|
 By Michelle Shackleton
The word seems to be on everyone’s lips these days and, like a game of Chinese whispers, by the time it reaches your ears it may have lost all meaning. It's being talked about everywhere; in government, in businesses, in educational institutes and perhaps even in your home; but how does it relate to you?
You may be switching to more energy-efficient lightbulbs and recycling your household waste (both of which are important actions in the quest to become more sustainable) but sustainability is a concept as much about the bigger picture as it is about individual action. It's about equality and justice for all people as well as the protection of the environment, both at present and in the future. It's about asking yourself what you want the future to look like, and trying to bridge the gap between your aspiration and the current projections of the future. It's about taking a little more time to consider the decisions you make in your everyday life, and the far-reaching impacts they have. And it's about being aware that we are all responsible global citizens as well as active members of our local communities.
Where did “sustainability” come from?
First of all though, where did the term come from? Sustainability is the goal of “sustainable development”, a phrase popularised by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in their 1987 “Our Common Future” report: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (WCED 1987). Since then, many international conferences have championed the need to live more sustainably on a global scale, such as United Nation conferences in Stockholm in 1972, in Rio in 1992 and in Johannesburg in 2002.
This is only one definition however, and sustainability has as many definitions as Australia has ant-lions. Interpretations of sustainability and sustainable development are based on personal values and related choices, which is why agreeing to a universal definition is so difficult. Sustainable development is generally accepted as having three (often conflicting) concerns that need to be incorporated; the economy, the environment, and social equity. The WCED definition of sustainable development, for example, is often criticised for appearing to emphasis the importance of 'development' and so shifting the balance of power towards economic growth.
Every individual and group involved in sustainable development have their own agenda and opinion on what are the most important issues within sustainable development, and how best to put it into practice. Value-based questions (such as what to maintain, who to maintain it for, and how to maintain it) determine what aspects of sustainable development you think is most important.
For example, trees in the Amazon are being cleared to use the land for farming and livestock. The degradation of the environment is leading to a huge loss of biodiversity, but farmers are now able to make enough money to feed their families. What is more important: the environment or alleviating poverty? The government receives revenue from selling the wood and agricultural produce, which stimulates the national economy, but it receives international pressure to stop old growth logging and the resulting impact on climate change. Whose needs are more important: the local people or the global community? If the government replaces the revenue from logging and farming by opening up the tourism industry, foreign tourism companies may gain a monopoly in the market and most of the profits from the work of the local people will be siphoned off overseas. Is it more responsible to generate income by saving the environment if it is at the detriment of the local population? Every perspective has a different set of values. How would you answer these questions personally? How about it you were a farmer, a government official, or a successful tourism operator?
The WCED definition does however emphasise one of the key concepts of sustainability that is only starting to receive increasing attention: equity between us who are living now and those who will live in the future. Most of us in Australia are lucky enough to have access to the basic human rights of health, education, safety and freedom, but will future generations have that as well? If we all continue to live the way we currently do, what kind of life will we leave for them to enjoy? This is known as inter-generational equity, the equal right of future generations to enjoy the kind of lifestyle we take for granted.
There are many people in Australia and around the world, however, who are not as lucky as most of us. They don't have access to personal freedom, adequate food, clean water, security, basic education, freedom of expression, or cultural respect. In many developing countries, parents cannot afford enough food or health care for their children, and the children need to work rather than go to school. Millions of people around the globe do not have access to basic human rights, despite their entitlement to intra-generational equity in which the world's wealth and resources are distributed in a fair and equal way. It is for this reason that developing nations claim their right to grow their economies, even if it is at the expense of the environment. But can growth be done in an equitable and fair way? In short, we need to develop sustainably. The goal of sustainable development is to create a society that lives sustainably; that simultaneously provides for the needs of present and future generations.
What does “sustainability” mean to me?
Sustainability is a hugely complex concept, with many inter-related issues, and affects us on a global scale. So how does this relate to you?
Imagine for a moment that you were transported to the future 100 years from now, and you could meet your grandchildren and see your local neighbourhood. What would you like to see? What sort of social and natural environment would you like them to have? Coming back to the present, think about the worsening climatic conditions, the increasing pollution, the constant barrage of advertising that urges us to buy items we don’t really need, that in less than six months will end up in landfill while we buy yet more items. In reality, what kind of future do you think you are likely to see in 100 years time?
