MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING: WHAT EVERY TEACHER NEEDS TO UNLEARN

BARRY MCLAUGHLIN
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ

OVERVIEW

By discussing commonly held myths and misconceptions, this paper attempts to clarify a number of important issues in the area of second language learning. These include the ease and rapidity with which children learn a second language, the optimal age at which to begin second language instruction, the importance of the extent of exposure to the second language, the relationship between oral communication skills and academic language skills, and cultural and individual differences in language learning styles.

Each myth presented in this paper is followed by a discussion of related research on second language learning and its implications for classroom teachers. It is important for the teachers of language minority students to understand that second language learning by school-aged children is a longer, harder, more complex process than most of them have been led to believe.

As more and more children enter schools from families in which English is not the language of the home, teachers face the daunting challenge of instructing children who have limited skills in the English language. It is becoming increasingly obvious that this experience is not limited to teachers in certain schools or certain parts of the country. All teachers need to know something about how children learn a second language. Intuitive assumptions are often mistaken, and children can be harmed if teachers have unrealistic expectations and an inaccurate understanding of the process of second language learning and its relationship to acquiring other academic skills and knowledge.

As any adult who has tried to learn another language can verify, second language acquisition can be a frustrating and difficult experience. This is no less the case for children, although there is a widespread belief that children are facile second language learners. This is one of a number of myths that this paper intends to debunk.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify a number of important issues in the area of second language learning by discussing commonly held myths or misconceptions. Throughout, I will try to show the implications of research on second language learning in children for classroom teachers. A thorough discussion of these issues is not possible here; the interested reader will find a more detailed exposition of each of these points and a more extensive bibliography in Second Language Acquisition in Childhood (McLaughlin, 1 984-1 985).

MYTH 1:
CHILDREN LEARN SECOND LANGUAGES QUICKLY AND EASILY

One frequently hears this proposition in various forms. It is asserted that children can learn languages faster than adults; that immigrant children translate for their parents who have not learned the language; and that child learners speak without a foreign accent, whereas this is impossible for adult learners.

Typically, when pressed, people asserting the superiority of child learners resort to some variant of the "critical period hypothesis." The argument is that children are superior to adults in learning second languages because their brains are more flexible (Lenneberg, 1967; Penfield & Roberts, 1959). They can learn languages easily because their cortex is more plastic than that of older learners. (The corollary hypothesis is the "frozen brain hypothesis," applied to adult learners.)

The critical period hypothesis has been questioned by many researchers in recent years and is presently quite controversial (Geneses, 1981; Harley, 1989; Newport, 1990). The evidence for the biological basis of the critical period has been challenged and the argument made that differences in the rate of second language acquisition may reflect psychological and social factors, rather then biological ones that favor child learners. For example, children may be more motivated than adults to learn the second language. There is probably more incentive for the child on the playground and in school to communicate in the second language than there is for the adult on the job (where they often can get by with routine phrases and expressions) or with friends (who may speak the individual's first language anyway). It frequently happens that children are placed in more situations where they are forced to speak the second language than are adults.

However, experimental research in which children have been compared to adults in second language learning has consistently demonstrated that adolescents and adults perform better than young children under controlled conditions. Even when the method of teaching appears to favor learning in children, they perform less well than do adolescents and adults (e.g., Asher & Price, 1967). One exception is in the area of pronunciation, although even here some studies show better results for older learners. Similarly, research comparing children and adults learning second languages as immigrants does not support the notion that younger children are more efficient at second language learning (e.g., Snow & Hoefnagel-Hoehle, 1978).

Nonetheless, people continue to believe that children learn languages faster than adults. Is this superiority illusory? One difficulty in answering this question is that of applying the same criteria of language proficiency to both the child and the adult. The requirements to communicate as a child are quite different from the requirements to communicate as an adult. The child's constructions are shorter and simpler, and vocabulary is relatively small when compared with what is necessary for adults to speak at the same level of competence in a second language as they do in their first language. The child does not have to learn as much as an adult to achieve competence in communicating. Hence there is the illusion that the child learns more quickly than the adult, whereas when controlled research is conducted, in both formal and informal learning situations, results typically indicate that adult (and adolescent) learners perform better than young children.

What does this mean for the teacher?
One of the implications of this line of research is that teachers should not expect miraculous results from children who are learning English as a second language (ESL) in the classroom context. At the very least, they should expect that learning a second language is as difficult for a child in their class as it is for the teachers as adults. In fact, it may be more difficult, as young children do not have access to the memory techniques and other strategies that more experienced learners can use in acquiring vocabulary and in learning the grammatical rules of the language.

Nor should it be assumed that children have fewer inhibitions or are less embarrassed than adults when they make mistakes in a second language. If anything, children are likely to be more shy and more embarrassed before their peers than are more mature adults. Certainly, children from some cultural backgrounds are extremely anxious when singled out and called upon to perform in a language they are in the process of learning. Teachers need to be sensitive to these feelings and not assume that, because children supposedly learn the second language quickly, such discomfort will quickly pass.

MYTH 2:
THE YOUNGER THE CHILD, THE MORE SKILLED IN ACQUIRING A SECOND LANGUAGE

A related myth concerns the best time to start language instruction. Certainly the optimal way to learn a second language is to begin at birth and learn two languages simultaneously. However, when should a young child who has acquired a first language begin a second? Some researchers take a younger-is-better position and argue that the earlier children begin to learn a second language, the better (e.g., Krashen, Long, & Scarcella, 1979). However, at least with regard to school settings, the research literature does not support this conclusion.

For example, a study of 17,000 British children learning French in a school context indicated that, after five years of exposure, children who had begun French instruction at age eleven performed better on tests of second language proficiency than children who had begun at eight years of age (Stern, Burstall, & Harley, 1975). The investigators in this study, the largest single study of children learning a second language in a formal classroom setting, concluded that older children are better second language learners than are younger ones. Similar results have been found in other studies by European investigators: studies of Swedish children learning English (Gorosch & Axelsson, 1964), of Swiss children learning French (Buehler, 1972), and of Danish children learning English (Florander & Jansen, 1968).

It may be that these findings reflect the mode of language instruction used in European countries, where heavy emphasis has traditionally been placed on formal grammatical analysis. Older children are more skilled in dealing with such an instructional approach and hence might be expected to do better. However, this argument does not explain findings from French immersion programs in Canada, where little emphasis is placed on the formal aspects of grammar, and therefore, older children should have no advantage over younger ones. Yet English-speaking children in late immersion programs (in which the second language is introduced in grades seven or eight) have been found to perform just as well or better on tests of French language proficiency as children who began their immersion experience in kindergarten or grade one (Genesee, 1981, 1987). The research does not always show an advantage to children who begin at an older age, but differences in performance are by no means as great as relative amount of classroom exposure would lead one to expect.

Pronunciation is one aspect of language learning where the younger is-better hypothesis may have validity. A number of studies have found that the younger one begins to learn a second language, the more native-like the accent one develops in that language (Asher& Garcia, 1969; Oyama, 1976). This may be because pronunciation involves motor patterns that have been fossilized in the first language and are difficult to alter after a certain age because of the nature of the neurophysiological mechanisms involved. It may also be that we do not understand very well how to teach phonology in a second language. Perhaps if we could develop more advanced (e.g., computer-assisted) methods of instruction, older learners might do better at acquiring a native-like accent in the second language.

Aside from the question of pronunciation, however, the younger-is-better hypothesis does not have strong empirical support in school contexts. The research suggests that younger children do not necessarily have an advantage over older children and, because of their cognitive and experiential limitations when compared to older children, are actually at a disadvantage in how quickly they learn a second language--other things being equal.

What does this mean for the teacher?
The research cited above does not mean that early exposure to a second language is in some way detrimental to a child. An early start for foreign language learners, for example, allows for a long sequence of instruction leading to potential communicative proficiency. It also allows children to view second language learning and the insights they acquire into another culture as normal and integral parts of schooling. However, instruction of children with limited English proficiency in the United States involves different considerations from foreign language instruction in the United States or Europe or from French immersion in Canada. Language minority children in American schools need to master English as quickly as possible while at the same time learning subject-matter content. This suggests that in the American context early exposure to English is called for. However, because second language acquisition takes time, children will continue to need the support of their first language, where this is possible, so as not to fall behind in content-area learning.

But teachers should not expect miracles of their young English language learners. The research suggests that older students will show quicker gains, though younger children may have an advantage in pronunciation. Certainly, beginning language instruction in kindergarten or first grade gives children more exposure to the language than beginning in fifth or sixth grade. But exposure in itself does not predict language acquisition. This is the next myth.

MYTH 3:
THE MORE TIME STUDENTS SPEND IN A SECOND LANGUAGE CONTEXT, THE QUICKER THEY LEARN THE LANGUAGE

For many educators, the most straightforward way for children from non-English-speaking backgrounds to learn English is for them to be in an environment where they are constantly exposed to English. This is the rationale behind what is called "structured immersion," an instructional strategy in which children from language minority backgrounds receive all of their instruction in English and have the additional support of ESL classes and content-based instruction that is tailored to their language abilities.

