Adapting Textbooks to Reflect Student Needs in Cambodia and the ASEAN Region

The authors first discuss the emergence of English as a lingua franca in Cambodia and elsewhere in Southeast Asia, and the emergence of Kirkpatrick’s (2011) multilingual model of English teaching in the region. They then consider the importance of textbook adaptation as a way of supporting this new paradigm and the role that non-native-speaking teachers have in creating these adaptations. A detailed example of textbook adaptation, which explains (1) why to consider adapting materials and (2) how to make well-considered, manageable changes, is then provided as a model for practioners to consider. Finally, some practical concerns teachers might have about texbook adaptations are addressed. A Japanese-coordinated meeting between delegates from Cambodia and Colombia to plan training in rural land-mine removal took place in October 2010 in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. No representatives from an English-speaking country participated. In which language was the training held? Not surprisingly, the answer is English. (S. Nem, personal communication, March 20, 2011). This is just one example of how English is already used in Cambodia as a means of communication between people who do not share it as their first language. Such interaction in Cambodia and the other members of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) will continue to grow. This growth is due, at least partially, to (1) the fact that use of English as the organization’s sole working language is already mandated (Association of Southeast Asian Nations, 2007) and (2) the promotion of “English as an international business language at the work place” being one objective of ASEAN’s plans for regional integration in 2015 (ASEAN Secretariat, 2009, p. 3). Clearly, English use among non-native speakers is taking on an everincreasing role in the spread of professional information in the region. Language Education in Asia, 2012, 3(2), 218-229. http://dx.doi.org/10.5746/LEiA/12/V3/I2/A10/Chea_Klein_Middlecamp 1 Language Education in Asia, Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012 Chea, Klein, and Middlecamp Page 219 This article briefly reviews Kirkpatrick’s “multilingual model” of English teaching (2011, p. 221) as a rationale for continued professional development for teachers that aims to challenge traditional assumptions about textbook use and hone the skills necessary for teachers to modify textbook materials to help their learners use English as a lingua franca (ELF). For the purposes of this article, Kirkpatrick’s (2011) basic definition of ELF, English that is used in conversation by two or more people who do not share the same first language (L1), is used. Moving Toward a Multilingual Model of ELT in Cambodia and the ASEAN Region Despite the fact that communication between non-native speakers now constitutes the majority of interactions in ELF worldwide, teachers and learners continue to rely on native-speaker models as the ultimate standards for judging English language learning (Seidlhofer, 2005). Kirkpatrick (2010, 2011), reflecting on this paradox in Cambodia and the ASEAN region, described a regional English that has some nonstandard grammatical and pronunciation features. He then proposed a different set of benchmarks for measuring students’ progress: the skills needed by multilingual learners in the ASEAN region as they move toward a Southeast Asian English. His main argument is that Cambodian speakers of English, for instance, do not need merely to imitate native speakers, but instead must reach a level of mutual intelligibility with their regional peers. In other words, a speaker’s reason for using the language determines when a regional variation is an acceptable alternative to standard varieties of English (e.g., for day-to-day work conversation with non-L1 speakers) and when it is not (e.g., in preparing for standardized tests such as IELTS or TOEFL). Based on this concept, Kirkpatrick (2011, p. 221) suggested a “Multilingual Model of ELT,” in which multilingual English teachers become the preferred linguistic role models for ASEAN students. Two pioneering studies of English language learners in Cambodia indicate that this model could already be beginning to take hold in the country. Keuk (2008, p. 98) succinctly described Cambodia’s specific language-learning context as one where “learners who have attended English language training centers and institutions run by Cambodian institutions . . . pick up another kind of English variety, hybridized between either of the [American or British] models, and their mother tongue, Khmer.” Young Cambodians, he added, are already using this blend of language-learning input to create successful communication for personal, educational, and work-related purposes. Moore and Bounchan’s (2010) survey of the opinions of students at the Institute of Foreign Languages at the Royal University of Phnom Penh regarding the value of Cambodian ELT faculty there found that a growing minority of learners appreciated the value of Cambodian teachers of English because of “how they could help their students to learn English, whereas native English speakers seem to be valued only as role models for English pronunciation and spoken interaction” (p. 123). While this finding might not hold true in other settings, the possible emergence of a trend is an intriguing area for future research. At present, it seems clear from both Keuk as well as Moore and Bounchan’s observations that at least some Cambodian students are developing and articulating their own sense for when instruction by a native speaker is advantageous (e.g., for models of pronunciation) and when local teachers are more effective (e.g., providing “cultural understanding of issues” and explaining English grammar in the L1) (Moore & Bounchan, p. 123). Thus, it is fair to say that local, non-native-speaking English teachers, especially those who are well versed in both regional and standard varieties of English, are in a strong position to help their students. In addition, by being aware of the language goals that their students have set for themselves, these teachers can best decide whether, and for which students, grammar and pronunciation instruction must aim toward international intelligibility or a native-like result.