Advertisement

Social Class Systems in Communicative Language Teaching in Bangladesh

  • S. M. Ariful IslamEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects book series (EDAP, volume 44)

Abstract

Among significant pedagogical and policy reforms in the late 1990s in language-in-education policy in Bangladesh, communicative language teaching (CLT) replaced the previous grammar translation method (GTM). This nationwide policy change was intended for equal application to all schools across all socio-economic classes. Similar to social classes and their relation to the economic condition of people, schools in Bangladesh are stratified in relation to economic conditions, teachers’ qualifications, classroom teaching practices and the overall pass rate in the national school-leaving examinations. In a given society, high-performing schools with higher socio-economic conditions have a higher pass rate in contrast to the low pass rate of the low-performing schools with lower socio-economic conditions. Far from being democratic, education in general and English learning in particular become representative of the socio-economic conditions of both people and schools, which creates and sustains a social distance among them. This chapter shows how CLT implementation, much on the contrary to the constitutional declaration, exacerbates existing school stratification and works as a hegemonic tool for social reproduction through institutional practices. In investigating this question, this paper follows a historical-structural approach (Tollefson, An introduction to language policy: Theory and practice. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 42–59, 2006; Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, vol. 2. Routledge, New York, pp. 801–816, 2011) influenced by critical theory of social inequality and hegemony (including the works of Bourdieu, Language and symbolic power. Polity Press, Oxford, 1991; Foucault, The archaeology of knowledge. Pantheon, New York, 1972) in language policy. Using mixed methods, data were collected through classroom observation of class 10 from seven schools, semi-structured interviews with seven English teachers and survey questionnaires from 231 students. Qualitative and quantitative data analysis shows significant qualitative difference in teaching English communicatively among schools with diverse socio-economic circumstances.

Keywords

Communicative language teaching (CLT) Social class Equality 

References

  1. BANBEIS. (2014). Bangladesh Bureau of educational information & statistics, a section of the Ministry of Education, Bangladesh.Google Scholar
  2. Bangladesh Constitution. (2015). Online impression. Retrieved on September 5, 2015, from http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/pdf_part.php?id=367
  3. Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal, 57(3), 278–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (edited by John B. Thompson and trans: Raymond, G., & Adamson, M.). Oxford, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Canagarajah, A. S. (Ed.). (2008). Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Choudhury, S. I. (2001). Rethinking the two Englishes. In F. Alam, N. Zaman, & T. Ahmed (Eds.), Revisioning English in Bangladesh (pp. 15–25). Dhaka, Bangladesh: The Dhaka University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  8. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  9. Hamid, M. O. (2009). Sociology of language learning: Social biographies and school English achievement in rural Bangladesh. Unpublished PhD Thesis, School of Language and Comparative Cultural Studies, The University of Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
  10. Hamid, M. O. (2011). Planning for failure: English and language policy and planning in Bangladesh. In A. F. Joshua & G. Ofelia (Eds.), Handbook of language and ethnic identity. Volume 2, The success-failure continuum in language and ethnic identity efforts (2nd ed., pp. 192–203). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Haq, M. N. (2004). A baseline survey of rural secondary schools: A quest for teaching-learning quality. Bangladesh Education Journal, 3(2), 31–54.Google Scholar
  12. Hasan, K., & Akhand, M. M. (2009). Challenges & suitability of TESL at the college level in Bangladeshi context. Journal of NELTA, 14(1–2), 45–54.Google Scholar
  13. Hossain, T., & Tollefson, J. W. (2007). Language policy in education in Bangladesh. In A. B. M. Tsui & J. W. Tollefson (Eds.), Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts (pp. 241–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Imam, S. R. (2005). English as a global language and the question of nation-building education in Bangladesh. Comparative Education, 41(4), 471–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Islam, S. M. A. (2015). Language policy and practice in secondary school contexts in Bangladesh: Challenges to the implementation of language-in-education policy. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Culture & Global Studies, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.Google Scholar
  16. Jacob, G. M., & Farrel, T. C. M. (2003). Understanding and implementing the CLT (communicative language teaching) paradigm. RELC Journal, 34(1), 4 0.Google Scholar
  17. Kramsch, C., & Sullivan, P. (1996). Appropriate pedagogy. ELT Journal, 50, 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Littlewood, W. (2011). Communicative language teaching: An expanding concept for a changing world. In H. Eli (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 541–557). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Luk, J. C. M. (2008). Voicing the “self” through an “other” language: Exploring communicative language teaching for global purposes. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice (pp. 247–267). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. McDonough, J., & Shaw, C. (2003). Materials and methods in ELT: A teacher’s guide (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Mitchell, R. (1994). The communicative approach to language teaching: An introduction. In A. Swarbrick (Ed.), Teaching modern languages (pp. 33–47). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Nahid, N. (2014, September 9). Porikkhay pasher har barrar sathe sathe shikkhar maan o berreche [In addition to pass rate, quality of education has also improved]. Retrieved October 24, 2014 from http://www.priyo.com/2014/09/05/103490a.html
  23. NCTB. (2003). Project proforma (PP) for English language teaching improvement project (ELTIP): Phase 2. Dhaka, Bangladesh: NCTB.Google Scholar
  24. Sharifuzzaman. (2011). Folafol bishleshon: Pash-feler mool niyamok ingreji [Result analysis: English as the determining factor of pass-fail]. The Daily Prothom-Alo. Retrieved on October 27, 2014, from http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-07-28/news/173645
  25. Siddique, R. (2004). CLT: Another assumed ideal from the West? Dhaka University Studies, 60(1), 15–28.Google Scholar
  26. Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT Journal, 50(1), 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  28. Tollefson, J. W. (2000). Policy and ideology in the spread of English. In J. K. Hall & W. G. Eggington (Eds.), The sociopolitics of English language teaching: Bilingual education and bilingualism (pp. 7–21). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  29. Tollefson, J. W. (2006). Critical theory in language policy. In R. Thomas (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and practice (pp. 42–59). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd..Google Scholar
  30. Tollefson, J. W. (2011). Ideology in second language education. In H. Eli (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 801–816). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. University Reporter (2014, September 26). Dhaka Bisshyabiddaloy; Ingrejite bhortir jogyo matro dujon! [Dhaka University: Only two are admissible in the Department of English]. The Daily Prothom-Alo. Retrieved on November 10, 2014, from http://www.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/article/330601
  32. Wadud, T. (2014, May 24). Shikkharthider prokrito moollayon hocche ki? [Are SSC learners being appropriately evaluated?]. The Daily Prothom-Alo. Retrieved from http://www.prothom-alo.com/opinion/article/ 223627Google Scholar
  33. Wu, W. (2008). Misunderstandings of communicative language teaching. English Language Teaching, 1(1), 50–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yasmin, F. (2009). Attitude of Bangladeshi students towards communicative language teaching (CLT) and their English textbook. Teacher’s World: Journal of Education and Research, 33–34, 49–59.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Culture and Global StudiesAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations