Peace begins in the classroom.

Abstract

It is the responsibility of teachers to model a peaceful society in their classrooms, so that root causes of corruption, institutional aggression, poverty and sickness may be examined in a safe microcosm of world society. Language classrooms are, however, known for promoting anxiety, stress and competition rather than collaboration and sensitive awareness. This paper suggests how language teachers might identify and address sources of negative affect and how they might promote humanistic values through appropriate learning materials and a non-threatening learning environment.

Introduction

This paper proposes that peace is a desirable state for society as a whole, that this state has not been (and will not be) achieved by means of competitive and exclusive educational policies and methods, and that humanistic educational goals, approached in a holistic setting, offer a path to the realisation of such a state. This issue is not simply one of making life comfortable for the greatest number of people (as was the original intention of the humanistic learning movement at the beginning of the 20th century), for the current destructive potential of weapons technology and the corporate plundering of the world's resources have made it increasingly a matter of preserving the human race. A number of prominent thinkers have remarked upon this situation:

* Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe. (H. G. Wells, 1922)

* Now the whole question of the educator's role in dealing with planetary crisis becomes prominent. (O'Sullivan, 2001, p. 46)

* Some type of holistic, or participating consciousness and a corresponding sociopolitical formation have to emerge if we are to survive as a species. (Berman, 1981, p. 23)

* Establishing lasting peace is the work of education; all politics can do is keep us out of war. (Montessori, cited in McCarthy [Ed.], 2001, p. 35)

The Present Situation

The society in which we live is based upon aggression: the "market economy" espouses the survival of the fittest; international politics bows to the superiority of the aggressor, and competition is a fact of life in which the winner takes all. Violence is the language of governments as they oppress weaker states, squeezing them of their natural resources in return for dubious aid and huge debts; genocide, domestic violence (human rights abuses), pollution, and corruption, are routinely overlooked as countries rush to share the spoils of global trade; developed countries supply arms to the rest of the world (for example, the United States supplies 75% of the weapons used in current conflicts [The Baltimore Sun, 1997, cited in McCarthy, 2001, p. 92]), and defense budgets dwarf those for education and welfare (for example, the Pentagon receives more than $700 million a day from Congress [ibid]). Also in the United States, 22,000 murders are committed annually, and the leading cause of injury for women is being beaten at home by a man (ibid). In the Republic of Korea, official statistics tell us that one murder is committed every nine hours, and one rape every two hours (Korea Times, November 26, 2000). When we consider how this overall situation is mirrored in education, we find that children are continually educated for violence (The Washington Post, September 28, 1999). History is delineated in terms of battles, war-heroes are praised above peace-makers (Harris 2001, p. 37), and test-driven teaching promotes mutually exclusive competition. Even when they go home, children learn violence in cartoon books, movies, the news media, the internet, and family relationships.

Budding members of society thus learn quickly that success is about being first in the cue, gaining more than others, and preserving rights and possessions through the use of force. There is always something to be gained and always people (competitors) to take from. Educational systems preserve these "realities" by equating academic success with competition and exclusionism; students who cannot (or will not) perform the intellectual contortions demanded of them for the purposes of gate-keeping (entrance to a "good" high school, university, job, etc.) are defined as failures by society. Educational success as measured by the criteria of a university entrance test or a TOEFL score, however, is not an accurate predictor of important life skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking skills, or even teamwork. Even those who have been defined as successful by the educational system "typically do not display an adequate understanding of the materials and concepts with which they have been working" (Gardner, 1993, p. 3). Instead, the society that has preferred industrial pragmatism over the original humanistic definitions of education has produced and perpetuated a selectionist, intellectualized, competitive society in which monetary gain is the only mark of success. In doing this, education has failed even by its own standards (Gardner 1993). While technological advances have produced jetliners, cable TV, the internet, and travel to the moon, 75% of the world population has no safe drinking water, the majority of the world live on fewer than two dollars a day, and disease, conflict, and hunger are the norm for most of humanity.

