English in Australia and the Surrounding Controversy

English in Australia and the surrounding controversy is something I come to as an outsider. As an American, currently teaching in China, it might be difficult at times to fully understand an Australian perspective. Indeed, I may miss some nuance in the discussion or my manner of conversing may not be the accepted norm. In no way do I consider myself the product of a flawless or superior system. Thomson even touches on this in his introduction when he mentions American authors ignoring the work of Australians in the field of teaching English (2007:10). It is within this context that I approach this discussion.

The impression I developed reading Post Dartmouth Developments in English Teaching in Australia was how foreign the elements he describes are from the ones I experienced as a student in the United States. In four years of secondary school, I have no memory of being asked to reflect on my own learning (Thomson 2007:11). Metacognition was not explicitly developed. My schooling followed a transmission model that did not require you to understand how you learned. There was never any class when the teacher explicitly explained to the students what we were meant to be learning (Thomson 2007:12). Reading journals and learning logs were not part of my coursework, we did not work in small groups or pairs and there was no cooperative learning. The result was that those of us in the majority, who did not understand why the teacher was wasting our time, put in little effort. The experience was something akin to a broader version of the ‘Guess what's in the teacher's head' (Cornish&Garner 2008:127) that applied to the entire curriculum. Those that worked out on their own how the system operated, excelled and the rest of us slogged on until we were allowed to join the real world The concept that ‘Language difference is not language deficit' (Thomson 2007:13) was alien to me for most of my life. Grammarian thought where there was only one way to communicate dominated my English classes. It was explicitly communicated that failing to produce texts in Standard American English was a sign of belonging to a class of uneducated and socially unacceptable people (Preston 2002 :134-151). "Do you want to sound like you live in a trailer park?" was a rhetorical question posed that burned into my brain the need to speak and write correctly. I felt a great amount of shame when my writing was criticised or I was corrected for speaking using a non-standard variety of English.

Thomson makes the thought-provoking claim that reading classical poetry for aesthetic purposes is of no more value than deconstructing a fast food menu (2007:15). He says the argument that there is no value in closely examining a McDonald's menu is a belief only espoused by, ‘those with a vested interest in socialising students in compliance with prevailing consumerist patterns of thought' (Thomson 2007:15). This statement is in line with Paulo Freire's that ‘Any school which does not foster students' capacity for critical inquiry is guilty of violent oppression' (Freire 1972:74). Freire defined ‘violent oppression' as ‘any attempt to prevent human freedom' (Freire 1972:74). I believe an important component of freedom is an individual's responsibility to make informed intelligent choices in their life. This leads to the question of how can one make informed, intelligent choices without the ability to think critically? Moreover, how can one think critically if one does not understand the context and language, in which the choices are presented? The title of Kevin Donnelly's book implies that the outcomes based curriculum has had the effect of ‘dumbing down' (Howard 2007:¶4) the education of Australians. In contrast he offers a system in which "the pursuit of our total perfection by means of getting to know, on all matters which most concern us, the best which has been thought and said in the world; and through this knowledge, turning a stream of fresh and free thought upon our stock notions and habits" (Donnelly 2007:¶43). Armed with knowledge of Bloom's Taxonomy (Cornish&Garner 2008:123-124) one can see that the system Donnelly favours is centred on lower order thinking- remembering and understanding, whereas deconstruction of a text and constructing a personal interpretation would require higher order thinking- analysis, evaluation and creation. Viewed in this way it seems apparent which model is truly ‘dumbing down'.

I find it hard to contemplate John Howard's speech at the same intellectual level as Thomson's chapter because Howard does not provide the slightest link to any empirical data to support his claims. Indeed, he does not even reference anecdotal data. Howard simply makes the claim that the cultural heritage model he advocates is ‘the one proven path to individual achievement and social mobility' (2007:¶5). He went further to state that he is a supporter of ‘competitive examinations, teacher-directed lessons' (Howard 2007:¶10). In the context of what I have learned of multiple intelligences (Cornish&Garner 2008:184-202) and constructivist learning (Cornish&Garner 2008:31-61), it is very clear that Mr. Howard was guilty of advocating a "dumbing down" of the curriculum. Rote memorisation of grammar rules, reading classical texts without relevance to today's students and regurgitating accepted interpretations of those texts is a true dumbing down of subject English. Personally, I am most comfortable with the personal growth and cultural studies model as espoused by Thomson (2007:18-19). I believe the core business of Subject English is to enable students to successfully respond to and compose texts in English. Research, such as the York research headed by Richard Andrews, shows that the language skills model when used without context, does not empower students to use language effectively (Doecke, Howie & Sawyer 2006:7). One issue I have with the transmissive cultural heritage model is that we do not live in a homogenous culture and we do our students a disservice if we teach within a culturally exclusive framework. I believe it is crucial that we utilise a reasonable range of texts that are relevant to our students' social context, to include works from the English literary canon. In short, I hold that as English teachers we should facilitate the acquisition of the literacy skills required of a global citizen but not indoctrinate students in a particular socio-political view.

The purpose of these two tests because they are both very misunderstood in terms of their content, method of testing and their intent. Their similarities lie in both being American in origin and required by most American universities, and many Korean universities, for entering mainstream university study.

The SAT began because in the United States there was no mandatory national curriculum, each state taught its students differently. Universities wanted a way to compare students from various states who were vying for a seat in freshmen classes. It is a very heavily culturally-based test that requires knowledge but little understanding. Today the test is fast becoming irrelevant in the US as fewer and fewer universities require it for entrance every year. It is now understood that what you understand is more important than what you know.

The TOEFL test has changed over the years. It is now in the IBT (Internet Based Test) format and is no longer a "language test". There are no grammatical criteria in the test. It is possible to have spelling and grammatical errors and still receive perfect marks. The test is now, quite accurately, a measure of the skills required of a university freshman- comprehend university level written texts, comprehend university lectures, communicate orally with confidence and to synthesize information and compose oral and written texts. It is NOT a test of English language grammar ability or skill. TOEFL IBT is a test of the ability to communicate at an appropriate level that is expected of an American university student.

For improvement in both of tests students must think long term. You cannot do a prep programme the month before a test and see a qualitative improvement. You should be undertaking a consistent approach over a 1-2 year period depending on initial levels of competence for each.