Such a program has the advantage of providing more time on task for learning English than in a bilingual classroom. On the face of it, one might expect that the more English children hear and use, the quicker their English language skills develop. However, research evidence indicates that this is not necessarily the case. Over the length of the program, children in bilingual classes, where there is exposure to the home language and to English, have been found to acquire English language skills equivalent to those acquired by children who have been in English-only programs (Cummins, 1981; Ramirez, Yuen, & Ramey, 1991). This would not be expected if time on task were the most important factor in language learning.

Furthermore, many researchers caution against withdrawing the support of the home language too soon. There is a great deal of evidence that, whereas oral communication skills in a second language may be acquired within two or three years, it may take up to four to six years to acquire the level of proficiency for understanding the language in its instructional uses (Collier, 1989; Cummins, 1981). This is a point I shall return to in the next myth.

What does this mean for the teacher?
Teachers should be aware that giving language minority children the support of their home language, where this is possible, is not doing them a disservice. The use of the home language in bilingual classrooms enables the child to avoid falling behind in school work, and it also provides a mutually reinforcing bond between the home and the school. In fact, the home language acts as a bridge for children, enabling them to participate more effectively in school activities while they are learning English.

The research indicates that, over the long nun, children in bilingual programs will acquire as much English as children who have more exposure from an earlier age. Furthermore, if the child is able to acquire literacy skills in the first language, as an adult he or she may be functionally bilingual, with a unique advantage in technical or professional careers.

On the other hand, language majority children in foreign language immersion programs have been shown to benefit from extended intensive exposure to the foreign language. The Canadian research clearly shows that immersing children in a foreign language is not detrimental to learning content material in that language, as long as the home language continues to develop and Is supported (Genesee, 1987).

MYTH 4:
CHILDREN HAVE ACQUIRED A SECOND LANGUAGE ONCE THEY CAN SPEAK IT

Often, teachers assume that once children can converse comfortably in English, they are in full control of the language. Yet for school-aged children, there is much more involved in learning a second language than learning how to speak it. A child who is proficient in face-to-face communication has not necessarily achieved proficiency in the more abstract and disembedded academic language needed to engage in many classroom activities, especially in the later grades. For example, the child needs to learn what nouns and verbs are and what synonyms and antonyms are. Such activities require the child to separate language from the context of actual experience and to learn to deal with abstract meanings.

A great deal of research has been done on the differences between embedded and disembedded language, and the consensus is that the distinction is a real one, although we are dealing with a continuum of linguistic skills rather than with a dichotomy (Snow, 1987; Wong Fillmore, 1982). The Canadian educator, Jim Cummins (1980a), cited research evidence from a study of 1,210 immigrant children in Canada indicating that it takes these children much longer (approximately five to seven years) to master the disembedded cognitive language skills required for the regular English curriculum than to master oral communicative skills. Cummins and others speak of the "linguistic facade,"whereby children appear to be fluent in a language because of their oral skills but have not mastered the more disembedded and decontextualized aspects of the language.

What does this mean for the teacher?
Teachers and other staff need to be cautious in exiting children from programs where they have the support of their home language. Exiting children who are not ready for the all-English classroom may be harmful to the children's academic success. In fact, Cummins (1980b) has argued that it is inappropriate for programs to exit children into an all-English classroom on the basis of language assessment instruments that tap only oral communication skills.

Aside from this question, all teachers in all programs need to be aware that a child who is learning in a second language may be having language problems in reading and writing that are not apparent if the child's oral abilities are used as the gauge of English proficiency. It is conceivable that many of the problems that children from minority language backgrounds have in reading and writing at the middle school and high school levels stem from limitations in vocabulary and syntactic knowledge in the second language. Even children who are skilled orally can have these gaps. As we have seen, learning a second language is not an easy enterprise and is not finished in a year or two.

MYTH 5:
ALL CHILDREN LEARN A SECOND LANGUAGE IN THE SAME WAY

Most likely, if asked, teachers would not admit that they think all children learn a second language in the same way or at the same rate. Yet this seems to be the assumption underlying a great deal of practice. There are two issues here: The first relates to differences among linguistically and culturally diverse groups and the second to differences among learners within these groups.

Research by cultural indicates that mainstream American families and the families of many children from minority cultural backgrounds have different ways of talking (Heath, 1983; Ochs, 1982). Mainstream children are accustomed to an analytic style, in which the truth of specific arguments is deduced from general propositions. Many children from culturally diverse groups are accustomed to an inductive style of talking, in which fundamental assumptions must be inferred from a series of concrete statements.

Schools in America emphasize the language functions and styles of talk that predominate in mainstream families. Language is used to communicate meaning, to convey information, to control social behavior, and to solve problems. In the upper grades, especially, the style of talk is analytic and deductive. Children are rewarded for clear and logical thinking. It is no wonder that children who come to school accustomed to using language in a manner that is very different from what is expected in school experience tension and frustration.

Furthermore, there are social class differences. In urban centers of literate, technologically advanced societies, middle-class parents teach their children through language. Instructions are given verbally from a very early age. This contrasts to the experience of immigrant children from less technologically advanced non-urbanized societies. Traditionally, teaching in such cultures is carried out primarily through nonverbal means (Rogoff, 1990). Technical skills, such as cooking, driving a car, or building a house, are learned through observation, supervised participation, and self-initiated repetition. There is none of the information testing through questions that characterizes the teaching-learning process in urban and suburban middle-class homes.

In addition, some children in some cultures are more accustomed to learning from peers than from adults. From their earliest years, they were cared for and taught by older siblings or cousins. They learned to be quiet in the presence of adults and had little experience in interacting with them. When they enter school, they are more likely to pay attention to what their peers are doing than to what the teacher is saying. At this point, the other children are more important to them than adults.

Besides these differences among cultural groups, there are also differences within groups in how children react to school and learn. Some children are outgoing and sociable and learn the second language quickly because they want to be like their English-speaking peers. They do not worry about mistakes, but use limited resources to generate input from native speakers. Other children are shy and quiet. They learn by listening and by attending to what is happening and being said around them. They say little, for fear of making a mistake. Nonetheless, research shows that both types of learners can be successful second language learners. In classrooms where group work is stressed, the socially active child is more likely to be successful; in the traditional, teacher-oriented classroom, children who are "active listeners" have been found to be more successful than highly sociable children (Wong Fillmore, Ammon, Ammon, & McLaughlin, 1984).

What does this mean for the teacher?
Teachers need to be aware of cultural and individual differences in learner styles. Many culturally and linguistically diverse children enter school with cognitive and social norms that differ from those that govern the mainstream classroom. These differences, in turn, affect the teacher's expectations of the child's ability and the teacher's response to the child. Within the school environment, behaviors such as paying attention and persisting at tasks are valued. Because of their cultural background, however, some children may be less able to make the functional adaptation to the interpersonal setting of the school culture. Unless the teacher is aware of such cultural differences, the child's lack of attentiveness and lack of persistence can influence the teacher's expectations and the way the teacher interacts with these children.

Effective instruction for children from culturally diverse backgrounds requires a variety of instructional activities--small group work, cooperative learning, peer tutoring, individualized instruction, and other strategies that take the children's diversity of experience into account. Many of the important educational innovations in current practice such as untracking and mixed-age grouping--are the direct result of teachers adapting their teaching to the challenge posed by children from culturally diverse backgrounds.

Finally, teachers need to be aware of how the child's experiences in the home and in the home culture affect values, patterns of language use, and interpersonal style. Children are likely to be more responsive to a teacher who is sensitive to their culture and its behavioral patterns. This means going beyond such cognitive activities as history lessons, slide shows of life in Mexico, Cambodia, or the like. Such cognitive activities, while important, do not reach children effectively. Effective education of children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds affirms the values of the home culture and develops in children a positive emotional attitude toward their background.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Research on second language learning has shown that there are many misconceptions about how children learn languages. Teachers need to be aware of these research findings and to unlearn old ways of thinking. For the most part, this means realizing that quick and easy solutions are not appropriate for complex problems. Second language learning by school-aged children takes longer, is harder, and involves a great deal more than most teachers have been led to believe. We need consciously to rethink what our expectations should be.

Too often one hears of the "problem" of cultural and linguistic diversity in our country's schools, rather than the "opportunity"that diversity provides. Children from diverse backgrounds enrich our schools and our other students. Student diversity challenges the educational system, but the educational innovations and instructional strategies that are effective with diverse students can benefit all students.

In fact, although the research of the National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning, as well as the research of many other investigators throughout the country on instructional conversations, active learning, mixed ability groupings, collaborative learning, holistic instruction, and authentic assessment has been directed at children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, much of it applies equally well to mainstream students. The challenge of educating diverse students effectively promotes needed educational reform at all levels and for all students

30 KIAT MENDIDIK ANAK

Apabila telah tampak tanda-tanda tamyiz pada seorang anak, maka
selayaknya dia mendapatkan perhatian sesrius dan pengawasan yang
cukup.Sesungguhnya hatinya bagaikan bening mutiara yang siap
menerima segalasesuatu yang mewarnainya. Jika dibiasakan dengan hal-
hal yang baik,maka ia akan berkembang dengan kebaikan, sehingga
orang tua dan pendidiknya ikut serta memperoleh pahala. Sebaliknya,
jika ia dibiasakan dengan hal-hal buruk, maka ia akan tumbuh dengan
keburukan itu. Maka orang tua dan pedidiknya juga ikut memikul dosa
karenanya.

