TEFL Insider Part Six- Inside Scott Thornbury
In my quest to find all the adjectives you can possibly use to describe a textbook (actually, only the clean ones…) I have made a little trip to the other side of TEFL, where the number of citations is what matters rather than how few students complain about your lessons and where footnotes are considered a proof of intellect rather than a proof of bad writing style. Although it seems TEFL academics have as little grasp of basic statistics and an impactful opening sentence as ever, my venture into online academia was mainly a bracing experience (in a “watching avant garde theatre in a language you don’t understand” kind of way) and I only found my eyes glazing over once or twice. Anyway, so you don’t have to sully yourself with spending online time reading too many articles by men with PhDs and socks with sandals, here are the highlights for you:
There’s quite a nice little review of a recent Scott Thornbury book in TESL-EJ. As I mention in my comments there, it is always worth psychoanalysing an author if you want to see where they are coming from and therefore how much you should pay attention to them. As I really don’t want to probe into Mr Thornbury’s love life or relationship with his mother, nor to literally climb inside him Being John Malcovitch-style, I will stick to mentioning that it is no coincidence that all his books start off seeming like a radical new approach to the subject and then finish off with conclusions and activities that you’ve been doing since your CELTA. This is because Scott Thornbury comes from that other TEFL ghetto- the do the CELTA , do the DELTA, become an IELTS oral examiner, write for ETP, never leave the UK or Europe one. As someone whose career was also going down the same path until I discovered the rest of the world, it’s nice to see his book reviewed by someone from the “get as many MAs as you can to make it up to your grandmother for becoming an English teacher” side of the profession.
Also worth a mention in the same edition is an article by the TEFL voice of good sense, Michael Swan- debunking TEFL myths on an upcoming talk show on Radio KYTEFL soon!
November 1st, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Now this is definitely up my street, my cup of tea (milk but no sugar, please). There’s fields rich in guano, chokker with easy-pickings, just waiting to be harvested by the right sort of fellah.
Thanks for the links, Alex!!
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:12 am
Sandy, I have no idea what you are talking about, but happy that you are happy anyway…
Still taking the pills??
November 22nd, 2007 at 11:26 pm
I’d like to submit something on the unaccountability of applied linguistics in general and of the editors of some journals in particular including naming names and instances. What do you think? I’m sending this to similar blogs.
Ron Sheen
November 23rd, 2007 at 12:12 am
Hi Ron
Thanks for your message. It sounds interesting, but you’ll understand that I’ll need to cover myself if names are named. What I suggest is that you set up your own blog for the purposes just of putting that one post up (very easy, have a look at http://blogs.tefl.net/ for examples) and I’ll put the first paragraph on my blog with a link to yours and a request for people to comment on my blog or yours.
How does that sound?
November 23rd, 2007 at 12:25 am
Anyone who knows anything about the history of applied linguistics and second-foreign language teaching is hard pushed not to conclude that those applied linguists who endeavour to advocate teaching ideas without having subjected them to empirical testing are either self-delusional or charlatans à la Krashen. Scott Thornbury is a case in point.
I have already critiqued his empirically-unsupported ideas in ELTJ and regret that he was allowed to publish a response which failed to address those criticisms. In my view, as he is a bright fellow, he veers more to the charlatan than the delusional. He has seen what will enhance his career and his bank balance and has, therefore, blithely ignored the massive counter-evidence against his teachig ideas (at least, the ones I have read in ELTJ)
It is a sad truth of applied linguistcs and language teaching that innovation is valued above empirically-supported teaching ideas. Again, anyone who has investigated the sad fate of innovations should be aware of this. (refs. available). Unfortunately, most editors of journals do not appear to be among these and, consequently, allow new ideas to be published without insisting on the provision of supportive empirical evidence.
If the advocate is a well-known applied linguist and his-her ideas are not challenged (and even if they are, sadly - refs available), we have yet more faddism and bandwagonism which after ten years or so leads to the publication of the new ideas in teaching materials. Take task-based language teaching is an example.
There is, however, one compensatory thought. Most practically-minded teachers use such new ideas WITHOUT buying into the doctrinaire twaddle they are wrapped up in by the advocates. Take Michael Long’s advocacy of a focus on form (as opposed to a focus on formS) and task based teaching. Neither he nor Skehan provided an iota of supportive evidence; yet, publishers seeing one more way of increasing profits, jumped on the bandwagon.
