The Vesak Festival

THE VESAK FESTIVAL

(The following is an updated version of an article of mine first published in The Island newspaper on 17^th May (the Vesak day) 2000)

The Vesak Full Moon Poya Day falls on the 27^th of this month. Buddhists traditionally believe that Prince Siddhartha Gautama was born, attained Enlightenment (after which he came to be known as the Buddha) and finally passed away on a Vesak Full Moon Poya Day. The Vesak festival celebrates these three important events in the life of the Buddha. The Sinhala Buddhists attribute an additional significance to this day: they believe that the Parinibbana (Passing Away) of the Buddha and the arrival of Prince Vijaya, the legendary founder of the Sinhalese race, in the island of Sri Lanka, both took place on a Vesak Full Moon Poya Day.

The manner of celebrating this religious festival among the Sinhalese Buddhists, as befits its fivefold significance, is such that it provides an occasion for a host of religious and cultural activities. This makes Vesak a deeply felt experience for Sri Lankan Buddhists.

Whereas the Sinhala Aluth Avurudda is a secular festival celebrated with much feasting, fun and frolic, the Vesak is an occasion to be observed with religious devotion and sensual restraint. Devotional practices form the core of the Vesak ceremonies. The colourful cultural events constitute a kind of background to these.

In Sri Lanka, where every full moon day is a public holiday (being of importance to the Buddhists, the majority religious community in the island, on account of some historical event connected with the Buddhist faith in each case) the Vesak Full Moon Poya day is accorded the highest recognition amongst all full moon days. Like the Aluth Avurudda (April New Year) the Vesak Poya Day is marked with two public holidays.

The first of these is the Vesak Full Moon day which is devoted to religious observances like observing ‘sil’ (taking a personal vow to follow certain precepts in order to develop self discipline), meditation, listening to the Dhamma sermons, and giving alms, etc. These activities are usually conducted at Buddhist viharas. Since in the Buddhist faith there is little religious regimentation in terms of obligatory daily observances (the practice of religion being regarded as an individual responsibility dependent on understanding and volition), the elaborate, formal devotional programmes that are organized on the Vesak Full Moon day are in sharp contrast to the rather low key daily religious practices of the ordinary Buddhists. These programmes usually attract a large number of devotees and thus ensure massive popular participation.

Public worship in Buddhism plays only a secondary role. It is important insofar as it leads the followers of the teaching of the Buddha to autonomous pursuit of virtue, which is the essence of religious devotion for a Buddhist. There is no belief in a ‘saviour’ and hence no necessity to ‘pray’ to a higher power; they only pay their homage to the Triple Gem (Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha), affirm their faith in them and commit themselves to the practice of the teaching.

An invariable part of the devotional performances is the offering of flowers, incense, and light to the Buddha. This is a symbolic act full of meaning to a Buddhist. The formulaic Pali stanza that the devotees utter as they offer flowers means: “I offer these flowers to the Buddha. By the merit earned thus, may I attain Emancipation from suffering! Just as these flowers will fade and die, so will my body decay, too”. Thus the act of offering flowers is accompanied by reflection on the condition of mutability, an inescapable characteristic of all existence, which is a central truth in the Buddhist teaching. The sweet scent of incense signifies the incomparable virtues of the Buddha, and light represents enlightenment that dispels the darkness of ignorance. In Buddhism wisdom takes precedence over faith.

“With Enlightenement Light arose! Wisdom arose!” so, what better way is there to worship the Buddha than to light lamps in His name on the Vesak night? The whole island is illuminated with Vesak lamps, which range from the humblest ‘meti pahan’ (clay lamps) to the most intricate electrically illuminated ‘Vesak lanterns’. The commonest form of Vesak lantern is the ‘bucket’, which is a bucket-shaped paper lamp with a candle stuck at its bottom.

Buckets are of different colours. These colours usually correspond to the colours of ‘Buddha rays’ – rays believed to emanate from the Buddha’s sacred person and form a halo. These are six in number: blue, yellow, red, white, crimson, and a mixture of all these colours. They form the circle of wisdom shown round the paintings and images of the Buddha in places of worship. They are also the colours of the Buddhist flag. Children take special delight in making Vesak lanterns following traditional as well as innovative new models. Myriads of these colourful lights can be seen on the Vesak nights. No Buddhist house is without some form of illumination to mark the Vesak. Even some non-Buddhists light lamps to express solidarity with their Buddhist neighbours and in appreciation of the message of peace and loving-kindness that the founder of Buddhism taught.

Among the thousands of Vesak illuminations that we can see are the ‘thoranas’ (arches, or ‘pandals’ as Sri Lankans call them in English), which are structures erected at such public places as markets and road junctions. They have facades on which are painted scenes from the Buddha’s life or pictures illustrating stories of religious significance. Often professional commentators describe in verse the scenes or stories depicted. On the Vesak nights thousands of sightseers move about the cities watching these ‘thoranas’. There used to be special ‘thorana service’ buses during the Vesak nights ferrying these sightseers around Colombo and the suburbs in the past before incidents of political violence disturbed the peace. (Let’s hope that those peaceful times are back for good!)

The Vesak ‘dansalas’ are another usual feature. These are temporary ‘alms centres’ which serve free food and drink as a charitable act to all those who wish to refresh themselves. The practice of giving is a cardinal virtue in Buddhism. It is connected with the idea of ‘renunciation’ – giving up worldly possessions in order to gradually eliminate ‘craving’, the root cause of being and suffering according to the Buddhist teaching.

Vesak greeting cards and carols are traditions borrowed from Christians. The exchange of Vesak cards is one way of sharing the joy of the season. The Vesak carol singers (due to another borrowed practice from Christians) are usually school children dressed in immaculate white; they go from place to place and sing the carols to the delight of the pious.

Thus the Vesak festival provides the opportunity for the Sri Lankan Buddhists to give creative expression to their religious and cultural ideals though a gamut of traditional activities. It is an important national event that reinvigorates their faith in their religion, and reaffirms their commitment to the principles of loving-kindness, peace and tolerance.

Aluth Avurudda - A Celebration of Life

The Aluth Avurudda – A Celebration of Life

(This article was first published in The Island of 13th April 2001; it has later appeared in a number of international online publications at various times over the last decade. I notice that the published version of the article has acquired certain errors and omissions not found in my original. Here is the same article as I wrote it before offering it for publication, unaltered except for a few emendations. But I don’t claim that my article is now perfect; the shortcomings that still remain are mine. I have added some pictures to this version, by courtesy of Google Images.)

The Sinhala Hindu New Year – the Aluth Avurudda in Sinhalese – is celebrated in the month of Bak according to the Sinhalese calendar. The name ‘Bak’ derives from the Sanskrit word ‘bhagya’ meaning ‘fortunate’. The month of ‘Bak’ corresponds to April in the Gregorian calendar, which is commonly used in Sri Lanka today as it is in other parts of the world. Although there is usually little conspicuous seasonal change experienced in the course of the year in tropical Sri Lanka except for a relatively hot August and a relatively cool December, the month of Bak is associated with a delightful vernal atmosphere, and an unusual freshness in nature enhanced by spring blossoms and azure
skies despite occasional showers. This is also the time that the ripened paddy is gathered in, which gives rise to a pervasive sense of plenty, especially to rural Sri Lanka.

The Bak festive seaon centres around a national cultural event which is unique in a number of ways. The Sinhala Hindu New Year is probably the only major traditional festival that is commonly observed by the largest number of Sinhalese and Tamils in the country. Its non-ethnic non-religious character is another distinctive feature. This festival cannot be described as ethnic because it is celebrated by both the Sinhalese and the Tamils, yet not by all of them either: only the Sinhalese Buddhists and the Hindu Tamils participate in it, the Christians in both communities having nothing to do with it. On the other hand, it is a non-religious celebration in that not all Buddhists nor all Hindus in the world take part in it; only the Sinhalese Buddhists and Tamil Hindus do. {I owe this description of the non-ethnic, non-religious nature of the Aluth Avurudda to Professor J.B.Dissanayake’s explanation of the subject in his booklet The April New Year Festival (Pioneer Lanka Publications. London.1993)}.

In terms of traditional astrological beliefs, the sun is said to complete one circular movement across the twelve segments of the zodiac in the course of the year, taking a month to traverse each constellation. The arbitrary beginning of this circular solar progress is taken to be Aries (Mesha), which is conventionally represented by the zodiacal sign of ‘the ram’. Having travelled from Aries to Pisces (Meena usually represented by the drawing of ‘two fish’), the sun must pass from Pisces to Aries to begin a new year. The solar new year (known as the Shaka calendar) is reckoned from this transit (sankranthi), which comes a week or two after the beginning of the new year according to the Sinhalese calendar. The Vesak Festival, which marks the dawn of the Buddhist new year, comes at least another month later. The Aluth Avurudda centres on the ‘transit’ of the sun from Pisces to Aries. It is remarkable for Sinhalese Buddhists to thus celebrate the beginning of the solar new year, rather than their own Buddhist new year. So the Aluth Avurudda appears to be in homage of the sun god, which is significant for an agrarian community.

