The Routledge Handbook of English Language Education in Bangladesh 2020022684, 2020022685, 9780367405755, 9780429356803

Citation preview

“A few years ago, I was invited to serve as the Honorary President of the Festival of Teaching in Difficult Circumstances. It was a humbling experience. I met inspirational teachers doing innovative and creative teaching and research with minimal resources and support. Through the Festival, we did our best to showcase this work, but at the time, I thought how wonderful it would be if these local practices could find their way to a global audience. It was a publication such as this that I had in mind. It is therefore an absolute delight to endorse this fine collection. Finally, a major international publisher has seen fit to provide a vehicle through which scholarly work in Bangladesh can be introduced to the rest of the world. This is a monumental piece of work and the editors and publisher are to be congratulated for bringing it to fruition.” David Nunan, Professor Emeritus, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong “The period of borrowing language norms and pedagogical practices from Europe or North America is over. Even in English Language Teaching, local communities are defining their own norms and rewriting their history. The Routledge Handbook of English Language Education in Bangladesh is an inspiring example of local scholars researching, theorizing, and implementing educational practices their people need in terms of their rich linguistic and intellectual traditions. Beyond relevance to this country, the Handbook will provide a radical vision to other communities in the Global South on how they can define their own norms and pedagogies for English Language Teaching.” Suresh Canagarajah, Edwin Erle Sparks Professor, Pennsylvania State University, USA

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN BANGLADESH

This Handbook is a comprehensive overview of English language education in Bangladesh. Presenting descriptive, theoretical, and empirical chapters as well as case studies, this Handbook, on the one hand, provides a comprehensive view of the English language teaching and learning scenario in Bangladesh, and on the other hand comes up with suggestions for possible decolonisation and de-eliticisation of English in Bangladesh. The Handbook explores a wide range of diverse endogenous and exogenous topics, all related to English language teaching and learning in Bangladesh, and acquaints readers with different perspectives, operating from the macro to the micro levels. The theoretical frameworks used are drawn from applied linguistics, education, sociology, political science, critical geography, cultural studies, psychology, and economics. The chapters examine how much generalisability the theories have for the context of Bangladesh and how the empirical data can be interpreted through different theoretical lenses. There are six sections in the Handbook covering different dynamics of English language education practices in Bangladesh, from history, policy and practice to assessment, pedagogy, and identity. It is an invaluable reference source for the students, teachers, researchers, and policy makers interested in English language, ELT, TESOL, and applied linguistics. Shaila Sultana is Professor in the Department of English Language, Institute of Modern Languages, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh. M. Moninoor Roshid is Associate Professor of English Language Education in the Institute of Education and Research (IER), University of Dhaka, Bangladesh. Md. Zulfeqar Haider is Professor and currently the Chair of the Department of English, Govt. Muminunnisa Women’s College, affiliated with the National University, Bangladesh. He is a senior member of the Bangladesh Civil Service (General Education) cadre. Mian Md. Naushaad Kabir is Assistant Professor of English Language in the Institute of Modern Languages, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh. Mahmud Hasan Khan is Associate Professor in the Department of English and Humanities, University of Liberal Arts, Bangladesh.

THE ROUTLEDGE INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOK SERIES

Routledge International Handbook of Schools and Schooling in Asia Edited by Kerry J. Kennedy and John Chi-Kin Lee Routledge International Handbook of Multicultural Education Research in Asia Pacific Edited by Yun-Kyung Cha, Seung-Hwan Ham, Moosung Lee Routledge International Handbook of Froebel and Early Childhood Practice Edited by Tina Bruce, Peter Elfer, and Sacha Powell with Louie Werth Routledge International Handbook of Learning with Technology in Early Childhood Edited by Natalia Kucirkova, Jennifer Rowsell, and Garry Falloon The Routledge Handbook of Digital Literacies in Early Childhood Edited by Ola Erstad, Rosie Flewitt, Bettina Kümmerling-Meibauer, and Íris Susana Pires Pereira Routledge International Handbook of Universities, Security and Intelligence Studies Edited by Liam Gearon The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Dialogic Education Edited by Neil Mercer, Rupert Wegerif, and Louis Major The Routledge International Handbook of Young Children’s Rights Edited by Jane Murray, Beth Blue Swadener, and Kylie Smith Routledge International Handbook of Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Edited by Jane M. Ussher, Joan C. Chrisler, and Janette Perz The Routledge International Handbook of Student-centred Learning and Teaching in Higher Education Edited by Sabine Hoidn and Manja Klemenčič The Routledge Handbook of English Language Education in Bangladesh Edited by Shaila Sultana, M. Moninoor Roshid, Md. Zulfeqar Haider, Mian Md. Naushaad Kabir, and Mahmud Hasan Khan For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge.com/RoutledgeInternational-Handbooks-of-Education/book-series/HBKSOFED

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN BANGLADESH

Edited by Shaila Sultana, M. Moninoor Roshid, Md. Zulfeqar Haider, Mian Md. Naushaad Kabir, and Mahmud Hasan Khan

First published 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business © 2021 selection and editorial matter, Shaila Sultana, M. Moninoor Roshid, Md. Zulfeqar Haider, Mian Md. Naushaad Kabir, and Mahmud Hasan Khan; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Shaila Sultana, M. Moninoor Roshid, Md. Zulfeqar Haider, Mian Md. Naushaad Kabir, and Mahmud Hasan Khan to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data Names: Sultana, Shaila, editor. | Roshid, M. Moninoor, editor. | Haider, Md. Zulfeqar, editor. | Kabir, Mian Md. Naushaad, editor. | Khan, Mahmud Hasan, editor. Title: The Routledge handbook of English language education in Bangladesh/ edited by Shaila Sultana, M. Moninoor Roshid, Md. Zulfeqar Haider, Mian Md. Naushaad Kabir, and Mahmud Hasan Khan. Description: First. | New York, NY: Routledge, 2021. | Series: The Routledge International Handbook Series | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020022684 (print) | LCCN 2020022685 (ebook) | Subjects: LCSH: English language–Study and teaching–Bangladesh–Handbooks, manuals, etc. | English language–Study and teaching–Bengali speakers–Handbooks, manuals, etc. Classification: LCC PE1068.B3 R68 2021 (print) | LCC PE1068.B3 (ebook) | DDC 428.0071/05492–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020022684 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020022685 ISBN: 978-0-367-40575-5 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-35680-3 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.



Handbook is dedicated to the young English Language Education and Applied Linguistics professionals

CONTENTS

List of figures xiii List of tables xv List of contributors xvii Foreword: Reclaiming ELT in Bangladesh (Alastair Pennycook) xxiv Prologue:The trajectory of the Handbook xxxi 1 Introduction: English language and English language education in the multilingual ecology of Bangladesh: Past, present, and future Shaila Sultana and M. Moninoor Roshid

1

PART I

History, language-in-education policy, and planning in Bangladesh

15

2 From the infrastructure to the big picture: A critical reading of English language education policy and planning in Bangladesh Shakila Nur, Megan Short and Greg Ashman

17

3 A balanced approach to language-in-education policy and planning in Bangladesh: Rethinking the current trend Tania Rahman

33

4 Confluence of influences shaping ELT in Bangladesh A. M. M. Hamidur Rahman

ix

46

Contents PART II

English language curriculum reformation and pedagogical practice

61

5 Starting from practice: A microanalysis of participants’ compliance to de facto L2-only schooling in a Bangladeshi ESL classroom Rizwan-ul Huq

63

6 Are tertiary EFL learners ready for input enhancement technique in Bangladesh? Akhter Jahan and Subramaniam Govindasamy

82

7 Future directions for research-based Academic English education at EFL universities: An evaluation of the context Md Golam Jamil and Kazi Mafizur Rahman

96

PART III

Assessment and testing in ELT

113

8 English language assessment in Bangladesh: Washback effect of current practices and the way forward Rubina Khan

115

9 The methods of learning English language: A critical evaluation of test-focused teaching in Bangladesh Sabrin Farooqui

130

10 An impact analysis of questions within an external examination on English language: Reflecting on validity and reliability Md. Zulfeqar Haider, Robiul Kabir Chowdhury and Jack B. Holbrook

149

PART IV

Teaching English language versus literature

171

11 Grace under fire: A reflection on the state of English studies in Bangladesh Shamsad Mortuza

173

12 Towards critical–affective pedagogy: Anglophone literatures in Bangladeshi English language classrooms Mashrur Shahid Hossain 13 Literature in language teaching: The myths and the realities in Bangladesh Mian Md. Naushaad Kabir

x

186 202

Contents

14 Content and language integrated learning: A case study on simultaneous teaching of English literature and language in a private university in Bangladesh Asif Kamal

219

PART V

Language learning and construction of identity

239

15 Perception of social class and the discursive construction of identity in the medium of instruction space Iffat Jahan

241

16 ‘Khaet’ (hick) vs. ‘fast’ and the construction of others: Educational background and identification of university students in Bangladesh Shaila Sultana

255

17 Socioeconomic identity practices of Bangladeshi young adults through English pronunciation Saima Akter

271

18 A critical exploration of private university students’ approach towards English as a medium of instruction in Bangladesh Mahmud Hasan Khan and Shaila Sultana

284

19 Investigating gender equity in a primary level English language textbook in Bangladesh Afroza Aziz Suchana

298

20 Identity construction and professional performance of government college teachers in Bangladesh Kakali Chowdhury and M. Moninoor Roshid

312

21 An autoethnography of a ‘musafir’ life exploring English language education M. Obaidul Hamid

327

PART VI

Teacher education and English for economic development

339

22 The role of language teacher associations in professional development Arifa Rahman

341

xi

Contents

23 Curriculum of English language teacher education in Bangladesh: Relevance of Morgan’s critical ELT approach Anwar Ahmed 24 English for human capital development Md. Maksud Ali and M. Obaidul Hamid

356 369

25 BELF competence for professional communication in the ready-made garments industry in Bangladesh M. Moninoor Roshid

382

26 Ideologies of English as a language for economic development in Bangladesh: Critical insights from two research projects in Bangladesh Qumrul Hasan Chowdhury and Elizabeth J. Erling

397

27 Conclusion: Lessons from the past and the future directives for English language education in Bangladesh Mahmud Hasan Khan, Mian Md. Naushaad Kabir and Md. Zulfeqar Haider

411

Index

420

xii

FIGURES

2.1 Policy trajectory framework 2.2 The infrastructure of ELEP in Bangladesh 3.1 An integrative model of language-in-education planning in Bangladesh 5.1 Image 1 from an English lesson 5.2 Image 2 from an English lesson 5.3 Image 3 from an English lesson 7.1 RIT categories 7.2 Theoretical framework for context evaluation 10.1 Marks per polytomous item showing a normal distribution 10.2 Distribution of candidates’ scores for question 10 under Board 1 10.3 Distribution of candidates’ scores for question 10 under Board 2 10.4 Distribution of candidates’ scores for question 10 under Board 3 10.5 Distribution of candidates’ scores for question 11 under Board 1 10.6 Distribution of candidates’ scores for question 11 under Board 2 10.7 Distribution of candidates’ scores for question 11 under Board 3 10.8 Mark distribution pattern for Board 1 10.9 Mark distribution pattern for Board 2 10.10 Mark distribution pattern for Board 3 13.1 The diagrammatic representation of BICS and CALP 13.2 Post reading activities in an EfT lesson from Unit 3, lesson 2 13.3 Post reading activities in an EfT lesson from Unit 4, lesson 2 14.1 Pre-test, CLIL lesson, and post-test flow chart 14.2 Participants views on the statement The lack of language competency is a barrier for understanding English literature 14.3 Participants’ views on the statement Without English language support through language lessons, understanding the content of English literature is difficult 14.4 Participants’ views on the statement For understanding literary contents, language support simultaneous to content lessons for students is necessary 14.5 Participants’ views on the statement Language lessons parallel to content lessons helped the learners in terms of understanding the literary contents

xiii

18 19 41 68 69 69 98 99 153 160 161 161 162 162 163 164 165 165 204 210 211 223 225 225 226 226

Figures

14.6 Participants’ views on the statement CLIL Literature helped to improve English vocabulary 14.7 Participants’ views on the statement CLIL has helped improve grammar 14.8 Participants’ views on the statement CLIL did not hamper the objective of literary course 14.9 Participants’ views on the statement Learners are distracted or diverted from literary lessons while language lessons are imparted 14.10 Participants’ views on the statement Lessons through CLIL were enjoyable 14.11 Participants’ views on the statement CLIL lessons in literature classes are better than lecture based lessons of literary contents 14.12 Participants’ views on the statement CLIL hampered the learning of literary contents 14.13 Participants’ views on the statement Allotted class/interactions time for simultaneous teaching of content and language lessons is sufficient 14.14 Participants’ views on the statement CLIL did not help to improve (your) English language skills 14.15 Participants’ views on the statement CLIL did not help to improve knowledge of literature 15.1 Snapshot of the Facebook page 16.1 Schematic representation of selves 19.1 References of more male nouns 19.2 Men and women in different sports activities 19.3 A man as a firefighter 19.4 A woman as a singer 20.1 Identity construction process and features 25.1 Model of global communicative competence in business context 25.2 The basic roles of different RMG personnel

xiv

227 228 229 229 230 231 232 232 233 233 245 259 303 308 309 309 315 384 385

TABLES



2.1 A chronological summary of EL and ELEP in different policy documents 6.1 Independent samples t-test results for the note-taking task mean scores 6.2 Cross-tabulation of treatment and noticing question scores 6.3 Descriptive statistics for gain scores for the fill-in-the-blanks task 7.1 Correlation between AE learning environment and RIT practices 7.2 Student perceptions about RIT practices, environments, and applications 7.3 Difference based on university type (independent-samples t-test) 7.4 Differences based on academic discipline and language of instruction in previous education (ANOVA with Tukey’s HSD) 9.1 Layout of question papers 10.1 A comparison of the sample and the total population for the study 10.2 Candidates’ score on question 1: Board 1 10.3 Candidates’ score on question 1: Board 2 10.4 Candidates’ score on question 1: Board 3 10.5 Distribution of candidates’ overall scores for question 1 under three Boards 10.6 Candidates’ score on question 4: Board 1 10.7 Candidates’ score on question 4: Board 2 10.8 Candidates’ score on question 4: Board 3 10.9 Distribution of candidates’ overall scores for question 4 under three Boards 10.10 Candidates’ score on question 5: Board 1 10.11 Candidates’ score on question 5: Board 2 10.12 Candidates’ score on question 5: Board 3 10.13 Distribution of candidates’ overall scores for question 5 under three Boards 10.14 Candidates’ score on question 6: Board 1 10.15 Candidates’ score on question 6: Board 2 10.16 Candidates’ score on question 6: Board 3 10.17 Distribution of candidates’ scores for question 6 under three Boards 10.18 Candidates’ score on question 7: Board 1 10.19 Candidates’ score on question 7: Board 2 10.20 Candidates’ score on question 7: Board 3 10.21 Distribution of candidates’ scores for question 7 under three Boards xv

23 87 88 88 101 101 102 102 132 152 154 154 154 155 155 156 156 156 156 157 157 157 157 158 158 158 158 159 159 159

Tables

1 0.22 Distribution of candidates’ scores for question 3 under the three BISE 10.23 Percentage distribution of candidates’ scores for question 12 under three Boards 10.24 Percentage of candidates’ scores for question 2 under three Boards 10.25 Comparison of all candidates’ total score in English Paper 1 13.1 Five Myths and realities of using literature in LT 14.1 Average test score as findings in CLIL literature class experiment 14.2 Pre-test and post-test result for vocabulary development through CLIL 18.1 Topics and questions raised in the classes, assignments, exams, and in semi-structured interviews 19.1 Male–female referring nouns and pronouns 19.2 Firstness in placing female or male 19.3 Visibility of men and women 19.4 Men and women in occupation 20.1 Demographic information of the participants (total 19) 22.1 Compositional features of SPELT, BELTA and NELTA 24.1 CLT techniques and their relevance to human capital development

xvi

159 163 163 164 208 224 227 289 303 304 307 308 317 344 373

CONTRIBUTORS

Editors Md. Zulfeqar Haider received his PhD in Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL) from Monash University, Australia where he did his MEd (TESOL) previously. He serves as a teacher trainer, teacher and coursebook writer for various government-run projects and institutions. He is the co-author of six English textbooks titled English for Today published by National Curriculum and Textbook Board (NCTB), Bangladesh. A Professor and the Head of the Department of English, Govt. Muminunnisa Women’s College, Mymensingh, Dr. Haider has been a member of various English Curriculum Committees of NCTB. His research interests include teachers’ professional development and learning, language testing and assessment, and 21st century learning. He has published more than a dozen scholarly articles and book chapters in local and international journals and books. Mian Md. Naushaad Kabir is an Assistant Professor in the Department of English Language, Institute of Modern Languages, University of Dhaka. He holds a PhD from The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad. He is the Vice President of Bangladesh English Language Teachers Association (BELTA) and Founding Executive Editor of BELTA Journal. His areas of interest include curriculum and materials evaluation, testing and assessment, multilingualism and multiculturalism, ecolinguistics, and translingualism. Mahmud Hasan Khan is an Associate Professor, teaches English in the Department of English and Humanities, University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh. He has two PhDs from the International Islamic University Malaysia and Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. He examines the debates around medium of instruction policy and politics/formation of identity from a discourse analytical perspective. He has taught and published scholarly articles and book chapters in his areas of interest. His recent publications have appeared in journals like Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Higher Education and Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural Studies. M. Moninoor Roshid is an Associate Professor of English Language Education in the Institute of Education and Research (IER), University of Dhaka. He has about two decades of experience xvii

Contributors

in language teaching and research. He was awarded his PhD on Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL) at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. He has a number of publications on English focusing on ELF, international business communication, material development, discourse analysis, graduates’ employment, and university-industry partnership published by Sense, Sage, Routledge, Multilingual Matters, and Cambridge Scholars. His recent co-edited book is Engaging in Educational Research: Revisiting Policy and Practice in Bangladesh published by Springer, Singapore. Shaila Sultana is a Professor in the Department of English Language, Institute of Modern Languages, University of Dhaka, has been educated at Jahangirnagar University (Dhaka), Monash University (Melbourne), King’s College (London), and UTS (Sydney). Her research interests include trans approaches to language and identity, sociology, critical geography, and the historical and sociocultural significance of English in post-colonial countries. She has authored articles in renowned international applied linguistics journals, such as Linguistics and Education, International Multilingual Research Journal, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Journal of Asia Pacific Communication, Asian Englishes, Translanguaging and Translation in Multilingual Contexts, International Journal of Multilingualism, and Journal of Sociolinguistics. Her co-authored book entitled Popular Culture, Voice and Linguistic Diversity: Young Adults Onand Offline has recently been published by Macmillan, Palgrave (USA). Two chapters titled “Gender performativity in virtual space: Transglossic language practices of young women in Bangladesh” and “Linguistic and multi-modal resources within the local-global interface of the virtual space: Critically aware youths in Bangladesh” have also been published in Language and Culture on the Margins: Global/Local Interactions and Critical Inquiries in the Studies of Sociolinguistics of Globalization from Routledge Critical Studies in Multilingualism (UK) and Multilingual Matters (USA) respectively.

Contributors Anwar Ahmed taught English at BRAC University and North South University in Bangladesh. In 2018, he completed his 2-year postdoctoral fellowship at St. Francis Xavier University in Canada. Currently, he is an Adjunct Lecturer in the English Department at Glendon College of York University. His articles have appeared in journals such as Educational Philosophy and Theory, Professional Development in Education, Discourse, Reflective Practice, Teaching in Higher Education, Educational Studies, Curriculum Inquiry, International Journal of Leadership in Education, and International Journal of Research and Method in Education. Anwar’s forthcoming book is Knowledge Mobilization in TESOL: Connecting Research and Practice (Leiden: Brill). Saima Akter is a Lecturer at United International University, Bangladesh. She completed her MA from the Institute of Modern Languages (IML), University of Dhaka with a major in ELT. She completed her Bachelor’s from the University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh (ULAB) with a double major in English Literature and Language. Her research articles have been published in local and international journals. Her areas of interest cover sociolinguistics and gender studies, psycholinguistics, phonetics, materials development, curriculum, and test development. Md. Maksud Ali is an Assistant Professor in the Department of English Language and Literature at International Islamic University Chittagong (IIUC), Bangladesh. Currently as a PhD researcher at the University of Queensland, Australia, he is researching human capital development and English language education in Bangladesh.

xviii

Contributors

Greg Ashman is a lecturer in Languages and TESOL at the University of Tasmania in the School of Education where he works with pre-service language teachers. Dr. Ashman has extensive experience in the teaching of languages and has a specific interest in looking at how language learners learn and how we, as teachers, can provide programmes and experiences that encourage positive learning and outcomes. Kakali Chowdhury teaches EFL in the Higher Secondary and Tertiary level colleges in Bangladesh. She holds her Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in English Literature from the University of Chittagong, Bangladesh, and a Master’s degree in Education (TESOL) from Monash University, Australia. Currently, she is working at Mohammadpur Govt. College under the Ministry of Education, Bangladesh. Her areas of interest include EFL teacher education and teacher identity development. Qumrul Hasan Chowdhury is a Assistant Professor of English Language in the Institute of Modern Languages at the University of Dhaka. He completed his PhD in the Centre for Language, Discourse and Communication at King’s College London. He has worked in several research projects in Bangladesh in the areas of English and economic development, and internationalisation of higher education. His current research interest is ELT and development. He has published chapters in the book The Routledge Handbook of Language and Identity (2016) and articles in the journals World Englishes and Journal of English as a Lingua Franca. Robiul Kabir Chowdhury is a Senior Specialist (Examination and Evaluation) working in Bangladesh Examination Development Unit under Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Dhaka, Bangladesh. He started his career as an English teacher at the secondary level and spent 10 years there before joining Bangladesh Examination Development Unit and has been working there till date. He did his Bachelor and Master of Arts in English Literature. Robiul has written a number of articles in international and national journals and daily newspapers focusing on Assessment and Measurement. Elizabeth J. Erling is a Professor of English Language Teaching research and methodology at the University of Graz, Austria. She has been engaged with international ELT for over 20 years, working in the contexts of Austria, Bangladesh, Germany, India, Korea, and the UK. Having previously worked as a Senior Lecturer in English Language Teaching and International Teacher Education at the Open University, UK, she was involved in the English in Action project in Bangladesh from 2008 to 2012. Her research explores the value attributed to English as a language of economic development, social mobility, and intercultural understanding, and she is particularly interested in how these values shape language education policy and contribute to the growth of English-medium instruction. She is Editor of the books English across the Fracture Lines: The Contribution and Relevance of English to Security, Safety and Stability in the World (British Council, 2017), and English and Development: Pedagogy, Policy and Globalization (Multilingual Matters, 2013). Sabrin Farooqui completed her PhD in TESOL from the Faculty of Education in the University of Sydney where she explored the impact of training on English teachers in the secondary schools in Bangladesh. She has more than 15 years of English language teaching experience in Australia and Bangladesh. Her research interests include language teaching methodology, language assessment, teacher education, and curriculum evaluation. She has highlighted xix

Contributors

various issues in the educational system of Bangladesh and the probable solutions through her publications in her scholarly papers in various international journals and presentations of papers in conferences all over the world. She is currently working for the Federal Government of Australia. Subramaniam Govindasamy (EdD, Rutgers University) taught at the Department of English Language and Literature, International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). He is trained in the tradition of Columbia School of Linguistics, which is steeped in Saussurean semiotics. He has published in international journals and is currently researching on developing a meaningbased approach to semantics. His other research interests include language acquisition, semantic mapping, language planning and policy, and linguistic theories. M. Obaidul Hamid is a Senior Lecturer in TESOL Education at the University of Queensland, Australia. Previously, he worked at the University of Dhaka, Bangladesh. His research focuses on the policy and practice of TESOL education in developing societies. He is the co-editor of Language Planning for Medium of Instruction in Asia (Routledge, 2014). He is on the editorial boards of Current Issues in Language Planning, English Teaching Practice & Critique, and Journal of Asia TEFL. Jack B. Holbrook is a Visiting Professor at the Centre for Science Education, University of Tartu, Estonia. Initially trained as a chemistry/maths teacher in the UK (University of London), Jack spent 5 years as a secondary school teacher before moving into teacher training, first in the UK followed by Tanzania, Hong Kong, and Estonia. Currently, Jack is involved in guiding science education PhD students, European science education projects, and being an International Consultant in Curriculum, Teacher Education, and Assessment. Jack’s qualifications include a PhD in Chemistry (University of London), FRSC from the Royal Society of Chemistry (UK) and Past President and Distinguished Award Holder for ICASE (International Council of Associations for Science Education). Jack has written a number of articles and book chapters in international journals and as a co-editor for a book entitled The Need for a Paradigm Shift in Science Education in Post-Soviet Countries. Mashrur Shahid Hossain is a Professor of English, Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka, Bangladesh. He teaches, researches, publishes, and presents papers on a host of areas, ranging from Comparative Literature and Postcolonialism/Decoloniality to Critical Pedagogy, Cultural Studies, and Queer Studies. He is presently working on two book-length projects. The first one examines ‘extreme’ theatre and music with a view to exploring the utopian potential of media, and the second one, formulates a framework of teaching ‘English’ literatures in Bangladesh. Rizwan-ul Huq is a PhD candidate in Educational Practice at the Department of Social and Welfare Studies, Linköping University, Sweden. His research focuses on language practices of bilinguals in pedagogical settings.The wider interest of his research lies in bilingualism and social interaction. Akhter Jahan is an Assistant Professor in the Department of English, East West University, Dhaka. She has recently earned a PhD in English Language Studies from International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). Prior to that, she achieved MA TESOL from the University of Lancaster, UK, winning Hornby Scholarship (2011–2012). She is a teacher trainer as well. She presented papers and published research at both home and abroad. Her interest areas include ELT methodology, second language acquisition, teacher training, curriculum development, and materials design. xx

Contributors

Iffat Jahan has a PhD in Applied Linguistics from the University of Queensland, Australia. She taught English language, Applied Linguistics, and English literature at the University of Dhaka and East West University in Bangladesh. Her research interests include language and identity in school, news media, and social media spaces. She has published articles in Current Issues in Language Planning and Comparative Education Review. Golam Jamil is a Researcher in the Transforming the Experience of Students through Assessment (TESTA) programme at the University of Bristol, UK. Previously, he worked as a Research Fellow (Learning and Teaching) at Solent University in the UK and led the Professional Development Centre (PDC) at BRAC University in Bangladesh. He also designed and taught language, education, and professional development programmes at universities in Bangladesh and the UK. His academic interests include assessment, technologyenhanced learning, research-informed teaching, English for Academic Purposes, and applied pedagogies. Dr. Jamil is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy UK (the Advance HE). Asif Kamal is an Associate Professor in the Department of English at American International University-Bangladesh (AIUB), teaches English for Academic Purposes (EAP), English for Specific Purposes (ESP), and English literature courses. He has published several of his research articles in different national and international journals, and presented research papers in international conferences in Australia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Nepal. He has also co-authored English for Academic Purposes, a module for tertiary-level ESL classes in Bangladesh produced under British Council and University Grants Commission. He completed his graduation from Jahangirnagar University and currently he is pursuing his PhD on Relevance of Content and Language Integrated Learning to English Literature Classes in Bangladesh. Rubina Khan is a Professor of English Language and Teacher Education at the Department of English, University of Dhaka. She has an MA in TESOL from the University of Northern Iowa and a PhD in ELT from the University of Warwick. She has worked as an educational consultant on testing and teacher development on a number of national and international projects. Her areas of interest are testing, assessment, evaluation, teacher education, and leadership skills. She is the President of BELTA. Shamsad Mortuza is a Professor (on leave) of the English Department at the University of Dhaka. He is currently acting as the Head of the Department of English and Humanities and Pro-Vice Chancellor of the University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh. He has previously taught at many universities including his alma mater Jahangirnagar University, where he was the Chair of the Department of English between 2005 and 2008. As a Fulbright scholar, he pursued his second MA in American Indian Studies at the University of Arizona. For his PhD, he attended Birkbeck College, University of London. His doctoral dissertation “The Figure of the Shaman in Contemporary British Poetry” was published by Cambridge Scholars Publishers in 2013. He also received his CELTA certification from St. Giles College, London. In 2013, he received a Fulbright scholarship for the second time to go to UCLA as a senior visiting postdoctoral fellow to conduct research on occultism. He has published numerous articles and book chapters in reputed national and international journals. His collections of poems, Barkode, and non-fiction pieces, I Spy were published by Adorn. He serves on the editorial boards of Crossings (ULAB) and Six Seasons Review (Bengal).

