Ugandan Children's Literature and Its Implications for Cultural and Global Learning in TEFL E-Book
Stephanie Schaidt
Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.
- Herausgeber: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag
- Kategorie: Fremdsprachen
- Serie: Studies in English Language Teaching /Augsburger Studien zur Englischdidaktik
- Sprache: Englisch
The present study adds to TEFL discourse in several ways. First of all, it contributes to the widening of the canon as it focuses on Ugandan childrens fiction. Secondly, the research connects to the few empirical studies that exist in the field. It provides further implications for cultural and global learning and literary didactics in TEFL derived from insights into the mental processes of a group of Year 9 students in Germany engaging with Ugandan childrens fiction within the scope of an extensive reading project.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 993
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2018
Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:
Ähnliche
Stephanie Schaidt
Ugandan Children's Literature and its Implications for Cultural and Global Learning
An Extensive Reading Project Study
Narr Francke Attempto Verlag Tübingen
© 2018 • Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG Dischingerweg 5 • D-72070 Tübingen www.francke.de • [email protected]
Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.
E-Book-Produktion: pagina GmbH, Tübingen
ePub-ISBN 978-3-8233-0053-3
Inhalt
Acknowledgments
Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Engelbert Thaler for his continuous support and encouragement. Prof. Dr. Thaler has constantly provided an open door, offered insightful suggestions and endorsed my academic development. I am also very grateful to Prof. Dr. Christiane Fäcke for her valuable feedback and advice throughout the project. With her inestimable comments and questions she has repeatedly encouraged me to think further. Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge the important contributions of Prof. Dr. Katja Sarkowsky who has supervised my Zulassungsarbeit für das Staatsexamen [final thesis for student teachers at university in Germany] on Ugandan post-independence literature and offered valuable suggestions also for the present study. Further thanks go to Prof. Dr. Hubert Zapf as the third member of my dissertation committee for his time and thoughtful comments.
My gratitude is also directed to all colleagues in the Fremdsprachendidaktisches Forschungskolloquium [research colloquium of foreign language didactics] of Augsburg University and their thought-provoking impulses in discussions in Augsburg, Salzburg and Frauenwörth. Particular thanks go to my friends Dr. Parnaz Kianiparsa and Dr. Sara Vali for making themselves available as interraters in this project and always providing assistance and support. Furthermore, I am especially indebted to my friend Stephanie Bajor who always had an open ear and generously offered her opinions throughout this project.
I owe deep gratitude to the two English teachers and head teachers of the schools I conducted my study in and all the students participating in this research. Without their readiness to participate and their engaged involvement in the study, this project could not have been realised.
In addition, I want to thank all those who made my study stay in Uganda an enlightening and memorable experience: I am indebted to Augsburg University for granting me a scholarship, to the Ugandan writers I interviewed, i.e. Doreen Baingana, Violet Barungi, Beatrice Lamwaka, Dr. Aaron Mushengyezi, Glaydah Namukasa, Julius Ocwinyo, Oscar Ranzo, Rose Rwakasisi, for their readiness to answer my questions, and to the teachers and students at different schools in Uganda for sharing their experiences with Ugandan children’s fiction. Particular thanks go to Mrs Evangeline Barongo, the chair-person of UCWIA, for her great support during my stay in Uganda. Furthermore, I want to thank my many friends in Uganda who provide me with a home away from home whenever I visit.
I also want to extend thanks to Mr Robert Raabe for proofreading the whole work, the Graduate School GGS of Augsburg University for providing a support network and offering many interesting courses, Prof. Dr. Mehlhorn and Prof. Dr. Schramm and the participants of the DGFF Summer School 2014 for thought-provoking impulses. My gratitude also goes to colleagues in the field of Didactics of History, Miriam Hannig and Philipp Bernhard, for giving valuable ideas for this project from yet another perspective. Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge my sincere gratitude to VG Wort for its invaluable help in financing this work.
Finally, I am indebted to my family and friends (you know who you are), who have always supported me in my endeavours. Particular thanks go to my sister Katharina who has diligently read the complete draft of this thesis and provided me with insightful suggestions.
To my parents Helga and Klaus
List of Abbreviations
BMZ
Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit
CEFR
Common European Framework of References for Languages
EFL
English as a Foreign Language
ELT
English Language Teaching
FEMRITE
Ugandan Women Writers’ Association
FLT
Foreign Language Teaching
IC
Intercultural Competence
ICC
Intercultural Communicative Competence
KMK
Kultusministerkonferenz
L1
First/Native Language
L2
Second Language
NGO
Non Governmental Organisation
TEFL
Teaching English as a Foreign Language
UCWIA
Uganda Children Writers and Illustrators Association
1Introduction
The single story creates a stereotype and the problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue but that they are incomplete. They make a story become the only story.
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie1
In the face of fears which are time and again raised in parts of the population that their culture could be diluted by aspects of incoming ‘foreign’ cultures, it seems indispensable to place a strong focus in German education on cultural and global learning. As language and culture are considered to be closely interrelated and it is assumed that one may not be taught without the other (Byram, 1998; Kramsch, 1998; Risager, 2007), the foreign language classroom plays a special role in this respect.
Culture is an ambiguous term and quite difficult to capture. Over the last centuries, very many different understandings of culture have developed and in the present time various concepts of culture(s) also coexist. The normative concept of culture as high-culture only that evolved in the 19th century has been largely replaced today by a functional-dynamic understanding of culture. Nevertheless, static concepts of culture continue to be drawn on. Herder’s (1967) understanding of cultures as separate, homogeneous islands or spheres that are ethnically consolidated has been questioned and declared obsolete (e.g. Welsch, 2010) but it has also been taken up by other scholars (e.g. Huntington, 1998). Racist and xenophobic lines of argument repeatedly utilise a static concept of culture to justify marginalisation and exclusion. Increasingly, however, scholars also point to concepts such as hybridity (Bhabha, 1990, 1994) and transculturality (Welsch, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2010) and perceive culture as a text or discourse.