Because of the increasing popular attention that it receives in Sri Lanka nowadays, the first of January seems to eclipse the New Year in April in terms of the popular recognition it enjoys. Those of us who enjoyed the Sinhala Aluth Avurudda as the main secular festival of the year may wonder with some justification whether it is now beginning to be shelved as yet another “cultural anachronism”.

This is indeed a regrettable state of affairs. Institutions such as the Aluth Avurudda and the various Esala Peraheras are vitally important cultural legacies we have inherited from the past, and they help sustain and define our identity as a people. In the face of the inexorable advance of modernism and globalization, the threat of cultural obliteration and loss of national identity is very real.






The Aluth Avurudda is a part of our rich cultural heritage, which includes among other similar treasures the historic dagabas, tanks, sculptures, paintings, and specimens of ancient literature. Who among us the inheritors of such an age old culture can be indifferent to the loss of this incomparable legacy? True, we must modernize, and participate in the emerging world order so as to keep pace with the rest of the international community in science and technology, and in the advancement of the general quality of living that it makes possible; yet, it would be most unfortunate if we were so foolhardy as to throw overboard the cherished possessions from the past in the name of progress.

These things have come down to us through the ages because they are ingrained in our history and culture. For thousands of years our ancestors – the inhabitants of this island - built up a highly organized agrarian civilization based on the principles of harmonious co-existence with nature, non-violence, tolerance and peace. The Aluth Avurudda wonderfully demonstrates our national ethos with its characteristic emphasis of the renewal and reaffirmation of goodwill within families and among neighbours, and in the series of ritualistic practices and observances that are meant to revitalize an essential link between human beings and nature.





I have vivid memories of how the Aluth Avurudda festivities were held in the remote villages of the Nuwara Eliya District in the late fifties and early sixties when we were young children. The Avurudda was an event we looked forward to for a whole year through interminable months of school, and ups and downs of childish fortunes (such as exam success or failure, friendship or fighting among playmates). At this time of the year we were invariably aware of a general awakening in nature. It was the time when the paddy was harvested and the fields were left fallow for a few weeks, allowing us children to romp about and play ‘rounders’; it was the time when exotic birds with bright plumage like the golden oriole sang from the flower-laden trees; it was the time when the humble dwellings of the peasants were cleaned and whitewashed, adding to the sunny brilliance of the surroundings. Unlike children today, we had more time to play, because tuition and cramming was almost unknown then and nature had not yet been replaced by TV and computer in engaging the aesthetic sense of the young. The impression we got from observing the multitude of ‘beauteous forms’ in the environment was that even nature joined us in our joy – a very positive sort of ‘pathetic fallacy’!

The sighting of the new moon was the first of the Avurudda rites. Then came ‘bathing for the old year’ as it was called, followed by the ‘nonagathe’ period (literally, a period without auspicious times); being considered inappropriate for any form of work, this idle period was entirely devoted to religious observances and play. Cooking and partaking of milkrice, starting work for the new year, anointing oil on the head, and leaving for work were the other practices. All these rites were performed at astrologically determined auspicious moments. Although belief in astrology and other occult practices is contrary to the spirit of Buddhism, in the villages it was the Buddhist monks themselves who prepared the medicinal oils in the temples and applied these on the heads of the celebrants, young and old, while chanting ‘pirith’ so as to ensure their good health for the whole year. In this way, the Aluth Avurudda traditions touched every important aspect of life: physical wellbeing, economy, religion, and recreation.

Children and adults walked in gay abandon about the village dressed in their new clothes visiting friends and relatives amidst the cacophony of ‘raban’ playing and the sound of firecrackers set off everywhere. The aroma of savoury dishes and smell of sweetmeats arose from every household. Visitors were plied with all sorts of sweetmeats. Amidst all this visiting, playing and merrymaking everybody was careful to be at home for the observance of the rites at appointed times.




It never occurred to us (or to our parents, I am sure) to question the necessity, or disbelieve the efficacy, of these rites. The sun was a god; the shining thing in the sky was not him, though; it was only his chariot! We really sympathized with him over the uncertainty and anxiety he was supposed to undergo during the interregnum between the demise of the old year and the dawn of the new, i.e. the period of ‘transit’ (sankranthi). The ‘Avurudu Kumaraya’ – the New Year Prince – was as real in our imagination as the Sun God. That we didn’t see him in flesh and blood was in the nature of things, too.

Today the Aluth Avurudda means much less to us than it did in the past. Our response to the theme of the festival has lost much of its emotional content. Those rites, auspicious times, and astrological beliefs are nothing more than irrelevant superstitions to many. Most of those who still follow the customs associated with the Aluth Avurudda do so as a concession to tradition, out of a sense of nostalgia. Our failure to participate in the joyous experience which the Aluth Avurudda was in our childhood is a very significant loss. The mystique charm and the sense of the
numinous (holy, divine) which informed the event have evaporated. This, in large measure, is due to our ineluctable sophistication.





Not all is lost, though. The Sinhala Hindu New Year still remains a powerful symbol of the renewal of hope for the future and a reaffirmation of our bond with nature and our commitment to the time-honoured values of our forefathers. It is truly a celebration of life.


Rohana R.Wasala

Literacy or Transliteracy?

Literacy or Transliteracy?
(This first appeared in The Island on Wednesday 3rd March 2010)
Literacy in the new media age involves much more than what its conventional definition says. Traditionally it is defined as the ability to read and write. A person is said to be literate if they can read and write in their first language at a basic level. Here reading is taken to mean decoding a piece of writing by analysing graphic symbols, and writing to mean encoding meaning in the form of a text by the opposite process. Reading and writing are not limited to this today since technology has opened up new and exciting possibilities for both. Any modern description of literacy should comprehend this technological and conceptual sophistication.

(As the reader may remember, there are ‘dynamic’ definitions of literacy today to replace the conventional ‘static’ definition suggested above. However, these are outside the scope of this essay.)

The criticism of a perceived ‘decline of the reading habit among the youth of today’ could probably be substantiated in terms of the traditional view of reading, i.e. reading a printed text off the page of a book. But we know that people, particularly young students, still do a lot of reading sitting before their computer screens. True, a few of them may be merely playing games; but the majority use the computer to do more serious work either studying or doing a job. And students who are serious readers and writers do occasionally transfer a substantial part of their work from the computer screen to the book page to continue their academic, literary, or professional pursuits at a more leisurely pace.

This occasional shuttling between electronic and paper texts reminds us that the historical shift from the page to the screen is by no means complete, and , probably, will never be for the foreseeable future. However, the innovations that have accompanied this ongoing change (from the paper text to the electronic) are the most significant in their implications for the relative richness of the experience of reading and writing that has been achieved through the application of technology. On the face of it, reading still remains nothing more than running one’s eyes through a script, and writing nothing more than making certain marks on a blank surface either by pushing a pen across a piece of paper or tapping some keys on a keyboard (which view is, of course, not correct: reading and writing are highly demanding, complex intellectual feats). Yet the recent advent of technology in the sphere of written discourse has brought about many refinements in comparison with which the various improvements achieved over millennia in this area seem mere ripples in an otherwise placid sea of slow progress.

The first decade of the new millennium that we are just passing saw these changes accelerating. As early as 2002, Colombi and Schleppegrel were tempted to write: “In today’s complex world, literacy means far more than learning to read and write in order to accomplish particular discrete tasks. Continued changes in technology and society mean that literacy tasks are themselves always changing.” as quoted in ‘Tips for Teaching with CALL’ by Carol A. Chapelle and Joan Jamieson (Pearson Longman, 2008). The obvious direction of change was noted in the following words of Sue Thomas, Professor of New Media in the Faculty of Humanities at De Montfort University, reporting on the ‘Tranliteracies’ Conference held at the University of California at Santa Barbara on June 7-8, 2005: “Unfortunately for some, however, this new literacy is not about reading fixed type, but about reading on fluid and varied platforms – blogs, email, hypertext and, soon, digital paper and all kinds of mobile media in buildings, vehicles, and supermarket aisles. Although text still dominates at the moment, it is possible that it might come to be superseded by image, audio, or even ideogram as the medium of choice. Hence ‘transliteracy’ – literacy across media.”

