Rethinking the Role of Intercultural Skills in English Teaching at Colombian Universities
Keywords:
English language teaching, Colombian universities, intercultural skills, native English-speaking teachers, non-native English-speaking teachersAbstract
There seems to be a worldwide crisis in education in terms of developing imagination, critical thinking, and empathy in students given the dominance of economic models that see profit and economic impact as the priorities of education (Nussbaum, 2010). This article argues that the aforementioned qualities can be developed by university English professors at Colombian universities by ensuring that English courses have a sufficient focus on the development of intercultural skills. It is important to ensure that there is sufficient breadth and depth of intercultural knowledge and that discussions that will allow students to do a cultural comparative analysis take place. Educators must also do some self-reflection to avoid the negative influence of linguistic imperialism and coloniality in the classroom to avoid that positive and negative stereotypes deprive students of intercultural skill development. This article will start with an introduction of the Colombian ELT (English Language Teaching) context, followed by a description of the purpose and chosen methodology. The theoretical framework will then be presented and it will lead to two discussions about the advantages and disadvantages of intercultural learning in the university classroom and the best practices associated with the development of intercultural skills in students, and a conclusion.
References
Alonso,J. C., Martín, J., & Gallo, B. (2015). El Nivel De Inglés Después De Cursar Educación Su perior En Colombia: Una Comparación De Distribuciones (English Proficiency in Colom bia after Post-Secondary Education:A Relative Distribution Analysis). Revista de Economía Institucional, 17(33).
Anderson,J. (2018). Reimagining English language learners from a translingual perspective. ELT Journal, 72(1), 26-37.
Barrantes-Montero, L. G. (2018). Phillipson’s Linguistic Imperialism Revisited at the light of Latín American Decoloniality Approach. Revista Electrónica Educare (Vol.22), 1-19.
Byram, M. (l997).Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilin- gual Matters.
Byram, M„ Gribkova, B„ & Starkey, H. (2002). Developing the intercultural dimensión in langua ge teaching:A practical introduction for teachers. Language Policy División, Directorate of School, Out-of-School and Higher Education, Council of Europe.
Corbett, J. (2003). An Intercultural Approach to English Language Teaching. Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Council, B. (2015). English in Colombia: An examination of policy, perceptions and influencing factors.
Crystal, D. (2014, July 6). Interview with David Crystal. (M. Kiczkowiak, Interviewer).
Galante, A. (2015). Intercultural communicative competence in English language teaching: Towards validation of student identity. BELT-Brazilian English LanguageTeachingJournal, 6(1), 29-39.
Geeslin, K. L., & Long, A.Y. (2014). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition: Learning to use language in context. Routledge.
González-Moncada, A. (2007). Professional development of EFL teachers in Colombia: Be- tween colonial and local practices. Ikala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura 12,22,309-332.
Guerrero, C. H. (2010). Is English the key to access the wonders of the modern world? A cri tica! discourse analysis. Signo y Pensamiento, 29 (57), 294-313.
Jiménez, M„ Rodríguez, C., & Rey Paba, L. (2017). Standardized Test Results:An Opportunity for English Program Improvement. How, 24(2), 121-140.
Kachru, B. B. (1981).The pragmatics of non-native varieties of English. English for Cross-Cul- tural Communication, 15-39.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. NewYork: Oxford University.
Kramsch, C. (2013). Culture in foreign language teaching. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 1(1), 57-78.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principies and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2016). The decolonial option in English teaching: Can the subaltern act?
TESOL Quarterly, 50 (I), 66-85.
Mackey,A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Murphy,J. M. (2014). Inteligible, comprehensible, non-native models in ESL/EFL pronunciation teaching. System, 42,258-269.
Nussbaum, M. (2010). Not for Profit:Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. New Jersey: Prince- ton University Press.
OESE. (2019, January 10). Saber Pro (ECAES) ¿Para qué sirven? Retrieved from OESE: https:// eservicioseducativos.com/para-que-sirven-las-pruebas-saber-pro-ecaes.html
Phillipson, R. (2012). Foreword. In V. Rapatahana, & P. Bunce, English language as Hydra: Its im- pacts on non-English language cultures (pp. xx-xxv). Bristol, Buffalo.Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Phillipson, R. (2014). English, the lingua nullius of global hegemony. The politics of multilingualism: linguistic governance, globalisation and Europeanisation (pp. 1-17). Geneva: University of Ge- neva.
Phillipson, R. (2016). Promoting English: Hydras oíd and new. In P. Bunce, R. Phillipson,V. Rapa tahana, & R.Tupas, Why English? Confronting the Hydra (pp. 35-46). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Skutnabb-Kangas,T. (2016). Series editor’s foreword. In P. Bunce, R. Phillipson,V. Rapatahana, & R.Tupas,Why English? Confronting the Hydra (pp. xvii-xxi). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Smith,A. (l97l).The Importance ofAttitude in Foreign Language Learning. The Modern Langua
ge Journal, Vol. 55, No. 2,82-88.