Discussions on cultural learning have already formed an integral part of pedagogy and foreign language didactics in Germany for many years. In the last two centuries, influenced by neighbouring disciplines, cultural learning in the foreign language classroom has gone through various changes. With the widening of the concept of culture, the didactic approach to teaching and learning about cultural aspects has also broadened. Approaches that focus on culture as monolithic entities such as many Landeskunde [regional studies] approaches and Fremdverstehen [understanding of the other] have been replaced or complemented by approaches that take processes of meaning creation between representatives of different cultures (intercultural learning) and blurrings and transgressions of boundaries (transcultural learning) or global topics (global education) into account.
Fiction has been assigned a particular potential in the context of cultural and global learning. In the 1990s, scholars of the Graduate School “Understanding Otherness” in Gießen, for example, researched widely on Fremdverstehen in literary didactics (Bredella & Christ, 1995; Christ & Legutke, 1996), and since the new millennium important impulses have also been provided by reference to postmodern and postcolonial discourses (Alter, 2015; Fäcke, 2006; Freitag-Hild 2010; Hallet, 2002, 2007).
Much of the research that has been done in the field is located at a theoretical level. Up to today, only few studies have looked into cultural learning with literary texts empirically (see for example Burwitz-Melzer, 2003; Fäcke, 2006; Freitag-Hild, 2010). Particularly lower and intermediate grades of secondary education remain largely unresearched. What Burwitz-Melzer lamented at the beginning of the twenty-first century, is still true today:
Für niedrigere Jahrgänge, also für ein weniger fortgeschrittenes, sprachlich weniger gewandtes und oft weniger leseerfahrenes Schülerpublikum, dessen Curriculum außerdem noch maßgeblich vom Lehrbuch bestimmt wird, lassen sich bisher allerdings kaum Unterrichtsvorschläge und Fallstudien finden. [For lower years, that is for students who are less advanced, linguistically less competent and often with less reading experience, and whose curriculum on top of this is still significantly determined by the course book, fewer teaching suggestions and case studies may be found.] (Burwitz-Melzer, 2003, p. 93; my translation)
Empirical studies, however, provide valuable insights, for example, into teaching materials, teaching procedures and learners’ mental processes in the EFL classroom from which conclusions can be drawn on how to create effective learning arrangements for the students. Therefore, there is still need for more empirical studies in the field.
Furthermore, teaching African cultures and literatures remains largely overlooked in foreign language didactics. Acknowledging that in the last few years “the German EFL curriculum has been considerably extended”, Gohrisch & Grünkemeier (2012b, p. 11) point out that “[c]ompared to other postcolonial regions, Africa is less well represented in German school and university curricula”. Taking a cursory glance at school books used in Berlin and Brandenburg they state that post-apartheid South Africa is the only representative, “while ‘the rest’ of the continent is silenced” (ibid., p. 21). My own look at school books in Bayern and Baden-Württemberg confirmed this observation.2
In foreign language didactics research in Germany, ‘Africa’ has also been largely neglected. Although in the last few years a number of articles and volumes have been published which discuss the teaching of ‘the new’/postcolonial English cultures and literatures (Doff & Schulze-Engler, 2011a; Eisenmann, 2015; Eisenmann, Grimm, & Volkmann, 2010b; Schulze-Engler, 2002), the focus on ‘Africa’ usually remains restricted to South Africa here as well. The volume Listening to Africa (Gohrisch & Grünkemeier, 2012a) seems to be the only volume in German foreign language didactics research targeted at university and high school teachers that focalises different African countries.
Concrete teaching examples by scholars and practitioners centred on African countries are rare, as well. In 2010, when the football World Cup took place in South Africa, a number of foreign language didactics journals dedicated an issue to South Africa (see The Many Faces of South Africa (Bildungshaus Schulbuchverlage, 2010); South Africa (Kieweg & Voigt, 2010)) and South Africa-related topics are occasionally also targeted in other issues (e.g. Decke-Cornill, 1994). Other countries are largely ignored and many articles in journals still focus on ‘Africa’ in general, seemingly homogenising a complete continent (Brose, 2015; Feuerle, 2007; Kazaki, 2014). The book Africa Postcolonial Experiences (Teichmann, 2009), published in the Schöningh Discover Series and edited by Thaler, appears to be a rather isolated example by a school publisher that presents teaching examples which take into account a variety of African countries.
Against the background of these shortcomings, the present study focuses on the intermediate levels of foreign language teaching and a country that has not yet gained much attention in TEFL in Germany, i.e. Uganda. The research seeks empirical insights into the mental processes of Year 9 students in Germany when they engage with Ugandan children’s literature within the scope of an extensive reading project. Students’ approaches to this literature, to ‘foreign’ aspects, their (de)construction and reflection processes are analysed. Taking postmodern and postcolonial discourses into account, implications for cultural and global learning in the EFL classroom and literary didactics are deduced.
With the focus on Ugandan children’s fiction in the present study, the scope of research in foreign language didactics is extended and a path that turns away from a homogenising approach to ‘Africa’ taken. However, I also repeatedly make use of the adjective ‘African’ in my study. As my research deals with (de)constructions of ‘otherness’, it is of particular importance to critically reflect upon the terminology that is applied, which is done in the following paragraphs.
The term ‘African’ is problematic as it feigns homogeneity, which is untenable with respect to a large continent that is in fact extraordinarily heterogeneous (e.g. concerning its history, linguistic diversity, etc.). Giving various examples of the heterogeneity of the continent Taiye Selasi (2013) points to this issue of generalising:
Of all the continents, Africa is the least eligible for generalization. Still, not a week goes by that I don’t hear someone use the adjective “African” and wonder: where exactly, in your mind, is this Africa of which you speak? What language do they speak in this Africa? What is the weather like? What are we thinking for food, clothing, music, worship, topography? Are we imagining the snow-capped mountains of Cape Town or the grasslands of Nairobi or the urban sprawl of Cairo or the cacophonous chaos of Lagos? Or are we rather imagining an animated scene from Disney’s The Lion King, a yellow-orange vista just before twilight with drums playing softly in the distance? (ibid., p. 6)
With respect to the term ‘African literature’, a generalisation is also questionable. In her talk, Selasi proclaims that “African Literature Doesn’t Exist”. She argues that
[i]n order to believe in “African literature”—to employ the term as if it possessed some cogent, knowable meaning—we must believe that the word African possesses some cogent meaning as well. But what? The African continent consists of 55 states recognized by the UN. That’s roughly the same as Europe’s 50, though I’ve never heard of anyone placing authors from, say, Switzerland, Serbia, Spain and Sweden on a panel of ‘European writers.’ […] The trouble is obvious: continents are naturally formed landmasses comprised of numerous countries. If states make suspicious categories for art, continents are closer to useless. (ibid., p. 5)
As an alternative way to classify literature, Selasi suggests putting a stronger focus on the identity of the writing not the writer: “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we classified literature not by country but by content: the love story, the city novel, the novel of the nation-state, the war novel, the bildungsroman?” (p. 14).