It is the ever widening gap between our ideal future and our probable future that relates sustainability to our everyday lives. All the decisions we make and actions we do can potentially bridge that gap or split it even wider. For example, we can reduce the chemical pollution flowing into our waterways by buying organic food, or switching to renewable energy sources to reduce our carbon footprint and combat climate change. By buying Fairtrade goods, more of the money you spend will actually benefit the farmers who produced it, and by volunteering in your local community you can help regenerate the environment or assist those who are less fortunate than ourselves.
But most importantly, it is the open dialogue on sustainability issues that has the furthest reaching effects. Every person you engage in a discussion about the inter-relatedness of environmental protection, social equity and economic value, leads to whole communities starting to think more consciously about the choices they make for a more sustainable lifestyle. They would question their patterns of consumption, such as whether they need to replace an old appliance or simply fix it. It is worth a few more dollars to buy a football that you know was not made by a 13 year old child for less than a dollar a day? When people start to talk to their friends and family, it inspires them to ask where their household items come from, and where do they go.
If we can engage in a debate on sustainability issues, individuals from the top levels of government and businesses, right down to communities and households, would begin to realise that sustainable development needs changes in policy, in production and in consumption. These require challenging our value systems, attitudes and social behaviour, to create changes in local everyday individual actions for a global long-term equitable future.
Where to from here?
To date, it has generally been acknowledged that there is a lack of progress on the sustainable development front. In a 2001 assessment of progress in sustainable development, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe reported: “Progress has been made in improving the eco-efficiency of societies and in decoupling environmental and economic developments, but these gains have been offset by overall trends in production, consumption and economic instability. More natural resources are being consumed; more pollution and waste are being generated; transport and tourism have grown excessively; poverty and inequity continue as major factors.” (UNECE 2001)
It is becoming widely recognised that major changes are needed at all organisational levels, from local to international. Unsustainable practices are a global problem requiring a global solution, which will only be found through the sharing and learning of values and ideas across cultures and sectors of society.
The path towards sustainability lies in working together, across international boundaries. Common understanding of language and values are essential so that citizens of all ages are able to communicate freely and learn together. No one nation can bring about global sustainability, but if people from all different cultures can share ideas on how to make the changes needed to live more sustainably, it will foster the spirit of cooperation needed for the global community to shine the light down the path to sustainability.
References
United Nations (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 42/187, 11 December 1987
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2001) Assessment of Progress in Sustainable Development since Rio 1992 for Member States of the United Nations Economic Commission For Europe CEP/AC.12/3. Geneva, 20 July 2001
|
|
Total physical response - TPR |
 |
|
Richard Frost, British Council, Turkey
This is an introduction to the teaching approach known as total physical response.
Please login or register to see the full article |
|
|
By Karen Bell，Leader, English Studies
Cultural differences in the classroom affect many areas, such as the body language and gestures which can be used, expectations of the teacher’s role, attitudes to correction, classroom management, topics which can be discussed, turn-taking during conversations, the students’ behaviour and much more.
Certain gestures that are common and acceptable in some societies may be considered offensive in others. For example, making a ‘stop’ hand gesture with the palm facing outwards and fingers splayed is considered extremely offensive in Greece, making a cutting action across the throat for ‘time-out’ or to stop people from speaking signals ‘You’re fired’ in Japanese and the ‘got your nose’ gesture is offensive to Koreans.
Another big area that cultural differences influence in the classroom is that of expectations and norms. In Asian cultures, a teacher-centered classroom is expected while in others, lessons are more student-focused and based on autonomous learning. Students in Asian cultures regard the teacher as the bearer of truth and are unlikely to challenge the teacher’s views, with discipline rarely being a problem due to a greater respect for authority. South Korean’s also have a low tolerance for uncertainty and do not readily accept change; therefore, they have a strong desire to know exactly what is expected of them by their teachers and prefer routines over surprises.
Furthermore, Asian students will often say they understand the teacher and will avoid asking any questions in order to avoid a double loss of face. For teachers, this loss of face comes from not having explained a concept clearly enough for the students to understand, while for the students it arises from not being clever enough to have understood the teacher’s explanation. In these circumstances, Japanese students, for example, are likely to say “Yes, I understand” to their teacher and then find out from someone else later what they did not understand.
European cultures, in contrast, prefer a more interactive classroom and learners are more comfortable challenging the teacher’s views, expressing their own opinions and asking questions to their teachers. Discipline can be more of a problem in European cultures, such as in Spain and Greece.
Group work is also affected by the culture of the students and groups must be formed carefully. In some cultures students may defer to the oldest person in the group or the one with the highest status in a business class, while females may defer to the men in the group. On the other hand, group work can benefit certain cultures, such as those of Japan, China and South Korea. The collective nature of these cultures means that learners are often happy to work together to reach a consensus as a group rather than express their own individual views about a topic.
