How Can Conflicting Policies Influence Culture ...

Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities Vol. 4, No. 5, May 2014, pp.453-468.

Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities

ISSN 2249-7315

www.aijsh.org

Asian Research Consortium

How Can Conflicting Policies Influence Culture Learning and Teaching in EFL Context? Saleh Arizavi a, Seyyed Ahmad Mousavi b, Namdar Namdari c, Abdullah Gharbavi d b

a Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran Ph.D. candidate in Applied Linguistics University of Tehran, Iran c Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran d Payam-e-noor University of Khorramshahr, Iran

Abstract Traditionally the cultural values and norms would comprise an important part of language classroom teaching. However, recent opposing ideas especially from policies with increasing tensions call for less adherence to culture-bound values but instead to intelligibility (Richards, 2002). In our country, for example, due to the political tensions with the west, teachers are not normally familiarized with English cultural values in their formal education. In addition, after graduation, they are required to teach materials that purposefully marginalize the cultural aspects of the target language (TL). Although, in the non-native setting, this aspect can play a subsidiary role, for it can be compensated by a simple recourse to mother culture, in the native to non-native interaction this unfamiliarity can lead to serious communication breakdowns. Given all these observations, in this study, it is intended to explore how conflicting policies can cause cultural separation among nations and how this gap can permeate the teacher training centers and consequently the English language classrooms. To this end, one hundred teachers of English were asked to answer questions concerning culture-related issues in language teaching and learning, like the significance of cultural transfer, the importance of dealing with cultural similarities and differences, acquaintance with sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic considerations, and raising teachers' awareness of the sociopolitical facets. A number of ways to bridge the gap indicated are finally proposed, too. The results indicate that although teachers are not encouraged to focus on the target language speakers’ culture, they see this aspect quite motivating for learners and an integrative part of their classes. The implication is that inclusion of cultural aspects should basically be invested on not only in classroom interactions, but also in course books.

Keywords: Conflicting Policies, Culture awareness, Teacher Education Issues, Culture Teaching, Political Tension

453

Arizavi et al. (2014). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp.453-468.

1. Introduction Motto: “In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was made flesh. It was so in the beginning and it is so today. The language, the Word, carries within it the history, the culture, the traditions, the very life of a people, the flesh. Language is people. We cannot even conceive of a people without a language, or a language without a people. The two are one and the same. To know one is to know the other.” (Dr. Sabine Reyes Ulibarri, Contemporary American poet). This motto is, undoubtedly, an influential synopsis about what is generally spoken and written about the culture and its significance and position among human beings. But academically speaking, a lot of things about culture teaching/learning are waiting to be elaborated on. 1.1 Culture, Intercultural Competence, Communicative Competence The National Center for Cultural Competence defines culture as an “integrated pattern of human behavior that includes thoughts, communications, languages, practices, beliefs, values, customs, courtesies, rituals, manners of interacting and roles, relationships and expected behaviors of a racial, ethnic, religious or social group; and the ability to transmit the above to succeeding generations” (Goode, et al., 2000). Culture is considered the characteristics of a particular group of people, generally defined by language, religion, politics, social habits, and the arts (Kramsch, 2009). Thanasoulas (2001) defines cultural competence as the knowledge of the conventions, customs, beliefs, and systems of meaning of another country. Guilherme (2000) characterizes intercultural competence as the ability to interact effectively with people from cultures that we recognize as different from our own. While in language learning the four skills, listening, speaking, reading and writing are taught separately, culture is best learned when it is taught in conjunction with other skills. In language teaching, lexis has become more and more important than structures because using wrong word usually breaks down communication (Jiying, 2004). A prerequisite for this is the development of the teachers’ own intercultural competence, which, in Risager’s (2000) terms, is an aspect of the lifelong socialization process, or a lifelong project. Kramsch (2004) describes the modern language teacher as linguistic/cultural expert, expert methodologist and expert professional. The notion of communicative competence, which, in the past decade or so, has blazed a trail, so to speak, in foreign language teaching, emphasizing the role of context and the circumstances under which language can be used accurately and appropriately, “falls short of the mark when it comes to actually equipping students with the cognitive skills they need in a second-culture environment” (Straub, 1999: 2). In reality, what most teachers and students seem to lose sight of is the fact that ‘knowledge of the grammatical system of a language (grammatical competence) has to be complemented by understanding of culture-specific meanings communicative or rather cultural competence (Byram & Morgan, 1994). Then, through the study of other languages, students gain a knowledge and understanding of the cultures that use that language; in fact, students cannot truly master the language until they have also mastered the cultural contexts in which the language occurs (National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project, 1996: 27). To be culturally responsive teachers, we must first have an understanding of other cultures and how students from these cultures differ from one another. Richards and his associates (2007: 64) assert that teachers must create a classroom culture where all students regardless of their cultural and linguistic background are welcomed and supported, and provided with the best opportunity to