It has to be noted, however, that the adjective ‘African’ and the denomination ‘African literature’, as well as references to nationality and national literature, also play an important role in the context of the pan-African movement (W.E.B. Du Bois, Léopold Senghor, Jomo Kenyetta, Kwame Nkrumah) and the development of a counter-discourse to Western literature in the mid-twentieth century. Following the political disengagement from the colonisers, a period of pan-Africanism/nationalism ensued in many African countries. Writers “wanted to exhibit and defend African culture against the Western rationalisation of colonialism” (Ojaide, 1995, p. 5). Furthermore, influenced by the fact that they are frequently perceived as ambassadors for the African continent, even today writers with Nigerian, Ugandan, etc. roots who live in the Global North also often describe themselves as African. Adichie (2009), for example, states:
I must say that before I went to the US I didn’t consciously identify as African. But in the US whenever Africa came up people turned to me. Never mind that I knew nothing about places like Namibia. But I did come to embrace this new identity. And in many ways I think of myself now as African. Although I still get quite irritable when Africa is referred to as a country.
Since I draw on scholarship in my study that engages with anti-colonial critique and repeatedly talks of an African counter-discourse, I do not see a way out of this dilemma and occasionally make use of the terms ‘African’ and ‘African literature’ as well. The same issue of being both problematic and inevitable applies to the term ‘Western’. Similarly to ‘African’, this term may evoke essentialising concepts of culture; as a counter-concept to ‘African’ it cannot, however, be avoided in my study.
In addition to this, the colour adjectives Black and white necessitate reflection. Referring to a person or groups of people, they must not be understood as biological or personal features but as historical and sociopolitical categorories in my study. In order to accentuate the constructedness of these terms, I put the term white into italics and capitalise Black, as it serves as an emancipatory self-denomination (see Marmer & Sow, 2015a, p. 7). In students’ quotes taken from the questionnaires, reading diaries and interviews, these adjectives are, however, not marked in this way to avoid altering their meaning.
Furthermore, certain terms with respect to foreign language didactics need clarification in my study. It is important to recognise that terminology in the scholarship of first, second and/or foreign language acquisition/learning is not consistent. The first language a child learns is interchangeably referred to as first language (L1), primary language, mother tongue or native language in the respective contributions. Concerning other languages that are learnt after the L1, a few linguists differentiate between second language (L2) acquisition and foreign language learning (e.g. Quirk & Greenbaum, 1972) whereas the majority of scholars use second language acquisition as an umbrella term to cover the learning of all languages different from the L1. When a difference between second language acquisition and foreign language learning is made, the former refers to the learning of a non-native language in the environment in which it is spoken (e.g. learning English in the UK, USA and Australia), whereas the latter refers to the learning of a non-native language not spoken by the surrounding community and primarily learnt in the classroom, for example when English is learnt in Germany (Ellis, 1994, pp. 11–12; Gass & Selinker, 2001, p. 5). Since the term ‘English as a second language’ is also commonly applied to the English spoken in Uganda (see Kachru, 1986), I consider the differentiation between second language and foreign language to be important in my study, while acknowledging that the distinctions are usually not clear-cut. At times, however, I also quote sources in which scholars use second language acquisition and second language as generic terms.
Now that the focus of this research has been introduced and important terms reflected upon, I wish to provide an outline of the present study. The thesis is divided into ten chapters. Chapter 1 is concerned with an introduction to the role of culture in the EFL classroom and offers an overview of the objectives of the present study. Chapter 2 critically discusses relevant concepts and developments in the fields of cultural and global learning. Chapter 3 provides insights into literary didactics in the EFL classroom. Particular focus is placed on the use of children’s fiction at lower and intermediate levels of secondary school and extensive reading in this context. The fourth chapter is devoted to the literary basis of my study, Ugandan children’s literature. Selected genres, topics and titles are analysed and their relevance for the present study is pointed out. Chapter 6 and 7 present the research findings of my study. While Chapter 6 focuses on individual cases, Chapter 7 develops a thematic structure across cases. Chapter 8 discusses the research findings and suggests implications for TEFL. In the ninth chapter, I reflect upon my research design and methodology in the retrospective and in Chapter 10 the findings of my study are finally summarised, critically reflected and suggestions for future studies are made.
2Relevant Concepts and Developments in the Fields of Cultural and Global Learning
Over the last two centuries, the significance of teaching language in relation to its culture(s) has been recognised and widely discussed in Germany. Under the influence of reference disciplines, the concept of culture was redefined and didactic approaches developed further. Many different terms have been coined to refer to approaches of teaching and learning about culture(s) in the foreign language classroom.
This chapter intends to give an overview of theoretical discourses in foreign language didactics and reference disciplines (e.g. pedagogy, postmodern philosophy and postcolonial studies) with regard to cultural and global learning. Important concepts and developments in the field of teaching and learning about cultural aspects and global topics in the foreign language classroom in Germany are explained and their impact for the present study is discussed.
2.1Discussions on Landeskunde
For a very long time in FLT history in Germany, cultural learning approaches focused on the study of national cultures. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, teaching approaches put their emphasis on the investigation of concrete content and real objects (Realienkunde). From the 1920s, this fact-oriented, positivistic concept evolved into a more nationalist approach which focalised the understanding of the national culture of the countries of the target language (Kulturkunde): “Culture was set apart from the social realia and mystified as a people’s soul and character as expressed in their philosophy, arts and literature” (Buttjes, 1991a, p. 55). The underlying intention was to strengthen the German national identity (see Sommer, 2003, p. 19). With its tendency to generalise, the concept of Kulturkunde was prone to creating stereotypes and presenting a simplistic image of the target culture (Steinbrügge, 2005). Thus, it was only a small step that Kulturkunde was ideologically instrumentalised during the so called ‘Third Reich’. The Nazis used the study of national mentality (Wesenskunde) and the degradation of ‘the other’ to justify their own claim of cultural superiority (Lüsebrink, 2007, p. 61).