xxi

Contributors

Shakila Nur is an Assistant Professor in the Department of English and Modern Languages at North South University, Bangladesh. She received her doctoral degree from the University of Tasmania, Australia. Earlier, she did her Master of Arts in Applied Linguistics and ELT at the University of Dhaka. She has a background of teaching English at King Khalid University (KSA), Presidency University (Bangladesh), and Independent University of Bangladesh. She has presented papers and published articles at national and international levels. Her research interests include English language education policy and practice, inequity in English language education, teachers’ professional development, language testing and assessment, and discourse analysis. Alastair Pennycook is a Distinguished Professor of Language, Society, and Education at UTS. He is also an Adjunct Professor at the Centre for Multilingualism in Society across the Lifespan at the University of Oslo, and a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities. Alastair has been involved in language education for over 30 years in France, Germany, Japan, China, Canada, Hong Kong, and Australia. He is well known for his work on the global spread of English, particularly in his classic text The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language (Longman, 1994), which has just been reissued as a Routledge Linguistics Classic in 2017. Also well known is his work on critical approaches to language education and Applied Linguistics, outlined in Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction (Lawrence Erlbaum, 2001), and collected in a new selection of his writing from Shanghai Foreign Language Press. His most recent work focuses on post-humanism and Applied Linguistics and looks at the ways in which humanity’s focus on itself has excluded animals, things, and places, with implications for how we understand language, sharks, and assemblages. Arifa Rahman is an English language educator, involved in developing and empowering English teachers from marginalised communities. With experience in teaching, research, materials design and assessment, she has published extensively, and presented nearly 100 papers at international forums. Chief Editor, BELTA Journal and on the editorial board, Journal of Asia TEFL, her current research interests are context and culture, inequity in language education policy, and the role of social responsibility among ELT educators. Dr. Rahman has recently retired as English Language Professor from the Institute of Modern Languages, University of Dhaka, but continues to be a freelance ELT activist. Tania Rahman teaches English language at the Department of English & Modern Languages (DEML) of North South University in Dhaka. She is currently pursuing her PhD at the Institute of Modern Languages (IML) of the University of Dhaka in Bangladesh. She received her MA in applied linguistics from the National Institute of Education (NIE) of Nanyang Technological University in Singapore in 2010. She has published in reputed international journals, such as Current Issues in Language Planning (CILP) and The Linguistics Journal with renowned publishing houses, such as Taylor & Francis, Routledge, and Springer. A. M. M. Hamidur Rahman is a Supernumerary Professor of English at the Institute of Modern languages (IML), University of Dhaka. Earlier, he worked as Professor of English language and Applied Linguistics in the same institution. He is also working as Advisor and Dean-in-Charge of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at Daffodil International University, Dhaka. He obtained BA (Hons.) (1968) and MA in English (1969) from Rajshahi University, attained Diploma in Teaching English Overseas (1976) from the University of Leeds School of Education and MEd with Teaching English as a Foreign Language (1979) from the University of Wales, Institute of Science and Technology. He has numerous publications and research in the area of ELT. xxii

Contributors

Kazi Mafizur Rahman is the Head of Academy at BLJ Career Academy, a leading professional training provider in Bangladesh. He was the Director of Career Counselling at State University of Bangladesh and taught English language at BRAC University and the University of Dhaka. Mr Rahman studied Language Education at the Institute of Education and Research (IER), University of Dhaka; and completed MA in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) at BRAC University. He has conducted independent research in the field of technologyenhanced English language teaching and presented papers at conferences in Bangladesh and Italy. Megan Short is a Lecturer in Language and Literacy (specifically in TESOL) in the Faculty of Education at the University of Tasmania, Australia. Prior to joining the University of Tasmania, Megan taught humanities at the post-compulsory level. Megan’s research interests tend to focus on the way that language and culture intersect in language teaching in a range of contexts using a range of methodologies, particularly critical discourse analysis. Megan has co-edited two publications on critical discourse analysis and literacy and language teaching in a global context. Her current research explores cultural, social, and academic adjustment for international students. Afroza Aziz Suchana is a Assistant Professor in the Department of English Studies at Asia Pacific University of Bangladesh. At present, she is a PhD researcher at the Institute of Modern Languages, University of Dhaka. She also completed her BA (Honours) and MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT from the Department of English, University of Dhaka. Her areas of interest include gender equity in textbooks, communicative language teaching, materials evaluation, and code-switching. She presented and published scholarly articles on these areas.

xxiii

FOREWORD

Reclaiming ELT in Bangladesh Alastair Pennycook

This important Handbook suggests a coming of age for English Language Teaching (ELT) in Bangladesh. A new generation of Bangladeshi scholars is taking over the project, a process that is as much about epistemological and political change as generational shift. This is about taking ownership of ELT in Bangladesh, about gaining control of the ELT enterprise from its former Northern masters. A Handbook such as this shows us ways forward in thinking about ELT in Bangladesh and elsewhere, announcing that this is now part of a project of doing things on local terms, of provincialising foreign expertise, of viewing English as part of South Asian multilingualism, of working out how a critical, decolonial English Language Teaching project can serve local goals and aspirations rather than those of regional elites and external powers.There is much here for the rest of the world to learn about language policy, pedagogical practice, assessment, literature, identity, and economic development.

From Colonial English to English in Action How did we get to this point? The seeds of English were, as elsewhere in South Asia, planted by colonialism. In Bangladesh, ELT receded in the years following colonialism and subsequent independence, as a struggle to create a nation from the mess of partition, and the dominance of Urdu-oriented West Pakistan, created a new emphasis on Bangla-oriented nationalism. English was, nonetheless, bound to creep back: English was delivered as part of the aid package to the impoverished country (Erling, 2017; Rahman, 2015); Bangladeshi elites were keen to ensure that they at least had had access to and control over this language of global power. As global politics started to shift as we entered the 21st century,Western powers sought to promote English to limit the perceived effects of Islamic education and to coerce poorer nations into a neoliberal world order (Tupas & Tabiola, 2017). The massive English in Action project (‘changing learning, changing lives’) has been the most recent of many development-oriented programmes in Bangladesh, with its goals to change ELT in the country in order to ease the move into the global economy. The rise of neoliberal ideologies and practices sealed this progressive English creep: As limitations on English in schools were relaxed, English became a compulsory subject. An emphasis on human capital and participation in the global economy led to English being taught from an ever-younger age, with English being increasingly used as a medium of instruction, and a lure to private schools and universities. As xxiv

Foreword

Bangladesh has sought to emphasise English as part of its ticket into a new status in the global economy (Hamid, 2016; Hamid & Erling, 2016), it has struggled to free itself from the tentacles of the Global North and its English-supportive institutions. The formal end of colonial rule by no means saw the end of coloniality (Maldonado-Torres, 2010). English arguably remains the language of the Global North, not so much because its origins lie in geographically northern regions, but because it is so embedded in the institutions and injustices that the Global North has created that its prevalence and use cannot be separated from the political and economic forces that dominate the world. An English-speaking Bangladeshi elite is already closer to the Global North than to the Global South that surrounds it. In order to understand the localisation of ELT in Bangladesh, therefore, we have to keep our eyes on the broad horizons of global political and economic relations. English did not spread globally as if it had a capacity to take over the world without being pushed by many forces that saw an interest in its promotion, and pulled by many who also perceived value in acquiring it.The global spread of English, whether in Bangladesh, Japan, or Colombia, cannot be understood without an understanding of contemporary inequalities fostered by globalisation and neoliberal ideologies and the emphasis away from equity, welfare, and government spending towards privatisation, deregulation, and the rule of the market. Neither, however, can it be understood without an understanding of the local conditions of class, religion, gender, and education that have an equal influence on what English is understood to be, who gets access to it, or who rejects its pernicious effects. These entanglements of English (Pennycook, 2020) draw our attention to the multiple levels and ways in which English is part of social and political relations, from the inequalities of North/South political economies to the ways it is connected to discourses and ideologies of change, modernisation, access, and desire. “Any discussion of English as a global language and its socioeducational implications”, Rubdy (2015, p. 43) reminds us, “cannot ignore the fact that far from being a solution to the dismantling of ‘unequal power’ relations in the world, English is in fact often part of the problem”. The promotion, use, and teaching of English in contexts of economic development, military conflict, religious struggle, mobility, and tertiary access have to be understood in relation to the meanings English is expected to carry, as a language of progress, democratic reform, religious change, economic development, advanced knowledge, popular culture, and much more. These connections are by no means coincidental – they are a product of the roles English comes to play in the world – but they are at the same time contingent.They are a product of the many relations of power and politics with which English is embroiled. When we talk of English today, we mean many things, not many of them necessarily having to do with some core notion of language. The question becomes not whether some monolithic entity called English is imperialistic or an escape from poverty, nor how many varieties there may be of this object English, but rather what kind of mobilisations underlie acts of English use or learning. What is actually meant by parental demand for more English, state policies in favour of English medium education, test scores for English, media critiques of levels of English may differ widely. It is not English – if by that we mean a certain grammar and lexicon – that is at stake here; it is the discourses around English that matter, the ways in which an idea of English is caught up in all that we ineptly do in the name of education, development, and change. Rather than the bland terms in which English is often framed – as a neutral medium of international communication, a language that holds out the promise of social and economic development to all those who learn it, a language of equal opportunity, a language that the world needs in order to be able to communicate – it is also an exclusionary class dialect, favouring particular people, countries, cultures, forms of knowledge, and possibilities of xxv

Foreword

development; it is a language which creates barriers as much as it presents possibilities. English language education may be quite irrelevant for many of the world’s poor, and to argue that it might facilitate poverty reduction is to allocate resources away from where they are needed (Bruthiaux, 2003). Individually oriented access arguments – a person may have better job prospects if they learn English – have to confront larger concerns about education, class, and development. While there is across the globe a huge popular demand for English and English-medium education, English language education has many deleterious effects, from the distortion of already weak primary education sectors (as English is increasingly promoted, other languages and areas of the curriculum suffer), to the further consolidation of disparity between urban elites and the rural poor (Ferguson, 2013). Ramanathan’s (2005) study of English and Vernacular medium education in India shows how English is a deeply divisive language, tied on the one hand to the denigration of vernacular languages, cultures, and ways of learning and teaching, and, on the other, dovetailing with the values and aspirations of middle class Indians. A very similar case can be made for Bangladesh: While English opens doors to some, it is simultaneously a barrier to learning, development, and employment for others, deepening divides between the urban and rural, the religious and the secular, the wealthy and the poor.

Delinking English Language Teaching The world Englishes (Kachru, 2005) and English as a lingua franca (Jenkins, 2015) movements have both, in their own ways, sought to turn English into a language of the Global South. By insisting that English is the property of all, that ownership of English no longer rests in the hands of its so-called native speakers, that English can be understood as global, variable, and multilingual, proponents of these two related programmes have aimed to delink English from its origins and ownership and to shift the centre of English from the Global North. While both have arguably achieved some success in this endeavour – enabling many to see English as locally inflected, as no longer encumbered by conventional decrees, as no longer tied to particular speakers and places – such gains have only been partial. Neither framework provides the tools to engage with the political and theoretical delinking that is necessary to decolonise English (Kumaravadivelu, 2016). As Rubdy (2015) notes, we need to decolonise rather than just pluralise English as part of any emancipatory project. More politically engaged approaches such as linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 2009), meanwhile, have presented only a dystopian narrative of English domination, failing thereby to attend to the complex relations between English and its uses and users. We cannot understand English in Bangladesh without detailed understandings of the ways in which English is embedded in local economies of desire, or ways in which demand for English is part of a larger picture of change, modernisation, access, and longing. It is tied to the languages, cultures, styles, and aesthetics of popular culture, with its particular attractions for youth, rebellion, and conformity; it is enmeshed within local economies, and all the inclusions, exclusions, and inequalities this may entail; it is bound up with changing modes of communication, from Facebook to text messaging; it is coupled to religious education, madrasas, and the choice between din (religious understanding) and duniya (material conditions). To understand the diversity of what English is and what it means in all these contexts, we need to avoid prior assumptions about globalisation and its effects and develop instead critical studies of the local embeddedness of English. We cannot therefore sensibly discuss ELT in Bangladesh without considering how all that is done in policy, practice, curriculum design, and assessment is connected to broader political and ideological questions. What are the wider implications of promoting an English-only xxvi

Foreword

policy or encouraging first language use in a classroom, choosing between locally and internationally produced textbooks, deciding that ‘furnitures’ or generic ‘isn’t it?’ is acceptable or unacceptable, choosing to work at a private language school or the state system, insisting on or ignoring the English spoken by so-called native speakers, assessing students according to grammars from elsewhere? This Handbook marks, we can hope, the start of a movement away from particular forms of dependency (though not, of course, from questions of power and politics), a move away from a reliance on particular forms of English, practice or expertise. We would do well to question the linguistic, educational, and pedagogical ideologies behind “the one-classroom-one-language pedagogical straightjacket” (Lin, 2013, p. 540) that many current ELT approaches continue to endorse, and embrace instead a broader, multilingual approach to our classrooms. Rather than focusing so intently on English as the sole objective of our teaching, we can start to reimagine classes as part of a broader multilingual context, and indeed, following Motha (2014) to engage in a project of provincializing English. For a decolonisation of ELT in Bangladesh to occur, as in other areas of Applied Linguistics, struggles for social and cognitive justice (Santos, 2018) need to be combined with alternative ways of thinking about language, policy, teaching, and assessment that focus less on some putative variety of English and more on how English resources may be part of multilingual repertoires (Dovchin, Pennycook & Sultana, 2017; García, 2014; Sultana, 2014). An emerging goal of ELT may be less towards proficient native-speaker-like speakers (which has always operated with a deficit-based view of language), nor towards proficient non-nativespeaker-like speakers (which has equally accepted a problematic vision of ways of using English) but rather towards more fluid, polycentric understandings of resourceful speakers (Pennycook, 2014). This is not the polycentrism of a World Englishes focus, with its established norms of regional varieties of English, but a more fluid notion, based on the idea that students are developing complex repertoires of multilingual and multimodal resources. This brings the recent sociolinguistic emphasis on repertoires and resources into conversation with a focus on the need to learn how to negotiate and accommodate, rather than to be proficient in various varieties of English. It enables us to think in terms of ELT in Bangladesh aiming to develop resourceful speakers who are able to shift between styles, discourses, registers, and genres, and who can draw on multiple linguistic and semiotic resources.

Towards a grammar of decoloniality While the idea of what counts as English has received a decolonising impulse from several directions – from World Englishes to postcolonial literatures – the methods of ELT have been slower to shift, linked as they are to major economic and cultural interests (Pennycook, 1989). Communicative language teaching – that harbinger of neoliberal times (Lin, 2013) – arrived in many countries with the experts and textbooks that were part of the neocolonial development package. The discourse of development that inhabits these programmes is a view that teaching methods in the South are outmoded, overlooking questions of contextual appropriacy, cultural practices, and the locus of the Northern gaze. Much that has been written on language in education in Applied Linguistics has focused almost entirely on how language is taught in the Global North, and how changes have emerged and developed in the North before spreading to the South. As critiques of the role of organisations such as the British Council in ‘brokering English studies’ in India (Rajan, 1992; Tickoo, 2001) have suggested, the tendency to assume that Northern knowledge and educational practices are both superior to and applicable to contexts in the South has a long and detrimental history. Phan (2017) makes a similar point in her critique of the xxvii

Foreword

development of mediocre English medium education, as Western institutions sell their educational packages wholesale to regions of Asia. A major challenge for a decolonised Applied Linguistics is to decolonise teaching methods and our understanding of them (Pennycook, 1989). Amongst other things, this implies engaging with the many other traditions of language education (and without inscribing them into the reductively ‘traditional’ of Methods discourse), in African, Meso-American, Asian, Hindu, Buddhist, and Islamic educational thoughts and practices (Reagan, 2018). Everything in the classroom – from how we teach (how we conduct ourselves as a teacher, mullah, facilitator, organiser), what we teach (whether we focus only on English, on grammar, on communication, on tests), how we respond to students (correcting, ignoring, cajoling, praising), how we understand language and learning (favouring noise over silence, emphasising expression over accuracy), how we think of our classroom (as a site for serious learning or a place to express ourselves), to the materials we use (materials from the local community, government-provided textbooks, carefully prepared tasks), the ways we organise our class (in rows, pairs, tables, circles), and the way we assess the students (individually, collectively, in cognitive isolation or collaboration, against strict norms or in terms of varied language possibilities) – needs to be seen in terms of social and cultural practices that have broader implications than just elements of classroom interaction. As southern theory and related movements start to challenge the epistemologies and institutional racism of the Northern academy (Pennycook & Makoni, 2020), it is becoming increasingly possible to present alternatives for how we can understand ELT in contexts such as Bangladesh. Drawing on the work of Mignolo (2010) and others, Kumaravadivelu (2016) stresses the importance of delinking from Eurocentric categories of thought, in order to unfreeze the potential for thinking otherwise. He calls for a grammar of decoloniality, a more useful idea, one might suggest, than a grammar of correct English, or at least something that every English teacher should see as equally important. He argues for the discontinuation of those patronising studies that seek to show that the non-native teacher can teach as well as their native speaker counterparts. What we need instead, he suggests, are “context-specific instructional strategies that take into account the local, historical, political, social, cultural, and educational exigencies” (Kumaravadivelu, 2016, p. 81). In the context of Bangladesh, this would mean not just other Englishes, and other forms of English literature, but other ways of teaching and learning. Kumaravadivelu’s (2016) argument makes clear that although some areas of Applied Linguistics have been subject to a decolonial critique, there is a very long way to go. We need to decolonise language pedagogy, and especially the teaching of “colonial languages that overcelebrate Eurocentric values while sacrificing ways of being and speaking of people who do not fit the white, middle-class mold” (Macedo, 2019, p. 12). “How languages are learned and taught, the political economy of the organisation of language curricula and language policies”, Phipps (2018, p. 1) suggests, “favour the world’s colonial and imperial languages”. Both Phipps and Macedo ask how we can decolonise the field of foreign language education, its ideologies, languages, structures, and organisations. A Handbook such as this points to ways in which this can happen, as a new generation of scholars takes ownership of ELT in Bangladesh, showing how English language policy, pedagogical practice, assessment, literature, and identity can be rethought. This does not mean discarding all that has gone before but rather relocating English within a multilingual Asia, reclaiming ELT as a project in and of Bangladesh. Such a project makes it possible for wider audiences to learn from Bangladesh, to see that ELT in Bangladesh is a bigger and more interesting project than, say, ELT in the UK, that ELT practitioners and researchers in Bangladesh have much to teach the rest of us about many facets of English Language Teaching.

xxviii

Foreword

References Bruthiaux, P. (2003). Squaring the circles: issues in modeling English worldwide. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 159–177. Dovchin, S., Pennycook, A. & Sultana, S. (2017). Popular culture, voice and linguistic diversity:Young adults on- and offline. London, England: Palgrave McMillan. Erling, E. J. (2017). Language planning, English language education and development aid in Bangladesh. Current Issues in Language Planning, 18(4), 388–406. Ferguson, G. (2013). English, development and education: Charting the tensions. In E. Erling & P. Seargeant (Eds.). English and development: Policy, pedagogy and globalization (pp. 21–44). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters. García, O. (2014). Countering the dual: Transglossia, dynamic bilingualism and translanguaging in education. In R. S. Rubdy and L. Alsagoff (Eds.), The global-local interface and hybridity: Exploring language and identity (pp. 100–118). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters. Hamid, M. O. (2016). The linguistic market for English in Bangladesh. Current Issues in Language Planning, 17(1), 36–55. Hamid, M. O. & Erling, E. J. (2016). English-in-education policy and planning in Bangladesh: A critical examination., in A. Kirkpatrick, (Ed.) English language education policy in Asia (pp. 25–48). London, England: Springer. Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes in Practice 2(3), 49–85. Kachru, B. (2005). Asian Englishes: Beyond the canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2016). The decolonial option in English teaching: Can the subaltern act? TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 66–85 Lin, A. (2013). Toward paradigmatic change in TESOL methodologies: Building plurilingual pedagogies from the ground up. TESOL Quarterly, 47/3, 521–545 Macedo, D. (2019). Rupturing the yoke of colonialism in foreign language education. In D. Macedo (Eds.) Decolonizing foreign language education. The misteaching of English and other imperial languages (pp. 1–49). London, England: Routledge. Maldonado-Torres, N. (2010). On the coloniality of being: Contributions to the development of a concept. In W. Mignolo & A. Escobar (Eds.), Globalization and the decolonial option (pp. 94–124). New York, NY: Routledge. Mignolo, W. (2010). Delinking: The rhetoric of modernity, the logic of coloniality and the grammar of de-coloniality. In W. Mignolo & A. Escobar (Eds.), Globalization and the decolonial option (pp. 303–368). New York, NY: Routledge. Motha, S. (2014). Race, empire, and English language teaching: Creating responsible and ethical anti-racist practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 589–618. Pennycook, A. (2014). Principled polycentrism and resourceful speakers. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 11(4), 1–19. Pennycook, A. (2020). Translingual entanglements of English. World Englishes, 39(2), 222–235. Pennycook, A & S. Makoni. (2020). Innovations and challenges in Applied Linguistics from the global south. London, England: Routledge. Phan, H. L. L. (2017). Transnational education crossing ‘the West’ and ‘Asia’: Adjusted desire, transformative mediocrity, and neo-colonial disguise. New York, NY: Routledge. Phillipson, R. (2009). Linguistic imperialism continued. London, England: Routledge. Phipps, A. (2018). Decolonizing multilingualism: Struggles to decreate. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters. Rahman, S. (2015). English language policy initiatives and implementation in Bangladesh: Micro political issues. Asian EFL Journal, 88, 1–39. Rajan, R. S. (1992). Brokering English studies: The British Council in India. In R. S. Rajan (Ed.). The lie of the land: English literary studies in India (pp. 130–155). Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. Ramanathan, V. (2005). The English-Vernacular divide: Postcolonial language politics and practice. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Reagan, T. (2018). Non-Western educational traditions: Indigenous approaches to educational thought and practice. London, England: Routledge.

xxix

Foreword Rubdy, R. (2015). Unequal Englishes, the native speaker, and decolonization in TESOL. In R Tupas (Ed). Unequal Englishes:The politics of Englishes today (pp. 42–58). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. Santos, B. S. (2018). The end of the cognitive empire:The coming of age of epistemologies of the South. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Sultana, S. (2014). Heteroglossia and identities of young adults in Bangladesh. Linguistics and Education. 26, 40–56. Tickoo, M. (2001). Sociocultural blindspots in language curriculum renewal: Causes, consequences, cures. In W. Renandya & N. Sunga (Eds.), Language curriculum and instruction in multicultural societies (pp. 107–122). Singapore: SEAMEO RELC. Tupas, R. & Tabiola, H. (2017). Language policy and development aid: A critical analysis of an ELT project. Current Issues in Language Planning, 18(4), 407–421.

xxx

PROLOGUE The trajectory of the Handbook

The moment seems surreal for all of us. The Routledge Handbook of English Language Education in Bangladesh has kept us preoccupied for more than a year. We have spent numerous hours in meetings at the Department of English Language, Institute of Modern Languages, University of Dhaka, countless emails with contributing authors from home and abroad, and many sleepless nights in reviewing and finalising the chapters. Finally, keeping 25 chapters on board and maintaining the pace for deadlines – when different personal and professional commitments have distracted them and us, and motivating our own selves when the progress was hampered by unwanted and unwarranted events – have altogether been challenging and daunting.That is why writing the Prologue to the Handbook and getting it ready for the final stage is overwhelmingly emotional for us. In this Prologue, hence, we intend to narrate our collective journey that has culminated in this special moment. The life trajectory of the Handbook started quite casually. One of our editors (M. Moninoor Roshid) approached another editor (Shaila Sultana) with the idea of working on a book project together. Neither knew the other in person earlier – only that both returned from Australia to their home workplace, University of Dhaka, in different institutes (i.e. Institute of Education and Research and Institute of Modern Languages, respectively) after completing their PhDs and that both wanted to do something for English language education in Bangladesh. In 2018, they met again in a conference, where all of us were present – as a panel member, a paper presenter, or a workshop facilitator. We managed to have our very first meeting then and there during the lunch break and identified the possible nature of the Handbook. Eventually, we wrote the Call for Book Chapter (CoBC) and developed a book proposal within two weeks of the conference. Within a month, the dice was rolled – the CoBC was circulated among possible contributors. We earnestly wanted the English language teachers and researchers working at various levels of the education sector in Bangladesh to contribute to the Handbook, share their experiences and perceptions, and make their voices audible. We received immense support and encouragement from our senior academics who are the forerunners of English language education in Bangladesh, namely, Professor Arifa Rahman, Professor Hamidur Rahman, Professor Dil Afroze Quader, Professor Rubina Khan, and Harunur Rashid Khan. Distinguished Professor Alastair Pennycook, University of Technology Sydney, Australia, also took a keen interest in the Handbook and agreed to write a foreword to it. Dr. Obaid Hamid from the University of Queensland, Australia, xxxi

Prologue

who has conducted intensive research on English language education in Bangladesh and published extensively, also came forward and showed his genuine willingness to help us. Meanwhile, we received a total of 72 abstracts from both home and abroad. Out of them, after a careful peer review, a total of 52 abstracts were selected for full chapter submission of which 45 chapters were received in time. Following a blind peer review process, a total of 25 chapters were finally accepted on the basis of the selection criteria set by the panel of editors. A formal book proposal along with the selected abstracts was sent to Routledge UK. We did have lots of apprehensions, fearing if we would be able to manage the mammoth task for a reputed publishing company like Routledge UK – a Handbook on the past, present, and future of English language education in Bangladesh – which had not been done before in Bangladesh. Katie Peace from Routledge pleasingly informed us that our book proposal initiated a discussion to have a series of handbooks on English language education in different Asian countries. We ultimately received the contract for the Handbook after a long spell of waiting. This Handbook, nevertheless, was meant to happen. We all have met at the right time at the right turn of our lives. Five of us have recently finished our Ph.Ds and we want to contribute to the field of English language education and applied linguistics in Bangladesh with our insights developed from our intense doctoral research and publications. In addition, we consider it our responsibility to create a platform for the young academics and scholars in Bangladesh and encourage and support them to research.We are also respectful to the forerunners of English language education in Bangladesh. They have paved the way for introducing English language education in the 1980s in Bangladesh and have done the groundwork for us to pursue our academic and research careers in English language education and applied linguistics. Thus, we want the Handbook to be a collaboration of the experienced and budding English language educators from home and abroad, working in the context of Bangladesh. In this Handbook, we also expect to connect the past, present, and future of English education, develop a critical awareness about the emergence of the English language industry, and create a dialogue among ourselves for bringing about positive changes to English language learning and teaching and, in general, to the practices in Bangladesh. We also want to deeliticise the coloniser’s English, so that it loses the power to marginalise some and empower others and the English language may be used to decolonise the society and education system in Bangladesh. In addition, we intend to extend our support to young Bangladeshi potential academics and researchers who have just started their careers. We feel privileged to showcase their work, because they are conducting research without much academic support and are constantly challenged by contextual constraints and limited resources. We believe that the Handbook has created an opportunity to make the young researchers visible and their voices audible. We also feel the need for ensuring the availability of research studies done on English language education in the context of Bangladesh. On many occasions, we could not locate relevant research while we were doing our own doctoral research. Our experiences of researching and writing also indicated that only a few academics, researchers, and English language educators in Bangladesh publish internationally; locally published research journals are also not available online for academics and researchers located abroad; even when journal articles and books are available in local journals, they are based on theoretical constructs and conceptual frameworks from the 1980s and 1990s, which may not have relevance in 2020s; and finally, the research areas are usually limited to methods and approaches in English language teaching. In other words, involving the young Bangladeshi English language educators and researchers, we want to overcome the existing limitations and challenges and generate academic discourses about locally relevant and contextually appropriate English language teaching to ensure optimal learning experiences for our students in Bangladesh. xxxii

Prologue

Moreover, we feel that the changing status of the English language and the nature of English language education in the local context need to be comprehensively presented, specifically because of the initiative taken by the Government of Bangladesh to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 and the vision of a Developed Nation by 2041. Keeping the development agenda and the ambition of the government in mind and keeping in consideration the increased globalisation, mobility, migration, labour market, and the global and local economy, we also see the necessity of changing English language pedagogies and practices to identify the factors that may ensure the supply of linguistically competent human resources in Bangladesh for both local and global markets. To put it in simple terms, we are aware that there is hardly any comprehensive book that covers different facets of English language education in Bangladesh for stakeholders, such as policy makers, language teachers, textbook writers and materials developers, academics, and researchers. We consider the Handbook the first constructive effort to address all the possible dynamics of English language education in Bangladesh, starting from English language education policies to curriculum design, assessment to socio-economic dynamics of English language learning and teaching.The Handbook is a complete reference book for English language educators, researchers, and policy makers, specifically for those who have interests in the South Asian contexts. In addition, the Handbook identifies the possible areas, which require our attention in terms of research in future. The Routledge Handbook of English Language Education in Bangladesh thus gives a bird’s eye view of English language education in Bangladesh and provides directions to areas that require attention for further research in the future.

xxxiii

1 INTRODUCTION English language and English language education in the multilingual ecology of Bangladesh: Past, present, and future Shaila Sultana and M. Moninoor Roshid Introduction The People’s Republic of Bangladesh is one of the most densely populated countries in the world with an estimated population of 164.6 million (till 1 July 2018) living in 147,570 sq. km. It means that around 1116 people live in per sq. km (BBS, 2019). It is one of the developing countries as well, with 21.8% of its population living below the poverty line (Asian Development Bank, 2018). The adult literacy rate in Bangladesh is 73.9% in 2018 (BBS, 2019, p. xxxvii). Despite the stark realities that exist in Bangladesh, that it is a densely populated third-world country beset by problems of flood, famine, and poverty, Bangladesh is gradually developing itself through its steady growth through sustainable development – initiated and supported by the government of Bangladesh. According to the World Economic Forum, the world is facing various challenges, including poverty, inequality, unemployment, underemployment, and skills gaps, and it is important to reach the UN’s declared Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Both the global and the government’s main agenda is to achieve SDGs, ensuring poverty reduction, quality education, skills development, and promoting economic growth. In order to achieve SDGs by 2030, in the meantime, the government of Bangladesh has taken various visions (e.g. Vision 2021; 2041) and steps. One of the important steps of the government is considering English as a means of development to fulfil economic, societal, educational, and personal needs. However, English education in Bangladesh is encountering challenges for language policies, language curriculums and syllabuses pedagogies, materials, and assessment, which seem to be developed without considering the contextual realities of Bangladesh. This Handbook on English language education (ELE) has addressed those challenges and tensions and showed the future directions to policy makers, researchers, syllabus designers, material developers, and educators. The introductory chapter to the Handbook provides a critical reflection on the historical development of ELE in Bangladesh. An overall view of ELE from the primary to the tertiary level of education in Bangladesh is given too. Then a brief summary of the chapters is outlined so that readers may navigate their ways through 25 chapters based on their areas of interests. The sections in this chapter address the main themes covered in the Handbook, namely history, ­language-in-education policy and planning in Bangladesh, English language curriculum reformation and pedagogical practices, assessment and testing in English language teaching 1

Shaila Sultana and M. Moninoor Roshid

(ELT), teaching English with the aid of literature, language learning and construction of identity, and teacher education and English for economic development.