454


learn. In addition, as educators, we are likely familiar with the concept of cultural diversity and the need for students to develop an understanding of their multiethnic world and community. 1.2 Significance of study What is evident from the above-mentioned issues is that not only is language part of how we define culture but it also reflects culture. At the same time, what is important is that language is the most pervasive means to this interaction. Thanasoulas (2001), having reviewed the history of culture teaching, went on to consider the why and how of teaching culture and proposed techniques to incorporate culture into classroom. As this aspect of language teaching is paid a lip service in teacher training centers (TTCs), if needed and there is almost no mention of culture dimension neither in school textbooks, nor in TTC class practices (and other language learning programs), a lack of research in this regard can be clearly felt. We hypothesized that the political state of affairs can have big impact on the people’s attitudes toward the target culture and learning it. Today, English language is the main means of communication among different nations. Technically speaking, it is a lingua franca across different nations. It is argued that globalization has been speeded up through English and the Internet (Harumi, 2002). Therefore, it can be proved that English is the common property of the people who use it to fulfill their personal goals (Kachru 1985: 67). However, in some context, due to some political conflicts between countries, the cultural part of English language is downgraded or totally ignored. For example, the politic conflict between Iran and some western countries especially the United States of America and United Kingdom marginalized teaching/learning the culture of these countries to none in the formal English language learning program institutionalized by the ministry of education. In Iran English is taught as a foreign language so detecting the status of cultural part of language seems a good issue to be known about. Therefore, the main concern of this study was to see how this policy conflict can cause cultural separation among nations and how this gap can permeate the TTCs and consequently the English language classrooms. 2. Review of literature In the past, culture was viewed as a static entity without reference to variation. Thus, it was believed that culture was made up of classified and observable facts the view inspired by behavioral psychology in learning, which can be taught and learned directly. This view of culture did not recognize the variability of behavior within different layers of the culture, and interaction of language and culture in the making of meaning (Moore, 1991). Recently, there has been a shift in the perception of culture and it is viewed as dynamic and variable. Culture is not seen as providing factual information (Furstenberg, 2010). Also, there are many insightful comparisons made between behavioral conventions in the L1 and L2 societies which are culture-specific and which could be said to impede understanding: the use of silence (Odlin, 1989), frequency of turn-taking (Preston, 1989: 128-131;Odlin, 1989: 55), politeness (Odlin, 1989: 49-54), and so forth (see Byram, et al., 1994: 8). Krashen (1982) argues that the classroom setting is not an appropriate place to acquire either language or culture. In his view, classroom is only appropriate to teach language rules. Damen (1987), in support of Krashen, pinpoints that classroom based learning relies too much on rule ordered pedagogy,and teaching culture in this view can only reflect and integrate cultural facts rather than the dynamic view of culture. Robinson and Nocon (1996) highlight the importance of living in the target culture and propose that culture learning in the classroom is only “cognitive boundary crossing” which leaves learners’ previous experiences unexamined and unchallenged. Nonetheless, there are also views in support of teaching culture in the language classroom (Bada, 2000; Pulverness, 2003; McDevitt, 2004; Byram, 2008; Nieto, 2009; Dai, 2011).

455


Pulverness (2003) underlines the need to study culture by claiming that for foreign language learners, language seems senseless if they know nothing about the people who speak the target language and the country in which the language is spoken. McDevitt (2004) further proposes that since learning a foreign language is a challenge to figure out the nature of other people, it is not possible to imagine language learning independent of culture. More importantly, they should seek ways to make use of culturaldiversity (Montgomery, 2001). A number of studies showed that students achieved significant gains in overall cultural knowledge after watching videos from the target culture in the classroom (Cooke, 1970; Herron, et al., 1999, Stephens, 2001). Juan and Martinez-Flor (2008) suggest some activities to enhance learners’ speaking by integrating cultural knowledge. The main aim of Saluveer’s (2004) research was to examine the situation of teaching and learning culture in English classes in Estonian secondary schools via two questionnaires administrated to 65 teachers and 193 students. It was concluded that teachers mostly defined culture as observable aspect of culture (art, customs, traditions, and way of life and behaviors) and invisible features (belief, values, and attitudes). Bada (1998) conducts a study aiming to raise cultural awareness of ELT students at university through 48 hours of instruction, using video films, maps, etc. Based on two significant results it is revealed that students made progress in their reading and/or speaking skills, and they develop a better sense of comparison between their own and the target language society. Korkmaz (2009) also mentions that omitting culture concept from language teaching area will inevitably block the flow of interrelations and intercultural communication between different communities. Cakir (2012) explored the linguistic and paralinguistic aspects of teaching culture. He used the term “third culture” of the language classroom to describe an ideal learning environment, one where learners can explore and reflect on their own and the target culture and language. He claimed that teachers can make it possible for students to observe and explore cultural interactions from their own perspectives to enable them to find their own voices and language egos in the second language speech community. Pedagogically, As Lessard-Clouston (1997) notes, in the past, people learned a foreign language to study its literature, and this was the main medium of culture. In the 1960s and 1970s, such eminent scholars as Hall (1959), Nostrand (1974), Seelye (1974, 1984), and Brooks (1975) made an endeavor to base foreign language learning on a universal ground of emotional and physical needs (Kramsch, 1993: 224). In the heyday of the audiolingual era in language teaching, Brooks (1968) emphasized the importance of culture not for the study of literature but for language learning, as Steele (1989: 155) has observed. Earlier on, Brooks (1960) in his seminal work language and language learning had offered sixty-four topics regarding culture interspersed with questions covering several pages. In the 1980s and 1990s, advances in pragmatics and sociolinguistics (Levinson, 1983) laying bare the very essence of language, which is no longer thought of as merely describing or communicating but, rather, as persuading, deceiving, or punishing and controlling (Byram, 1989; Fairclough, 1989; Lakoff, 1990), have rendered people’s frames of reference and cultural schemata tentative, and led to attempts at bridging the cultural gap in language teaching’ (Valdes, 1986). Savignon’s (1972: 9) study on communicative competence, for example, suggested the ‘value of training in communicative skills from the very beginning of the FL program’. It is only in the 1980s that scholars begin to delve into the dynamics of culture and its vital contribution to ‘successful’ language learning (Byram, et al., 1994: 5). The audiolingual method was replaced by the communicative approach, and Canale and Swain (1980: 31) claimed that ‘a more natural integration’ of language and culture takes place ‘through a more communicative approach than through a more grammatically based approach’. In addition, teacher-oriented texts (Hammerly, 1982; Higgs, 1984; Omaggio, 1986; Rivers, 1981) now included detailed chapters on culture teaching for the foreign language classroom, attesting to the predominant goal. Kramsch (1993, 1987) maintains that, by virtue of the increasing multiculturalism of various societies, learners should be made aware of certain cultural factors at work, such as age, gender, and