Oleh karena itu, tidak selayaknya orang tua dan pendidik melalaikan
tanggung jawab yang besar ini dengan melalaikan pendidikan yang baik
dan penanaman adab yang baik terhadapnya sebagai bagian dari haknya.
Di antara adab-adab dan kiat dalam mendidik anak adalah sebagai
berikut:

1. Hendaknya anak dididik agar makan dengan tangan kanan, membaca
basmalah, memulai dengan yang paling dekat dengannya dan tidak
mendahului makan sebelum yang lainnya (yang lebih tua, red). Kemudian
cegahlah ia dari memandangi makanan dan orang yang sedang makan.

2. Perintahkan ia agar tidak tergesa-gesa dalam makan. Hendaknya
mengunyahnya dengan baik dan jangan memasukkan makanan ke dalam mulut
sebelum habis yang di mulut. Suruh ia agar berhati-hati dan jangan
sampai mengotori pakaian.

3. Hendaknya dilatih untuk tidak bermewah-mewah dalam makan (harus
pakai lauk ikan, daging dan lain-lain) supaya tidak menimbulkan
kesan bahwa makan harus dengannya. Juga diajari agar tidak terlalu
banyak makan dan memberi pujian kepada anak yang demikian. Hal ini
untuk mencegah dari kebiasaan buruk, yaitu hanya memen-tingkan perut
saja.

4. Ditanamkan kepadanya agar mendahulukan orang lain dalam hal
makanan dan dilatih dengan makanan sederhana, sehingga tidak terlalu
cinta dengan yang enak-enak yang pada akhirnya akan sulit bagi dia
melepaskannya.

5. Sangat disukai jika ia memakai pakaian berwarna putih, bukan
warna-warni dan bukan dari sutera. Dan ditegaskan bahwa sutera itu
hanya untuk kaumwanita.

6. Jika ada anak laki-laki lain memakai sutera, maka hendaknya
mengingkarinya. Demikian juga jika dia isbal (menjulurkan pakaiannya
hingga melebihi mata kaki). Jangan sampai mereka terbiasa dengan hal-
hal ini.

7. Selayaknya anak dijaga dari bergaul dengan anak-anak yang biasa
bermegah-megahan dan bersikap angkuh. Jika hal ini dibiarkan maka
bisa jadi ketika dewasa ia akan berakhlak demikian. Pergaulan yang
jelek akan berpengaruh bagi anak. Bisa jadi setelah dewasa ia
memiliki akhlak buruk, seperti: Suka berdusta, mengadu domba, keras
kepala, merasa hebat dan lain-lain, sebagai akibat pergaulan yang
salah di masa kecilnya. Yang demikian ini, dapat dicegah dengan
memberikan pendidikan adab yang baik sedini mungkin kepada mereka.

8. Harus ditanamkan rasa cinta untuk membaca al Qur'an dan buku-
buku, terutama di perpustakaan. Membaca al Qur'an dengan tafsirnya,
hadits-hadits Nabi n dan juga pelajaran fikih dan lain-lain. Dia juga
harus dibiasakan menghafal nasihat-nasihat yang baik, sejarah
orang-orang shalih dan kaum zuhud, mengasah jiwanya agar senantiasa
mencintai dan menela-dani mereka.

Dia juga harus diberitahu tentang buku dan faham Asy'ariyah,
Mu'tazilah, Rafidhah dan juga kelompok-kelompok bid'ah lainnya agar
tidak terjerumus ke dalamnya. Demikian pula aliran-aliran sesat yang
banyak ber-kembang di daerah sekitar, sesuai dengan tingkat
kemampuan anak.

9. Dia harus dijauhkan dari syair-syair cinta gombal dan hanya
sekedar menuruti hawa nafsu, karena hal ini dapat merusak hati dan
jiwa.

10. Biasakan ia untuk menulis indah (khath) dan mengahafal syair-
syair tentang kezuhudan dan akhlak mulia. Itu semua menunjukkan
kesempurnaan sifat dan merupakan hiasan yang indah.

11. Jika anak melakukan perbuatan terpuji dan akhlak mulia jangan
segan-segan memujinya atau memberi penghargaan yang dapat membahagia-
kannya. Jika suatu kali melakukan kesalahan, hendaknya jangan
disebar-kan di hadapan orang lain sambil dinasihati bahwa apa yang
dilakukannya tidak baik.

12. Jika ia mengulangi perbuatan buruk itu, maka hendaknya dimarahi
di tempat yang terpisah dan tunjukkan tingkat kesalahannya. Katakan
kepadanya jika terus melakukan itu, maka orang-orang akan membenci
dan meremehkannya. Namun jangan terlalu sering atau mudah memarahi,
sebab yang demikian akan menjadikannya kebal dan tidak terpengaruh
lagi dengan kemarahan.

13. Seorang ayah hendaknya menjaga kewibawaan dalam ber-komunikasi
dengan anak. Jangan menjelek-jelekkan atau bicara kasar, kecuali pada
saat tertentu. Sedangkan seorang ibu hendaknya menciptakan perasaan
hormat dan segan terhadap ayah dan memperingatkan anak-anak bahwa
jika berbuat buruk maka akan mendapat ancaman dan kemarahan dari
ayah.

14. Hendaknya dicegah dari tidur di siang hari karena menyebabkan
rasa malas (kecuali benar-benar perlu). Sebaliknya, di malam hari
jika sudah ingin tidur, maka biarkan ia tidur (jangan paksakan
dengan aktivitas tertentu, red) sebab dapat menimbulkan kebosanan
dan melemahnya kondisi badan.

15. Jangan sediakan untuknya tempat tidur yang mewah dan empuk karena
mengakibatkan badan menjadi terlena dan hanyut dalam kenikmatan. Ini
dapat mengakibatkan sendi-sendi menjadi kaku karena terlalu lama
tidur dan kurang gerak.

16. Jangan dibiasakan melakukan sesuatu dengan sembunyi-sembunyi,
sebab ketika ia melakukannya, tidak lain karena adanya keyakinan
bahwa itu tidak baik.

17. Biasakan agar anak melakukan olah raga atau gerak badan di waktu
pagi agar tidak timbul rasa malas. Jika memiliki ketrampilan memanah
(atau menembak, red), menunggang kuda, berenang, maka tidak mengapa
menyi-bukkan diri dengan kegiatan itu.

18. Jangan biarkan anak terbiasa melotot, tergesa-gesa dan bertolak
(berkacak) pinggang seperti perbuatan orang yang membangggakan diri.

19. Melarangnya dari membangga-kan apa yang dimiliki orang tuanya,
pakaian atau makanannya di hadapan teman sepermainan. Biasakan ia
ber-sikap tawadhu', lemah lembut dan menghormati temannya.

20. Tumbuhkan pada anak (terutama laki-laki) agar tidak terlalu
mencintai emas dan perak serta tamak terhadap keduanya. Tanamkan rasa
takut akan bahaya mencintai emas dan perak secara berlebihan,
melebihi rasa takut terhadap ular atau kalajengking.

21. Tumbuhkan pada anak (terutama laki-laki) cinta kepada Mesjid.
Tanamkanlah kpd anak laki-laki bahwa sholat berjamaah di Mesjid
adalah kewajiban bagi laki-lagi.

22. Cegahlah ia dari mengambil sesuatu milik temannya, baik dari
keluarga terpandang (kaya), sebab itu merupakan cela, kehinaan dan
menurunkan wibawa, maupun dari yang fakir, sebab itu adalah sikap
tamak atau rakus. Sebaliknya, ajarkan ia untuk memberi karena itu
adalah perbuatan mulia dan terhormat.

23. Jauhkan dia dari kebiasaan meludah di tengah majlis atau tempat
umum, membuang ingus ketika ada orang lain, membelakangi sesama
muslim dan banyak menguap.

24. Ajari ia duduk di lantai dengan bertekuk lutut atau dengan
menegakkan kaki kanan dan menghamparkan yang kiri atau duduk dengan
memeluk kedua punggung kaki dengan posisi kedua lutut tegak. Demikian
cara-cara duduk yang dicontohkan oleh Rasulullah Shallallaahu alaihi
wa sallam.

25. Mencegahnya dari banyak berbicara, kecuali yang bermanfaat atau
dzikir kepada Allah.

26. Cegahlah anak dari banyak bersumpah, baik sumpahnya benar atau
dusta agar hal tersebut tidak menjadi kebiasaan.

27. Dia juga harus dicegah dari perkataan keji dan sia-sia seperti
melaknat atau mencaci maki. Juga dicegah dari bergaul dengan orang-
orang yang suka melakukan hal itu.

28. Anjurkanlah ia untuk memiliki jiwa pemberani dan sabar dalam
kondisi sulit. Pujilah ia jika bersikap demikian, sebab pujian akan
mendorongnya untuk membiasakan hal tersebut.

29. Sebaiknya anak diberi mainan atau hiburan yang positif untuk
melepaskan kepenatan atau refreshing, setelah selesai belajar,
membaca di perpustakaan atau melakukan kegiatan lain.

