English Language Teaching in its Social Context
English Language Teaching in its Social Context
English Language Teaching in its Social Context
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 63seen as <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g the likelihood of an <strong>in</strong>novation becom<strong>in</strong>g adopted (e.g. feasibility, relevanceand explicitness). That is why they are to be viewed positively. Other attributes are likelyto <strong>in</strong>hibit <strong>in</strong>novation (e.g. complexity). Still others may promote or <strong>in</strong>hibit <strong>in</strong>novationdepend<strong>in</strong>g upon the particular adopters. For example, <strong>in</strong> the case of orig<strong>in</strong>ality, some teachersmay be more likely to implement an <strong>in</strong>novation if it calls for their own orig<strong>in</strong>al contribution(e.g. <strong>in</strong> develop<strong>in</strong>g new teach<strong>in</strong>g materials) whereas others may be less likely to do so. Theattributes also vary <strong>in</strong> another way. Some (e.g. <strong>in</strong>itial dissatisfaction and relevance) seem tobe more relative than absolute <strong>in</strong> the sense that their application depends on the particularcontext <strong>in</strong> which teachers are work<strong>in</strong>g, whereas others (i .e. complexity, explicitness,triability, and observability) seem more concerned with the <strong>in</strong>herent characteristics of the<strong>in</strong>novation. Applied l<strong>in</strong>guists <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> evaluat<strong>in</strong>g proposals drawn from SLA are likelyto benefit from pay<strong>in</strong>g close attention to the <strong>in</strong>herent rather than the relative attributes ofproposals.In addition to these sets of factors that <strong>in</strong>flucnce the uptake of <strong>in</strong>novatory ideas, there isalso the question of what aspects of language pedagogy are <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> the change.This, too,can <strong>in</strong>fluence the likelihood of thc <strong>in</strong>novation be<strong>in</strong>g successful. Markee (1 994b), draw<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>particular on the work of Fullan (1982 and 1993) <strong>in</strong> education, suggests that <strong>in</strong>novations <strong>in</strong>the form of the development and use of new teach<strong>in</strong>g materials constitute the easiest k<strong>in</strong>dof change. Innovations requir<strong>in</strong>g change <strong>in</strong> methodological practices and, even more so <strong>in</strong>the teachers’ underly<strong>in</strong>g pedagogical values, are less likely to prove successful.There have been relatively few attempts to apply an <strong>in</strong>novationist perspective to languagepedagogy. Beretta (1 990) sought to evaluate the extent to which the methodological<strong>in</strong>novations proposed by Prabhu as part of the CommunicationalTcach<strong>in</strong>g Project (CTP) <strong>in</strong>India (Prabhu 1987) were actually implemented by the teachers <strong>in</strong>volved. This project isbased on the assumption that learners acquire grammar subconsciously when their attentionis focused on communicat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g-focused tasks. Although Prabhu did not drawdirectly on SLA rcsearch/theory, his proposal is very similar to that advanced by Krashenand for this reason is of considerable <strong>in</strong>terest here. Bcretta collected historical narratives from15 teachers <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> the project and then ratcd these accord<strong>in</strong>g to three levels of implementation:1 orientation (i.e. the teacher demonstrates he/she does not really understand the<strong>in</strong>novation and is unable to implement it)2 rout<strong>in</strong>e (i.e. the teacher understands the rationale of the CTP and is able to implementit <strong>in</strong> a relatively stable fashion), and3 renewal (i.e. the teacher has adopted a critical perspective on the <strong>in</strong>novation,demonstrat<strong>in</strong>g awareness of <strong>its</strong> strengths and weaknesses).Forty per cent of the teachers were rated at Level 1,47 per cent of teachers at Level 2and 1 3 per cent at Level 3. Beretta considered Levels 2 and 3 demonstrated an adequate levelof adoption. However, when he dist<strong>in</strong>guished between regular and non-regular classroomteachers <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> the project, he found that three out of four of the regular teachers wereat Level 1. He concluded that:. . . it seems reasonable to <strong>in</strong>fer that CTP would not be readily assimilable by typicalteachers <strong>in</strong> South Indian schools (or, by extension, <strong>in</strong> other schools elsewhere wheresimilar antecedent conditions perta<strong>in</strong>) (ibid. : 333).He po<strong>in</strong>ts out that the failure of the regular teachers to reach an acceptable level ofimplementation reflects their lack of ownership of the <strong>in</strong>novation and problems regard<strong>in</strong>g