Peace in the Classroom

In this situation, it is the responsibility of the EFL teacher to consider whether he/she is compounding an undesirable state of affairs through linguistic and cultural imperialism (Phillipson, 1992; Tomlinson, 1991), or whether the content and process of English language teaching can positively affect society. In this context, the EFL classroom can be seen as a microcosm of society (Dewey, 1966, p. 163; Lantieri & Patti, 1996, p. 46), in which recognition and exploration of social problems and impediments to learning, promotes development of social mores and qualities (a positive self-image, a sense of responsibility for self and others, and a capacity to trust others [Harris 2001, p. 42]) which are essential for future world citizens. This premise follows from a series of assumptions:

1. state education systems have not been successful in producing informed, responsible, creative members of society (Gardner, 1993, p. 5);

2. state education systems have focused on intellectualism and competition, rather than on interpersonal and intrapersonal skills (emotional management, interdependence, personal/social responsibility) (Krishnamurti, 1992, p. 2);

3. teachers need to teach according to their beliefs (Williams & Burden, 1997, p. 54);

4. teachers are agents of social change (Finch, 2002, p. 52);

5. classrooms should model a society based on mutual respect, trust and accountability, promoting responsibility and collaboration above individuality, exclusion and competition (Harris 2001, p. 42);

6. a humanistic perspective to education, implicitly present in holistic syllabi, non-threatening learning environment, and appropriate learning materials, empowers students to think about the world and their place in that world (Legutke & Thomas, 1991, p. 45);

7. a teacher/student (T/S) relationship built on mutual respect (T-S, S-S, S-T) impacts favorably on future relationships in work and elsewhere (long term), in addition to enhancing learning in school (short term) (Siccone & Lopez, 2000, introduction); and

8. a peaceful language-learning environment reduces affective filters in the classroom (short term), and prepares students to become responsible members of society (long-term) (Finch, 2001, p. 145).

Firstly, the classroom can be transformed into a non-threatening learning environment (Finch 2001) in which students can learn to become responsible members of society. With the teacher present as counselor and mentor, students can learn social skills (e.g. collaboration) through trial and error, reflecting on their mistakes, and turning them into learning experiences. Counseling skills (Kelly, 1996, pp. 95-96), take on crucial importance for the teacher in this situation, as they are essential for the development of a stress-free, mutually respecting learning community. In such an environment, the growth of the "whole person" is primary, with language acquisition following naturally, as an outcome of personal and social growth, and the role of the teacher/counselor becomes one of:

1. encouraging realistic expectations about accuracy and errors (Foss & Reitzel 1988);

2. offering training in affective strategies, to help students manage anxiety and improve performance (Crookall & Oxford, 1991);

3. reassuring students that they are not alone in their affective reactions and that these feelings are normal (Foss & Reitzel 1988; Campbell & Ortiz 1991);

4. showing that the teacher/evaluator understands the tension caused by being anxious about appearing anxious (Phillips 1992, p. 20);

5. employing "alternative" evaluations involving partner and small-group work, interviews, problem-solving, and role-plays, which are usually enjoyed by students (Phillips, 1992, p. 21; Young 1990) and can reduce anxiety-raising competitiveness (Bailey 1983) and apprehension (Foss & Reitzel 1988); and

6. developing a stress-free climate, helping students to relax, developing peer-support networks and promoting self-confidence (Moskowitz, 1978; Horwitz & Young, 1991; Legutke & Thomas, 1991, p. 35; Scarcella & Oxford, 1992).