However, as to potty ideas, here’s the one that takes the biscuit. Putatively based on cognitive research, Doughty has now proposed that time-outs from communicative acivity for attention to grammar should not exceed 40 seconds. (ref available) This upped the stakes on the previous limit of 60 seconds set by Patsy Lightbown, the Mother Theresa of applied linguistics, whose ideas changed with the prevailing wind.
Ron Sheen
November 23rd, 2007 at 12:43 am
Thanks, Alex for your prompt reply though I am disappointed by your hesitation over names. Though I have just retired to the warmth and wealth (not mine) of Dubai, I am still an ethically-committed applied linguist. What I intend to state in terms of named persons is simply the fact of their failure to reply to legitimate queries. This FACT is supported by irrefutable evidence. There is, therefore, no fear whatsoever of your being vulnerable to libel claims.
As to creating my own blog, I’d really prefer to benefit from existing blogs.
By the way, the tale I have to tell basically recounts the details of what might be called a conspiracy of silence on the part of academics and OUP professionals involved in the Journal of Applied Linguistics and the implicit fact that the editors of this journal (and others) have no obligation to be accountable for their actions or lack thereof.
By the way, do you have any idea of the size of your readershipÉ
Ron Sheen
November 23rd, 2007 at 1:48 am
I do think the idea that we can only teach what is empirically supported, and therefore only suggest ways of teaching that are empirically supported, is a bit optimistic about the amount and quality of empirical evidence we have available. The worst types of language teaching in history remain those that were “supported” by the scientific theories of the time just as much as those that were just created out of thin air. When some stock traders find that sheer instinct is at least as useful as the best of the scientific research on predicting stock movements, how can we rely to a large extent on science in the much more complicated area of teaching?
November 23rd, 2007 at 3:49 am
Alex, as you provide nothing substantive to support your comments, it is impossible to reply in any interesting way. If you support your argument with actual examples, I will then address each one. I await with bated breath for your unsupported argument as it is is new to me. Of course, it is possible that we disagree on the meaning of empirically supported. I am referring to rigorous comparative studies.
Ron Sheen
November 23rd, 2007 at 6:30 am
You write Alex: I do think the idea that we can only teach what is empirically supported, and therefore only suggest ways of teaching that are empirically supported,
This is not my argument. It is as follows:
1. We cannot judge the appropriacy of any teaching option without specifying the aims of that option.
2. What I criticise in the advocacy of the likes of Scott Thornbury is not ONLY that the option they advocate is not supported by the empirical evidence but that it is explicitly demonstrated to be far from the best opion if accuracy is important.
3. Thus, for example, strong communicative language teaching (SCLT) based on Krashen’s input hypothesis (similar to ST’s proposals) has been repeatedly demonstrated to be far from the most effective if accuracy is a basic need of the learners.
4. Of course, we are here talking about main principles. The many personal teaching ploys of teachers based on their own experience are not at issue here.
Ron Sheen
November 25th, 2007 at 6:40 am
Ron
Have you considered that your difficulties in getting your opinions heard might have anything to do with your stuck up attitude, i.e. how you put your opinions across rather than what you are saying?
You had my symapthy when you stated that OUP might not be giving you a fair hearing as I have had my disagreements with how the big publishers do their business over the years (despite them giving me writing work and lots of free books). I would also be a natural ally on your crusade against Krashen, and have been as pleased as anyone that over recent years the majority opinion has become that focus on grammar is needed (a message that has got through to many teachers through Scott Thornbury, I might mention, although I don’t know if his views have changed since he wrote “The A-Z of ELT”). However, I now understand why publications that have already given you the right of reply once might not want to publish anymore of someone as hectoring as you- and this is when you are trying to butter me up to get published on my blog, I’d love to see you really get going shaking your walking stick at the youngsters on skateboards!
As my offer to link to your arguments elsewhere on the web was not good enough, I was going to suggest other blogs that have not had the recent changes in libel law in the UK repeatedly drummed into them by their editors (of other publications I write for, not TEFL.net) but actually I don’t know any blogs that would be particularly interested in your melodramatic personal vendetta, maybe you could try the forums on Rave Spelling’s ESL Au Lait.
