyandconflict. Here “L2” refers to both second and foreign language settings.1 AlthoughL2educationwasnotpartof
Bakhtin’s portfolio, his linguistic and literary theories are applicable to L2 teacher-studentstylerelationships.Turningthe
BakhtinianspotlightontoL2styleharmonysituations,wedemonstratehowhisideasofdiscourse,heteroglossia(different
voices),centrifugality,andcentripetalityworktogetherintheclassroom,justastheydoinlanguageitself. ObservingL2style
conflictthroughaBakhtinianlens,weuncovertheneedforanenhanced,enrichedL2classroomdialoguethatismorediverse,
moreheteroglossic,andmoreacceptingofmultiplelearningstylesandcultures.
Themainquestionshereare:WhatkindofdiscoursepervadesanL2classroomwherestyleharmonyexists
betweenteacherandstudent?Whosevoicesemergeandhow?HowisdialoguedifferentinanL2classroomwhere
styleconflictisfrequent?HowdopowerandintimacyrelatetoL2teacher-studentstylerelationships?HowcanL2
styleclashesbetransformedintoatrulymulti-voiceddiscoursethatempowersallparticipants?Answerstothese
questionscomefromnarrativeswrittenbyparticipantsinanewstudy,whichisthemostrecentinvestigationinaseriesof
qualitativeresearchstudiesonL2styleharmonyandstyleconflict.2Thefirsthalfofthispaper(PartA)providesatheoretical
frameworkonlearningstyles,teachingstyles,L2styleharmonyandstyleconflict,andBakhtinianconcepts.Thesecondhalf
(PartB)presents the methodology of this study, applies Bakhtin’s theories to specific L2 teacher-studentstylenarratives,
andgivesrecommendationsfortransformingtheL2classroomviaamorediverse,morestyle-acceptingformofdiscourse.
PartA:TheoreticalFramework
LearningStyles
Oxford,Massey,andAnand,9/14/02,Page2
Learningstylesarethegeneralapproachespreferredbythestudentwhenlearninganewsubjectortacklingadifficult
problem (Oxford, Ehrman, & Lavine, 1991; Oxford, 2001a). These styles are “the overall patterns that give generaldirection
to learning behavior” (Cornett, 1983, p. 9). “Learning style is the biologically and developmentally imposed set of
characteristics that make the same teaching method wonderful for some and terrible for others” (Dunn & Griggs, 1988, p. 3).
In a larger perspective, learning style is the person’s authentic essence or identity in any of the social contexts of learning.
Learning style involves the person’s favored ways of receiving, processing, remembering, and retrieving information;
understandingthelearningtask;comingtogripswiththeoryandpractice;acceptingoravoidingresponsibilityforlearning;
and dealing with others in the classroom. It also includes the complex “thinking-feeling-knowing-being” matrix that motivates
learningbehavior. Learningstylesarenotdirectlyobservablebutareinferredfromwhatpeopledowhilelearningorwhat
theysaywhentalkingaboutlearning,e.g.,ininterviews,style-conflictessays,orstylesurveys.
Personalvariables,suchasinterests,goals,achievementmotivation,affiliationmotivation,age,gender,andgenetics,
playacrucialroleinthedevelopmentoflearningstyle.Infact,somestyleexpertsemphasizepersonalvariablesalmost
exclusively,eventothepointofassumingthatlearningstyleisaninborn,virtuallyunalterabletraitoftheindividual–as
thoughthepersonlivedinahermeticallysealedbubble. Yetnobodyislockedintoaparticularlearningstylewithnoroom
for growth or change. Individuals’ learning styles may evolve throughencounterswithmanydifferentpeople,educational
systems,andbeliefs(seesocialcontextsbelow).Afewindividualsexperiencesignificant,sharpstylechangesaftera
trauma or a major life experience. Finally, “style stretching,” as described inthediscussionsection,isanimportantmeansof
expandingstylepossibilities.