The shift from reading from a paper text to reading from an electronic text represents a significant change in our experience of reading. This is due to a number of reasons. The most obvious of these is the rich blending of different modes of communicating – audio, video, graphic, pictorial, etc - that an electronic text usually represents. A writer can achieve, and a reader can respond to, amazing results in the written exchange of ideas. Its multimodality invests an electronic text with a power to energize, shock, and galvanize the readers!

Another powerful concept that is being practically realized is the device known as hypertext. This is a way of patterning information in a database (a collection of data or facts stored in a computer to be accessed, used, and if necessary augmented by users) in such a way that certain key words in a text can be elaborated by individual readers by following the links given, depending on their needs and choices; these links lead the investigating readers to other texts on the Web which enable them to further define the meaning/significance/content/relevance of the original words for them. This means that readers can avail themselves of valuable information without having to read whole texts for the purpose. How useful hypertext could be in reading, especially in academia, goes without saying.

Of course, there’s the criticism that hypertext links sometimes lead the readers from text to text in a labyrinthine trail, and thus constitute a danger to them, and that students can be thereby inveigled into a wasteful academic wild goose chase. However, in reply one could say that reading in any context means reading intelligently, and critically for a specific purpose; serious readers know how to construct their meaning out of a text that is the most authentic, plausible, and credible, and relevant to them by following only the reliable leads, and by circumventing pitfalls.

Just as readers can thus engage in very constructive and fruitful interaction with an electronic text, so can writers work with the computer in numerous creative ways for producing an effective piece of writing. For example, consider how a computer allows you to check your spelling and grammar, to use different fonts, and font sizes, to enliven your text with pictures and graphics, with animation, and what not.

Not long ago, doing reference reading was a laborious process. Apart from the hassle involved in physically accessing the sources of information, one had to endlessly pore over tomes of literature about various subjects following (sometimes outdated by decades) references given by tutors. Today, a few clicks with your mouse on a computer screen bring you face to face with a wealth of information that is up to date, and authoritative. Of course, it is up to the discerning reader to sort the wheat from the chaff, sifting through the abundance of materials on offer.

The plethora of information available online is open to anyone. This tends to close the traditional gap between teachers and students, scholars and informed laypersons, and professionals and amateurs. Teachers and scholars need to be always extra rigorous in safeguarding their authority. They are obliged to cultivate a sense of modesty in the face of what looks like an inevitable depreciation of scholarship. However, true scholars need not worry, because mere learning – being well informed- is not knowledge. Teachers and scholars will never go out of business simply because modern technology makes the dissemination of information so easy.

The new digital culture is obliterating the boundaries between the academia and the general public, for no longer is academic research the exclusive preserve of ‘academics’. Interested non-specialists among the wider public can engage with academic research. This is a boon to people, who, though intellectually gifted, have been denied an opportunity to realize their potential due to unpropitious circumstances. The new kinds of reading and writing can help such people realize their academic ambitions with greater ease and probably less expense than in a print environment.

Literacy in the digital age, or preferably ‘transliteracy’, is thus a gateway to knowledge and education. For us in Sri Lanka English is the key to this kind of literacy. As in the case of many other countries, English as a second language is both a means and an end here. On the one hand, English is the medium through which to access global knowledge and technology, and also to achieve academic success in other subjects; on the other hand, a knowledge of English is being pursued for its own sake. English is a tool that is indispensable in the digital age.

Language is unique as a tool. It is unique in that the more you use it seriously, creatively, and intelligently, the sharper, and the more reliable it gets, whereas other tools get wasted and worn out with use. Literacy in the digital age has a special connection with English for us because of this reason.

As far as English language learners are concerned, interacting with digital texts provides a context for the active use of all the four basic language skills (reading, writing, listening, and speaking), something recognized as a basic principle involved in creating an effective second language learning environment. Much modern research suggests that reading and writing assignments, along with listening, thinking, and speaking activities are essential for the development of second language proficiency in learners. This is a condition that developing ‘transliteracy’ eminently fulfils.

Ref:
Words attributed to Prof. Sue Thomas (2005) retrieved from http://www.english.heacademy.ac.uk (01.03.2010)

Rohana R. Wasala

Learner Autonomy in Perspective

Learner Autonomy in Perspective

(First published in The Island on Wednesday 30th December 2009)

Although the statement that effective learning occurs only when the learner assumes responsibility for his/her own learning may seem a truism today, it is worth a serious re-appraisal as it has crucial implications for the success of the national English language teaching drive now underway. It may be argued that those who are involved in this huge undertaking could short-circuit certain potential difficulties such as personnel and other resource deficits, and restrictions on the availability of time in the implementation of the programme by promoting learner autonomy not only among the students, but also among the teachers. (To develop themselves professionally teachers must perforce be engaged in learning, too.)

The term learner autonomy was coined in 1981 by Henri Holec. He is known as the “father” of the concept. Holec defined learner autonomy as “the ability to take charge of one’s own learning”.

Learner autonomy – roughly, a situation in which a student chooses his/her own learning objectives, targets, content, assessment, strategies etc. independently – is usually treated as a Western cultural concept, and, in fact, it is sometimes criticized as unsuitable for non-Western cultures on that account. However, my own view is that the notion that learning ultimately belongs to the learner, and that learning is an activity that the student himself/herself must perform internally without teacher intervention is not actually alien to us; it is very much a part of our traditional education culture; ours is a culture that rates the gathering of knowledge highly. The traditional assumption ingrained in our culture that the student must do the real learning, while the teacher’s duty is to enable the student to do so is implicit in the Sinhalese verb uganwanawa (which is usually imperfectly translated into English as teach ). In reality, uganwanawa has a causative meaning: make (someone) learn/cause (someone) to learn . So, what could be more compatible with the idea of learner autonomy than this conception of teaching?

In the second/foreign language teaching/learning field in the West, the notion of learner independence came to the fore in association with new methodological innovations which were introduced following a shift of focus from the mastery of structure to the development of communicative ability as the central preoccupation of language teaching about forty years ago (in the 1970s and 80s). Under the Audio-lingual method that had prevailed before, structure was considered crucial, but meaning less decisive in language teaching, and it was assumed that habit formation was the way that languages were learnt. As a consequence, language practice consisted in drilling structural patterns, and in memorizing grammar-based dialogues. The linguists and language teaching practitioners who challenged both the audio-lingual theories and practices maintained that language learning involved complex cognitive processes rather than mere mechanical habit formation, and proposed various cognitive techniques as alternatives. The communicative approaches that emerged later in reaction to Audiolingualism subscribed to the ideological premise that learning a language means learning to communicate through it in meaningful contexts.

The discovery learning principles first adumbrated by Jerome Bruner (1967) favoured the recognition of the learner as the central player in a communicative language teaching/learning situation. The learner-centred concept of instruction gave the language learner, at least in theory, a fair degree of control over the learning process, something earlier enjoyed exclusively by the teacher. The teacher was now assigned different, but equally crucial roles such as guide, facilitator, counselor, etc.

What came to be known as ‘humanistic techniques’ (e.g. Community Language Learning –CLL- developed by Chales A. Curran, Professor of psychology at Loyola University, Chicago, and later written about at greater length by his pupil La Forge in the early 1980s) were concerned with the development of the whole person including not only linguistic knowledge and behvioural skills, but also the affective aspect (i.e. emotions and feelings), which, until then, had received little or no attention from researchers in the field.

Thus the principle of learner independence as a viable educational premise found itself ensconced in a conducive environment that would foster in the learner such qualities as a positive attitude, a capacity for reflection and deep understanding, and a resourceful and cooperative mindset in social interaction. David Little (2003), a long time researcher of the subject, comments on his view of learner autonomy in these words: “… there is a consensus that the practice of learner autonomy requires insight, a positive attitude, a capacity for reflection, and a readiness to be proactive in self-management and in interaction with others...... a holistic view of the learner that requires us to engage with the cognitive, metacognitive, affective and social dimensions of language learning and to worry about how they interact with one another. ....”.

The same researcher, in another document (than the one that I have just quoted from), mentions three pedagogical principles as forming the basis of the development of autonomy in the second/foreign language classroom:
• learner involvement
• learner reflection, and
• appropriate target language use
(I think I need not elaborate these as the readers, especially the initiate teachers, will find them self-explanatory.). From the above David Little extrapolates what the teachers should do to encourage learner autonomy among their pupils: to paraphrase him,
• use the target language as the preferred medium of classroom communication
• engage the learners in continuous search for good learning activities
• enable them to set their own learning targets
• require them to identify individual goals, but reach these through collaboration in small groups
• ensure that they keep written records of their learning (e.g. specific objectives, texts, tasks, lists of new words, etc.)
• get the students to regularly evaluate their progress as individual learners and as a class
(All these principles and practices, in my opinion, are particularly relevant to the context that is the focus of this article.)

