The global educator seeks to articulate alternatives to the views that the purpose of learning English is success in the business world (as measured by moneymaking and consuming), being a tourist, and having fun.

As educators who may sometimes have been frustrated by our students’ reluctance to offer opinions, we might consider Japan’s Buddhist heritage. It is said in Buddhism that before one speaks, the message should pass through three gates: Does this need to be said? Will it bring harmony and wisdom? Are my words true? At some point, talking about hobbies or Titanic will fail this test.

Some educators are uncomfortable with a global issues focus because it has an agenda, or takes positions that are supposedly political. The danger of a global educator indoctrinating students to reject war in an uncritical fashion, or to feel guilty about shopping, exists, but (1) any sort of coercion, censoring of a student’s viewpoint, or judgmental preaching is an aberration of global education, and (2) any classroom content constitutes a presentation of a world view–a slice of reality–which can (not always fairly) be labeled indoctrination.

An educator presenting topics about environmental degradation, volunteer opportunities, or social injustice is simply providing a different slice of reality with the hope that the knowledge and empathy gained will inspire the student and give them the tools to help create a better world.

Being a global issues educator does not begin in the classroom but with a worldview that refuses to accept the status quo.

This helps explain how individuals can so easily accept a world of gross injustices: villagers handicapped by landmines, street children forced to scavenge for food, arms proliferation and warmongering of aggressive governments, and indeed the homeless in Osaka or Tokyo–none seem to be part of our world, nor of our students’ worlds. To many teachers, these injustices are more or less invisible and/or irrelevant to their lives and to language teaching, and are thus ignored in favor of “safe” topics like shopping, homestays in America, and movies.

However, if teaching materials implicitly send the message that: material wealth equals happiness; working in the business world is the key to success in life; the main purpose for learning English (and indeed life) is sightseeing and entertainment; and we live in a just, peaceful world, is teaching neutral? Is it fulfilling its greatest potential?

Teaching global issues involves risk taking. Even if an educator finds the rationale for global issues appealing, doubts as to whether students will respond positively and whether the material will be presented at an appropriate level, still remain.

A willingness to take risks, passion for a topic, and a healthy attitude towards mistakes will all be communicated to the student in the best possible way, by example.

Given the lack of global issues textbooks, one route an educator could take would be eschewing a textbook altogether. A classroom textbook, for all its obvious benefits, is a huge constraint on the teacher’s freedom to implement a global issues curriculum.

Video can also be used for a wide range of levels. While application with higher level students is obvious, lower level students present more of a challenge. Short, understandable scenes from thought-provoking movies such as Patch Adams (human well-being) or The Saint of Fort Washington (homelessness) can be shown more than once. A transcript can then be provided to students and explained in detail. Students can then memorize a few lines and play-act the scene.

Dictogloss, or grammar dictation, is another way to achieve global issues aims. With dictogloss, a short narrative is prepared by the teacher and read to students who take notes on the spoken narrative, confer with partners to recreate the meaning, then check with the actual spoken sentence as a whole class activity.

If an educator would rather (or is forced to) have the structure of a text, they can apply some global issues criteria, asking themselves:

• Does the text tend towards sensationalism, presenting popular movies, advertisements, and pop stars? Or does the text present the student with the opportunity to gain meaningful knowledge about the world?
• Are students treated as children who only respond to a culture of cute? Or are students treated as adults who can think critically about meaningful topics?
• Are all the world’s citizens represented, black and white, rich and poor? Or does the text ignore the vast majority of the earth’s population who can’t drive a car, fly to exotic destinations, nor in many cases even sustain themselves and their family with adequate food?

The global issues perspective considers language learning an opportunity to not only raise students’ awareness about issues of peace and justice, but also point the way towards solutions.

Retrieved from http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/articles/2003/03/small on August 20, 2007

Apparently, many educators simply do not know enough about global education before they try to teach it—often with adverse outcomes.

…many of the people who are attracted to global education have an activist orientation—many also lacking sufficient information and preparation to teach global education.

Advocacy-oriented approaches on the other hand, can be identified by the way they value some perspectives much more than others, and in the name of “global education” elevate and advocate these more valued, or “right” perspectives over other, less valued perspectives. The promotion of this “right” perspective is often carried out with little regard for developmental learning goals for students.

According to the academic approach, there is a fundamental contradiction in the advocacy approach which openly takes sides on issues and entities, adopting them as the “correct” view, with the unfortunate and misleading implication that this is how one goes about developing a global perspective. Another problem from the academic standpoint is that promoting only one side of an issue does a disservice to students who are left ill-equipped to make informed choices because they have been ill-informed on the issues in the first place.

And this necessarily works against meeting academic global education goals related to encouraging greater pluralism, balance and the academic weighing of evidence among students.

