English Language Teaching in its Social Context
English Language Teaching in its Social Context
English Language Teaching in its Social Context
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
48 ROD ELLISuniversity-based rescarchers concerned with knowledge-creation rather than to teams ofresearchers and teachers concerned with solv<strong>in</strong>g practical tcach<strong>in</strong>g problems through apool<strong>in</strong>g of expertise.Teachcrs rarely have the time to familiari7e themselves with publishedresearch. Also, the very nature of technical and practical knowledge makes it difficult to<strong>in</strong>ter-relate. Considerable effort and probably prolonged <strong>in</strong>teraction are needed to comb<strong>in</strong>ethe analytical skills of the researcher with the holistic and highly contextualized skills of theteacher.Similar problems exist regard<strong>in</strong>g the utilization of practical knowledge <strong>in</strong> the creation oftechnical knowledge. Practical knowledge is largely tacit and difficult to codify. Consequently,<strong>its</strong> reliability antl validity cannot be easily assessed. Given the requirement thattechnical knowlcdge is demonstrably reliable and valid, rcsearchcrs generally avoid referenceto practical knowledge. However, as Eraut (1 994) notes, researchers’ own practicalexperiences may often <strong>in</strong>fluence their work <strong>in</strong> subtle and unstated ways.To a certa<strong>in</strong> extent,then, the <strong>in</strong>teraction model may work implicitly.This discussion of technical and practical knowledge helps us to understand whySLA, as it has evolved s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>its</strong> <strong>in</strong>ception, cannot automatically be assumed to be of use<strong>in</strong> language pedagogy and, particularly, to classroom teachers. The gap between SLA andlanguage pedagogy is a product of both the typcs of knowledge these two fields typicallyemploy and the lack of opportunity to bridge the gap.The SLA researchers’ perspectiveThe nature of the relationship between SLA and language pedagogy has attracted theattention of a number of researchers over the years. A useful start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>in</strong> our explorationof how SLA might <strong>in</strong>form pedagogy is to take a look at what these SLA researchers have hadto say.The application of SLA can take place <strong>in</strong> two rather tliffcrent ways. As Cordcr (1 977)has po<strong>in</strong>ted out, the start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t can be thc rcsearch <strong>its</strong>elf with the applicd l<strong>in</strong>guist cast <strong>in</strong>the role of <strong>in</strong>novator or <strong>in</strong>itiator, advanc<strong>in</strong>g pedagogical proposals on the basis of his/herknowledge of SLA. This corresponds to Wciss’s knowledge-driven model of research use.Alternatively, the start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t can be unsolved practical problems <strong>in</strong> language pcdagogy,<strong>in</strong> which case the SLA researcher takes on the role of a consultant who is approached bypractitioners for possible solutions. This corresponds to Weiss’s decision-driven model ofresearch use. We f<strong>in</strong>d both types of application discussed <strong>in</strong> the litcrature but it is probablythe first that is paramount, reflect<strong>in</strong>g, perhaps, the dom<strong>in</strong>ance of thc researcher’s perspectiveover that of the teacher’s.In general, SLA researchers with a strong <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> pedagogy have been cautious aboutapply<strong>in</strong>g SLA. Early articles by Tarone et ul. (1 976) and Hatch (1 978) emphasized thc needto be careful. Hatch lamcntcd that researchers have often heen over-ready to makeapplications to pedagogy, po<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g out ‘. . . our field must be known for the <strong>in</strong>credible leapsof logic we make <strong>in</strong> apply<strong>in</strong>g our research f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs to classroom teach<strong>in</strong>g’. Tarone et ul.(1 976) advanced a number of reasons why SLA could not serve as an adcquate basis foradvis<strong>in</strong>g teachers. Among other po<strong>in</strong>ts, they argued that the research to date was too limited<strong>in</strong> scope, that the methodology for collect<strong>in</strong>g and analys<strong>in</strong>g data was unproven antl that toofew studies had been replicatctl.They also noted that the practices of research and teach<strong>in</strong>gwere very different <strong>in</strong> nature. Whereas researchers adopted a slow, bit-by-bit approach,teachers had immetliatc needs to meet. In the previous section, we considered this importantdifference <strong>in</strong> terms of the dist<strong>in</strong>ction between technical and practical knowledge.