Socialcontextsclearlyinfluencelearningstyle(Dunn,1991;Nuby&Oxford,1997;Oxford,2002b;Oxford&Anderson,
1995;Oxford,Hollaway,&Murillo,1992;Reid,1987,1995,1998). Socioculturalinfluencesonlearningstyleinclude:(a)
beliefs and attitudes about teaching and learning within one’s own “large culture”(suchasFrench,British,orsomemajor
subsetoftheselargecultures);(b)beliefsandattitudesaboutteachingandlearningdevelopedthroughexperienceswith
otherlargecultures,e.g.,throughstudyingabroad,travelingasatourist,makingfriendswithpeoplefromothercultures,and
evenwatchinginternationaltelevisionandfilms;and(c)beliefsandattitudes about teaching and learning within a “small
culture,” i.e., any coherent social grouping, no matter how small, such as a family, a church, a class, a teacher-studentor
tutor-tuteerelationship,anongoingstudy-partnerrelationship,oraneveningstudycircle.Beliefsandattitudesmaynotbe
overtly expressed, conscious, or internally consistent; nevertheless, they typically influence the student’s learning
Oxford,Massey,andAnand,9/14/02,Page3
preferences.
Twentytofortydimensionsoflearningstylehavebeenidentifiedbyvariousexperts(see,e.g.,Ehrman&Leaver,
forthcoming;Oxford,1990;Oxford&Anderson,1995;Reid,1998;Shipman&Shipman,1985).Manylearningstylemodels
exist,sometimesconflicting.Thisistypicalofaburgeoningfieldbutalsoreflectsthecomplexityoftheconstruct,i.e.,
learningpreferencesandprocesses,whichthemodelsareattemptingtodescribe(Reid,1998).Herewefocusonlearning
styleaspectsmostfrequentlyfoundinthenarrativediscoursesamplesinthisstudy.Sensorylearningstyledimensions
includevisual,auditory,andhands-on(i.e.,kinestheticandtactile). Cognitivelearningstylesincludetwolargeclusters:
specificity-seeking andgenerality-seeking. Thespecificity-seekingclustercoversthesefourdistinctlydifferentdimensions:
item-focused,analytic,concrete-sequential,anddifference-sharpening.Thegenerality-seekingclusterencompassesthese
fourdistinctdimensions:holistic,synthesis-oriented,intuitive-random,anddifference-blurring. Affectiveandsociallearning
styledimensionsinclude:extrovertedvs.introverted,thinkingvs.feeling,andclosure-orientedvs.open. Seetheappendix
forcompletedefinitions.
TeachingStyles
Teachingstylereferstothetotalityofinstructionalactivities,methods,andapproachestheteacherpreferstouseandis
most comfortable using. In a broader view, teaching style involves the teacher’s ways of thinking, feeling, believing, and
knowinginthemanysocialcontextsofinstruction.Itisinferredfromwhatinstructorsdowhileteachingorwhattheysay
aboutteaching. Teachingstylerelatestomanyinstructionaldecisions,suchaspresentingatopic,pacingactivities,creating
lessons,organizingcurricula,choosingmaterials,structuringtasks,providingtaskdirections,establishingtheimplicitor
explicitclassroompowerstructure,respondingtoerrors,arrangingseats,gradingassignments,designingtests,rewarding
performance,handlingdiscipline,groupingstudents,advisingstudents,formingoravoidingbonds,andseekingoravoiding
feedbackfromstudents.
Beliefsandattitudes,oftenculturallyandexperientiallyinfluenced,helpshapeteachingstyle.Teachersinevitably
choose presentation modes and activities they believe “make the most sense,” i.e., seemgoodeitherforthestudentsorfor
themselvesasteachers.Someteachersteachthewaytheylearnedbestinschool;inthiscase,teachingstylereflects
learningstyle.Othersadopttheteachingstyleofaninstructortheybelievedtobeinspiring(Kinsella,1995).Stillothers
intentionallyemployteachingstylestheyabhorredaslearnersbutthatnowofferinstructionalcontrol. Ineachcase,
instructionalpreferencesarebasedonbeliefs,stemmingfromexperiencesinspecificsocioculturalsettings. Yetthese
Oxford,Massey,andAnand,9/14/02,Page4
beliefsmaynotleadtooptimalinstructionforallofthediversestudentsinanygivenclassroom.
Teachingstylemaybecategorizedusingthesamedimensionsaslearningstyle:sensory,cognitive,andaffective/
social(seeaboveandalso the appendix). As an example, Mr. Dadour might be termed an “analytic, extroverted, closure-
oriented,andvisual” teacher. PartBofthispaperfrequentlyusesthisbasicterminologyfordescribingteachingstyles,butit
goesbeyondthisterminologyaswell.
Adifferentperspectiveinvolvesthree“macro” teachingstyles,autocratic,democratic/participatory,andlaissez-faire,
whichemergedfromnarrativesinanearlierstudy(Oxford,2001b). Thesethree“macro” stylesreflectvariouscombinations
oftwokeyvariables,powerandintimacy.Inreanalyzingthedata,Oxford(2002a)foundthefollowing:
 Positiveelementsofclassroompower:(a)status,praise,recognition,andprestige;(b)learnerautonomy,self-regulation,and
empowerment;(c)competence and agency, i.e., being an agent in one’s own success;and(d)usefulguidanceandauthority.
 Negativeaspectsofclassroompower:(a)tyranny,dictatorship,orautocracy;(b)ridiculeorsarcasm;(c)insuperablesocial
distancebetweenteacherandstudent;(d)manipulationthroughbribery,flattery,andintimidation.
 Positiveaspectsofteacher-studentintimacy:(a)friendship,bonding,orappropriatesocialcloseness;(b)supportorhelp;(c)
mutualcommunication;and(d)alearningalliance(Ehrman,1996;Ehrman&Dörnyei,1998;Freire,1993)withteacherand
studentasco-learners.
 Negativeaspectsofteacher-studentintimacy,whichreflectedwarpedpower:(a)inappropriatesocialcloseness,(b)favoritism,
and(c)oversexualizedteacher-studentrelationships.
In Oxford’s (2001b) study, autocraticteachingprovedtobeveryhighonteacherpower,lowonpositiveintimacy,with
someaspecfsofnegativeintimacy.Democratic/participatoryteachingwashighonpositiveintimacyandhighonvarious
formsofpower-sharingbetweenteacherandstudent.Laissez-faireteachingshowedlittlepowerorintimacyatall;teachers
werelargelydetatchedfromthesituation,thesubject,andthestudents.
Teacher-StudentStyleHarmonyandStyleConflict
Whena learner’s style is similar to the teacher’s style, both learner and teacher generally feel quite comfortable in the
learningenvironmentandsatisfiedwiththeactivitiesandinstructionalapproaches(Dunn&Dunn,1979;Oxford,Ehrman,&
Lavine,1991). Thisisonetypeofstyleharmony.Anothertypeofstyleharmonyconsistsofthestyle-aware teacher’s
consciousprovisionofstyle-relatedvarietyininstructionalactivities;inthisway,everystudentreceivesinstructionthatis
relevanttohisorherlearningstyle. Problemsmayarise,however,when(a)thereisamismatchofteacherandlearner
styles,causingastyleconflict;and(b)inthisstyleconflictsituation,theteacherisnotawareofwhatishappeningand/or
doesnottrytovaryclassroom activities to meet learners’ style needs. This confluence of variables provokes learner anxiety
andsometimesevenateacher-student “style war” (Oxford, 1998; Wallace & Oxford, 1992). The learner may respond
negativelytotheteacher,thelanguageandculturebeinglearned,orthelanguageprogram,sometimeswithdisastrous
Oxford,Massey,andAnand,9/14/02,Page5
results. “There may be severe loss of learning efficiency and even inability to learn” (Ehrman, 1996, p. 54). The student may
accusetheteacherfornotmeetinghisorherneeds,whiletheprogramortheteachermaylabelthestudentas
“problematic,” or a poor language learner.
Bakhtin’s Most Relevant Theories for L2 Education
Now we explain Bakhtin’s literary and linguistic concepts of polyphony, heteroglossia, dialogue, centripetality,and
centrifugality,allofwhichhaveimplicationsfortheL2classroom.
PolyphonyandHeteroglossia
Bakhtin’s concept of polyphony(multiplesounds)predatesbutisrelatedtohistheoryofheteroglossia(differingvoices).
ToBakhtin,polyphonyis a central feature of novels like Dostoevsky’s. The polyphonic novel repositions “the idea of the
novel, its truth, within multiple and various consciousnesses rather than a single consciousness” and repositions the novel’s
author “alongside the characters as one of these consciousnesses, creator of the characters but also their equal . . .”
(Zappen,2000,p.11).Severalautonomousconsciousnessescombineinto"ahigherunity,aunity,sotospeak,ofthe
secondorder,"like"thecomplexunityofanEinsteinianuniverse"(Bakhtin,1984,p.16).Inapolyphonicnovel,the
charactersare"freepeople,capableofstandingalongside,"agreeingordisagreeingwith,andsometimesrebellingagainst,
theircreator(Bakhtin,1984,p.6).Thesecharactersare"notonlyobjectsofauthorialdiscoursebutalsosubjectsoftheir
owndirectlysignifyingdiscourse,"andtheybecome"agenuinepolyphonyoffullyvalidvoices"(Bakhtin,1984,pp.6-7).The
polyphonyofvoicesisadesirablegoalfortheL2classroom.
Markersofinternaldifferentiationandstratificationpresentineverylanguage(includingdifferentdialects,
societal-levelindicators,subculturalvocabulary,idioms,jargon,slang,andpersonalcommunicationstyles)make
upwhatBakhtintermsheteroglossia(Bakhtin,1998). ForBakhtin,theappropriationofanywordinanylanguage
is not a neutral process. Instead, the language learner is confronted with words that are “already populated with
the social intentions of others” (Bakhtin, 1998, p. 36). Becauseeachusageofawordrequiresittobeadopted
fromitspreviouscontext,theninfusedwithnewmeaninginitsnewcontext,itisalwaysintheprocessofre-
creation--halfinthemouthofthepastspeakerandhalfinthemouthofthepresentspeaker.Sortingthroughthe
variedmeaningsandconnotationsofothersispartoftheprocessofappropriation, revealing that “[even] one’s
Oxford,Massey,andAnand,9/14/02,Page6
ownlanguageisneverasinglelanguage:inittherearealwayssurvivalsofthepastandapotentialforother-
languagedness” (Bakhtin, 1988, p. 143). Paradoxically, the same elements in any language that continually
fragmentitalsokeepitaliveandgrowing.Anylanguageisheteroglossic,engorgedwithamultiplicityofvoices,
tones,contextualnuances,andculturalandideological tensions. Wong’s (1994) interpretation of Bakhtin’s
heteroglossia is that multiple possiblities of meanings exist within any utterance, and “we must search for multiple
voices not only in our ESL students, but in ourselves as . . . teachers” (p.106).
Anyindividualcanintentionallylearntoventriloquate(atermusedbyBakhtin)avarietyofvoices,suchasasexist
voice,adeferentialvoice,aself-confidentvoice,andinfinitelymorevoices(Ivanic&Camps,2001).Notonlycanthestudent
learntoexpressmanyvoicesoutwardly,butalsothestudentnaturallypossessesmanyinternalvoices.ThisiswhatBakhtin
callsahiddendialogueorinternalheteroglossia.Justastheexternaldialogueconsistsofdifferentandsometimesclashing
ideasandvoices,theinternaldialoguecontainsavarietyoffrequentlycontradictoryvoiceswhosemessagesmayormay
not be coherently resolved. The internal dialogue is thus “a conversation of the most intense kind” (Bakhtin, 1984, p. 197).