30. Jika anak telah mencapai usia tujuh tahun maka harus
diperintahkan untuk shalat dan jangan sampai dibiarkan meninggalkan
bersuci (wudhu) sebelumnya. Cegahlah ia dari berdusta dan
berkhianat. Dan jika telah baligh, maka bebankan kepadanya perintah-
perintah.

31. Biasakan anak-anak untuk bersikap taat kepada orang tua, guru,
pengajar (ustadz) dan secara umum kepada yang usianya lebih tua.
Ajarkan agar memandang mereka dengan penuh hormat. Dan sebisa
mungkin dicegah dari bermain-main di sisi mereka (mengganggu mereka).

32. Demikian adab-adab yang berkaitan dengan pendidikan anak di masa
tamyiz hingga masa-masa menjelang baligh. Uraian di atas adalah
ditujukan bagi pendidikan anak laki-laki. Walau demikian, banyak di
antara beberapa hal di atas, yang juga dapat diterapkan bagi
pendidikan anak perempuan.
Wallahu a'lam.

Dari mathwiyat Darul Qasim "tsalasun wasilah li ta'dib al abna''" asy
Syaikh Muhammad bin shalih al Utsaimin rahimahullah . Diterjemahkan
oleh, Ubaidillah Masyhadi

Towards a Poststructuralist Southeast Asian Studies?

Journal article by Rommel A. Curaming; SOJOURN: Journal of Social
Issues in Southeast Asia, Vol. 21, 2006

Towards a Poststructuralist Southeast Asian Studies?

by Rommel A. Curaming

Observers had it that the heyday of conventional area studies, in
general, and Southeast Asian studies, in particular, has long faded in
the horizon (Anderson 1984, 1992; McVey 1998). The initial outburst of
optimism and excitement has been replaced by a sense of uncertainty
and foreboding characteristic of a field under threat. Despite renewed
interest as of late in Asian Studies brought about by the growing
"Asianization" of some American universities, (1) and because of the
post-September 11 atmosphere, (2) perpetual insecurity rather than
sustainable growth seems to be what holds for the future. While such
pessimistic estimation captures more adequately the state of Southeast
Asian Studies in North America, something not diametrically different
may also be said of that in Australia (3) and in Europe. (4)
Apparently, it is only in Singapore and in Japan where area studies,
especially the Southeast Asian branch, are on the rise. (5)

The reasons for the above-cited condition are many. These include the
shift in the thrusts of funding agencies, (6) a move that was related
to area studies' close association with the Cold War era and
modernization project, both of which have seen their days. Of equal,
if not more, importance is the nature of conventional area studies
itself that makes it seemingly incongruous with the changing
configuration of a globalizing world. (7) By nature of conventional
area studies, I take it to mean the often narrow concerns for a
specific area, usually a nation-state, coupled with the
empiricist/positivi st approach adopted that left unarticulated the
assumptions and theoretical underpinnings. (8) This echoes the
two-decade old observation by Anderson that "the bulk of North
American scholarship on Southeast Asian politics is ... decidedly
untheoretical. ... uncomparative and thus, from a disciplinary point of
view, unsophisticated" (Anderson 1984, p. 42). Seen from the
Australian perspective, Sundhaussen blatantly calls a similar
phenomenon as a manifestation of parochialism. (Sundhaussen 1986). He
was referring specifically to the study of Indonesian politics and
history, but his critique may well cover other countries, and perhaps
other fields of study that deal with the region. According to Ruth
McVey, one almost fatal consequence of this is, specifically referring
to the case of the United States, that once area studies ceased to be
the "darling of the grant-makers" , it has been easy for those in the
discipline to "ghettoize" and marginalize it (McVey 1998, p. 44).
While some observers claim that Australia's engagement with Asia is
different owing among other things to its proximity to the region and
that this would ensure resilience of Asian Studies in Australia, the
downsizing if not closing down of Asian Studies in most universities
tends to fuel a sense of "crisis" that haunts the field. (9) Against
such a backdrop we can easily understand the various calls from
different directions (10) either for the rejection or re-invention of
the concept of "area studies" that traditionally underpins Southeast
Asian Studies (or Asian Studies in general). As Kenneth Prewitt
emphasizes, the area studies we have known for so long is "not the
optimum structure for providing new insights and theories suitable for
the world in which the geographic units of analysis are neither static
nor straightforward" (cited in Reynolds 1998, p. 13).

The Proposal

One fairly recent and thought-provoking proposal to re-invent area
studies has been bravely put forward by Peter Jackson in two articles
published in the journal SOJOURN (April 2003). The tides of the two
articles are revealing: "Space, Theory, and Hegemony: The Dual Crises
of Asian Area Studies and Cultural Studies" and "Mapping
Poststructuralism' s Borders: The Case for Poststructuralist Area
Studies". The primary purposes of these interesting articles are to
foreground the problems immanent in area studies and cultural studies
and to make a case for reconfiguration and integration of the two. He
argues for a "poststructuralist area studies" whereby certain elements
of conventional area studies would be reconfigured and creatively
combined with poststructuralist cultural studies. In my own
estimation, these articles are important for three reasons. First,
they demonstrate a concrete and serious effort towards a synthesis of
elements of conventional Southeast Asian Studies and poststructuralism
that underpins Cultural Studies. Second, they offer what seems to me
an ironic, though in some ways compelling, critique of
poststructuralism as applied in globalization and cultural studies.
Finally and most importantly for the purpose of this article, they
exemplify a number of seemingly intractable difficulties which, as I
will elaborate later, seem to be attendant in any effort to combine
elements of two projects that are contradictory in some fundamental ways.

Initially, Jackson attempts to rescue the two vital elements of his
project: area studies from the much-maligned pangs of essentialism and
parochialism and poststructuralism/ cultural studies from their unholy
alliance with globalization theories. The first task is easily
accomplished as he merely inserts his position within the echoes of
similar sentiments as those expressed by Reynolds (1995, 1998),
Morris-Suzuki (2000), McVey (1998), and Hong (1996), among others. The
second proves to be quite a challenge and while I think he acquits
himself rather well in some aspects, he founders in others. He has
rightly shown, for one, that poststucturalism' s key concept of
difference and the related ideas of border-crossing, rupturing of
binaries, indeterminacy of meaning and mutual contamination of
identities have been misappropriated by practitioners of cultural and
globalization studies to argue for a supposed realization of a
borderless world where capital, ideas, cultural influence, and even
human beings freely flow (Jackson 2003a). For another, he argues that
despite the undeniable onslaught of globalizing forces, the world is
not really converging towards a homogenized entity where difference is
erased. Thus he calls for a theorizing that eschews any presumption of
universal applicability. It is on the strength of this assertion that
he pushed for a reconfigured poststructuralism- -one that is supposed
to be stripped of universal pretensions and sensitive not just to the
difference within a cultural or discursive system but also to the
spatially or geographically nurtured difference between distinct
systems (Jackson 2003b). He chides Foucault and Derrida's
poststructuralism for being blind to geography, a move that, as I will
show later, betrays sign of yet another urge to misappropriate
poststructuralism. He believes that such blindness makes its
application (without modification) rather dubious to areas outside of
the West where it originated. He further claims that it makes
poststructuralism an unwitting partner of what he considers as the
conservative politics that underpin the push for globalization and the
more to affirm the Western world's intellectual hegemony. On top of
that, he argues, and I agree, that if scholars would hope to make any
headway in combating the intellectual hegemony of the West, an
effective battle plan should include emphasis on a spatially grounded
type of intellectual project This seems to be the foundation of his
crusade to "save" area studies.

His idea of "saving" area studies is, he hints, not a straightforward
matter of merely deducting something from the classical area studies
and graft what is left with poststructuralist cultural studies. It
instead involves a substantial overhaul of the concept of the "area"
so as to make it multi-dimensional and in the process free it from the
tyranny of the old preoccupation with the nation-state as the only
legitimate locus and focus of analysis. He argues for a
"multidimensional domain of geographical, virtual and other forms of
locality and boundedness" (11) (Jackson 2003b, p. 76). It is not
difficult to appreciate the usefulness and the good intention behind
such a move. One can easily agree that the push for hegemony of
globalization narratives can be neutralized by reference to the
boundedness of the local. However, what struck me was Jackson's flawed
justification for upholding boundary and space as the basis for his
"poststucturalist area studies".

Flawed Justification

Jackson strongly asserts that central in poststructuralism is the idea
of boundary or borders. He correctly notes that inherent in Foucault's
notion of discourses is the idea of boundary beyond which "something
different happens" (Stoler 1996, p. 208, from Foucault 1977, pp.
67-68, cited in Jackson 2003b, p. 51). That is, a discursive realm is
like a self-contained box outside of which different rules (governing
utterances, for instance) apply. I am less sure, however, about his
interpretation of Derrida as Derrida offers a range of possibilities
depending on one's purpose and proclivities. One, for example, can
invoke Derrida's concept of differance (perpetual deferment) to
support a highly relativistic even nihilistic position. Jackson, like
many other scholars, understandably ignores this part of Derrida (12)
and instead emphasizes what Robertson and Khonder (1998) (cited in
Jackson 2003a) call as "conflexification" or blurring of borders in
Derrida's thought, which I should note emanates from the other meaning
of difference (that is, identity can be established only in reference
to its "other", so in effect there is really no pure identity).
Jackson seems so confident in his assertion that he made it a
cornerstone for his proposal to "save" area studies. However, the
problem is not so much that Jackson may have overstretched his
confidence in asserting the supposedly inherent link between borders
and poststructuralism (although that may indeed be a problem). It is
rather in his failure to realize that the notion of borders in
Foucault's and Derrida's thought may not be ontologically transposable
with the border on a geographic space. Foucault and Derrida were
interested in borders within or between discourses that make use of
the representational and analytic power of language and "Western"
logic. Jackson's border, on the other hand, marks the boundary of
geographic or virtual spaces. His conflation or transposition of the
two is thus questionable. While it is agreeable that certain forms of
area studies deserve to be upheld, I submit that better justification
must be sought from quarters other than the supposed centrality of
"border" in poststructuralist thoughts.

