Iraqi High School Students Learning English in Australia

Introduction

This literature review provides an abundance of material related to the educational and cultural aspects of Australian society and how those aspects factor into the education of immigrants — particularly high school students from Iraq who immigrate to Australia in search of education and a better way of life. The review focuses not only on the generality of those concepts but on specific aspects as well.

Topics covered include: the different approaches taken by Australian teachers, instructors, and administrators to teach international students; the importance and functions of good communication skills (as well as the difference between good and bad skills); the cultural differences found in education; the teaching of English in Australian schools; and the influence of globalization. Additionally, the review examines how all of these components tie together to create an effective understanding of how Iraqi high school students are assimilated into the English-study culture found at most Australian schools. Those specific aspects include how the Australian educational system uses both the grammar translation approach and the communicative language teaching (CLT) approach, and how those two approaches differ from one another, as well as their respective advantages and disadvantages.

Grammar Translation vs. CLT Approach

There are a number of approaches currently being used in the Australian educational system to teach English. Two of the primary approaches are the grammar translation method and communicative language teaching (CLT). One source that provides a useful definition of grammar translation describes it in the following terms: "For left-brained students who respond well to rules, structure and correction, the grammar-translation method can provide a challenging and even intriguing classroom environment. For those students who don't respond well to such structures, however, it is obvious that the grammar-translation method must be tempered with other approaches to create a more flexible and conducive methodology" (Thuleen, 1996). By contrast, CLT has been described in almost the opposite terms: "Most groups are enthusiastic about the lesson opportunities which CLT offers. However, some also indicated they felt constrained by the system under which they operated, especially those teaching in settings which are particularly exam-focused" (Belchamber, 2007). These are two different styles attempting to teach the same subject.

Grammar Translation Method

The grammar translation method allows for almost no deviation; instead, it calls for rote memorization and a rigid, phrase-by-phrase translation process from the target language to the native language and back again, with discussions in between. Grammar translation is perhaps best known for its use in teaching classical or "dead" languages, such as Latin and Greek. Its main approach is to use the written word to teach the target language on a word-by-word and phrase-by-phrase grammatical basis. This approach has been in existence for a number of years and has been commonly used in many language development courses.

One recent study confirms the method's foundations, noting that "the vast majority of language development studies have relied on written transcripts of the speech young children hear around them" (Goodrich & Kam, 2009, p. 81). Whether or not the approach has been in existence for decades is not the central question; the more important question is whether it is the most effective manner in which to present English as a second language, especially for Iraqi high school students now immersed in the Australian educational system. After all, there is such a thing as differential item functioning (DIF) — a statistical methodology that focuses on whether items have an equal probability of eliciting a particular response from examinees from different language groups (Wei & Wolfe, 2010, p. 81). According to Wei and Wolfe, "studies reveal two broad potential sources of observed DIF — linguistic and cultural features" (p. 81). This is precisely the reason many experts criticize the grammar translation method: it does not take into account any cultural bias or its effects on translation.

The Wei and Wolfe study also found that "children who are raised in different social-cultural contexts and take different language versions of the same instrument may perform differently on items that elicit knowledge or require cognitive skills that are fostered by different sets of cultural values and priorities" (p. 83). Additionally, Li (2005) wrote that "one's thinking style or understanding is influenced by cultural values and childrearing processes" (p. 190). The literature therefore suggests that the grammar translation method used throughout Australian schools may not be the best approach for international students seeking to learn English as a second language.

Communicative Language Teaching

Another primary method used to teach English in the Australian educational system is communicative language teaching (CLT). This method does not rely on rote memorization or phrase-by-phrase translation. Instead, CLT gives students the classroom opportunity to have conversations and discussions using the target language. Studies have shown that the CLT method allows for a much stronger relationship between the teacher and the student. Beyond that classroom dynamic, research has also found a strong "relationship between an individual's language and their personal and ethnic identity, [which] has received general acceptance and substantial support within social science literature" (Bishop, 2008, p. 913). The Bishop study further determined that "participation in international or local language communities can prove an invaluable part of the learning experience in terms of cultural-linguistic learning" (p. 920). This invaluable element is due in large part to the fact that, according to Bishop, stereotypes may be less likely to be reinforced in a natural language context than in a formal classroom setting — a benefit that is arguably even more pronounced with CLT than with the grammar translation method.