Global education in the hands of advocacy-oriented “Global Citizen/Educators” attempting to make “Global Citizens” of their students in their own particular image by promoting their own worldview, represents a significant danger to students—something that should be obvious by now.

Retrieved from http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/articles/2004/02/sargent on August 20, 2007

…there are certain risks inherent in global education. These include inadequate teacher knowledge of the subject, tension between the traditional curriculum and the more progressive elements of global education, and the risk of indoctrination.

However, all of these justifications are insignificant when compared to the main reason for introducing global education in all subjects across the curriculum, including foreign languages, which is that the future of our planet is at stake.

The real issue, then, is not whether or not to integrate global education into language teaching, but how to do it without indoctrinating our students.

In other words, if society accepts and respects the principles, values and goals being advocated, there is no problem of indoctrination, even when the teaching materials are clearly promoting a cause.

It appears, therefore, that the problem is not in advocating certain views and values, but in straying away from the mainstream into more radical territory, such as the effects of consumerism on the global environment.

Each saw a need for the dominant or mainstream perspective to be challenged because business as usual was clearly unsustainable in the long run. Their answer was to promote critical thinking.

Fundamental critical thinking skills include evaluating whether statements are of fact, or opinion, if the facts expressed are true, false, or unverifiable, if assertions are supported logically, and if proposals are good, or bad, and for whom, and why. They also include identifying reasoning flaws, such as fallacies and leaps of logic, and the numerous devices, such as loaded language, used to mislead the public by public relations specialists working for governments and for private corporations. Critical thinking, together with media literacy, could help protect students from the influence not only of teachers with extreme views, but also of those who seek to manipulate the mainstream media and the Internet for political or commercial gain.

…there are contexts in which absolute neutrality is neither possible nor desirable.

Many educators recognize the need to address this issue by presenting a clear statement of the marginalized view, in the hopes of creating a fairer balance.

Introducing concepts such as fair trade, challenging myths such as that hunger exists because not enough food is grown worldwide, and asking provocative questions about government policies is not indoctrination, but a stimulus to further inquiry.

On the contrary, when students are inspired to become good global citizens, it is generally by teachers whose values they admire, teachers such as Bamford (1990), whose sponsored walk attracted the support of several hundred teachers, students and friends, raising two million yen for a development project in Ethiopia, Schwab (1994), who introduced her students to the Foster Parent system and had the satisfaction of seeing them sponsor an Indian child, Rowe (2003), whose students support children at a mission in Vietnam and hold charity bazaars to support volunteer activities in India, and Smith (2002), whose students raised funds for, and built, a house with Habitat for Humanity.

Retrieved from http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/articles/2004/08/peaty on August 20, 2007

A healthy dose of materials based on real issues can capture a learner’s imagination and also empower them as language learners, and as global citizens.

Criticism has been leveled at instructors who do infuse their language teaching with global issues (Cunningham, M., 1991), however, there is little danger of ‘preaching’ to the learners if you have designed materials that are linguistically useful and worthwhile. You are merely providing material for the learners to interact with in order to improve their language competence and the skills to independently research and think critically.

Cunningham, M., (1991). A politically correct language teacher? The Language Teacher, 15 (10), 37.

Retrieved from http://www.englishaustralia.com.au/ea_conference04/proceedings/pdf/Hronopoulos.pdf on August 20, 2007

Activism-related materials provide linguistic stimulation and expose our learners to a range of critical issues. As educators, we owe it to our learners not only to improve their English competence but also to empower them with knowledge to make them responsible citizens who can create a just, humane, and violence-free world.

The general apathy that I observed among my learners regarding global issues was a motivating factor that led to my decision to inject some activism-related materials into the classroom.

I discovered that my learners’ apathy was a result of not being exposed to global issues, and that once their attention is drawn to such issues, they express not only interest but also appreciation as their worldview broadens.

It must be emphasized that when we create materials our aim should be to broaden our learners’ horizons and to improve their language abilities. We must never lose sight of this. Our goal should never be to impose upon students our own personal opinions and politics.

Present materials that contain the facts and leave it up to the students to make their own interpretations. You should always encourage your learners to question everything, even the materials you present to them. Fostering healthy, inquisitive, and independent critical thinking skills will serve our learners well beyond their educational life.

Our aim is not to depress our learners but to illustrate that positive change can be achieved if people unite and take action. For this reason it is imperative that the materials we choose to use in the classroom demonstrate how a different world is possible if people, especially young people, band together to tackle an injustice instead of sitting by the sidelines with the belief that they do not have the power to effect change.