More serious difficulties haunt Jackson in what seems to me a
misguided attempt to recast poststructuralism. His bitter complaint
about Foucault's and Derrida's blindness to geography while factually
justifiable utterly misses the purpose for which poststructuralism was
formulated. To reiterate, Derrida and, to a lesser degree, Foucault
are more interested in the problems inherent in what purport to be
representations of reality, not in reality itself. Derrida has pointed
to the problems or limitations of the tools--language, binary
logic--that we employ in our attempt to analyse and represent reality.
He seems not as interested in what's happening "on the ground". This
puts poststructuralism, and this point is often missed, in a league
substantially though, as I will note below, not totally different
from, say, structuralism, functionalism, Marxism, and other theories/
methods employed in "more traditional" scholarship. While the latter
purport to capture, analyse, and theorize "reality on the ground" and
hence need not only geography but also realist or foundational
epistemology, poststructuralism aims to problematize and critique
precisely the outputs (knowledge) of those attempts to represent and
explain "reality'. In other words, it is a critique of knowledge, not
a tool for "knowing". It does that by resting on a non-foundational
(deconstructive) epistemology and it assumes a position of a
metacritique, on a level different and "higher" from "traditional"
scholarship. It should not surprise therefore that geographic space is
not one of Foucault's and Derrida's main concerns. This foregrounds
Jackson's rather vacuous case for recasting poststructuralism to
incorporate spatiality-- a move that according to Jackson is necessary
to make poststructuralism more "applicable" to the areas outside of
its Western origin. As he claims, poststructuralism proved to be not
uniformly "applicable" to all cases in all areas (specifically Asia of
Thailand, as Jackson's often cited example), just like many other
theories that originated in the Euro-American world. He seems to
forget that Derrida was categorical in his critique of the "Western"
mode of thinking or knowing, specifically the language and the logic
that underpin it. Any product therefore of any scholarly endeavour
which by design operates within such a mode is potentially at the
receiving end of Derrida's critique. To emphasize, it does not matter
that scholars are talking about a non-Western country or that they are
Asians themselves who use the native language in their scholarly
discourse. The very fact that they employ logic and analytic methods
that are unmistakably Western makes them an object of Derrida's wrath.
As a critique of knowledge/scholarsh ip of any attempt to represent
"reality", therefore, poststructuralism is applicable all throughout
the universe where "our" brand of scholarship is practised regardless
of whether such scholarship is done in or about the West or the
non-West. (13) Possibly, a poststructuralist critique may cease to be
applicable only in areas, or level of existence, where our kind of
logic is not considered as "the logic" such as perhaps in Harry
Potter's magical world or in the spiritual world of the yogis, Sufis,
or Zen Buddhists. The boundaries that must be emphasized therefore
should not be between the geographic West and the rest but between the
world where Western logic and scholarship operates, on the one hand,
and that which it does not, on the other. In short, the great divide
is more epistemological than geographical, making Jackson's case for
reconfiguring poststructuralism to make it geography-friendly almost
pointless. It cannot but reveal both his misunderstanding of certain
aspects of poststructuralism and, at the same time, his urge to
appropriate poststructuralism for a job which it is not meant to do.

Application and Contradictions

What Jackson exactly means by "application" is not very clear based on
the two articles cited above. One due, however, is his transposition
of the idea of border in poststructuralism thought with geographic
space which I have shown to be untenable. His more recent articles may
offer some more clues. In "Tapestry of Language and Theory" (Jackson
2004), he observes that poststructuralism, along with other critical
theories, have now replaced Marxism as a vehicle of radical critique
in Thai Studies. He notes further that just like Marxism and other
Western theories that have to be acculturated into a non-Western soil,
poststructuralism must also be "transculturated" to make it more
"applicable" to Thai Studies. This is telling. As far as Jackson is
concerned, Marxism and poststructuralism share more or less the same
epistemological properties that make one replaceable by another. I
should reiterate that this is not the case. As already noted, from a
epistemological standpoint they occupy not only different but also
disjointed platforms. As theories, they are ontologically distinct.
Marxism rests on a realist or foundational epistemology whereas
poststructuralism is exactly the opposite, its epistemology is
non-foundational. Whereas Marxism and other conventional theories are
employed to construct knowledge that is supposed to correspond to
reality, poststructuralism aims to deconstruct such knowledge and thus
explode the "myth" that enable individuals or groups to establish
knowledge's supposed correspondence to reality. The two are thus
essentially contradictory. One reason postcolonial theory is fraught
with contradictions is precisely because of attempts of its proponents
to combine elements of poststructuralism and other theories such as
Marxism. Said, for instance, in order to pin down the discourse he
named Orientalism cannot but be guilty of the same mistake,
inadvertently falling into its conceptual opposite, Occidentalism.
Spivak, on her part, notwithstanding her tirade against essentialism
had to settle ignominiously to "strategic essentialism" , sidelining
all its dire theoretical implications. As I will further try to
demonstrate below, Jackson falls into similar pit of contradictions
and unfortunately he seems oblivious to it.

In his article, "Semicoloniality, Translation and Excess in Thai
Cultural Studies" (Jackson 2005), some more dues about what he meant
by "application" are revealed. In this article, he aims to develop
further his earlier proposal for a poststructuralist area studies by
spelling out in some details what can be done to realize such a
project. The two main pillars of this proposal are (1) Thailand's
supposed status of being "semicolonial" , and (2) the rigorous practice
of translation. He claims that Thailand's "semicoloniality" --that is,
while not being colonized was nonetheless affected by Western
colonialism- -puts it in a strategic position to offer insights or
counter-factuals, what he calls "excess", that can help refine
poststructuralist theorizing. He believes that Thailand has a
"distinctive history of culture/power relations", thus requiring
poststructural theorizing that is sensitive to such distinctiveness.
He expresses valid concerns that without "transculturated" theorizing,
the object of study, the Thais, would be at the supplicating end of
the hegemony of Western theories. How such theorizing can be
accomplished, translation holds pivotal function.

By translation, he does not just mean from one language to another
(from Thai to English or vice versa, for instance) but also
translation between discourses, and ultimately between theories. The
centrality of translation in his project he declares thus:
"Poststructuralist Asian cultural studies can only realise its
critical objectives by incorporating and paying careful attention to
the technical skills of translation that were the hallmarks of area
studies" (Jackson 2005, p. 24). No wonder he sets forth rigorous
procedures or requirements (14) for what he dubs as poststructuralist
translation. Personally, I find the idea of poststructuralist
translation exceedingly strange. For one, as he does not cite the
source of these rules, it makes me wonder whether he himself has
formulated them. If he himself did so, I wonder if he can satisfy
those requirements and at the same time call himself
"poststructuralist" . Meaning, to the extent that he succeeds in
reaching very high level of accuracy by following those rules, and be
certain that indeed such high level of accuracy is attained, there is
corresponding negation of one of the main tenets of poststructuralism,
that is, indeterminacy. For another, if we follow poststructuralism
strictly, there is no such thing as translation, only transformation
primarily because a different set of power underpins the source and
the target languages. Still another, the very idea of translation
presupposes two "essentially" different, but at same time
"essentially" parallel entities. One can grasp these entities only by
upholding their essential meanings. The question is, whatever happens
to injunction against essentialism? Would he also take refuge in
"strategic essentialism" , as Spivak did? Jackson may rebuke me for
taking too strictly the meaning of essentialism. But as I will further
discuss below, it is in the fundamentally essentialist nature of our
language (or perhaps any written language) alongside with the logic
that is operative within it, that lies the primal roots of the
poststructuralist anti-essentialist stance. The reason why
poststructuralism heralds the "linguistic turn" that horrifies most
quarters in the academy while overly excite others is precisely
because it grounds the problem of representation in the tool--the
language. Whereas before, the problem was attributed to the
limitations inherent in the knower, encapsulated in the concept of
"perspective' , and thus can be remedied by better methods or by proper
attitude, poststructuralism reminds us that the roots go more deeply.
The well-spring of problems is the tool itself.