456


social class, provided that the former usually have little or no systematic knowledge about their membership in a given society and culture, nor do they have enough knowledge about the target culture to be able to interpret and synthesize the cultural phenomena presented. 2.1 Culture and teachers’ beliefs Although there is a large volume of research and theories on intercultural education and culture in FLT, relatively little attention has been paid to how the (inter)cultural dimension is perceived by teachers. Examples of research in this domain conducted outside Europe are Diaz-Greenberg’s and Nevin’s (2003) study, which provides an insight into American student teachers’ reflections on the teaching of culture and Al-Qahtani’s (2004) survey, which explores views and attitudes among Saudi EFL teachers towards introducing the target culture (TC) in their classrooms to develop their students’ sociolinguistic competence. The purpose of Francine Marie- Victoire Klein’s study titled “culture in the foreign language classroom: teacher’s beliefs, opportunities and practice” (2004) was to investigate high school foreign language teachers’ conceptualization of culture and culture learning. Results from interviews indicated that teachers shared similar beliefs about the nature of culture, the importance of culture teaching, and the goal of developing learners’ awareness of and tolerance for other cultures. Saluveer’s (2004) study, similar to Marie and Klein’s (2004) study showed that language teachers believe in the importance of teaching target cultures. On a similar footing, Dubreil’s (2002) research indicates that culture input, either by using the Internet or video enhance students culture learning. The quantitative study co-ordinated by Sercu (Sercu, 2005) engaged teachers from seven European countries, who were questioned about how they perceive the cultural dimension as well as their students’ attitudes towards the TC countries. In the final report the teachers are divided into two categories: those who are favorably disposed towards teaching intercultural competence and those who take a more hesitant and even rejecting stand. Both groups tend to have their own clear views on what preconditions should be met before one can start teaching culture and on how the teaching should be implemented. Also, there have been studies focusing on the role of teacher in culture teaching (Robinson, 1981; Copper, 1985; Byram et al.,1991; Wolf and Riordan, 1991; Davis & Markham, 1991), teachers’ perspectives on culture and cultural subject matters (Knox, 1984; Pajeres, 1992; Stodolosky & Grossman, 1994; Calderhead, 1996; Borg, 2003; Willems, 2000; Sercu, 2000; Brown, 2009), cultural conflict between teachers and students (Dirksen, 1990; Pajeres, 1992; Gougeon, 1993), and the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their instructional practices (Byram, 1991; Hall and Ramirez, 1993; Ryan, 1994; Cook, 1996; Fang, 1996; Kitao, 2000; Alptekin, 2002; Zhao, 2011). All these studies highlight the importance of teaching culture as a part of foreign language teaching and the role teachers in this process. Although preparing culturally responsive teachers is seen as a part of foreign language teacher training, teachers have their own reasons that block them from implementing the teaching of culture in foreign language classrooms. The literature shows that teachers experience certain problems while teaching, which results in either not dealing extensively with culture or ignoring it completely (Sercu, 2005). One of the problems is the overcrowded curriculum. The study of culture requires time; therefore, many teachers feel they cannot spare time for teaching foreign language culture in an already overcrowded curriculum. The second problem is that teachers may fear of not having sufficient knowledge on the target culture. That is, teachers are afraid to teach culture because they think that they do not know enough about it, and that their role is limited to expose students to facts only, especially when the government might not equip them with the facilities needed to teach and learn culture in a more tangible way (italic is ours). A third problem is students’ negative attitudes. Students often assume target culture phenomena consisting of new patterns of behavior; thus, they try to understand the target culture

457


within only their own framework of native culture. Işık (2003, 2004) pinpoints a similar concern for foreign language teaching as students may put barriers between their own culture and the target culture by rejecting all the values associated with the target culture. The fourth problem is the lack of adequate training on behalf of teachers. Teachers may not have been adequately trained in the teaching of culture and do not have suitable strategies and clear goals that would help them to create a framework for organizing instructions around cultural themes Kramsch (1993, 1987).The last problem is that teachers may not know how to measure cross cultural competence and changes in students’ attitudes as a result of culture teaching.Iranian English language teacher extensively experience these problems, too. 2.2 The significance of culture learning /teaching and the need for culture teaching Linguists and anthropologists have long recognized that the forms and uses of a given language reflect the cultural values of the society in which the language is spoken. Linguistic competence alone is not enough for learners of a language to be competent in that language (Krasner, 1999). Thanasoulas (2001) believes foreign language learning is basically foreign culture learning. Kramsch(1993) states that culture in language learning is not an expendable fifth skill, it is always in the background, right from day one. Language learners need to be aware, for example, of the culturally appropriate ways to address people, express gratitude, make requests, and agree or disagree with someone. Kramsch (1993) describes the “third culture” of the language classroom—a neutral space that learners can create and use to explore and reflect on their own and the target culture and language. The communicative competence model of Canale and Swain (1980) is based on the understanding of the relationship between language and culture. Linguistic, discourse, sociolinguistic, and strategic competence each incorporates facets of culture, and the development of these competences is intertwined with the development of cultural awareness. The idea is emphasized in the American National Standards for Foreign Language Education Project (1999).Regarding how communication in language and culture are tied up, Kramsch (1998) states that language expresses cultural reality, language embodies cultural reality, and language symbolizes cultural reality. According to Tomalin and Stempleski (1993), the teaching of culture has the following seven goals: • To help students to develop an understanding of the fact that all people exhibit culturally–conditioned behaviors; • To help students to develop an understanding that social variables such as age, sex, social class, and place of residence influence the way in which people speak and behave; • To help students to become more aware of conventional behavior in common situations in the target language; • To help students to increase their awareness of cultural connotations of words and phrases in the target language; • To help students to develop the ability to evaluate and refine generalizations about the target culture, in terms of supporting evidence; • To help students to develop the necessary skills to locate and organize information about the target culture; • To stimulate student’s intellectual curiosity about the target culture, and to encourage empathy towards its people; Let us see now several reasons why “language and culture are from the start inseparably connected: • Language acquisition does not follow a universal sequence, but differs across cultures; • The process of becoming a competent member of society is realized through exchanges of language in particular social situations;