Like discovery learning, learner autonomy cannot possibly be practiced to the exclusion of all other more traditional modes of instruction in a formal education setting like our school system. Schooling is a social pursuit, rather than an individual enterprise, and hence it precludes absolute learner autonomy. The individual learner needs to accommodate to the common goals and strategies of the social grouping of which s/he is a member. Students must share in a common pool of resources, accept specific educational aims and objectives determined for the whole country by a central authority, employ strategies universally prescribed, subject to periodic assessment and certification parameters, and so on, and thereby engage with a formidable national educational ‘monolith’. Such an institution makes a great demand on the administrators including the teachers for accountability in terms of regular monitoring of student progress, assessment and certification, etc.

English language students in a formal education setting like that, in order to become autonomous learners within the system, must learn to negotiate with inevitable restrictions on their ‘freedom’ (as seekers after knowledge). Each class represents a highly heterogeneous community of learners. They are from diverse social backgrounds; there are individual differences between them in terms of ability, motivation, and attainment levels. These differences are compounded by divergent personality traits. Such an environment makes the practice of learner autonomy both necessary and challenging.

Obviously, we cannot and should not leave everything to learner autonomy. But its integration into the general instruction system as a relevant and workable proposition is to be desired in view of the many advantages that can accrue from it. Like many other sound principles of education, learner autonomy can be made to work in combination with other methods, techniques and strategies.

To promote learner autonomy among the students, teachers need not give lectures about it. Instead they must devise activities, in association with the syllabuses and general guidelines officially provided, that encourage them to proceed on their own, independently consulting sources including the teacher if necessary. Both the teachers and the students must realize that learner independence does not mean the ‘Teach yourself’ mode of learning, although the autonomous learners could resort to it as a strategy occasioned by need.

An autonomous learner is responsible for his/her own learning, a situation that normally upsets the conventional relationship between the teacher and the pupil. In a traditional classroom setting, the teacher presides over the proceedings, reserving exclusive rights for making all the choices – about the objectives, the subject matter, the strategies employed. But the learner autonomy criterion allocates to the learner a controlling role in the learning situation, which allows him or her to use the teacher as a resource like any other resource.

This is because learner autonomy shifts the focus from teaching to learning; learning becomes central, and teaching ancillary to it.. Learner independence gives maximum controlling power to the learner. But it does not isolate one learner from the other learners; peer support and cooperation are essential factors in a class where learner autonomy operates.

Mutual support and cooperation are paramount in a second/foreign language learning situation. The prevalent communication-based language development approach demands that the students use the target language for communication in a meaningful context in order to acquire proficiency in it. A class of learners who are more or less at the same level of competence in the language will find free communal synergy an excellent resource for collective advancement. David Little has this to say in this connection: “...... and if language learning depends crucially on language use, learners who enjoy a high degree of social autonomy in their learning environment should find it easier than otherwise to master the full range of discourse roles on which effective spontaneous communication depends”.

In today’s highly competitive examination-oriented tuition culture, such social collaboration will take a lot of convincing to materialize. We know that some students in schools and private institutions, and even in seats of higher learning, preparing for exams show a marked reluctance to share their knowledge or sources of information with their colleagues for fear that such sharing would spoil their own chances of success. They must be taught that such egotistic concerns are not only baseless, but counterproductive.

In a language learning context collaborative interaction amounts to social autonomy. It is doubly profitable. If language use is the way to learn it, here the end and the means become identical. The more collaboration there is (i.e. in terms of communicative use of English), the more language learning will result.

Once a teacher demonstrated to his class how useful sharing of language knowledge could prove for everybody. “Let’s imagine”, he said, “that we have decided to pool all the money that we have between us, and share it again so that each of us will have the same amount of money at the end. When we share the money like this, those of us who had more money at the beginning will end up having less, and those of us who had less to begin with, will end up having more than before. So, in that kind of transaction, some of us are bound to lose, and some to gain. If we decided to share our linguistic competence in English instead, everybody will gain, and no one will lose, because those who knew more at the beginning will have enhanced their competence even further at the end, and those who had less knowledge at the beginning will end up with an improved competency level. The reason is that the sharing in the form of interaction will invariably benefit both categories of learners”.

The new English language competency raising endeavour of the government is an ambitious initiative launched in the general interest of the youth of the country. For its success the active involvement of the learners themselves is crucial. In ensuring this both the teachers and the parents have a vital role to play.

Mere classroom teaching alone will not be adequate. Teachers must convince the students and their parents that, if the students take on responsibility to learn the language without depending on the schools or tuition centres to do that for them, they can do it easily in a relatively short time. Fortunately for them, English is common currency in Sri Lanka today. There is plenty of it in circulation. Those who are interested can have it for the asking. Students must interact with the English that is around them. They can watch English movies with a conscious desire to learn some English; they can learn English while listening to sports commentaries or exchanging sms messages with their friends or browsing through the Internet or reading billboards on the roadsides, and so on.

That kind of active engagement with English can be expected of our students if they acquire the special attribute of learner autonomy, something they can exploit both in private and in a social setting.. The new technology can free them from the restrictions imposed on them by classroom conditions while in school. For example, they can watch a complete film in which they have developed an interest by watching an episode in it shown in the class by the English teacher as a part of a lesson. Both teachers and parents should help create the environment that is necessary for the autonomous students to engage in proactive language learning at all times.

References:
Little, D (2003) “Autonomy and second/foreign language learning” retrieved 27th December 2009 from http://www.Ilas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/1409
Holec, H (1981) as referred to in /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learner autonomy/


Rohana R. Wasala

A New Vista of Excellence in English Language Teaching

(This is an expanded version of my article under the title “A New Direction to English Language Teaching” published in The Island on Wednesday 14th October 2009)

The ‘English as a life skill’ initiative had its genesis in the mind of the President, who loves children. No other head of state of independent Sri Lanka before devoted so much attention to children’s welfare, or demonstrated so much concern for their wellbeing, in word and deed, as Mr. Mahinda Rajapakse does. His concern is with all the children of the country, most of whom live in the rural areas. Just as the economic strategy adopted under the Mahinda Chinthana vision has a rural bias, so does the President’s knowledge society concept focus special attention on the rural child.

Over six decades of free education and political independence have failed to eliminate the urban rural dichotomy in the economic and educational fields despite the best efforts of the successive regimes. This could broadly be attributed to our general failure as a nation to achieve a proper balance between the urban-industrial and rural-agrarian sectors in terms of economic policy paralleled by a similar failure to bring about an equalization of educational opportunity between the city and the village. President Mahinda Rajapakse is trying with a fair degree of success to build an egalitarian society where all citizens enjoy the fruits of development without discrimination.

It has been recognized that a high level of English and IT knowledge is a sine qua non of the educational as well as the economic modernization of our country. ‘English as a life skill’ initiative along with the promotion of IT will form the essential bedrock for nation building.

Mr. Sunimal Fernando, Advisor to the President, and Coordinator (English) and Convenor of the Presidential Task Force in English and IT, is behind the conceptualizing, designing, and planning of the presidential initiative. The passion with which Mr. Fernando speaks about, and commits himself to, the government’s new Spoken/Communicative English Language Teaching initiative will be apparent to any person who listens to him on the subject. As an educator long associated with the profession of teaching English both here and abroad, and as a concerned parent, I have taken upon myself to express some views about it. I have realized through personal conversation and correspondence with him that he welcomes, and even solicits, constructive criticism of the project that he has been asked by the President to spearhead, but wisely chooses to ignore mere ‘out of context’ caviling at minor details. Mine is a labour of love performed in the interests of the nation’s young.

The rationale for the ‘English as a life skill’ enterprise that Mr. Fernando supplies is of special appeal to me because it implicitly embodies (entirely independent of me) two basic notions to which I myself have been trying to draw the attention of the educational powers that be over the past decade in my small way as a freelance journalist. The first concerns the determination of the place that English should be given in our education system: the need to identify English as an essential second language, subject to the primacy of Sinhala and Tamil (i.e. it should not be made to replace either of them for the majority of our students); the other is that, whatever language planning is done, it should not disadvantage the ordinary masses, or violate the principle of equality of opportunity for all.

“Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)” and “Cultural Refugees” were the terms that Mr. Fernando once used when he broached the subject with me, to characterize the westernized, English speaking urban upper class elite of this country, to the preservation of whose status, power, and privileges the English language has been traditionally made subservient. English language use is an essential qualification for the membership of the westernized upper class. In Mr. Fernando’s opinion, the members of this anglophile elite are persons who are “culturally, psychologically, and emotionally displaced from the mainstream Sri Lankan society”, and who have put themselves at the mercy of anti-national agencies such as some belonging to the NGO sector, and other foreign interests inimical to the country.