Unfortunately, the full import of this seems to have escaped Jackson.
Despite his awareness that "no one interpretation, and hence no one
translation provides the definitive meaning of the text" (Jackson
2005, p. 22), he brews with confidence in castigating Morris (2000,
among others) for inaccuracies of translation (Jackson 2004). While he
often cites that all knowledge are manifestations of power relations,
yet it did not seem to cross his mind that by following such an axiom
his virulent critiques of Morris's "faulty" translations would appear
no more than an assertion of his power over that of Morris's and not
that he can or does indeed translate more accurately. How can he then
intrepidly suggest that through his brand of poststructuralist
translation, he would be able to understand Thailand better and it
would put him in better position than Morris to offer what he calls "a
more radical poststructuralist project", whatever that means? (Jackson
2005, p. 39). One cannot help but wonder, if Jackson is indeed
"applying" poststructuralism, at the core of which is incredulity
towards all certainties, how can he seem to be so certain about so
many things, not the least of which is his faith in poststructuralism?

In the same article, he expresses regret that "(s)ome
poststructuralist approaches to translation have sometimes
concentrated more on deconstructing the power relations implicit in
forms of knowledge than on the rules that govern the production of
meaningful utterances" (emphasis mine) (Jackson 2005, p. 24). This is
rather an ambiguous statement. One interpretation is that he is
unhappy that some poststructuralist scholars focus more on
deconstructing power relations than on deconstructing "rules that
govern the production of meaningful utterances". If this is the case,
it does not make sense because deconstructing power relations that
underpin knowledge forms necessarily requires deconstructing the rules
governing meaning formation that enable such knowledge to be
considered as acceptable knowledge. The other possible interpretation
of the statement is that he wishes that more attention be focused on
the rules that define meaningful utterances rather than on
deconstructing power relations. If this is the case, it is perhaps one
of the most telling indications of his misunderstanding of
epistemological limits of poststructuralism and of the purpose for
which it is meant to be utilized.

Poststructuralism, to restate, is for all intents and purposes meant
to deconstruct knowledge claims and this includes poststructuralism
itself. Now, when Jackson expresses his wish that more focus should
have been on the "rules" that define "meaningful utterances", he did
not seem to realize that one would have to operate beyond
poststructuralism to do that. For how can poststructuralism identify
"meaningful utterances" when from its heart Springs scepticism about
meanings? Jackson rejects this absolute scepticism towards meaning by
citing Rappaport who, according to Jackson, claims that those who
interpret Derrida's differance as a "retreat from meaning" to
indeterminacy are mistaken. Derrida's aim, so Jackson paraphrases
Rappaport, is "to make clear the local contexts of meaning ... "
(Rappaport 2001, p. 73, as cited in Jackson 2003b). This emboldens
Jackson to insist (despite awareness that "(t)he rules of language,
and the meanings they produce are shifting") that "in any given
context there is usually sufficient consensus about the rules of
linguistic and discursive production to guarantee that quite specific
consequences follow" from infractions of the rules (emphasis mine)
(Jackson 2005, p. 23). Rappaport and Jackson are seemingly unaware
that the formation of consensus on rules and the "local context of
meaning" are precisely among the sites of power that poststructuralism
wants to deconstruct. Poststructuralism likewise aims to unsettle the
predictive attributes of knowledge that "guarantees" (in Jackson's
word) something, primarily because that is precisely where power and
knowledge meet and cause problems. That one can in actual practice
seems to do a translation or a prediction indicates that he already
operates beyond the confines of poststructuralism, perhaps within the
parameters of structuralism or some forms of empiricisms or hermeneutics.

Reasons for Contradictions

Jackson is oblivious to these lapses or contradictions maybe because
of the following reasons: First, he seems to be acutely unaware of the
oxymoronic relationship between poststructuralism and scholarship in
general. I will even hazard a proposition that the idea of
"poststructuralist area studies" is an oxymoron par excellence. This
is due to the characteristic features of what we call scholarship.
When we do scholarship, clarity of thoughts or expression is one of
the imperatives. Otherwise, we would not be understood. We try as much
as possible to define words and concepts in an unambiguous manner, and
we try to establish (or impose) conceptual order based on what we
consider as logical templates. The outcome is what we call
"knowledge", which conventional scholarship regards for so long as an
approximation of reality. Then here came poststructuralism. Foucault,
for instance, reminds us that what we call "knowledge" is no more than
a product of a constellation of powers that "freeze" what Derrida
considered as ever-fleeting and floating signifiers of reality. The
problem is that proponents of poststructuralism such as Derrida do not
or cannot use language and logic other than those used by other
scholars. They thus have to insert poststructuralism within the
scholarly community built upon conventions- -logic, language,
methods--that are precisely the object of its criticisms. Its
proponents despite their aspersions against essentialism and binaries
cannot but use a language that is by its very nature essentialist and
a logic that cannot operate except by referring to or presupposing its
opposite (binary logic). In other words, the primeval roots of the
scourge of essentialism lies in the very nature of language and the
binary logic we use. The answer then to the question "Can a
poststructuralist criticism, as honest as it can be, be framed without
such criticism going back to itself?." appears to be negative,
strictly speaking. For instance, as Said criticized the essentializing
moves of Orientalist scholars, he was at the same time essentializing
and reifying the otherwise multivalent "West" as well as the highly
differentiated processes and impacts of colonial projects. One may say
that Said is more a postcolonial rather than a poststructuralist
scholar but it was from the arsenal of poststructuralism that he drew
theoretical support. In the case of Jackson, claiming Thailand's
"semicoloniality" as the locus of potentially rich empirical data that
would allow Thai Studies to "speak to" and eventually refine
poststructuralist theorizing carries an underlying assumption that
Thailand is "essentially" different. His thorough emphasis on rigorous
translation which he believes would help extract "empirical excess" is
underpinned by the same assumption. The case is even more difficult
for Jackson because he is talking about "area studies", which I think
no matter how one reconfigures it, its rationale for existence remains
predicated on the "essential" distinctiveness of an area. Otherwise
those in the disciplines would be justified in eliminating or
absorbing area studies. They would claim that if such and such area is
not so different after all, then conventional disciplinary approach
would equally apply.

What puzzles is that Jackson celebrates such difference as though the
idea is compatible with Derridean concept of difference or as an
affirmation of what Foucault calls something beyond which "different
things happen". This cannot be the case because the concept of
difference is--very ironic indeed--a theoretical hindrance to
identifying or representing a truly empirically grounded difference.
This is a tricky philosophical question, but let me try to explain.
The concept of difference posits that one cannot really establish an
identity (of anything) because it always contains the seed of its
"other", which makes identity a non-identity (because it is shared
with its "other"). Defining, for instance, A necessarily requires
implicit reference to its opposite, say, non-A. This is how our binary
logic works. One thus cannot establish that A is different from non-A
precisely because the identity of A is shared with non-A. So A cannot
be different. Derrida's difference is theoretically posited; it is not
an empirical reality. It exists synthetically on a theoretical plane
as a conceptual device to map out the supposed nature of
representation. One may ask, how come we can perceive identities,
meanings, and differences around us? If we go by the concept of
difference, the appearance of identities and difference and meanings
are just that, appearance. It is not naturally there. It is imposed by
the perceiver, abetted by the calculus of power in a given social
context. Lest we forget, poststructuralism posits that in the natural
scheme of things, what we have are floating signifiers. So when
Jackson identifies Thailand's "semicoloniality" as a fountainhead of
distinctiveness, he was able to do so because of the network of
powers, including his own, that underpin such a view. The Derridean
concept of difference certainly has nothing to do with that. What the
concept does is precisely to expose Jackson's tacit claim to the contrary.

Second, Jackson may have been misled by the proliferation as of late
of a "poststructuralism industry" in the social sciences into thinking
that it may indeed be "applicable" . As I observe, the applications of
poststructuralism in various branches of social sciences and the
humanities appear to constitute a piecemeal borrowing of certain
concepts, such as anti-essentialism, anti-reification, anti-binaries,
and knowledge/power. The first three directly emanate from Derridean
concept of difference whereas the last is obviously
Foucauldian/ Nitzchean. The problem is that in Derridean formulation it
seems that the concept of difference is inherently linked to the other
meaning of difference (differance) . This is a part of
poststructuralism that is often ignored for its nihilistic or
anti-scholarship implications. The question is, can one "apply" the
first meaning of difference to the total exclusion of the other
meaning? Within the ambit of poststructuralism, I am afraid not.
Built-in in the anti-essentialist ideas (the first meaning) of
poststructuralism is its logical and necessary connection with the
second meaning of the concept of difference (constant deferment). This
is simply because the absence of an "essence" precisely leaves any
representation no choice but to build on yet another representation.
Reality, as poststructuralism emphasizes, can be accessed only through
mediation; it cannot be directly accessed or represented. I suspect
that once one applies the concept of difference without the other
meaning, one exits the domain of poststructuralism to that of
structuralism, in which case, it loses the critical edge inherent in
poststructuralism.

I should add that Foucault's ideas of knowledge/power and discourse
are also inherently linked to Derrida's anti-essentialist stance. To
reiterate, what gives knowledge an appearance of "truthfulness" is no
more than a set of power relations; it is not that they contain
essential truths. This does not mean, however, that knowledge is
always false or that it cannot capture reality. It only means that no
one can be certain that it is true, except oneself through whose
subjectivity one can invoke personal power to ascribe to it appearance
of certainty. The appearance of certainty, already noted, is something
imposed, say by an author or by a community of scholars or by
collective societal acclamation of, say, scientific methods. In the
final analysis knowledge is a manifestation of power relations.
Whether such assertions of power would be validated depends on another
set of powers. The fact that there are many "untruths" that for long
have paraded as true attests to this. The question thus of whether a
knowledge-claim is true or false should take a backseat to the
question: "Whose or which assemblage of power determine which
knowledge is true and which is false?"