Silence, or the lack of it, can also be an issue in the classroom. In South Korea, Japan and Finland silence and thinking time is quite common during conversations. However, teachers and other students might take this for the speaker’s lack of something to say and therefore an invitation to speak or they may even feel awkward about the silence and jump in, thus preventing the other person from speaking when they are ready. Conversely, in other cultures, such as the Spanish culture, interrupting others and talking at the same time as them is quite normal and acceptable.
Error correction is also affected by cultural norms. Students in Greece, for instance, expect every error to be corrected by their teacher, will regularly correct their peers and often complain when an error is ignored. At the other end of the scale, Korean students are highly sensitive about error correction and the embarrassment and loss of face it can cause. Consequently, they will not correct each other and prefer more sensitive correction such as reformulation.
Culture also dictates what is appropriate or not to talk about in our classrooms, ranging from religion to politics, relationships, money, women’s rights and even pets. In Saudi Arabia, for example, it is taboo to talk about your pet dog.
So how can we minimize these potential areas for misunderstanding? Firstly, it is important to remember that when it comes to culture, there is no right or wrong, only a different way of doing things. By being aware and aiming to understand these differences we can become more open, tolerant and accepting and be able to adapt in different situations, including in the classroom. Understanding can come from doing research on cultural differences in books or on the internet, as well as by talking to people who have lived and taught, or are living and teaching, in the cultures we are going to be working with.
Specifically, teachers can structure class work and use management techniques appropriate for their group of students. Establishing clear routines and sticking strictly to a syllabus will benefit Korean students while involving students in creating a classroom contract of appropriate rules and punishments can help with discipline in some Western European cultures.
Appropriate group selection is also important. All the men or high status people could be grouped together, for example, or students could be given different roles in the group such as note-taker or group spokesperson, and these could be changed regularly. In addition, when classes contain a mixture of cultures it is useful to include mixes in the groups and activities in which learners can share information about their culture and learn about the other cultures in their class.
With regards to error correction, we can discuss students’ preferences for error correction, using more or less, or different types of correction as necessary. For students where loss of face is a concern, we can use anonymous board correction after an activity has taken place.
To avoid the problematic question “Do you understand?” we can get students to demonstrate their understanding through other ways, such as answering concept questions or rephrasing what the teacher has said. The teacher can then judge whether students have grasped the topic or whether it is necessary to clarify certain points further, whilst minimizing loss of face for all parties.
Silence during conversations can be dealt with by teaching our learners useful language to help them buy ‘thinking time’ such as “Let me think” or “One minute, please”. To minimize interrupting, students can be given an object to hold while speaking, with a rule established that only the holder may speak at that time. When he or she is finished, he can pass on the object to the next speaker.
Lastly, it is important that we talk with our students about their learning expectations and what is acceptable or not to them. We can ask them what topics they are or are not comfortable talking about, and for those who feel shy or embarrassed giving such opinions, this could be done anonymously on paper or as a blind vote.
Understanding culture is the first step towards minimizing the difficulties arising from cultural differences in the classroom. Most importantly, we must not let the idea of ‘us’ and ‘them’ interfere with our reasons for being in the classroom in the first place – to share knowledge, develop friendships and create a better future for the world’s citizens.
References
Case, A. 2008. Important cultural differences in the classroom. (Internet) Available from: (Accessed October 2009)
Harmer, J .2007. The Practise of English Language Teaching. Pearson Education Ltd.
Hofstede, G. 2009. Cultural dimensions. (Internet) Available from: (Accessed October 2009)
|
|
Teaching English to children – an activity-based approach |
|
|
In recent years, much of EFL methodology and curricula have been developed for the purpose of teaching highly motivated adults or exam-driven teenagers. General EFL teacher-training courses, therefore, may not always be relevant to the teaching of children. It is therefore essential to give additional support and guidance to teachers who are teaching English to children for the first time. The teaching approach is necessarily different. Many of the techniques and attitudes that are essential for the teacher of children seem to conflict with general EFL methodology.
Please login or register to see the full article |
|
Lee Yujin is the vice president of sales & marketing at Greenspeak. She had been known for being promoted at age 31, as the youngest director in Korea and across Asia Pacific, at a leading global IT Corporation, Oracle. She has now come back as the vice president of Greenspeak in a her new challenge to promote quality English language and environmental education. Here is the interview with her about what is required to be a global leader and also about ‘Gradspeak’, a global leadership program run by Greenspeak.
