Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

(TESOL)
Biscuvsive Conslvuclion oJ lIe Inages oJ U.S. CIassvoons
AulIov|s) BuIo KuIola
Souvce TESOL QuavlevI, VoI. 35, No. 1 |Spving, 2001), pp. 9-38
FuIIisIed I Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)
SlaIIe UBL http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587858 .
Accessed 07/09/2011 1213
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
Discursive Construction
of
the
Images
of
U.S. Classrooms
RYUKO KUBOTA
The
University of
North Carolina at
Chapel
Hill
Chapel
Hill,
North
Carolina,
United States
Recent work in
applied linguistics
has
critiqued
the discursive construc-
tion of essentialized cultures of ESL students as the Other. Also
discursively
constructed are the
images
of the Self
compared
with the
Other. This article focuses on the
images
of U.S. classrooms in terms of
the
goals
of
education,
the characteristics of
teaching,
and student
characteristics,
and aims to reveal their discursive nature
by reviewing
literature in
applied linguistics,
studies on instructional
practices
in
U.S. schools and
colleges,
and a revisionist
critique
of the educational
crisis in the United States. This literature review demonstrates that the
applied linguistics
and revisionist discourses that
emphasize
cultural
differences
convey positive,
idealized
images
of U.S. classrooms whereas
research on classroom instruction in mainstream contexts
portrays
negative images
of U.S. classrooms
quite
similar to
applied linguistics'
images
of Asian classrooms. This
disparity
indicates that a
particular
representation
of the Self as the ideal norm is
produced
in contrast with
the Other. Discursive
practices
of
Othering,
dichotomization of the Self
and the
Other,
and
legitimation
of
power
relations between the Self and
the Other echo a
past-present continuity
of the discourses of colonial-
ism. The article discusses the effects of the essentialization of cultures
on students and
teachers,
and
suggests
an alternative cultural
critique.
T he role of culture has been a topic of inquiry in research and
pedagogy
in the field of
teaching
ESL/EFL.
Because of the
per-
ceived differences between the cultures of
ESL/EFL
students and the
target
mainstream
culture,
the field has
attempted
to
demystify
these
cultural differences. The foci of such
investigations
include,
for
example,
cultural values and beliefs manifested in
teaching, learning,
classroom
interaction,
and
teaching
materials;
rhetorical features of written
texts;
and
speech
acts
(Hinkel, 1999).
These
attempts
to
demystify
cultural differences are
well-meaning
efforts to
understand, assess,
and teach
ESL/EFL
students
effectively by
taking
into account their cultural
backgrounds.
However,
the field has
TESOL QUARTERLY Vol.
35,
No.
1,
Spring
2001 9
tended to essentialize the culture of
ESL/EFL students,
particularly
those from East
Asia,
as
categorically
different from the
perceived
culture of students in
English-speaking
countries such as the United
States. More
concisely,
the cultures of the Other and
Self
(Pennycook,
1998)
have been essentialized and
polarized.
This
tendency, particularly
the
Othering
of
English language
learners,
has
recently
been criticized
from various
perspectives
in
applied linguistics (e.g.,
Cahill, 1999;
Holliday,
1999; Kubota, 1999; Littlewood, 1999;
Pennycook,
1994, 1996,
1998;
Spack,
1997a, 1997b; Susser, 1998, Zamel, 1995, 1997).
Some of these criticisms focus on the discursive construction of the
culture and
language
of
ESL/EFL
students as the Other and issues of
power
exercised
through
cultural
representations.
In this
perspective,
culture is viewed not as a neutral and
objective category,
but as the
product
of discourse that
joins knowledge
and
power together
(Fou-
cault, 1978).
In other
words,
common
understandings
of a
particular
culture are not mirror reflections of
objective
truths but are constructed
by
discourses defined as
"ways
of
constituting knowledge, together
with
the social
practices,
forms of
subjectivity
and
power
relations which
inhere in such
knowledges
and the relations between them"
(Weedon,
1987,
p.
108).
In the discursive construction of
language
and
culture,
certain relations of
power
are
legitimated
or
challenged.
For
instance,
Susser
(1998)
applied
Orientalist discourse to his
analysis
of
descriptions
of
Japanese
learners and culture in
ESL/EFL
literature. Susser
argued
that
Orientalism,
which draws a
rigid epistemological
distinction be-
tween the East and the West and constitutes "a Western
style
for
dominating, restructuring,
and
having authority
over the Orient"
(Said,
1978,
p.
3),
is manifested in
Othering, stereotyping,
and
essentializing
Japanese
culture and learners.
Similarly,
in earlier work
(Kubota, 1999),
I
argued
that the cultural
dichotomy
between the West and the East
reflects a colonial discourse that
produces
and fixes cultural
differences,
that cultural nationalism has
appropriated
the essentialization of
Japa-
nese
culture,
and that this essentialization is contested
by
the
counterknowledge produced by
educational research. Discourses of
colonialism in relation to
teaching English
constitute the main theme of
Pennycook's
(1998) work,
which
posits
that colonialism is the
ground
for
the
production
of
European/Western images
of the Self and Other as
well as the
power
relations between
superiority
and
inferiority.
In the above
view,
culture is a site of discursive
struggle
in which
various
political
and
ideological positions compete
with each other to
promote
a certain cultural
representation
as the truth.
Thus,
certain
characteristics of the Other
prevalent
in
applied linguistics
can be seen
as discursive constructs that define who the Others are. The
Othering
of
ESL/EFL
students
by essentializing
their culture and
language presup-
poses
the existence of the
unproblematic
Self as a
monolithic,
normative
TESOL
QUARTERLY
10
category.
As the
Othering
of
English language
learners is
problematic,
construction of the
images
of the Self
vis-ai-vis
the Other
equally requires
critical
scrutiny (Pennycook,
1998).
This article focuses on
images
of U.S. classrooms as the Self contrasted
with East Asian classrooms as the
Other,
and
explores
the
discursively
constructed nature of these
images by reviewing
literature in two areas
of
inquiry:
L2 learners
(i.e.,
applied linguistics)
and instructional
practices
in mainstream school and
college
contexts
(i.e.,
education and
English/
literacy
studies).
Although
the Self in the field of TESOL
encompasses
what
Holliday (1994)
calls BANA
(British, Australasian,
and
North
American
contexts)
and
images
of classrooms in these contexts
may
have
some
similarities,
this article focuses in
depth
on the U.S. context. The
images
of U.S. classrooms are
explored mainly
in terms of the
perceived
goals
of
education,
the role of the teacher or characteristics of
teaching
practices,
and the characteristics of students.
In
presenting conflicting images,
I
recognize
the
danger
of essen-
tializing
the fields of
study
under review.
My
intention here is to focus on
the discursive nature of these
competing images
rather than to
general-
ize about the overall
knowledge
created
by
these fields of
inquiry.
The
purpose
of this article is not to define the true characteristics of U.S.
classrooms but rather to reveal how discourses
produce
and
exploit
these
images
in
legitimating
certain
knowledge
as the truth.
Therefore,
I use
the term
images throughout
this article to refer to various
competing
claims about the
reality
of U.S. classrooms constructed
through empiri-
cal and
conceptual investigations.
In
critiquing
the discursive construc-
tion of the cultural
images
of U.S. classrooms vis-a-vis the Asian counter-
parts,
I do not
suggest
that the
concept
of culture and research on
culture be discarded.
Instead,
I suggest that it is
important
to
engage
in
a
critique
of cultural difference and reveal
power
that is exercised in
forming
and
sustaining particular knowledge
about culture of the Self
and the Other.
I first review literature that contrasts the
images
of the Self and the
Other in
applied linguistics
and summarize the
general images
of U.S.
classrooms that
emerge
from this
body
of literature. I then
present
different
images portrayed by
other
applied linguistics
literature that
problematizes
the classroom instruction offered to ESL learners. This is
followed
by
a review of the literature in the fields of education and
teaching English/literacy
that
investigates
instructional
practices
in
mainstream contexts. This line of
research,
often fueled
by
a discourse of
educational crisis in the United
States,
portrays negative images
of U.S.
classrooms. This discourse was
challenged
in the 1990s
by
so-called
revisionists,
who
promoted
idealized cultural
images
similar to those
generated by
the
applied linguistics
discourse of cultural differences. I
suggest
that the construction of the dichotomous
images
of the Self and
DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF IMAGES OF U.S. CLASSROOMS 11
the Other reflects a
past-present continuity
of the discourses of colonial-
ism.
Finally,
the article discusses
implications
for
students, teachers,
and
researchers.
IMAGES OF U.S. CLASSROOMS IN APPIJED
LINGUISTICS RESEARCH
A
body
of research within
applied linguistics
focuses on cultural
challenges
that Asian ESL students face. Much of this research contrasts
certain
images
of classrooms in the United States (and
other
English-
speaking
countries)
with
images
of classrooms in Asian countries.
Because these studies
mainly
aim to
explain
observed behaviors of ESL
students in cultural terms rather than to
explore
the characteristics of
U.S.
classrooms,
the
images
of U.S. classrooms often serve as a referent
category
with which the
perceived
cultural behaviors and values of ESL
students are contrasted.
Also,
the
images portrayed
in these studies do
not
necessarily
derive from cross-cultural
empirical
studies but derive
mainly
from theoretical
explanations
of the ESL students' behaviors in
U.S. classrooms. The literature reviewed below manifests
predominance
of the view that U.S. classrooms are different from Asian classrooms. This
view stands in contrast to less dominant
images
of U.S. classrooms as not
serving
the needs of ESL students.
Cultural Differences Position:
U.S. and Asian Classrooms Are Different
Goals
of
Education
Applied linguistics
literature that
highlights
cultural differences
per-
ceives the main
goal
of education in the United States as the
promotion
of
logical, analytical,
and critical
thinking
skills,
reflecting
and
promot-
ing
individualism as a cultural value
(Ramanathan
&
Atkinson, 1999).
According
to this
view,
individualism means that
people express
their
own voices as democratic citizens and foster
creativity
and innovation
with reason. Contrasted with these views is a
perceived
Asian value of
collectivism that
places importance
on
maintaining group harmony,
preserving
traditions,
and
respecting authority
rather than
expressing
individual
opinions.
This kind of view is often mentioned in the context of L2
writing,
perhaps
because academic
literacy, particularly writing,
is central to the
cognitive activity
in educational contexts. For
instance,
cultural differ-
TESOL
QUARTERLY 12
ences are used to
explain
that Asian ESL students
experience
difficulties
in
writing groups
because of a mismatch between U.S. individualism and
Asian collectivism. That
is,
the
goal
of U.S. LI
writing groups
is the
improvement
of individual
writing,
but Asian cultural values of collabora-
tion and social
harmony prevent exchanges
of critical feedback in the
peer response process
(Carson, 1992;
Carson &
Nelson, 1994, 1996;
Nelson &
Carson, 1995, 1998).