458


• Every society orchestrates the ways in which children participate in particular situations, and this, in turn, affects the form, the function and the content of children’s utterances; caregivers’ primary concern is not with grammatical input, but with the transmission of socio-cultural knowledge; • The native learner, in addition to language, acquires also the paralinguistic patterns and the kinesics of his or her culture. Rivers (1981) claims that culture instruction should have at least seven goals. These include making students aware of the way people act; the effects of social variables such as age, sex, and social class on the way they speak; how people in the target culture conventionally act under different circumstances; culture in the most commonly used words and phrases; being critical about the target language culture; developing skills necessary for locating and organizing materials about the target culture; and developing intellectual curiosity about the target culture and empathy towards its people. 2.4 How should (or is) culture teaching be viewed? Culture must be fully incorporated as a vital component of language learning. Second language teachers should identify key cultural items in every aspect of the language that they teach. Student can be successful in speaking a second language only if cultural issues are an inherent part of the curriculum. Most of the teachers did not receive specific training as language teachers, and in most cases they were met with no support from school authorities or even professional interest from colleagues. Notwithstanding, it is claimed that “culture is the heart of ESL teaching” (Rowsell, Sztainbok, & Blaney, 2007: 142). However, it should be made clear that the teaching of culture is not akin to the transmission of some factual information about the people of the target community or country. Brooks (1960) made a distinction between “Cultures with a Capital C”: art, music, literature, etc. and “Culture with a small c”: behavioral patterns and lifestyle of the target community people. This belief makes us have different perspectives and, thus influencing the teaching of culture in classroom context: 1) transmitting factual information about the target culture; statistical, highbrow, and lowbrow 2) embedding culture within an interpretive framework and establishing connections between one’s own and the target culture 3) considering cultural competence as an educational objective in its own, and not as an aspect of communicative competence If looked at carefully, not only language is the inseparable part of culture but it is also the main channel to transmit it and to embody it. However, sometimes obstacles block this transition process. Two of these obstacles are traditions within the society and political circumstances. Consequently, many of us understand the challenges of making instruction culturally responsive. To meet this challenge, teachers must employ not only theoretically sound but also culturally responsive pedagogy (Gollnick & Chinn, 2002). The problem is that in most situations, institutions impose their own goals and values. Thus, learners and their goals of learning are ignored and usually methods and materials are determined by the given institutions. We should clarify whose culture we intend to present to our learners: target culture, home culture, or international culture. To solve the communication problems in the target language in the EFL classrooms, the learners need to learn the target culture within the syllabus, and the teachers should be sensitive to the learner’s fragility so as not to cause them to lose their motivation. One of the biggest obstacles to change was accepted traditions and norms within society like the norms and the tradition in the current Iranian situation. Some of these norms exist due to political realities that would be difficult to change. Some are vestiges of an evolving education system that has come a long way in a relatively short post-colonial period, yet has a long way to go to reach developed status in coming years.

459


The trainee teachers themselves were taught in schools by teachers who saw themselves as knowledge givers. Because they were never imbued with a spirit of self-directed learning, they expected their college lecturers to continue in like vein. These observations have been made in other developing countries, too (Jennings, 2001: 124). For example, in Iran there exists a culturally anti-western (especially America and UK) movement that was shaped after the Islamic revolution leading to a big political gap between these nations and Iran. This tension is comprehensively evident in different areas especially in the English language learning and teaching domain; a big dilemma that seems unsolvable in the Iranian education system. When Iran in 1979, politically, economically and culturally, declared its independence from the western countries, its education system totally removed all the landmarks of the western’s cultures. A kind of cultural isolation happened since the policy makers in the educational system tried to establish what they called pure Islamic –Iranian cultural framework. As a result, Iranian educational policy makers purify learning /teaching language programs from English–culture related issues in junior and senior high schools where English language received a little attention. For them, one reason was that the western countries challenge the legacies of Iranian culture and that they would try to threaten their IslamicIranian culture. After the Islamic revolution, Iranian governors considered their culture as if it had been colonized by western counties. Still currently, some Iranian policy makers heavily feel that there is a kind of English language imperialism that tried to penetrate its rules and ideology in the targeted cultures especially the cultures that politically are in conflict with the these countries. They, also, feel that the western countries colonized Iranian people in different areas. According to Young (2003) along with cultural traditions and attitudes, factors to change in the education system can be of a political nature. Although a political will alone is not sufficient to effectively drive a change process that is by nature complex and multi-faceted, but it is one of the most influential factors in directing any educational. A postcolonial proponent of education in Iran calls for a reconsideration of the Iranian histories and structures in all venues of education system. In the literature, the development of such framework depends on teachers’ own definitions of culture from which much of the difficulty arises. So in our case these definitions basically would be influence by the policy the government has regarding second language culture teaching in its educational system. None of the above studies does exclusively deal with the political conflicts that countries might have, or with the effects of these conflicts on the teaching and learning of English culture. This study by and large aimed to address this point where the tension between Iran and western countries marginalized second language culture teaching and learning in all national language-learning programs. On the other hand, all of these studies indicated that integration of culture into language classes enhanced students’ learning positively. While their motivation towards language learning is increasing, students’ communicative abilities are building up. Reviewing all these studies, the current study tries to answer the following questions: 1. What is the current state of teaching culture in English language classes in Iran? 2. What is the effect of governing policies on the manner of introducing cultural aspects in the classroom? Then, this study is intended to explore how conflicting policies can cause cultural separation and how this gap can permeate the teacher training centers and consequently the English language classrooms. We believe that, as one of the most influential factors to reinforce the existence of these problems in Iranian context, the tensions between Iran and the west (esp., the U.S. and the UK) has led to the omission of teaching/learning English culture. Iranian English language teachers extensively experience problems of culture teaching/learning stated above. Here, we hypothesize that the role of policy makers has a direct effect on the solution of these problems; otherwise, this negative view will linger in the belief of the