ELE in Bangladesh Historically, English has changed its status over the years to become a significant language of the social landscape. Its presence can be explained with reference to three broad phases of the political history of Bangladesh, starting with the introduction of ELE to the Indian subcontinent by the British colonial empire. Historically, politically, and socially, English and Bangla have always occupied different hierarchical positions in terms of usage, and these hierarchies have progressively created a web of linguistic ideologies. The interrelationship between language and class has also been sustained and nurtured by educational institutions and practices. In addition, these practices have for centuries simultaneously created scope for resistance, transgression, and yearning for freedom and independence, while at the same time reinforcing inequalities, hierarchies, and linguistic, social, and cultural marginalisation. An understanding of these historical, political, social, and ideological dynamics is significant for unravelling the ways in which ELE has been sustained and taken different directions in the Indian subcontinent and later on in Bangladesh.

ELE in the Indian subcontinent (1835–1947) Bangladesh, along with West Bengal, the province situated in eastern India, was historically a part of the Indian subcontinent. For nearly 200 years, until 1947, it had a similar colonial history to India under the British coloniser. During the reign of the East India Company for around 100 years till the earlier half of the 18th century, Bangla was one of the many languages in use in the subcontinent; others were Arabic, Hindi, Persian, Portuguese, Sanskrit, and more (Clark, 1956). During the latter half of the 18th century, when the British Government took over the management of the Indian subcontinent from the East India Company by passing the ‘Government of India Act of 1858’, English began to replace Persian, the language of the Muslim ruler, in all domains, including administration, law, and the courts. It clearly became the prestige variety of language and a key to success for the professional middle class, who wanted to be a part of the bureaucracy (T. Rahman, 1997). Moreover, the support of a group of local Indians, led by Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who were in favour of English education for learning more about the scientific and philosophical enlightenment of the West (Paranjape, 2013), made it easier for the British imperialists to promote English in education and government. In the region, Clark (1956) suggested that many of the upper class and probably the majority of the new middle class wanted to learn English for utilitarian motives, such as access to a profitable career. Their incentive grew stronger when Lord Bentinck opened more senior civil service posts to Indians. Therefore, Mazumder [as cited in (A. Rahman, 2007, p. 70)] stated, “English education was introduced into this country, not by the British government but in spite of them”. Interestingly, even though English education was restricted to the privileged few, it historically instigated social mobility and introduced a new kind of social hierarchy and power play that restructured class boundaries. There was a rise of bureaucratic and professional elites to positions which previously had been occupied by landed gentry. “The professional middle class, especially the bureaucracy, increased, and the state became the biggest employer. This meant that the language chosen by the state to run the bureaucracy was the key to power” (T. Rahman, 1997, p. 146). Expensive English-medium schools were established, which had a lasting impact on the socio-economic conditions within society. For example, the masses did not have access to chiefs’ colleges which were established in the early 19th century on the model of the elitist British 2

Introduction

public school system. The masses received their education in the vernacular, such as Bangla, in government schools. The aristocrats sent their sons to chiefs’ colleges where they could “learn the English language, and [become] sufficiently familiar with English customs” [Raleigh (1906) as cited in T. Rahman (1997, p. 147)]. Only the sons of the princes of India were allowed admission to chiefs’ colleges, whereas the sons of the professional middle class went to European or convent schools, which excluded most Indians based on birth or poverty (Clark, 1956). The cost per student to attend Anglo-Indian and European institutions was Rs. 156, while all types of institutions from a university to a primary school were only Rs. 14 [Education in India, 1941 as cited in. T. Rahman (1997)]. The vernacular Bangla gradually became the only language of government primary education, the Indian press, and the lower branches of official administration (Clark, 1956). Eventually, these two types of education gave rise to class-based hierarchies in the society: the anglicised elite, who were educated in English-medium institutions and held the powerful positions in the bureaucracy, and a class of people educated in the vernacular language, who aspired to and obtained subordinate positions in the lower bureaucracy. The hegemonic role of English, sustained and nurtured by the vested interests of a class of people, had not been accepted without struggle, contestation, and conflict. Out of this segregation, for example, rose the anti-English lobby – the masses educated in the vernacular, who were considered appropriate for subordinate positions in the bureaucracy, while the powerful positions were reserved for Englishmen and elite English-educated Indians. Both the British monarch and the English language were officially displaced in 1947. Uprooting English overnight was, however, an ambitious plan when a segment of the society had been nurtured by the ethos of the British imperialist, driven by the utilitarian motives and ambitions of the collaborators in colonialism and by the presence of a new type of citizen who “saw his future only in the study of the English language and in the slavish imitation of Western manners” and pretended “that English was his own language” (Clark, 1956, p. 474). English was meant to prevail for generations even in the post-imperialist era.

ELE during the Pakistani period (1947–1971) Strong resistance against and repulsion for the British ruler led to none of the countries in the Indian subcontinent – India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, or Nepal – selecting the English language as its national language, although English remained a de facto official language in the domains of administration, legal profession, and higher education. This was inevitable because political leaders and high officials were educated in English (Banu & Sussex, 2001a; Musa, 1989, 1995). It was also significantly important for the communication of the two wings of Pakistan – the East and the West, which had no common language other than English for administrative purposes. Note that Pakistan with its two parts, East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and West Pakistan, was linguistically and culturally different, but was separated from the Indian subcontinent in 1947 on the basis of the dominant religion of those regions, Islam. There were also 1200 miles of Indian territory between the two parts. The independence from the British monarch eventually proved to be significant for Bangladesh.The social and cultural significance of Bangla and the birth of Bangladesh are closely tied to the political events that took place during the Pakistani era. The political leaders, particularly Muhammad Ali Jinnah in West Pakistan, ignoring the fact that Bangla was spoken by 56.4% of the entire Pakistani population, announced on 21 March 1948 that Urdu, which was spoken by the dominant group in West Pakistan who represented only 3.27% of the population, would be the only official language (Maron, 1955). The ‘one state one official language model’ 3

Shaila Sultana and M. Moninoor Roshid

was a new form of linguistic colonisation for the East Pakistanis, that is, Bangladeshis. The newly established Pakistan again started to splinter because of language. In fact, Bangla became the steering force for a political, historical, social, and cultural movement that united Bangladeshis to resist linguistic and political marginalisation by West Pakistan (Musa, 1996). An attempt by the central government to enforce Urdu (the mother tongue of the West Pakistanis) as the official language and give preference to West Pakistan and West Pakistanis in the allocation of national revenues, development projects, and government posts violated the rights of East Pakistanis. The state-language controversies made the East Pakistanis realise that the privileged position of the British and the upper class Hindus had been occupied by the West Pakistanis. The West Pakistanis were the “non-Bengali imperial guardian” (Maron, 1955, p. 133), enjoying an upper status nationally, socially, culturally, and linguistically. It was another long-term process to relegate East Pakistanis to inferior status: East Pakistanis or Bangladeshis would be handicapped in competitive examinations and consequently would not be able to hold important positions in the bureaucracy. It was also a way of subordinating the majority by the minority (Maron, 1955). This issue of language controversy started a language movement, as a result of which several students and citizens were killed by the police on 21 February 1952. Because of this nationwide movement and loss of life, West Pakistan had to give due recognition to Bangla. Bangla was declared as a provincial language in the first constitution of Pakistan on 23 March 1956. The events left a deep scar on the relationship between the two provinces. The nations were eventually divided in 1971. Bangla, a significant marker of Bangladeshi identity since 1952, was revalidated in the Liberation War of 1971 and eventually led Bangladesh to independence from Pakistan (Musa, 1989, 1995). Bangla, which had been politically and socially afforded lower status than English during the imperial era, and again in relation to English and Urdu during the Pakistani era, for the first time achieved status as a politically and historically significant language in the independent Bangladesh.

ELE in the independent Bangladesh (1971 to date) The People’s Republic of Bangladesh emerged as an independent country in 1971. As one of the causes of the breach between West and East Pakistan was the legitimisation of the Bangla language and Bangladeshi nationalism, Bangla inevitably became the national language, as well as the official language – a symbol of national identity and freedom from oppression, exploitation, and subjugation (Musa, 1996). Klaiman [1987 as cited in Banu (2005)] identified that Bengali identity is neither genetic nor religious. The name of the country, Bangladesh, is made of Bangla and desha. Bangla refers to the language, not the people or the territory of Bengal, and desha means ‘country’. With the new fervour of nationality, English was displaced, along with Urdu. Even though the bureaucrats were more comfortable using English for administrative purposes, Bangla was constantly favoured by nationalist leaders and ministers. The “anomalous linguistic situation” arose because the key leaders were grassroot politicians with rural backgrounds (Banu & Sussex, 2001b, p. 126). While the decision to determine the national language reflected the collective emotion about Bangla in the newly independent country, the centralistic, government-induced, and government-controlled decision to promote Bangla gave rise to two distinct streams of education, English and Bangla, which eventually led to a divide between ‘haves’ and ‘havenots’, as had been observable in the British era. The statal and suprastatal rules prescribed Bangla as the only official language, without providing adequate instruction on how to phase out the use of English from other domains of life; for example, the practical hurdle of 4

Introduction

the non-availability of Bangla textbooks for higher education was not addressed (Choudhury, 2001). Overall, the emphasis on Bangla meant that people’s long history of experience with English was ignored. As a consequence, despite being instructed to switch to Bangla, Englishmedium schools kept the English-medium education system active through the patronage of the elite (Banu & Sussex, 2001b). English remained in two forms in the education system: as a content-based subject for the majority in government schools and as a medium of instruction (MOI) and means to dynamic education for the elite minority in private English-medium schools (Imam, 2005; A. Rahman, 2007; S. Rahman, 2009; Sultana, 2003). The education system now resembles that of the former imperialist period when elite children went to private schools and the masses went to the vernacular public schools. The nationalistic orientation in education policy was later revised to redeem English language learning and teaching, considering the necessity of English as a language of development, only to encourage yet another form of extremism. In 1992, English was made a compulsory subject in primary and higher secondary education from years 1 to 12, and subsequently for the first-year undergraduate students in the tertiary education in Bangladesh (Hamid, Jahan, & Islam, 2013). Since the government struggles to maintain a balance between nationalistic and developmental discourses, English education in Bangladesh presumably experiences the conflicts and tensions that accompany ideological instability.

English in the education system in Bangladesh The public primary, secondary, and higher secondary education system in Bangladesh, considered to be one of the largest centralised systems in the world (Imam, 2005), struggles to provide a decent education to a huge number of students with a limited budget. Because of the inadequate number of teachers, classes are not held regularly, and the number of classes is few and alarmingly low. Years 1 and 2 students complete only 444 hours of classes per year in total (Imam, 2005). The standard of education in public schools is also unsatisfactory. On average, 28% and 44% of students achieved the minimum level of competence in written Bangla and Mathematics, respectively, after five years of basic education (World Bank, 2000). The standard of English education in Bangla-medium schools has also been in decline. By contrast, the English-medium schools and colleges carry the ethos and heritage of elite English private schools established during the British rule. Only a privileged few of the student population attend these schools (Hossain & Tollefson, 2007). These schools have high tuition fees; hence, only rich parents can afford them; for example, the monthly fee for a public school in Dhaka is only around Taka 250 (approximately US $2.95), whereas the fee in an Englishmedium school can range from Taka 3,000 to 18,000 (approximately US $35.5–213) per month, according to the age of the student. Most of the schools have highly proficient qualified teachers, some of whom are native speakers of English.The schools are located in expensive areas and provide all the amenities necessary for effective teaching and learning. They follow the curriculum and syllabuses developed by the Cambridge International Examination Board (an examination board in the United Kingdom), and the exams (‘O’ level and ‘A’ level) are administered by the British Council in Bangladesh. The scripts are marked by registered examiners in the United Kingdom, and the textbooks for all courses except Bangla and religious studies are published in the United Kingdom (Hossain & Tollefson, 2007; Imam, 2005). It is not only the medium of education that has made these two kinds of schools and colleges different. The standard of education, materials taught in class, methods of teaching, number of trained teachers, number of classes held, amount of learning and teaching resources, and the overall ambience between these two kinds of education system in general are starkly different. 5

Shaila Sultana and M. Moninoor Roshid

In most of the Bangla-medium schools, knowledge is dealt with as a “monolithic entity, a finite, inflexible object, to be accepted whole and to be memorised and regurgitated” (A. Rahman, 1999, p. 241). Classroom practices, particularly in rural and sub-urban contexts, resemble the ‘banking concept of education’ (Sultana, 2003), which, according to Freire (1970, p. 36) is an “instrument of dehumanisation”. In fact, this sort of teaching and learning practice seems to be a logical consequence of the disparity between the financial conditions of the respective educational institutions. The stark differences between the two education systems have given rise to two classes of people, as in the imperialist period. Similar to Asia Pacific countries such as China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam, English as a medium of education has created division and discrimination between the “haves and have-nots and city and rural area dwellers” (Nunan, 2003, p. 605). Thus, institutional affiliation becomes complex for students as the affiliation implicitly reflects their socio-economic background (Sultana, 2014, 2018). As English education is not accessible to the poor and the rural, people believe in the superiority of the English-speaking population (cf. Ramanathan, 2005 on the vernacular and English divide in India). People in general seem to have positive attitudes towards English and Englishspeaking Bangladeshis (Sultana, 2016). The English-speaking population is small, as in Japan (Kubota, 1998), but it enjoys supreme prestige and status in the society. Thus “functioning in the manner of a huge classificatory machine” (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990, p. xi), the education system also eventually divides students and inscribes identity attributes based on institutional affiliation and education practices on the micro level. Bourdieu and Passeron (1990) stated, with reference to reproduction in education, society, and culture, that “the school helps to make and to impose the legitimate exclusions and inclusions which form the basis of the social order” (p. xi) in societies which claim to recognise individuals only as equals in right, the education system and its modern nobility only contribute to disguise, and thus legitimize, in a more subtle way the arbitrariness of the distribution of powers and privileges which perpetuates itself through the socially uneven allocation of school titles and degrees (p. x). Moreover, according to Bourdieu and Passeron (1990, p. xi), the elite schools ensure “the perpetuation and legitimation of social hierarchies”. Thus, the education system guarantees better positioning in the society for those who have received English education, even when Bangla is given respect as a national language for its crucial historical, political, and cultural roles in the independence of Bangladesh. The linguistic scenario has become increasingly multifaceted in Bangladesh with the recent popularity and currency of English as a global language and its instrumental value in the job market. Private companies prefer to employ university graduates with a higher level of proficiency in English, thereby legitimising the mythical values of English. Even people in rural villages want their children to be proficient in English (Erling, Seargeant, Solly, Chowdhury, & Rahman, 2012). Parents and private universities have started putting emphasis on English to prepare students for the job market, and it has been easier for the private universities to opt solely for English as the medium of education because of the absence of an explicit education policy for higher education. In addition, unlike public universities, these universities do not have historical, political, and social commitments towards nationalism. As Hamid et al. (2013, p. 151) have noted, MOI [Medium of Instruction] denotes a divide between public and private sector higher education. Being controlled by macro-level policies, the former is underpinned by linguistic nationalism, protectionism and additive bilingualism, while the latter is 6

Introduction

informed by linguistic instrumentalism … the public-private divide marked by linguistic dualism – English only in the private sector and Bangla + English in the public sector. Hence, ELE in Bangladesh occupies a precarious position in the Bangladeshi society deeply affected by its historical, political, social, cultural, and contextual realities. The Handbook tends to unravel some of the complexities in order to identify an effective future direction for ensuring linguistic equity and social justice through ELE in Bangladesh.

English in the multilingual ecology of Bangladesh The political, historical, and social and cultural significance of ELE in Bangladesh indicates that it is either the language of ‘linguistic imperialism’, ‘linguistic hegemony’, and inequality; or the symbol of social status, class, and education and hence a language of ‘pride’; or the language of globalisation, internationalisation, and commodification, and consequently, the language of ‘profit’. This framing of English, however, is problematic since the polarised approach gives a partial view of the language at the macro level or the grassroots level in Bangladesh. This does not allow a critical understanding of English with reference to national and official languages or individual and collective engagement with all the languages or the learning and teaching contexts that exist in the multilingual ecology of Bangladesh. These dichotomous roles and their consequences for ELE are dealt with in the Handbook. Section 1 History, Language-in-Education Policy and Planning in Bangladesh, contains a total of three chapters. These chapters identify the tension created because of the conflicting ideologies promoted and sustained in the name of colonisation, nationalism, and globalisation. These chapters also explain how a bi-/multilingual language-in-education planning can be a balancing act and hence can ensure a peaceful co-existence of languages and nurture multilingual ecology in Bangladesh. In Chapter 2, Shakila Nur, Megan Short, and Greg Ashman explore the complex nexus of history and policy of ELE in Bangladesh, by critically reviewing the historical, political, sociocultural, and ideological factors that influence English Language Education Policy (ELEP) development process in Bangladesh. They argue that in ELEP development process, there is a series of influences where colonisation, nationalism, and globalisation have played a central role. They identify the unsatisfactory and, in some cases, unplanned extent of policy implementation initiatives as the main cause for the overall dismal outcomes of ELE. Reconsidering the provision of ELE, culture of English language teaching and learning, and support for ELT professionals, a more context-driven, rational, synchronised, and holistic approach to ELE policy development process has been suggested at the end of the chapter. In Chapter 3, identifying the national language-in-education planning as a thorny matter from the perspective of emotional attachment interface of growing popularity of English in Bangladesh, Tania Rahman’s chapter proposes a sequentially bi-/multilingual framework integrating education in the country’s national language Bangla and the international language English. She considers languages as having instrumental value besides strong nationalistic sentimental attachments. Such orientation makes room for considering the potentials of languages in national resource management that may contribute to economic development and national/ ethnic identity maintenance. While the above-mentioned chapters give a general picture of ELE policy and planning in Bangladesh, A. M. M. H. Rahman’s Chapter 4 critically analyses the history of ELT in Bangladesh from the British period to the present time and discusses how ELT methods and materials have 7

Shaila Sultana and M. Moninoor Roshid

been influenced by various socio-political situations and pedagogical approaches and have been eventually changed. The chapter provides future directions for ELT in the country.

English language ‘curriculum reformation,’ pedagogical practices, assessment, and testing While Section 1 indicates the history and politics behind the uniform and unilinear process of ELE policies from the top and/or the West, Sections 2 and 3 take interest in English education as taken, realised, and experienced at the bottom, when preferences and choices are made by teachers, students, and examiners themselves in their day-to-day lives, based on their social, economic, and contextual realities. Specific languages and specific learning and teaching methods and approaches and testing and assessment systems may be forced down by the colonisers/elite segments of the society/the policy makers, but choices of using these specific languages and testing and assessment systems are not simple, unidirectional, or unidimensional. The chapters in Sections 2 and 3 present how the success and failure of different curriculums, syllabuses, and testing systems initiated by the government in support of international donor agencies depend on the contextual realities and multilingual ecology of the Bangladeshi society. Section 2 titled English Language Curriculum Reformation and Pedagogical Practice comprises three chapters. In Chapter 5, Rizwan-ul Huq aims to understand how the mundane language practices – in the presence of an institution-specific, de facto English-only policy – take place in a school during teaching activities. He identifies that the compliance of the given policy (i.e. the interactional patterns of conforming or yielding) is achieved through three types of approaches, that is, compliant, semi-compliant, and minimal-compliant modes. The chapter thus indicates how an English classroom operates within the policy expectations and their influences on collective interactional patterns. While Chapter 5 presents a microanalysis of teacher–student interaction in an institutional policy-governed setting and unravels its impact on interactional patterns, Chapter 6 deals with the role of input in teaching grammar. Even though a communicative approach to language teaching is encouraged in the English language curriculum, both teachers and students in Bangladesh mostly rely on the traditional rule-based English grammar books for achieving competence in the target language (TL) grammar. In Chapter 6, Akhter Jahan and Subramaniam Govindasamy assume that in such classroom context, Textual Enhancement of input may serve as an effective teaching technique for drawing students’ attention to any targeted forms by increasing the perceptual salience of those features in written input through typographical manipulations. They argue that contextualised exposure to the target forms will enable learners to grasp grammatical forms for use in any type of communication both spoken and written. Moreover, protracted support will enable acquisition of the TL and subsequently develop communicative competence, which is an indelible aim of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach. It is a hard reality that classroom practitioners usually do not participate in research and academic activities, such as writing research papers or attending conferences and seminars at home and abroad. In Chapter 7, Md. Golam and Kazi Mafizur Rahman advocate for promoting Research Informed Teaching practice in Academic English (AE) programmes at Bangladeshi universities. Adopting a mixed-method approach, they identify four areas to consider for implementing research-based AE education.They suggest rethinking the wider educational goals of AE programmes, enhancing teachers’ personal research capacity, ensuring research support mechanisms within universities, and embedding applied features in AE learning and teaching. Chapters 6 and 7 thus explore whether language teaching practices already successful in the Western world may be introduced in the context of Bangladesh. In principle, we are sceptical 8

Introduction

and may not agree to importing teaching techniques from the Western world, but we also are respectful to suggestions from the young Bangladeshi scholars and look forward to seeing the changes they may bring to ELE practices in Bangladesh by their innovative approaches and methods. An important dynamic of curriculum is assessment and testing. In Section 3 titled Assessment and Testing in ELT, a total of three chapters are included. Assessment is a vital issue in the secondary and higher secondary teaching–learning processes. Highlighting the gaps in the current testing system, in Chapter 8, Rubina Khan provides an overview of the secondary and higher secondary assessment scenario in Bangladesh and examines washback effects of the two major public examinations, that is Secondary School Certificate (SSC) and Higher Secondary School Certificate (HSC) examinations. She also identifies the harmful impact of these high-stake examinations. In addition, she shows that test items given in the exam are too easy and, consequently, the items fail to discriminate between students with higher and average abilities. While Chapter 8 identifies the limitations of test items in the SSC and HSC English language exams, Sabrin Farooqui, in Chapter 9 with a catchy title, investigates how and to what extent the SSC examination influences teachers’ use of the new English language textbook. She identifies that teachers do not use the textbook in the way it is expected to be used because of students and their preoccupation with testing and obsession with ensuring higher grades in exams. Chapter 9 leads to Chapter 10 in which Md. Zulfeqar Haider, Robiul Kabir Chowdhury, and Jack B. Holbrook report the findings of a research study that examines the quality of test items and the way these items are marked in the SSC English examinations. The chapter reveals that some alarming features of the SSC English Paper I examination paper that question the overall validity and reliability of such test. The questions are also too easy and, thus, fail to discriminate between students with higher and average abilities. Sections 2 and 3, thus, complement each other, showing that the current practices of determining students’ abilities through their performance in the final year examinations do not reflect the expectations set out in the language policies, communicative curriculum, and testing and assessment processes.

Teaching English language versus literature Section 4 includes four chapters on the theme, titled Teaching English Language versus Literature. Shamsad Mortuza, in Chapter 11, explores the various issues related to language, literature, and ideology that have contributed to the reshaping of English departments in the Bangladesh tertiary education. He expresses his concern about the future of English studies in Bangladesh and recommends making policy with a holistic approach instead of solely relying on the decisions of either the donors or the myopic policy makers. In Chapter 12, Mashrur Hossain takes into account the problems and potential of the use of Anglophone literatures in Bangladeshi English language classroom. Suggesting that literature is engaging and instrumental in enriching students’ language skills, communication skills, critical thinking skills, performance skills, and management skills, he offers a guideline for an effective use of literature in teaching – learning seven skills in a language classroom and outlines critical – affective pedagogy, which intends to develop both sensitivity and critical awareness in students. In Chapter 13, addressing the pros and cons of using literature in language teaching in a communicative manner, Mian Md. Naushaad Kabir critically examines English for Today (EfT) textbooks designed by National Curriculum and Textbook Board (NCTB) for Classes XI–XII and Alim. He argues that EfT, specifically, fails to include relevant theoretical implications from 9

Shaila Sultana and M. Moninoor Roshid

the field of Applied Linguistics. Four components of CLT framework have not been followed in writing EfT. A balanced approach towards ‘conventional schemata’ and ‘literary schemata’ is not found either. He underscores the importance of ‘cautious’ and ‘judicious’ selection of literary contents according to the contextual factors, and skilful creation of tasks and activities. In Chapter 14, Asif Kamal gives more specific examples of tasks for integrating English literature into language classes. He also examines whether adapting Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) lessons is effective for developing students’ literary cognition and enhancing English language skills simultaneously. He identifies that CLIL lessons help improve students’ knowledge of vocabulary, grammar, and sentence structure as well as the knowledge of literary content in undergraduate English literature classes, but these lessons may not be effective for students with better competence in the English language. Therefore, he suggests following a need-based application of CLIL in literature classes. Section 4 thus deals with how literature needs to be judiciously introduced in English language textbooks at the secondary and higher secondary levels of education as well as in any language classroom in Bangladesh. This section also suggests ways to use literature effectively in order to enrich students’ language skills, communication skills, critical thinking skills, performance skills, and management skills.