Learning one’s ownmothertongueinvolvesinteractingwiththevastarrayofvoicesinfluxwithinthatlanguage.Imagine
howmuchgreatertheheteroglossiamustbeforanindividualengagedinlearninganotherlanguage.TheL2isnotastrictly
unifiedsystemthatcanbetransmittedtothelearnerinitsentirety.Itisnotsomuchastaticobjectasanever-changing
spacethatthelearnerentersinto,seekingtosimultaneouslydiscoverandcreateanewvoice. FortheL2learner,thismay
beexperiencedattimesasanoverwhelming,exponentialheteroglossia.
Borrowing from Bakhtin’s concept of heteroglossia, we define voice as the person’s self-expressionofidentity,aswell
asthecomplexmatrixofbeliefsandattitudesbehindthatexpression.Weperceivevoicetobesociallysituatedratherthan
isolatedortotallyidiosyncratic. Voicegrowsfromandisexpressedinparticularsocialandculturalcontexts,duringspecific
events,andthroughinteractionwithparticularpeople.Intheseways,voiceandlearningstyleareverysimilar.Voiceis
simultaneouslypersonalandsocialbecausediscourseissituatedinaparticularsocialcontext(Prior,2001).
Dialogue
To Bakhtin, “The entire life of language, in any area of its use . . . is permeated with dialogic relationships” (1984, p. 183).
“To live means to participate in dialogue: to ask questions, to heed, to respond, to agree, and so forth. . . . [The person]
investshis[orher]entireselfindiscourse,andthisdiscourseentersintothedialogicfabricofhumanlife,intotheworld
Oxford,Massey,andAnand,9/14/02,Page7
symposium” (Bakhtin, 1984, p. 293). Dialogue, as defined by Bakhtin, is “the single adequate form for verballyexpressing
authentic human life” (1984, p. 293,emphasisinoriginal). Adialogueconsistsofutterancesthatoccurinaspecifichistoric
timeandsocialsetting.Anutterancerespondsto,relieson,supplements,presupposes,refutes,oraffirmsearlierutterances
(Bakhtin,1986). Anutterancenotonlylooksbackwardtopriorutterances,butitalsolooksforwardtoresponsivereactions
fromtheotherperson(s)inthedialogue(Bakhtin,1986),whoarefreetoagree,disagree,andreactinavarietyofdifferent
ways. Dialogicaldiscourse(alsoknownasdialogizedheteroglossia)involveslisteningtoeachvoicefromtheother’s
perspective(Bakhtin,1998),thushelpingparticipantsexpressandnegotiatetheirindividualandculturaldifferences.
Streufert (1998) takes this a step further, applying it to education: “With every move the teacher must be adaptive,
interactiveandopentotherealstatusoftheheteroglotcollectivity of the class” (p. 13). He compares Bakhtin’s dialogical
concepts to Freire’s (1993) liberatory co-learningconcept,inwhichteacherandstudentslearntogether.However,Stam
(1988) argues, “The Bakhtinianformulationhastheadvantageofnotconstrictingliberatorystruggletopurelyeconomicor
politicalbattles,extendingit[instead]tothesharedterritoryoftheutterance[indiscourse]....Bakhtinlocatesideological
struggleatthepulsating heart of all discourse” (p. 123). Unlike Freire, Bakhtin pays close attention to the subjectivemind.
