How does society influence Chinese and Canadian language education?

Yi Hu

I have lived in Montreal for more than one year. In February of this year, I chose to learn French at the language centre in Montreal. Since I have studied some French before I came here, I could deeply experience the differences in language teaching between these two countries.

In China, teachers were more likely to teach us some grammars, like conjugations and some words that were related to the texts. However, teachers in Montreal are different. They prefer to teach us some useful knowledge that we can apply in our daily life. For example, we have already learned the vocabularies about clothes and food. They also teach us some grammars but that is not the main point. Students can improve their French skills more easily here. I think the reasons that cause these differences are the different social cultures and surrounding environments. I will explain these in more details in the following paragraph.

French Syllabus in Montreal (left)
VS
French Syllabus in China (right)

China’s current social context of education is test-oriented. Teachers excessively pursue students’ academic performance but ignore the practical application of language, and simply indoctrinate teaching with Chinese thinking mode based on exam-oriented education, which will lead to ‘Chinglish’. Meanwhile, China is a monolingual country, meaning learners are in a group where all their classmates are proficient in the same L1 and share the same cultural identities (Thomas, 2022). Outside of the classroom, they usually speak Chinese, so there is no foreign language environment for students to practice.

On the contrary, teachers in Montreal pay more attention to the practice and the cultivation of students’ autonomous learning abilities. Students are usually asked to try to do one task in class, and then study and answer questions by themselves, to become their own knowledge. Teachers do not pay much attention to the test scores, but to the cultivation of students’ individual abilities. Meanwhile, students have a real language environment in Montreal. They can have many opportunities to try to put what they have learned into practice. In this article https://www.ednewsdaily.com/five-major-differences-between-the-chinese-and-american-education-system/, the author also gave us some other educational differences between Eastern and Western countries which are influenced by government policy and cultural norms.  

I do think that one of the ways to show good performances in French or language learning is to get a ‘good’ grade, but it is not enough. I still remember what Professor Mela Sarkar said in class at that time, ‘many students with good grades cannot successfully order a cup of coffee in the coffee shop’. Therefore, our ability to communicate smoothly and comfortably with others is also a sign of good language learning; these two need to be integrated.

Last but not the least, I want to say that there is no best language teaching model, only the most suitable. After all, our social environment is different. However, do you think it is necessary to integrate these two different educational models together?

Reference:

Thomas, E. (2022). Issues and ideas for a monolingual context. International House. https://ihworld.com/ih-journal/issues/issue-48/issues-and-ideas-for-a-monolingual-context/

“In my language” —— do not set limitations and respect all languages

Heng Ding

The idea of this blog comes from the video posted by Amanda Baggs on Youtube called “In My Language” (you can find the link below). Briefly speaking, Amanda is an autism-rights activist and in this video, she showed and explained to the public how she interacted with the environment, which seems to be “mysterious and puzzling” from the generally accepted language perspective.

When I first watched this video, I was unfamiliar with Amanda’s situation and all the actions she made, as it’s not what we generally think “communication” or “language” is. Personally, one of the biggest reasons is that spoken language represents the most widespread mode of social communication (De Stefani & De Marco, 2019). It’s true that most of our thoughts are verbally expressed by symbols by which we build connections with the world, but there is a limitation to such a statement. De Stefani et al (2019) also argued that language should be considered always in relation to the background of a person’s mood, emotions, actions and events from which the things we are saying derive their meanings. Language is not limited to spoken or written words and sentences and there are many other factors such as personal identity and emotions that we should take into consideration. As a result, it’s not wise that we hold a narrow view of language and communication.

In Amanda’s case, she mentioned that “nobody was giving any chance, as usual, to the kinds of language and communication that people who are non-standard in some way often develop whether or not we also develop more standard language”, which is sad. In my opinion, the so-called “non-standard languages” cannot be looked down upon but instead deserves people’s understanding and respect as although in a minority position, they are also certain ways of how people interact and communicate with the world.

“Rub the face in a book, twirl string, play with water”, does this look different? No! It’s just a dominant way of communicating with the world.

References

De Stefani, E., & De Marco, D. (2019). Language, gesture, and emotional communication: An embodied view of social interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02063 

css.php