After 1945, a break with this Wesenskunde was desired and a depoliticisation of the foreign language classroom was strived for. However, the legacy of Kulturkunde continued to prevail. This concept influenced the foreign language classroom until the 1960s (Buttjes, 1995, p. 144). Now literary works were taken as the most important expressions of national culture: “After the experience of the failure of Kulturkunde and in the emerging intellectual climates of the Cold War and of New Criticism, literature rather than culture was taught in most foreign language classes” (Buttjes, 1991a, p. 57).
In the late 1960s and 1970s, against the backdrop of educational reforms, the student movement and an increasing politicisation of society, teaching about cultures in the foreign language classroom experienced fundamental changes. The term Landeskunde [area studies/regional studies/background studies] was introduced to refer to culture teaching in the foreign language classroom in Germany and various approaches with different foci developed. With the introduction of TEFL as an obligatory subject at the secondary technical school level (Realschule and Hauptschule)1 in 1964/65 (Klippel, 2007), a more practice-oriented approach to teaching about cultures was pursued. The focus shifted to the “actual language learning process” (Buttjes, 1991a, p. 58) and contents were chosen accordingly. Thus, students were prepared for basic interaction in the contexts of travelling and consuming in the foreign language classroom. The communicative turn in the 1970s, which gave rise to communicative competence as the major aim of FLT, contributed to the development of this rather pragmatic, communicative-oriented approach to Landeskunde. Increasingly, however, scholars warned against a Landeskunde approach which reduces cultural contents to the fields of tourism and consumerism and pleaded for a stronger political orientation in FLT. Socio-critical and political perspectives and critical reflections of clichés and stereotypes increasingly found their way into the foreign language classroom during that time (Buttjes, 1981; Fischer-Wollpert, 1968; Keiner & Köhring, 1982; Köhring, 1981; Markmann, 1986; Raasch, 1983; Schüle, 1983).
In addition, the Landeskunde approach developed an intercultural perspective. In this context, the Stuttgarter Thesen zur Rolle der Landeskunde im Französischunterricht (1982) were very influential. This document, which was published by the Robert Bosch Stiftung in cooperation with the German-French Institute, proclaimed “transnationale Kommunikationsfähigkeit [transnational communicative competence]” as the major aim of FLT in an interconnected world. It pointed to the importance of students’ own experiences and cultural background in the context of teaching and learning about cultures:
Der Fremdsprachenunterricht erreicht deshalb erst dann sein Ziel, wenn er die eigenen Erfahrungen der Lernenden und die historisch geprägten Wirklichkeitserfahrungen der Menschen des anderen Landes ausdrücklich in Beziehung setzt. [For this reason, FLT only achieves its aim when it expressly relates learner experiences to the historically influenced experiences of the people in the other country.] (Robert Bosch Stiftung & Deutsch-Französisches Institut, 1982, p. 11; my translation)
Thus, the document encouraged a shift away from the mere focus on the foreign language and culture to a more learner-centred and comparative approach. This led the way to an intercultural orientation in FLT. In the following years, the call for an intercultural Landeskunde approach became louder. Melde (1987) emphasised the importance of relativising one’s own individual and national perspective and establishing a coordination of perspectives. Thus, she anticipated important findings in the field of Fremdverstehen (see Volkmann, 2007, p. 49).
From the 1970s, scholars in foreign language didactics were also increasingly influenced by cultural studies (Hallet, 2002; Kramer, 1976; Nünning & Nünning, 2000; Schumann, 2000). Advocates of cultural studies (Hall, 1980; Hoggart, 1957; Thompson, 1963; Williams, 1958) set themselves apart from an objective and monolithic concept of culture and instead consider culture as a heterogeneous product of human action (see Sommer, 2003, p. 8). Landeskunde approaches which draw on cultural studies also look at culture in a wider sense, integrating all cultural practices, being part of high or popular culture. Political and ideological critique is particularly important for these approaches. They are often associated with “concepts of emancipation, egalitarianism, and critical thinking” (Grimm, Meyer, & Volkmann, 2015, p. 157).
Despite various developments in the field, the concept of Landeskunde enjoys little prestige in academic discourse today. It is criticised that Landeskunde approaches often remain rather vague concerning the political agenda and present idealised social images of the target culture(s). Landeskunde no longer conforms to the contemporary notion of culture: It focuses on monocultures with a fixed national identity and so reduces complexity. Critics further remark that the concept focalises culture with a capital C and neglects culture with a small c (Grimm et al., 2015, p. 156; Volkmann, 2010, p. 45). Another point of criticism is that the focus of Landeskunde is usually on the cognitive domain (knowledge), whereas skills and attitudes are neglected (Raddatz, 1996, p. 245).
Notwithstanding the legitimacy of this criticism, it should be acknowledged that Landeskunde contributed significantly to developments in the field of teaching and learning about cultures and thus provides a crucial impetus for current discussions:
Auffallend ist bei gegenwärtigen interkulturellen und kulturwissenschaftlichen Positionen die demonstrative Abgrenzung gegenüber der als überholt abgewerteten Landeskunde. Dabei wird nicht erkannt, dass Landeskundekonzepte durchgehend von Gegenkonzepten und der genannten Suche nach einem Mehrwert der Landeskunde begleitet waren. Viele der heute diskutierten Fortschritte bei der Betrachtung anderer Kulturen wurden bereits – ohne dass dies entsprechend gewürdigt wird – in den 1970er und 1980er Jahren angebahnt. [When looking at current intercultural and cultural studies positions, the pointed demarcation from the concept of Landeskunde, which has been devaluated as outdated, is striking. It is not recognised that concepts in Landeskunde were continuously accompanied by counter-concepts and the search for an enriched Landeskunde. Without being adequately acknowledged, the ground for much of the progress in the field of learning about cultures discussed today had already been prepared in the 1970s and 1980s.] (Volkmann, 2010, p. 49; my translation)
Aspects of a rather politically oriented Landeskunde (see Köhring, 1981; Markmann, 1986; Schüle, 1983), for example, constitute the foundation of the global education approach in TEFL in Germany (see Chapter 2.8).
