Comments on: Rod Ellis on theory and practice

By: Sandy

Sandy — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:01:22 +0000

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.

By: Sputnik

Sputnik — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:37:32 +0000

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.

By: Alex Case

Alex Case — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:11:29 +0000

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

By: Sputnik

Sputnik — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 08:49:14 +0000

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.

By: Alex Case

Alex Case — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:53:42 +0000

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”.

By: Darren Elliott

Darren Elliott — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 03:49:29 +0000

And I think I agree with Diarmuid. On this.

By: Diarmuid

Diarmuid — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:56:38 +0000

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.