English is etched in the Sri Lankan national psyche as a potent symbol of upper class status and influence. It is rated more for its social worth than for its utilitarian value, though the latter is the real raison d’etre of the country’s involvement with English. According to Mr. Fernando, the related servile , colonial-subject mentality is something that our state-run English language enterprise under the control of “old guard gurus” help sustain through their excessive insistence on perfect grammar, faultless pronunciation, and precise diction, and a corresponding failure to sufficiently focus on the actual communicative use of the language in teaching it.

This long established imbalance or anomaly in the mode of English language delivery in our education system has been seriously detrimental to school children from the suburban and village areas which contain the largest proportion of the country’s population. These children come from Sinhalese and Tamil speaking homes. The only chance they could secure to learn to use English is when they are at school. However, they are frustrated here because the English lessons they are offered, modeled on outdated, structure-based methodologies with little provision for interactive oral communication leave them uninvolved and uninterested. It accounts, in large measure, for the miserable failure of English teaching that we often talk about. This is no problem for the children of the upper class who, in any case, speak English at home, and are given a chance to pick up the necessary knowledge of formal grammar at school.

Even a casual survey of the status of English language teaching in our country will be sufficient to convince us of the validity of Mr. Fernando’s strictures on the subject. The few who manage to gain a knowledge of English, mainly from the privileged urban upper classes, and to a much lesser degree, from among those highly motivated poor rural students, find themselves in socially and economically privileged company, while the overwhelming majority, failing to secure such advantage either through frustrated attempts to learn the language or through sheer antipathy towards it, remain socially and economically as debilitated and disadvantaged as ever. This would sound a gross oversimplification, but no one could deny that it accords well with the easily observable existential reality that while on the one hand, English plays a most vital role in the education and employment spheres of national activity in the country, on the other hand, it is still potent enough to contribute towards perpetuating social disparity and injustice, which in effect denies English to those who most need it.

The tradition of failure is something that has not been lost sight of by all successive regimes since Independence, especially since 1956. This is evident in the various commissions appointed to look into the teaching of English in schools, and seats of higher education, and in the intermittent changes introduced concurrently with other educational reforms.

The latest proposed changes in this connection subsumed under the ‘English as a life skill’ concept are different from all those previous ones in a number of important ways. Mr. Fernando, a trained sociologist, has seen through the insidious ideological agenda that plagues our institutional English language teaching system; it’s a hidden scheme that promotes colonial subservience among the hoi polloi in order to keep them at bay so that social dominance and related advantages and privileges guaranteed by English for the upper class are not undermined. Central to the presidential initiative is the attempt to infuse the school English language teaching programme with a more moral, a more humane, a more humanitarian, a more people-friendly ideology that looks, as a priority, to the needs of the rural masses, i.e. the ordinary people of the country. Needless to say this harks back to 1956 and before when well thought out language planning decisions were made and implemented, based on the sound ideology of a set of pioneering intellectuals of that era including those of the SLFP . To put it differently, what Mr. Fernando is trying to do, at the instance of the president, is to introduce English to the rural masses both as an indispensable technology of communication, and as an egalitarian ideology for the purpose of forging a modern knowledge society that will enable us to reach a high level of prosperity and wellbeing.

The often criticized failure of the English language enterprise is largely attributable, among other things, to the general incapacity of the next generation of SLFP policy makers to properly understand and revitalize the ideological vision that drove the architects of the 1956 and subsequent language policy changes as Mr. Fernando points out in an interview published in the 2009 March issue of Business Today; these leaders ‘while mechanically following their stated policies, lost sight of the depth and nuances of the intellectual reasoning of those great thinkers. Progressively, conformity to form began replacing the comprehension of the substance of their thinking in a big way’. Mr. Fernando charges that ‘… in the period between 1994 and 2005 a strange ideological aberration started creeping into the political discourse of SLFP led governments which seemed to be suggesting at times that modernization and development required a repudiation of the language liberation of 1956’. In reality though this ‘aberration’ was due to a failure to appreciate the fact that what was dethroned or ‘destroyed’ was not English as a tool of educational and economic growth, but English as a tool of oppression. In a basic sense then, the ‘paradigm shift’ that Mr. Fernando is talking about represents a return to those ‘historical and ideological moorings’ which the SLFP seemed to deviate from in that period. The party under Mr. Mahinda Rajapakse ‘rediscovered its roots…They started analysing and creatively interpreting its distinct ideology and applying it to the realities and needs of a modernising, developing nation’. The President’s English as a life skill initiative is a corollary of his determination to build a village-based ‘national knowledge economy’ in terms of his Mahinda Chinthana manifesto.


In the same interview Mr. Fernando draws attention to a third factor that he sees as a cause of the survival of English to date as an instrument of social repression rather than an object of practical utility: those responsible for implementing the SLFP-led governments’ policies on English failed to understand ‘the relationship between ideology and technology’. The old techniques or methodologies were designed to retain English as the exclusive preserve of the elite, and in effect they ensured that it remained a tool of social oppression. An inordinate emphasis on ‘perfect pronunciation, unblemished diction and perfect grammar’, and a failure to provide for teaching spoken English (neither of which was a problem for children coming from mainly English speaking homes) forced their less privileged counterparts to shy away from English.

(Note: Criticism of an inordinate emphasis on ‘perfect’ grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary does not mean that these basic elements of language should be neglected in teaching English. Again, having added this caution I feel obliged to explain myself a little more. I do not mean to overemphasize structure at the expense of communication. Methodologies with an essential core of interactive communicative principles seem to have stood the test of time. A.P.R.Howatt (1984) identifies ‘a strong version’ and ‘a weak version’ of the communicative approach. The former he describes as ‘using English to learn it’ and the latter as ‘learning to use’ the language. Though a strictly communicative methodology –‘using English to learn it’- would favour a complete abolition of explicit grammar instruction, practical considerations have shown that leaving the structural aspect of language teaching to induction alone is not possible.

In my opinion, developments such as the re-introduction of the English medium in government schools, the haphazard establishment of so-called international schools, and increased avenues for overseas education introduced during a previous SLFP-led administration (none of which would have come within the scope of the Mahinda Chinthana vision that informs the present ‘English as a life skill’ initiative), are apparently stampeding us to enhance the quality of English language instruction within the country in order (among other things) to avert a dangerous stratification of the society in the not too distant future based on English language competence possessed by a minority, but denied to a vast majority. It is up to us to detect the possible traps laid for us by foreign vested interests which are economically exploitative and politically subversive, under the pretext of teaching us English, when we make an innocent effort to acquire English as an indispensable tool of modernization and development. The successful implementation of the ‘English as a life skill’ initiative will insure us against such dangers.

The presidential enterprise has the three essential elements that will ensure its practical viability: a sound ideology, clear objectives, and a plan of work. While its ultimate goal is a paradigm shift in English teaching, the existing institutional structures will be co-opted into its implementation. ‘The 18 month Road Map to Promote Spoken/Communicative English Skills in Sri Lanka – a background note’ prepared by Mr. Fernando sets out clearly what has been already accomplished at this initial stage, and what is in progress. The activities scheduled are on target.

The fact that six of out of the sixteen key activities outlined in the note are direct cabinet decisions is testimony to the seriousness with which the task of overhauling the English teaching paradigm is being addressed.

(What I have put within parentheses in the following paragraph are my comments-RRW)

Mr. Fernando refers to what he calls five critical factors on which the success of the initiative will eventually depend. Of these the first is: A national level attitudinal change in respect of English pronunciation, diction and grammar, and a national commitment to speak English the Sri Lankan way. (This, I think, is not something difficult to achieve; in fact, one could say, we are already there. More important, perhaps, is what we are going to teach our rural children to speak in English about. That too is probably being handled by the teachers from the villages who have been entrusted with the task of writing teacher guides.) The second is: Readiness on the part of a new cadre of predominantly rural and small town English teachers from Sinhala and Tamil speaking homes to come forward and take over the leadership of the country’s English teaching enterprise. (Once the modalities are in place, this won’t be a problem.) Factor three is: The efficiency and the speed with which we are able to train the 21,984 teachers, and 3027 private tutories in the teaching of spoken English and provide them with new teaching materials. (I think this is in progress.) Factor four(This, in my view, is the most crucial): Self confidence, determination and a belief in oneself on the part of all those who are pioneering the paradigm shift of English ideology and teaching method. (To my mind, this is the arena where the whole initiative interfaces with the stakeholders, as it were. These pioneers should include not only the teachers, principals of schools, education officers, and the rest of the educational cadre, but also the parents, and the general public whose awareness of and support for the national venture will be vital.) The fifth and final factor that Mr. Fernando mentions is: The continued support of His Excellency the President and the Presidential Secretariat for the ideological, institutional and methodological paradigm shift that is currently being made in the English teaching enterprise of our country. (About the fulfillment of this condition there can’t be any doubt, given the determination of the President to do everything possible for the betterment of the future of our young people.)

