Reading group discussion 3: Farrell & Tan

Singapore mandates the 'Speak Good English Movement' to promote the "standard English" (i.e. Singaporean Standard English) among the Singaporeans. However, Farrell and Tan Kiat Kun findings tell that the (3) teacher respondents weren't properly oriented and trained to teach this kind of English. As a matter of fact, when interviewed, they all believe that the Standard English is the British English, for this was what their own teachers used when they were still schooling. This situation is an example of what happens when "Language policies are in conflict with the reality of its usage within communities".

The mentioned research also tells that the (3) teachers believe that spoken "errors" (i.e. the use of informal English, that is, Singlish) need not to be immediately and frequently corrected because their priority is to allow the students to become confident of their speech. In addition, the teachers' preferred method of correcting spoken errors is thru rephrasing/paraphrasing, in which, the teacher reiterates the content of what the student mentioned and presents it in the "Standard- British English".

Sometimes, some of the beliefs of the teachers can be contradictory. This is known as linguistic schizophrenia, in which, there is contradiction between two or more of their ideas (e.g. a teacher believes that Singlish is important, but she also thinks that it shouldn't be promoted and taught in school). However, it is interesting to note that they were still able to show that their practice and their beliefs do match.

In doing research similar to this, it is always important to triangulate data (e.g. teachers' testimonials and their actual teaching) because "the reaction of teachers to language policy is a complicated process". In fact, the researchers even mentioned that their data may not be as reliable as it may seem because they were only able to observe the teachers twice. Further, the respondents believe that the observations were disruptive, this may mean that the flow of the classroom discussions were not entirely authentic because they might have prepared for these days (i.e. they do things as they should be, not as what they usually do).