In conclusion, well-thought-out and appropriately designed activism-based materials provide numerous benefits: They can engage the students’ attention; enable students to work on all four macro skills; and empower learners with knowledge and sow the seeds that can lead to positive change in the world. We have a moral obligation to bring these issues to our learners, but we should always be careful to design lessons and tasks that attend to our learners’ language needs.

* Hronopoulos also discusses the different ways activism-related materials can help develop various language skills. In addition, she stresses the importance of layout and appearance in material development.

Retrieved from
http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/sec_issue.asp?nid=3648&iid=4079&sid=1#222 on August 20, 2007

Can you engage in sensitive critical pedagogy in your classrooms? Can you take a bold step forward and at the same time respect the beliefs and attitudes of your students? What are some activities you can do that would respect students’ points of view yet stir them to a higher consciousness of their own role as agents of change? How would you respond to statements from students that reflect hate or intolerance?

I prefer to define myself as a global educator who teaches English as a foreign language. This means that I’m dedicated to good English teaching but that I’m also committed to helping my students become responsible global citizens who will work for a better world.

A global classroom is also an environmentally-friendly classroom where teachers and students use recycled paper, save energy, and use both sides of the paper for handouts and homework.

Rather, a good global language teacher must sit down and write up a “dual syllabus” comprising: (1) a set of language learning goals and (2) a set of global education goals.

Part of becoming a global teacher involves experimenting in class with global education activities such as games, role plays, and videos.

Global education role plays include conflict resolution skits, discrimination experience games, and Model United Nations simulations, and can have students take on roles ranging from endangered species, to African slaves, to world leaders.

Others arrange volunteer activities where students pick up litter on local beaches, or participate in charity walk-a-thons to end world hunger—all while using English out-of-class.

* Cates also suggests bringing one’s own international experience into the classroom using slideshows and other means.

Retrieved from http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/articles/2004/07/cates on August 20, 2007

We language teachers and teacher educators are reminded that we are all driven by convictions about what this world should look like, how its people should behave, how its governments should control that behavior, and how its inhabitants should be partners in the stewardship of the planet.

Is this call for subversive teaching a challenge that English language teachers can and should take up in the present day? Do those of us who teach languages have a special responsibility to “subvert” attitudes and beliefs and assumptions?

• to subvert the assumption that language teaching is neutral, sterile, and inorganic?
• to subvert the assumption that language teaching has nothing to do with politics and power?
• to subvert the assumption that we teachers should avoid “hot topics” or touchy issues in the classroom, touchy issues like global planetary stewardship, war, violence, touchy issues like hate, prejudice, and discrimination?

I think all of us, if we haven’t done so already, need to take heed lest we become the inadvertent perpetuators of a widening of the gap between haves and have-nots. Language is power, and the unequal distribution of language programs across the world surely could contribute to the ultimate unequal distribution of power.

Can English language teachers facilitate the formation of classroom communities of learners who critically examine moral, ethical, and political issues surrounding them, and do so sensitively, without pushing a personal subversive agenda? I would like to suggest here three guidelines, along with some examples, of engaging in critical pedagogy while respecting the values and beliefs of our students.

1. Teachers are responsible for giving students opportunities to learn about important social/moral/ethical issues and to analyze all sides of an issue.

A language class is an ideal locus for offering information on topics of significance to students. The objectives of a curriculum are not limited to linguistic factors alone, but also include developing the art of critical thinking.

2. Teachers are responsible for creating an atmosphere of respect for each other’s opinions, beliefs, and ethnic/cultural diversity.

The classroom becomes a model of the world as a context for tolerance and for the appreciation of diversity. Discourse structures such as “I see your point, but … ” are explicitly taught and used in classroom discussions and debates. Students learn how to disagree without imposing one’s own belief or opinions on others. In all this, it is important that the teacher’s personal opinions or beliefs remain sensitively covert, lest a student feel coerced into thinking something because the teacher thinks that way.

3. Teachers are responsible for maintaining a threshold of morality and ethics in the classroom climate.

Occasionally a teacher needs to exercise some discipline when students show disrespect or hatred based on, say, race, religion, ethnicity, or gender. Teachers should ascertain that “universal” moral principles (love, equality, tolerance, freedom) are manifested in the classroom. This guideline is, in effect, a paradox because it presupposes certain values to be beyond reproach. Such a presupposition violates the very principle of respect captured in the guideline (#2) above. Nevertheless, this is where one’s pedagogy becomes “critical” in that the teacher’s vision of “a better and more humane life” is usually predicated on such basic values.

Guided by a clear vision of your own mission as a teacher, promote critical thinking on complex issues, remain as neutral as possible in the process, but be fully aware that you are promoting a set of values in your classroom, even if somewhat covertly.

