Rod Ellis on theory and practice
“SLA research is not capable of providing teachers with recipes for successful practice. It should be treated as providing teachers with ‘insights’ which they can use to build their own explicit theory. It is on the basis of this theory- not on the basis of SLA research itself or any theory it has proposed- that teaching practice should proceed” The Study of Second Language Acquisition 2nd Edition (The Director’s Cut) pg xxiv
Agree? Do Diploma and MA courses help you develop “your own explicit theory”? Isn’t there a slight danger that analysing your teaching explicitly could make it fall apart like the style of a naturally gifted footballer with a naturally ungifted British coach? Shouldn’t “after considering all the evidence given in these quotes from books on the matter, my instincts are still telling me that the best way is to…” be an acceptable conclusion of a DELTA observed lesson essay? Rants, cheering and whimsy below please:
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:56 am
This is essentially the message that I have been trying to plug in my latest contributions to this blog (albeit with more sesquipedalian [ahem] prose). So. yes, I am in full agreement with Ellis. On this.
February 2nd, 2010 at 3:49 am
And I think I agree with Diarmuid. On this.
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:53 am
I’m not sure “insight” is the right word, because what you get an insight into is the truth. “Metaphor” might again be the best word (see discussion on Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics), or perhaps “idea of something new to try”.
February 2nd, 2010 at 8:49 am
I agree and disagree, if I’m allowed the luxury of both. I agree if by this is meant that we expect SLA research to furnish us with teaching theories. However, I disagree if by this is meant the option to pursue an ad hoc pedagogy. Every recipe presupposes the theory that makes it valid, whether the user is aware of that or not. A professional should at least try to be aware of the theoretical underpinnings of their mode of instruction, I think.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:11 pm
I will allow you that luxury, but only if you eat salty porridge for breakfast to make up for it.
How can we do else but pursue an ad hoc philosophy, when the research basis for most of what we believe is zilch and you can find TEFL celebrities to back up both sides of almost any argument? Understanding the philosophy behind what you do is nice (if likely to be slower than being introduced to a technique based on a different philosophy, if even one you don’t understand), but using one philosophy to decide everything you do in the classroom is plain foolish. Anyone remember behaviourism? Ditto for politicians and economists who try to be consistent in fields where the theories are always behind reality
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Salty porridge? ‘Tis a luxury round my way.
As for ad hocism – I agree it’s all we appear to have at the moment, but a man can dream. The theory should inform the practice and vice versa in that happy vice that used to be called praxis. I keep thinking it’s not too much to ask for but I used to think that about hover boots too and they never materialised either.
February 3rd, 2010 at 5:01 pm
I meant to post this on the thread/post to do with Evidence-based practice (EBP) – or was it Evidence-informed practice (EBI)?
Anyway, it’s a quote from Alex Moore’s article (see below) on the perils of method-dominated teacher training courses, and goes like this…
“Fortunately, good teaching does not require us to internalise an endless list of instructional techniques. Much more fundamental is the recognition that human relationships are central to effective instruction.”
Sort of sums it up for me, that does.
Article: “Beyond reflection: contingency, idiosyncracy and reflexivity in initial teacher education” – A. Moore, 1999.