It may well serve a poststructuralist analyst therefore to desist from
acting so smugly about the accuracy of one's critique. At best, an
analyst is merely asserting his power over that of other analysts and
that one is participating in yet another discourse when one offers its
analysis. He should always remind himself, as I do remind myself now,
that beyond certain boundary "different things happen". That I am able
to offer critique to Jackson's ideas is a testament to my personal
power to assert my views. I should not, in all honesty, assume that my
views are right. Whether my views or his are right will be decided by
individual scholars who themselves are inserted in the interstices of
power relations in the academy where we both exist. The configuration
of the constellation of such power in the academy is yet another
product of indeterminate combinations of factors in the society at
large. And even more complex it goes, and more insignificant me and my
views become, as one extends to the world stage and beyond. Humbling,
is it not? I figure that if there is one most "essential" lesson one
should learn from poststructuralism, it is intellectual humility.

Thirdly, by focusing only on certain aspects of poststructuralism at
the expense of others (differance, indeterminacy, anti-essentialism,
anti-binary) he denies himself a chance to be self-reflexive about his
own location as a scholar and as a proponent of poststructuralism
within the ambit of power relations in the academy and the society at
large. His pretence to innocence or detachment is almost palpable,
making the whole exercise very ironic indeed, considering that he
calls himself a poststructuralist. I should add that one way to
mitigate the self-refuting tendencies of a poststructuralist analysis
is for the author to satisfy the requirement of self-reflexivity. That
is, not only that one should be aware of one's predilections,
positions in the scheme of things, aims or interests, but also that
one should make them explicit and factor them in the analysis and
conclusion. This will not totally eliminate elements of contradiction
which as I have noted earlier is rooted in language and logic.
However, being transparent can spare one from the embarrassment of
unwittingly doing the same mistake committed by those whom one
criticizes. I for one know that much of my critique of Jackson is
predicated on my belief on the correctness of my interpretation of
poststructuralism which ironically, if correct, effectively casts
doubt on the accuracy of my interpretation. Such paradox is a curse of
poststructuralism being imbedded in scholarly practice. My advantage
over Jackson is that I do not claim to be a poststructuralist. But
that should not be comforting enough.

Conclusion

"What to do then with poststructuralism? " There is, I think, a very
special place for poststructuralism in area studies as in all other
branches of human knowledge--natural sciences, social sciences, and
the humanities. As a critic of all forms of knowledge, it reminds all
scholars of the potential and actual damage they can unknowingly
inflict on nature and other human beings. It casts serious doubt on
the Enlightenment' s belief on the inherent goodness of "knowing" or
knowledge by exposing knowledge's inescapable and intimate link with
various forms of power. Every scholar therefore worthy of this label
should understand poststructuralism and "apply" it as the basis of
one's reflexive attitude towards one's own work.

As a foundation of scholarly practice, I believe that
poststructuralism can best function as a framework for deconstructing
all representations, and not as a basis of representation itself. In
other words, poststructuralism should act as an adjunct to, not an
integral part of, the area studies or any other branches of knowledge
for that matter. If scholars do insist on appropriating certain
concepts from poststructuralism, they should better be aware of the
self-refuting tendencies that would result from such a move. They
should explicitly satisfy the requirement of self-reflexivity.
Finally, I also suggest they refrain from proclaiming that theirs is a
"poststructuralist" approach, much less that they are
poststructuralist. Otherwise, they expose themselves to criticisms for
failing to fully observe the injunctions emanating from
poststructuralism- -injunctions that in the first place cannot be fully
observed by any scholar owing to the very nature of scholarship he/she
does.

Top 8 Components of a Well-Written Lesson Plan

Make sure it includes the 8 essential components of a strong, effective lesson plan and you'll be on your way to achieving every teacher's goal: measurable student learning.

Even if you aren't required to write out your lesson plan on paper, the following 8 points should always inform your thinking when preparing to instruct your students on a daily basis.

It's just good teaching.

1. Objectives and Goals

The lesson's objectives must be clearly defined and in lined with district and/or state educational standards.

2. Anticipatory Set

Before you dig into the meat of your lesson's instruction, set the stage for your students by tapping into their prior knowledge and giving the objectives a context.

3. Direct Instruction

When writing your lesson plan, this is the section where you explicitly delineate how you will present the lesson's concepts to your students.

4. Guided Practice

Under your supervision, the students are given a chance to practice and apply the skills you taught them through direct instruction.

5. Closure

In the Closure section, outline how you will wrap up the lesson by giving the lesson concepts further meaning for your students.

6. Independent Practice

Through homework assignments or other independent assignments, your students will demonstrate whether or not they absorbed the lesson's learning goals.

7. Required Materials and Equipment

Here, you determine what supplies are required to help your students achieve the stated lesson objectives.

8. Assessment and Follow-Up

The lesson doesn't end after your students complete a worksheet. The assessment section is one of the most important parts of all.

1."Lesson Plan Objectives and Goals"

In the Objectives section of your lesson plan, write precise and delineated goals for what you want your students to be able to accomplish after the lesson is completed.

Be Specific. Use numbers where appropriate.

To define your lesson's objectives, consider the following questions:

• What will students accomplish during this lesson?
• To what specific level (i.e. 75% accuracy) will the students perform a given task in order for the lesson to be considered satisfactorily accomplished?
• Exactly how will the students show that they understood and learned the goals of your lesson? Will this occur through a worksheet, group work, presentation, illustration, etc?

Additionally, you will want to make sure that the lesson's objective fits in with your district and/or state educational standards for your grade level.

By thinking clearly and thoroughly about the goals of your lesson, you will ensure that you are making the most of your teaching time.

Also Known As: Goals

Examples: After reading the book "Life in the Rainforest," sharing a class discussion, and drawing plants and animals, students will be able to place six specific characteristics into a Venn diagram of the similarities and differences of plants and animals, with 100% accuracy.

2."Lesson Plans Anticipatory Sets To Activate Students' Background Knowledge"

In the Anticipatory Set section, you outline what you will say and/or present to your students before the direct instruction of the lesson begins.

The purpose of the Anticipatory Set is to:

• Provide continuity from previous lessons, if applicable
• Allude to familiar concepts and vocabulary as a reminder and refresher
• Tell the students briefly what the lesson will be about
• Gauge the students' level of collective background knowledge of the subject to help inform your instruction
• Activate the students' existing knowledge base
• Whet the class's appetite for the subject at hand
• Briefly expose the students to the lesson's objectives and how you will get them to the end result

To write your Anticipatory Set, consider the following questions:

• How can I involve as many as students as possible, piquing their interests for the subject matter to come?
• How should I inform my students of the lesson's context and objective, in kid-friendly language?
• What do the students need to know before they can delve into the lesson plan itself and direct instruction?

Anticipatory Sets are more than just words and discussion with your students.

You can also engage in a brief activity or question-and-answer session to start the lesson plan off in a participatory and active manner.

Examples:

• Remind the children of animals and plants they have studied earlier in the year.
• Ask the class to raise their hands to contribute to a discussion of what they already know about plants. Write a list on the blackboard of the characteristics they name, while prompting them and offering ideas and comments as needed. Repeat the process for a discussion of the properties of animals. Point out major similarities and differences.
• Tell the children that it is important to learn about plants and animals because we share the earth with them and depend upon each other for survival.

3."Lesson Plan Direct Instruction"

To describe your methods of Direct Instruction, you will clearly state your activities for presenting the material you expect your students to master. This could include reading a book, displaying diagrams, showing real-life examples of the subject matter, using props, discussing relevant characteristics, watching a movie, or other hands-on and/or presentational steps directly related to your lesson plan's stated objective.

When determining your methods of Direct Instruction, consider the following questions:

• How can I best tap into the various learning modalities (audio, visual, tactile, kinesthetic, etc.) to meet the learning style preferences of as many students as possible?
• What materials (books, videos, pneumonic devices, visual aids, props, etc.) are available to me for this lesson?
• What relevant vocabulary do I need to present to my students during the lesson?
• What will my students need to learn in order to complete the lesson plan's objectives and independent practice activities?
• How can I engage my students in the lesson and encourage discussion and participation?

Think outside the box and try to discover fresh, new ways to engage your students' collective attention to the lesson concepts at hand.

Avoid just standing in front of your students and talking to them.

Get creative, hands-on, and excited about your lesson plan, and your students' interest will follow.

Before you move on to the Guided Practice section of the lesson, check for understanding to ensure that your students are ready to practice the skills and concepts you have presented to them.

Examples:

• Read Life in the Rainforest : Plants, Animals, and People by Melvin Berger.
• Talk about characteristics of plants and animals mentioned in the book.
• Show the class a real, living plant and walk them through the functions of the different parts of the plant.
• Show the class a real, living animal (perhaps a small pet brought in from home or a classroom pet borrowed from another teacher). Discuss the parts of the animal, how it grows, what it eats, and other characteristics.