The
conception
that
logic,
critical
thinking,
and individualism are
valued in U.S. education is also manifested in recent
arguments against
the wholesale
application
of LI
writing
instruction to ESL
settings
because of
perceived
cultural differences. For
instance,
reviewing
L1
composition
texts,
Ramanathan and
Kaplan
(1996)
claim that U.S.
mainstream
writing
classrooms aim at
presenting strong,
individualized
voice as a
goal by developing
linear,
thesis-driven rhetoric and critical
thinking
skills.
They
maintain that these
perspectives
are not
compatible
with the cultural
backgrounds
of ESL students. Other researchers have
also
argued
that
concepts
such as critical
thinking
and
analytical writing
are not universal but are cultural
practices specific
to Western traditions
and that
they
therefore create difficulties for Asian ESL students in U.S.
universities
(Atkinson, 1997;
Atkinson &
Ramanathan, 1995; Fox, 1994;
Ramanathan &
Atkinson, 1999).
Along
a similar
line,
Western education
is characterized as
aiming
to search for truth
using
reason
(Scollon,
1999)
and to extend
knowledge by analyzing, speculating,
and
hypoth-
esizing
(Ballard
&
Clanchy,
1991).
These characteristics are contrasted
with the Asian
view,
which is more concerned with the
practical
conse-
quence
of
doing
what is
right.
The Role
of
the Teacher
The above
conceptualization
of U.S. education
portrays
an
image
of a
teacher who uses a
dialogic teaching approach
that
encourages
the
exchange
of
logical arguments
rather than a didactic
approach
that
transmits
knowledge.
This
image
of a teacher recalls
Socrates,
leading
Scollon
(1999)
to contrast Socratic and Confucian discourses in
postsecondary
classrooms in the Western and Chinese
contexts,
respec-
tively.
She
argues
that in the Socratic view the role of teacher is to lead
the learner to truth
by
means of
questioning,
whereas in the Confucian
view it is to transmit the wisdom of the ancients to students
by answering
the teacher's own rhetorical
questions.
Here,
the Western
image
of the teacher is that of a facilitator who
engages
learners in the
quest
for truth
through inquiry
and discussion
rather than a master who transmits correct answers to them. The teacher
as facilitator is indeed a
metaphor
used in self-directed or self-access
DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF IMAGES OF U.S. CLASSROOMS 13
language learning
(cf. Voller, 1997)
and in the communicative
approach
to
language teaching.
This
image
is contrasted with the Asian
image
of
the teacher as the
authority
and the
possessor
of
knowledge
that is
transmitted without
any
concern for students' needs or
feelings.
The
dichotomy
between a
discovery-oriented
versus a didactic
approach
is
also mentioned
by Holliday
(1994)
in
describing
how cultural codes that
influence instructional
practices
differ in
nonanglophone
contexts such
as
developing
countries and in
anglophone
countries.
Characteristics
of
Students
The literature cited above communicates certain
images
of ideal
mainstream U.S. students. The intellectual
qualities posed
as ideal for
U.S. students are
independence, autonomy,
and
creativity,
and students
should
ideally develop analytical, objective,
and critical
thinking
skills.
They
are able to
analyze, hypothesize,
and evaluate in a rational manner.
Their communication
styles
in classrooms are
presumably
assertive and
direct, and,
as contrastive rhetoric studies often
claim,
their written
discourse
style
is
linear,
logical, analytical,
and deductive
(see Connor,
1996).
They actively engage
in classroom discussions
by expressing
their
own
opinions
and
questioning authority,
whether it is a
text,
a
teacher,
or
an established
theory.
These
qualities
are
presented
as
diametrically opposed
to the charac-
teristics of Asian
students,
who are described
intellectually
as
interdepen-
dent,
inclined to
preserve
rather than create
knowledge,
reluctant to
challenge authority,
and
engaged
in memorization rather than
analytical
thinking (e.g.,
Ballard &
Clanchy,
1991; Carson, 1992; Fox, 1994).
Asian
students
allegedly plagiarize
because
they
do not share the Western
notion of text
authorship
that stresses
originality, creativity,
and individu-
alism. In terms of oral communication
styles,
Asian students are de-
scribed as
reticent,
passive,
indirect,
and not inclined to
challenge
the
teacher's
authority
(Jones, 1999).
Their written communication
style
is
often characterized as
indirect, circular,
and inductive
(see Connor,
1996).
In
short,
Asian students are
presumably
inclined to
respect
authority
and maintain
group harmony
and
interpersonal relationships
rather than to seek truth
through analytical
and critical
thinking.
Overall,
this
body
of
applied linguistics
literature
provides
dichoto-
mous
images
of U.S. and Asian classrooms. The
images
of U.S. class-
rooms are ideal but seem
quite
real.
They
foster the
typical argument
that Asian ESL students face a
challenge
in U.S. classrooms because of
cultural differences between the East and the West.
TESOL
QUARTERLY 14
Institutional Problem Position:
U.S. Classrooms Do Not Serve ESL Students
Although
the above
images
of U.S. classrooms
predominate
in
applied
linguistics,
some studies
focusing
on
English language
learners in
mainstream classrooms offer different
images. Many
of these studies
focus on
secondary
school
settings
and reveal the
complexity
of socializa-
tion in the
cultural/linguistic development
of
English language
learners
within and outside the school
(e.g.,
Harklau, 1994, 1999a, 1999b;
McKay
&
Wong,
1996; Valdes, 1998).
They explore
and
problematize
the
power
relations between teachers and
students,
ESL and mainstream
classes,
and ESL students and mainstream
peers.
As
ethnographic
studies,
their
data come from observations of
only
a limited number of teachers.
Among
them,
some
ESL/sheltered
English
teachers used
process writing
and the communicative
approach,
which
corresponds
to the
images
of
U.S. teachers discussed
above,
but other teachers in
ESL/sheltered
English
classrooms
generally
relied on teacher-centered or other tradi-
tional
approaches,
such as the
teaching
of
grammar
and
vocabulary,
mechanical
writing
exercises such as
copying
and fill-in-the
blank,
and
choral
repetition (McKay
&
Wong,
1996; Valdes, 1998).
In mainstream
classrooms,
the
predominant activity
was teacher-led
discussion,
al-
though
"discussion
may
be a misnomer for this
activity
because teachers
overwhelmingly
dominate the talk"
(Harklau, 1994,
p.
248). Overall,
mainstream teachers and
peers
in these studies
paid very
little attention
to Asian and
Hispanic
ESL students. The data would lead to the con-
clusion that their
linguistic
and socialization needs were not
being
met.
Similarly
at the
college
level,
Zamel
(1995)
addresses the need for
instructors to
recognize
the
linguistic
and cultural
challenges
that ESL
students face. In
college
classrooms as
portrayed by
her ESL
informants,
lectures
predominated,
and little
help
was offered to facilitate under-
standing;
class discussions were
passive;
and short-answer or
multiple-
choice exams were
prevalent.
A case
study
of a Polish
immigrant
student
(Leki, 1999)
also found insufficient
opportunities
for students to de-
velop
critical
thinking. High
school and
undergraduate
classes
required
very
few extensive
writing assignments.
Instead,
assessments often in-
volved
multiple-choice
exams that
required merely
rote memorization.
This
body
of
applied linguistics
literature
perceives
the cause of
difficulties
experienced by
ESL students as
mainly
institutional rather
than cultural.
Thus,
the
images
of U.S. classrooms are
negative
and
different from the idealized
images portrayed by
other studies. The
negative images
of U.S. classrooms
depicted
here
overlap
with the
negative images
manifested in the literature on
teaching
and
learning
in
the mainstream context.
DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF IMAGES OF U.S. CLASSROOMS 15
IMAGES OF U.S. CLASSROOMS IN RESEARCH
FOCUSING ON MAINSTREAM CONT'EXTS
Studies of instructional
practices
in
elementary
and
secondary
schools'
as well as
colleges convey negative images
of U.S. classrooms. These
images
are constructs of a
public
discourse of educational crisis and
reform in the United States. After
briefly outlining
the discourse of
educational crisis manifested in the
politically
driven education reform
of the 1980s and
1990s,
this section
presents
these
negative images
of
U.S.
classrooms,
drawing
on literature on instructional
practices
in
schools and
colleges
in
general
and on
English/literacy
instruction in
these contexts. It also outlines the revisionist
discourse,
which
challenges
these
negative
images
and,
interestingly, promotes positive images
simi-
lar to those found in the
applied linguistics
discourse of cultural
differences.
Crisis of U.S. Education and Education Reform
Education in U.S. schools and
colleges
received a
large
amount of
criticism in 1980s and
1990s,
especially
after the release of A Nation at
Risk
(National
Commission on Excellence in
Education, 1983).
This was
not,
of
course,
the first time that U.S. schools and
colleges
had been
viewed as at risk-the word crisis had been used to describe U.S.
education over several decades
(Jaeger,
1992).
However,
the
driving
force behind educational reform movements in the
past
two decades has
been an
urgent
need to
strengthen
U.S. economic dominance in the
global
market
(Goodlad, 1997).
Politicians and
opinion
leaders felt that
U.S. students were not
equipped
with the academic abilities and skills
necessary
to
compete
with well-educated
European
and Asian
competi-
tors. This sense of threat was exacerbated
by
the
gaps
in mathematics
and science achievement between students in the United States and
those in some Asian countries. The
problems
listed in A Nation at Risk
include
illiteracy,
lower student achievement
compared
with other
industrialized
nations,
and a lack of
higher
order intellectual skills.
Elaborating
on the last
point,
the
report
states,
"Nearly
40
percent
Although
the ideal
images
of U.S. classrooms
portrayed
in
applied linguistics
derive
predominantly
from
college-level language
education,
the
body
of literature introduced here
focuses not
only
on the
college
level but also on
primary
and
secondary
education.
Obviously,
schools and
colleges
do not
exactly
match in terms of the kinds of educational
experiences
that
they
offer.
However,
the
assumption
in
applied linguistics
discourse of cultural differences
is
that
culturally specific
educational values are fostered
throughout
one's
schooling
in a certain
culture
(Atkinson
&
Ramanathan, 1995). Thus,
it seems reasonable to assume that discussions
on
primary
and
secondary
education are relevant to the
present exploration.
TESOL
QUARTERLY 16
cannot draw inferences from written
material;
only
one-fifth can write a
persuasive essay" (p.
9).
