sports, politics, and english

Sports, Politics, & English | Jake Kimball | February 22nd, 2002

I imagine most of us have had time to watch the Olympics, or at least read about recent controversies.

I'm just wondering how you have been handling the politics of it all. At this point, several countries are, well, less than sportsman-like. Among them are the US, Canada, Russia, South Korea, and France.

How to deal with all of this without ruffling anyone's feathers?

I chose to deal with it only when classes brought it up first. I never offered my own opinion. I tried not to instigate debate. I simply used the moment to capitalize on the show and tell aspect of describing the events that have been unfolding. When it was time to analyze the events for good or bad, who's to blame, etc, I cut to the original lesson plan for the day just to avoid flag waving or sour grapes.

Did I do the right thing or was I cowardly in my role as teacher?

Any ideas for being diplomatic?

This international event just goes to show how politically charged English can be.

Jake Kimball

Re: Sports, Politics, & English | Darin Bicknell | February 22nd, 2002

Quite easily move to Singapore where most people sitting in the suppressing heat care little about the Winter Olympics ...also you might want to think about short listing countries like that it just goes to the fact that you have taken what amounts to a "GAME" into something serious. I think that it is simple you as a teacher should always remain detached from the "politics" of events and remember what the goal is and that is improving the students English.

So basically do what you said.

Darin Bicknell

Re: Sports, Politics, & English | Jerry Talandis Jr. | February 23rd, 2002

Hi Jake,

Yes, I agree with the Bicknells. Seems like you did fine. I think you have to stay somewhat detached from the controversy and allow opinions to come out. Strong opinions can give them energy to use more English. I would welcome a situation like that, where someone really wanted to say something. Your role as teacher gives you a refuge of sorts. If some students get real political and say something provocative, you can appreciate their comments and then correct their grammar! Something like that...

Or, you could offer up contrary points of view while remaining "above the fray." It all this depends so much on the personalities involved. Just use your intuition, and you're probably on track. I've had some private students chat about the pairs figure skating scandal, and also about why the Japanese team is so weak this year (this led into a discussion about the rule change in ski jumping, which was interesting because I hadn't heard about it).

Jerry Talandis
Japan

Re: easier said than done | Jake Kimball | February 23rd, 2002

Being detached is an ideal difficult to live up to.

I still feel a bit guilty about cutting short some students who wanted to voice their opinion. In the interest of keeping the peace I limited the airtime of some of the stronger personalities.

The main issue I brought up concerned a type of censorship/avoidance, not the matter of voicing my own opinions in class. That was just a secondary problem I've been thinking about.

And since it has come up, I would like to say that my role as teacher is more than a presenter of language. Language is inherently political. Even my teaching in a foreign country makes me a cultural ambassador of sorts. Even something as simple as 'I like pizza,' which is often seen in intro texts, can be a minefield of sorts (depending on where one teaches, i.e. globalization). Current events even more so. Many students are quite eager to voice their opinions and just about everyone wanted my input.

As language is mostly used for interactional purposes, my students didn't want to learn how to describe recent events. Their primary interest was in vocalizing their thoughts, feelings, and opinions. That language cannot be taught or corrected without creating a political situation.

Jake Kimball

Re: Sports, Politics, & English | Raymond Sheehan | February 23rd, 2002

This recent correspondence made me think of realistic classroom options (sorry, but moving to Singapore is not immediately feasible). Is a free-for-all debate really the most productive way to deal with issues? I think that if the class is simmering with the need to articulate opinions on some hot issue, they might be divided into groups that are for and against the issue, and made to construct the arguments for and against according to some template deriving from presentation skills. Those who feel they are outside the issue could either make a third group ("Why I think the winter Olympics are a total waste of time/irrelevant/boring) or become the judges of the debate, working out their own criteria for evaluation. In this way, the teacher can maintain his/her primary role as language helper.

Two more points:

1 Why can't the teacher maintain the same degree of (apparent) professional detachment as a TV interviewer- intervening to ask questions, clarify, fuel the flames without getting burnt?

2 Surely part of having a political or issues debate is that all sides develop a respect for each other's right to express an opinion and that nobody should get shouted down (although TV broadcasts of parliamentary debates makes one wonder about how much that ideal is observed in reality). A debate should be rule-based in terms of types of interaction ...and that will also involve nominating all speakers, not only the most opinionated, and allocating speaking time.

As teachers, of course, we also have to make sensible decisions about what topics are inappropriate in the classroom because they may indeed generate more heat than light (and there are often clear institutional or cultural guidelines for this). A discussion of Middle East politics in my classroom would be out of the question, as would any debate on America's international roles. Fortunately, both teachers and students are aware of issues that simply should not arise in classrooms - and the discussion can be conducted more safely and wisely elsewhere.

And a discussion of the winter Olympics would only generate a big yawn. Now desert Olympics might be something entirely different....

Raymond Sheehan

Re: Sports, Politics, & English | Darin Bicknell | February 23rd, 2002

Just a note on point 1...

Who really thinks that TV interviewers are more detached and professional?

Remember the difference between teaching and TV. Your goals are to enlighten and educate; the TV interviewer wants you to stay tuned or get higher ratings. I think that is part of the teacher's job keeping students tuned in that is why taking both sides of the argument is my way of dealing with any "political" debate.

I think a teacher must hold herself or himself to a much higher standard in which the "emotion" is used only as a motivator to get students working on the task at hand. If you start becoming involved in the topic you have lost site of what you are supposed to be doing as a teacher.