English language learning and construction of identity Section 5 Language Learning and Construction of Identity is relatively bulky in volume and includes seven chapters. The chapters empirically show the pervasive role of English in the society and its impact on students’ and teachers’ negotiation of identity and their locatedness in society. These chapters also problematise the ironical role of English, identifying how it affects students’ and teachers’ participation in classroom activities and negotiation of identity. Utilising the construct of language ideology and the concepts of ‘capital’ and ‘habitus’, in Chapter 15, Iffat Jahan examines the connections between language and identity with reference to the notion of social class in the discursive domains of news and social media. Based on critical discourse analysis of media and social media data, she demonstrates that Bangla and English in the form of MOI may be a factor in the representation of self and other. The study suggests that MOI/language divides in post-colonial Bangladesh reflect the social divide based on power, ‘capital’, and ‘habitus’. While Chapter 15 looks into the discursive construction of identity in media and social media data, in Chapter 16, Shaila Sultana explores how university students in Bangladesh use two popularly known words – the Bangla word ‘khaet’ (hick) and the English word ‘fast’ – to construct a discursive sense of ‘us’ and ‘them’ based on Bangla- and English-medium education and position themselves in their educational landscape. She observes that individual interpretation and use of ‘khaet’ and ‘fast’ are intricately intertwined not only with their educational background, but also with the historical, political, and ideological roles of English in society and students’ individual life trajectories, which are again influenced by their socio-economic and geographical backgrounds. In Chapter 17, with reference to the Weberian view of socio-economic class identity as a conceptual framework, Saima Akhter looks into the relationship between ‘linguistic capital’ and individual socio-economic identity. In the context of Bangladesh, English pronunciation plays a significant role in performing upper class identity and ensuring privileged position in society. At the end, the chapter concludes that young adults’ English pronunciation and socio-economic class identity are entangled with other social and psychological variables, such as their academic and regional affinity, fear of alienation, and then desire to move upward. 10

Introduction

In Chapter 18, Mahmud Khan and Shaila Sultana explore the critical reflections of MA in ELT students about the status of English as a global language and English as an MOI in their classes at a private university in Bangladesh. They indicate that the symbolic valorisation of English makes language-based discrimination acceptable both to students and to teachers in the university. The university is the site of social and cultural reproduction and both students and teachers, and the university authority perpetuate and effectuate the social, political, and ideological relations. In addition, they identify the English language as a significant hinder to students’ involvement in and engagement with ‘meaningful’ learning experiences. At the end, they suggest allowing students’ access to bilingual education both in English and in Bangla, so that these students may own and contribute to the locally generated knowledge and eventually become endowed with critical and intellectual bent of mind. Chapters 15–18 deal with students’ language practices and their identity at the micro level. By contrast, Chapter 19 analyses ELT materials. In her chapter, Afroza Suchana investigates gender equity in an English language textbook at the primary level of education in Bangladesh and identifies the presence of gender discrimination in language, images, and illustrations. Consequently, she exposes the unfair and oppressive state of social and economic relationships introduced to school students at a young age. In Chapter 20, Kakoli Chowdhury and M. Moninoor Roshid explore how government college English language teachers in Bangladesh negotiate their professional identity construction and how that constructed identity influences their professional behaviour and performance. The chapter shows that identity construction process of English teachers in government colleges in Bangladesh is quite complex and problematic and it affects their quality of performances as English language teachers. Chapter 21, from an auto-ethnographic perspective, provides a critical reflection on English and ELT in Bangladesh. Obaidul Hamid, based on his own life experiences in relation to English, reflects on the interrelations of English, mobility, identity, and belonging within and beyond national boundaries in a fluid world. His life trajectory, in fact, tells the tale of a ‘musafir’ as he calls himself and epitomises the desires and tensions between mobility and stability, home and homelessness, belonging and lack of belonging, and visibility and invisibility experienced and realised by a post-colonial being in the context of Bangladesh. In these chapters, we thus get a detailed picture of how students, teachers, and different stakeholders in the society engage with English within their spatial and temporal realities. Hence, we develop the political, historical, epistemological, spatial, social, and textual understanding of English in the multilingual eco-system and the material, discursive, and ideological processes that influence their use of English. The section, most importantly, critically unravels the long-run effects of the government’s stern effort of decolonisation.

English teacher education and English for economic development Another polarised and yet hugely popular representation of English is that English is the language of science and technology, globalisation, modernisation, internationalisation, and transnationalisation. From this perspective and contrary to the linguistic imperialism viewpoint discussed above, the English language is not considered as a threat to local languages, but a means to sustainable development in Bangladesh. English is the language of ‘pride’ or the language of globalisation, internationalisation, and commodification, and consequently, a language of ‘profit’ (Tollefson, 2000). Section 6 focuses on Teacher Education and English for Economic Development. This section contains six chapters. Chapter 22 by Arifa Rahman presents a comparative analysis of three 11

Shaila Sultana and M. Moninoor Roshid

English Language Teachers Associations in South Asia, specifically in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Nepal.The chapter identifies the differences in the contextual realities and compositions of these associations and reviews the products and services these associations offer to their stakeholders. It also considers how diverse factors impact on the robustness and vitality of these products and services and highlights the ways in which the associations address challenges and progress. In Chapter 23, Anwar Ahmed describes how a curriculum of English language teacher education in Bangladesh may develop them as transformative practitioners. He provides an outline of English Language Teacher Education curriculum in Bangladesh and suggests a re-conceptualisation of the curriculum in order to prepare English language teachers as transformative practitioners. He engaged in an autoethnographic reflective inquiry and explored how Morgan’s critical work might be helpful to design and implement curriculum as a vehicle for democratic and justice-oriented language education. He suggests that preservice teacher education programmes need to focus specifically on identity, community, and social justice. In Chapter 24, Maksudul Ali and Obaidul Hamid argue that English for human capital development has emerged as an ELE policy trend in developing societies in the context of globalisation. In this backdrop, the analysis of chapter reveals that development of citizens’ communicative competence in English is considered critical for the country’s access to the globalised market and for a competitive edge in the neoliberal economy. With reference to the framework of business English as a lingua franca, in Chapter 25, M.  Moninoor Roshid explores the linguistic competence and its forms needed for effective communication in ready-made garments (RMG) global business. The chapter shows that in RMG global business, clear mutual intelligibility is more important than standard English usage in terms of grammar and pronunciation. In addition, a sound knowledge and skills in using appropriate garment-specific lexis along with general vocabulary are considered as one of the key factors for effective communication. Interface of economic development discourse, drawing findings from two qualitative research projects in Bangladesh – one on local people’s attitudes towards English as a development tool and another one on Bangladeshi returnee migrant workers – in Chapter 26 Qumrul Chowdhury and Elizabeth J. Erling critically discuss the nexus between the local ideologies of English and economic development in the context of Bangladesh.They argue that people in rural Bangladeshi communities have strong ideologies of English as a language of economic development. Learning English develops local people’s ability to give them access to local and global economic participation. The chapter also identify the structural inequality due to determining influence of English. At the same time, they argue that learning English facilitates the local people to break structural challenges and global inequality. However, the chapters in Section 6 also identify that it will be wrong to ignore the role of locality in mobilising globalisation and side-track the complexities of experiences of students, teachers, migrant workers, and business associates in relation to English, even though the experiences may vary based on their socio-economic background and geographical locations. There is a necessity of understanding how “the powerless postcolonial communities may find ways to negotiate, alter, and oppose political structures, and reconstruct their languages, cultures, and identities to their advantage” (Canagarajah, 1999, p. 2). English no longer belongs to the colonisers or to the superpowers. It is a ‘heteroglossic language’ owned by Bangladeshi teachers, students, and migrant workers. The chapters in Section 6 in the Handbook show in what ways English is taken up at the grassroots level and used as a tool of financial development beyond the boundaries of classrooms.

12

Introduction

Conclusion The Handbook, in general, presents a detailed picture of the overall ELE, as it is practised ‘endogenously’ in Bangladesh through theoretically comprehensive and globally understood terms. It sheds light on the historical development, shifting paradigms and practices, and presents condition of ELE in Bangladesh, bringing out critical perspectives on ELE and colonial and postcolonial history, ideologies, and values in terms of the English language policy and the rapid development of the ELE industry in Bangladesh.The Handbook also deals with issues at the micro level, such as English language textbooks, English curriculum, assessment and evaluation, pedagogies, use of literature for ELT, MOI and negotiation of identity, teachers’ professional development, graduate employability, and sustainable development. Presenting descriptive, theoretical, and empirical chapters as well as ethnographic and case studies, this Handbook, on the one hand, gives a comprehensive view of English language teaching and learning scenario in Bangladesh and, on the other hand, comes up with suggestions for possible decolonisation and deeliticisation of English in Bangladesh.

References Asian Development Bank. (2018). Poverty data: Bangladesh, retrieved from https://www.adb.org/­countries/ bangladesh/poverty#:∼:text=Poverty%20Data%3A%20Bangladesh,2016%20to%209.2%25% 20in%202019. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS). (2019, May). Report on Bangladesh sample vital statistics 2018 (pp. xxx– xxxi). Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics and Informatics Division (SID), Ministry of Planning, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Retrieved from http:// bbs.portal.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/bbs.portal.gov.bd/page/6a40a397_6ef7_48a3_80b3_ 78b8d1223e3f/SVRS_Report_2018_29-05-2019%28Final%29.pdf Banu, R. (2005). Diglossia and triglossia:The Bangladesh language scenario. In M. Musa (Ed.), History, politics, culture in Bangladesh (pp. 303–321) Dhaka, Bangladesh: Dhaka University Press. Banu, R., & Sussex, R. (2001a). Code-switching in Bangladesh: A survey of hybridization in proper names and commercial signs. English Today, 66(2), 51–61. Banu, R., & Sussex, R. (2001b). English in Bangladesh after independence: Dynamics of policy and practice. In B. Moore (Ed.), Who’s centric now? (pp. 122–147). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J-C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage Publications. Canagarajah, S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Clark,T.W. (1956).The languages of Calcutta, 1760–1840. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 18(3), 453–474. Choudhury, S. I. (2001). Rethinking the two Englishes. In F. Alam, N. Zaman, & T. Ahmed (Eds.), Revisioning English in Bangladesh (pp. 15–25). Dhaka, Bangladesh: Dhaka University Press. Erling, E. J., Seargeant, P., Solly, M., Chowdhury, Q. H., & Rahman, S. (2012). Attitudes to English as a language for international development in rural Bangladesh. British Council ELT Research Papers 12–08 (pp. 1–28). London, England: The Open University. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. R. Bergman, Trans.). New York, NY: Continuum. Hamid, M. O., Jahan, I., & Islam, M. M. (2013). Medium of instruction policies and language practices, ideologies and institutional divides: Voices of teachers and students in a private university in Bangladesh. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(1), 144–163. Hossain, T., & Tollefson, W. J. (2007). Language policy in education in Bangladesh. In A. B. M. Tsui & J. W. Tollefson (Eds.), Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Imam, R. S. (2005). English as a global language and the question of nation-building education in Bangladesh. Comparative Education, 41(4), 471–486. Kubota, R. (1998). Ideologies of English in Japan. World Englishes, 17(3), 295–306. Maron, S. (1955). The problem of East Pakistan. Pacific Affairs, 28(2), 132–144.

13

Shaila Sultana and M. Moninoor Roshid Musa, M. (1989). Bhashachinta o proshongo (Reflection on language and relevant topics). Dhaka, Bangladesh: Bangla Academy. Musa, M. (1995). Bangladesher rashtrobhasha (National language of Bangladesh). Dhaka, Bangladesh: Bangla Academy. Musa, M. (1996). Politics of language planning in Pakistan and the birth of a new state. International Journal of Sociology Language, 118, 63–80. Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589–613. Paranjape, M. M. (2013). “Usable pasts”: Rammohun Roy’s occidentalism. Making India: Colonialism, national culture, and the afterlife of Indian English authority (pp. 13–40). London, England: Springer. Rahman, A. (1999). ELT innovation and cultural change: A Bangladeshi perspective. In T. Hunter (Ed.), Collected Papers of International Conference on National and Regional Issues in English Language Teaching: International Perspectives (pp. 235–254), held at the British Council, Dhaka from January 31 to February 2, 1999. Rahman, A. (2007). The history and the policy of English education in Bangladesh. In Y. H. Choi & B. Spolsky (Eds.), English education in Asia: History and policy (pp. 67–93). Chungbuk, Korea: The Asian Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language. Rahman, S. (2009). ELT, ESP, and EAP in Bangladesh: An overview of the status and the need for English. In M. Krzanowski (Ed.), Current developments in English for academic and specific purposes in developing, emerging and least-developed countries (pp. 11–43). Reading, England: IATEFL Publication. Rahman,T. (1997).The medium of instruction controversy in Pakistan. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 18(2), 145–154. Ramanathan, V. (2005). The English-vernacular divide: Postcolonial language politics and practice. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Sultana, S. (2003).The political context of pedagogical practices in the EFL classroom in Bangladesh. Harvest: Jahangirnagar Studies in Language and Literature, 18, 115–131. Sultana, S. (2014). English as a medium of instruction in Bangladesh’s higher education: Empowering or disadvantaging students? Asian EFL Journal, 16(1), 11–52. Sultana, S. (2016). Construction of others and negotiation of identification .Journal of Institute of Modern Languages, 27, 1–46. Sultana, S. (2018). Language practices and performances of identity of young adults within spaces of a private university in Bangladesh. Bangladesh English Language Teachers Association (BELTA) Journal, 1(2), 1–28. Tollefson, J. (2000). Policy and ideology in the spread of English. In J. K. Hall &W. Eggington (Eds.), The sociopolitics of English language teaching (pp. 7–21). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. World Bank. (2000). Bangladesh: Education sector review. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. (October 24, 2017). Bangladesh continues to reduce poverty but at slower space. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2017/10/24/bangladesh-continues-to-reducepoverty-but-at-slower-pace

14

PART I

History, language-in-education policy, and planning in Bangladesh

2 FROM THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO THE BIG PICTURE A critical reading of English language education policy and planning in Bangladesh Shakila Nur, Megan Short and Greg Ashman Introduction The main reason that change fails to occur in the first place on any scale, and does not get sustained when it does, is that the infrastructure is weak, unhelpful, or working at cross purposes……. More and more people must address “the big picture”…The agenda for the next decade is to “transform the system” by improving the overall infrastructure in a way that reinforces and extends….and helps to cause local development in others. (Fullan, 2005, p. 12) Following Fullan, while the term ‘infrastructure’ used in this chapter refers to the macro-level influences and ideologies (in the wider context) that facilitate, incentivise, or hinder (inadvertently) policy reform and development (the ‘why’ and ‘what’ of policy development), the notion of ‘big picture’ demonstrates the capacities of agencies as well as the extent and impacts of implementations (the ‘how’ of and ‘what of ’ policy development both at the individual and collective setting). Similar to the correlation between ‘infrastructure’ and ‘big picture’, ‘history’ and ‘policy’ is also interpretive, intriguing and perpetually uneasy. More explicitly, while ‘policy’ is encumbered by socio-political and historical context, ‘history’, that is, past events and influences, cannot be seen as irrelevant in the formation of the present policy.Therefore, in the process of accomplishing a comprehensive understanding of education policy process, it is necessary to contend with the complex and rich equations between ‘history’, ‘policy infrastructure’, and ‘big picture’. Taking English language education policy (ELEP) in Bangladesh as the case, this chapter was prompted by the authors’ understanding that while education system in any polity, including Bangladesh, faces pressures to deliver high-quality education, policy makers may not necessarily grant much attention to what Bowe, Ball, and Gold (1992) termed as the ‘context of policy influences’ but relentlessly borrow and reform policies and set forth their implementation. The policy makers may tend to forget that effective education policy implementation is a complex, evolving process, which might offer unsatisfactory and conflicting results if the policy influences are not properly and thoughtfully attended to and addressed. It is, therefore, crucial to develop a clear understanding of the ‘context of policy influences’ (the ‘infrastructure’) so that the foundation of the future ‘big picture’ of education policy could be strengthened. 17

Shakila Nur, Megan Short and Greg Ashman

Revisiting and evaluating critically the history of English language (EL) and ELEP in Bangladesh and the policy outcomes, this chapter intends to combine ‘history’ and ‘policy’ – on the one hand, the chapter provides a comprehensive view of the ‘infrastructure’ of English language education (ELE) by conceptualising the main threads and various issues of the context of policy influences and on the other hand, it critically reflects on the prevailing ELEP in order to develop a wholesome understanding of the ‘big picture’ of ELE in Bangladesh. Therefore, the discussion in this descriptive yet critical chapter is not more than offering a modest attempt to pursue and clarify two broad questions: • What are the historical, political, socio-cultural, and ideological factors that influence ELEP process in Bangladesh? • What might the big picture of ELE in Bangladesh be like as a consequence of the policy infrastructure? The first question has been addressed by describing how different historical, political, sociocultural, and ideological factors at supra-national, sub-national, and national levels influenced and shaped ELEP process in Bangladesh. Then the ‘big picture’ of ELE in Bangladesh has been explored by evaluating the main threads of impacts leveraged by the infrastructure. The key issues subsumed under the two questions lead to the concluding section, which argues for reconsidering and reassessing the upshots of the policies as well as the socio-political and economic context of the present Bangladesh so that the benefits of ELE could be reaped and maximised in the longer term.

Theoretical underpinning Recalling the ideology that policy decisions are influenced, mediated, and constructed by a wide range of formal and/or informal influences ranging from supra-national to local sociopolitico-economic contexts, the chapter is primarily premised upon the notion of ‘context of policy influence’, the first facet of Bowe et al.’s (1992) policy trajectory model. This heuristic framework, following a cyclic approach (see Figure 2.1), treats education policy as an ongoing, interactive, and interrelated process. The framework, as Figure 2.1 illustrates, is a non-linear, bi-directional one, operating between the three contexts of policy: context of policy influence, context of policy text, and context of

Figure 2.1  Policy trajectory framework (Bowe et al., 1992)

18

English language education policy and planning

policy practice. Emphasis on this two-way interaction provides possible avenues for each context to exchange feedback to and from each other. This reciprocity, the essence of the framework, addresses the complex dialectics between ‘the global’, ‘the national’, and ‘the local’ levels, as the ‘heuristic glo-na-cal agency’ (Marginson & Rhoades, 2002) and henceforth corroborates the foregrounding of policy outcomes – the ‘big picture’ (Vidovich, 2007). The context of policy influence is a site for articulating policy infrastructure by considering the ideologies and key influences of global, national, and local agencies (Bowe et al., 1992). Conceptualising the notion of influences on developing ELEP in any polity, thus, indicates how socio-politico-economic factors at the macro level serve as primary motivation in devising the context of policy text as well as influencing the extent of policy implementation. Within the above framework, the theoretical underpinning of the chapter is also complemented by the scholarly works of Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin (1989); Pennycook (2017); Phillipson (1992, 1996); and Rizvi (2007).The ‘context of influence’, by offering its ‘toolbox’, thus, facilitates the way of exploring the infrastructure of ELEP in Bangladesh more broadly at supra-national, sub-national, and local level, which later was conceptualised by Chua and Baldauf (2011) as the framework of contexts and levels of language policy planning. By taking a critical look at ELEPs developed in different times in Bangladesh, the conceptualisation also develops an understanding of the complexity inspired by the policy influences as well as how this complexity influences and shapes the big picture, that is, the local context of ELEP and practice.

Context of policy influence: The infrastructure of ELEP in Bangladesh The infrastructure of ELEP in Bangladesh is a clear demonstration of conflicts of interests and ideologies (Figure 2.2). To be more explicit, the permutation and combination of three major dynamics informs the context of policy influence – colonialism, nationalism, and globalisation and nation development motives – implicating accordingly a series of imposition,

Figure 2.2  The infrastructure of ELEP in Bangladesh

19

Shakila Nur, Megan Short and Greg Ashman

rigidity, instability, transition, and promotion regarding ELE in Bangladesh (spanning from the colonial period to till date).

Influences of colonialism (1757–1971): Transplantation of EL in education policy The discourse of infrastructure of ELEP in Bangladesh originates from the discourse of supra-national politics of colonialism regarding EL and ELE in Bangladesh (a part of the then Indian subcontinent). That is, EL and ELE were implanted in the territory as direct implications of accomplishing the bigger political mission along with cultural and economic interests of the British colonisers. A key moment here is that Orientalism was replaced by Anglicism. Two interpretations could be positioned here. While the conservative interpretations see this moment as a moral obligation to civilise the world by bringing in the long process of ‘development’ (Loh Fook Seng, 1970), the more critical viewpoints interpret this moment as one of the crucial early steps of the long colonial and neo-colonial process of producing a ‘class’ (Phillipson, 1992) of ‘clerks’ (Pennycook, 1998) by exercising the Anglicist ‘linguistic imperialism’ (Phillipson, 1992). Some examples of activities of the colonisers, specifically during the episode of 1757–1947, may help elaborate the above positions. The East India Company, superficially being adorned with the policy of Orientalism, initially used Persian as the official language and offered modest patronage for the establishment of the Calcutta Madrasa and the Sanskrit College (Evans, 2002). However, in a subtle ‘racist’ argument, the emerging socio-political strands of colonialism led to outweigh Anglicism by marking the local languages as ‘worthless’, restricting funds for the traditional education system and making EL as the working official language (Bailey, 1991). Interestingly, what made the situation more complex was the active and decisive involvement of a group of local Indian bourgeoisie led by the influential leader and scholar Raja Ram Mohan Roy. It is particularly Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who, by raising questions regarding the orthodox Hindu religion, social practices, and education system, hailed the importance of EL and ELE for masses of the Indian subcontinent from an instrumental and utilitarian viewpoint, that is, for achieving profitable career as well as gaining privilege in their uneven power relationship with the colonisers (Pennycook, 2017). During 1835 and onwards, significant political, economic, cultural, and linguistic engineering in the forms of bills and minutes was gradually developed.The most notable name, in this regard, was Thomas Macaulay, whose position towards ELE had major implications in understanding the cultural edifice of colonialism. He supported the Governor General Council’s socio-political initiatives to make “a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, in intellect” to serve the governors of the British Empire (Macaulay, 1952, p. 729).While implementing the central decision of restricting financial allocation to maintain the traditional education system as well as publications of books in Sanskrit and Persian, Macaulay argued for funding ‘British model’ of education in Western subjects, with English as the language of instruction. Lord Bentick, the Governor General, entirely concurring with Macaulay urged that “all funds appropriated for the purpose of education would be best employed on English education alone” (Bureau of Education, 1920, p. 120, as cited in Pennycook, 2002, p. 82). Correspondingly, the colonisers wanted to make their linguistic implantation deep-rooted and sustainable by developing curriculum in line with the British education system. In the process, the introduction of a grants-in-aid system facilitated a rapid growth of English-medium schools and colleges and the status and acquisition planning regarding EL was established and made viable. The expansionist zeal of Anglicism, thus, occasioned a massive expansion of studies in and on EL. The expansion of Anglicism was further reinforced by providing the local people with places to act as interpreters and subordinates to their colonial administrators. Pennycook (1998) 20

English language education policy and planning

rightly pointed out that as an integral part of their expansionist mechanism, the colonial agenda regarding ELE was merely ‘to produce clerks to run the colonial system’ (p. 539). At the turn of the century, the impact of colonisation in terms of linguistic implantation and ELEP engineering, thus, cultivated the deleterious consequences of spurring a clear demarcation among people in the society: providing status, power, and position to the urban elite and middle classes while ignoring the masses. The overall findings on the development of ELEP in Bangladesh in the British colonial period, thus, suggest a Janus-faced situation. On the one hand, EL was considered as a political tool and ELEP was developed ‘to control, to manipulate, and achieve political ends’ (O’Barr, 1976, pp. 7–8), and hence brings forth the strong influence of imperialism festooning the question raised by Phillipson (1996), “English served[s]whose interest?” (p. 160). On the other hand, local progenitors’ (e.g. Raja Ram Mohan Roy) instrumental view regarding EL and ELEP was a kind of ‘right’ response towards the British colonisers, as Paranjape (2013) argued that the powerless colonised people wanted to use EL as a means of knowledge to comprehend, cope with, and counter the powerful colonisers. However, while revisiting further the infrastructure of EL and ELEP in Bangladesh, the authors’ own critical understandings suggest that the whole process is somewhat more complex and intriguing, which is discussed below. The breakaway of the Indian subcontinent (on the ground of religion) at the end of the British colonial rule in 1947 provided a new dimension within the infrastructure of language policy. The two parts of Pakistan – then called East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and West Pakistan (now Pakistan) – were situated geographically miles apart. Bangla was the dominant language in East Pakistan, whereas West Pakistan was comprised with multilingual provinces. Demographically, none of these languages were spoken in East Pakistan and at the same time there was no Bangla speaker in West Pakistan. Consequently, EL during this period appeared as the de facto official language (second language) between East and West Pakistan, particularly in the fields of administration, law, higher education, and social mobility. Although the two regions were bound by religion, Islam, but different in culture and language, Pakistani rulers wanted to follow the European model of a ‘one language, one nation’ formula (Wright, 2012). Choosing Urdu as the national language for the entire Pakistan by the Pakistani rulers was an obvious political capitalisation not merely to address symbolic-ideological requirements for unifying the newly created parts of Pakistan, but most importantly to continue their socio-economic, cultural, and linguistic oppression on East Pakistan. Thus, the ‘linguistic imperialism’ (Phillipson, 1996) of the British colonisers seems to resuscitate. Consequently, the Bangla-speaking East Pakistanis perceived the Urdu-only state language policy as a weapon to destroy their sociolinguistic, cultural, and political identity. So, they showed protests against it. Along with long simmering geo-political issues and tensions between East Pakistan and West Pakistan, the Language Movement of 1952, an unparalleled example in world history, was ignited and ultimately ‘Bangla’ was secured as the national language in Bangladesh. As an aftermath of the Language Movement 1952, EL enjoyed the status of a second language and it was taught as a functional language at the educational institutions.The analysis of pertinent content of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1956 (Government of Pakistan, 1956) showed that the Pakistan government came up with a balanced language policy for the whole state. Article 214 of the Constitution clearly stated that Urdu (for West Pakistan) and Bangla (for East Pakistan) would be the state languages for a period of 20 years from the Constitution day and placed EL as the official language of Pakistan by providing it the status of a foreign language in the education system. Such provisions led the Government of Pakistan, particularly its Ministry of Education, to examine the situation of language teaching in Pakistan, with special reference to Urdu, 21

Shakila Nur, Megan Short and Greg Ashman

Bangla, and English. Some international organisations, including the British Council, the Ford Foundation, the United States Education Foundation in Pakistan, and the United States Agency for International Development, recommended some schemes for language policy and teaching methodology to bring about improvements in ELT as well as enhance its functional use (Dil, 1966). The Ministry of Education (1962), in line with the recommendations, commissioned the Curriculum Committee for secondary education in 1960.The Committee in 1962, along with a series of policy planning and directions in all subjects for Classes 6–10, came up with an explicit decision to teach English as a functional language instead of as a mere subject of literature. It outlined that EL should be taught as a compulsory language from Classes 6–12 in schools as well as at the graduate level of the Pakistani education system (Dil, 1966). As a part of the process, the Curriculum Committee also delineated a comprehensive and detailed curriculum policy for secondary ELE in which vocabulary and syntactical structure teaching were mainly emphasised. Urdu and Bangla were assigned as the medium of instruction in respective states, however, from the 11th grade onward they were replaced with EL. The Commission justified its secondary ELEP on the basis of enabling the students across the secondary schools of Pakistan to comprehend, speak, read, and write simple English and achieve correct functional use of this language (Curriculum committee report, 1962). In this way, the overall LEP considered and outlined by the Commission satisfied the masses in a balanced way. However, the co-existence of English-medium missionary schools was still occurring in urban settings, along with the vernacular-medium schools in non-urban locales, thus, spawning forth the division between the elite and the masses in society, the earlier social stratification implanted and nurtured by the British colonisers.

Influences of nationalism (1972–1988): Marginalisation of EL and inconsistency in ELEP A critical discursive shift regarding ELEP in Bangladesh was clearly evidenced right after 1971. The country through its victory in the 1952 language movement seeded the sense of the Bangladeshi nationalism and true independence, which was accomplished later in the 1971 Liberation War. Bangladesh, thus being a twice-liberated country (once from the British colonialism in 1947 and then from Pakistani domination in 1971) experienced a wave of strong nationalism, which resulted both in unwavering promotion of Bangla as the first and official language and ultra-nationalistic rejection of EL.This situation offered Bangladesh a unique position among the subcontinental countries regarding the use of EL. Table 2.1 represents the situation more vividly. As EL does not possess an organic relationship with Bangladesh but an imposed one, ELE was seen to be marginalised in the decolonised Bangladesh by the cri de cœur of nationalism. A firm nationalistic fervour was prevalent from the Constitution of Bangladesh 1972 to the subsequent education policy reports (till 1988). There was a strong inclination towards Bangla, the state language. Article no. 3 of the Constitution declared Bangla the ‘official language’ for both communicative and academic purposes. However, the Constitution mentioned nothing regarding the status, functions, use, or importance of EL in Bangladesh. A pedagogical justification regarding Bangla as the medium of instruction at all levels of education was supported in the decolonised country’s first education policy by arguing that it would help nurture and promote students’ intellectual capabilities (Ministry of Education, 1974). This single-minded national LEP, reflecting nationalism as an interpretive link between past, present, and future, also appeared to influence the scope, and functions of EL and ELE with the gradual yet ultimate aim 22

English language education policy and planning Table 2.1  A  chronological summary of EL and ELEP in different policy documents (from 1971 to 2010, Adapted from: Chowdhury & Kabir, 2014) Policy documents

The position of EL and ELE

1972 The Constitution of Bangladesh 1974  Bangladesh Education Commission

• Bangla was declared the official language • Nothing was mentioned regarding EL • EL was given status of a foreign language, to be accessed from Class 6 • General emphasis on EL • EL to be taught either in Class 3 or in Class 6, based on availability of EL teachers • Grade 3 suggested as recommended starting point for ELE • Grade 6 suggested as uniform starting point for ELE • EL set as medium of instruction for kindergartens • Curriculum and all text material used in kindergarten to be translated into EL • Introduction of ELE as extra subject from Classes 1 and 2 and as compulsory subject from Class 3 • Along with Bangla, EL could be medium of instruction from the secondary level (Class 7) • Emphasis on EL as medium of instruction at the tertiary level • Reemphasis on learning the four skills of EL as a foreign language from the primary level • Emphasis on rebuilding overall ELE curriculum • Emphasis on providing quality training for all primary and secondary school teachers to improve ELE • Emphasis on introducing a six-month EL course at the tertiary level • EL recognised as essential tool to building knowledge-based society • Emphasis on English writing and speaking from the very beginning of primary education • EL to be set as compulsory subject adopted in all streams from the secondary level • EL as medium of instruction could be introduced from the secondary level • Emphasis on appointing adequate number of EL teachers at secondary level • English to be a compulsory subject in all colleges and universities • EL (along with Bangla) to be the medium of instruction at the tertiary level • Emphasis on the need to translate books written in English to Bangla

1976  English Teaching Taskforce Commission 1988  Bangladesh National Education Commission 2000  National Education Policy (NEP)

2003  National Education Commission (NEC)

2010 NEP

of decolonising the overall education system. This very situation in a newly liberated country like Bangladesh can also be equated with the attitude possessed by the post-colonial African scholar Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o. Ngũgĩ criticised the dangers of colonisation of mind imprinted by the British among his people and put emphasis on the omnipresence of the native language across the different domains of the country (Williams & Chrisman, 2015). Thus, the gradual but simultaneous process of institutionalising Bangla while relegating EL instigated a subtle tension between Bangla and EL, one of the dynamics of language politics in Bangladesh. From a critical viewpoint, it should also be mentioned that language policy in Bangladesh after the independence in 1971 was mostly informed and constructed by Bangladeshi nationalism 23

Shakila Nur, Megan Short and Greg Ashman

and identity, which in turn are not always based on selfless motivation and patriotism. Put it differently, language policy decisions serve interests of certain groups at certain positions in the hierarchy of bureaucracy. For example, the nationalist leaders who steered the 1952 Language Movement and the 1971 Liberation War and eventually formed the newly liberated country cabinet mostly came from the rural background and so were more comfortable in using Bangla (Banu & Sussex, 2001).Their constitutional decision to promote and establish Bangla language at the cost of relegating EL, therefore, was intentionally (politically and discursively) constructed in order to serve, at the one end, their utilitarian and patriotic motives and self-interest and agendas, on the other. Inconsistency in ELEP, another consequence of strong nationalism, was also prevalent during this episode. EL was abolished from the primary stage and withdrawn from the tertiary level as a compulsory subject in 1972 and 1974, but it remained as a compulsory subject in the secondary curriculum. A lack of unity of purpose, planning, and actions was seen when the NEC 1987 policy held off the decision of introducing ELE in Grade 3, proposed it for Grade 6, and concurrently underpinned and secured the status of Bangla in all spheres by passing the Bangla Procholon Ain (Bangla Implementation Act) in 1987. Moreover, for Bangla, according to the policy planners and scholars, it was not plausible to take over the functions and domains previously allotted to EL, say for instance in higher education sector where textbooks were mostly written in English (Hamid, 2011). Thus, there was a gap between what Bangla was projected to be in policy and what language was used in education in reality. The discussion on influences of nationalism regarding ELEP (1972–1988) indicated that the series of policies during this period was developed within a tripartite stance – nationalism, progressivism, and socialism. The stance was also influenced by the traditional political culture, that is, change in government brings change in policies. At one end, the nationalist strand strongly advocated the use of Bangla in every public domain, including education, suggesting a sound and reasonable pedagogical platform for all students to acquire subject-matter knowledge. On the other end, the advocates of progressivism supported for early ELE and English as the language of education because of its strong association with global communication, economic prosperity, and modern technology. In addition, the socialist strand, while advocating the necessity of EL also foreshadowed its negative impact on creating a social cleavage. These three strands, showing a lack of coherence and congruence failed to bring any consistent ELEP, thus resulted in drastic impacts on the projected ELT practice and outcomes.

Influences of globalisation and local development motives (1990 onwards): Robust and enhanced orientation towards ELE Globalisation, a 21st century phenomenon, has been considered to be a significant, worldwide factor influencing ELEP in developing countries, including Bangladesh.The scholarly discussions (e.g. Rizvi, 2007) asserted that globalisation is not merely a historical antecedent. Rather, it works as an inevitable consequence of colonialism in guise of a macro-level process, and so diffuses changes and demands into the political, economic, social, education, technological, and cultural interconnection across the globe. Therefore, globalisation is nothing more than serving the policies and interests of the powerful international forces and elites. From the 1990s onwards (Table 2.1), an enhanced and robust attitude towards ELEP rhetoric was observed in Bangladesh, indicating a necessity of, on the one hand, disentangling with past rigidities and austerities caused by the fervour of decolonisation and, on the other hand, symbiotically keeping pace with the impetus of globalisation (supra-national) and local development (national/local) motives. It is the marriage of EL and globalisation, whether arranged 24

English language education policy and planning

(Phillipson, 1992) or co-incidental (Crystal, 1997), that has driven individuals, societies, and the nation towards ELE (Hamid, 2016). Recognising EL proficiency as an essential work-oriented skill, a tool for employability and development, the policy made ELE compulsory from Grade 1 in Bangladesh, introduced EL as a compulsory course at tertiary level, and revised ELE curriculum and books around the ideology of communicative language teaching (CLT). Lately, a series of discourses in the form of policies and promises in curriculum, methods, materials, and evaluation sector of ELE were revised and redeveloped to accelerate the country’s socio-economic and human resource capacity effectively and qualitatively in line with the global economy. For instance, the NEP 2010 promulgated the importance of ELE by defining its aims and objectives for developing a knowledge-oriented, skilled human resource so that “[students] can compete in the job market, especially in the economic sector of the country” and also “they [students] can successfully compete at the global context” (policy no.  11 & 12, Ministry of Education, 2010, p. 9). Having realised the global call for human resource development within the national context, CLT approach was firmly recommended as a pedagogical innovation. Following the revised National Curriculum of English guidelines, English Textbook series were redesigned and redeveloped in 2012. ELE assessment policy was also reconstructed by including listening and speaking tests in school-based continuous assessment scheme with a view to enable and ensure students’ competency in four skills of EL (see Nur, 2019 for details).The policy trend, in turn, encouraged and legitimised the private enterprise of education – English version schools of national curriculum, English-medium schools, and 97 private universities (BANBEIS, 2018). These policy directions, thus, appear to contradict the post-independent LEP, which were promoting Bangla in every sphere of national life, including education. In summary, LEP in a country cannot take place in vacuum; rather it is influenced by and closely related to supra-national as well as national level socio-politico-economic and educational sine-qua-non (Kirkpatrick & Liddicoat, 2017). The history of ELEP in the Bangladeshi context, thus, suggests a clear indication of a ‘post-colonial puzzle’ (Canagarajah, 2005), that is, a tension between the imposition of colonisation, the idealism of decolonisation and nationalism, and the emergence of globalisation (Figure 2.2). This complex notion could also be equated with what Pennycook (2017), regarding ELEP in decolonised and developing countries, put together as a dystopian assumption of linguistic imperialism, resistance, and a utopian vision of linguistic and global capital. EL and ELEP in Bangladesh was a direct consequence of colonialism, which later on was seen to be relegated in terms of usage and scope in public domains including education sector due to the strong fervour of nationalism of the decolonised Bangladesh. However, the symbiotic force of globalisation and nation development motives gradually led to the reinstatement of ELE. EL, being the de facto lingua franca of international communication and globalisation, has become a much sought-after commodity. Such rich yet complex infrastructure of ELEP also requires a critical evaluation of its consequences, which is presented in the following section.

The consequences of policy influences: The big picture of ELE in Bangladesh So, what are the consequences, the big picture fabricated by the tension between the dynamics of policy influences in the current Bangladeshi ELE context? Despite its monolingual character, in Bangladesh like many other ESL contexts, ELE has been regarded as an instrument to accelerate productivity and employability – a human resource and nation-building tool. However, this linguistic commodification, a by-product of the entanglement of colonialism, nationalism, and globalisation, contributed to the inconsistent, fragmented, and unsustainable nature of policy 25

Shakila Nur, Megan Short and Greg Ashman

directions in different times. Consequently, some critical issues in ELE in Bangladesh emerged, of which social inequality, heavy dependency on international donors, poor extent of policy implementation, and unsatisfactory outcomes of ELT and learning are obvious. First, the current policy of ELE for all, endorsement of English version curriculum and English-medium schools, cannot be justified from the socio-ecological stance of Bangladesh. These policy decisions seem to have largely been leveraged by a controversial ideology or Western fallacy of early and more exposure, better learning (Phillipson, 1992) – a fallacy of colonisation in guise of globalisation. This policy rhetoric in the name of linguistic capitalism (Bourdieu, 1991) contributed in widening social inequality and social class division, the issue sowed and nurtured by the colonisers while imposing ELE in the subcontinent. At one end, the policy of ELE for everyone from the very onset of their studentship sounded to be what Hamid (2010) stated as a reflection of the notion of social justice and equity – everyone should enjoy the benefit of learning EL. On the other end, the ‘more English’ policy in the elitist education system (English version curriculum and instruction and English-medium schools), which is only accessible to the elite class people (backed by upper, upper middle, and middle class families) has stigmatised the democratisation of ELE access policy by prompting and nourishing social inequality. For example, students having socio-economic affordability are accessing education from those private schools in metro areas, whereas schools in rural areas and religious schools (particularly Qawmi madrasahs) are attracting lower/poor class family students (Nur, 2019). Interestingly enough, these Qawmi madrasahs hardly teach English. EL and ELE, while creating opportunities for individuals and nations, also generate significant socio-economic disparities. The social class issue, a non-cognitive factor also carries a complicity of two notions. At one end, Bangladesh is a highly inegalitarian society with an urban population figure of 28.4% and a literacy rate of 58% (World Bank, 2016) and, on the other end, EL has been regarded as the key determiner of upward and outward social and economic prestige and mobility. The juxtaposed complicity, therefore, disregards the discourse of the Human Capital Approach (Esch, 2009). While the knowledge of EL could be referred to an asset, and accessing to ELE as an investment, the outcome is expected to counterbalance the cost. However, an in-depth analysis and critical understanding shows that the ideology of ELE for all as an investment in Bangladesh was overgeneralised. In other words, ability to invest (access) varies in terms of its type and usability, which in turn depends on social class as well as their affordability: access to ELE varies in terms of institutional capacity (teachers, medium of instruction, English version curriculum) as well as individual capacity (socio-economic background of people). Consequently, the extent of the outcome is also likely to vary based on the types and extent of access to ELE. For instance, students who are capable of (socially and financially) accessing ‘the more the better’ ELE in Englishmedium/version schools are highly likely to be English-competent and sit on an advantageous position in their career. Thus, the varied access to and provision of ELE is acting as a factor of social stratification. These socio-economic parameters further provide the rationale for discussing the budgetary allocation for education in general and ELE in particular. It appeared that the ‘compulsory’, ‘early’, and ‘ambitious’ access policy of ELE did not consider the local resourcing capabilities. The education sector in Bangladesh, which is a legacy of colonial structure, receives only 2.2% of the gross domestic product (GDP) and 12.6% of the total outlay (BANBEIS, 2018). Along with the UNESCO’s stipulation, though Bangladesh is committed to the global forum to spend 6.0% of the GDP or allocate at least 20% of the national budget for education, the current state of allocation on education is lower than that of her other South Asian neighbouring countries, like Maldives, Nepal, and Afghanistan. Therefore, it is not surprising that resourcing allocation 26

English language education policy and planning

for ELE would be too petty to acknowledge as well as to disperse it proportionately among its related sectors.The situation also explains the widespread role of international donors and NGOs in shaping the educational landscape in Bangladesh, which is discussed below. In all cases, the less ecological approach in reforming the access policy of ELE exhibits a trend of ‘neo-colonial/imperialistic fallacy’ (Phillipson, 1992) and ‘ethos without empathy’ (Waters & Vilches, 2008) for the decolonised, developing countries.The context of policy influence, for example, colonisation, globalisation, imposes rapid and massive changes on these countries mostly without considering their socio-economic and cultural nuances and capacities. These countries, in turn, struggle to adopt and acclimate with the imposition in fairly significant ways, with little previous or even gradual preparation. Taking ELT as the case, Phillipson (1992), for instance, argued that major neo-colonial agencies, including the British Council, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the Canadian International Development Agency, tend to play the role of spreading the doctrines of imperialism. These doctrines or myths regarding ELT in disguise of globalisation, cooperation, and development aid reinstated the policy of linguistic and socio-political imperialism in the non-native, decolonised, and developing countries. Second, globalisation, promoting the hegemonic interests of the West and their local collaborators, plays the role of ‘the Empire strikes back’ (Ashcroft et al., 1989) and disperses global capitalism in various forms in the context of developing countries. Pennycook (2007), taking ELE as an example asserted that “There are many ways in which the current spread of English, teaching methods, and textbooks can be seen as a recapitulation, if not an intensification, of (neo-) colonial relations” (p. 13). The residuals of colonial legacy in the globalised world are mirrored through the above-mentioned neo-colonial agents, who, shifting their emphasis away from ‘cultural’ to ‘educational’ affairs and from ‘direct colonialism’ to ‘development aids’ and ‘global markets’ (Pennycook, 2017), play a vital role in developing and shaping a country’s ELEP. Possessing ‘one golden egg – the English language’ (Donaldson, 1984, p. 35), these international capitalists, in terms of socio-cultural and funding organisations always play the role of missionaries to spread EL in developing countries. They offer financial and consultancy support in different projects with reference to developing curriculum, textbooks, methodology of ELT and learning, as well as providing training to the teachers. One of the critical examples of such riding of colonialism ‘on the new wings of globalisation’ (Lin & Martin, 2005, p. 5) in a postcolonial context like Bangladesh is the dominance of various international donor-funded ELE projects. The main purpose of these projects in the name of providing resource support is to legitimise their exportation of the approach of CLT, arguing that communicative competence in EL will enable people to achieve economic, social, cultural, and technological benefits in the globalised world. Given the country’s national capacity, this is undeniable that developing countries do need resource support, but also raises the question: what is the nature and impacts of these supports? In depth investigation of this question is beyond the scope of this current chapter. However, based on related studies (Hamid, 2010; Nur, 2018; Nur & Short, 2019), it could be stated that these projects offer short-term semblance and solution. Supports from these international ‘gifters’ (Hunter, 2009), which are showered by positive evaluation and feedback report mostly commissioned and conducted by experts from donor countries (Brumfit, 1983), also received criticism on the ground of tending to bring their own socio-political and cultural agenda ‘on the planning table’ with “no such sentiment as altruism at the apex of activity in a donor–recipient relationship” (Bolitho, 2012, pp. 35–36). Such imperialistic perversion was planned long before in the British colonial period and the BC in its Annual Report in 1963–64 admitted that “The council does not pretend to dispense charity: in all its work it aims to 27

Shakila Nur, Megan Short and Greg Ashman

further the long-term interests of Britain” (quoted in Pennycook, 2017). Thus, the paradigm of EL and ELE has been shifted into a discourse of global commodity – a global business, a political propaganda from the idealistic rhetoric notion of development aid, cultural, and political understanding (Pennycook, 2017). The above-mentioned issues also led the way in addressing the third critical consequence: the unsatisfactory extent of policy implementation and poor outcomes in ELE in Bangladesh. The discussion in the previous section regarding context of policy influences recognised that Bangladesh during the colonial period and post-independence period experienced a conflicting equation regarding Bangla and EL.The events and policy directions during those terms indicated the promotion of one language at the cost of the other, with a very little consistency; nonetheless, a steadiness was identified during 1990s. In this connection, more than a decade has passed since ELEP in Bangladesh received some robust policy reforms. Major curriculum policy including method, material, and evaluation policy directions have also been endorsed in 2010 and 2012 accordingly. This endorsement, following Grassick (2016) can take two paths: it can either resettle the status quo into the intended one or can be detoured or ‘dampened down’ (Hiver, 2015). In the Bangladeshi ELE context, the policy importation and its implementation without considering the local education system, needs, and capabilities (human and resourcing) appeared to follow the latter path, so the projected benefits are yet to be achieved and reported (Nur, 2019). The imposition of pedagogies, particularly CLT, which is the consequence of both the commodification of ELE and globalisation, has led to the attenuation of ELT particularly in nonEnglish context. For example, the majority of the Bangladeshi EL teachers consider CLT simply as a method instead of an approach. Moving away from the espoused EL teaching–learning approaches, materials, and evaluation policies, ELE is heavily inclined towards product-oriented teaching–learning (Nur & Islam, 2018). The proliferation of ELT pedagogies and methods downplays the curriculum objectives, effective teaching–learning of EL, the inclusion of schoolbased listening and speaking tests but concentrates on examination results. The most drastic consequence, in this regard, is the degradation of the overall quality of education by means of result engineering of high-stake national examinations. Though school-leaving students’ communicative competence in various studies has been reported to be a negligible one, Bangladesh is enjoying a high pass rate in public examinations. Such an acceleration of pass rate in high-stake examinations intends to showcase the progress of Bangladesh in achieving the milestones of the Millennium Development Goals and the Sustainable Development Goals, a political propaganda, which were again defined, designed, and imposed by the Western international agencies on developing countries as pre-conditions for receiving further funds and other allocations (Nur & Islam, 2018).

Conclusion This chapter, shedding light on the complex nexus between history and policy, aimed at revisiting critically the ‘infrastructure’ of ELEP from colonial period to date and its consequences, the ‘big picture’ in Bangladesh. The discussion in the chapter was formulated based on two research questions. The first question has been addressed by means of showing, first, how supra-national influences in the name of colonialism imposed and positioned EL and ELE in a diverse socio-cultural and linguistic setting of Bangladesh. Second, it discusses how the spirit of nationalism at sub-national level has marginalised the status of EL and rearticulated ELEP in the post-independent Bangladesh. Third, the chapter delineates the latest breakthroughs in ELEP – mutual thrusts of globalisation and neo-colonial agents at supra-national level and local 28

English language education policy and planning

development (socio-economic and human capital) motives at national level. The chapter, thus, identified ELEP process in Bangladesh as a complex ‘infrastructure’ representing a puzzle and conflicts among the influences and ideologies of colonisation, nationalism, and globalisation. The discussion also substantiated the ‘big picture’ of ELEP in the country by evaluating the main threads of impacts of policy infrastructure. Linking to the inconsistency and incongruity in policy reforms, the chapter highlights unsatisfactory extent of policy implementations and dismal outcomes of ELE. Based on the critical discussion, the need for policy makers to move towards a more contextdriven, rational, synchronised, and holistic approach to ELE policy development process has been suggested. This could be done by reconsidering the provision of ELE, culture of ELT and learning, and support for ELT professionals more profoundly and concretely. The egalitarian and aspirational nature of the present ELEPs in Bangladesh is purely technical and prescriptive (Nur, 2019). This is particularly relevant since ELE clearly reflects a disparity in its access and provision, thus intensifying the social stratification based on EL/ELE ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. The study, therefore, suggests that policy makers should be critically more informed by sociological approach while assigning the status of EL as well as formulating ELE policies. It would be advisable for the policy makers to be aware that the expansion and sustainability of quality education is grounded in steadiness of policy, equity, and social cohesion (WB, 2016). Another key implication of the discussion is the necessity for realignment of four basic components – ELE curriculum objectives, approaches, and methodologies of ELT, and assessment patterns. The study reported a mismatch between ELE goals, curriculum objectives, and delivery strategies due to the weakness of high-stake EL assessment policy.Therefore, it is a matter of great urgency for the policy makers to reconstruct the national EL assessment pattern and ensure its apposite implementation. Recognising the importance of ELT stakeholders’ roles and contexts, the study argues for reconsidering the provision of adequate and appropriate support for each stakeholder. Here, support should not merely be deemed a single shot training and funding, but also an underlying ethos. The policy developers need to reflect on how micro-level policy implementers would be provided with on-going quality support and follow-up training. The heavy dependency on the West, in this regard, should also be minimised by promoting and strengthening the local support system both qualitatively and resourcefully. The innovation and policy reform literature (Fullan, 2005) advocates that the degree of resistance to and acceptance of policy directions by the micro-level agencies depends mainly on establishing not only an aligned but also a permeable connected system – a rapport with the macro-level policy makers. It is, therefore, crucial for the policy makers initiate a re-culturation in policy development process, that is, to come out from the top-down approach of policy process immediately, listen to the voices of micro-level policy agents sensibly, and involve them actively in policy development process. The study also implies that policy makers need to incorporate R&D (research and development) approaches into ELEP development and implementation process. Such a culture of research-based monitoring and assessment would assist in identifying strengths and issues and thus would provide an on-going, formative, synergistic process of revisiting, revising and/or updating (if required) policies and implementation system. Otherwise ELE will continue to be a superficially adorned project in the presence of too many disconnected, sporadic, and fragmented policies. Finally, the authors intend to conclude the chapter with a note of hope. It is realised that Bangladesh has been able to increase its literacy rate during the last 45 years. Statistics about 29

Shakila Nur, Megan Short and Greg Ashman

students, teachers, educational institutions, and the examination pass rate have also been undoubtedly positive (BANBEIS, 2018). Stakeholders, from the policy makers to the end users, have become more conscious about the importance of ELE. Many policies have been coined. The nation has also made a remarkable progress to be eligible to graduate from a ‘least developed country’ to a ‘developing country’ (United Nations, 2018).Yet, consistency in ELE policy, quality of ELE, and its sustainable impact is still a matter of concern. Therefore, to bring positive, cohesive, and meaningful changes and developments in the ‘big picture’ of EL and ELE, it is imperative for the policy makers of Bangladesh to follow the straightforward logic – ‘history’ (infrastructure) should be brought adequately and analysed and addressed critically and conscientiously at the ‘policy’ table. Put simply, we need to adopt, adapt, and thus formulate a more appropriate, ecological, and time-bound ELEP based on a constellation of coherence, connectedness, synergy, alignment to and appropriateness, and capacity of our own context and then integrate pressure (accountability) and support (capacity building) (Fullan, 2005) to mobilise as well as ensure its practice.

References Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (1989). The empire strikes back. New York, NY: Routledge. Bailey, R. W. (1991). Images of English. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Bangladesh Bureau of Educational Information and Statistics (BANBEIS). (2018). Pocket book on educational statistics. Dhaka, Bangladesh: BANBEIS. Banu, R., & Sussex, R. (2001). English in Bangladesh after independence: Dynamics of policy and practice. In B. Moore (Ed.), Who’s centric now? The present state of post-colonial Englishes (pp. 122–147). Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. Bolitho, R. (2012). Projects and programmes: Contemporary experience in ELT change management. In C. Tribble (Ed.), Managing change in English language teaching. London, England: The British Council. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bowe, R., Ball, S. J., & Gold, A. (1992). Reforming education & changing schools: Case studies in policy sociology. London, England: Routledge. Brumfit, C. J. (1983). Language teaching projects for the third world. ELT documents 116. New York, NY: Pergamon Press Inc. Canagarajah, S. A. (2005). Accommodating tensions in language-in-education policies: An afterword. In A. M. Y. Lin & P. W. Martin (Eds.), Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-in education policy and practice (pp. 194–201). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. Chowdhury, R., & Kabir, A. H. (2014). Language wars: English education policy and practice in Bangladesh. Multilingual Education, 4(1), 21. Chua, C. S. K., & Baldauf, R. B. Jr. (2011). Micro language planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 936–951). New York, NY/London, England: Routledge. Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Dil, A. S. (1966). The position and teaching of English in Pakistan. Pakistani Linguistics (Shahidullah presentation volume), 185–242. Donaldson, F. L. (1984). The British Council: the first fifty years. London: England: Jonathan Cape Ltd. Esch, E. (2009). English and empowerment: Potential, issues, way forward. In N. Hussain, A. Ahmed, & M. Zafar (Eds.), English and empowerment in the developing world (pp. 2–26). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Evans, S. (2002). Macaulay’s minute revisited: Colonial language policy in nineteenth-century India. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 23(4), 260–281. Fullan, M. (2005). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). London, England/New York, NY: Routledge. Government of Pakistan. (1956). The constitution of Pakistan. Pakistan. Retrieved from https://www.­ academia.edu/16457090/Constitution_of_Pakistan_1956. Grassick, L. (2016). Complexity, connections and sense-making: Stakeholders experiences of primary English language curriculum change in one province in Vietnam. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Leeds, UK.

30

English language education policy and planning Hamid, M. O. (2010). Globalisation, English for everyone and English teacher capacity: Language policy discourses and realities in Bangladesh. Current Issues in Language Planning, 11(4), 289–310. Hamid, M. O. (2011). Planning for failure: English and language policy and planning in Bangladesh. In J. A. Fishman & O. Garcia (Eds.), Handbook of language and ethnic identity:The success-failure continuum in language and ethnic identity efforts (Vol. 2, pp. 192–203). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Hamid, M. O. (2016). The linguistic market for English in Bangladesh. Current Issues in Language Planning, 17(1), 36–55. Hiver, P. (2015). Once burned, twice shy: The dynamic development of system immunity in teachers. In Z.  Dornyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters. Hunter, T. (2009). Micro political issues in ELT project implementation. In J. C. Alderson (Ed.), The politics of language education: Individuals and institutions (pp. 64–84). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters. Kirkpatrick, A., & Liddicoat, A. J. (2017). Language education policy and practice in East and Southeast Asia. Language Teaching, 50(2), 155–188. Lin, A., & Martin, P. W. (Eds.). (2005). Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-in-education policy and practice (Vol. 3). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Loh Fook Seng, P. (1970). The nineteenth century British approach to Malay education. Journal Pendidekan, 1(1), 105–115. Macaulay, T. B. M. B. (1952). Prose and poetry. Harvard, England: Harvard University Press. Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43(3), 281–309. Ministry of Education. (1962). The curriculum committee for secondary education, 1962. Pakistan: Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan. Ministry of Education (1974). National Education Commission Report, 1974. Dhaka: Ministry of Education, Government of Bangladesh. Ministry of Education. (2010). National education policy 2010. Dhaka: Ministry of Education, Government of Bangladesh. Nur, S. (2018). Secondary English language teacher capacity: Insights from Bangladesh. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 6(4), 163–174. Nur, S. (2019). From the post-colonial puzzle to the lived experiences: A critical policy trajectory study of secondary English language education in Bangladesh. Unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to the University of Tasmania, Australia. Nur, S., & Islam, M. A. (2018). The (Dis) connection between secondary English education assessment policy and practice: Insights from Bangladesh. International Journal of English Language Education, 6(1), 100–132. Nur, S., & Short, M. (2019). Factors affecting the quality and efficacy of an ELT-INSET: A case study of Bangladesh. Waikato Journal of Education, 24(1), 55–66. O’Barr,W. M. (1976).The study of language and politics. In W. M. O’Barr & J. F. O’Barr (Eds.), Language and politics (pp. 1–27). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. Paranjape, M. R. (2013). “Usable Pasts”: Rammohun Roy’s Occidentalism. In Making India: Colonialism, national culture, and the afterlife of Indian English authority (pp. 13–40). London, England: Springer. Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. London, England: Routledge. Pennycook, A. (2002). Language policy and docile bodies: Hong Kong and governmentality. In J. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 91–110). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pennycook, A. (2007). ELT and colonialism. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of education: English language teaching (pp. 13–24). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Pennycook, A. (2017). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London, England: Routledge. Phillipson, R. (1992). ELT:The native speaker’s burden? ELT Journal, 46(1), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/ elt/46.1.12 Phillipson, R. (1996). Linguistic imperialism: African perspectives. ELT Journal, 50(2), 160–167. Rizvi, F. (2007). Postcolonialism and globalization in education. Cultural Studies? Critical Methodologies, 7(3), 256–263. United Nations. Committee for Development Policy (CDP). (2018). Leaving the LDCs category: Booming Bangladesh prepares to graduate. Retrieved May 29, 2018, from https://www.un.org/development/ desa/en/news/policy/leaving-the-ldcs-category-booming-bangladesh-prepares-to-graduate.html Vidovich, L. (2007). Removing policy from its pedestal: Some theoretical framings and practical possibilities. Educational Review, 59(3), 285–298.

31

Shakila Nur, Megan Short and Greg Ashman Waters, A., & Vilches, M. L. C. (2008). Factors affecting ELT reforms: The case of the Philippines basic education curriculum. RELC Journal, 39(1), 5–24. Williams, P., & Chrisman, L. (Eds.). (2015). Colonial discourse and post-colonial theory: A reader. New York, NY: Routledge. World Bank. (2016). The World Bank in Bangladesh 2016 (English). Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Retrieved February 11, 2018, from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/264111487858247532/ The-World-Bank-in-Bangladesh-2016. Wright, S. (2012). Language policy, the nation and nationalism. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of language policy (pp. 59–78). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

32

3 A BALANCED APPROACH TO LANGUAGE-IN-EDUCATION POLICY AND PLANNING IN BANGLADESH Rethinking the current trend Tania Rahman Introduction In national language policy and planning in developing countries in Asia in the new millennium, striking a balance between maintenance of national unity, representation of national and ethnic identities, and survival in the global economic world have become challenging (Rappa & Wee, 2006). These broad issues of language policy and planning are also reflected in language-in-education policies and planning activities in these contexts (Rappa & Wee, 2006). In Bangladesh, for instance, national language-in-education planning is a thorny matter because of two competing issues: the emotional attachment to the national language, Bangla, and the growing popularity of English to attain upward social mobility. Bangladeshi nationalism is largely symbolised by Bangla, which is proclaimed as the ‘state’ language in the country’s constitution (Government of Bangladesh, 1972, Act 3, p. 2). All policies regarding language and language-in-education in Bangladesh since independence have been geared by ideologies in support of monolingual rather than bilingual (i.e. English and Bangla) policies to promote Bangla only (Hossain & Tollefson, 2007). In the latest National Education Policy of 2010, however, the need for English education in Bangladesh has been expressed with suggestions to upgrade the current situation of English Language Teaching in Bangladesh.The Policy indicates the need for sequential transition to English-medium instruction by keeping the options open for schools to choose English as the medium of instruction (MoI) at the secondary level of education. It, however, lacks explicit and clear directions to strike a balance between the polarising demands of the groups regarding education in Bangla, the mother tongue of the demographically largest group, and in the international language English. Till now, no effective step has been taken to solve such problems. There is also currently a need for workable theoretical frameworks or models to justify a bi-/multilingual language-in-education policy and planning for Bangladesh. The main objective of the chapter is to propose a working theoretical framework for languagein-education planning in Bangladesh. The framework draws on the ‘language policy as a balancing act’ approach (Rappa & Wee, 2006) and is based on the ‘language-as-resource’ orientation (Ruiz, 1984). The primary goal of the chapter is to propose a sequentially bi-/multilingual 33

Tania Rahman

framework integrating education in the country’s national language Bangla and in the international language English. This chapter is significant in three ways. First, in Bangladesh since independence in 1971, the national language-in-education planning schemes have played a crucial role in bringing changes in the usage of language in the country’s education sector. However, no policy initiative actually defined the proper roles of the different languages, including the national language Bangla, the colonial language English, and the indigenous languages existing in the country. Therefore, this chapter offers a relevant rationale for defining the roles of languages in Bangladesh. Second, since the roles of English and Bangla, including other languages in Bangladesh, are not clearly defined, which is reflected in the debates regarding the selection of either English or Bangla as the MoI in the mainstream education system that follows a national curriculum, this has been one of the important indicators of competition between English and Bangla in the country. A major issue emerging from this disassociation is the conflict between the Bangla-oriented Bangladeshi national identity represented by Bangla and the socially constructed identity represented by a previously colonial but currently a significant international language, English.The chapter, therefore, explores the conflict between the sentiment related to the Bangalee/Bangladeshi national identity and a desire to participate in the global economy. The chapter also investigates how the country’s language-in-education planning has aided sustaining the conflict. Third, by proposing the framework, the chapter examines if a certain level of ‘complementarity’ or a certain level of harmonious position for the languages in Bangladesh can be reached in the national languagein-education planning by offering education sequentially in Bangla and English. This chapter consists of three major sections. At first, it presents a discussion on the national identity formation in Bangladesh and the role of language-in-education planning in the formation of the Bangalee/Bangladeshi identity. The next section presents a review of literature on various perspectives regarding identity and language-in-education planning followed by the framework and analyses of its components showing its potential for application in Bangladesh. The concluding section summarises the implications of the framework.

Nationalism, identity, and language-in-education planning in Bangladesh The concept of identity, particularly group identity such as national identity, is highly problematic, which indicates a variety of questions and tensions. From an essentialist perspective, the identity of a nation as a group is ‘static’ (Norton, 2000; Weedon, 1997) and ‘standardised’ (Joseph, 2004), whereas from a constructivist viewpoint, the formation of national identity is a complex, dynamic, and constant process. For the essentialist political scientist, in order to form a nation, group internal differences have to be eliminated and non-conformity has to be checked (Phillips, 2010). On the contrary, the dynamic feature of identity is reflected in constructivist claims of nation-forming as a ‘process’ in which, unlike the primordialist/essentialist stance on nations as ‘ancient’, ‘eternal’, and ‘fixed’ entities (May, 2001), the concept of the nation is neither exclusive of the past nor ‘an infinite continuity’ and that ethnic groups often go through ‘radical transformation’ of their ‘pre-modern’ identities when they become nations (Smith, 1995a, b). Here, Hall’s (1996a, b) conceptualisation of ‘identity-as-process’ is significant in viewing nationalism as ‘dynamic’ rather than ‘fixed’ and ‘unchanging’. Considering the historic and social circumstances, which are flexible and variable, the identity of a nation also evolves with those circumstances. Change is inevitable in these circumstances, which determine the formation of a national identity. In the constructivist orientation, then, the formation of the identity of a group such as a nation is considered a ‘process’ in which individuals and their acquaintances categorically belong to the 34

Language-in-education policy and planning

group (Joseph, 2004). Hall (1996a, b) discusses this notion of ‘identity-in-process’ and holds that identification takes place when others recognise the common origins and characteristics which individuals in a group share with the rest of the members of that group (Hall, 1996b, pp. 2–4). In the process of identity formation, imagination and memory play very ‘essential’ roles. Imagination holds a crucial place in Anderson’s (1991) conceptualisation of the nation as an ‘imagined political community’: It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion….it is imagined as a community, because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. (Anderson, 1991, pp. 6–7) In such imaginations, the collective memory of a shared past, the historical narratives that a community inherits and shares over generations, essentially functions to preserve the internal cohesion of the group (Tallentire, 2001, p. 197). In such arguments of identity, language is considered a significant marker of group membership such as a ‘boundary marker’ (Heller, 1987; Tabouret-Keller, 1997), or ‘symbolic border guards’ (Armstrong, 1982).Whether a speaker belongs to the dominant group or not depends on not only how the individual speaker values the language but also how the dominant group decides the value of the language (Bourdieu, 1997). For example, in Bangladesh, Bangla has the highest status and 98% Bangladeshi nationals belong to the Bangalee ethnic group.The Bangladeshi national identity, besides territorial autonomy and sovereignty, draws on the ‘shared cultural heritage’ and a shared past of the Bangalee ethnicity regardless of the existence of the multiple ethnicities within the nation. Leaning on the shared historical narratives of a rich cultural heritage, the Bangalee ethnicity and Bangladeshi nationalism are both represented by the national language Bangla, which is the mother tongue of most of the people in the country. Most of the people in Bangladesh speak different varieties of a single language, Bangla. The linguistic homogeneity of the people of this land inspired the birth of the nation. It fuelled the Language Movement or Bhasha Andolon during the oppressive rule of Pakistan on February 21 in 1952 when the Bangla-speaking people in the then East Pakistan fought and protested against the imposition of Urdu over Bangla as the state language. On the other hand, English arrived in Bangladesh when the East India Company started functioning in Bengal in 1757.The status of English as a major official language of the land persisted through the Partition of 1947 till the independence of Bangladesh in 1971. Currently, English is used in Bangladesh as ‘an important language of government, education, and the media’, mostly by the urban elites that comprise a small section of the total population (Hossain and Tollefson, 2007, p. 243). About 80% of the country’s population living in the rural areas, however, have little or no access to English language education (Hossain and Tollefson, 2007; Imam, 2005; Rahman, 2010). The concepts of national ‘cultural traditions’ and ‘heritage’ in Bangladesh are mainly attributed to Bangla language and culture, as reflected in official documents such as the Constitution of 1972 (Mohsin, 2003). As the Bangladeshi national identity is historically associated with the Bangla language and Bangalee ethnic identity, the language planning of the country, particularly the status and language-in-education planning, is largely Bangla-oriented. The ‘emotional’ attachment of the speakers of Bangla in Bangladesh rests upon a shared history of hegemony and struggle in which Bangla is associated with the struggle and sacrifices for sovereignty and freedom, whereas English and Urdu are linked with hegemony and as the weapon of the British and Pakistani colonisers as the hegemonic rulers of the land. Currently, however, such antagonistic 35

Tania Rahman

attitudes towards English in Bangladesh are changing as reflected in opinions of groups supporting English language education in the country since independence in 1971. Such change of attitudes towards English may be attributed to the ‘political nature of history and memory’ (Tallentire, 2001, p. 199) of the Bangladeshi nation. As Tallentire (2001) writes about the political nature of memory in shaping the identity of a nation, she explains the dynamic nature of national memory as dependent on “the past as the legitimizer and the source of the ideals, success, character, and boundaries of the nation” (p. 200). She characterises the memory of a nation as “spontaneous or manipulated, directed at internal or external audiences, and full of internal divisions and controversies” (Tallentire, 2001, p. 200). Such memories are primarily manipulated by “social elites and involves the dominant frames of identity, formed and transmitted by governments, schools, the media, and academics” (Tallentire, 2001, p. 199). Although significance for education in English in Bangladesh was initially voiced by the educated elites of the country, nowadays it has turned into a necessity for the mass of the land. The political memory related to Bangla and English in Bangladesh is thus “dynamic, negotiated between the individual and the community, between personal experience and wider historical events” (Tallentire, 2001, p. 199). Although the nation-making process in Bangladesh has been ‘dynamic’, similar to the ‘identityas-process’ perspective (Hall, 1996a, b), the Bangalee/Bangladeshi identification of the nation has been primarily essentialist, either affiliated to a religion-influenced and territorially sovereign Bangladeshi nationality, or a secular Bangalee nationalism. In all these developments, language has played a crucial part in shaping the present Bangladeshi national identity. The development of ‘Bangalee’/‘Bangladeshi’ identity of the nation of present-day Bangladesh evolved in three phases: pre-independence, independence, and post-independence phases. In all three phases, hegemony was a common thread and language played a crucial role in the hegemonic practices of the colonisers. The first phase of Bangalee nationalism owes much to the Bengal Renaissance movement, which sparked over the Partition of Bengal, dividing the Banglaspeaking part of India under the British rule into two administrative parts in 1905: The Hinduoriented West Bengal and the Muslim-majority East Bengal (Majumdar, 1943; Sengupta, 2001). At that time, English was used by the British colonisers to produce English-educated natives to run the colonial administration (Ferguson, 2004). Access to English education later provided the basis for interracial divisions between English-educated Hindus and Muslims, and such social divides furthered later to internal divisions within the religious groups. However, despite supported by the English-educated Muslim Bangalee elites, the Partition was withdrawn facing strong opposition from the influential Hindu Bangalee community (Majumdar, 1943; Sengupta, 2001). Later, during the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, the Muslim-majority East Bengal was tied with Muslim-majority West Pakistan based on religious ideologies overlooking the geographical, ethnolinguistic, and cultural gaps between the two parts of the new nation of Pakistan. At that time, the Muslim Bangalee elites and leaders in East Bengal who felt ‘adrift and in need of confirmation of their identity’ chose religion over language and cultural ethnicity to merge with the Islam-oriented nation of West Pakistan (Thompson, 2007, p. 38). The second phase of Bangalee/Bangladeshi nationhood is marked by the events leading to the independence of Bangladesh from Pakistan and the political scenario in independent Bangladesh. The emergence of Bangladeshi nationalism was due to the reaction of East Pakistan to the “hegemony of West Pakistani nationalism which was primarily based on religion” (Mohsin, 2003, p. 81). Among the many causes for the failure in integrating the Bangla-speaking people in the Pakistani nation-building process, the Pakistani rulers’ diminutive and hegemonic attitude towards Bangla was instrumental. This attitude acted towards the revival of the Bangalee identification of the people in East Pakistan which sparked the Language Movement [Bhasha Andolon] in 1952 (Hossain & Tollefson, 2007; Imam, 2005; Mohsin, 2003; Thompson, 2007). 36

Language-in-education policy and planning

Later, the identification process of the majority Bangla-speaking people in East Pakistan as a separate nation culminated into the people’s victory against Pakistan in the War of Independence in 1971, creating an independent Bangladeshi nation. After independence, during the rule of the Awami League government led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman who led the nation in the War of Independence, the national identity of the people of Bangladesh was characterised as a ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ Bangalee identity, which reflected in the country’s adoption of the four-folded state ideology – nationalism, democracy, socialism, and secularism (Hashmi, 2004, p. 35) and in the ruling party’s wartime slogan ‘Joi Bangla’ [‘Victory to Bengal’] (Muhith, 1978). Mohsin (2003, p. 98) calls it the ‘Bengali model of nationhood’. Since independence, the identification of Bangalee/Bangladeshi nationalism has evolved with the rise of a number of nationalist ideologies. An exclusionary nationalistic ideology largely related to religious and territorial integrity surfaced with the emergence of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party formed and led by Ziaur Rahman after the military coup following the assassination of President Sheikh Mujib in 1975 (Hashmi, 2004; Mohsin, 2003). This ideology of Bangladeshi nationalism viewed the Bangladeshi people as Islam oriented and distinct as opposed to the more liberal Bangalee identity preached by the Awami League ideology (Hashmi, 2004). It was based on another four-pronged ideology – land, language, culture, and religion (Mohsin, 2003). These two ideologies – the ‘socialist-secular-Bengali nationalist’ and the ‘Islam-oriented Bangladeshi nationalist’ – were the main driving forces in shaping an independent Bangladeshi nationalism. Later, after the assassination of President Zia in 1981, the military government of President Hussein Mohammad Ershad held on to the ‘Bangladeshi model of nationhood’ (Mohsin, 2003, p. 98). The framework in this chapter, then, shows how ‘complementarity’ in Bangladeshi language-in-education planning may be achieved by creating a harmonious position for the different languages in the country.

Language-in-education planning as a balancing act: The framework The framework discussed in this chapter combines principles of language policy as a ‘balancing act’ (Rappa & Wee, 2006) with the ‘language as resource’ orientation (Ruíz, 1984). The model is based on the principle that language policies are part of a complex web of “linguistic and nonlinguistic elements, variables and factors” (Spolsky, 2004, p. 41). Upon analysis of the language policy context in Bangladesh, it proposes that an inclusive language policy should be aimed at viewing languages as socio-cultural resources upholding national and cultural identities of their speakers along with emphasising the instrumental values of the languages.With this objective, the framework aims at achieving a level of ‘complementarity’ among three elements – national unity, ethnolinguistic diversity, and socio-economic opportunity – by proposing a harmonious coexistence among the languages of wider communication (e.g. Bangla and English in Bangladesh) in education. In the model proposed for language-in-education planning in Bangladesh in this chapter, the concept of national unity is represented as the ‘non-instrumental’ element and socioeconomic opportunity as the ‘instrumental’ element. In order to explain the connection between these components of the framework, the resource aspect of language will be discussed below to justify the rationale for adopting the ‘balancing act’ approach to develop the framework for language-in-education planning in Bangladesh. As the questions of uniformity and diversity are the focal ones in the discussion of the complexities of identities of groups such as nations, language plays a powerful role in defining and characterising such identities. In particular, in the history of human civilisation, language has been crucial in shaping group identities such as identities of nations. Three orientations to this interplay between language and society may be highlighted here – ‘language-as-problem’, 37

Tania Rahman

‘language-as-right’, and ‘language-as-resource’. According to the ‘language-as-problem’ orientation, linguistic diversity is viewed as problematic and an obstacle to national unity. In this perspective, language is sometimes considered as a ‘political problem’ maintaining that “perpetuating language minorities and language diversity may cause less integration, less cohesiveness, more antagonism and more conflict in society which is to be solved by assimilation into the majority language” (Baker, 2006, p. 384). The ‘language-as-right perspective’, on the other hand, views language as one of the basic human rights and calls for state protection of the minority languages when they are at stake (e.g. Skutnabb-Kangas, 1988, 2000; Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 1995). Such a protectionist stand, however, may cause strain to ethnolinguistic divisions as it demands share of limited national resources on ethnolinguistic grounds. In contrast to these perspectives, the ‘language-as-resource’ perspective views the value of languages as resources in the society in a number of ways. First, the ‘language-as-resource’ perspective highlights the symbolic value of language, which rests in its ‘representative’ function (Joseph, 2004) determining the identity of the ‘self ’ as well as marking ‘group membership’ (Armstrong, 1982; Heller, 1987; Tabouret-Keller, 1997). Second, in materialist terms, language can be viewed as a sort of ‘capital’ (Bourdieu, 1991, 1986, 1984). In Bourdieu’s theory, capital as a source of influence in a social context can be in many forms: economic, cultural, social, and so on. Bourdieu (1984) conceives of the ‘cultural capital’ as providing the means to accumulate ‘wealth’. While the economic capital can give access to a number of resources, the ‘social capital’ (Bourdieu, 1986) opens the door to social networks. The different forms of capital are also interconnected. For example, the command of the appropriate language or ‘symbolic capital’ in the acquisition of ‘cultural capital’ during academic education can give access to restricted social networks, that is, ‘social capital’ which, in turn, may open doors to economic opportunities.Third, besides its ‘economic bridge building potential’ (Baker, 2006, p. 391), the ‘language-as-resource’ perspective sees languages as having the potential to ‘bridge’ the social gap between various communities (Baker, 2006, p. 391) and influence social relationships by allowing intercultural communication. In this sense, the languages can be ‘assets’, not only for individuals but also for groups to “aid individual participation in public, leisure and private lives” (Baker, 2006, p. 390). Finally, linguistic diversity is generally associated with ‘national or regional disunity’ and ‘inter-group conflict’ (Baker, 2007, p. 186). However, the ‘language-as-resource’ perspective (Ruiz, 1984) holds that ‘linguistic diversity’ is responsible for neither division nor lesser cohesion in a society. Instead, promotion of linguistic diversity can foster a balanced atmosphere of tolerance, cooperation, and harmony among speakers of different linguistic as well as speech communities, whereas its suppression may disrupt the balance. For achieving ‘complementarity’ among the languages in a developing nation as Bangladesh, identity is a significant issue to be considered. In societies where linguistic homogeneity is the widespread norm (such as in Bangladesh where 98% or 100 million people (Hossain & Tollefson, 2007, p. 242) speak the same language, Bangla), linguistic diversity is likely to be viewed as causing strife in national unity. A balanced language policy and planning, therefore, needs to address these constraints. In order to propose a balanced language policy and planning for Bangladesh, it is, at first, important to consider various perspectives in the discussions of language policy and planning. Just two decades before the new millennium, particularly since the 1980s, several models have been propounded to address various issues in regards to developing nations separately. Among them, three have been the major stances in the study of language planning and policy. According to one of the views, in a society, the group in power dominates over others by exercising power and hegemony, and the language preferred by or of the powerful group thrives over other languages as a result of the hegemonic practices (Tollefson, 1991). The next perspective considers the right 38

Language-in-education policy and planning

to use a language as a basic human right, and holds on to the belief that ‘linguistic genocide’ occurs because the dominant or majority languages are preferred over dominated or minority languages in all domains of language use; the minority language speakers face devaluation from the majority language speakers, which leads towards ‘linguistic genocide’ (e.g. Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 2008). Unlike these approaches, according to the instrumentalist view of language policy, language is ‘a social and political resource’, and it proposes a utilitarian perspective of language use (Spolsky, 2004). A reconciling position is sought by language planning as a ‘balancing act’ approach (Rappa & Wee, 2006), which addresses the need for taking constraints into account in analysing language planning. According to this view, three different relations in language policy analyses are found in language planning, specifically in Asia (Rappa & Wee, 2006), where the elements of language policy and planning are either seen as ‘on par with another’ (equivalence), for example, language policy in Singapore, or in competition (displacement), for example, policies regarding Malay and English in Malaysia, or in a ‘harmonious’ situation (complementarity), for example, the bilingual policy in Singapore consisting of English as the language of ‘Western science and technology’ and the mother tongues representing ‘ancient cultures and values’ (p. 22). An instrumentalist view of language planning considers that “much of current social life is driven by economic demands” (Rappa & Wee, 2006, p. 129), and language uses as social functions are also influenced by those demands. Such an approach presupposes a theory of power recognising different forms of capital which have differentiated values, and of these capitals, “economic capitals tend to wield greater influence than other capital” (Rappa & Wee, 2006, p. 129). The theory of power inherent in this argument is taken forward in the instrumentalist definition of language-in-education planning as “a form of imposition and manipulation of language policy as it is used by those in authority to turn ideology into practice through formal education” (Shohamy, 2006, p. 76). In all these instrumentalist arguments, the utilitarian values of a language are emphasised over its symbolic values overshadowing its significance in representation of culture and identity. However, the instrumentalist view seems to be questionable for two reasons. First, by emphasising utilitarian values over other aspects of a language, the view mostly overlooks its symbolic value of representing identity. Second, when ethnicity is viewed solely as an instrumental resource the differences in power relations are not adequately addressed. On the other hand, since the education sector is considered to be ‘the transmitter and perpetuator of culture’ (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997, p. 123), language-in-education planning activities are capable of representing cultural diversity, for example, through mother tongue-based bi-/ multilingual education in societies where linguistic diversity is the norm (Baker, 2007, p. 187). The bilingual language-in-education policy in Singapore, for instance, includes mother tongue instruction for the Chinese, Malay, and Indian communities in Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil languages, respectively, besides receiving education in English. Language planning as a ‘balancing act’ (Rappa & Wee, 2006) addresses both instrumentalist and non-instrumentalist functions of language. The instrumentalist function of language “justifies its existence in a community in terms of its usefulness in achieving specific utilitarian goals such as economic development, access to social goods, or facilitating inter-ethnic communication” (Rappa & Wee, 2006, p. 24). On the contrary, the non-instrumental function of the language entails that it “is viewed non-instrumentally to the extent that it is seen as forming an integral part of one’s ethnic or cultural identity, and if its existence in a community is justified in terms of its symbolic value in allowing the community members to maintain a sense of identity” (Rappa & Wee, 2006, p. 24). Such a view regards ‘linguistic instrumentalism’ as ‘gradient’ rather than ‘absolute’, that is, “a language may gradually acquire greater degrees of linguistic instrumentalism as over time, its value in performing various utilitarian functions may come to overshadow its 39

Tania Rahman

role in sustaining cultural identities” (Rappa & Wee, 2006, p. 24). The utilitarian functions of languages may range from facilitating inter-ethnic communication to gaining access to education and employment. Therefore, language-in-education planning can be instrumental in realising how certain ideologies can create conflicts in relation to national/ethnic identities as well as how the conflicts can be managed. Language-in-education policies favouring assimilation are often based on the contention that linguistic diversity is responsible for causing ‘social unrest or disintegration in society’, and therefore promotion of different languages and ethnic diversity ‘might provoke group conflict and disharmony’ (Baker, 2007, p. 187). This assumption has been countered in pluralist policies that consider linguistic diversity as a resource rather than a problem to society and reflect the belief that it leads to ‘better integration, harmony and social peace’ (Baker, 2007, p. 187). It is on the basis of this argument that linguistic diversity is seen as providing the economic, social, and civic resources in a multicultural society rather than leading to social strife. In addition, pluralist language-in-education policies may actually manage resistance to authority in developing an inclusive education policy. By arguing for the potential of representation of ethnolinguistic identities as well as opening doors to economic opportunities through the mother tongue, the pluralist policies can also convince minority group members for working towards integrating with the nation, which could be initiated through a balanced bi-/multilingual education policy and planning. In this way, bilingual language-in-education policies can be a ‘balancing act’ by managing resistance from all quarters. In language-in-education planning, questions related to MoI involve the choices or selections of languages as the MoI in the early years of education based on decisions regarding whether the mother tongue of the children should be the main MoI, and if mother tongue should be the primary MoI, for how long a child should be educated in the mother tongue as the primary MoI in the course of education. Language-in-education planning in Bangladesh has been problematic due to the dissention among various quarters of academics regarding the MoI at different levels of educational institutions. One group of policymakers advocated for English as the MoI for its association with upward mobility in the social ladder. Another group held English as alien to the national and ethnolinguistic identity of the Bangla-speaking majority and advocated for Bangla as the MoI based on the reasoning that education offered in Bangla can provide “reasonable opportunity for all students to acquire subject-matter knowledge, as well as permitting instruction in English as a foreign language” (Hossain, 2004). Finally, acknowledging both the importance of English for progress and the possible threat of its harnessing ‘serious inequalities’ among the people, the third group supports a sequentially bilingual education, which introduces Bangla-medium instruction in primary grades, gradually shifts to English at the high-school level, and culminates in English-medium instruction in tertiary levels. The instrumental and non-instrumental roles of languages, however, have not been considered together so far in deciding the language of education in Bangladesh. The MoI debate in language-in-education policies since independence gave rise to three types of instruction in the mainstream education in Bangladesh, differentiated according to language and religion: Bangla medium, English medium, and Madrasah or religious instruction for Muslims (Hossain & Tollefson, 2007, p. 251). In Bangla-medium schools, in both public and private sectors, all courses except English and religious studies are offered in Bangla. The ‘private’ English-medium schools, on the contrary, use a UK-based ‘globalised curriculum’ and more resources than the lesser resourced public- or government-funded Bangla-medium schools (Imam, 2005). In Bangladesh, the emphasis on Bangla as the MoI in language-in-education policies since independence, besides the nationalist ideology, largely owes to the fact that a huge portion of the 40

Language-in-education policy and planning

Figure 3.1  An integrative model of language-in-education planning in Bangladesh

country’s population comprises the Bangla-speaking Bangalee community.Therefore, the ‘widely accepted communal solution’ to the question of selecting the MoI has been to choose Bangla over other languages in the country. In so doing, language-in-education planning activities in the country have actually embodied the prevalent ideology viewing ‘linguistic unity’ as ‘the societal norm’ that represents national identity as opposed to ‘the reality of linguistic diversity’ (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997, p. 123). The components of the framework – national unity, ethnolinguistic identity, and socioeconomic opportunities – as presented at the beginning of this chapter, are shown in Figure 3.1 represented by the use of the languages in Bangladesh in its education sector. The framework presents a language-in-education policy that will reconcile the conflict between Bangla and English in Bangladesh in resolving issues between national and ethnolinguistic identity and socioeconomic gains. It advocates a ‘balancing act’ framework taking the view that linguistic human rights must be respected while at the same time developing policies that allow the teaching of mother tongue to the speakers, which effectively tips the balance towards nationalistic belonging as well as opening up socio-economic opportunities for the people in Bangladesh. Currently in Bangladesh, an effectively managed language-in-education planning is needed since the current educational planning in the country is predominantly Bangla oriented. In contrast, the framework proposed here is bi-/multilingual. It proposes that the mother tongue(s) need to be valued and taught at the primary level of education to the children of Bangladesh. English as the second language for these children and MoI may be introduced at a later level. In this way, by developing literacy skills in their mother tongue(s) first, the people in Bangladesh will be able to retain and represent their respective ethnic identities as well as participate in the mainstream society as Bangladeshi nationals. In addition, by learning the national language Bangla and 41

Tania Rahman

then the international language English, they can increase their potential as human resources by gaining access to economic opportunities such as mainstream education and employment. The need for English and English education for Bangladeshi nationals is manifold for various reasons. First, we need to communicate in English to conduct business with foreigners. Second, the importance of English in our education and students’ lives is undeniable since English remains a major MoI in English-medium schools and most of the tertiary-level books are written in English. English is also needed for going abroad for higher education. If Bangladeshi students have poor command over English, it may cause difficulty for them to adjust with the alien environment abroad. Moreover, admission procedures in foreign universities nowadays require certificates and transcripts to be written in English. So, without academic records written in English, admissions in foreign universities become impossible for our students. Hence, in Bangladesh, a language-in-education planning needs to link ethnolinguistic identity with the concept of an ‘inclusive’ Bangladeshi nationalism. A mother tongue-based bi-/ multilingual education planning in the country involving the mother tongue(s) of the people, the national language Bangla, and the international language English can integrate the threefold purposes of ethnolinguistic identity maintenance, national identity construction, and socioeconomic development by means of human resource development. In this way, by providing a harmonious combination of the mother tongue(s), the national language Bangla, and the international language English in the domain of education, the balancing act framework serves to present the languages in a complementary relation. Instead of competing with each other, the languages will complement each other, with the mother tongue(s) symbolising the ethnolinguistic identities, Bangla representing Bangladeshi nationalism, and both Bangla and English providing the key to socio-economic opportunities.