Around the same
time,
reports
on
higher
education reform were also
published (e.g.,
Association of American
Colleges,
1985; Bennett, 1984;
Study Group
on the Conditions of
Excellence in American
Higher
Education, 1984;
also see
Simpson
&
Frost, 1993).
Recommendations made in these
reports
include the
development
of
creativity,
critical
thinking, self-discovery,
and
problem-
solving
skills.
The most recent educational reform has been
prompted by
America
2000,
which was initiated
by
President
George
H. W. Bush and continued
as Goals 2000 under the Clinton administration. Under this current
plan
for
elementary
and
secondary
education
reform,
national standards for
the core academic
subjects
have been
established,
and
many
states have
aligned
their state curricula with the national standards. This standards-
based education reform has also called for the
strengthening
of school
and student
accountability.
As a
result,
a number of states have
adopted
high-stakes testing,
the results of which lead to either rewards or
sanctions for teachers and administrators and either the
granting
of or
the denial of social
promotion
for students. In this state of
affairs,
instructional
emphases
on
memorizing
discrete facts and
definitions,
drilling,
and "the basics" over critical
thinking
are
likely
to increase
(Miner, 1999),
although
the overall
impact
of
high-stakes testing
has
yet
to be
investigated.2
The
images portrayed
here contradict the celebrated
ideals of U.S. classrooms reviewed earlier.
Research on Classroom Instruction in
U.S. Schools and
Colleges
A number of studies on instructional
practices
in U.S. schools and
colleges portray negative images
of U.S. classrooms. In
my investigation
of various sources in the fields of education and
English/literacy
instruction,
I found
many
relevant studies
published
in the 1980s but not
as
many
in the 1990s. The reason
might
be that the focus of effective
schools research in the 1990s shifted to
investigating positive qualities
of
the schools that had
already
been identified as somehow effective
(cf.
Reed,
Bergemann,
&
Olson, 1998).
Yet studies
published
in the
past
few
years
manifest the
persistence
of the
negative images
described in this
section.
2
One
study
conducted in North Carolina (Jones et
al., 1999)
revealed that the
impact
of
high-stakes testing
on instructional
strategies
was mixed. Some teachers are now
using inquiry
projects, lecturing,
textbooks,
and worksheets more
frequently
whereas others are
using
them
less.
However,
teachers are
generally using
more hands-on
activities,
group
discussions,
and
student-centered instruction.
DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF IMAGES OF U.S. CLASSROOMS 17
Goals
of
Education
Unlike the
negative images
mentioned
above,
the
images
of the ideal
classrooms envisioned in the
goals
of education
parallel,
to a certain
extent,
those
portrayed
in the
applied linguistics
literature. Goodlad
(1984)
lists
goals
of
schooling
based on a historical
investigation
and an
analysis
of state documents. The
goals
that
parallel
some
applied
linguists'
views include the
development
of
rational,
logical,
critical,
and
independent thinking
as well as
original problem-solving
skills.
However,
contrary
to
applied linguistics' strong emphasis
on
individualism,
other
goals
address
cooperation
with
others,
as in
developing
"the
ability
to
identify
with and advance the
goals
and concerns of others" and
learning
to "form
productive
and
satisfying
relations with others based on
respect,
trust,
cooperation,
consideration,
and
caring" (p.
55). Indeed,
the recent
emphasis
on
cooperative learning
in schools is based on the
philosophy
of
working together
toward a
common,
rather than a
purely
individual,
goal (e.g., Johnson
&
Johnson,
1994).
Characteristics
of
Classroom
Teaching
Research on
primary
and
secondary
education
published
in the 1980s
revealed the
prevalence
of teacher dominance in the classroom. An
example
comes from the
large-scale study
called A
Study
of
Schooling,
which is summarized in
publications
such as those
by
Goodlad
(1984)
and Sirotnik
(1983).
Based on classroom
observations,
the
study
found
that teachers
generally engage
in frontal
teaching
most of the
time,
telling
or
explaining, asking
factual
questions, monitoring
students' seat
work,
and
acting
as a sole decision maker on
materials,
class
organiza-
tion,
and instructional
procedures.
These characteristics were more
commonly
observed as the
grades proceeded upward.
Sirotnik
analyzed
5-minute interaction data and
reported
a
scarcity
of
genuine
teacher-
student interactions
using open-ended questions.
Also,
the data revealed
that teachers
infrequently gave
corrective feedback to
help
students
understand information. Other
studies,
such as Sizer's
(1984)
on
high
school and
Taylor,
Teddlie, Freeman,
and Pounders'
(1998)
on elemen-
tary
schools,
also
depict
such didactic
ways
of
teaching
and reliance on
textbooks and worksheets.
These
images
have
apparently
been
quite
consistent
throughout
the
past century
in the United States. Cuban
(1993)
conducted historical
research on instructional
practices
in U.S. classrooms from 1890 to
1990,
examining
whether teacher-centered instruction3
persevered
in
public
3
Teacher-centeredness was defined as dominance of teacher
talk,
whole-class rather than
individualized instruction,
decisions on the use of activities and materials made
solely by
teachers,
desks
arranged
in
rows,
and so on.
TESOL
QUARTERLY 18
schools and
why
or
why
not.
Although elementary
school
teaching
increasingly incorporated
child-centered
philosophies, including
the
whole
language approach promoted
in the 1980s and
early
1990s, the
data show that "the dominant
teaching tendency
was toward varied forms
of teacher-centered instruction"
(p.
245).
Cuban attributes the
tendency
to teachers'
perception
that
they
must exercise their
authority
to
maintain order in the classroom.
Naturally,
not all U.S. classrooms conform to these
pictures.
Accord-
ing
to
Boyer's
(1984)
description
of
high
school classrooms in an
upper-
class
community, many
teachers used innovative and
intellectually
chal-
lenging teaching approaches
and
emphasized creativity,
individual
participation,
and
student-centered,
lively
discussion. These observations
parallel
the ideal
images
of U.S.
classrooms,
but such
experiences
are
generally
limited to students with
privileged backgrounds.
In
fact,
research
by
Oakes
(1985)
on
tracking
at
secondary
schools revealed
unequal
access to this
type
of instructional mode for
high-
and low-track
students.
Teacher-centered instruction is also common in
college
classrooms.
Based on national
surveys
of
faculty
and
undergraduate
students as well
as site
visits,
Boyer
(1987)
observed that
professors frequently gave
lectures whereas students received information. Lectures were the inevi-
table choice for
large
classes offered
frequently by
research universities.
Boyer's report,
however,
includes
examples
of some classes filled with
lively
discussion between the instructor and students.
Again,
these classes
reflect the ideal
images
of U.S.
classrooms,
but
they
did not constitute
the
majority.
An
ethnographic study
on academic
literacy
conducted
by
Chiseri-Strater
(1991)
and a
study
done
by
lower-division
undergraduate
students and a
professor
(Anderson
et
al., 1990)
also
reported
a
tendency
toward
knowledge
transmission and a lack of interaction
between
professors
and students. Based on his research on
teaching
literature,
Applebee
(1996)
commented that a
knowledge-out-of-context
approach
with memorization and rote
learning prevails
in schools and
colleges.
Overall,
the
image
of a teacher here is that of an
authority
and
transmitter of
knowledge.
These
images, along
with the
following images
of
students,
parallel
the
applied linguistics
literature that focuses on
institutional
problems surrounding
ESL students in the mainstream
context.
Characteristics
of
Students
The studies cited above offer an
image
of
passive,
docile,
and
compliant
rather than
active, creative,
and autonomous students. Goodlad
(1984)
reported
that the
predominant
activities observed in schools were
written work such as
filling
out
worksheets,
listening
to the
teacher,
and
DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF IMAGES OF U.S. CLASSROOMS 19
preparing
for
assignments.
The same
study
found that individual learn-
ing
occurred
only
at a
superficial
level in that students worked
indepen-
dently
on identical tasks. Students in this
study "perceived
themselves to
be
doing
what the teacher told or
expected
them to do"
(p.
110).
At the
high
school
level,
students
rarely engaged
in serious intellectual discus-
sion
(Boyer,
1987),
and the teacher's lecture was "a sort of
monologue,
with no one
listening"
(Sizer, 1984,
p.
158).
Boyer
(1987) asked,
"How
can we
produce
critical and creative
thinking throughout
a student's life
when we so
systematically discourage individuality
in the classroom?"
(p.
147).
Passivity
also characterizes students in
many college
classrooms.
Boyer
(1987)
described
many undergraduate
students as
being unengaged
in
lectures but
quite
conscious of
grades
and
willing
to conform to a
formula for success. As one student
stated,
"Undergraduates
are afraid of
controversy. They
hesitate to
participate
in
vigorous give
and take on
any
topic.
The main
thing
is to
prepare
for the exam"
(p.
141).
When
discussion did occur in a
classroom,
only
a handful of
students,
usually
male,
dominated the floor. Other
works,
such as those
by
Anderson et al.
(1990)
and Chiseri-Strater
(1991),
convey
similar
images.
Other observations included the limited time students
spent
on
reading
and
writing
in schools
(Boyer,
1984; Goodlad, 1984; Sizer, 1984),
a lack of extended
writing assignments
in lower-division
undergraduate
classes
(Anderson
et
al., 1990),
and a lack of
reading
and
writing
skills
among college
students
(Boyer,
1987).
In
schools,
although
a substantial
amount of time was
spent
on
writing,
the activities focused on
writing
rather than
composing-that
is,
answering questions, filling
in work-
books,
and so on.
Although
these results need to be
questioned
to some
extent because these studies were conducted
prior
to the
popularity
of
the whole
language approach,
Harklau
(1994, 1999a)
and
Taylor
et al.
(1998)
indicate that
reading
and
writing
continue to receive insufficient
attention in schools.
In
sum,
contrary
to the
images produced by applied linguistics
discourse,
which focus on cultural
differences,
U.S. classrooms as
por-
trayed by
these studies are characterized
by
teacher dominance and
student
passivity. According
to Goodlad
(1984), students,
as
they
moved
upward,
were
"conforming,
not
assuming
an
increasingly independent
decision-making
role in their own education"
(p.
109).
Revisionist
Arguments:
"We Are
Fine,
They
Are Different and Have Problems"
Both the
politically
driven education reforms and the above-cited
research on instructional
practices portray negative images
of U.S.
public
TESOL
QUARTERLY
20
education.
However,
some researchers have
begun
to
express
their
opposition
to the
emphasis
on "crisis"
reported by
the media and used as
a
political
attack
against public
schools. These
critics,
or
revisionists,
as
Baker
(1997b)
calls
them,
have
questioned
evidence that
alleges
the
poorer
academic achievement of U.S. students relative to those in other
nations
(e.g.,
Berliner, 1993;
Berliner &
Biddle, 1995;
Bracey,
1993,
1996b, 1997b;
Rotberg,
1990;
Westbury,
1992).