CentripetalandCentrifugalForces
Bakhtin(see,e.g.,1998)appropriatestheconceptsofcentripetalityandcentrifugalityfromphysicsandappliesthemto
language.Centripetalmeansmoving(something)towardthecenter,andcentrifugalmeansmoving(something)awayfrom
thecenter. Centripetalforcesbringorder,unification,andlimitstodiscourse(or,wemightadd,tothoughtoraction)by
pullingittowardthecenter,thatis,towarduniformityandstasis,whilecentrifugalforcescreatediversityandcontrastin
language(orthoughtoraction).Languageoperatesbothcentripetallyandcentrifugallyatthesametime. AsBakhtinnotes,
everything we say participates in the centripetal, “unitary language” and simultaneously in the sociohistorical heteroglossia
thatrelatestoaspecificplace,time,profession,genre,generation,andperson(Bakhtin,1998). Weturnnowtothesecond
half,inwhich we apply Bakhtin’s theories to the teacher-studentstylenarratives.
Part B: Applying Bakhtin’s Theories to L2 Style Narratives
Methodology
Thisstudyisthemostrecentofaseriesofinvestigationsinitiatedin1989bythefirstauthor,whowaslaterjoinedby
colleaguesfromseveralpartsoftheworld. Inthissequenceofstudies,participantsincludedundergraduates,graduate
Oxford,Massey,andAnand,9/14/02,Page8
students,highschoolstudents,universityteachingassistants,andexperiencedK-12anduniversityteachers.Participants
describedclassroomstyleconflicts(orstyleharmonysituations)fromtheirownexperiencesaslearners.Mostparticipants
wrote essays in response to instructions such as: “Describe a language teacher, past or present, you especially disliked (or
liked).” “Describe a language teacher with whom you have experienced significant conflict (or harmony).” “Talk about a
languageclassroominwhichyoufeltuncomfortable (or comfortable).” “Describealanguageteacherwhomadeyoufeel
unmotivated (or motivated).” Onlyafewteachersspokefromthepointofviewofateacher;mostfollowedthedirections
carefullyanddescribedtheirownlearningexperiences. Socialdesirabilityresponsebias,i.e.,tellingtheresearcherwhatthe
participantthoughtwasdesired,waskepttoaminimumthroughassurancesofconfidentiality.Participantsknewthattheir
nameswouldbereplacedbynumericalcodesorpseudonyms;andiftheywereL2studentsatthetimeofthestudy,they
wereassuredthatgradeswouldnotbeaffected.(Inthispaper,pseudonymsareused.)
Theresearchserieshasalwaysbeenprimarilyqualitative(field-focused, interpretive, expressive of learners’ voices,
anddetailed,Eisner,1991),althoughinsomestudiesstatisticalstyle-surveydataweregathered, along with the students’
narratives,forfurthervalidationofbothqualitativeandquantitativedata.Bynowmorethan600narrativesfrom16countries
have been collected. The interpretive approach is that of “grounded theory.” In this approach, the theories(interpretations,
themes,orhypotheses)arenotimposedinadvancebutinsteademergethroughiterativeexaminationofthedatabymultiple
analysts,whocheckandcross-checktoverifyvalidityandreliability(Strauss,1987). Inthepresentstudy,theauthors
coorperatively(althoughattimesseparatedbyhundredsofmiles)read,reread,andanalyzedmanynarratives,sharingtheir
interpretations. This is a nonlinear, complex process based on “intensive, microscopic examination of the data to bringout
the amazing complexity” therein (Strauss, 1987, p. 10).
The current study’s narratives were mostly provided by dozens of highly experienced EFL teachers who took Oxford’s
graduatecourse on “PrinciplesofLearnerAutonomy,Styles, and Strategies” intwouniversitiesinArgentinain2001. For
purposesofcomparisonandcomprehensiveness,thispaperalsocontainssomeearlier(non-Argentinean)narratives.This
paperentersintoaverynew,Bakhtinianinterpretivespace. Bakhtin’s work on the nature anduseoflanguagehelpsto
illustrate the teacher’s inherently conflicted role in the classroom, thereby uncovering sources of confusion and frustration for
bothteachersandstudents.Thestudyinvestigateshowstyleconflictscanbeacentralfactordeterminingmotivationand
de-motivationintheL2classroom.
