A different difference in teacher education: posthuman and decolonizing perspectives

ABSTRACT

In this paper we propose that posthuman and decolonizing perspectives on difference might provide a foundation for English as an additional language (EAL) teacher education programs. We briefly examine current outcomes of schooling for EAL students and current teacher education in Canada, showing the necessity and urgency of developing practices for equity. We then discuss posthuman perspectives on difference and their intersections with decolonizing scholarship. Finally, we speculate that EAL teacher education that employs posthuman and decolonizing views might aid us in reconceptualising language education, de-centre Whiteness, ‘native speakerism’ and the white gaze around which concepts of difference and diversity have been assembled.

KEYWORDS:

• Posthumanism
• new materialism
• difference
• teacher education
• EAL education

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Posthumanism is often seen as an umbrella terms for new materialism, quantum ontologies, more-than-human ontologies and/or inclusive materialism (de Freitas & Sinclair, 2014).

2 Age caps for secondary school enrolment are, in many Canadian provinces, set at 19, and thereafter, students wanting further instruction in English must attend fee-paying adult education programs.

3 Holliday (2006) argued, “Native-speakerism is a pervasive ideology within English language teaching, characterized by the belief that ‘native-speaker’ teachers represent a ‘western culture’ from which springs the ideals both of the English language and of English language teaching metjhodology” (p. 385).

4 A notable exception is Canadian teacher educator Brian Morgan’s (2009) project aimed at producing teachers who see themselves as change agents, based on the “assumption that educators need to research issues of ideology, power and inequality and that second/additional language teaching …can and should serve as a vehicle for institutional change and the promotion of social justice” (p. 88).

5 See Fleming (2010) for a critique of this focus.