Advertisement

Openness, Closedness and Institutional Change

  • Glenn Toh
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter places institutional structures and practices under the proverbial microscope alongside the nature of professional vision and intellection. Recognizing that institutional change requires honest engagement with multiple forms of representation and semiosis, conceptualizations of openness and closedness to transformative change in the literature on education sociology and philosophy are duly examined. Using Castalia, the imaginary province of cloistered study in Hesse’s novel The Glass Bead Game, as a metaphor for intellectual closedness, the discussion addresses the belief that resistance to bona fide change initiatives are, in the main, a result of ideologically influenced forms of intransigence and institutional preservation. Such forms of closedness are in turn identifiable with the operations of power and oppression within educational domains in general, and language education in particular.

References

  1. Allwright, R. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7, 113–141. https://doi.org/10.1191%2F1362168803lr118oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Public Culture, 2(2), 1–24.  https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-2-2-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson, D., Churchill, E., Nishino, T., & Okada, H. (2007). Alignment and interaction in a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91(2), 169–188.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00539.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Block, D. (2015). Becoming multilingual and being multilingual: Some thoughts. In J. Cenoz & D. Gorter (Eds.), Multilingual education: Between language learning and translanguaging (pp. 225–237). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Canagarajah, A. S. (2005). Reconstructing local knowledge, reconfiguring language studies. In A. S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice (pp. 3–24). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). TESOL at forty: What are the issues? TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 9–34.  https://doi.org/10.2307/40264509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Canagarajah, A. S. (2016). TESOL as a professional community: A half-century of pedagogy, research, and theory. TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 7–41.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00986.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edwards, R., & Usher, R. (2000). Globalisation and pedagogy: Space, place and identity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05480.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1998). SLA property: No trespassing! Modern Language Journal, 82(1), 91–94.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb02598.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  14. Gass, S. (1998). Apples and oranges: Or why apples are not oranges and don’t need to be: A response to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal, 82(1), 83–90.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb02597.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.  https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goosseff, K. A. (2014). Only narratives can reflect the experience of objectivity: Effective persuasion. Journal of Organization Change Management, 27(5), 703–709.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-09-2014-0167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall, I. (1998). Cartels of the mind: Japan’s intellectual closed shop. New York and London: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  18. Hocking, D., & Toh, G. (2010). EAP writing: Reflections on divergent perceptions and expectations among tutors and students. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 20, 161–183.Google Scholar
  19. Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Holliday, A. (2013). ‘Native speaker’ teachers and cultural belief. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in foreign language education: Intergroup dynamics in Japan (pp. 17–28). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a lingua franca in the international university: The politics of academic English language policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice, 2(3), 49–85.  https://doi.org/10.1515/eip-2015-0003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kachru, Y. (1994). Monolingual bias in SLA research. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 795–800.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3587564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Second language acquisition research: Staking out the territory. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 315–350.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3587466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Language acquisition and language use from a chaos/complexity theory perspective. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives (pp. 33–46). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  28. Lin, A. M. Y. (2010). English and me: My language learning journey. In D. Nunan & J. Choi (Eds.), Language and culture: Reflective narratives and the emergence of identity (pp. 118–124). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Long, M. H. (1997). Construct validity in SLA research: A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 318–323.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05487.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. May, S. (2014a). Introducing the “multilingual turn”. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 1–6). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. May, S. (2014b). Disciplinary divides, knowledge construction and the multilingual turn. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 7–31). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Ortega, L. (2014). Ways forward for a bi/multilingual turn in SLA. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 32–53). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Pennycook, A. (2007). Global Englishes and transcultural flows. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peters, M. (2012, June 6). Freedom, openness and creativity in the digital economy. Truthout. Retrieved from http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/9547-freedom-openness-and-creativity-in-the-digital-economy. Accessed on 4 November 2016.
  36. Peters, M., & Roberts, P. (2012). The virtues of openness: Education, science, and scholarship in the digital age. Boulder: Paradigm.Google Scholar
  37. Rivers, D. J. (2013). Institutionalized native-speakerism: Voices of dissent and acts of resistance. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in foreign language education: Intergroup dynamics in Japan (pp. 75–91). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roberts, P. (2012). From west to east and back again: An educational reading of Hermann Hesse’s later work. Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Seargeant, P. (2009). The idea of English in Japan: Ideology and the evolution of a global language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sridhar, S. N. (1994). A reality check of SLA theories. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 800–805.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3587565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Taniguchi, S. (2010). Transforming identities in and through narratives. In D. Nunan & J. Choi (Eds.), Language and culture: Reflective narratives and the emergence of identity (pp. 208–214). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Toh, G. (2016a). English as medium of instruction in a Japanese situation: Presumption, mirage or bluff? London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  43. Toh, G. (2016b). Countering essentialist conceptualizations of content knowledge in a Japanese CLIL situation. LACLIL, 9(1), 212–237.  https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2016.9.1.9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Toh, G. (2018). Anatomizing and extrapolating from ‘do not publish’ as oppression, silencing and denial. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 15, 258–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Williams, G. (2010). The knowledge economy, language and culture. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Willis, D. B., & Rappleye, J. (2011). Reimagining Japanese education in the global conversation: Borders, transfers, circulations, and the comparative. In D. B. Willis & J. Rappleye (Eds.), Reimagining Japanese education: Borders, transfers, circulations, and the comparative (pp. 15–50). Oxford: Symposium.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. R. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 35–38.  https://doi.org/10.2307/40264510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Glenn Toh
    • 1
  1. 1.Language and Communication CentreNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations