English Language Teaching in its Social Context

50 ROD ELLISMuch of Krashen’s published work has been concerned with the applications of hisown forcefully promoted theory (i.c. the Monitor Model and, more recently, the InputHypothesis), as in Krashen andTerrell(l983). It should be noted, however, that contrary tosome criticisms levelled at him (see Widdowson 1990: 34) Krashen has never sought topreclude teachers exploring pragmatic options derived from ideas outside his theoreticalframework. Krashen argues in favour of the utilization of theory in general, not just histheory. Also, he explicitly recognizes that teachers will and should bring ideas and intuitionsbased on their own practical expcrience to decision making. As Krashen (1983: 261) says‘teaching remains an art as well as a science’.There are obvious attractions of theory-based as opposed to research-based applications.A theory affords a composite view of L2 acquisition. Proposals based on it cannot bedismissed by pointing out the limitations of specific research studies. A theory is general innature and, thus, any proposals derived from it are potentially valid in a variety of teachingcontexts. In contrast, individual research studies are necessarily located in specific contexts,making it difficult to advance proposals of general applicability. Also, proposals bascd on atheory are likely to possess a coherence lacking in the piecemeal application of individualstudies. One of the attractions of Krashen’s theory is that it offers teachers an overarchingview of what and how to teach.However, there are obvious dangers of theory-based applications. As Bcretta (1991) andLong (1993) have pointed out, SLA theories do not tend to go away, even when they are inobvious opposition to each other. In a thoughtful discussion of why this is so, Schumann(1993) points out that it is extremely difficult to falsify a theory. One reason is that whereashypotheses are typically tested in isolation they exist in ‘a network of auxiliary assumptions’(ibid.: 259) with the result that even if a particular hypothesis is not supported it cannot bedismissed because it is impossible to tell exactly where the problem lies. Thus, theoristsusually expcrience little difficulty in immunizing their theories against counter findings;they simply adjust an underlying assumption or rcconceive the construct on which thehypothesis is based. Krashen has proven adept at maintaining his own theory despiteconcerted criticism from prominent researchers antl applied linguists. But if theories cannotbe falsified antl, therefore, are able to survive more or less indefinitely how, then, can teachersevaluate the legitimacy of proposals based on them? In the case of Krashen, for example, howcan teachers evaluate his principal proposal, namely that teachers should be primarilyconcerned with providing plentiful comprehensible input so that acquisition (i .e.subconscious language learning) can take place? In short, applications based on an SLA theoryare risky because they have to be taken on faith.This might not matter so much if theory wereused to advance suggestions for teachers to test out in their own practice but, more oftenthan not, theory-derived applications are vested with an authority that works against suchpedagogic experimentation. For example, Krashen’s claim that learning (i.c. the consciousstudy of linguistic forms) has a relatively minor role to play in L2 acquisition works againstteachers’ investigating, in the context of their own teaching, how form-focused instructioncan complement and perhaps enhance acquisition.There is a more serious objection to Krashcn’s proposal that SLA theory should guidelanguage pedagogy ~ one that has already been hinted at in the discussion of technicalknowledge and practical knowledge, SLA theories, such as Krashen’s, are typically thcproduct of the contemplative approach to enquiry that charactcrizes much modern scientificthinking (see Lantolf 1995). Such theories have been developed through formulatingand systematically testing hypotheses based on them. The result is ‘technical knowledge’ .However, such knowledge, because of the very form in which it is couched, is not readilyaccessible to practitioners in their day-to-day work, although Krashen has done as good a job