Conclusion The resource perspective of linguistic diversity in the language-in-education planning framework shows significant implications for the role of language planning activities in economic development and national/ethnic identity maintenance. It considers languages as having instrumental value besides sentimental attachments. Such an orientation makes room for considering the potentials of languages in national resource management.The challenge facing language planning in achieving the goal of identity maintenance is to carry the economic value of languages beyond their cultural values to a point where access to different languages opens the door to economic opportunities by allowing access to the ‘linguistic market’ (Bourdieu, 1991). Effective education and teaching in languages can be a starting point to achieve this purpose. For this, language, identity, and economic realities need to be integrated into a coherent language planning tool, utilising comparative advantages of local culture facing competition in the linguistic market. The framework is based on the argument for a sequential transition from a mother tonguebased MoI to the second language-based MoI without disrupting competence in the mother tongue (Baker, 2006). ‘Strong’ forms of bi-/multilingual education initiatives involving mother tongues besides the dominant second languages enhance achievements such as “maintaining the home language and culture”, and “fostering self-esteem, self-identity and a more positive attitude to schooling” (Baker, 2007, p. 187). Such improved attainments are said to “enable better usage of human resources in a country’s economy and less wastage of talent” and the increased self-esteem is expected to be related to greater ‘social harmony and peace’ (Baker, 2007 p. 187). Therefore, it can be said that linguistic diversity and bi-/multilingual education involving the teaching of more than one language as macro-level language-in-education planning activities can yield positive outcomes for language planning in even monolingual societies. Considering 42

Language-in-education policy and planning

dominant attitudes towards linguistic diversity and bi-/multilingual education in the society, all sites of resistance can be managed if the prospects of a sequentially bi-/multilingual education system are viewed from a twin perspective. First of all, such educational practices should promote self-control and self-identity of the language speaking group within broader national identity and practices. Second, such initiatives should be regarded as resource-generating activities by engaging in human resource development through the use of languages to gain access to restricted social networks to lead to economic opportunities. To make this possible, there is the need for a gradual replacement of the dominant language-as-problem attitude by the languageas-resource perspective viewing bi-/multilingualism as a resource in language-planning activities. The National Education Policy of 2010 in Bangladesh re-recognises the need for education in English to develop a “strong and progressive knowledge-based and information technologyoriented society” (Chowdhury & Kabir, 2014, p. 12). The policy further recommended for emphasising written and spoken skills of Bangladeshi students in English even at the very early stages of education and to continue the training till higher levels. The Policy also has provisions for schools to opt for English as a MoI at the secondary level. At this point, the transition to English-medium instruction should start earlier than the secondary school level, may be at the junior school level, as indicated earlier in the Qudrat-E-Khuda Commission Report of 1974, offering English-medium instruction for two subjects at the beginning, then gradually extending English-medium instruction to three, four, and more subjects in the later years of schooling. Such sequential transition from Bangla- to English-medium instruction for all schools in Bangladesh would enable all students in Bangladesh to access knowledge and develop skills in English and contribute to the national economy as potential human resources skilled in English for the nation. For implementing language-in-education planning as a balancing act in Bangladesh, the debate on MoI concerning Bangla or English as the language for providing education at schools, colleges, and universities should be resolved on the very outset. Next, Bangla and English should be used in a balanced way from school to university level. With this end in view, the initial years of primary level of schooling for 5 years may be mainly provided in Bangla, with gradual development of lexical, morphological, and syntactic structures of English as one of the main subjects in Bangla-medium schools. Next, at the junior school level, some more subjects like mathematics, science, social science, and geography may be gradually introduced in English – for example, mathematics in Class VI, mathematics and science in Class VII, and mathematics, science, social science, and geography in Class VIII. Finally, at the secondary and higher secondary levels, all subjects except Bangla and religion may be introduced in English with the provision of Bangla as a MoI for weaker students and for students who will not opt for formal university education. Students with an aim to go for higher education should opt for English as the MoI at the secondary and higher secondary levels. Technical and religious education should also have the provisions or options for studying in either English or Bangla as the MoI to enable the students choose their preferred MoI to access education according to their proficiency levels and needs. Next, classroom instructions and textbooks at schools and colleges should be available in both English and Bangla. The delivery of content, instructions, in-class peer-to-peer, and teacher–­ student interactions may be conducted in English with the provision of occasional explanations and feedback in Bangla. But code mixing should be avoided. In addition, approaches in teaching both Bangla and English in Bangladeshi educational institutions need reformation. Equal emphasis should be given in developing speaking and writing skills among students. In order to bring about these changes, there is a need for a change in perspective towards languages in Bangladesh which will view the roles of languages in Bangladesh as complementary, but not equivalent. In doing so, Bangla and other languages need to be seen as symbolising Bangladeshi culture and heritage, which emphasises the symbolic, social, cultural, and instrumental 43

Tania Rahman

value of the languages. English needs to be seen as the language of access to global commerce, science, and technology, emphasising the instrumental value of the language for progress and connection to the world. Therefore, to implement language-in-education planning as a balancing act, debates such as which language we should choose to teach our children and conflicting ideologies in relation to English, Bangla, and other languages in Bangladesh need to be resolved soon.

References Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (Rev. ed., p. 67). London, England:Verso. Armstrong, J. (1982). Nations before nationalism. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North California Press. Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Baker, C. (2007). A parents’ and teachers’ guide to bilingualism (3rd ed.). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). London, England: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Bourdieu, P. (1986).The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–246). London, England: Greenwood Press. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. (1997). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16(6), 645–668. Chowdhury, R., & Kabir, A. H. (2014). Language wars: English education policy and practice in Bangladesh. Multilingual Education, 4(21). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13616-014-0021-2 Ferguson, N. (2004, 2002). Empire: The rise and demise of the British world order and the lessons for global power. New York, NY: Basic Books. Government of Bangladesh. (1972). Parliament debates. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Government of Bangladesh. Hall, S. (1996a). The question of cultural identity. In S. Hall, D. Held, D. Hubert, & K. Thompson (Eds.), Modernity: An introduction to modern societies (pp. 595–634). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Hall, S. (1996b).Who needs identity [Introduction]. In S. Hall & P. du Gay (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity (pp. 1–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hashmi, T. I. (2004). Islamic resurgence in Bangladesh: Genesis, dynamics and implications. In S. P. Limaye, M. Malik, & R. G. Wirsing (Eds.), Religious radicalism and security in South Asia (pp. 35–72). Honolulu, HI: Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies. Heller, M. (1987). The role of language in the formation of ethnic identity. In J. Phinney & M. Rotheram (Eds.), Children’s ethnic socialisation: Pluralism and development (pp. 180–200). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hossain, T. (2004). English education in post-colonial Bangladesh: The use of English as a medium of instruction (Master’s thesis, International Christian University, Tokyo, Japan). Hossain, T., & Tollefson, J. W. (2007). Language policy in education in Bangladesh. In A. B. Tsui & J. W. Tollefson (Eds.), Language policy, culture and identity in Asian contexts (pp. 241–258). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Imam, S. R. (2005). English as a global language and the question of nation-building education in Bangladesh. Comparative Education, 41(4), 471–486. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30044556. Joseph, J. E. (2004). Language and identity: National, ethnic, religious. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B. (1997). Language planning: From practice to theory. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Majumdar, R. C. (1943). The history of Bengal (Vol. I). Dhaka, Bangladesh: University of Dacca (Dhaka). May, S. (2001). Language and minority rights: Ethnicity, nationalism and the politics of language. Edinburgh Gate Harlow, England: Pearson Education Ltd. Mohsin, A. (2003). Language, identity, and the state in Bangladesh. In M. E. Brown & S. Ganguly (Eds.), Fighting words: Language policy and ethnic relations in Asia. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Muhith,A. M.A. (1978). Bangladesh: Emergence of a nation. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Bangladesh Books International. Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Edinburgh Gate Harlow, England: Pearson Education Ltd. Phillips, A. (2010). What’s wrong with essentialism? Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory, 11(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/1600910X.2010.9672755

44

Language-in-education policy and planning Rahman, T. (2010). A multilingual language-in-education policy for indigenous minorities in Bangladesh: Challenges and possibilities. Current Issues in Language Planning, 11(4), 341–359. Rappa, A. L., & Wee, L. (2006). Language policy and modernity in Southeast Asia: Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. New York, NY: Springer. Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15–34. Sengupta, N. (2001). History of the Bengali-speaking people. New Delhi, India: UBS Publishing. Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London, England and New York, NY: Routledge. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1988). Multilingualism and the education of minority children. In T. SkutnabbKangas & J. Cummins (Eds.), Minority education: From shame to struggle (pp. 9–44). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education—or worldwide diversity and human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & Phillipson, R. (1995). Linguistic human rights, past and present. In T. SkutnabbKangas & R. Phillipson (Eds.), Linguistic human rights: Overcoming linguistic discrimination (pp. 71–110.). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & Phillipson, R. (2008). A human rights perspective on language ecology. In A. Creese, P. Martin, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Ecology of language, Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed.,Vol. 9, pp. 3–14). New York, NY: Springer. Smith, A. (1995a). Nations and nationalism in a global era. London, England: Penguin. Smith, A. (1995b). Gastronomy or geology? The role of nationalism in the construction of nations. Nations and Nationalism, 1, 3–23. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Tabouret-Keller, A. (1997). Language and identity. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), The Handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 315–326). Oxford, England: Blackwell. Tallentire, J. (2001). Strategies of memory: History, social memory, and the community. Social History/Histoire Sociale, 34(67), 197–212. Thompson, H.-R. (2007). Bangladesh. In A. Simpson (Ed.), Language and national identity in Asia. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Tollefson, J. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality. New York, NY: Longman. Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

45

4 CONFLUENCE OF INFLUENCES SHAPING ELT IN BANGLADESH A. M. M. Hamidur Rahman

Introduction One might wonder by observing current English language teaching (ELT) situation in Bangladesh, how it began and how it has evolved and what principles and ideologies have contributed towards its development.The state of ELT, curricula, textbooks, and classroom methodologies as we experience in Bangladesh today are the outcome of the confluence of influences originating outside the country, and also those growing from within. It was a process of evolution and adaptation during different historical, political, and economic eras, and the language teaching-learning practices in the country are still going through the adjustment processes. This chapter reviews the major influences that the pre- and post-independent Bangladesh has been exposed to for centuries and the situation we have arrived at. As the language ideologies and practices evolve continually, they teach us that we cannot undo the past, nor can we ignore our present realities. Such historical analysis of pedagogic situations is necessary to understand present perspectives and future directions of ELT in Bangladesh. The chapter will not only review historical development of ELT in Bangladesh but also focus on teaching practices resulting from influences from abroad.

Historical background On 31 December 1600, Queen Elizabeth I granted a charter to 300 merchants in London, who formed a joint stock company called The East India Company (EIC), giving them a monopoly of trade with India (Kachru, 1983, p. 19). The first trading mission of EIC arrived in Surat in 1603 and established a factory there. Until 1690, trade up to Hugli was in the care of this factory. In 1690, Job Charnock founded Calcutta as a commercial settlement. From 1614, foreign missionaries started to come to this part of the world, and they came with the ‘holy’ mission of converting the native Indians to Christianity. However, EIC officials were more anxious about their own survival rather than proselyting Indians. They wanted to avoid doing anything that would antagonise the local population and risk their lives and trade interests (Chaudhary, 2009, p. 305). So, in 1765, there was a prohibition on transporting church officials or preachers in EIC ships (Ibid). However, in 1773, William Carey arrived 46

Confluence of influences shaping ELT

in India defying EIC’s ban, in a Danish ship, and established the Baptist Mission College at Serampore, a Danish settlement near Calcutta (Banerjee et al., 1957, p. 13). His Persian pamphlet arguing the superiority of Christianity over Islam was seized by Danish authorities under pressure from the British in Calcutta (Banerjee et al., 1957, p. 13). However, the foundations of British rule in India were laid in a mock battle that took place on 23 June 1757 at a place called Plassey, about 150  kilometres north of Calcutta, and Siraj-uddaulah, the last independent Nawab of Bengal was defeated through the treachery of his general Mir Jafar Ali Khan and others who joined him in the conspiracy. The Nawab’s Army, under the command of Mir Jafar Ali Khan, assembled their troops near the battlefield, but made no move to actually join the battle. Siraj-ud-daulah’s Army with 18,000 soldiers was defeated by 3,000 soldiers of Col. Robert Clive, owing to the flight of Siraj-uddaulah from the battlefield and the inactivity of the conspirators. British victory led by Robert Clive at Plassey in Bengal was a crucial event in the history of India. The EIC gradually spread its influence on local merchants and a large volume of trade was transacted between Britain and Bengal. Knowledge of English became essential between trading partners in Bengal. As a result, there was a growing demand for learning English in certain sections of the community. In 1792, Sir Charles Grant, a member of the Board of Directors of The EIC, wanted to introduce English in education and official business, but it did not gain support from others (Musa, 1997, p. 9). In 1800, Fort William College was established in Calcutta to train Company officials in Indian vernaculars, laws, and customs (Musa, 1997, p. 9). In 1872, Mr. Wilberforce, another Director, wanted to add two clauses to the Charter Act for sending out school teachers to India, but the proposal was withdrawn due to lack of support (Musa, 1997, p. 9). In 1774, demand for English among Indians, especially Bengalis rose when the Supreme Court was established in Calcutta. This court required a number of interpreters, clerks, copyists, and agents. There was a dearth of teachers capable of teaching English to natives. The first teachers turned out to be Eurasians, Armenians, and English-speaking adventurers living in Calcutta. Indians who knew English also had a lucrative job. Hundreds of Indians wanted to learn this language all of a sudden. However, an adequate number of teachers, books, and learning materials were not still available. Indians bought any book that they thought would be helpful for learning English. Most of the materials were bilingual word lists and grammar manuals. Among such materials were: 1. A Guide to the English Proper for Beginners, Showing a Natural and Easy Method to Pronounce and Express both Common Words and Proper Names in which particular Care is Taken to Show the Accent for Vicious Pronunciation – Thomas Dyches, The Danish Mission, Calcutta, 1716. 2. Vocabulary in Two Parts: English and Bengalee and Vice Versa – Calcutta, 1779. 3. An English Bengali Vocabulary together with Grammatical Introduction – Calcutta, 1788. 4. The Tutor, or a New English & Bengali Work, well Adapted to Teach the Natives English – John Miller, 1797. These books were sold in thousands of copies and the principal buyers were young people aspiring to work as interpreters, clerks, copyists, and agents. There was a great demand of schools for learning English. A Scottish adventurer named Drummond started his school. Indian learners also went to schools started by Eurasians and Armenians. Among such teachers, Alexander Duff became well known for his methods and materials. He became so popular that soon he had 300 pupils spending 6 hours daily in his school. His Eurasian 47

A. M. M. Hamidur Rahman

assistants and himself taught the learners all day. Students learnt some English and used it outside the school every day. However, the pressure of admission seekers far exceeded his capacity which, soon, led some older students of Duff extending their helping hands to him as assistants and monitors (Smith, 2003, pp. 432–71). In 1780, the Calcutta Madrasa was established by Warren Hastings at the request of Muslim religious leaders. In 1791, the Sanskrit College of Benares was founded for the study of Hindu law and philosophy. A similar attempt to establish a Sanskrit college in Calcutta in 1816 was opposed by the elites of Calcutta. Protesting plans to spend money on oriental education, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, in a letter to Lord Amherst, wrote: We are filled with sanguine hope that the sum would be laid out in European gentlemen of talent and education to instruct the natives of India in Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, Chemistry, Anatomy and other useful sciences which the nations of Europe have carried to a degree of perfection. We find that the Government are establishing a Sanskrit school under Hindu pundits to impart the same knowledge as is current in India. (Bannejee et al., 1957, p. 14) Maculay’s Education Minutes were passed on 2 February 1835 in spite of opposition from orientalists who termed the motion as ‘hasty and indiscreet’. The Minutes on language said: it seems to be admitted that the intellectual improvement of those classes of people who have the means of pursuing higher education can at present be effected by means of some language not vernacular amongst them. … What shall the language be? … Which language is the best worth knowing? It is impossible for us with our limited means to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that class we may leave to refine vernacular dialects and to render them fit vehicles for conveying western knowledge. (Banerjee et al., 1957, p. 22) In 1837, Persian was replaced by English as the official language of law courts and in 1844, a decision was taken to establish universities at Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay.The University of Dhaka was established in 1921. Dr Michael West, Principal of Teachers’ Training College, Dhaka, (then spelled Dacca), was made Hon. Reader in Education, Dhaka University. In 1926, the outcome of his research, Bilingualism with Special Reference to Bengal, was published as Occasional Reports No. 13 in Calcutta by the Central Publication Branch of the Government of India for Bureau of Education. It was dedicated to Sir Philip Hartog, the first Vice Chancellor of Dhaka University.

First major influence On joining Indian Education Service, Dr Michel West was first assigned to David Hare [Teachers’] Training College in Calcutta. In 1913, he was transferred to Teachers’ Training College, Dhaka, East Bengal as Principal of the college. He was also given the responsibility of conducting a survey of primary education in Bengal. In this capacity, he visited numerous schools in 1919. As a colonial educator in Bengal for a period of 20 years, Dr West developed insights into teaching English in very difficult circumstances. His emphasis on the importance of reading was the result

48

Confluence of influences shaping ELT

of his scepticism to teach oral English by teachers in Bengal, who were neither fluent speakers of English nor competent to teach oral communication. Pupils would spend about 10 hours a week on learning English, yet the results were extremely poor. Even in the matriculation classes, the results were unsatisfactory.Very few pupils had any real reading ability in English.They could speak only a few disjointed sentences and write very slowly and laboriously. An attempt to introduce the Direct Method failed because it asked too much of the teacher (West, 1926, p. 16). A similar situation was depicted as the result of a survey carried out by Calcutta University Commission of 1919 on a large number of respondents studying at the university. All of them were taught in English at the university and its affiliated colleges. Most of them were concerned that matriculating students had insufficient English for academic purposes (Smith, 2003, p. X). West, in his testimony on the matter (Calcutta University Commission, 1919, pp. 502–504, cited in Smith, 2003), argued that he was not in favour of giving too much emphasis on English at the expense of the mother tongue. At the same time, he was keen to improve English instruction for all pupils, not just the privileged elite. The usual method of teaching English that he observed in the classrooms in Bengal is portrayed in the following account: • The boy is set a certain passage of the English Reader to ‘prepare’. It means that he must be able to read the passage and translate it into Bangla. The preparation is done with the help of an aid or an elder brother. The teacher sometimes goes through a new passage giving Bangla equivalents. • The teacher calls on a boy to read.The boy goes on reading for a long time.There is no quick change of reader so as to keep the class awake. • The teacher very often stands opposite the boy reading and pays little attention to the rest of the class. He never interrupts the reading with questions. When the reading is finished, the teacher calls on the same boy (sometimes another boy) to ‘expound’. To ‘expound’ means word for word translation into Bangla. (Smith, 2003, pp. XI–XII) West thought that the focus on spoken language of the Direct Method was wasteful, while a focus on reading could provide pupils an immediate reward in the form of development of reading ability in a second/foreign language. The second language must enable a child to read. The objective was to discover a means of producing efficient silent reading ability in a foreign language and of doing this with minimum expenditure of time and effort. Research on the matter led to the following realities and recommendations at that time: • It was found that as little as 16 hours of specially designed practice in English reading sufficed to produce the adult type of reading in 17-year-old Bangla students who had previously shown only the childish type of word-by-word reading. • It was further observed that although practice had been in English only, an equal (or larger) improvement took place in the rate of reading in the mother tongue. Thus, reading ability seems to be a thing independent of languages. • The student must be able to read easily and quickly so that his mind may spring at once from the foreign words to the ideas without the intervention of the mother tongue. Further, the matter of the reading book must be of interest. • In devising a system for teaching the reading of a foreign language, we have therefore to discover a method of producing books corresponding in point of subject and difficulty of ideas

49

A. M. M. Hamidur Rahman

to the age of the foreign child, yet written in a vocabulary which is, in point of number of words, the equivalent to that of a native child 6–10 years younger. • The problem is solved by building up from the start so that the less words the boy knows, the more common (therefore more useful) those words are. The relative commonness of various English words is shown by certain ‘Word-frequency lists’. By the use of these lists, it is possible to construct a vocabulary of maximum usefulness at any given stage of progress. • It is found possible given a fixed standard vocabulary of a few thousand words, reasonably well selected along these lines, to rewrite almost any ordinary material of a nontechnical nature so that all the words used may be within the standard vocabulary. Thus, an ordinary novel can be kept within a 5,000 word vocabulary, and with a little effort or editing most of the simpler books could be kept within 3,000. Any ordinary fairy story can be written within 300–500 words, a vocabulary which can be learnt in less than a year’s work. (West, 1926) As a result of his research, Dr West developed what came to be known as The Reading Method. The method depended on simplified readers progressing from one level of difficulty to a more difficult one, thus gaining more and more speed and proficiency in reading English. Features of the New Method Series Readers were based on vocabulary limitations, structure control, and recycling of vocabulary items. The original Grade 1 readers began with fables, went on to short animal stories, and ended with longer and more complicated fairy tales. The New Method Series Readers became commercially more successful in other parts of India (and outside India) than in Bengal, contrary to his expectations. By 1928, West’s readers were in use in Ceylon, Palestine, Persia, Nigeria, Kenya, and Uganda. However, the success of the New Method series brought him misfortune too. The colonial education authorities were unhappy about his earnings from the books and using the TTC to train teachers to use them. Eventually, he was transferred to Islamia College, Calcutta. He resigned from his post as Principal of Dhaka TTC on 30 April 1932 and returned to England, where he continued to contribute to the development of ELT as long as he lived.

Second major influence After the partition of British India in 1947 and emergence of India and Pakistan, the old curricula of the colonial days continued for a period of time. Grammar Translation Method was at its peak until educational reforms began to take place in the then East Pakistan. In 1955, The Alternative Syllabus in English for Classes VI, VII & VII was prepared by Ronald Mackin for East Pakistan School Textbook Board. It was a time when the Structural-Situational Approach was the most favoured approach to language teaching among British educators. The Alternative Syllabus was a perfect example of structural syllabuses that were prepared at the time. It had a very careful selection of grammatical structures of English along with lists of vocabulary items that could be used in situational contexts. For example:

Graded Structures 1. This That is

This is John. That is Ahmad This is Ahmad That is John. This is Mary. That is Mary. Vocabulary, unit 1: names of pupils. 50

Confluence of influences shaping ELT

2. my This is my arm. This is your arm. (see 4 below) 3. his a) This is her …. This is his …. This my …. That is her…. That is his …. That is my…. b) This is his name. c) His name is Ahmad. His name is John. Her name is Rashida. (for vocabulary see 4 below) 4. ’s This is Ahmad. This is his book. This is Ahmad’s book. This is John’s book. Vocabulary, units 2, 3 and 4. A. arm finger lip back foot mouth ear hand tooth eye head nose face leg tongue (The Alternative Syllabus, p. 2) New textbooks were written in which the structures were contextualised and tasks and activities were designed to give practice to learners in using the structures and vocabulary items. There were extensive in-service trainings of teachers of English and attempts were made to increase the oral proficiency of teachers so that they could use an oral-aural approach to teaching. On the whole, it can be said that the new approach was reasonably well adopted by teachers and students.