These revisionists claim
that the crisis of U.S. education has been manufactured
by right-wing
forces that have
exploited
data such as international achievement
comparisons
to attack the nation's
public
schools and
promote
a
neoconservative educational
agenda. Accordingly,
revisionist
arguments
primarily reinterpret
the results of national and international test scores
and other data related to
schooling
in the United States in order to
support public
education. Revisionists are
vehemently opposed
to the
negative portrayal
of
schooling,
which,
they
claim,
is
conveniently
used
to undermine
public
education in the United States.
Revisionists'
arguments generated
heated debates in some educa-
tional
journals during
the 1990s
(e.g.,
Baker, 1997a;
Berliner &
Biddle,
1996;
Bracey,
1997b; Stedman, 1996a, 1996b, 1997a, 1997b).
Although
culture is not a main focus of these
debates,
issues of cultural differences
occasionally
surface,
and when
they
do,
revisionists
present
the same
cultural
dichotomy
as is evident in the
applied linguistics
discourse of
cultural difference.
Furthermore,
in the context of international
compe-
tition in student
achievement,
images
of Asian education become almost
a
target
of a
negative campaign.
Yet a contradiction within revisionist
discourse is revealed in its recommendations for education reform-
they,
too,
acknowledge problems
in U.S. education.
Revisionists defend U.S.
schooling mainly by asserting
that it
promotes
problem solving
and critical
thinking,
while
they
view Asian
schooling
as
rigid,
authoritarian, brutal,
and oriented toward exams and memoriza-
tion. For
instance,
Berliner and Biddle
(1995)
and
Bracey
(1996b)
cite a
study by Mayer, Tajika,
and
Stanley
(1991),
which
compared
the math-
ematical
problem-solving
skills of U.S. and
Japanese
fifth
graders,
and
report
that U.S. students excelled at
problem solving.
However,
this
study
actually
showed that
Japanese
students
outperformed
U.S. students in
both
computation
and
problem solving
and that U.S. students excelled
at
problem solving only
when the two
groups
were
statistically equated
for mathematics achievement levels.
Also,
Bracey
(1996a),
one of the
most
outspoken
revisionists,
cites a
study by
Cai
(1995),
which
compared
U.S. and Chinese students' mathematics
performance,
and
reports
that,
whereas Chinese students
performed significantly
better than U.S.
students on
computation
and
simple problem-solving
tasks,
there was no
significant
difference on
complex problem solving
as measured
by
performance
on
open-ended problems. Bracey
claims that these results
DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF IMAGES OF U.S. CLASSROOMS
21
reflect the rote
approach
to math
prevalent
in Asian
countries,
including
China,
Japan,
and Taiwan.
Along
the same
line,
Berliner
(1993)
and
Berliner and Biddle
(1995)
state that Americans
expect
their children to
be
creative,
spontaneous, socially responsive,
and able to
challenge
unreasonable
authority,
and that
foreign
visitors to U.S. schools are
impressed
with these
qualities.
However,
beyond
this
point, positive aspects
of U.S. educational
practices
are
rarely
mentioned,
and instead
negative aspects
of Asian
education are
highlighted.
For
instance,
Japanese high
schools are
singled
out as
being
devoid of active student
involvement,
cooperative
learning, expression
of
opinions, independent thinking, originality,
and
innovation
(Bracey,
1996a).
These characteristics are said to be influ-
enced
by
a
rigid
national
curriculum,
an exam- and memorization-
oriented instructional
approach, extremely
severe
discipline,
and the
expectation
to conform to
authority (Bracey,
1993, 1996a, 1997a;
Young,
1993).
Bracey
(1997b) states,
"The
goal
of Asian education
systems
(and
all authoritarian and totalitarian education
systems)
is obedience. In
Japan
it used to be obedience to the
emperor;
now it is
simply
obedience
to the state and
authority
in
general" (p.
21;
see similar comments in
Bracey,
1998).
At the outset of The
Manufactured
Crisis,
Berliner and
Biddle
(1995)
present
several news headlines about horrific incidents
involving teenagers.
Later,
the authors reveal that these incidents oc-
curred
inJapan,
not in the United States. Unlike the neutral tone used in
applied linguistics
research,
these
descriptions
of Asian cultures sound
negative
and even
derogatory.
Ironically,
revisionists' recommendations for education reform do not
evoke
positive images
of the U.S. classrooms that
they try
to defend.
Although
Berliner and Biddle
(1995)
include studies such as those
by
Goodlad
(1984)
and
Boyer
(1984)
as
publications
that have manufac-
tured
myths, they identify
the same
problems reported by
these studies
and
suggest paths
to
improvement. Arguing against
the
knowledge-
transmission and
rote-learning approach promoted by
neoconservative
reformists such as Hirsch
(1987),
Berliner and Biddle
suggest
that
high
school
graduates
should
"possess
the drive and creative
ability
to think
and work
independently" (p.
301)
and be able to communicate effec-
tively
and solve
problems.
However,
they
state that these ideas are "far
different from the stand-and-deliver classroom model that still domi-
nates American
high
schools
today" (p.
302)
and that
"many
Americans,
including
some
educators,
still believe that
teaching
is
simply
the
transmission of
knowledge" (p.
306).
Although
the
impetus
behind this
book is to
dispel
the
myth
of
crisis,
the dominant instructional
practice
perceived
here is consistent with the results
reported by
various studies
reviewed earlier.
TESOL
QUARTERLY 22
DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF IMAGES
As reviewed thus
far,
various research studies have
generated
both
contradictory
and more or less consistent
images
of U.S. classrooms. One
set of
images projects
teacher dominance and
passivity
of students
whereas the other
portrays
a student-centered classroom in which
students
actively engage
in critical
thinking
and
problem solving.
How-
ever,
the latter
image
is
generally
held across the varied
perspectives
as
the ideal rather than the
typical
U.S. classroom. Yet
only
this ideal
image
is
exploited
to accentuate cultural differences.
Applied linguistics
dis-
course of cultural differences indeed
rarely
mentions the other set of
images, leaving
the
impression
that
positive images
of U.S. classrooms
are
neutral, factual,
and real. This
position
reflects the rhetoric of
empirical
and scientific
reporting
that has a
pretense
of
objectivity
(Canagarajah,
1995).
In contrast to these ideal
images,
the other set of
images
of U.S.
classrooms,
drawn from
many
actual
practices,
are
quite
similar to
applied linguists' images
of Asian
classrooms,
raising
the
question
of
whether educational
practices
in the United States are distinct from
those in Asia. These
conflicting images
and different claims for truth
challenge
the
knowledge
of the characteristics of U.S.
classrooms,
making
it
impossible
to determine their true characteristics.4
Here,
I
suggest
that the
images
of U.S. classrooms are
discursively
constructed,
reflecting
and
legitimating
a certain
political
and
ideological position
from which the researcher
speaks.
Discursive Practices
The above literature review illustrates discursive
practices
that
regu-
late the formation and
interpretation
of certain cultural
images
about
teaching
and
learning.
One
practice
evident in the
applied linguistics
and revisionist discourses that
highlight
cultural differences is the
treatment of Asian culture as the distanced
Other,
which leads to its
exploitation
as a convenient
category.
In the debate on the U.S.
educational
crisis,
the Other is an
insignificant
category
until it
poses
a
challenge
to the Self. Even if the Other is
brought
to attention in this
debate,
a rich
body
of
ethnographic
studies on
Japanese
education,
for
instance,
tends to be either
ignored
or
given only
a
cursory
reference
4
This
difficulty
is similar to that in
determining
the characteristics
ofJapanese schooling
(cf.
Kubota, 1999; LeTendre, 1999; Susser, 1998).
DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF IMAGES OF U.S. CLASSROOMS 23
(LeTendre, 1999).5 Furthermore,
the revisionist
attempt
to stress the
excellence of U.S. education has
generated
a
suggestion
that test scores
from Asian countries be excluded from the international
comparison
because cultural differences make the data
incomparable (Bracey,
1997b).
Conversely,
in the
applied linguistics
discourse of cultural
differences,
Asian students' culture is the focus of
investigation.
Therefore,
Asian
students are not distanced on the surface.
Nevertheless,
a similar kind of
Othering
exists in the
emphasis
on the dichotomous differences between
Asian culture and U.S. culture.
The second
significant
discursive
practice
is the
polarization
of the
Self and the
Other,
which occurs
only
when the Self and the Other are
compared.
As mentioned
earlier,
most research on U.S. schools and
colleges
does not involve the referent
category,
the Other. The
images
of
U.S. classrooms
portrayed
in these studies exhibit a
striking similarity
to
applied linguistics' representations
of Asian classrooms.
By
contrast,
applied linguistics
and revisionist
discourses,
which are concerned with
cultural differences and therefore endorse a fixed
opposition
between
the Self and the
Other,
highlight
dichotomous differences between U.S.
and Asian classrooms. There
is, however,
a difference between the
applied linguistics
and revisionist discourses. Whereas the
applied
lin-
guistics
discourse tends to
carry
a
neutral,
relativistic
tone,
the revisionist
discourse
explicitly
contrasts
positive images
of U.S. culture with
negative
images
of Asian culture. This
difference, however,
is not
necessarily
a
divisive
one,
as indicated in the next section.
The third discursive
practice
is the
production
and maintenance of
unequal
relations of
power
between U.S. culture and Asian culture. The
underlying assumption
in the discourse of cultural
dichotomy
is that U.S.
culture is the norm. This
assumption clearly
surfaces in revisionist
writing,
such as that of Berliner
(1993),
who
argues
that,
compared
with
Japanese,
Korean, Indian,
and Israeli
students,
who are
expected
to
devote themselves to excessive
studying,
Americans "have a vision of what
constitutes a 'normal' childhood that is
uniquely
American"
(p.
638).
5
There have been a number of
publications
based on
ethnographic
research on
Japanese
schooling
and teacher
preparation (e.g.,
Hess &
Azuma, 1991; Lee, Graham,
&
Stevenson, 1996;
Lewis, 1988, 1992, 1995, 1996;
Lewis &
Tsuchida, 1997, 1998; Rohlen, 1983;
Shimahara &
Sakai,
1995;
Stevenson &
Stigler,
1992;
Stigler,
Fernandez,
&
Yoshida, 1996;
Tsuchida &
Lewis, 1996).
LeTendre
(1999)
states that these studies
provide
a
complex picture
rather than the
simplistic
stereotype presented
in the debate on
comparisons
of international achievement. To summa-
rize,
'Japanese
classrooms at the
elementary
level on a nationwide basis
de-emphasize
rote
learning
and instead
emphasize
hands-on
activities,
problem-solving, higher-order questioning,
and the creative
manipulation
of materials
during
math, science,
and other lessons"
(p.
40),
although
these characteristics diminish and
replace
more drill-oriented
learning
as the
grade
proceeds.
It is
interesting
to note that this shift in instructional
practice
from the
elementary
to
the
secondary
level is similar to the one in the U.S. context.
Also,
these studies
may
be viewed
as
romanticizing Japanese
culture,
as discussed later in this article.
TESOL QUARTERLY 24
Conversely, applied linguistics, grounded
in liberal cultural
relativism,
would not
accept
the
normal/abnormal
divide on the
surface,
but the
mission of
teaching English inevitably presumes
what is standard and
what is not. The
Othering
and cultural dichotomization observed in
applied linguistics
discourse seem to be
grounded
in this
assumption,
which
legitimates
an
unequal power
relation that is reflected and
constituted
by
discourses of colonialism.
IMAGES OF U.S. CLASSROOMS
AND COLONIAL LEGACIES
The three discursive
practices
addressed
above-Othering,
essential-
izing
and
dichotomizing
the culture of the Self and the
Other,
and
viewing
the culture of the Self as the
norm-produce
and reflect a
particular knowledge
of cultural differences and
power
relations be-
tween the
subject
and the
object
of cultural
representations.
It is
possible
to view this
knowledge
and
power
as united in discourses of colonialism.6
Colonial Dichotomies
Recent works on colonialism
suggest
that colonialism did not
merely
exist in the
past-its legacy
has continued to the
present.
The
past-
present continuity
of discourses of colonialism has been discussed in
such fields as
anthropology,
education,
history, geography,
and TESOL
(e.g.,
Blaut, 1993;
Pennycook,
1998; Thomas, 1994;
Willinsky,
1998-see
Pennycook,
1998,
for
details).
These works
suggest
that the dichotomous
images
of U.S. classrooms
compared
with the Asian
counterpart
strik-
ingly
echo colonial dichotomies that have differentiated the center and
the
periphery.
Blaut
(1993),
for
instance,
shows the
following
colonial
oppositions
between the characteristics of the core and those of the
periphery
that were
quite typical
in
19th-century thought:
inventiveness
versus
imitativeness;
rationality/intellect
versus
irrationality/emotion/
instinct;
abstract
thought
versus concrete
thought;
theoretical
reasoning
versus
empirical/practical reasoning;
mind versus
body/matter;
disci-
pline
versus
spontaneity;
adulthood versus
childhood;
sanity
versus
insanity;
science versus
sorcery; progress
versus
stagnation (p.
17).
The
6
Colonialism in this article refers to Western
colonialism,
particularly
as related to the
spread
of
English,
for the focus here is
English language teaching,
but other
types
of colonialism exist.
An
example
is the colonialism
promoted byJapanese imperialism,
which also has a
past-present
continuity
in terms of
social, cultural, economic,
and
political implications
in
Asia,
including
teachingJapanese
as an L2
(e.g.,
Kawamura, 1994; Tai, 1999; Yasuda, 1997).
DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF IMAGES OF U.S. CLASSROOMS 25
images
of U.S. classrooms
compared
with Asian classrooms can
actually
be viewed as cultural constructs of colonialism or a
"colonializing
strategy
of
representation" (Pennycook, 1998,
p. 166).
But how do these
cultural constructs or
representations
come into
being?
As discussed above, the
images
of U.S.
classrooms,
or the
Self, become
different from the Asian
counterpart,
or the
Other, only
when the Self is
compared
with the Other. Colonialism indeed
produced
the sense of
Self, the
European culture, which had to be made
radically
different
from the Other. The other side of the coin is
Othering
non-Western
people
and
cultures, as in
Orientalism, which assumes "an
unchanging
Orient,
absolutely
different . .. from the West"
(Said, 1978, p. 96).
The
colonial construction of the
images
of the Self
compared
with the Other
parallels
the construction of
images
of Western women as
opposed
to
third-world women observed in Western feminist
scholarship. Mohanty
(1988) argues
that
although
Western feminist discourse formed a
universal notion of women as victims of male
dominance, the same
reductionism takes a colonialist move when
contrasting self-representation
with the
representation
of women in the third world. That
is,
comparing
the Self with the Other enables a discursive
self-presentation
as
being
secular,
being liberated,
and
having
control over one's own life.
Mohanty
states,
Only
from the
vantage point
of the west is it
possible
to define the "third
world" as
underdeveloped
and
economically dependent.
Without the
overdetermined discourse that creates the third world, there would be no
(singular
and
privileged)
first world. Without the "third-world women," the
particular self-presentation
of western women . . . would be
problematical.
(p. 82)
Mohanty's insight
indeed
provides
a
striking parallel
with the contra-
dictory images
of U.S. classrooms. When
they
are not
compared
with
Asian
classrooms,
their
images
are
portrayed
as
problematic. However,
when
compared
with Asian
classrooms, they suddenly
become closer to
the ideal-the norm with
positive
values.
Naturally,
the norm has to be
something superior against
which inferior
categories
are
discovered,
described,
and fixed. Demonstrated here is the
unequal
relation of
power.
It is in this
self-representation
of U.S. classrooms as the norm that
power
is exercised.
Liberal Humanist Mission
Power in colonial discourses is circulated in
complex ways. Although
the
binary
list
by
Blaut
(1993)
offered above contrasts
positive
and
TESOL
QUARTERLY 26
negative images
of the center and
periphery, negativity
is not the
only
quality given
to the
periphery
in colonial discourse. As Thomas
(1994)
suggests,
colonial
representation
takes
many
forms,
some of which are
"sympathetic, idealizing,
relativistic and critical of the
producers'
home
societies"
(p.
26),
as in the
contemporary
Western societies'
tendency
to
cherish the exotic aestheticism of the Other.
Thus,
power
in colonialism
must be viewed as not
merely imposed by
the colonizer onto the
colonized in a ferocious
way
but as exercised in
complex
and
multiple
ways.
For
instance,
in
discussing
colonial
English language policies
in
India,
Pennycook
(1998)
shows that
power
was exercised both
through
Anglicism (promoting English)
and Orientalism
(exoticizing
the distant
Indian
past
and
promoting
vernacular
languages)
in a
contradictory way.
Nonetheless,
these discourses shared a similar
ideological underpinning.
In the
guise
of liberalism whose mission was to
bring enlightenment
to
the
uncivilized,
both
Anglicist
and Oriental
positions
intended to
spread
European knowledge
and
morality
to the
colonized,
to
provide
an
obedient workforce for colonial
capitalism,
and to maintain the status
quo
in social structures.
The
point
that colonial discourse was based on well-intentioned
liberal humanism is
important
here.
Applied linguistics
research is
obviously
founded on
well-meaning
liberal humanism in its aim to
facilitate ESL learners'
acquisition
of the
English language.
Also,
the
humanistic base of
applied linguistics
and
teaching English
is
generally
compatible
with liberal forms of multiculturalism. Yet these forms of
multiculturalism seem to reflect the
past-present continuity
of colonial-
ism. Liberal forms of
multiculturalism,
according
to Kincheloe and
Steinberg
(1997),
include liberal multiculturalism and
pluralist
multicul-
turalism,
although they
often coexist. The former stresses
equality
and
common
humanity
across
race, class,
and
gender, creating
color blind-
ness,
whereas the
latter,
the most common form of
multiculturalism,
celebrates
differences,
promoting
cultural relativism. These forms of
multiculturalism
obviously
do not allow overt
expressions
of
superiority
or debasement toward
particular
cultural
groups.
Yet
they
fail to con-
front and
question
various forms of
inequality, prejudice,
and discrimina-
tion associated with different cultures in
society.7
In this
way, contempo-
rary
liberal humanism conceals issues of
power
and,
in
turn,
perpetuates
the
existing
relations of
power. Applied linguists' objective writing
likewise conceals the
power
relations between the researcher
(Self)
and
the researched
(Other)
(Canagarajah,
1995).
7
See
Morgan (1998)
for
examples
in the Canadian context.
Also,
Morgan's
work demon-
strates that ESL students are
capable
of
engaging
in critical
dialogues
and
provides
concrete
ideas for
incorporating
social
justice
issues in ESL classrooms.
DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF IMAGES OF U.S. CLASSROOMS 27
Racism
Although contemporary
discourse avoids discussions of
inequalities
and maintains
power
relations, racism,
another colonial
legacy, persists.
Many
writers
(e.g.,
Blaut, 1993;
Pennycook,
1998; Thomas, 1994;
Willinsky,
1998)
have
pointed
out that colonialism has
produced
a racial
hierarchy.
Just
as various
objects
and natural
phenomena
around the world were
categorized
and
catalogued
under colonial
projects,
humans were di-
vided into different
species
and ordered from
superior
to inferior.
The
continuity
of this
legacy
is
apparent
in the
persistent
racism of
contemporary society.
However,
contemporary
discourse of liberal hu-
manism
suppresses
overt
expressions
of racial
prejudice,
and instead
perpetuates
racism in more subtle
ways.
In
fact,
as van
Dijk
(1993)
argues,
racism in
contemporary
elite discourses seen in
political, corpo-
rate, academic, educational,
and media domains is built on the denial of
overt
racism,
which elites view as the
only
form of racism. Van
Dijk
also
points
out that
contemporary
racism is more cultural than racial.
Contemporary society following
the Civil
Rights
Movement considers
blunt racism and racial
oppression
to be
suspect
in
public
discourse.
Nevertheless,
racial domination and subordination in various social and
economic
spheres
still remain. Van
Dijk argues
that academic discourse
supports
a new
ideology
that maintains the racial
hierarchy by focusing
on cultural differences in terms of
language
use, customs, norms,
and
values instead of
explicitly discussing
racial differences. Hidden in this
discourse is the old
hierarchy
of racial
superiority
that determines which
form of cultural
product
or
practice
is the norm or deviant.
Sulmmary
I have
argued
that the
conflicting images
of U.S. classrooms
signify
the
colonial construction of
self-representation
vis-a-vis the
Other,
which
produces
and
perpetuates
the colonial dichotomies. In these dichoto-
mies,
power
determines which characteristics are the norm and are
superior
to others. In
colonialism,
colonial
power
was exercised in
complex
and
multiple ways,
which were united
by
its well-intentioned
liberal humanistic mission of
civilizing
the world. This liberalism contin-
ues into the
contemporary
discourse of multiculturalism that celebrates
racial and cultural similarities and differences while
suppressing explicit
expressions
of racism and
perpetuating
its substance. The
tendency
of
applied linguistics
discourse to
highlight
cultural difference is founded
on liberal humanism
yet
demonstrates colonial
legacies, legitimating
unequal
relations of
power
between the Self and the Other.