460


language teachers and learners. For the aim of the study, teachers’ perception of the objectives, cultural contents, and issues categorizing their teaching was detected. More specifically, the project inquired into the extent to which teachers perceive their teaching in intercultural perspective. It is anticipated that outcomes of this study will serve as a guide in designing programs for teachers in-service regarding intercultural competence teaching in foreign language education. We propose a number of ways to bridge the gap indicated, too. 3. Methodology 3.1 Participants A hundred Iranian EFL junior and senior high school teachers (57 males and 43 females - 62 holding B.A- 36 M.A- and 2 Ph.D. candidates), in Khuzestan, one of the southern provinces of Iran, participated in this study. On average, they are teaching twenty two hours a week as their obligatory teaching in the current educational year. Their age range was from 23 to 44 years (mean age was 32.69) and their language teaching experience range was between 2 to 23 years (mean experience 12.7). They were selected from 21 public state-run junior high schools and 33 public state-run senior high schools. 3.2 Instrument Two questionnaires were utilized in this study. Questionnaire 1 mainly addressed the theoretical/perceptional issues, while questionnaire 2 was dedicated to the practical side of the matter. Questionnaire 1: a list of five statements concerning the relationship between culture teaching and political affairs (reliability .83 & validity .79). Questionnaire 2: a list of ten statements concerning the cultural teaching practices (dimensions: knowledge, skill, and attitude) (reliability .81 & validity .83). 3.3 procedures Two web-based questionnaires were used in the study. The questionnaires were written in the target language and were validated through small case pilot study prior to the administration dissemination of the final version of the questionnaires. As a precautionary measure, the researchers’ emails were appended to the questionnaires so that the participants could contact them in case any misunderstanding arose. The reliability and validity for each questionnaire were calculated (the parenthetical notes in section 3.2). A mean score of ranks given to each statement was used as an indicator of the importance in the questionnaires. 4. Results Questionnaire 1: the results concerning the relationship between culture teaching and political affairs, 1. I often keep in touch with native English media more than Iranian English media (3.83) 2. I promote my students’ familiarity with the culture, the civilization of the target communities (2.80) 3. I try to downgrade the political tensions and promote the cultural sameness of the nations (2.73) 4. I promote the acquisition of an open mind and a positive disposition towards unfamiliar cultures (2.52) 5. I help my students in developing a better understanding of their own identity and culture (1.23) Questionnaire 2: the result obtained regarding the construct of Culture Teaching Practices 1. I provide information about daily life and routines (knowledge) (7.94) 2. I develop attitudes of openness and tolerance towards other peoples and cultures (attitudes) (5.37) 3. I provide reflection on cultural differences (knowledge and skills) (5.34) 4. I provide experiences with a rich variety of cultural expressions (literature, music, theater, film, etc.) (Knowledge) (4.11) 5. I provide information about shared values and beliefs (knowledge) (4.06)

461


6. I provide information about the history, geography and political conditions of the foreign culture(s) (knowledge) (3.49) 7. I use books other than the learners’ textbooks to provide learners with rich understanding of the target culture (skills) (2.40) 8. I promote the ability to handle intercultural contact situations (skills) (1.94) 9. I promote increased understanding of students’ own culture (skill to compare cultures) (1.83) 10. I promote the ability to intermingle cultural common grounds (skill) (1.23) 4. Discussion The aim of this study was to explore how conflicting policies can cause cultural separation among nations and how this gap can seep into the teacher training centers and as a result into the English language classrooms. After analyzing questionnaire 1, it can be seen that: (a) Iranian teachers of English confirm the impact of the existing political tensions with the west on their culture teaching. (b) Teachers try to diminish these clashing attitudes and replace them with a sense of acceptance and tolerance of other cultures. (c) Iranian teachers have lost sight of a valuable point of reference or departure. It is clearly observable in the low mean score assigned to the last statement (understanding of one’s own identity and culture). (d) Interestingly, female teachers mostly tended to be indifferent with regard to the cultural chasm and bridging it. Similarly, after analyzing questionnaire 2 the following can be said: (a) Attention, if any given to cultural aspects, is paid to the knowledge dimension more than skills and attitudes. (b) Developing skills is far less important than providing factual information. It is perhaps due to the fact that teaching language skills is the institutional responsibility of teachers. (c) Curricular syllabi and textbooks do not encourage teachers to foster learners’ intercultural competence. (d) Time allowed, teachers mainly dwell on the cultural differences and do not build on common grounds. As it was made plain in the commentary section of the questionnaires, they often praise the target culture and criticize their own culture. As we saw, although teachers support intercultural objectives and deem it important to promote cultural competence, their teaching practice can as yet not be characterized as intercultural. That is may be because: (a) Teachers feel it is not their responsibility to assist learners acquire intercultural competence b) The textbooks that teachers use in classrooms are designed to help students acquire communicative competence, not intercultural competence (c) Teachers feel that their first priority is to make sure if their learners have a good command of the foreign language not a command of the target culture. This study justifies other studies ‘finding about the significant of culture learning and teaching (Saluveer 2004; Klein 2004). Nevertheless, what make the findings of this study different with the similar ones is that in none of them did assert that the politic conflict plays the main role in impeding the teaching and learning English language culture effectively. Here, Iranian teachers see the political divergence between Iran and western countries as the main factor that causes this gap. The possible reasons for this finding can be seen or inferred from the teachers’ performance on the questionnaires. Firstly, Iranian teachers believed they are under pressure not to teach intercultural competence and they are teaching language in a more culture-free situation. Teachers are usually, under constant pressure to cover materials and hardly save any time to deal with cultural issues this is in line with what Kramsch (1994) characterized. Secondly, they believe that there is no training for teachers on how to deal with cultural issues. Teachers may fear of not having sufficient knowledge on the target