Third major influence After the birth of Bangladesh as an independent nation in 1971, necessity was felt to reform the education system to fulfil the aspirations of the new nation. The curricula and syllabuses of different levels of education also needed revision. In 1974, Dr Kudrat-i-Khuda Education Commission Report was published and it recommended that English should be taught more effectively. In 1975, an ELT Task Force was set up by the Ministry of Education to assess the situation of English language education in Bangladesh and to suggest ways of improving it. The major findings of the Task Force were: • The English proficiency of students in class IX is at least 2 years behind the standard assumed in their textbooks. • The English proficiency of students in class XII is at least 4 years below the standard assumed in their textbooks. • The majority of students at secondary teacher training institutions (at least 70%) are not proficient in material beyond that used in class VII textbooks, yet they are expected to teach up to class X. 51

A. M. M. Hamidur Rahman

• No more than 20% of students of Primary Training Institutes (PTIs) can be considered proficient in material which they are supposed to teach in classes III–V. • The levels of English proficiency are very low throughout the secondary and teacher training levels. They indicate a desperate situation in ELT in Bangladesh. • At all levels, there is a grave shortage of trained teachers of English.Teaching methods observed were not conducive to effective learning. • An appropriately graded syllabus should be introduced at each level and textbooks related to the needs and capabilities of students should be prepared. (Bangladesh Education Extension and Research Institute, 1976, pp. 1–3) In 1976, National Curriculum and Syllabus Committee (NCSC) was formed to devise syllabuses for different classes and separate committees were formed for each subject area. This was a time when the functional-notional syllabus (Wilkins, 1976) and the Communicative Approach to Language Teaching (Richards & Rodgers, 2001) became vastly popular as a teaching approach all over the world. The English Committee of NCSC adopted the Communicative Approach and mingled it with a Structural Approach based on selection of lexis and structures laid out in English Grammatical Structure by Alexander et al. (1975), which used a form of Chomskyan Transformational-Generative Grammar notations, for example, NP + VP + NP, popular at that time. For example: 1. Sentence Patterns introduced in Stage 1 Number SP 1 SP 2 SP 3 SP 3a 3b 3c SP 4 SP 5

Structure NP 1 + be + NP 2, COMPLEMENT NP + be + ADJ NP+ be +ADV-P Here or There +PERS PRONOUN + be Here or There +be + any other NP There + be +NP + ADV-P NP1 + have + NP 2, OBJECT NP + vi

Example My name is Tom. That pen is black. He is in the garden. Here I am. There is the office. There is a dog in the garden. I have two brothers. I am waiting. I understand …

(Alexander, Allen, Close, & O’Neill, 1975, p. 3) Recommendations of NCSC were approved in 1978 and textbooks began to be written.The first books for primary level came out in 1980 and teachers began to be trained to implement the new curriculum. In order to boost the training of teachers, the ELT Improvement Project (ELTIP) was undertaken by the Ministry of Education with assistance from DFID during 1997–2008. It aimed to promote Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach at the secondary level. The curriculum was made more communicative in approach and new textbooks were written. The objectives of ELTIP were to: • Continue the already introduced communicative English language methodology through • a programme of in-service teacher training; • developing appropriate teaching learning materials; • reform initiatives in the examination system. • Develop communicative competence in English among the secondary education learners. • Introduce contextualised grammar teaching and learning. • Monitor the teaching of trained teachers in classrooms. Starting in 1998, ELTIP trained nearly 35,000 secondary school teachers throughout the country. It contributed to the professional development of these teachers through carefully developed 52

Confluence of influences shaping ELT

training activities. The good work done by ELTIP is feared to have been wasted because discontinuity of the programme after 2008 (Rahman, 2015 p. 69). A new large-scale English language development programme called English in Action (EIA) was initiated by the Ministry of Education in 2009 and came to an end in 2017 (for a review of the projects, also see Qumrul & Erling, this volume). The target audience of the project was 25  million learners – primary school teachers and students, secondary school teachers and students, and adult learners. Its aim was to contribute to the economic development in Bangladesh by providing the English language as a tool for better access to the world economy. The project was funded by DfID and implemented by BMB Mott MacDonald in collaboration with national and international partners, for example, Friends in Village Development in Bangladesh (FIVDB), Underprivileged Children’s Educational Programme (UCEP), The Open University, UK, and BBC Media Action. A baseline was undertaken in August 2008 to examine the existing provision of training for English language teachers in Bangladesh and adult learners. Some of the important findings of the survey were: • While the national curriculum stresses communicative use of English, this does not seem to be effectively implemented as concerns have been expressed about the ability of students to communicate in English. Also within the school system in Bangladesh, there is no formal testing of oral or aural skills. • There is little evidence of progression of language through government/NGO primary and secondary schools. The results show no increase in English language ability that can be specifically tied to working through school grades.The levels of ability are not increasing year by year, nor over a period of several years. • Teachers too have a low level of competence in English. Teachers are teaching at higher levels than their own ability in the language. Plus very few of them have adequate professional training. These two factors are crucial to the development of English language ability in Bangladesh (Baseline Study 1). • The pedagogic approach adopted in most lessons observed did not encourage a communicative approach to learning English. Throughout the lessons, teaching from the blackboard from the front of the class was the predominant pedagogic approach. As the lesson progressed, teachers tended to read from the textbook, asked closed questions, or moved around the classroom monitoring and facilitating students as they worked individually. • The use of teaching aids (other than the textbook) was infrequently observed: 2–6% classes. • Majority of teachers appeared to be fully or partially confident with the subject matter of the lesson. There was little evidence of a lesson plan being used for guidance by most teachers – only 14% did so ‘regularly’ or ‘occasionally’. • In most of the schools, the teachers are using traditional book-oriented process of teaching. They teach grammar and translation following the book without explaining the definitions properly. Sometimes teachers use the blackboard to teach vocabulary. • In almost two-thirds of classes, less than half of the students had opportunities to participate actively in discussions or to answer questions: ‘none or hardly any’ in 14% of classes. • Only a small proportion of students spoke in English during a lesson.Two-thirds of the classes observed (68%) ‘none or hardly any’ spoke in English, while in 23% of classes only ‘some’ (please everyone< The extract begins with an explicit directive to students of the entire class to get ready with their exercise books (line 1). Here, the teacher announces the initiation of the upcoming activity though he 67

Rizwan-ul Huq

Figure 5.1  Image 1 from an English lesson

has not announced the topic of the activity yet.The announcement, in this case, means an invoking of students’ pedagogical obligation to follow teacher’s instruction as well as an upcoming shift of current state of affairs (from pre-activity towards the core activity). Next, the teacher’s announcement of potential topics (lines 4 and 6) overlaps with other students’ attempts to offer choices (lines 5 and 8). Nonetheless, the teacher, in this case, has not consulted with the students. Instead, he has asked students to pay attention suggesting a formal beginning of the upcoming activity (line 11) followed by a series of actions, i.e. soliciting the textbook, flipping its pages, taking the marker in hand, removing an obstacle (a chair in the position of his writing), and starting the work of instruction (i.e. writing down the exercise on the whiteboard). During this work of instruction, a student (Pia), sitting in the front row of the middle section, stands up from her sitting posture (Figure 5.1) and starts pushing her desk leftwards (Figure 5.2) before retiring back to her seat. In so doing, a disturbing, creaky noise is produced during the moving. Once the teacher has finished his writing on the board, he withdraws himself from the board, reverts back to the students (Figure 5.3), and performs a reproach with an ironical assessment in a strongly articulated voice (line 13, this is not a bazar). Followed by a big pause (line 14), the teacher again rephrases the earlier statement in similar fashion (line 15) followed by reminders of proper student-like behaviours in the classroom (lines 17 and 19) and soliciting students’ attention (line 21, please everyone). The language practice available in this extract demonstrates how the L2-only rule is maintained in a lesson implementing an English-only mode of talk. Although it can be argued that the lesson content (i.e. English grammar) can be a potential ground behind such sort of practice, the fact that teacher could have used L1 as a resource for reproaching (cf. code-switching for classroom 68

Microanalysis of participants’ compliance

Figure 5.2  Image 2 from an English lesson

management discourse in Ferguson, 2003) demonstrates that the teacher, in this case, choose a medium-compliant mode of talk instead of using vernacular expressions to carry on the task of reproaching. Indeed, language alternation from current medium to other often helps achieving a code contrast (Ferguson, 2003, p. 5). In so doing, such a shift would imply a disruption or change of current, on-going frame demonstrating a marked shift from lesson content (i.e. lecturing, writing, etc.) to off-lesson concerns (i.e. disciplining students, soliciting attention, etc.).

Figure 5.3  Image 3 from an English lesson

69

Rizwan-ul Huq

Nonetheless, the teacher’s choice of staying in the current medium (pre-activity and during the reproach) suggests a strict compliance of the sanctioned policy.

Semi-compliance of medium Whereas the compliant mode relies on strict adherence of given policy, the participants, in this pedagogic setting, oftentimes sought semi-compliant mode of talk allowing a moderate switch from monolingual L2 to L1 followed by a quick reversion to L2-only. The next example (see Extract 2) is reported from a Mathematics classroom with the same cohort of students attended by a different teacher. The agenda of this extract is the topic of the lesson (i.e. geometry). Before commencing the upcoming activity, the teacher solicits students’ opinions on what has been done before followed by discussion on what topic they will do today. Extract 2: Now We are in Geometry [Participants: Teacher (TEA), Pia (PIA), Munni (MUN), Aisha (ASA), Sania (SAN),Lina (LIN), Rajon (RAJ), UnSt (Students not available in the camera); CM2: 00.23-02.12] 1 TEA: okay, sit down please (xxx) ((students talking)) 2 UnSt: (xxx xx) 3 (2.1) ((student’s indistinct talk)) 4 TEA: do you- ((teacher knocks the duster)) 5 (2.2) ((indistinct student peer-talk)) 6 TEA: what topic (.) we:: ((hav)) ↑been:: (.) to:? 7 (0.6) 8 PIA: °si:r::° ((asking attention, lending microphone)) 9 TEA: the la:st c[l:ass:: 10 MUN: [↑sIR alg]ebra 11 RAJ: >algebra (o) shesh< hoye ge[che also finished algebra is also finished? 12 PIA: [°si::r° 13 ASA: algebra >↑sir [to↑tally finished< ] 14 MUN: [°°totally finished°°] 15 TEA: [a::lg]ebra shesh finish 16 hoye gya[che? done algebra chapter is done? 17 MUN: [now] we are (in) geometry 18 UnSt: geo ↑ metry:: 19 (0.2) 20 TEA: hhh kh:: ↑ ubi:: ↑sundor very excellent great, excellent 21 ASA: geo°metry° 22 PIA: >°sir° geometry< 23 TEA: o::key (.) gi::ve me a book::: 24 (0.6) ((a student lends book)) 70

Microanalysis of participants’ compliance

25 LIN:

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

TEA: TEA: MUN: TEA: PIA: SAN: TEA: PIA: TEA: TEA:

UnSt: TEA: PIA: TEA:

ei je here here is it algebra and >little (bit of)< ex:tra (1.6) wh[i::ch THeoRaym?] [↑it’s ↑the theo]rem two (0.3) fi:ni:shed ? °theorem° one is:: finish::ed (0.3) theorem two theorem one is fini::shed (0.2) ↑ye::S:: ↑Si::r:: o:ke:y:: (5.2) twenty four ((exercise number probably))discuss(ing) theorem two (1.7) yes (1.3) ai:: >would like to< discuss abo::ut (0.5) theorem one? ((showing surprised face)) (0.6) the:: a::ngles

The extract starts with teacher’s request to students to take their seats (line 1) followed by his attempts to solicit students’ attention on the topic of the upcoming activity (lines 4 and 5). As the classroom was a bit noisy, Pia lends the teacher a microphone. Next, the teacher finishes his current turn by adding further information (line 9) on what he has meant. In response to teacher’s earlier request, several students offer answers (in lines 10, 12, 13, and 14) articulated in English except one exception (line 11). In response to students’ suggestions, the teacher, endorses their opinions in a code-mixed turn (line 15). Although the teacher has used a code-mixed turn showing acceptability of using L1, the students have observed the given policy by articulating further elicitations (lines 17 and 18) along with the suggestion of the topic of instruction (i.e. geometry) in L2. Nonetheless, the teacher again uses a L1 turn (line 20, khubi sundor, tr: very excellent) expressing his delight (cf. CS for interpersonal expressions in Ferguson, 2003). Next, the discussion switched to another issue, i.e. the task number of the chosen topic. Accepting students’ opinion (line 23, okay), the teacher has asked for a textbook to start the upcoming activity. The rest of the discussion, from line 26 till the end, revolves around the task number of the exercise in the textbook. With an occasional deviance of a student (line 25), this question-answer session is conducted entirely in L2 followed by the announcement of the topic of instruction (line 49, angles). In terms of language practice, this extract can be termed as an example of a medium of interaction conducted in monolingual-L2 with alternation to L1 (Bonacina, 2010; Bonacina & 71

Rizwan-ul Huq

Gafaranga, 2011). Unlike extract 1, this example contains nominal usage of L1. Although the overall organisation of the interactional order (Gafaranga, 1999, 2007) is monolingual-L2, the members, of this setting, have treated the instances of alternations to L1 (teacher’s codealtered turn in lines 15–16, 20; a student’s turn in line 25) as non-repairable, functional deviance (Gafaranga & Torras, 2001). In other words, the members do not feel any necessity to address these deviances as breach of policy. As a result, the members do not use any explicit language policing (Amir, 2013) acts to carry on repair of the wrong language choice. However, the compliance of policy is observable in the form of participants’ efforts to continue the talks in L2. In other words, the tendency to revert back to L2, once such short and quick L1 turns serve the purpose, manifests participants’ practice of semi-compliance.

Some instances of minimal compliant mode The language practices observed in this setting also shows that oftentimes the work of instruction can be held in a minimal compliant mode. In this section, two such examples, respectively, reported from an ICT and General Science lesson will be discussed. In the next example (see Extract 3) to follow, the extract deals with teacher’s short question and answer session done at the end of his lecture. In an effort to solicit students’ answers, he first asks question (i.e. What is PDA?) followed by elicitation of this topic in a bilingual mode of talk. Extract 3: What is a PDA? [Teacher (TEA), Munni (MUN), UnSt (students not available in the camera frame); CM2: 2.54.26 – 2.55.08] 1 TEA: what is:: pi di a? 2 (0.6) 3 UnSt: persona[l:: 4 UnSt: [pers5 TEA: perso:nal: di:gi:tal:: assis::tant 6 (0.5) 7 TEA: that is::: the smallest comput:er:: ↑your 8 ↑smartphone is also:: a pi di a 9 (0.6) 10 TEA: >tomar jodi smartphone thake< setao kin:tu: pi you if have that’s but if you have a smartphone, this is also a PDA 11 di a::: (.) thik ache >karon ekhon< sm[art right this because now okay, because now-a-days 12 phone e:: in smart phones now contain 13 MUN: [sir 14 pi di a diye] ki ko[re? with what do sir what we can do with PDA? 15 TEA: [com]puter er al::most: computer’s

72

Microanalysis of participants’ compliance

16

17

18 19 20 21 22 23

UnSt: TEA: MUN: TEA: MUN:

24 UnSt: 25 26 TEA:

27 MUN: 28 29 TEA:

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

UnSt: TEA: UnSt: TEA: UnSt: TEA:

sob:::: feature chole asche:: tai na? every became isn’t it all features of computer are now available (in PDA),  right? ei:: je::: here for example (xxx) (0.2) ex:pe:ri::ah. hhh. sony ex:pe:ri::a: >(samsang)< sir pi di e diye [ki kaj kore?] with what job do Sir, what we can do with PDA? [(xxxx xxxx)] (0.7) kom:puter r sob kaj i: pi di a kore [ekhon computer all jobs do now now PDA can do almost every task of a computer [aw:: accha] okay (0.5) ebong smart phone tai it’s a kind of pi di a and it so, now smart phone itself is a PDA >tahole< which computer is the ↓small::est then o::ne? pi [di: a:: [desktop lap]top pi [di a [pi di a =tablet pi di a pi di a sob chaite choto ekhon most smallest now PDA is the smallest (computer) till today

Here, the teacher asked a question in line 1 to the whole class. Two students have taken efforts to articulate their answers in L2 (lines 3 and 4) followed by appropriate feedback of this answer (line 5).To further elucidate the answer, the teacher offers further explanation of this answer in L2 (lines 7–8). From lines 7–22, the discussion now unfolds regarding the types of PDAs available in the marketplaces. In this sequence, the teacher keeps asking and elaborating the relevant examples of PDAs. Although a student (Munni, lines 13–14) has attempted to ask a supplementary question relevant to this discussion (lines 13–14), the teacher has not answered it right there. Instead, he first elucidates the examples of PDAs and finally takes the effort of answering her question, on her second attempt (line 23), once the examples are discussed with the whole cohort. After

73

Rizwan-ul Huq

offering a brief response to Munni’s question (lines 26 and 29), the teacher again returns to his earlier project (i.e. question and answer session) from line 30 onwards. The sequential organisation of this extract, as it has unfolded, can be divided into four distinct parts, i.e. (a) the initial quiz session (line 1–6), (b) further explanation of answer (lines 7–22), (c) attending a student’s supplementary question (lines 23–29), and (d) re-initiation of the quiz session (lines 30–37). The practiced language, in this case, has followed a continuous shuttling between different mediums. For instance, the initiation of quiz happened in a compliant mode, i.e. monolingual-L2 medium. The elucidation of example has started in mono-L2 (line 7) but the rest of the talk is held in monolingual-L1 with occasional alternations to L2. The feedback on students’ supplementary question is attended in monolingual-L1. The end of sequence is again done in monolingual-L2 with occasional use of L1 (lines 30 and 37).The relation between instruction and language practice, at this point, is that the teacher has started the formal, lesson activity (as he is picking question from the textbook) in a compliant mode (line 1–6) and semicompliant mode (lines 30–37). However, the explanations (lines 7–22) and the answer to supplementary question (lines 23–29) are offered in minimal-compliant mode (cf. teacher-initiated CS for pedagogical needs in Üstünel & Seedhouse, 2005). In other words, the compliance to L2-only policy, in this case, is distributed according to the type of activities the participants are attending (cf. distributed bilingual order of L2 and L1 for different pedagogic activities in Cromdal, 2005; Lehti-Eklund, 2012; Slotte-Lüttge, 2007) co-constructing a shuttling between different modes of compliances. The next extract (Extract 4) also shares similar procedural progression of compliance during teacher’s lecture in a General Science lesson. The topic of this lesson is light.

Extract 4: Matter and Energy [Teacher (TEA), Sania (SAN), Munni (MUN), Tinni (TIN); CM2: 1.48.00-1.50.10] 1 TEA: the ≈who:::::l::e≈ universe (0.8) there:: is 2 two:: thing >there are two things< (1.8) one 3 is: e::nergy 4 UnST: °matt:er::° 5 TEA: another is::: 6 UnST: ma[tters 7 TEA: [subs::]tan:ce:: 8 (0.7) 9 TEA: substance an::d 10 UnST: °ener[gy° 11 TEA: [en]er:g:y 12 (1.2) 13 TEA: ↑every::thing: is::: (.) related to the (xxx) 14 (2.0) KARON NO::w a days:: (1.5) ↑we have ↑come because 15 to know ↑that::: only one thing in the 16 univers::e: (0.2) that is energy (2.1) 17 substance or material bolte ≈ki::chu::≈ na::i called something nothing substance or matter does not exist in reality ((noise from outside, student murmur)) 74

Microanalysis of participants’ compliance

18 19 TEA:

(3.1) jem::on amra ki? >materials because we have like we what such as, what are we made of? 20 mass::< (.) we have weight:: we can (1.0) we can resist the force 22 (2.2) 23 TEA: mAtt::er tahole >what the matter and what the then 24 energy< (0.7) the substance we- the things:: 25 (.) which are (getting-) (.) which hav:e 26 TIN: power:: 26 TEA: vo::lume:: 27 SAN: size 28 TEA: > je jinish tar volume ache< ↑ay:::y ((attention that thing have something which has its own volume 29 demands to a student)) (1.0) volume ache↓ have has its volume 30 MUN: size shape 31 TEA: occupy space 32 MUN: and (xxxx) 33 TEA: and which can resi::st the fo:rce 34 (1.9) 35 TEA: that is a substance ar energy jegula e gula nai and those this don’t &energy doesn’t have this  characteristics 36 energy have no (xxx xx) volume (and width) 37 shap:e:: just feelings ta ache this have only the feeling of its presence exist 38 (0.9) 39 SANIA: (xxx) 40 TEA: li::ght amader- oi je surjer (niche) darayle ki our that sun under stand what ourif we stand under the sunlight 41 hoy? amader gorom lage tai na? happens? we hot feel isn’t what happens to us? we feel very hot, right? 42 UnST: yes 43 TEA: tar feelings ta (ase) jaihok hoyto kichu ekta its exist anyway probably something we can feel its existence anyway maybe something 44 amar shorir e porche jar karone ami my body over dropping for reason I is dropping over my whole body and for this reason I 75

Rizwan-ul Huq

45 UnST:

46 TEA:

47

48

°°gorom onubhob korchi°° hot feeling do am feeling the heat ami bujhte parchi je am:ar (0.8) ayaii I know do that my I can understand that I am ((attention demand)) gorom lagche hot feeling feeling the heat (2.4)

This extract can be broken down into five progressive sequences, i.e. (a) the proposition of the topic (lines 1–12), (b) further explanation of the topic statement (lines 13–18), (c) contextualising the example of matter through a rhetorical question followed by explanation (lines 19–22), (d) reintroducing the question (lines 23–38) allowing students’ participation, and (e) further explanation of the example of energy (lines 39–48). The language practices perspective, in this case, shows that the members’ procedures of orienting (or not) towards the given policy, in and through these sequences, are available in the form of participants’ practices of treating the offpolicy choices as repairable or not. For instance, the proposition of the lesson topic (lines 1–12) happens in a monolingual-L2 without any alternation to L1. Thus, this sequence can be termed as a compliant mode of interaction as the participants do not need to address the breach of de facto policy. In the next sequence, further explanation takes place in the form of supplementary information on earlier proposition marked with highly articulated (line 13, karon, tr: because) or rhythmical, musical expressions (line 17, bolte kichu nai, tr: there is nothing like this) in L1. Nonetheless, the breach of given policy (i.e. use of L1 expressions) is not treated by these participants as deviance as no effort is visible to rectify such actions. Thus, this sequence can be termed as a semicompliant mode where the overall organisation is monolingual-L2 with occasional alternation to L1 (Bonacina & Gafaranga, 2011) treated as non-repairable items. In contextualising the topic of matter into a real-life example (lines 19–22), the similar practice is also upheld. The teacher has only asked the rhetorical question (line 19, jemon amra ki? tr: like what are we?) in L1 followed by a monolingual-L2. The next sequence (lines 23–38), though is dotted with L1 use, can be a potential candidate of compliant mode of talk as the usage of L1, in this case, has been addressed as a repairable choice allowing an implicit language policing (Amir, 2013) of such choices. The code-mixed turns (in lines 28, 29, 35, and 37) have only been offered along with equivalent L2 expressions either before (lines 24, 25, and 26) or after (36–37) the use of L1 expressions treating the use of L1, in these sequences, as repairable deviance.The only non-repairable choice, here, is the L1 expression used in the beginning (line 23, tahole, tr: then) and thus this sequence is a semi-compliant mode as this specific use is not treated as a repairable deviance. In the end of this extract (lines 39–47), a sharp code contrast is visible as the dominant mode of talk, in this sequence, is conducted in minimal-compliant mode. Indeed, this is a monolingual-L1 medium (Bonacina & Gafaranga, 2011) with some rare usage of L2 (lines 40, 42, and 43). In contrast to the sanctioned policy of the setting, the use of L2 is only limited to key L2 terms (i.e. light, feelings) or students’ feedback (i.e. yes) and the discussion in L1 turns are treated as a normative, non-repairable, non-deviant choice without any interactional cue of reverting to L2-only rule continued till the end of the extract. 76

Microanalysis of participants’ compliance

Conclusion To summarise, the aim of this chapter is to describe the in situ language practices of participants’ in vivo language practice in an ESL school located in Bangladeshi setting. Situated in a pedagogic context where no articulated policy is available in the national level, this ESL school operates its everyday schooling activities under a de facto, English-only policy. However, the observation has revealed that the actual talk of this classroom can be conducted in English as well as Bangla available in various forms of Medium of Classroom Interaction (Bonacina & Gafaranga, 2011; Bonacina, 2010; Bonacina-Pugh, 2017), i.e. monolingual-English with alternation to Bangla, monolingual-Bangla with alternation to English, and bilingual medium. Therefore, the analysis has further explored these available practices of this setting in relation to participants’ sui generis members’ practices of complying with the de facto, institution-specific English-only policy. In so doing, the analytical focus was to understand how the members of this educational setting themselves accounted for their usage of language in the field as it has unfolded in and through their daily, every day, mundane classroom interaction. In other words, the focus was what they did in reality rather on what they thought they should ideally do or what policy managers would expect them to do (Spolsky, 2004, 2005, 2017). In applying this framework to this data, it has been observed that the compliance of the given policy (i.e. the interactional patterns of conforming or yielding) has been achieved through three types of approaches, i.e. compliant, semi-compliant, and minimal-compliant modes. In compliant sequences of teaching activities, the participants have strictly aligned with the given policy with no deviation from the policy expectation. In other words, this is a strict monolingual-L2 only (ex.1) with no alternation to L1 resources. In other words, the Medium of Instruction is most rigorously practiced and upheld in compliant modes of interaction. In case of semi-compliant mode, however, the participants have used monolingual-L2 with alternation to L1 treating the breach of policy (i.e. use of L1) as a non-repairable deviation (e.g. ex.2, some instances of ex.3 and ex.4). In other words, the breach of given policy (i.e. use of L2 only) is subject to participants’ accountability of complying with the given Medium of Instruction policy and these instances of occasional deviances are treated as non-policable acts (Amir, 2013). Although the accountability of participants is less strict in terms of compliance, a tendency is observable in the form of mode-default reversion towards the L2-only once such non-repairable deviances perform the functional local necessities (Gafaranga, 2007), e.g. offering a translation of prior turn for elucidating the turn content, impromptu, emotive expressions, soliciting students’ attention, offering prompt responses in question-answer session, etc.The minimal-compliant mode, last but not the least, is monolingual-L1 medium with rare or nominal use of L2 treating L1 as a modedefault, normative choice. In this case, the tendency of reverting back to L2-only is least observable especially when teachers themselves allowed such medium as a normative, non-deviant choice (ex.3, lines 7–22, 23–29; and ex.4, lines 39–47). In other words, the overall sequential organisation of such modes has treated L1 use as non-repairable item with least interactional cue of reverting to L2-only. This chapter has also sought to explain the relation between interactional resources and mode of compliance. It has been observed that the breach of policy (i.e. use of L1) is subject to participants’ accountability in the form of self-initiated repairs (Sacks et al., 1974; Sacks, 1992a, 1992b; also Amir, 2013) especially available in semi-compliant modes. As the examples discussed in this chapter have analysed works of instruction (i.e. lecturing, discussion, question answer sessions, etc.), it has been observed that the teacher, in cases of such breaches, offered translations of their L1 usage (either prior to or after its use) in the form of statements or iterating the key terms in L2. In other words, there is no explicit language policing offered in verbal turns. Instead, 77

Rizwan-ul Huq

the compliance with the policy is achieved implicitly and covertly (Amir, 2013) by addressing the code-altered L1 turns as repairable, correctable resource in semi-compliant modes. In cases of minimal-compliant modes, however, such measures were least used. Having said that, the implication of these findings needs to be understood not only in terms of these specific examples (i.e. particular) of this ESL setting but also its generalisable implications to other policy-governed bilingual schooling settings. In studying these specific examples, indeed, an effort is made to understand the underlying machinery (Sacks, 1992b; see also interactional architecture in Seedhouse, 2004) that produces such sorts of practices. In this regard, Sacks has argued that the aim of CA is to reach into the analytical, vantage point to transform the: view of what happened here as some interaction that could be treated as the things we’re studying, to interactions being spewed out by a machinery, the machinery being what we’re trying to find; where in order to find it we’ve got to get a whole bunch of its products. (Sacks, 1992b, p. 169) In other words, by elucidating the arrangement of microanalysis of these teacher–student interaction in an institutional policy-governed setting, this study not only offers specific instances of interactional patterns but also offers generalisable results by extracting from these representative instances of interactional patterns and by exploring the participants’ perspective embedded into this organisation of the classroom interaction. First, it has been observed that the participants, of this educational setting, are aware of the fact that they should interact in the given policy especially during the works of instruction. This awareness or sensitivity towards the given policy is available in the form of participants’ accountability of observing compliant mode, addressing repairable items in semi-compliant modes, or tendency to revert back to mode-default L2-only once minimal-compliant mode is practiced. It shows the generalisable interactional pattern that how participants, in a policy-governed L2-only classroom, can arrange their language practices in accordance with their functional and pedagogical necessities often in observance or apparent violations of the given policy. Second, it also implies language alternation, as a bilingual behaviour, can be studied in terms of its sequential organisation in the overall order instead of studying it as single, isolated, static, discrete items. In other words, the sequential arrangements of language alternation, distributed around these participants’ classroom interaction, indeed echo the rubric that there is an order at all points (Sacks et al., 1974; Sacks, 1992a, 1992b) and this order can be explained – in and through members’ perspective – of usage of different types of codes or mediums (i.e. mono-L2, mono-L1, bilingual, etc.). Given that this chapter is based on a single case study, further studies in other bilingual settings are still needed before these arguments can be broadly generalised, especially in relation to ESL schooling in Bangladesh. At this point, let us consider what this chapter anyway offers regarding language policy in ESL education in Bangladeshi setting. It should be acknowledged that this chapter does not draw any remark on what should be the ideal language policy of ESL schools or participants’ beliefs regarding such language use. Instead, this chapter argues that the first step before advising any policy needs an empirical understanding of the field operated in everyday, mundane basis. In efforts to tell ESL schools what should be the ‘ideal’ language practice, the first move should start with the mode-default practices existing in the field. Now, whether policy managers are happy with such practices or not is a different question to be asked and answered by different types of research.This chapter, at this point, serves the purpose of showing how an ESL classroom located in Bangladesh is operated in compliance to policy expectations and the implications of these practices in terms of members’ sui generis interactional patterns. 78

Microanalysis of participants’ compliance

Transcription notation Section 1.01 Section 1.03 Section 1.05 Section 1.07

er::: yeaah nowOKAY

Section 1.09

[

Section 1.11

]

(.) (0.2) (xxx) (then) tahole eta ki then it what then what is it? °yes° ((noise)) >good