TESOL QUARTERLY
28
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The focus of this article has been on the discursive construction of the
images
of U.S. classrooms vis-a-vis those of Asian classrooms.
Thus,
my
concern was not which
image
is true and which is
false,
but rather how
these
images
are
produced
and
exploited.
In other
words,
I have tried to
reveal that the
images
of U.S. classrooms cannot be reduced to a
single
neutral,
objective
truth but are constructed
by
discourses that
exploit
various convenient notions to serve their own interests.
Indeed,
in an
applied linguistics
discussion,
the idealized
images
of U.S. classrooms
that reflect U.S. middle-class norms and values are
presented
as a
"necessary
convenience"
(Atkinson
&
Ramanathan, 1995,
p.
557).
What
is
important
for ESL
professionals,
therefore,
is to
question
this conve-
nient notion of ideal U.S. culture and to
critically
examine its conse-
quences
for
students, teachers,
and
professionals
in other
disciplines.
Consequences
of
Idealizing
the U.S. Classroom
Intercultural Miscommunication
One
consequence
of these
images
is the detrimental communicative
behaviors
developed by
ESL learners and
resulting
in intercultural
miscommunication,
despite
the fact that a
goal
of
teaching
an L2 is to
enhance intercultural communication. Beebe and Takahashi
(1989),
for
example,
found a
tendency
in
Japanese respondents
to be more direct in
expressing face-threatening speech
acts,
such as
disagreement
and
chastising,
to a conversation
partner
in
English
than U.S.
respondents
who were native
English speakers.
The authors
speculate thatJapanese
ESL
respondents may
have
overgeneralized
a
perceived
directness of the
U.S. communication
style
and lack of
politeness
indicators in
English.8
This
speculation
is
quite plausible
and
poses
a
significant problem
for
ESL
speakers'
social success.
Although
U.S. communication
styles
are
believed to reflect
egalitarianism,
the social
reality
is not
always
so. ESL
speakers,
because of
racial, cultural,
and
linguistic prejudices
in the
mainstream
society,
can be
vulnerable,
especially
in
face-threatening
communicative situations.
They
need to learn how to communicate
tactically
and
diplomatically
in order to
negotiate meaning. Emphasizing
the assertiveness of
English speakers
could
actually
do a disservice to ESL
8
Politeness
strategies
exist in
English
as well. Belcher
(1995),
for
instance,
reports
indirect
expressions
of
negative
criticism in evaluative
writing,
such as book reviews.
DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF IMAGES OF U.S. CLASSROOMS 29
students. The
flip
side of this
problem
is
stereotyping
the communica-
tion
styles
of the ESL students' native
language.
The belief
thatJapanese
written discourse is indirect and
inductive,
for
instance,
can influence
some
Japanese
student writers to use an inductive
style intentionally
in
their native
language
in a situation where deduction is
preferred
(Kubota, 1992).
Intercultural
Interpretation
A
perceived
cultural truth of the Self and the Other also
regulates
the
ways
one
interprets
social
practices
of another culture. An
example
is
found in a
study by Fujita
and Sano
(1988),
which
explored
cross-cultural
interpretations
of
teaching practices
between teachers in U.S. and
Japanese day-care
centers. In the
study,
the U.S. and
Japanese
teachers
viewed
videotaped
scenes of each other's
day-care
centers and discussed
their
impressions.
Their first
impressions
contradicted
stereotypes.
Whereas
Japanese
teachers found U.S. teachers strict and
rigid
about
rules,
U.S. teachers found the
Japanese
center
noisy
and chaotic.
However,
stereotypes
came into
play, particularly
when U.S. teachers
interpreted
what
they
saw.
They
contrasted U.S. individualism versus the
"more
structured,
paternalistic,
and traditional" nature of
Japanese
society
and
speculated
on the reason
forJapanese
teachers' noninterfer-
ence with children
by stating,
"because the
society
itself is so
structured,
traditional values can control the children and
keep
the order in the
day
care center"
(p.
90).
This
interpretation,
however,
contradictedJapanese
teachers' own views that teachers should be sensitive to each situation
and facilitate and
maintain,
rather than
control,
the flow of activities.
Here,
cross-cultural
interpretation
ends with a
self-fulfilling prophecy
based on a
preconceived
idea of who we are and who
they
are.
Another
important
observation made
by Fujita
and Sano
(1988)
is
that
concepts
such as individualism or
independence
can take on
different
meanings
in different cultural contexts. For
instance,
U.S.
teachers believed that
they
could
help
children
develop
their
indepen-
dence
by offering
choices,
although
the researchers observed that the
choices were
predetermined by
the teacher and that children were
sanctioned for
engaging
in a free
activity. Conversely, Japanese
teachers
did not offer choices to
children,
but
they
allowed children not to
participate
in
group
activities and to do almost
anything they
wanted to.
Here,
it is
impossible
or even
meaningless
to determine which
system
is
more
independence
oriented. This
point
indicates
multiple meanings
of
cultural constructs such as
individualism,
independence,
and
creativity.
TESOL
QUARTERLY 30
Reinforcement of
Cultural Essentialization
To return to the ESL
context,
teachers' own beliefs and their
perceptions
of the Self and the Other can further reinforce cultural
essentialization and
Othering
of ESL students. For
instance,
Harklau
(1999b, 2000)
revealed a
tendency among college writing
teachers to
assign immigrant
ESL students
compositions
on
"your country" regard-
less of the
length
of their U.S. residence.
Topics
included
"my country-
a
great place
to
visit,"
and
compare/contrast topics
such as "the
way
children are raised in the United States and
your country"
(Harklau,
1999b,
p.
115).
These
topics
are
certainly
well
intentioned; however,
they
not
only impose
a
particular identity
on the students but also reinforce
polarization
between cultures. Harklau
(1999b)
also
pointed
out the
problem
of a fixed and monolithic view of culture in an incident in
which a teacher asked several Vietnamese
students,
who
provided
conflicting
answers about Vietnamese
culture,
to talk to one another to
reach a
single
answer.
Here,
instead of
understanding
the
socially
and
discursively
constructed nature of
identity
and
culture,
the teacher
imposed
his or her idea of what the Other
ought
to be like.
A
particular conception
of cultural differences also
produces
an
argument
that conceals the
problems
of the
majority group.
The reason
ESL students are reticent in mainstream classrooms
is,
the
argument
goes,
that their culture does not
promote
individual
expression
of voice
(e.g.,
Ramanathan &
Atkinson, 1999,
citing
Harklau, 1994,
on an
ethnographic study
of Chinese ESL students in a U.S.
high
school).
However,
being
reticent in mainstream classrooms
may
have more to do
with an
unwelcoming atmosphere,
the mainstream members' lack of
willingness
to take their share of communicative
responsibility
to interact
with L2
speakers
(cf.
Lippi-Green,
1997),
particular gender dynamics
in
the
classroom,
or even mainstream
peers' negative
attitudes toward ESL
students
(Harklau, 1999a;
Lay,
Carro, Tien, Niemann,
&
Leong,
1999;
Leki, 1999).
Culture
certainly plays
an
important
role in the social and
academic
development
of ESL
students,
but it should not be
regarded
as
the sole cause of a
problem,
for such a view is akin to a
blaming-the-victim
(or
victim's
culture)
move
(van
Dijk,
1993)
used in elite discourse that
perpetuates
racism.
A Course of Action for ESL Professionals
Cultural dichotomies as a
legacy
of colonial discourse exist in various
aspects
of
contemporary
life from
popular
culture and media to educa-
tion. In the debate
among
educational researchers over international
DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF IMAGES OF U.S. CLASSROOMS 31
comparisons
of
achievement,
for
instance,
the
images
of U.S. classrooms
were idealized whereas Asian classrooms were
portrayed
in
negative
and
stereotypical ways.
One reason for such blatant
negativity may
be that the
debate
participants
have
very
limited
daily
contact with
people
from Asia.
ESL
professionals
can
certainly
offer
convincing arguments
on culture as
they
have immediate contact with
people
from different cultures.
When faced with a debate outside of an ESL
circle,
say,
in a
public
lecture on educational
research,9
what
position
can ESL teachers and
researchers take?
First,
they
can concur with the dichotomous cultural
differences
by saying, "Absolutely yes,
research in
teaching
ESL has also
confirmed such cultural differences."
Second,
they
can take a middle
way
or
negotiate
between individual differences and cultural differences
(Atkinson, 1999; Littlewood, 1999)
by saying,
"We shouldn't
stereotype
different cultures because there are individual differences and
diversity
within each cultural
group.
But at the same
time,
each cultural
group
has
a set of certain shared views and social
practices.
So those cultural
differences do exist to some
extent,
and we can call them cultural
tendencies."
Third,
more
compellingly, they
can
encourage colleagues
to
engage
in a cultural
critique. They
can
say,
"Well,
we need to
critically
look at our
perceptions
of cultural differences or the
images
of ourselves
and
people
from other cultures. These
perceptions
do not
actually
reflect
objective
truth,
but
they
have been
discursively produced, particu-
larly
when another culture was found and we had to define ourselves as
categorically
different from them.
Here,
we have tended to
perceive
ourselves as the norm and exercise our
power
to
keep
us
superior
to,
and
thus different
from,
other cultures. We need to understand how the
notion of cultural differences is
produced
and
exploited
to
justify
certain
ways
of
thinking
and certain relations of
power."
ESL
professionals
and
applied linguistics
researchers are active
partici-
pants
in
constructing
and
consuming
various
images
of world
cultures,
including
their own.
Although they
must avoid an ethnocentric view that
champions
Western culture and the
English language
and
ignores
or
debases non-Western
languages
and
cultures,
they
must also
recognize
that different cultures are made different
discursively.
It is
imperative
that teachers and researchers
critically
examine the
underlying
ideolo-
gies
and
social, cultural,
and educational
consequences
of
perpetuating
the
commonplace
notion of cultural differences.
9
ESL
professionals might actually
encounter this kind of debate
directly
or
indirectly.
Bracey (1997b),
one of the most
outspoken
revisionists,
stated that he
gives public
lectures 30-
40 times around the United States each
year.
I
myself
attended a
public
lecture
by
David
Berliner,
one of the authors of The
Manufactured
Crisis
(Berliner
& Biddle, 1995),
in which he
enthusiastically engaged
in
Japan-bashing.
TESOL
QUARTERLY 32
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Theresa
Austin,
Jan Bardsley,
David Levine, Sandra
McKay,
Brian
Morgan,
Ruth
Spack,
Vivian
Zamel,
and the
anonymous
reviewers for
provid-
ing
useful comments and
suggestions.