Probably we could add to this list: A most vital element that should be given the highest priority is the motivation of the target student population to speak/communicate in English. They must be thoroughly convinced of the reasons why they must learn it. The indispensability of English for access to global knowledge through IT is a major one of these. And the incentive offered by the attraction of the very practical benefits that are achievable through the integration of IT knowledge into day-to-day activities connected with various enterprises – be they educational or economic – will be an equally strong motivating factor, for such knowledge could only be secured through English.

In respect of the above, the proposed conduct of a Public examination for the Certification of English Learners at Elementary, Intermediate, and Advanced Levels with a strong emphasis on spoken/communicative English is a commendable innovation. Examination in oral English has never been a part of any public examination before as far as I know.

By way of suggesting an improvement (I am not sure, though, if there is provision for this included in the details of the programme already), I wish to draw Mr. Fernando’s attention to the institution of an impact monitoring mechanism, comprehending a variety of dimensions, and also to the formulation of indicators of performance by teachers as well as learners.

The ‘English as a life skill’ presidential enterprise is entirely different from any exercise of its kind that went before. It is unique and unprecedented in its conception, scale, scope, and in its potential for further evolution; it is realistically ambitious. It is a homegrown solution to a national problem. The initial assistance we are getting from India mainly in the form of technical expertise is an incidental matter; provision exists for tapping other sources of help. What is of essence is the commitment to a programme of instruction that is uncompromisingly Sri Lankan, guided by independent ideological, socio-cultural principles relating to our predominantly rural society.

The new initiative is an organic rather than a linear process. All earlier reforms were linear in the sense that they were sudden piecemeal changes introduced and implemented in distinct stages designed to lead to a specific outcome as the end product. On the contrary, the ‘English as a life skill’ undertaking is an organic process in which the English teaching/learning activity proceeds as an interactive engagement with the language and the society, thereby causing gradual and natural development of language proficiency among the learners. It is a national drive that involves not only the young learners and teachers, but also parents, education authorities, community leaders, and the media agencies – all of these having a specific role to play-, and equally important, the supportive ambient social environment, which is but the general matrix of this organic growth of English language knowledge.

When the English teaching programme is thus completely remodeled on the proposed lines, in due course (which undoubtedly will mean a number of years), it will mark a quantum leap in the quality of English language instruction that our young people will be able to enjoy.


Rohana R. Wasala

English through ICT: Chances and Challenges

English through ICT: Chances and Challenges
by Rohana R. Wasala

Information technology (IT) refers to the theory and practice relating to the use of computers to store and analyse information. IT asserts its powerful and vital presence in all the significant spheres of human activity today. Since communication has become an essential part of this technology it is now usually called information and communication technology (ICT). Its advent in the field of education is not unique because it is hard to imagine any field of action that doesn’t use the computer in one way or another. ICT as applied to education may be informally defined as the body of assumptions or theories, and practical principles about using the computer to store, and analyse data for the purpose of teaching/learning; or more simply, it can be taken to mean the ways in which teachers and learners utilize the computer programmes (software) already available in their teaching and learning activities.

ICT education is advancing apace in Sri Lanka with the government making a concerted effort in this connection. President Mahinda Rajapakse launched the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) programme of the Ministry of Education on December 10th at Temple Trees by giving out laptop computers to over 400 primary school children selected from all provinces of the country. This programme is partly funded by the World Bank. ICT has already been introduced as a technical subject for the GCE O/L. It has been estimated that computer literacy in the country is growing at a rate of 15% annually at present.

For the majority of the world’s nations English is the lingua franca of ICT, and it is especially so for us Sri Lankans. ICT comes to us packaged in English. On account of this we see a strong correlation between ICT and English language teaching and learning. This has been recognized by the government, which declared this year (2009) as the Year of English and IT last February. A knowledge of English is a boon to students of ICT. In this respect, we are in most propitious circumstances. For one thing, our two hundred year association with English, in the past as the language of colonial administration, but now mainly as a utilitarian tool, has left a pervasive legacy of persistent English influence in the vital sectors of national life such as education, business, administration, the judiciary, etc.. Then there is the re-emerging popular awareness of its enhanced role in the country’s overall development. These are among the main factors that provide a stimulating environment for learning English. Just as a knowledge of English will facilitate the acquisition of ICT skills a knowledge of ICT can prove an invaluable source of help to students of English, because ICT can be easily applied to the teaching and learning of the language.

ICT and English are kindred subjects in another sense: English is as much a technology of communication as ICT. A technology represents a set of skills. While ICT has its unique manoeuvres and mechanisms, English as a language has its skills and subskills. This similarity between the two subjects would imply a similar approach to their learning: to learn these subjects, one must practice using them, rather than learn about them, for the simple reason that you master skills only by practising them, not by merely reading or speaking about them.

Many teachers view the prospect of using ICT in their teaching with some trepidation. Such fear is understandable in view of a number of factors. Unlike young children adults are anxious about running the risk of looking foolish; and again unlike the former they are usually slow on the uptake when it comes to learning how to handle new concepts and technologies such as computer. Then, some teachers may feel hampered by a lack of English. Without English free access to ICT would not be as easy as it naturally is to someone who knows the language. At the same time, the idea of ICT may leave some teachers cold because they just don’t feel inspired enough to change accustomed ways of doing things. It may even be that some teachers tell themselves: "Why bother to force on these rural kids something that is too sophisticated, and too modern for them! Doesn’t the country need farmers and soldiers as well as doctors and engineers?" (But the truth is that, in the increasingly knowledge-based society of today, to succeed in their jobs farmers and soldiers need ICT as much as doctors and engineers do.)

I need not dwell on this theme too long, because the harmfulness of such negative attitudes both for the individual and the society should be clear to anyone who’s interested in education. Various regimes after Independence brought about epochal changes in the national interest, some of these in the field of education. Yet, the country as a whole has never enjoyed the full benefits of such changes because their authors’ genuine attempts somehow failed to inspire the those at the grassroots level to fulfil their part in earnest. Plans which are formulated at the top may be perfect, but their efficacy depends on how well they are implemented in the field.

ICT use in teaching, after all, is not such a forbidding proposition, and its introduction into the mainstream of instruction in an institution is not too impractical an innovation either. This is because, for one thing, today’s computers are so fine-tuned as to be extremely efficient and user-friendly; for another, at the initial stages of any programme of incorporating ICT into the school curriculum only some limited use of the new technology will be necessary; and it will not incur much expenditure in terms of resources to retrofit a section of any school for this purpose. Further, given the fact that already over 80% of the country’s households have electricity, English teaching and other educational programmes via TV and Internet can be utilized even by students of those remote rural districts, who have up until now received perfunctory attention from the authorities. Equality of opportunity should not be a mere slogan any longer.

Experienced teachers know that the most effective way to learn a language is for the learners to secure the three contributory conditions of massive exposure to that language, extensive participation in communicating through it in meaningful contexts, and development of language awareness. (Language awareness means the ability to think rationally and analytically about the particular language as it is used by those competent in it, and to discover independently facts about how it works. Teachers can set exercises to enable students to enhance their language awareness.)

The incorporation of ICT into English teaching is a good way to provide for these three crucial factors. Numerous activities such as browsing through the Internet, online chatting, playing games, corresponding via email, word processing, creating own web sites, etc. will open up opportunities for active participation in interactive communication as well as exposure, plus a stimulus for sorting things out through unaided exploration. The application of technology will also promote language skill integration (i.e. combining the four basic language skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing when teaching a language to reflect the way it is actually used in the world outside the classroom).

ICT use will be a motivation and morale booster among the students, giving them a sense of belonging with the rest of the outside society where the computer is an indispensable tool, and information technology a common medium like telephony. Young people embrace new trends with enthusiasm. What a boon it should be for them if learning came in the form of indulging in fun and fashion!

Learning with ICT is essentially learner-centred. It also encourages collaboration and cooperation among students. They can enjoy a chance to communicate and interact not only with their immediate colleagues, but also with their counterparts in other regions of the country, and even in other countries of the world. Further, students can research topics of their choice consulting the best authorities on the relevant subjects. This will be an opportunity for students to integrate English learning with the study of other subjects, a process which will be doubly beneficial for them. As Professor Peter D. John (Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol) (2004) says, ICT supports four key components of learning, viz., active engagement, participation in groups, frequent interaction and feedback, and connection to real-world experts.