2.2The Rise of Intercultural Learning
Since the 1980s, the term intercultural learning has been increasingly used across disciplines and school subjects in Germany. Intercultural competence (IC) appears as a cross-subject learning objective in various educational frameworks and curricula. The concept has its roots in pedagogy. The term intercultural education was first used in the USA, in the period between the two World Wars, to refer to programmes that fostered the integration of different ethnic groups into American society (Doyé, 1992, p. 4). In Germany, immigrant pedagogy (Ausländerpädagogik) developed in the 1950s and 1960s and intercultural pedagogy (interkulturelle Pädagogik) in the 1980s (Auernheimer, 2003; Borelli, 1986).
In the 1950s and 1960s, immigrant pedagogy aimed at a better integration of children of migrant workers into ‘German’ society. The concept was a reaction to the problems many ‘foreign’ students had at school and their lack of German language skills. It was therefore rather focused on deficits (deficit hypothesis) and aimed at linguistic and cultural assimilation of ‘foreign’ children (see Burwitz-Melzer, 2003, p. 39; Fäcke, 2011, p. 175). In the 1980s, intercultural pedagogy initiated a shift away from a focus on deficits as problems to differences as potentials. The one-sided perspective of ‘the other’ was replaced by an emphasis on mutual learning and living in a multicultural society. Intercultural learning was defined as a learning objective and teaching principle across subjects. ‘German’ and ‘foreign’ students were encouraged to learn from each other (Krumm, 1995, p. 156). Frequently, however, this did not go beyond the integration of culinary specialities or music and dances of the students’ countries of origin into the classroom. Thus, the difference hypothesis is often criticised for stigmatising, exoticising and insufficiently considering political and social-economic contexts and racial discrimination (see Fäcke, 2011, p. 175).
Since the 1990s, the concept of cultural learning is also influenced by anti-racist pedagogy (Essed, Mullard, & Essinger, 1991; Essinger, 1993; see also Chapter 2.7) and the pedagogy of diversity (Prengel, 2006). Advocates of anti-racist pedagogy plead for the deconstruction of racist thought patterns and lines of actions. They focus on power inequalities between members of majority and minority groups. Both open and hidden forms of racism are critiqued. It is the aim of the approach that students develop awareness for structural similarities, differences and inequalities. Fäcke and Rösch (Fäcke, 1998; Fäcke & Rösch, 2002; Rösch, 2000) have translated some ideas of anti-racist pedagogy into (foreign) language didactics. Fäcke (2011, p. 176), however, also warns that if it is taken to an extreme, any thoughts or ways of conduct may be considered racist and politically ‘correct’ behaviour does not actually exist. Anti-racist pedagogy is furthermore criticised for tendencies of levelling differences. Auernheimer, therefore, pleads for the synthesis of intercultural and antiracist pedagogies:
Solange das Nebeneinander von antirassistischer und interkultureller Erziehung nicht überwunden wird, tendiert letztere zu kulturalistischen Vereinfachungen, während erstere dazu tendiert, das Prinzip der Anerkennung von Andersheit zu vernachlässigen. [As long as the parallel existence of anti-racist and intercultural education is not overcome, the latter is prone to culturalist simplification, while the former neglects the principle of acknowledging otherness.] (2003, p. 22; my translation)
The pedagogy of diversity (Alleman-Ghionda, 1997; Prengel, 2006) focuses on the uniqueness of every individual. It takes into account that every person may have multiple identities and thus be both a member of majority and minority groups. Difference is not only looked at on the basis of ethnic background but other categories of discrimination such as sexual orientation or religion are also considered. Prengel (2006, p. 181) notes that the two terms equality and difference are mutually dependent. She argues for an integration of the two by recognising the diversity of individuals on the basis of equality (egalitarian difference).
In the 1990s, intercultural learning in the foreign language classroom gained in importance. Many scholars pointed to the strong relationship between language and culture (see Byram, 1997; Kramsch, 1993) and therefore looked at the foreign language classroom as particularly suitable for intercultural learning:
Von seiner Aufgabe und seiner Erfahrung her eignet sich aber gerade der Fremdsprachenunterricht für interkulturelles Lernen, zumal er auch die sprachlichen Voraussetzungen für die ‘Grenzüberschreitung zwischen Kulturen’ schafft. [Given its function and background, the foreign language classroom is particularly well suited for intercultural learning because it creates the linguistic framework within which boundaries between cultures can be crossed.] (Buttjes, 1991b, p. 2; my translation)
Against the background of a changing concept of culture and various developments in reference disciplines such as pedagogy, learning about cultures was now seen as a process of meaning creation between representatives of different cultures (Delanoy & Volkmann, 2006, p. 13). Building on the Stuttgarter Thesen zur Rolle der Landeskunde (see Chapter 2.1), the learners’ role in the cultural learning process was increasingly taken into account and a more cultural-comparative and culture relativizing approach was sought:
Learners should no longer be seen as mere ‘receptacles’ to be filled with factual information. Instead, they are invited to become personally involved in the exploration of English-speaking cultures as self-reflective co-constructors of cultural meanings. (Grimm et al., 2015, p. 158)
Intercultural learning intends to foster students’ Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC), which can be understood as a specific communicative competence for intercultural situations. In contrast to many Landeskunde approaches, it targets not only cognitive but also affective and pragmatic learning objectives. The different goals are frequently assigned to the three domains: knowledge, skills and attitudes. In his influential model, Byram (1997) defines ICC in terms of the following objectives:
the knowledge about social processes and social interaction concerning both one’s own and other cultures (savoirs)
skills of interpreting documents or events from other cultures and relating them to those of one’s own culture (savoir comprendre)
skills of acquiring new knowledge about another culture and operating it in real time communication (savoir apprendre/faire)
attitudes such as curiosity and openness towards other cultures, the willingness to relativise ones own beliefs and the ability to decentre and change perspectives (savoir être)
the ability to evaluate cultural products and processes criticially and to take also a critical perspective on one’s own culture (savoir s’engager).