4."Lesson Plan Guided Practice to Demonstrate Given Skills and Objectives"

In the Guided Practice section of your written lesson plan, outline how your students will demonstrate that they have grasped the skills, concepts, and modeling that you presented to them in the Direct Instruction portion of the lesson.

While you circulate the classroom and provide some assistance on a given activity (worksheet, illustration, experiment, discussion, or other assignment), the students should be able to perform the task and be held accountable for the lesson's information.

The Guided Practice activities can be defined as either individual or cooperative learning.

As a teacher, you should observe the students' level of mastery of the material in order to inform your future teaching.

Additionally, provide focused support for individuals needing extra help to reach the learning goals. Correct any mistakes that you observe.

Examples:

• Students will split into pairs to work together on drawing.
• On a piece of paper, students will draw a picture of plants, incorporating characteristics they learned about in this lesson (listed on board).
• On the other side of the paper, students will draw a picture of animals, incorporating characteristics they learned about in this lesson (listed on board).

5."Lesson Plan Closure to Provide Conclusion and Context to the Learning Achieved"

Closure is the time when you wrap up a lesson plan and help students organize the information into a meaningful context in their minds. A brief summary or overview is often appropriate. Another helpful activity is to engage students in a quick discussion about what exactly they learned and what it means to them now.

Look for areas of confusion that you can quickly clear up.

Reinforce the most important points so that the learning is solidified for future lessons.

It is not enough to simply say, "Are there any questions?" in the Closure section. Similar to the conclusion in a 5-paragraph essay, look for a way to add some insight and/or context to the lesson.

Examples:

• Discuss new things that the students learned about plants and animals.
• Summarize the characteristics of plants and animals and how they compare and contrast.

6."Lesson Plan Independent Practice as a Method for Students to Achieve Objectives"

Through Independent Practice, students have a chance to reinforce skills and synthesize their new knowledge by completing a task on their own and away from the teacher's guidance.

In writing the Independence Practice section of the Lesson Plan, consider the following questions:

• Based on observations during Guided Practice, what activities will my students be able to complete on their own?
• How can I provide a new and different context in which the students can practice their new skills?
• How can I offer Independent Practice on a repeating schedule so that the learning is not forgotten?
• How can I integrate the learning objectives from this particular lesson into future projects?

Independent Practice can take the form of a homework assignment or worksheet, but it is also important to think of other ways for students to reinforce and practice the given skills.

Get creative. Try to capture the students interest and capitalize on specific enthusiasms for the topic at hand.

Once you receive the work from Independent Practice, you should assess the results, see where learning may have failed, and use the information you gather to inform future teaching. Without this step, the whole lesson may be for naught.

Examples: Students will complete the Venn Diagram worksheet, categorizing the six listed characteristics of plants and animals.

7."Lesson Plan Required Materials Needed to Reach the Lesson's Stated Objectives"

In the Required Materials section, consider:

• What items and supplies will be needed by both the instructor and the students in order to accomplish the stated learning objectives?
• What equipment will I need in order to utilize as many learning modalities as possible? (visual, audio, tactile, kinesthetic, etc.)
• How can I use materials creatively? What can I borrow from other teachers?

Keep in mind that modeling and the use of hands-on materials are especially effective in demonstrating concepts and skills to students.

Look for ways to make the learning goals concrete, tangible, and relevant to students.

The Required Materials section will not be presented to students directly, but rather is written for the teacher's own reference and as a checklist before starting the lesson.

Examples:

• The book Life in the Rainforest: Plants, Animals, and People by Melvin Berger.
• Venn Diagram blackline master, copied for each student.
• A plant
• An animal
• Paper
• Crayons

8."Lesson Plan Assessment and Follow-Up to Determine Achievement of Objectives"

Learning goals can be assessed through quizzes, tests, independently performed worksheets, cooperative learning activities, hands-on experiments, oral discussion, question-and-answer sessions, or other concrete means.

Most importantly, ensure that the Assessment activity is directly and explicitly tied to the stated learning objectives.

Once the students have completed the given assessment activity, you must take some time to reflect upon the results. If the learning objectives were not adequately achieved, you will need to revisit the lesson in a different manner.

Student performance informs future lessons and where you will take your students next.

Examples:

• Quiz
• Test
• Class discussion
• Hands-on experiment
• Worksheet
• Cooperative Learning activities
• Illustrations or Graphic Organizers

Top 10 Common Teaching Mistakes For Teachers To Avoid

People enter the teaching profession because they want to make a positive difference in society. Even teachers with the purest intentions can inadvertently complicate their mission if they're not careful.

However, new teachers (and even veterans sometimes!) will have to work hard to conscientiously avoid common pitfalls that can make the job even harder than it inherently is.

Do yourself a favor and avoid these common teaching traps. You'll thank me for it later!

1. Aiming To Be Buddies With Their Students

Inexperienced teachers often fall into the trap of wanting their students to like them above all else. However, if you do this, you are damaging your ability to control the classroom, which in turn compromises the children's education.

This is the last thing you want to do, right?

Instead, focus on earning your students' respect, admiration, and appreciation. Once you realize that your students will like you more when you are tough and fair with them, you'll be on the right track.

2. Being Too Easy On Discipline

This mistake is a corollary to the last one. For various reasons, teachers often start out the year with a lax discipline plan or, even worse, no plan at all!

Have you ever heard the saying, "Don't let them see you smile until Christmas"? That may be extreme, but the sentiment is correct: start out tough because you can always relax your rules as time progresses if it is appropriate. But it is next to impossible to become more tough once you've shown your pliant side.

3. Not Setting Up Proper Organization From The Start

Until you've completed a full year of teaching, you are unable to comprehend how much paper accumulates in an elementary school classroom. Even after the first week of school, you'll look around at the piles with astonishment! And all these papers must be dealt with... by YOU!

You can avoid some of these paper-induced headaches by setting up a sensible organization system from day one and, most importantly, using it every day! Labeled files, folders, and cubbies are your friend. Be disciplined and toss or sort all papers immediately.

Remember, a tidy desk contributes to a focused mind.

4. Minimizing Parental Communication and Involvement

At first, it can feel intimidating to deal with your students' parents. You might be tempted to "fly under the radar" with them, in order to avoid confrontations and questions.

However with this approach, you are squandering a precious resource. The parents associated with your classroom can help make your job easier, by volunteering in your class or supporting behavior programs at home.

Communicate clearly with these parents from the start and you'll have a band of allies to make your entire school year flow more smoothly.

5. Getting Involved In Campus Politics

This pitfall is an equal opportunity offender for both new and veteran teachers. Like all workplaces, the elementary school campus can be rife with squabbles, grudges, backstabbing, and vendettas.

It's a slippery slope if you agree to listen to gossip because, before you know it, you'll be taking sides and immersing yourself in between warring factions. The political fallout can be brutal.

Better to just keep your interactions friendly and neutral, while focusing intently on the work with your students. Avoid politics at all costs and your teaching career will thrive!

6. Remaining Isolated From The School Community

As an addendum to the previous warning, you'll want to avoid campus politics, but not at the expense of being insulated and alone in the world of your classroom.

Attend social events, eat lunch in the staff room, say hello in the halls, help colleagues when you can, and reach out to the teachers around you.

You never know when you will need the support of your teaching team, and if you've been a hermit for months, it's going to be more challenging for you to get what you need at that point.

7. Working Too Hard And Burning Out

It's understandable why teaching has the highest turnover rate of any profession. Most people can't hack it for long.

And if you keep burning the candles at both ends, the next teacher to quit might be you! Work smart, be effective, take care of your responsibilities, but go home at a decent hour. Enjoy time with your family and set aside time to relax and rejuvenate.

And here's the most difficult advice to follow: don't let classroom problems affect your emotional wellbeing and your ability to enjoy life away from school.

Make a real effort to be happy. Your students need a joyful teacher each day!

8. Not Asking For Help

Teachers can be a proud bunch. Our job requires superhuman skills, so we often strive to appear as superheroes who can handle any problem that comes our way.

But that simply can't be the case. Don't be afraid to appear vulnerable, admit mistakes, and ask your colleagues or administrators for assistance.

Look around your school and you will see centuries of teaching experience represented by your fellow teachers. More often than not, these professionals are generous with their time and advice.

Ask for help and you just might discover that you're not as alone as you thought you were.

9. Being Overly Optimistic And Too Easily Crushed

This pitfall is one that new teachers should be especially careful to avoid. New teachers often join the profession because they are idealistic, optimistic, and ready to change the world! This is great because your students (and veteran teachers) need your fresh energy and innovative ideas.

But don't venture into Pollyanna land. You'll only end up frustrated and disappointed. Recognize that there will be tough days where you want to throw in the towel. There will be times when your best efforts aren't enough.

Know that the tough times will pass, and they are a small price to pay for teaching's joys.

10. Being Too Hard On Yourself

Teaching is hard enough without the additional challenge of mental anguish over slip-ups, mistakes, and imperfections.

Nobody's perfect. Even the most decorated and experience teachers make poor decisions every so often.

Forgive yourself for the day's blemishes, erase the slate, and gather your mental strength for the next time it's needed.

Don't be your own worst enemy. Practice the same compassion that you show your students by turning that understanding on yourself.