Peter D. John further points out that the use of computers enhances knowledge building and thinking skills, as well as collaboration and communication levels, and that by using technology well in the classroom teachers can help their students to become more effective citizens. He also refers to Gregoire et al (1996) who provide the following theoretical perspectives apropos the use of technologies in teaching:

1. New technologies can stimulate the development of intellectual skills,

2. New technologies contribute to the ways of gaining knowledge, skills, and attitudes, and

3. New technologies spur spontaneous interest more than traditional approaches.

4. Students using new technologies concentrate more than students in traditional settings.

(Ref. Professor P.D. John: www.interactiveeducation.ac.uk)

Teachers also derive important benefits from ICT use. One of these is that ICT enables them to produce and store for later easy retrieval such routinely required sheets and templates as mark-sheets, progress assessments, forms for certificates, and so on. In Sri Lanka many schools, especially those in urban areas, have large numbers of students in each class, and naturally impose a heavy demand on the teachers’ time when handling the ‘paper work’ involving filling in numerous forms, totalizing marks, calculating averages, percentages, standard deviations, and other statistical data, writing comments, certifying, signing, and attending to endless administrative routines. So the use of technology can save much of the English teachers’ time, and proportionately increase the time available for interaction with their pupils, and with other teachers. ICT helps them to easily update and enhance their knowledge. The need to keep abreast of new developments in order to avoid being found wanting in the classroom if challenged by pupils who enjoy access to the same sources of information is a fine stimulant for teachers.

English language teaching with ICT has these advantages and more. Apart from the need to save young children from falling prey to cyberspace crime such as pornography in different forms, opportunities to cheat offered at a price as a service, various forms of misinformation, subversive literature, and the rest, it confronts us with as many challenges as opportunities. These relate to, among other things, ICT’s implications for cultural norms of our society governing the relationship between teachers and pupils, for the survival of traditional pedagogical assumptions and attitudes, for social conventions associated with computer communication, and the resulting need to instruct the students on how to use relevant avenues of communication.

With the birth of computer communication the concept of literacy has begun to mean something significantly more complex than what its traditional definition as the ability to encode and decode meaning using graphic symbols (i.e., writing and reading respectively) would imply. Today literacy includes not only the ability to read and write multimodal texts, but also the ability to understand the technical aspect of the operation, reception, and production of such texts.

At the beginning we may expect ICT to play a limited role in the English language teaching system, but this should appropriately expand in time. Some snags are inevitable, though. Changes in education, like those in any other sphere, will naturally come up against some resistance from established institutional structures, rigid bureaucratic requirements , and entrenched attitudes, predispositions, and preoccupations on the part of the professional hierarchy, though none of them will deny the importance of accepting the new technology.

As the concept of the centrality of learner initiative in instructional systems finds more accommodation, the role of the computer in education will be increasingly appreciated. This does not mean that there will or should be a corresponding diminution of the importance of the teacher. A machine, however efficient, cannot replace the human being in an essentially human activity like teaching a language. The teacher will always remain nonexpendable.

The principle of learner-centred instruction should be interpreted to recognize the major role that the teacher has in it. Neither complete dependence on the teacher as in traditional educational setups nor absolute independence is thought to benefit the learner. A middle course in which the teacher is careful not to obstruct learner initiative seems the best. In such a scenario the new technology will prove an extremely collaborative partner for both the learner and the teacher.

English for International Communication

English for International Communication
(First published in Sat Mag The Island , 20th June 2009)

by
Rohana R. Wasala

The question of the relation between Standard English (‘English English’ as some people who scoff at the idea of recognizing a local variety of English for Sri Lanka call it in lighter vein) and Sri Lankan English could be looked at from two different perspectives, which have to do with the two major functions that English performs in the world: English serves as the lingua franca of international communication on the one hand, and on the other, as a foundation for constructing cultural identities as David Graddol in his 1998 book ‘The Future of English?’ points out. While the first of these puts a premium on mutual comprehensibility and common standards, the latter feeds a tendency to promote local varieties, and linguistic hybridity.

It is a truism that no language possesses any monolithic uniformity in terms of its sound system, vocabulary, spelling, and grammar across the geographical and conceptual ranges of its prevalence; instead there is extreme variety. Prof. Randolph Quirk (co-author of ‘A University Grammar of English’ , 1973) presents one way of analyzing this variety. He states that a language develops different forms according to the geographical regions where it is used, and also according to such factors as the education and the social background of its speakers, the subject matter, the medium (speech or writing), attitude (to do with style), and interference (i.e. ‘transfer’ of mother tongue elements to a second language by a learner, to use a term preferred in more recent times to refer to the influence of a learner’s mastery of his/her mother tongue on second language learning).

The larger the number of users of a language, the wider the geographical area they are spread over, and the greater the barriers to communication that emerge among groups of such users due to physical distance or other forms of alienation, the more prone is that language to develop different ‘dialects’. It goes without saying that English, being arguably the most widely used world language today, is particularly vulnerable to such differentiation. In fact , the concept of ‘New Englishes’ or polycentrism (a number of standard forms instead of one) is already more than half a century old. .

This is how Professor David Crystal defines ‘New Englishes’ in The Penguin Dictionary of Language’ (Second edition, 1998): The name often given to the national varieties of English which have emerged around the globe, especially since the 1960s in those countries which opted to make English an official language upon independence. Regionally distinctive use of vocabulary, pronunciation, and (to a much lesser extent) grammar is found in all such countries, but often only on a very limited scale. The term is really applicable only when there has been considerable linguistic development away from the traditional standards of British and American English, with some degree of local standardization (e.g. in the press), as has happened in India, Ghana, and Singapore, and perhaps a dozen other countries where English is used as a second language..... .

Given the modern ease of communication, and the enhanced mobility of populations made possible through unprecedented technological advances, the process of ‘decentralizing’ Standard English may be expected to lose its momentum.

Standard English is the variety that is used in newspapers, books, and other forms of print; it is the English that is taught as a second language to those whose mother tongue is other than English; it is the language of education. Standard English is usually described more in terms of the written (i.e. grammar, vocabulary, spelling) than the spoken language.

Up until half a century ago the two major national varieties of English (British and American) used to dominate the English speaking world, with Sri Lanka like the rest of the British Commonwealth subscribing to the former. The rapid development of English as a global medium since then has led to a growing tendency among linguists to recognize other widely used national varieties (e.g. Australian, Canadian, Caribbean, Indian, South African, South Asian, etc). as acceptable standard forms as well.

‘The Oxford Companion to the English Language’ (ed. Tom McArthur, 1992) says that Sri Lankan English ‘… is not itself a monolithic system; it consists of a range of subvarieties based on proficiency in it and the users’ language background. It is in fact a subvariety of South Asian English similar to Indian English with which it shares many features...’.

As Professor David Crystal points out in The Penguin Dictionary Of Language referred to above, there is a ‘tension between the demand for mutual intelligibility among these nations and the demand for linguistic distinctiveness as a marker of national identity’
So one could say that the notion of Sri Lankan English is, among other things, about linguistic distinctiveness as a marker of Sri Lankan national identity. The meaning of this rather glib statement depends on how the extremely volatile key terms ‘Sri Lankan English’ and ‘Sri Lankan national identity’ are defined. I find both dauntingly elusive concepts. However, for the purpose of this essay I will briefly state my tentative layman’s understanding of these two terms.

To take Sri Lankan national identity first, no one can deny that there is something in our national status and character that distinguishes us from other nations; it transcends the ethnic, cultural, and social differences that are found in our society; despite these differences, a feeling of oneness holds us together. In my opinion, there are some key factors that contribute to this sense of identity among us Sri Lankans of diverse ethnicities, languages, religious and social backgrounds. One is that we are citizens of one country; another is that we identify ourselves as members of a multiethnic, multicultural, and multilingual society implicitly committed to peaceful coexistence; and a third is that as a nation we share a common history of foreign domination; a fourth would be that broadly we subscribe to mutually compatible world views that permit us to look at the rest of the world with a certain sense of humility, tolerance, and compassion (obviously, the influence of four of the world’s most renowned religions whose adherents form almost the whole of the population of the country). However, being human, we cannot help feeling vulnerable to certain subterranean tensions among us, which are natural and inevitable. Fortunately, though, these are never so pronounced as to cause significant communal disharmony. Absolute freedom from vestigial tribal instincts is not humanly possible for most, but an ability to suppress them for the common good is expected of all, and this basic criterion of communal amity is rarely violated in our country (something that is contrary to what the frequently asserted jaundiced views of certain commentators who are essentially ignorant of the moral maturity of the common people would have us believe). .