Byram’s model serves as a major reference when defining the teaching/learning objectives of intercultural learning in the foreign language classroom in Germany and it is also used as theoretical background for a number of empirical studies in the field of cultural learning (Burwitz-Melzer, 2003; Eberhardt, 2013; Jäger, 2008).
Today, fostering students’ ICC is often considered the core aim of FLT (Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2014, p. 18; Thaler, 2012, p. 271). The main goal of communicative language teaching has therefore been complemented by an intercultural component. These developments are anchored in relevant documents such as the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001), the national educational standards (KMK, 2004, 2014) and the curricula of the different Bundesländer.1 It is generally agreed that FLT should prepare students for real-life intercultural encounters.
Bredella defines the aim of intercultural learning in FLT as follows:
Im FU sollen die Lernenden auf erste interkulturelle Begegnungen vorbereitet werden und interkulturelle kommunikative Kompetenz erwerben. Ziel ist es, zu verhindern, dass sie in außerschulischen Begegnungssituationen Tabus verletzen und Sanktionen erleiden und dass sie den Äußerungen von Fremden falsche Bedeutungen zuschreiben. [In the foreign language classroom learners should be prepared for intercultural encounters and gain ICC. The aim is to prevent them from violating taboos, suffering disapproval and ascribing the wrong meaning to what foreigners say in encounters outside the classroom.] (Bredella, 2010c, p. 123; my translation)
As is apparent in this definition, learning about norms, values and taboos is at the heart of many intercultural learning approaches. In addition, the reflection upon (national) stereotypes2 is considered fruitful for intercultural learning:
Die Reflexion über kulturelle Selbst- und Fremdbilder sowie Stereotypen und Vorurteile sensibilisiert Lernende nicht nur für kulturelle Andersartigkeit, sondern führt zu einer kritischen Betrachtung und Relativierung des eigenen Standpunktes und ermöglicht Lernenden ihre neu erworbenen schulischen (Er-)Kenntnisse auf die außerschulische Lebenswelt zu übertragen. Durch die Übertragung der fremdkulturellen Problematik auf die eigene Lebenswelt sollen die Lernenden befähigt werden, negative Fremdbilder kritisch zu reflektieren. [The reflection upon self or external images and stereotypes and prejudices not only sensitises learners to cultural otherness but also leads them to a critical view and relativisation of their own attitudes and enables them to apply their newly gained awareness to real life situations. By applying the foreign culture perspective to their own environment, learners should learn to critically reflect on negative images of the other.] (Voigt, 2010, p. 5, my translation)
Although some scholars in the field of intercultural learning also take hybridity, diversity and transcultural transgressions into account (e.g. Kramsch, 1993, see Chapter 2.5), the nation is a central reference point in most intercultural learning approaches. Cultural standards that were developed for the international business sector (Hofstede, 1984) frequently serve as an orientation system. They are used as evaluation units for the analysis of cultural differences and the interpretation of intercultural misunderstandings. To prepare students for real-life intercultural encounters “the method of working with ‘critical incidents’ has established itself as a most beneficial preparation” (Grimm et al., 2015, p. 161).
Although intercultural learning is widely accepted in foreign language didactics today, at least on a theoretical level (see CEFR, educational standards and curricula), it is not without its critics. In its initial phase, the inflationary use of the term ‘intercultural learning’ and also the lack of clarifications and specifications concerning the concept was regarded as problematic (see Doyé, 1992, p. 43). Some scholars went so far as to declare the concept superfluous (Edmondson & House, 1998; Freudenstein, 1994). Freudenstein (1994), for example, argued that this concept actually deployed ideas of Landeskunde, merely under another label. Edmondson and House (1998) pointed out that the focus of FLT should be on communicative language skills and thus considered the concept of intercultural learning as not expedient. Schüle (1998) criticised the approach for an ideologisation and depoliticisation of classroom conditions. In her reply to Edmondson and House, Hu (2000) reacted to some of the criticism raised by the two scholars and also pointed to the need for rethinking contrastive rhetoric in the context of intercultural learning.
Whereas many of these initial concerns seem to have subsided today, the concept is still exposed to criticism. Critics argue that it builds on presumptions about pure, clearly definable and static cultures and follows rather national standards and norms. It focalises differences between cultures; intracultural diversity and cultural breaks and transgressions are not sufficiently taken into account (see Volkmann, 2015, p. 22). The target of dismantling stereotypes is often not achieved since overgeneralisations and oversimplifications may actually lead to their perpetuation. Fäcke (1999, p. 47) points out that differences in status and prestige of cultures, which strongly influence peoples’ attitudes and behaviour patterns, are not considered.
2.3Understanding Otherness: Optimistic vs. Sceptical Hermeneutics
Within the growing importance of ICC, another approach has to be mentioned. From the 1990s, many German scholars have strongly relied on hermeneutically oriented didactics; the concept of Fremdverstehen [understanding of the other] was developed. Different perspectives were taken: Optimistic hermeneutics (Bredella, 1996, 2010a; Bredella & Christ, 1993, 1995; Christ & Legutke, 1996) were contrasted with sceptical hermeneutics (Hunfeld, 1991, 1992a, 1992b).
In 1991, the Graduate School “Understanding Otherness” (Graduiertenschule “Didaktik des Fremdverstehen”) in Gießen was founded. As the name implies, it focuses on the understanding of the foreign/the other. From 1991 to 2000, the members of the graduate school researched and published widely in the field of hermeneutically oriented didactics. For one of the founders of the graduate school, Lothar Bredella, an advocate of philosophical hermeneutics, the understanding of the other is possible and also desirable. It is based on two perspectives: ‘the self’ and ‘the other’ (das Eigene and das Fremde) or the outer and the inner perspective (Innen- and Außensicht). It is a ‘melting of horizons’ of the two perspectives (Horizontverschmelzung) that is strived for. The Didaktik des Fremdverstehen, therefore, focuses on seeing the world through the eyes of ‘the other’ and ‘the self’, comparing different world views and negotiating perspectives (Perspektivenwechsel and Perspektivenkoordination). The graduate school draws on the positions of the philosopher Gadamer (2013, p. 350) who assumes that ‘the self and ‘the other’ have a “historically effected consciousness” and are embedded in their particular cultures that shape them. When they engage in a conversation with each other or with a text, they exchange ideas and opinions and this eventually leads to a “fusion of horizons” (ibid.). Bredella (2010a, pp. 141–143) and Bredella & Christ (1995, p. 11) emphasise that they consider ‘self’ and ‘other’ as subjective, dynamic and relational categories. In later publications, members of the graduate school often use the terms Fremdverstehen and intercultural learning interchangeably (Bredella, 2010b, p. 120).
In response to Fremdverstehen, positions that question hermeneutical approaches to foreign culture were taken. Various scholars (Eckerth & Wendt, 2003b, pp. 12–13; Fäcke, 2006, p. 37) remark that Fremdverstehen, as it is understood by members of the graduate school, focuses on the dichotomous nature of ‘the self’ and ‘the other’ binary and so rather reinforces than dismantles stereotyped notions of cultural difference. The categories of ’the self’ and ‘the other’ are homogenised; overlaps and fractures between them are not taken into account. According to Fäcke (2011, p. 178), the concept is based on the assumption of a homogeneous learner group and a culturally coherent subject which does not match today’s hybrid society. Fäcke (2006, p. 37) also criticises that Fremdverstehen does not sufficiently take into consideration ethnicity, socio-political conditions and power relations. In addition, the concept requires a definition of who or what is ‘self’ and ‘foreign’, and the underlying hierarchies (who decides on what) are not always reflected:
Herbert Christ verfolgt mit seiner Argumentation das Ziel, das Gegenüber nicht zum Objekt eines Blicks zu machen, sondern seinen Subjektcharakter zu betonen. Mit diesem Anliegen geht er in die richtige Richtung, jedoch nicht weit genug. Er bedenkt nicht die reale soziale Position der jeweiligen Gegenüber und macht sie zu relativ abstrakten philosophischen Gedankenspielen. Hierarchische Verhältnisse und Machtstrukturen sind in der Vorstellung einer ‘prinzipiell gleichen’ Perspektive nicht berücksichtigt. Blicke von oben nach unten bzw. Blicke von unten nach oben werden in ihrer Unterschiedlichkeit nicht benannt. Auch beantwortet er nicht die Frage nach Fremdverstehen zweier Partner, die einander nicht (!) verstehen wollen. Der Herrschaftscharakter dieses Verstehensprozesses ist in seiner Argumentation verschleiert, denn die Verstehensleistung der Mehrheitsangehörigen ist qualitativ eine andere als die Verstehensleistung der Minderheitenangehörigen. [With his argumentation Herbert Christ aims at not making the other an object of the gaze but emphasising her/his subjectivity instead. This concern takes him in the right direction but not far enough. He does not consider the real social position of the others and turns them into relatively abstract thought experiments. Hierarchical structures and power asymmetries are not taken into consideration in this idea of theoretically even perspectives. There is no mention of the differences arising from the varying viewpoints, be it downwards or upwards. He also does not answer the question concerning the understanding of the other in a situation when the two partners do not (!) want to understand each other. Power asymmetries are concealed in his argumentation because the ability to comprehend a member of the majority is qualitatively different to understanding a member of the minority] (Fäcke, 1999, p. 48; my translation)
Thus, Fäcke sees the danger of appropriation of the foreign and consequently ruling over the foreign by trying to understand it. This line of argument draws on positions in reference disciplines such as poststructuralism, postmodernism and postcolonialism (see Chapter 2.4). Michel Foucault (1977, p. 163), for example, criticises that knowledge serves as a means of control and understanding as a form of injustice:
The historical analysis of this rancorous will to knowledge reveals that all knowledge rests upon injustice (that there is no right, not even in the act of knowing, to truth or a foundation of truth) and that the instinct for knowledge is malicious (something murderous, opposed to the happiness of mankind).
In his seminal book Orientalism, Edward Said (1978) correspondingly points out that we do not understand cultures to learn from them but rather to dominate them. He criticises that the Orient is essentialised as static and underdeveloped by the Occident to justify imperialism.
Hunfeld (1991, 1992a, 1992b, 1994), an advocate of sceptical hermeneutics, also warns that an understanding of ‘the other’ is neither always possible nor desirable. He emphasises that literature itself is foreign because it resists quick understanding as a counter-concept of reality and so requires slow reading. He demands the recognition of challenges in the process of understanding (hermeneutic distance) and to acknowledge foreignness as something regular and normal, something which he calls the normalcy of the other (Normalität des Fremden). Hunfeld (1994, p. 97) also warns against an appropriation of the foreign by pointing to the prejudice bias of every individual.
As the exposition of different views in this chapter has shown, the concept of understanding foreignness/otherness is controversially debated in FLT. In response to the publications of the graduate school in Gießen, a heated debate evolved, with references to positions to universalism, ethnocentrism and relativism (Bredella, 1994; Fäcke, 1999; Volkmann, 1999). Today, the question of distance and proximity, and the understanding the foreign without appropriation are still very central in the discourse of cultural learning.
2.4Postmodernism, Postcolonialism and a Changing Concept of Culture
Key reference disciplines such as postmodern philosophy and postcolonial studies have significantly contributed to a changing concept of culture. In addition, they offer plenty of inspirations for the further development of cultural learning in the EFL classroom. Therefore, it is important to elaborate on them at this point.
Postmodernism is a twentieth century movement characterised by scepticism, subjectivism and relativism. Representatives of postmodern philosophy (e.g. Jean Baudrillard, Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault) deny the existence of an objective truth and objective values. They are particularly sceptical about binary oppositions and are of the opinion that the world can be better understood through diversity and ambivalences. Postmodern writing focuses on the role that power and ideology play in the shaping of discourse. Foucault (1972, 1977, 1980), for example, argues that knowledge and power are closely interrelated and Lyotard (1986) reflects upon the existence of “metanarratives” which form human thought. The scholars plead against an unquestioned reproduction of given structures and for a critical and deconstructive approach to ways of thinking, norms and a reflective analysis of discourses (see Fäcke, 1999, pp. 62–67).