There are a number of means of examining the language classroom for evidence of its peaceful potential. One example it the Classroom Environment Scale (CES, Fraser, 1986), which tries to discover how students and teachers perceive the learning environment. Another example is the Classroom Learning Environment (CLE, Pine & Boy, 1977), which looks at the classroom from a humanistic perspective, focusing on personal identity, trust, love and concern. A third classroom deficiency analysis is the Classroom Environment Questionnaire (CEQ, Fraser, 1986), which is concerned more with classroom management and has two parts: preferred and actual. In the first part, students and teachers record the sort of learning environment they would like to experience, and in the second part, they give their perceptions of the environment as it actually is. This data can provide feedback, not only on discrepancies between the preferred and the actual, but also on differences in perception between teachers and students. A fourth example is the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS, Horwitz et al., 1986), which examines causes of student anxiety. These questionnaires focus on the learning environment itself, on the assumption that "without a positive learning atmosphere, students may well gain little or nothing from new curricular infusions" (Mantle-Bromley, 1995, p. 383). Also of relevance at this point is Ely's point that:

   ... the nature of classroom environments does have an important
   influence on students' achievement of cognitive and attitudinal
   goals ... often beyond that attributable to student
   characteristics such as pretest performance, general ability or
   both. (Ely, 1986, p. 118)

Other needs analysis-related issues that might be examined in the language class include learning preferences, beliefs about language learning, teacher needs, and student needs. Whatever the issues, it is important that students and teachers participate equally in their examination, so that differences in perception may be identified and feedback utilized formatively.

Peaceful Learning Materials

Appropriate materials play an important role of the promotion of peace, in terms of format, content, and underlying assumptions. Peaceful language learning materials can therefore be viewed as a form of content-based learning (process and product) and should

* be directed at the learner;

* empower the student as an autonomous learner;

* promote self-esteem;

* reduce affective filters;

* develop personal and social responsibility;

* include linguistic goals;

* include learning-for-life goals; and

* encourage personal reflection on cognitive, affective and social achievements.

While it can be claimed that designers of language learning materials to date have largely ignored these factors (Sinclair, 1996, p. 149), it can also be said that humanistic learning materials per se have contained little evidence of humanistic content in their "experience-activating exercises" (Legutke & Thomas 1991:64). These two concerns can in fact be brought together by combining Siccone & Lopez's (2000, introduction) fourfold approach to humanistic learning materials (interdependence, independence, social responsibility, and personal responsibility) with Tudor's (1996) three main target areas for learner training instruction: i) language learning and language learning processes; ii) language structure and language use; and iii) the learners themselves as language learners.

Conclusion

A return to humanistic, guiding principles of education is essential in order to prepare students for society by developing in them qualities of personal and social responsibility, qualities that will empower them to positively address root causes of discrimination, corruption, poverty, sickness, and violence. Establishing a non-threatening learning environment is a practical and effective means of promoting peaceful language learning; in which learning materials can be designed to incorporate both humanistic and linguistic goals.

While many would agree that a humanistic approach to education needs to be present in every aspect of the learning environment, from government policy making, to program design, syllabus considerations, T-S/S-S/S-T relationships, learning materials, and alternative assessment, it is nonetheless easy to despair of ever realizing such goals in view of the exam-driven lessons EFL teachers are often required to supervise. However, governments are beginning to acknowledge that education of the heart is essential for the growth of a healthy society, and official policy documents, such as the Korean 7th National Curriculum, are describing educational objectives in terms of "the ability to achieve an independent life and acquire the qualifications of democratic citizens, and to be able to participate in the building of a democratic state and promoting the prosperity of all humankind" (Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development, 2001, p. 3). Teachers can therefore take heart from such developments and can, in addition to setting up their own peaceful learning environments, push for humanistic and holistic reforms in education, safe in the knowledge that their demands are sanctioned by Ministry policy documents.

If we are to reach peace, then we must teach peace. (McCarthy, 2001, p. 35)

References

Berman, M (1981). The reenchantment of the world. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Collins Cobuild English dictionary for advanced learners. (2001). Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers.

Campbell, C., & Ortiz, J. (1991). Helping students overcome foreign language anxiety: a foreign language anxiety workshop. In E.K. Horwitz & D.J. Young, (Eds.), pp. 153-168.