462


culture. It is necessary that teachers be trained and supported by their institutions and societies. It is not meant that language teachers be trained to teach culture per se. Rather, “these teachers bring alternative ways of knowing that can provide greater points of access for students in developing broader worldviews” (Dogancay-Aktuna, 2006: 290) . Overall, it is expected that teachers’ educators raise teacher trainees’ awareness and provide them with some general information about the diversity of the cultures.Thirdly, Iranian EFL teachers appear to mainly try to achieve linguistic goals and consider the promotion of general learning skills or cultural awareness in their pupils less important. But, for example, Spanish teachers, along the lines of the National Curriculum, are very much aware of the necessity of promoting attitudes of openness and tolerance towards other cultures and people. Yet, with respect to the cultural domain of foreign language education, they are aware of the importance of trying to enhance their learners’ familiarity with the foreign culture. Some of these Iranian teachers define culture teaching mainly in terms of familiarizing their learners with the foreign culture, failing to use the opportunities inherent in foreign language teaching to help their learners’ reflect on their own culture and cultural identity. This might be interpreted as an indication that teachers do not know how to promote the acquisition of intercultural skills. Possibly, this seems to indicate that Iranian EFL teachers have not yet realized the importance of providing practice in intercultural contact management. Finally, culture teaching requires time. In Iran, no time is allocated to teaching culture. Besides, teachers may feel that students have negative attitudes towards teaching culture. We think that this belief originates from the political trends in the society. The consequence is that teachers may not know how to measure cross cultural competence and changes in students’ attitudes as a result of culture teaching. To lessen these effects, the policy makers can take some considerations. Using authentic sources from the native speech community helps to engage students in authentic cultural experiences. Sources can include films, news broadcasts, television shows, web sites, photographs, magazines, newspapers, restaurant menus, travel brochures, and other printed materials. Currently, In Iran, these techniques, as they are culturally embedded, are not available or allowed to be presented as they are authentically exist in the their native origin and all the course books materials are not preplanned for this end. Looking at these issues, the main factor that may block all the endeavors to teach foreign culture in Iran may be traced back to the political conflicts between western countries and Iran. Since, as Pennycook (1994) following Galtung's (1971) discusses the spread of English in terms of concept of Center and Periphery, the Iranian policy makers consider the western policy as centrally threatening their cultural identity. He showed how English media from developed countries have penetrated the media of developing nations. This essentially one-way flow of information erodes the national sovereignty, cultural identity, and political independence of developing nations. This study is also in line with the quantitative study co-ordinated by Sercu and his colleagues (2005) where teachers here were divided into two categories: those who are favorably disposed towards teaching intercultural competence and those who take a more hesitant and even rejecting stand. Both groups tend to have their own clear views on what preconditions should be met before one can start teaching culture and on how the teaching of culture should be implemented. Here, we think that this assertion stems from the political conflict that Iranian teachers feel. The final justification is related to the status of English as EFL or ESL. The role of secondlanguage teaching in social and national integration, and the ensuing politicization of the field, means that there is a potentially greater awareness of the relationship between language, culture, and power in second-language pedagogy. This relationship is very rarely thematized within foreign-language education (though there are exceptions, such as Phillipson, 1992; Dendrinos, 1992; and Pennycook, 1994).

463


5. Implication Policy makers should allow for the teaching of some of the cultural highbrow as well as lowbrow aspects of the target communities. Textbook developers ought to include interesting, while at the same time informative, cultural capsules, tips, and anecdotes in their books to familiarize learners with the target culture. Teacher trainers should provide the would-be teacher with strategies on how to become an autonomous, initiative teacher who can draw on different sources to create ways to make interculturizing the objective of education.Teachers are supposed to recognize their role as a mediator of the language and culture, and not as a transmitter. Some techniques can be proposed as a simulated close contact with a target culture. Although teachers have a rare opportunity in Iran to directly experience target community, they, if possible, can visit a foreign country and experience the wealth of the culture of the target language context. In addition, numerous other techniques such as readings, films, role-play, simulation, games, culture assimilators, culture capsules and culturgrams can be used for language teacher to assist them in the process of acculturation in the classroom (Chastain:1988). 6. Conclusion The idea of teaching culture is nothing new to second language teachers but sometimes some conflicts cause a kind of mismatch. The mismatch between educational policies and the governmental policies and the issue of culture teaching in the Iranian context has made a big dilemma for language teachers. Although Iranian teachers support intercultural objectives and deem it important to promote the acquisition of an open-mind, culture-reflective learners, their teaching practice can as yet not be characterized as intercultural. Even though cognition is the first step in intercultural understanding, there seems to be a clash among the ways teachers consider intercultural objectives. Some teachers do not seem to realize that foreign languages are excellent vehicles for intercultural communication and some perhaps do realize but may still think the attainment of linguistic objectives is more important than the attainment of intercultural objectives. A part of this comes from the political conflicts between countries. At the same time, the results indicate that although teachers are not encouraged to focus on the target language speakers’ culture, they see this aspect quite motivating for learners and an integrative part of their classes. The implication is that the inclusion of cultural aspects should be basically invested on not only in classroom interactions, but also in course books. References Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT Journal, 56 (1), 5764. Al-Qahtani, F. M. (2004). Introducing the target culture to develop the sociolinguistic competence of EFL students: Views and attitudes of Saudi EFL Teachers at selected male middle schools in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 64, 7. American National Standards for Foreign Language Education Project (1999) Bates,D;& Plog F .(1990). Cultural anthropology (3rd ed.). Mc. Graw-Hill Education: NewYork Bada, E. (2000). Culture in ELT. Cukurova University Journal of Social Sciences, 6, 100-110. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81-109. Brown, A.V. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. The Modern Language Journal, 93 (1), 46-60. Brooks, N. (1960). Language and language learning. New York: Harcourt: Brace Jovanovich. Brooks, N. (1975).The analysis of foreign and familiar cultures. In Lafayette, R. (ed.). The culture revolution in foreign language teaching. Skokie, Illinois: National Textbook Company. Byram, M. (1989). Cultural studies in foreign language education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

