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.
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 55for language learn<strong>in</strong>g. One might legitimately challenge this assumption however. It has beensuggested that classroom L2 acquisition is likely to proceed most smoothly if learners enjoythe same participant rights as their teacher (Pica 1987). Howcvcr, teachers’ questions, <strong>in</strong> anyform, imply an asymmetrical power structure <strong>in</strong> the classroom and, therefore, may not bethe most effective way of creat<strong>in</strong>g conditions conducive to language learn<strong>in</strong>g. A more seriousproblem is that the applicd science view of teach<strong>in</strong>g allocates particular roles to researchersand to teachers, which are necessarily social and value ladcn <strong>in</strong> nature. Researchers are theproducers of knowlcdge while teachers are consumers; researchers are experts whereasteachers are mere technicians. The applied science view, therefore, implies a hicrarchicalrelationship between researchers and teachers (hence the term ‘top-down’), mirror<strong>in</strong>g thck<strong>in</strong>d of division which exists between teachers and students <strong>in</strong> traditional classrooms and,arguably, re<strong>in</strong>forc<strong>in</strong>g it.At first glance, the <strong>in</strong>terpretative tradition of research avoids many of these problems.By adher<strong>in</strong>g to what van Lier (1 990) calls the emic pr<strong>in</strong>ciple (i.e. try to understand how asocial context works through the perspectives of the participants) and thc holistic pr<strong>in</strong>ciple(i.c. try to understand someth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> terms of <strong>its</strong> natural surround<strong>in</strong>gs), it may makeapplication to differcnt contexts less problematic, if only because teachers will be able to seeclearly whether their own teach<strong>in</strong>g contexts are the same as, or different from, the contextsstudied <strong>in</strong> the research. Also <strong>in</strong>tcrpretative research does not claim to provide objectiveknowledge. Indeed, it makes a virtue of seek<strong>in</strong>g out subjective knowledgc.’Thus, even though<strong>in</strong>terpretative rcscarch may have theory construction as <strong>its</strong> ultimate goal, it can be consideredpractical <strong>in</strong> nature. Carr and Kemmis (1 986) expla<strong>in</strong> how <strong>in</strong>terpretative accounts facilitatedialogue between <strong>in</strong>terested parties (i.e. researchers and teachers).They can lead to changes<strong>in</strong> the way actors comprehend themselves and thcir situations; ‘practices arc understood bychang<strong>in</strong>g the ways <strong>in</strong> which they are understood’ ( hd.: 91). In fact, <strong>in</strong>terpretative researchachieves validity whcn it passes the test of participant confirmation.Thus, the beliefs, values,and perceptions of teachers are not ignorcd (or controlled) as <strong>in</strong> educational research <strong>in</strong> theconfirmatory tradition, but are given a constitutive place <strong>in</strong> the research. Thc traffic of ideasbetwecn researcher and teacher is, potentially at least, two way.Aga<strong>in</strong>, though, there arc problems. One is that because <strong>in</strong>terpretative rescarch<strong>in</strong>sists on explanations that are consistent with the participants’ own pcrceptions it runs therisk of accept<strong>in</strong>g accounts that are illusory. Obviously, actors can be mistaken, so their<strong>in</strong>terpretations of events need to be exam<strong>in</strong>ed critically. In other words, adherence to theemic pr<strong>in</strong>ciple can lead to faulty understand<strong>in</strong>gs. The holistic pr<strong>in</strong>ciple is also problematic.It can result <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation that is too rich, so detailed that the wood cannot be seen for thetrees. The major problem, however, as with confirmatory research, lies <strong>in</strong> the relationshipbetween the researcher and the teacher. For, although the gap has been narrowed, they still<strong>in</strong>habit different worlds. Carr and Kemmis (1 986: 99) put it this way:Despite thcir differences . . . both the ‘<strong>in</strong>terpretative’ and the positivist [;.e. confirmatory]approach convey a similar understand<strong>in</strong>g of cducational researchers and ofthe relationship to the research act. In both approachcs, the researcher stands outsidethc researched situation adopt<strong>in</strong>g a dis<strong>in</strong>terested stance <strong>in</strong> which any explicit concernwith critically evaluat<strong>in</strong>g and chang<strong>in</strong>g the educational realities be<strong>in</strong>g analysed isrejected.The truth of this is evident <strong>in</strong> what is perhaps the best piece of <strong>in</strong>terpretative research <strong>in</strong> SLAto date ~ van Lier’s (1988) study of aspects of classroom discourse (i.e. turn-tak<strong>in</strong>g, topicand activity, and rcpair work). Although van Lier offers a few comments on how teachers