THE AUTHOR
Ryuko
Kubota,
an L2 teacher and teacher
educator,
has
published
articles on issues
related to culture in L2
teaching,
critical
pedagogy
and
multiculturalism,
and L2
writing.
She is
currently
an assistant
professor
in the School of Education and the
Curriculum in Asian Studies at the
University
of North
Carolina,
Chapel
Hill.
RElERENCES
Anderson, W., Best, C., Black, A., Hurst,
J.,
Miller, B.,
&
Miller,
S.
(1990).
Cross-
curricular underlife: A collaborative
report
on
ways
with academic words.
College
Composition
and
Communication, 41,
11-36.
Applebee,
A. N.
(1996).
Curriculum as conversation:
Transforming
traditions
of teaching
and
learning. Chicago: University
of
Chicago
Press.
Association of American
Colleges.
(1985).
Integrity
in the
college
curriculum: A report to
the academic
community. Washington,
DC: Author.
Atkinson,
D.
(1997).
A critical
approach
to critical
thinking
in TESOL. TESOL
Quarterly,
31,
71-94.
Atkinson,
D.
(1999).
TESOL and culture. TESOL
Quarterly,
33, 625-654.
Atkinson, D.,
&
Ramanathan,
V.
(1995).
Cultures of
writing:
An
ethnographic
comparison
of LI and L2
university writing/language programs.
TESOL
Quarterly,
29,
539-568.
Baker,
D. P.
(1997a).
Good
news,
bad
news,
and international
comparisons:
Comment on
Bracey.
Educational
Researcher, 26(3),
16-17.
Baker,
D. P.
(1997b).
Surviving
TIMSS:
Or,
everything you blissfully forgot
about
international
comparisons.
Phi Delta
Kappan,
79,
295-300.
Ballard, B.,
&
Clanchy,J.
(1991).
Assessment
by misconception:
Cultural influences
and intellectual tradition. In L.
Hamp-Lyons
(Ed.),
Assessing
second
language
writing
in academic contexts
(pp.
19-36). Norwood,
NJ:
Ablex.
Beebe,
L.
M.,
&
Takahashi,
T.
(1989).
Sociolinguistic
variation in
face-threatening
speech
acts: Chastisement and
disagreement.
In M. R. Eisenstein
(Ed.),
The
dynamic interlanguage: Empirical
studies in second
language
variation
(pp.
199-218).
New York: Plenum Press.
Belcher,
D.
(1995).
Writing critically
across the curriculum. In D. Belcher &
G. Braine
(Eds.),
Academic
writing
in a second
language: Essays
on research and
pedagogy (pp.
135-154). Norwood,
NJ:
Ablex.
Bennett,
W.
J. (1984).
To reclaim a
legacy:
A
report
on the humanities in
higher
education.
Washington,
DC: National Endowment for the Humanities.
Berliner,
D. C.
(1993).
Mythology
and the American
system
of education. Phi Delta
Kappan,
74,
632-640.
Berliner,
D.
C.,
&
Biddle,
B.
J. (1995).
The
manufactured
crisis:
Myths, fraud,
and the
attack on America's
public
schools. White
Plains,
NY:
Longman.
Berliner,
D.
C.,
&
Biddle,
B.
J. (1996).
Making
molehills out of molehills:
Reply
to
Lawrence Stedman's review of The
Manufactured
Crisis. Education
Policy Analysis
DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF IMAGES OF U.S. CLASSROOMS 33
Archives, 4(3).
Retrieved
May
5, 2000,
from the World Wide Web:
http://olam.ed
.asu.edu/epaa/v4n3.html.
Blaut,
J.
M.
(1993).
The colonizer's model
of
the world:
Geographical diffusionism
and
Eurocentric
history.
New York: Guilford Press.
Boyer,
E. L.
(1984).
High
school: A
report
on
secondary
education in America. New York:
Harper
& Row.
Boyer,
E. L.
(1987).
College:
The
undergraduate experience
in America. New York:
Harper
& Row.
Bracey,
G. W.
(1993).
The third
Bracey report
on the condition of
public
education.
Phi Delta
Kappan,
75,
104-117.
Bracey,
G. W.
(1996a).
Asian and American schools
again.
Phi Delta
Kappan,
77,
641-
642.
Bracey,
G. W.
(1996b).
International
comparisons
and the condition of American
education. Educational
Researcher, 25(1),
5-11.
Bracey,
G. W.
(1997a).Japanese
education
system
is a
failure,
say
some
Japanese.
Phi
Delta
Kappan, 79,
328-330.
Bracey,
G. W.
(1997b).
On
comparing
the
incomparable:
A
response
to Baker and
Stedman. Educational
Researcher, 26(3),
19-26.
Bracey,
G. W.
(1998).
TIMSS: The
message
and the
myths. Principal,
77(3),
18-22.
Cahill,
D.
(1999).
Contrastive rhetoric,
Orientalism,
and the Chinese second
language
writer.
Unpublished
doctoral dissertation,
University
of Illinois at
Chicago.
Cai,
J.
(1995).
Cognitive analysis of
U.S. and Chinese students 'mathematical
performance
on
tasks
involving computation, simple problem solving,
and
complex problem solving
(Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education
Monograph
No.
7). Reston,
VA:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Canagarajah,
S.
(1995).
From critical research
practice
to critical research
reporting.
TESOL
Quarterly,
29,
321-331.
Carson,
J.
G.
(1992). Becoming
biliterate: First
language
influences.
Journal of
Second
Language
Writing,
1,
37-60.
Carson,
J.
G.,
&
Nelson,
G. L.
(1994). Writing groups:
Cross-cultural issues.
Journal of
Second
Language Writing,
3,
17-30.
Carson,
J.
G.,
&
Nelson,
G. L.
(1996).
Chinese students'
perceptions
of ESL
peer
response group
interaction.
Journal of
Second
Language Writing,
5,
1-19.
Chiseri-Strater,
E.
(1991).
Academic literacies: The
public
and
private
discourse
of university
students.
Portsmouth,
NH:
Boynton/Cook.
Connor,
U.
(1996).
Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural
implications of second-language
writing.
New York:
Cambridge University
Press.
Cuban,
L.
(1993).
How teachers
taught: Constancy
and
change
in American classrooms
1890-1990
(2nd ed.).
New York: Teachers
College
Press.
Foucault,
M.
(1978).
The
history of sexuality:
Vol. 1. An introduction. New York:
Vintage
Books.
Fox,
H.
(1994). Listening
to the world.
Urbana,
IL: National Council of Teachers of
English.
Fujita,
M.,
&
Sano,
T.
(1988).
Children in American
andJapanese day-care
centers:
Ethnography
and reflective cross-cultural
interviewing.
In H. T. Trueba &
C.
Delgado-Gaitan
(Eds.),
School and
society: Learning
content
through
culture
(pp.
73-97).
New York:
Praeger.
Goodlad,
J.
I.
(1984).
A
place
called school:
Prospects
for
the
future.
New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Goodlad,
J.
I.
(1997).
In
praise of
education. New York: Teachers
College
Press.
Harklau,
L.
(1994).
ESL versus mainstream classes:
Contrasting
L2
learning
environ-
ments. TESOL
Quarterly,
28,
241-272.
TESOL
QUARTERLY 34
Harklau,
L.
(1999a).
The ESL
learning
environment in
secondary
school. In C.
J.
Faltis & P. M. Wolfe
(Eds.),
So much to
say:
Adolescents,
bilingualism,
and ESL in the
secondary
school
(pp.
42-60).
New York: Teachers
College
Press.
Harklau,
L.
(1999b).
Representing
culture in the ESL
writing
classroom. In E. Hinkel
(Ed.),
Culture in second
language teaching
and
learning (pp.
109-130).
Cambridge:
Cambridge University
Press.
Harklau,
L.
(2000).
From the
"good
kids" to the "worst":
Representations
of
English
language
learners across educational
settings.
TESOL
Quarterly,
34,
35-67.
Hess,
R.
D.,
&
Azuma,
H.
(1991).
Cultural
support
for
schooling:
Contrasts between
Japan
and the United States. Educational
Researcher, 20(9), 2-8,
12.
Hinkel,
E.
(1999).
Introduction: Culture in research and second
language pedagogy.
In E. Hinkel
(Ed.),
Culture in second
language teaching
and
learning (pp.
1-7).
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hirsch,
E. D.
(1987).
Cultural
literacy:
What
every
American needs to know. Boston:
Houghton
Mifflin.
Holliday,
A.
(1994).
Appropriate methodology
and social context.
Cambridge: Cambridge
University
Press.
Holliday,
A.
(1999).
Small cultures.
Applied Linguistics,
20,
237-264.
Jaeger,
R. M.
(1992).
Weak measurement
serving presumptive policy.
Phi Delta
Kappan,
74,
118-128.
Johnson,
R.
T.,
&Johnson,
D. W.
(1994).
An overview of
cooperative learning.
InJ.
S.
Thousand,
R. A.
Villa,
& A. I. Nevin
(Eds.), Creativity
and collaborative
learning:
A
practical
guide
to
empowering
students and teachers
(pp.
31-44).
Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes.
Jones, G.,Jones,
B.
D., Hardin, B.,
Chapman,
L.,
Yarbrough,
T.,
&
Davis,
M.
(1999).
The
impact
of
high-stakes testing
on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi
Delta
Kappan,
81,
199-203.
Jones, J.
F.
(1999).
From silence to talk: Cross-cultural ideas on students'
participa-
tion in academic
group
discussion.
English for Specific Purposes,
18,
243-259.
Kawamura,
M.
(1994).
Umi o watatta
nihongo:
Shokuminchi no
"kokugo"
no
jikan
Japanese language
that went across the ocean: The "national
language" period
in
colonies].
Tokyo:
Seidosha.
Kincheloe,
J.
L.,
&
Steinberg,
S. R.
(1997).
Changing
multiculturalism.
Buckingham,
England: Open University
Press.
Kubota,
R.
(1992).
Contrastive rhetoric
of Japanese
and
English:
A critical
approach.
Unpublished
doctoral
dissertation,
Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education/
University
of
Toronto,
Canada.
Kubota,
R.
(1999).
Japanese
culture constructed
by
discourses:
Implications
for
applied linguistics
research and
English language teaching.
TESOL
Quarterly, 33,
9-35.
Lay,
N. D.
S., Carro, G., Tien, S., Niemann,
T.
C.,
&
Leong,
S.
(1999).
Connections:
High
school to
college.
In L.
Harklau,
K. M.
Losey,
& M.
Siegal
(Eds.),
Generation
1.5 meets
college composition:
Issues in the
teaching of writing
to U.S.-educated learners
of
ESL
(pp.
175-190). Mahwah,
NJ:
Erlbaum.
Lee, S., Graham, T.,
&
Stevenson,
H. W.
(1996).
Teachers and
teaching: Elementary
schools in
Japan
and the United States. In T. Rohlen & G. LeTendre
(Eds.),
Teaching
and
learning
in
Japan (pp.
157-189).
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Leki,
I.
(1999).
"Pretty
much I screwed
up":
Ill-served needs of a
permanent
resident.
In L.
Harklau,
K. M.
Losey,
& M.
Siegal
(Eds.),
Generation 1.5 meets
college
composition:
Issues in the
teaching of writing
to U.S.-educated learners
of
ESL
(pp.
17-43).
Mahwah,
NJ:
Erlbaum.
DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF IMAGES OF U.S. CLASSROOMS 35
LeTendre,
G. K
(1999).
The
problem ofJapan:
Qualitative studies and international
educational
comparisons.
Educational
Researcher, 28(2),
38-45.
Lewis,
C. C.
(1988).
Japanese first-grade
classrooms:
Implications
for U.S.
theory
and
research.
Comparative
Education
Review,
32, 159-172.
Lewis,
C. C.
(1992).
Creativity
in
Japanese
education. In R. Leestma &
H.J. Walberg
(Eds.),
Japanese
educational
productivity (pp.
225-266).
Ann Arbor: The
University
of
Michigan,
Center for
Japanese
Studies.
Lewis,
C. C.
(1995).
Educating
hearts and minds:
Reflections
on
Japanese preschool
and
elementary
education. New York:
Cambridge University
Press.
Lewis,
C. C.
(1996).
Fostering
social and intellectual
development:
The roots of
Japan's
educational success. In T. Rohlen & G. LeTendre
(Eds.),
Teaching
and
learning
in
Japan (pp.
79-97).
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lewis,
C.
C.,
&
Tsuchida,
I.
(1997).
Planned educational
change inJapan:
the case of
elementary
science instruction. Educational
Policy,
12, 313-331.
Lewis,
C.
C.,
&
Tsuchida,
I.
(1998).
The basics in
Japan:
The three C's. Educational
Leadership,
55(6),
32-37.
Lippi-Green,
R.
(1997).
English
with an accent:
Language, ideology,
and discrimination in
the United States. New York:
Routledge.
Littlewood,
W.
(1999).
Defining
and
developing autonomy
in East Asian contexts.
Applied Linguistics,
20,
71-94.
Mayer,
R.
E.,
Tajika,
H.,
&
Stanley,
C.
(1991).
Mathematical
problem solving inJapan
and the United States: A controlled
comparison. Journal of
Educational
Psychology,
83,
69-72.
McKay,
S.
L.,
&
Wong,
S.-L. C.
(1996).
Multiple
discourses,
multiple
identities:
Investment and
agency
in
second-language learning among
Chinese adolescent
immigrant
students. Harvard Educational
Review, 66,
577-608.
Miner,
B.
(1999).
Testing:
Full
speed
ahead.
Rethinking
Schools, 14(2).
Retrieved
May
5, 2000,
from the World Wide Web:
http://www.rethinkingschools.org
/Archives/14_02/testl42.htm.
Mohanty,
C.
(1988).
Under western
eyes:
Feminist
scholarship
and colonial dis-
courses. Feminist
Review, 30,
61-88.
Morgan,
B.
(1998).
The ESL classroom:
Teaching,
critical
practice,
and
community
development.
Toronto,
Canada:
University
of Toronto Press.
National Commission on Excellence in Education.
(1983).
A nation at risk.
Washing-
ton,
DC: U.S. Government
Printing
Office.
Nelson,
G.
L.,
&
Carson,
J.
G.
(1995).
Social dimensions of
second-language writing
instruction: Peer
response groups
as cultural context. In D. L. Rubin
(Ed.),
Composing
social
identity
in written
language (pp.
89-109). Hillsdale,
NJ:
Erlbaum.
Nelson,
G.
L.,
&
Carson,
J.
G.
(1998).
ESL students'
perceptions
of effectiveness in
peer response groups. Journal of
Second
Language Writing,
7,
113-131.
Oakes,
J.
(1985). Keeping
track: How schools structure
inequality.
New
Haven,
CT: Yale
University
Press.
Pennycook,
A.
(1994).
The cultural
politics of English
as an international
language.
New
York:
Longman.
Pennycook,
A.
(1996). Borrowing
others' words:
Text,
ownership, memory,
and
plagiarism.
TESOL
Quarterly,
30,
201-230.
Pennycook,
A.
(1998). English
and the discourses
of
colonialism. New York:
Routledge.
Ramanathan, V.,
&
Atkinson,
D.
(1999).
Individualism,
academic
writing,
and ESL
writers.
Journal of
Second
Language Writing,
8,
45-75.
Ramanathan, V.,
&
Kaplan,
R. B.
(1996).
Audience and voice in current LI
composition
texts: Some
implications
for ESL student writers.
Journal of
Second
Language
Writing,
5,
21-34.
TESOL
QUARTERLY 36
Reed,
A.
J.
S.,
Bergemann,
V.
E.,
&
Olson,
M. W.
(1998).
In the classroom: An
introduction to education. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Rohlen,
T. P.
(1983).
Japan's high
schools.
Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Rotberg,
I. C.
(1990).
I never
promised you
first
place.
Phi Delta
Kappan,
72,
296-303.
Said,
E.
(1978).
Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.
Scollon,
S.
(1999).
Not to waste words or students: Confucian and Socratic discourse
in the
tertiary
classroom. In E. Hinkel
(Ed.),
Culture in second
language teaching
and
learning (pp.
13-27).
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Shimahara,
N.
K.,
&
Sakai,
A.
(1995).
Learning
to teach in two cultures:
Japan
and the
United States. New York: Garland.
Simpson,
R.
D.,
&
Frost,
S. H.
(1993).
Inside
college: Undergraduate
education
for
the
future.
New York: Plenum Press.
Sirotnik,
K A.
(1983).
What
you
see is what
you get-consistency, persistency,
and
mediocrity
in classrooms. Harvard Educational
Review, 53,
16-32.
Sizer,
T.
(1984).
Horace's
compromise:
The dilemma
of
the American
high
school. Boston:
Houghton
Mifflin.
Spack,
R.
(1997a).
The
acquisition
of academic
literacy
in a second
language:
A
longitudinal
case
study.
Written
Communication, 14,
3-62.
Spack,
R.
(1997b).
The rhetorical construction of
multilingual
students. TESOL
Quarterly,
31,
765-774.
Stedman,
L. C.
(1996a).
The achievement crisis is real: A review of The
Manufactured
Crisis. Education
Policy Analysis
Archives, 4(1).
Retrieved
May
5, 2000,
from the
World Wide Web:
http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v4nl.html.
Stedman,
L. C.
(1996b).
Respecting
the evidence: The achievement crisis remains
real. Education
Policy Analysis
Archives, 4(7).
Retrieved
May
5, 2000,
from the World
Wide Web:
http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v4n7.html.
Stedman,
L. C.
(1997a).
Deep
achievement
problems:
The case for reform still
stands. Educational
Researcher, 26(3),
27-29.
Stedman,
L. C.
(1997b).
International achievement differences: An assessment of a
new
perspective.
Educational
Researcher, 26(3),
4-15.
Stevenson,
H.
W.,
&
Stigler, J.
W.
(1992).
The
learning gap: Why
our schools are
failing
and what we can learn
from Japanese
and Chinese education. New York: Summit Books.
Stigler, J.
W., Fernandez, C.,
&
Yoshida,
M.
(1996).
Cultures of mathematics
instruction in
Japanese
and American
elementary
classrooms. In T. Rohlen &
G. LeTendre
(Eds.),
Teaching
and
learning
in
Japan (pp. 213-247).
Cambridge:
Cambridge University
Press.
Study Group
on the Conditions of Excellence in American
Higher
Education.
(1984).
Involvement in
learning: Realizing
the
potential of
American
higher
education.
Washington,
DC: U.S.
Department
of Education.
Susser,
B.
(1998).
EFL's
othering ofJapan:
Orientalism in
English language teaching.
JALTJournal,
20,
49-82.
Tai,
E.
(1999).
Kokugo
and colonial education in Taiwan. Positions: East Asia Cultures
Critique,
7,
503-530.
Taylor,
D.
L., Teddlie, C., Freeman,
J.,
&
Pounders,
M.
(1998).
A child's
day
at
school: Variations in more and less effective schools in low- and middle-
socioeconomic status contexts.
Journal of
Education
for
Students Placed at Risk, 3,
115-132.
Thomas,
N.
(1994).
Colonialism's culture:
Anthropology,
travel and
government.
Princeton,
NJ:
Princeton
University
Press.
Tsuchida, I.,
&
Lewis,
C.
(1996).
Responsibility
and
learning:
Some
preliminary
hypotheses aboutJapanese elementary
classrooms. In T. Rohlen & G. LeTendre
DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF IMAGES OF U.S. CLASSROOMS 37
(Eds.),
Teaching
and
learning
in
Japan (pp.
190-212).
Cambridge: Cambridge
University
Press.
Valdes,
G.
(1998).
The world outside and inside schools:
Language
and
immigrant
children. Educational
Researcher, 27(6),
4-18.
Van
Dijk,
T. A.
(1993).
Elite discourse and racism.
Newbury
Park,
CA:
Sage.
Voller,
P.
(1997).
Does the teacher have a role in autonomous
language learning?
In
P. Benson & P. Voller
(Eds.),
Autonomy
and independence in
language learning (pp.
98-113).
New York:
Longman.
Weedon,
C.
(1987).
Feminist
practice
&
poststructuralist theory.
New York: Basil
Blackwell.
Westbury,
I.
(1992).
Comparing
American
andJapanese
achievement: Is the United
States
really
a low achiever? Educational
Researcher, 21(5),
18-24.
Willinsky,J.
(1998).
Learning
to divide the world: Education at
empire's
end.
Minneapolis:
University
of Minnesota Press.
Yasuda,
T.
(1997).
Teikoku nihon no
gengo
hensei
[Linguistic organization
of
Imperial
Japan].
Yokohama,
Japan:
Seori Shobo.
Young,
M.
(1993).
The dark underside of
Japanese
education. Phi Delta
Kappan,
75,
130-132.
Zamel,
V.
(1995).
Strangers
in academia: The
experiences
of
faculty
and ESL
students across the curriculum.
College Composition
and
Communication, 46,
506-
521.
Zamel,
V.
(1997).
Toward a model of transculturation. TESOL
Quarterly,
31,
341-352.
TESOL
QUARTERLY 38