Towards a transformative and empowering teacher education agenda: Revisioning TESOL

When reading “Appropriating English, Expanding Identities, and Re-Visioning the Field: From TESOL to Teaching English for Glocalized Communication (TEGCOM),” I was reminded of the tendency I have to not consider words/acronyms that I believe are neutral. For instance, Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). While this may seem like a meaningless distinction, the emphasis of the acronym is on Other Languages. More specifically on Languages Other than the English I am speaking. Maybe there isn’t anything wrong with the acronym other than it doesn’t challenge the overwhelming underlying assumption that English can be something owned, spoken, and taught by people other than native Americans or Britons. TEGCOM challenges the traditional dichotomy of native vs. non-native by emphasizing the purpose of teaching English. Namely, improved communication for ELLs. Even the word “glocalized” (I think the authors made this up) emphasizes a divergence from the idea that there ever can be a standard English and that one can or should be taught.

With this said, there is an implied sense that there is a wrong and right way to use language outside of this communicates well or does not. The authors confirm this through their testimonials of the Otherness they felt when living in Canada or when interacting with Native speakers. (e.g. Wendy’s pride at being bilingual was removed with a sense of inferiority during time working with native speakers as a graduate student). This is especially so in academia. For example, I am an English studies major and if I were to make up a word like “glocalize” and use it in a paper I would probably be marked down. I find it interesting that this emphasis on right and wrong came with the rise of English grammars in the 17th and 18th centuries which correlates nicely with colonialism. Before this, the creation and re-appropriation of words was common. Shakespeare did it all the time! Once English became the language of an empire, a need to preserve and enforce a certain type of “correct” English was felt, and the language became more static. Even the greatest author of modern English (in my opinion) would not be able to function well within the ideal of language that a majority of people hold today.

I believe that greater flexibility could only help ELLs and English language learners. For one it help develop the confidence for which the authors of todays article are striving (Lin et al. 305). Students will feel that they have a claim and partial ownership of the language, and that they have just as much right to use and be creative with it as someone who was born speaking it. This will help confidence and make the learning experience more enjoyable, and it will also make the post-learning (if there is such a thing) experience more enjoyable. ELLs won’t have to worry if they missed some aspect of grammar as long as they get the point across.