Oxford,Massey,andAnand,9/14/02,Page9
NarrativesShowingResultsofExtremelyCentripetalTeaching:
LimitedDialogue,RestrictedHeteroglossia,NoPolyphony,andNoVoicefortheLearner
Instructioninthecentripetalmodeisteacher-centered,i.e.,characterizedbyanauthoritarianorautocraticteacherwho
exertsstrongcontroloverstudents.Basiccharacteristicsofthisapproachareteacherpower,uniformityoflanguageuse,
and “one-size-fits-all” instruction (see the “autocratic approach” identified by Oxford, 2001b). The centripetal instructor
generallybelievesthatthereisonlyonerightwaytoteachandappliesitwithgreatconsistencyandeven,attimes,rigidity.
ThemostfrequenttypeofdialogueinthecentripetalclassroomisMagistral,basedonthemedievalscholastictraditionthat
gaveallpowertotheteacherandnonetothelearner(Cheyne&Terulli,1999).Themaintenanceofthisasymmetryrequires
theteachertobeinvestedwithauthoritybytheinstitutionortheculture.Thisestablishesalargesocialdistance,which
reducesbonding,dialogue,heteroglossia,learnerself-expression,andanyopportunityfordemocraticpolyphony.Varieties
ofverystrongcentripetalteachinginthenarrativesincluded:(a)theRoyalAcademySyndromethatHomogenizesand
“Perfects” All Voices, (b) Massive Memorization orLecturewithoutHeteroglossia,(c)L2LaryngitisorTotalLossofVoice,
and(d)TyrannyandtheBreakdownofHeteroglossia.
ExtremelyCentripetalTeachingVariation (a): The Royal Academy Syndrome that Homogenizes and “Perfects” all Voices
TheRoyalAcademySyndromeistheultra-centripetal mode that attempts to homogenize all voices into the single “right
way” of speaking or writing. These teachers modelthelanguageinitsmosttraditionalorclassicform,ignoringtheflux,
fission,andfusionofheteroglossiaandviewingerrorsandmistakesasunacceptable. Lucia,anArgentineEFLteacher,
describedanundergraduateteacherofthisverycentripetalilk:
This woman was very structured, almost dictatorial and pretended to be the owner of knowledge. I disliked the way she “imposed”
concepts,madeusstudybyheartandlookeddownonus,Ifelt[e]speciallyonthestudentsofEnglish.Ifeltlikenotgoingtoclass
mostofthetime,Iprobablycouldnothidemyfeelings-whichwouldusuallyshowonmyface-andlookedboredinclass.Ifoundit
very hard to study the lists of accepted words in Spanish, rebelled against the “Spanish Royal Academy,” I read set bookswithout
anypleasure(bookswhichIlaterfoundtobeveryinteresting!)AndIhadalwaysbeenanavidreader!TheResult=Iflunkedmy
finalexam(andIwasverysurprised!)SoIhadtostudyeverythingagain,andthenexttimeIpassed.ItwasmyfirstAcademicfail.
The teacher’s rigid, closure-orientedteachingstyleinspiredonlyboredomandresentmentinLucia.Thepredominantly
concrete-sequential,item-focused,closure-orientedactivities,suchas“study[ing] the lists of accepted words in Spanish”were
neitherstimulatingnorvaluable.Noanalyticalorsynthesizingskillswereinvolved.Thenegativelanguageusedtoreferto
theinstructorandherteachingmethods(“almost dictatorial,”“owner of knowledge,” “ ‘imposed’ concepts”)indicatedastronglack
ofdialogue,heteroglossia,andself-expression.Theconcrete-sequential, perfectionistic style, compounded by the teacher’s
condescension,producedoppressionandfailureforthestudent.