464


Byram, K., & Kramsch, C. (2008). Why is it so difficult to teach language as culture? The German Quarterly, 81(1), 20-34. Byram, M., &Esarte-Sarries, V. (1991). Investigating cultural studies in foreign language teaching. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M., Morgan, C. (1994). Teaching and learning language and culture. Great Britain: WBC. Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. Berliner & R. Calife (Eds.). Handbook of educationalpsychology (pp.709-725). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillian. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47. Chastain, K.(1988). Developing second-language skills. the USA: HBJ publishers. Cooke, M. A. (1970). Suggestions for developing more positive attitude toward native speakers of Spanish. In H. N. Seelye. (Ed.) Perspectives for teachers of Latin American culture. Springfield, IL: State Department of Public Instruction. Damen, L. (1987). Culture learning: The fifth dimension in the language classroom. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Cook, S. (1996). College students’ perspectives on culture learning in a required French course. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY. Cooper, T. C. (1985). A survey of teacher concerns. Foreign Language Annals, 18 (1), 21-24. Dai, L. (2011). Practical techniques for culture-based language teaching in the EFL Classroom. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2 (5), 1031-1036. Davis, J. J. & Markham, P. L. (1991). Student attitudes towards foreign language study at historically and predominantly black institutions. Foreign Language Annals, 24 (3), 227-236. Dendrinos, B. (1992). The EFL textbook and ideology. Athens: N. C. Grivas. Diaz, G. & Nevin, A. (2003). Listen to the Voices of Foreign Language Student Teachers: Implications for Foreign Language Educators. Language and Intercultural Communication, 3 (3), 231-226 Dirksen, C. (1990). Learning styles of mainland Chinese students of English. IDEAL, 5, 29-38. Dogancay-Aktuna, S. (2006).Expanding the socio-cultural knowledge base of TESOL teacher education. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19 (3), 278-295. Dubreil, S. (2002.). An empirical investigation on using video and the Internet to teachculture in the intermediate level foreign language classrooms. Dissertation, Faculty of Graduate School of Emory University, Department of French and Italian, Division of Educational studies. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman. Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices.Educational Research, 38 (1), 4765. Furstenberg, G. (2010). Making culture the core of the class: Can it be done? The Modern Language Journal, 94 (2), 329- 332. Fanon, F. (1967). Black skin, white masks. New York: Grove Press. Galtung, J. (1971). A structural theory of imperialism. Journal of Peace Research. 8 (2), 81-117. Goilnick. D. M., & Chinn, R C. (2002). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society (6th ed.). New York: Merrill. Goode, T., Sockalingam, S., Brown, M., & Jones, W. A planner’s guide . . . Infusing principles, content and themes related to cultural and linguistic competence into meetings and conferences.Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center for Child and Human Development, NationalCenter for Cultural Competence. Retrieved October 28, 2003, from www.georgetown.edu/research/gucdc/nccc/ncccplannersguide.html

Gougeon, T. D. (1993). Urban schools and immigrant families. The Urban Review, 25 (4), 251-287. Guilherme, M. (2000). Intercultural competence. In M. Byram (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Language Teaching and Learning, 297-300. New York: Routledge.