Creating a peace education class: Think it's easy? (1999, September 28). The Washington Post. Washington, U.S.A.

Crookall, D., & R. L. Oxford. (1991) Dealing with anxiety: some practical activities for language learner and teacher trainees. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), pp. 141-50.

Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Free Press.

Ely, C. (1986). An analysis of discomfort, risktaking, sociability, and motivation in the L2 classroom. Language Learning, 36, pp. 238-244. Finch, A. E. (2001). The non-threatening learning environment. KOTESOL Journal, 4(1), pp. 133-158.

Finch, A. E. (2002). The language clinic: The teacher as an agent of change. ThaiTESOL Bulletin, August 2002, pp. 35-52.

Foss, K. A., & Reitzel, A. G. (1988). A relational model for managing second language anxiety. TESOL Quarterly, 22, pp. 437-454.

Fraser, B. J. (1986). Classroom environment. London: Croom Helm.

Gardner, H. (1993). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. London: Fontana Press.

Harris, I. (2001). The rigor of peace studies. In McCarthy, C. [Ed.] 2001, pp. 36-43.

Hills, P. J. (1976). The self-teaching process in higher education. Croom Helm: London.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70(2), pp. 125-132.

Horwitz, E. K., & Young, D. J. (Eds.). (1991). Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kelly, R. (1996). Language counseling for learner autonomy: The skilled helper in self-access language learning. In R. Pemberton et al. [Eds.]. (1996), pp. 93-114.

Krishnamurti, J. (1992). Education and the significance of life. London: Gollancz.

Lantieri, L. & Patti, J. (1996). Waging peace. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press.

Legutke, M., & Thomas, H. (1991). Process and experience in the language classroom. Harlow: Longman Group, U.K. Ltd.

Mantle-Bromley, C. (1995). Positive attitudes and realistic beliefs: links to proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 79(3), pp. 372-386

McCarthy, C. [Ed.]. (2001). Strength through peace. Washington, D.C.: The Center for Teaching Peace.

Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development, (2001). The school curriculum of the Republic of Korea. Retrieved October 22, 2004, from http://www.moe.go.kr/en/etc/school.html.

Montessori, M., cited in McCarthy, C. [Ed.] (2001), p. 35.

Moskowitz, G. (1978). Caring and sharing in the foreign language class: A sourcebook on humanistic techniques. Rowley, MS.: Newbury House.

One Murder Every 9 Hours, One Rape Every 2 Hours. (2000, November 26). The Korea Times. Seoul, Republic of Korea: Korea Times publishing.

O'Sullivan, E. (2001). Transformative learning: Educational vision for the 21st century. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Pemberton, R., Edward, S.L., Or, W.W.F., & Pierson, H.D. [Eds.]. Taking control: Autonomy in language learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press

Phillips, E.M. (1992). The effects of language anxiety on student's oral test performances and attitudes. The Modern Language Journal, 76(1), pp. 14-25.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pine, G.J. & Boy, A.V. (1977). Learner centered teaching: a humanistic view. Denver, Colorado: Love Publishing Co.

Scarcella, R.C., & Oxford, R.L. (1992). The tapestry of language learning: The individual in the communicative classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Siccone, F., & Lopez, L. (2000). Educating the heart. Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.

Sinclair, B. (1996). Materials design for the promotion of learner autonomy: How explicit is explicit? In R. Pemberton et al. [Eds.]. (1996), pp. 149-165.

Tomlinson, J. (1991). Cultural imperialism: A critical introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Tudor, I. (1996). Learner-centredness as language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Violence, legal and illegal. (1999, May 2). The Baltimore Sun. Baltimore, U.S.A.

Wells, H. G. (1920). Outline of history. New York: Macmillan.

Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Andrew E. Finch, Kyungpook National University, Republic of Korea

Andrew Finch, Ph. D., is assistant professor of English Education at Kyungpook National University, where his research interests focus on language learning as education.