Our giant neighbour India is a myriad times more divided than Sri Lanka in terms of ethnicity, language, religion, caste, etc. Yet, they do recognize a certain Indian national identity. Just as Indians are Indians, Sri Lankans are Sri Lankans, whether they are Sinhalese, Tamils, Malays, Buddhists, Christians, or Muslims.

This is the Sri Lankanness that ‘Sri Lankan English’ is expected to express. (Whether many of those Sri Lankans who write in English are actually familiar enough with the grassroots cultural ethos of their own native land to authentically represent it in their writing is a different matter. Some of the extremely prejudiced among the ‘English educated’ might even consider those without their kind of education to be cultureless!) It may be safely asserted that like Sri Lankan national identity, Sri Lankan English is a diversity. One cogent reason for this is that our native language background itself is not homogeneous. The two main national languages Sinhala and Tamil are significantly different from each other in their sound systems, grammar, and vocabulary. This fact is bound to influence the way Sri Lankans from different native language backgrounds speak English and adopt its idiom for their purposes.

In spite of its being a favourite topic of frequent and popular discussion, English is still a minority language in our country, even at an elementary level of proficiency. But this will not detract from its importance, because it is also the case that this English using minority includes the most significant players in the vital spheres of national activity such as politics, civil administration, justice, education, trade, science and technology, and diplomacy.

The importance of English in these contexts need hardly be reiterated. In the modern world there is an inevitable global dimension to everything. We need to connect to the rest of the world. As far as we Sri Lankans are concerned, the most convenient and effective link for effecting this connection is the English language. How indispensable English is for communication within the country is a debatable subject, though its complementary role within the domestic context cannot be questioned. As for the international and educational dimensions of English, these are beyond all dispute.

The true relevance of English to us is as a window on the world. In the all important global information culture of today, it would be suicidal, especially for a small country like ours, to be without the umbilical cord of a world language like English, at least as long as English retains its predominant position on the world stage, which, however, is being threatened today. It is in fact a fortunate circumstance that the international link happens to be English in our case, for among all world languages it currently commands the widest reach among nations, comprehends the furthest limits of the ever expanding horizons of the sum total of human knowledge, and enjoys the greatest prestige.

The question of mutual comprehensibility between Sri Lankan English and the English out there is of paramount importance. For me, as I think it is for many others who try to identify a model of ‘correct’ English, the English out there which seems to cut across all regional variations is represented by the kind of English that we hear on the international radio and television channels such as the BBC, the Voice America, and the CNN, or the English that we read in international print media and literature including the Internet, originating from sources all over the world. However, I cannot be so categorical about this. In the past , print media and printed literature in general encouraged the development of standard forms of languages. With broadcasting and computer-generated communication becoming more important than print in the recent decades, the establishment of centralized standards is less likely. Yet, there are at the present time no indications of a completely babelized fragmentation of English into different tongues. In fact, there appears to be a movement towards a kind of uniformity in the form of a ‘core’ English used across the world in print as well as in broadcasting.



This global variety of English is basically a result of the convergence of American and British English, a process that was acknowledged by scholars at least forty-five years ago. It was claimed in the course of a radio series jointly produced by the BBC and the Voice of America in 1964 on the British and American variants of the language, in which Britain was represented by Professor Randolph Quirk of University College London, and the US by Professor Albert H. Marckwardt Of Princeton University, that the two varieties of English had never been so different as people had imagined, and that the dominant tendency, for several decades by then, had clearly been that of convergence and even greater similarity. Today it looks as if the two forms of English provide a composite standard of correctness by reference to which other regional varieties of English can counter the centrifugal forces that threaten a break up of the language into mutually unintelligible independent tongues.

Among all standard Englishes this one is the least marked by particular regionalisms; or we might say that it consists of a relatively stable core English overlaid with a balanced mix of regional characteristics; it by no means represents an unvarying single accent, it is probably in its grammar and vocabulary that it remains generally consistent throughout the world; the absolute dominance of RP or BBC English is a thing of the past. News readers on all dominant radio and TV channels are from a variety of English speaking nations including native British and Americans with their distinctive native accents. International English language publications of whatever provenance offer no significant challenge where intelligibility is concerned. The differences between the global variety and any other regional variety of English are far fewer than those between any two of the other national standards. Therefore this ‘supranational’ model enjoys the highest degree of mutual intelligibility with all the other standard dialects.

In diachronic terms (i.e. from the point of view of the historical development of a language) the global variety is the most authentic and direct descendant or close relative of the original or the so-called ‘pure’ English, and is the surest pointer to the rare treasure-house of past knowledge and culture recorded in its literature. It will also remain the mighty centripetal force which will confer on all standard regional forms of English a common identity as English.

A natural conclusion from this would be that, to maintain its identity as English, Sri Lankan English (or any other form of English for that matter) cannot deviate too much from what is (implicitly at least) accepted as global English. When people talk about ‘pure’ English today they seem actually to mean this rather formal supranational variety of English. British and American English do not any longer exist as separate entities in a global sense, though one may refer to the English that is spoken in the British Isles as British, and the English spoken by Americans as American, dialects; but that is an insular matter; the distinctive features that still characterize the two major national forms of English in pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary especially in domestic use are never so great as to even minimally affect their mutual comprehensibility and supportiveness. It is a mix of these with features from other local forms of English that we encounter globally.

The importance of any given standard form of English out of the many standard Englishes recognized today depends primarily on the demographic size of its users (that is, the number of users of that variety of English), the magnitude of its contribution to general communication, and the intensity of its usefulness as a linguistic medium of the world’s collective scientific, technological, cultural, business, and information fields . In this respect, perhaps ‘Sri Lankan English’ cannot boast of too much.

In my opinion, if Sri Lankans have something to offer to the world through their brand of English, it must be identical with the global variety of English delineated above as nearly as possible. It must do so in order to fulfill its function as the second language that connects Sri Lankans to the outside world. Any insistence on too insular a variety of English will defeat this purpose.


The section of the community of users of English that do make a contribution to the two-way traffic of knowledge and culture between Sri Lanka and the outside world, and in other vital spheres such as diplomacy, trade, and science and technology, naturally do so through the medium of an educated variety of English (in other words, a standard form of the language that is internationally accepted). I can’t imagine that this variety could be one too heavily marked by what would be regarded as distinctively Sri Lankan features such as grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary peculiarities that are intelligible only to other Sri Lankans. What I have observed in actual practice is that for effective communication to be achieved the communicators are obliged to use an English as regionally unmarked as possible; and this is none other than the ‘supranational’ model of English referred to above.


The recent UN emergency session on Sri Lanka at Geneva provided an international context of utmost importance for the country where the communicative powers of the representatives of Sri Lanka, especially Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, and Ambassador Dayan Jayatilleka, played a vital role in achieving a resounding diplomatic victory. They most probably ‘sounded’ like Sri Lankan only in their accent, and in little else language-wise when they expressed themselves in English. Dr Jayatilleka’s ‘30-minute harangue against Western “colonizers”’, (as unwatch.org referred to it, according to its news item reproduced on page 4 of The Island of 26th May 2009) delivered just before the crucial vote, no doubt, ensured the eventual pro-Sri Lanka outcome. Ms. Berset, the Swiss representative, though belonging to the hostile Western bloc on this occasion, thanked the Sri Lankan ambassador for his “eloquence” (though it could have been a backhanded compliment in view of the substance of the “harangue”). This is evidence that our man in Geneva was able to communicate his ideas and feelings clearly. Had he used a heavily marked Sri Lankan English his ‘reach’ would have been circumscribed. Who won’t appreciate his terse and telling response in ‘pure’ English to Navanetha Pillay when she ‘welcomed’ the UN special session (which, fortunately for Sri Lanka, failed to lead to the fulfillment of her expectations) without referring to its final outcome? Or consider the transcript of the BBC HARDtalk interview with Mr Mahinda Samarasinghe, Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights, broadcast on March 3 and 4, 2009 published on pages 20 to 23 of the May 2009 issue of the Sri Lankan business magazine ‘BUSINESS TODAY’. But for the subject dealt with, and perhaps his accent, and a few idiomatically ‘Sri Lankan’ turns of phrase, the English of Minister Samarasinghe’s eloquent responses to the interviewer’s queries would have hardly revealed his Sri Lankan nationality.

The status of Sri Lankan English as a medium of literary creation among local writers is a different matter altogether, where other parameters apply, and where perhaps a certain level of ‘linguistic hybridity’ is to be expected.


Sources consulted in addition to those mentioned in the body of the text of this essay:

Baugh, Albert C. A History of the English Language. London: Routledge, 1993
& Cable, Thomas.

Barber, Charles. The English Language – A Historical Introduction. Cambridge University Press, 1999

Lyons, John. Language and Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, 2003


Rohana R. Wasala