Attitudes toward Teaching English in Lebanon: An Exercise in Critical Applied Linguistics

Abstract

Critical Applied Linguistics (CALx) is both a means of examining the status quo governing the teaching and learning of languages and an opportunity to change or transform existing assumptions and practices. Within the multilingual context of Lebanon, my initial assumption was that English foreign language teachers have not explicitly scrutinized their attitudes to the language they teach or its impact on Arabic (L1). Teacher education and professional development have also not appeared to provide an opportunity to facilitate such a discussion. As such, my study based itself upon the assumption that current teacher education and training have established and reaffirmed mainstream attitudes to the teaching and learning of foreign languages in Lebanon. In order to examine my critical position, my study involved two main phases. Using action research with a mixed methods approach to data collection, the first phase included a survey of 62 English language teachers from different contexts: primary, middle, and high school, in addition to tertiary education. The purpose of this survey was to determine whether teacher attitudes would be mainstream or explicitly critical. In the second phase, I created an intervention in the form of a ‘reflexive practice model’, wherein nine in-service English language teachers, from different contexts as well, would meet to discuss relevant critical themes in the hopes of creating a platform for dialogic inquiry and transformation. Following the model set by Kumaravadivelu (2012), these sessions would value both professional and personal knowledge as participants negotiated their espoused attitudes, with emphasis on the local, ‘lived’, experience. The results of my research showed that teachers, in general, had some mainstream attitudes to the teaching of English, especially the need for early exposure to a foreign language, maximum exposure through English as a medium of instruction, and the monolingual fallacy. They also commonly taught English without reflecting upon any power dynamics or hegemony involved. While most participants agreed that the Arabic language might be suffering because of these practices, they did not believe they had any active role to play in order to preserve L1. However, they were also critical of certain pedagogical practices, especially related to teaching resources and policies that left them feeling powerless and passive. They also mostly believed that their professional development opportunities were insufficient and involved sporadic, expert-led, sessions that were not immediately relevant to their context. From an action research perspective, the ‘reflexive practice model’ was successful as it allowed participants to discuss their assumptions and identity as a whole, creating some immediate change in attitudes and practice, in addition to a feeling of empowerment and hope in a better future. Participants also concluded that such communities of practice would provide in-service teachers with a voice that they could later amplify both within their institutions and beyond, through publishing their findings and participating in conferences in Lebanon that included both ‘experts’ and the practicing teachers. Thus, this ‘reflexive practice model’ can provide an opportunity for continuing – and critical - professional development that also allows participants from different institutions to support one another as they reflect upon their identity and practice.