Mike on SFL week 4

Darryl described the subject of SFL as 'dense'. Aptly put, but in my view perhaps even an understatement!

That said, I can certainly see the great value in SFL for the non-native immigrant learners that I work with. With its focus on the purposes and uses of language (Gerot and Wignell, 1994) and the context-text connection (Butt, et al., 2000), especially the recognition that all communication is culture- and situation-bound (Burns and Knox, 2005), SFL offers my students a powerful approach to grammar teaching, indeed potentially the fostering of language acquisition. Indeed, from what I'm aware of anecdotally, the use of SFL coupled with genre analysis in ESOL educational contexts in Australia, indeed in education more broadly in that country, has become widespread because of its positive results.

Alas, I am dubious/sceptical that SFL could be an approach that I could comprehensively employ with my students, that is to build a syllabus around, for reasons similar to those explored by Adam Kilburn (1999). At best, I might experiment with SFL, but not without considerable difficulties, including as Kilburn suggests difficulties that "arise from my own weaknesses when it comes to grammar knowledge" (p.35), and certainly with my complete lack of knowledge about SFL. Gaining such knowledge to the point where I felt that I had command of SFL sufficient to feel comfortable using it in the classroom will take me considerable time and effort, which I am prepared to invest in comining months (years!?). So I've taken out several books on the subject from the AUT library -- two of which I highly recommend to any of you (Gerot and Wignell, 1994; Gerot, 1995). Both are eminently fathomable -- literally, SFL for dummies (like me).

Apart from this, there are issues (again, explored by Kilburn, 1999) that compound my scepticism about the efficacy of SFL as a mainstream approach in my classroom. Kilburn (1999) talks about the problem of the "institutional culture" (p.34) from the point of view of the institutional demands that teachers should provide students (expllicitly or implicitly) with what the students think they want as opposed to what they actually need. Additionally, there is the problem of student perceptions and expectations about good teaching based on learners' past experiences of methods employed by previous English language tutors over the years. The explicit traditional grammar syllabus through which they have all been programmed in over the years back in their home countries is, as Kilburn describes it, conservative and limited. Teachers, he says, are reluctant to break the mold despite abundant research (e.g. Ellis, 1993) documenting the limitations of ttraditional ,explicitly taught grammar syllabuses.

I suspect it will take, as Kilburn suggests, a considerable push on both the learners and the educational institutions by convinced teachers before SFL really takes hold within New Zealand's ESOL circles. As a teacher, I can experiement with it in a kind of middling (or is that muddling?) way, working with my learners to become more familiar with top down ways of viewing language and get them more confident in dealing with language which is culture-determined Kilburn, 1999). Then, as I become more capable myself with SFL and discover course books and instructional materials providers that employ an SFL approach, or develop materials myself over time, I might expect eventually to see syllabus shift occurring.

However, in so far as the prospect of SFL really catching hold in New Zealand in years to come is concerned, it's going to take a big push by educational institutions (who are, unfortunately, market driven; i.e. 'give customers what they want') to convince NZ educators and education officials, expecially funders such as the Tertiary Education Commission and arbiters of qualifications such as NZQA to buy in to the virtues of SFL. Unfortunately, unlike Australia, the New Zealand government has dragged its feet over the years on developing a comprehensive national language policy upon which to build a progressive framework that will scaffold ESOL teaching advancement in this country.

Ka kite ano,
Mike





References:

Burns, A. and Knox, J. (2005) Realisation(s): Systemic-functional linguistics and the language classroom. In N. Bartels (ed), Applied linguistics and language teacher education, pp. 235-259. New York: Kluwer Academic.

Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., and.Yallop, C. (2000). Chapter 1 in Using Functional Grammar. An Explorer's Guide (2nd ed.). Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.

Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL quarterly, 27, 1: 91-113.

Gerot, L. (1995). Making Sense of Text. Cammeray, NSW: Antipodean Educational Enterprises

Gerot, L. and Wignell, P. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Cammeray, NSW: Antipodean Educational Enterprises.

Kilburn, A. (1999). Square holes and round pegs: ELICOS and Functional Grammar. Do they fit? Interchange 35: 31-35.