Can you engage in sensitive critical pedagogy in your classrooms? Can you take a bold step forward and at the same time respect the beliefs and attitudes of your students? What are some activities you can do that would respect students’ points of view yet stir them to a higher consciousness of their own role as agents of change? How would you respond to statements from students that reflect hate or intolerance?

* Brown also includes examples from classrooms around the world. It also lists 6 moral imperatives for being a socially responsible teacher.

Retrieved from http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/articles/2004/07/brown on August 20, 2007

Beginning university students may never have been encouraged to think about global issues before. More importantly, university graduates might never have the chance again. Widespread ignorance of global issues among university freshmen is hardly surprising, but it can be cured. As an EFL university teacher, I feel responsible for demonstrating a meaningful connection between my students’ lives and issues of global significance.

Besides the choice of which global issues to cover, other decisions are also best left to learners. My students create a foundation that covers the basic issues of how the course will be run. Students often plan to reject tests, research a small number of global topics deeply, and decide their final grade themselves. With students making such plans independently, they discover the intrinsic importance of human rights or environmental issues they choose to study. Another way to be sure of the quality of their course is through various forms of continual feedback. Encouraging students to make these decisions demands that we teachers trust our students. Students empowered to create a peaceful, tolerant, and sustainable environment in the community of their classroom are naturally better prepared to create the same environment in the world itself.

Students who ponder and accept the repercussions of their choices will naturally make better choices.

Besides the choice of which global issues to cover, other decisions are also best left to learners. My students create a foundation that covers the basic issues of how the course will be run. Students often plan to reject tests, research a small number of global topics deeply, and decide their final grade themselves.

A teacher can grant students power by showing the positive aspects of interconnectedness — positive in the sense that a single person’s actions can be felt around the world by many others.

Those students taught to think critically learn how to listen better, read more carefully, pay closer attention, and react more knowledgeably to media, government, and commercial propaganda. Students seek alternative sources of facts and ideas. They question their role, their country’s role, and the role of business interests in the destruction of the world. They challenge their teacher, themselves, and others to provide solutions to world problems.

I seek to illuminate the positions that the mainstream media, government, and commerce avoid.

A good textbook, such as that of Elder & Carr (1987), Peaty (1995), or Sokolik (1993) provides the most convenient and useful way to teach global issues.

Employing a textbook’s units as workbenches, with libraries, databases, and networks as tools, students can delve deeply into issues that interest them. Beyond the textbooks themselves, presentations, debates, poster sessions, research papers, action plans, campaigns, demonstrations, and field trips can help students become aware, knowledgeable, and worldly.

Retrieved from http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/96/nov/univ.html on August 19, 2007

This article describes eight changes that fit with the paradigm shift in second language education toward what is most often described as communicative language teaching. These eight changes are: learner autonomy, cooperative learning, curricular integration, focus on meaning, diversity, thinking skills, alternative assessment and teachers as co-learners.

Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org/ej17/a1.html on August 19, 2007.

Despite the fact that most students studying General English want mainly to speak and listen to English, we still insist on furnishing them with the grammar of the written language.

In short, the notion of a broad, diverse, grammar-dominated syllabus simply does not reflect the reality of the way language is actually used.

A third flaw with the way grammar is handled is the fact that it’s still widely believed that more grammar makes students more fluent, competent users of the language. However, contrary to popular wisdom, very little advanced English consists of what coursebooks often label “advanced grammar.” The production of such convoluted gems as “Were I richer, I would definitely purchase one,” “Never before had I heard such a story”, and “Had I not arrived in time, the kitchen would have caught fire” sadly fail to make learners sound more “advanced”. If they really want to communicate more complicated ideas, what they need instead is different kinds of multi-word phrases. The true mark of an advanced learner is the ability to access under pressure a wide range of such phrases, particularly adverbials – in the not-too-distant future, Going back to what you were saying earlier – and complex, densely-packed noun phrases – the introduction of tighter laws, the continuing decline of educational standards, and so on.

This brings me to the crux of my argument against grammar. The traditional model of language—the clear-cut division of language into grammar (usually tenses) ands vocabulary (usually words)—is invalid. Language does not consist of lexicalised grammar. Rather, it is made up of grammaticalised lexis. A vast proportion of the language used day to day (and especially spoken language) is pre-fabricated blocks. Because we speak in real time, with all the time pressures that involves, we need a mass of expressions to enable us to communicate. We could not function if we were putting language together word by word, using simply our underlying knowledge of grammar and vocabulary. We all have thousands and thousands of expressions in our repertoire—I’d rather not, How should I know?, You’d better not, Rather you than me, It’s not worth the effort—and yet they still play only a marginal role in the majority of language courses.

Retrieved from http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/articles/2004/07/dellar on June 28, 2007