Deconstruction is also at the heart of postcolonial studies. Postcolonialism1 intends to deconstruct the ideology of the superiority of the West:
Above all, postcolonialism seeks to intervene, to force its alternative knowledges into the power structures of the west as well as the non-west. It seeks to change the way people think, the way they behave, to produce a more just and equitable relation between the different peoples of the world. (Young, 2003, p. 7)
Since the late 1970s, cultural theory is influenced by a body of writing which criticises the way the Orient is represented in Western discourse. This postcolonial discourse builds on works of anti-colonial critiques such as Fanon, Achebe and Ngũgĩ. Fanon published two important books, Black Skin, White Masks (1952) and The Wretched of the Earth (1961) that deal with colonialism and its effects on the people. Both Achebe (1975, 1988) and Ngũgĩ (1972, 1981, 1986) criticise in several lectures, essays and essay collections the way Africa is perceived and depicted in the Western world. In 1978, Edward Said’s landmark work Orientalism was published. This book “examines the ways in which Eurocentrism not only influences and alters, but also actually produces other cultures” (Ashcroft, Griffiths, & Tiffin, 2013, p. 108). According to Said, Orientalism is the source of the West’s inaccurate cultural representations of the East. It involves the exaggeration of difference and the presumption of Western superiority. This book was very influential for the development of postcolonial theories and the cause of many controversial discussions. The scholars Homi K. Bhabha and Gayatri Spivak built on Said’s work and made further essential contributions to discussions in the field of postcolonial studies. Whereas Bhaba (1990, 1994) has a rather optimistic view on postcolonial societies and emphasises aspects such as hybridity and transculturation, Spivak (1988a, 1988b) is more sceptical about the postcolonial condition. In her seminal essay “Can the Subaltern Speak?” (1988a), she raises the question whether those people who are outside the hegemonic power structures can actually express their views or if their voices are drowned by the Western theorists who speak about them instead.
The understanding of culture as a fluid concept is rooted in the context of postmodernism and postcolonialism. Whereas in the 19th and the greater part of the 20th century the understanding of culture as monolithic and static construct prevailed and it was commonly believed that we live in a world of separate national cultures (see Herder’s (1967) understanding of cultures as islands or spheres), postmodern and postcolonial scholars plead for a reconsideration of culture as something dynamic, open, hybrid and individual. They point out that culture is characterised by diversity, fractures and overlaps. Since the 1990s, terms concerned with reflections on global changes such as transnationalism (Hannerz, 2003), hybridity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1990, 1994) and transculturality (Welsch, 1995, 1999, 2010) have gained in importance in these fields. As transculturality is a central concept for transcultural learning, there is need for further explanations in this context.
The concept of transculturality has been notably developed by the postmodern philosopher Wolfgang Welsch (1995, 1999, 2010), who criticises the understanding of cultures as clearly demarcated entities and therefore introduced the term transculturality to philosophical reflection on culture.
Cultures de facto no longer have the insinuated form of homogeneity and separateness. They have instead assumed a new form, which is to be called transcultural insofar that it passes through classical cultural boundaries. Cultural conditions today are largely characterized by mixes and permeations. (Welsch, 1999, p. 197; italics in the original)
Welsch draws attention to internal complexities of cultures, cultural transgressions, hybridity and commonalities. He distinguishes between transculturality on the micro and the macro level; the former refers to culture as society and the latter to the cultural identity of the individual. He claims that “we are all cultural hybrids” (ibid.) and so points to the multiple identities of every person. Accordingly, nobody can or should be reduced to ‘typical’ categories of nationality, ‘race’, gender or class. In his argumentation, Welsch clearly distances himself from interculturalism and hermeneutics. Consequently, he also questions the philosophical foundations of intercultural learning in foreign language didactics (see Delanoy, 2014, p. 27). According to Welsch, interculturality may contribute to a peaceful exchange between cultures but for him it remains rooted in an essentialised understanding of culture.
Welsch is frequently criticised for romanticising transculturality since he is considered to neglect problems that may surface when different cultures meet. Scholars observe that the concept not only brings about positive aspects:
Transkulturalität kann von Individuen nicht allein als Gewinn, sondern auch und zuerst als Identitätsverlust, als Zwang der Anpassung an globale, vor allem ökonomisch geprägte Hegemoniestrukturen empfunden werden. [Individuals may perceive transculturality not only as a gain but also and primarily as a loss of identity, a pressure to adapt to global hegemony structures which are economically influenced.] (Volkmann, 2014, p. 43; my translation)
Transculturality may lead to the levelling of differences which also incorporates the risk of postmodern blurring that does not take into account power relations and marginalisation. Not all people benefit from the positive aspects of transculturality equally (see Fäcke, 2011, p. 180; Volkmann, 2014, p. 43).
Scholars from the fields of postcolonial studies deal with the concept of cultural transgressions in a more sceptical way (Loomba, 1998; Pratt, 1992). Pratt (1992, p. 7), for example, refers to prevalence of power relations in this context. She describes transculturation as a “phenomenon of the contact zone” and defines these contact zones as
social spaces where disparate cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in highly asymmetrical relations of domination and subordination – like colonialism, slavery, or their aftermaths as they are lived out across the globe today. (ibid., p. 4)
She therefore points out that cultural transgressions are not always characterised by equality but frequently influenced by hierarchies which need to be given consideration. Loomba (1998, p. 183) also pleads for a differentiated look at hybridity that takes the “intersections in the multiple histories of colonialism and postcoloniality” into account.
2.5Transcultural Learning
The fact that Fremdverstehen and also intercultural learning remain rather committed to an understanding of culture as a monolithic construct, and that both focus on the ‘self’ and ‘other’ binary, does not match today’s understanding of culture and also not reflect the learners’ experiences as citizens in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world. Increased mobility leads to cultural mingling and hybrid societies with hybrid classrooms. Therefore, also in language teaching in recent years, the prefix ‘inter’ has often been supplemented by or changed to the prefix ‘trans’. Various scholars (Alter, 2015; Blell & Doff, 2014; Doff & Schulze-Engler, 2011a; Eckerth & Wendt, 2003b; Eisenmann, 2015; Fäcke,