465


Hall, E. T. (1959) [1981].The Silent Language. New York: Anchor Books. Hall, J. K., & Ramírez, A. (1993). How a group of high school learners of Spanish perceives the cultural identities of speakers, English speakers, and themselves. Hispania, 76, 613-620. Hammerly, H. (1982). Synthesis in language teaching. Blaine, WA: Second Language Publications. Harumi, I. (2002). A new framework of culture teaching for teaching English as a global language. RELC Journal, 33 (2), 36-57. Herron, C., Cole, S. P., Corrie, C., & Dubreil, S. (1999). The effectiveness of video-based curriculum in teaching culture. The Modern Language Journal, 83(4), 518-533. Higgs, T. V. 1984. Teaching for proficiency, the organizing principle. Lincolnwood, IL: National textbook. Işık, A. (2003). Linguistic imperialism and its reflection in foreign/second language teaching. FLED 308 Lecture Notes.Istanbul: Boğaziçi University. Işık, A. (2004). Linguistic imperialism and foreign language teaching. Unpublished paper. Jennings, Z. (2001). Teacher Education in Selected Countries in the Commonwealth Caribbean: the ideal of policy versus the reality of practice. Comparative Education, 37 (1), 107-134. Jiying, Z. (2004) Cultural connotation in English vocabulary teaching. Retrieved 15 th June, 2011 from http://www.elt-china.org/pastversion/lw/pdf/zhangjiying.pdf Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, conditions and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. Widdowson (eds.). English in the worlds: teaching and learning the language and literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kitao, K. (2000). Teaching Culture in Foreign Language Instruction in the Unites States. Online documents at URL http: //ilc2.doshisha.ac.jp/users/kkitao/library/article/culture.htm.[14.06.2004]. Knox, E. (1984). Report of the teaching of French civilization. French Review, 56 (3), 369-378. Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C. (2004). The language teacher as go-between. Utbildning & Demokrati.Tidskriftfo¨rdidaktikochutbildningspolitik, 13(3), 37–60. Kramsch, C. (2009). Third culture and language education. L. Wei & V. Cook (Eds.), Contemporary Applied Linguistics: Vol.1. Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 233-254). London: Continuum. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krasner, I. (1999). The role of culture in language teaching. Dialog on Language Instruction, 13(1-2), 7988 Lakoff, R. (1990). Talking power: The politics of language. New York: Basic books. Lessard-Clouston, M. (1997). Towards an Understanding of Culture in L2/FL Education. In Ronko, K.G. Studies in English, 25, 131-150 Japan: KwanseiGakuin University Press. Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marie, F. & Klein, V. (2004). Culture in the foreign language classroom: teacher’s beliefs, opportunities and practice. Dissertation, Minnesota: Faculty of the Graduate School. McDevitt, B. (2004). Negotiating the Syllabus: A win-win Syllabus. ELT Journal, 58 (1), 3-9. Montgomery, W. (2001). Creating culturally responsive, inclusive classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33 (4), 4-9. Moore, J. (1991). An analysis of the cultural content of post-secondary textbooks for Spanish: Evidence of information processing strategies and types of learning in reading selections and post-reading adjunct questions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Nieto, S. (2009). Language, culture and teaching: Critical Perspectives. New York: Routledge. National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. (1996). Standards for foreign language learning in the 21st century. Yonkers, NY: Author.

466


Nostrand, H. L. (1974). Empathy for a second culture: Motivations and techniques. InJarvis, G. A. (ed.). (1974). Responding to new realities. ACTFL Foreign LanguageEducation Series, vol. 5. Skokie, Illinois: National Textbook. Odlin, T. (1989). Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Omaggio, A. (1986). Teaching language in context: Proficiency- oriented instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Pajares, F. M. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62 (3), 307-322. Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman. Phillipson, R. (1986). English rules: a study of language pedagogy andimperialism. In R. Phillipson & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Eds). Linguicism rules in education. Roskilde University Centre, Denmark. pp. 124-343. Pulverness, A. (2003). Distinctions & Dichotomies: Culture-free, Culture-bound. Online documents at URL http://elt.britcoun.org. pl/forum/ distanddich.htm. [17.06.2004] Richards, Brown, & Forde, (2007). Addressing Diversity in Schools: Culturally Responsive Pedagogy. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39 (3), 64-68. Risager, K. (2000). Cultural awareness. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning, M. Byram (ed.), 159–62. London: Routledge. Rivers, W. (1981). Teaching foreign language skills (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press Robinson, G. L. (1981). Issues in second language and cross-cultural education: The forest through the trees. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Robinson-Stuart, G., & Nocon, H. (1996). Second culture acquisition: ethnography in the foreign language classroom [Electronic version]. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 431-49 Rowsell, J. Sztainbok, V., & Blaney, J. (2007). Losing strangeness: using culture to mediate ESL teaching. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 20 (2), 140-154. Ryan, P. M. (1994). Foreign language teachers’ perceptions of culture and the classroom: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Saluveer, E. (2004). Teaching culture in English classes. Master’s Thesis, Tartu: University of Tartu. Savignon, S. (1972). Communicative competence: An experiment in foreign language testing. Philadelphia: Centre for Curriculum Development. Seelye, H. (1974). Teaching culture: Strategies for foreign language educators. Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company. Seelye, H. (1984). Teaching culture: Strategies for inter-cultural communication (Revised edition). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Sercu, L. (2000). Acquiring intercultural communicative competence from textbooks. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Sercu, L. (2005). Foreign language teachers and intercultural competence: An international investigation. Clevedon: Cromwell Press. Steele, R. (1989). Teaching language and culture: Old problems and new approaches. In J.E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University roundtable on languages and linguistics (pp. 153-162). Washington: Georgetown University Press. Stephens, J. L. (2001). Teaching culture and improving language skills through a cinematic lens: A course on Spanish film in the undergraduate Spanish curriculum. ADFL Bulletin, 33(1), 22-25. Stodolsky, S. S. and Grossman, P. L. (1994). The impact of subject matter on curricular activity: An analysis of five academic subjects. American Educational Research Journal, 32 (2), 227-249. Straub, H. 1999. Designing a Cross-Cultural Course. English Forum, 37, 3, July- September, 1999.

467


Thanasoulas, D. (2001). The importance of teaching culture in the foreign language classroom. Radical Pedagogy. Retrieved January 10 2009, from http://radicalpedagogy.icap.org/content/issue_3/7thanasoulas.html Tomalin, B. & Stempleski, S. (1993). Cultural Awareness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Valdes, J. M. (1986). Culture bound: bridging the cultural gap in language teaching (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Willems, G. (2000). Teacher education. In M. Byram (Ed.). Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp.603-608). London: Routledge. Wolf, W. C. & Riordan, K. M. (1991). Foreign language teachers’ demographic characteristics, in-service training needs, and attitudes towards teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 24 (6), 471-478. Young, R. (2003). Postcolonialism: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Zhao, B. (2011). How to enhance culture teaching in English language classes. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(7), 847-850.

468