CLT and Grammar Translation Compared

Whether a teacher uses CLT, grammar translation, a mixture of both, or some other method entirely, the overarching goal is to teach English to students in the most effective manner possible. Both methods offer distinct advantages and disadvantages.

Since "language has been shown to attribute meaning to an individual's understanding" (Kramsch, 2006), it follows that the reverse is equally true: an individual's understanding gives meaning to the language. It is therefore important to ensure that students grasp the true meaning of the language being taught, and that they are not confined to one methodology over another.

Advantages of grammar translation include its decades-long track record for teaching different languages, and familiarity breeds comfort. Teachers who have been effective using this method may be less enthusiastic about incorporating changes into their curriculum. They may also argue that rote memorization works well, particularly for language and vocabulary acquisition. In the 1970s, Chomsky (1970) and Read (1971) conducted studies on how children learn languages and discovered that children have an innate ability to acquire language through knowledge of the relationships between letters and sounds — suggesting that repeated exposure to sounds and words can be an effective learning strategy. However, CLT also engages students with sounds and words, but through a far more informal and conversational approach.

References

Arslan, E. (2010). Analysis of communication skill and interpersonal problem solving in preschool trainees. Social Behavior and Personality, 38(4), 523–530.

Australian Government. (2009). Transforming Australia's higher education system. Commonwealth of Australia.

Baldwin, D. A. (2000). Interpersonal understanding fuels knowledge acquisition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 40–45.

Belchamber, R. (2007). The advantages of communicative language teaching. The Internet TESL Journal, 13(2).

Bishop, V. (2008). Why learn a language? The potential of additional language tuition for linguistic identity awareness and anti-discrimination practice within British social work education. Social Work Education, 27(8), 913–924.

Bowe, H., & Martin, K. (2007). Communication across cultures: Mutual understanding in a global world. Cambridge University Press.

Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian higher education: Final report. Commonwealth of Australia.

Chapman, D. W., & Miric, S. L. (2009). Education quality in the Middle East. International Review of Education, 55(4), 311–344.

Durant, A., & Shepherd, I. (2009). Culture and communication in intercultural communication. European Journal of English Studies, 13(2), 147–162.

Galal, A. (2002). The paradox of education and unemployment in Egypt (Working Paper No. 67). Egyptian Center for Economic Studies.

Gale, T. (2011). Student equity's starring role in Australian higher education: Not yet center field. Australian Educational Researcher, 38(1), 5–23.

Goodrich, W., & Kam, C. L. (2009). Co-speech gesture as input in verb learning. Developmental Science, 12(1), 81–87.

Hansen, J. (2010). Teaching without talking. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(2), 35–40.

Kramsch, C. (2006). The multilingual subject: Preview article. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 97–110.

Krieger, Z. (2007). Born in Iraq, an American university. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(50), 42.

Lehtonen, T., & Karjalainen, S. (2009). Workplace language needs and university language education — Do they meet? European Journal of Education, 44(3), 411–420.

Li, J. (2005). Mind or virtue: Western and Chinese beliefs about learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 190–194.

Mansouri, F., & Kamp, A. (2007). Structural deficiency or cultural racism: The educational and social experiences of Arab-Australian youth. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 42(1), 87–102.

Maslen, G. (2008). Foreign graduates fail job search. University World News, 25.

McWhirter, J., & Voltan-Acar, N. (2000). Communication with adolescent and child. USA Yayıncılık.

Thuleen, N. (1996). The grammar translation method.

United Nations Development Program (UNDP). (2002). Arab human development report, 2002. United Nations.

Wei, H., & Wolfe, E. W. (2010). Item equivalence in English and Chinese translation of a cognitive development test for preschoolers. International Journal of Testing, 10(1), 80–94.