Global Issues in Language Education: Issue 26. Mar. 1997. (p. 14 - 15)
In May, 1995, many politicians and citizens in Europe thought of
the end of the Second World War fifty years ago. After the atrocities of a
war that lasted only six years but brought death and suffering to millions
of people, one should have thought nothing like that would ever happen again.
But, according to information from the International Red Cross:
I could easily go on listing other numbers and events which show
that the world is in disorder. It is highly fitting that the 1991 German
Linguapax III workshop report was entitled "Language Teaching in a World
without Peace" (Raasch, 1991).
There should be nothing more important today than to work towards
peace in the world - on all levels, including the modern language
classroom, bearing in mind the statement of Pope John Paul II "If you want
to reach peace, teach peace".
When I first offered a seminar on peace education at my university
in Marburg, Germany, I had only three students who showed interest in the
topic. At the same time, I had more than 60 students who wanted to work on
topics like "Computers in the Language Classroom" or "For and Against
Homework when Teaching English". Naturally, I was disappointed, but gave
the seminar anyway, and was able to count on very motivated students. Next,
I tried a workshop on peace education at a regional language teachers'
meeting. There was only one of 200 participants who wanted to attend it.
When I asked him why, he said he'd never heard of global education and
wanted to learn what it was all about.
In other words, neither language students nor teachers seem to feel
the need to include peace education in the modern language classroom. After
the publication of one of my articles on peace education, I received a
letter from a very angry teacher. There is no time, he wrote, to
concentrate on extras that don't belong to the main concerns of language
teaching. "Leave us alone with these theoretical considerations, better
tell us what to do when pupils do not understand the difference between the
past tense and the present perfect."
I think there are four reasons why peace education is not valued by
the majority of teachers in my country, and I have the feeling that the
situation in other European countries is not much different.
Many teachers do not see the need for peace education because there
have been no wars in Western Europe since the Second World War. This is why
most language teachers accept traditional stories without hesitation and
neglect important issues of current concern. For them, "Mr. Carter's Monday
Morning" or "A Visit to the Zoo" are more important than a chapter on
Hiroshima or World Hunger.
There is still too much belief in "grammatical progression" where
formal grammar is taught step by step. In my country, one study found that
40-60% of language teaching time is based on formal grammar instruction. If
grammar is more important than meaningful content, textbook stories will
continue to be written to cover particular language items and not because
of their significance to the lives of the learners.
A systematic study of German textbooks for teaching English shows
that "peace" is just a term, a vocabulary item to be learned - nothing more
and nothing less. During the first and second years of study, it does not
appear at all. When it is introduced during the third or fourth year of
study, it has the same importance as "breakfast" or "butter" or "cowboy".
There is no concept behind the term, no appeal, no exhortation. It is
simply a word like hundreds of others. I know, of course, that peace
education is more than the teaching of vocabulary; but if you don't have
the terms available for discussing global issues, peace education cannot take place.
A few years ago, I attended a JALT conference in Tokyo and still
remember how impressed I was when I listened to Japanese colleagues talk
about the different atmosphere, increased interest and greater student
motivation in the classroom once they dealt with global education topics
such as peace and the environment. To learn how to think globally, you have
to act locally - in your own classrooms. And here is where language
teachers in my country find it difficult, if not impossible, to break with
traditional methodology. They are used to working with textbooks approved
by ministries of education which - so they argue - contain everything
important for teaching a language. Peace is ranked in the same category as
"international friendship" which is highly praised as a general educational
aim but which no teacher feels personally responsible for. Peace education
has not been an integrated part of modern language textbooks, and since
teachers are not flexible in using other sources besides the textbook, it
cannot become a topic of systematic study. Methodology in language teaching
still concentrates on grammar, translation and literature as it has for the
past 100 years. As long as there is no additional time available for
language study - teachers argue - they have no time for other activities.
Before the breakdown of the communist system in Central and Eastern
Europe at the end of the 1980s, the word "peace" was used there in
entirely different contexts. Throughout their lives, people were educated
to campaign for a "war towards peace" in the name of socialism. The Berlin
Wall was constantly referred to as a "peace protection wall". When I talked
about global issues at a 1992 conference in Prague in honour of Johann
Comenius, one of the first influential peace educators, my socialist-bloc
colleagues made it clear that, after half a century of "peace" used in the
service of communist ideology, their students would not trust them if they
began to use the term again.
What can be done to change the present situation? I see the
following three tasks:
Newsletter #26
Global Issues SIG Newsletter Index
| www.jalt.org/global/26Peace.htm |