Oxford,Massey,andAnand,9/14/02,Page10
ExtremelyCentripetalTeachingVariation(b):MassiveMemorizationorLecturewithoutHeteroglossia
Manynarrativescomplainedaboutthememorizationofandregurgitationofmassesofwordswithoutany
communicativeuseofthesewords. Eduardo,anArgentineanEFLteacher,illustratedthissituation.
Iwasattending High School (4th year), I was about 16 and I came across the most fearful Spanish language teacher I’ve ever met..
She taught us about the “Golden Age of Spanish Literature.” She asked the class to read piles of 12th-15thcenturiesrhymesand
poemstoberecitedinclass.Besides,forthemid-termexamswewereexpectedtoproduceoriginalrhymesusingsituation,
character,vocabularyandrhymethatwouldreflectthepoetryofthatperiod.Iremembermyselfspendingwholeweekendsbefore
thoseteststryingtomemorizespecificvocabulary,jumblingsentencesthatwouldrhymeappropriatelyinanycontextIwouldhave
tocreateonthespurofthemoment.EventhoughIgotgoodresultsIstilltodaythinkoftheworthlesseffortsthatIandtherestof
theclassmade[...]
Inthisnarrativetheteachingstylewastext-dependent,anextensionofthevisualstyle.Whilethisparticularactivity--
memorizingandrecitingpoemsandeventuallycreatingnewonestobememorizedandrecited–seemedtoreachoutto
auditory-stylestudents,itdidnotpromoterealcommunication,creativity,orself-expression.Itwasprimarilyawayof
showcasing students’ memorizing skills. Heteroglossia was limited by memorized, verbatim material,andjumbling
sentencesthatweresupposedtorhymeatthespurofthemoment. Real dialogue, polyphony, and expression of one’s own
voice were absent in these “worthless efforts.”
ThesamepatternemergedinEgypt,whereNawla,anEgyptianEFLteachingcandidate,describedherworstEnglish
teacherasanautocratwhowantedstudentstoactlikemachines–specifically,sewingmachines. “Hewantedtomakeuslike
machines which sew words for one day.”Thissuggeststhattheteacherwantedthestudentstomemorizelistsofwordsthat
wouldbesoonforgotten.Nawlafoundnoroomforcreative,intuitive,self-expressivedialoguewiththisteacher.
Heteroglossiaandpolyphonywouldhavebeenbeyondtheimaginationofthisteacher.
Whenverbatimmemorizationwastheprimarymode,thenanyotherformoflearningorexpression–evenamuch
higherform,suchassynthesizing–wasusuallydisallowed.Mariela,averybright,synthesis-orientedArgentineanEFL
teacher,illustratedthissyndrome.
IfeltasenseoffrustrationforalongtimewhenIwasatprimaryschool.Manyteachersexpectedustostudyeverythingby[heart]
andpraisedmemorizing.Iwasalwaysahard-workingstudentandtriedtodomybestbutrememberingabookwordforword,asit
wasexpected,wasterribleforme.WhenIhadHistoryhomework,forexample,IrememberIlikedreadingeverything,connecting
ideas,facts,politicalandeconomicalsituation[s]andotherfactorstogetthewholepictureofthehistoricaltimeIwasreadingabout,
visualizingandsummarizingmainideas.Studentswhowroteexactlywhatwasinthebook,sameexpressions,words,verbs,etc.,
alwaysgotbettergradesthanIdid.IsometimesfelttherewassomethingwrongwithmylearningandthatIwasfarfromsmart.
SomeyearslaterIunderstoodtherewasauniqueawayoflearningandthatteachers[knew]verylittleaboutlearningstyles.
Thisstudentwasimpededbythestrictlyitem-focused,concrete-sequentialinstructionthatinvolvednosynthesisof
information.Marielawantedtomakeconnectionsbetweensubjects,intuitmeaning,andseethelargercontextand“main