English language teaching (ELT) currently occurring in diverse social settings points to the need to locate ELT in its social context. Many researchers have highlighted the need to explore local vernacular practices, in particular ELT practices in peripheral contexts. The present study investigates events in an English language classroom at a Nepalese public college, using ethnographic observations and interviews. The article describes local practices that have emerged to match the contextual particularities of this classroom. Although localized practices are idiosyncratic, they have coherence within the macrocosm of language teacher education. Vernacular practices and local knowledge are under-represented in both ELT theories and language teacher education. The findings of the study will help understand classroom teaching practice and competence of teachers in ‘peripheral’ contexts as well as help raise ‘relevant doubts and questions’ (Bowers, 1986, p. 407) regarding established ELT theories and practices.
AwasthiJ.R. (2003). Teacher education with special reference to English language teaching in Nepal. Journal of NELTA, 8, 17–28.
2.
BowersR. (1986). English in the world: Aims and achievements in English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 393–410.
3.
BrewerJ.D. (2000). Ethnography. Buckingham: Open University Press.
4.
CanagarajahS. (2002). Reconstructing local knowledge. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 1, 243–259.
5.
CanagarajahA.S. (Ed.) (2005). Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
ChauhanC.P.S. (2008). Higher education: Current status and future possibilities in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Analytical Reports in International Education, 2, 29–48.
7.
ChowdhuryR.HaP.L. (2008). Reflecting on Western TESOL training and communicative language teaching: Bangladeshi teachers’ voices. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28, 305–316.
8.
ColonnaM.R.GilbertJ.E. (2006). Reasons to write: Strategies for success in academic writing (Advanced). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
NissaniM.LohaniS. (2008). Flax-golden tales: An interdisciplinary approach to learning English. Kathmandu: EKTA Books.
10.
Curriculum Development Centre. (2008). Curriculum for primary level. Bhaktapur: Curriculum Development Centre.
11.
GiriR.A. (2001). Teaching English: The language-literature controversy. Journal of NELTA, 6, 36–44.
12.
GiriR.A. (2010). Cultural anarchism: The consequences of privileging languages in Nepal. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31, 87–100.
13.
GiriR.A. (2011). Languages and language politics: how invisible language politics produces visible results in Nepal. Language Problems and Language Planning, 35, 197–221.
HayesD. (2009). Non-native English-speaking teachers, context and English language teaching. System, 37, 1–11.
16.
HayesD. (2010). ‘Education is all about opportunities, isn’t it?’: A biographical perspective on learning and teaching English in Sri Lanka. Harvard Educational Review, 80, 517–540.
17.
HollidayA. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
HollidayA. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
HuG. (2005). Contextual influences on instructional practices: A Chinese case for an ecological approach to ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 635–660.
LeCompteM.D.GoetzJ. P. (1982). Ethnographic data collection in evaluation research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4, 387–400.
24.
MaleyA. (2001). The teaching of English in difficult circumstances: Who needs a health farm when they’re starving?Humanising Language Teaching, 3. Retrieved from: http://www.hltmag.co.uk/nov01/mart4.htm (October2013).
25.
MitchellG. (2004). Through the looking glass and what ethnography finds there: Critical insights into the new deal for young people’s voluntary sector option. In TromanG.JeffreyB.WalfordG. (Eds.), Identity, agency and social institutions in educational ethnography: Studies in educational ethnography (Vol. 10, pp. 187–204). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
PhyakP.B. (2011). Beyond the façade of language planning for Nepalese primary education: Monolingual hangover, elitism and displacement of local languages?Current Issues in Language Planning, 12, 265–287.
28.
PickfordS. (2005). Emerging pedagogies of linguistic and cultural continuity in Papua New Guinea. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 18, 139–153.
29.
RaiM. (2003). The effect of communicative language approach on English in Nepal. Journal of NELTA, 8, 114–120.
30.
RegmiK.RegmiS. (2008). Adult learning opportunities in Nepal. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 14, 85–94.
31.
RennieF.MasonR. (2007). The development of distributed learning techniques in Bhutan and Nepal. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8, 1–11. Retrieved from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewFile/339/775 (October2013).
32.
ScottJ.C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. Yale: Yale University Press.
33.
StillerL.F. (1993). Nepal: Growth of a nation. Kathmandu: Human Resource Development Research Centre.
34.
Valencia GiraldoS. (2008). Talk, texts and meaning-making in classroom contexts. In Martin-JonesM.de MejiaA.M.HornbergerN.H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Volume 3: Discourse and education (2nd ed., pp. 265–278). New York: Springer Science and Business Media LLC.
35.
Van OersB. (1998). From context to contextualizing. Learning and Instruction, 8, 473–488.
36.
WatkinsD.A. (2007). Comparing ways of learning. In BrayM.AdamsonB.MasonM. (Eds.), Comparative education research: Approaches and methods (pp. 299–313). Hong Kong: Springer.
37.
WolcottH.F. (1988). Ethnographic research in education. In JaegerR.M. (Ed.) Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 187–210). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