Alex
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:28 am
As my two previous messages sent in the last 24 hours have not appeared here, this is simply a check to see if there has been a glitch or if, God forbid, Alex has changed his mind on the value of free speech.
Ron Sheen
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:59 am
Didn’t receive any Ron. Please try again (one tip I have learnt after many painful disappearances of my own messages on other blogs is, if I write something long I always copy and paste it into a Word document and save it as well in case attempts are unsuccessful).
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:37 am
Thanks, Alex, for your advice which I have fortunately followed as yet again what I sent about ten hours ago has not appeared. Anyway, here it is again.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:08 am
This time I deleted it. Pedantic and pointless comments like those I deleted might perhaps explain why you do not have friends and supporters in the field and therefore have to rely on blogs like mine to help you. Unlike you I am not retired and do not have the time and the energy to deal with cranky pensioners. I also do not like people who invite themselves onto my personal blogs and then make demands about what I should publish and how I should write. If you post similar attacks again I will delete all your previous comments and block you. If, however, you do find somewhere else to place your original complaint about OUP, you may put a link to it here in case anyone is interested.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:51 am
The Internet has created numerous situations allowing people to show their true colours in terms of the value of free speech. This particularly applies to ‘owners’ of putatively free discussion groups who censor (ie delete) expressions of points of view with which they disagree.
However, you are the first case I’ve encountered of an owner who mounted an ad hominem attack against a contributor and then deleted the response thereto as he was clearly unable to justify his abysmally ignorant use of the language he is supposed to be teaching.
What a truly sad case you are. No wonder you have taken refuge in Japan. Having been a full professor at a National University there, I am well aware of the egregiously low standards required of teachers. Your use of the language clearly shows that you have benefited from those low standards.
I am now about to delete your blog from my computer.
Ron.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:02 am
I mean really- who cares who has been a full professor (whatever full might mean) of what where. You are obviously used to people sucking up to you because of your titles and age. I don’t suck up. A few points about blogs that the over 70s might not understand:
-Blog means “web log”, meaning that it is a personal diary written on the internet. If I give people a space to comment on what I have written, that is a priviledge and not a right- a priviledge that will be taken away if reading your comments becomes more effort than it is worth. As a full time teacher who also publishes quite a lot of stuff and on top of that tries to find time to write my blog (occassionally for my own benefit and occassionally to help others) that is my only criteria. That is no more censorship than not allowing you to graffiti on the walls of my house. Get your own blog if you don’t like it, or try the same trick on a public forum that is advertised as such and see how long it is before you get flamed and then blocked.
-If you have found a blog written in the language demanded by academic EFL journals, then it basically isn’t a good blog. Academic language is just as unsuitable for a blog as it is for a newspaper, a conversation or a comic- the word “thereto” being a good example. Quite how people who claim to know about the English language can accept that written grammar is different from spoken grammar (if the over 70 year old ex-professor segment do indeed accept that) and not understand that the language of a blog is just as different as that from the language of a magazine, a dissertation or anything else I completely fail to understand. Do you correct your friend’s spelling when they text you as well?
- A blog is a community, not an open forum. If you do not match the community in values, language, or any other factor then you are better off elsewhere- a decision that you seem to have made too.
-The fact that language on a blog (like language in general) is mainly a social thing for bonding rather than a way of passing on precise information is again something that shouldn’t be difficult to understand to anyone that has studied linguistics. How it is possible for some autistic people to use that knowledge to make a good attempt at being able to gain normal social skills while so many people with more letters after their name than friends who presumably start off with normal social skills manage to lose those despite that knowledge I will never understand. You presumably came onto my blog originally to make allies in your quest. Instead, you have made at least one more enemy. I forget the technical word for it, but that seems a less than efficient use of language in at least one way to me.
- If your attitude is “I’d rather be right than have friends”, that philosophy is as likely to be as successful on a blog or a forum as it is in a pub or with your family. If it will help your academic career I have no idea, but I would doubt that too.
Btw, if you are really interested in the precise use of language, surely “censorship” is when an outside body like the government decides to cut or change something. Is a newspaper deciding not to give a 250 page daily supplement of every letter they receive every day censorship?
December 11th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Nice, erm ‘discussion’ here, Alex! Please keep it going - don’t frighten the old bugger off (no, that’s not a reference to myself!), as I need the entertainment. It makes me laugh heartily when I see somebody who has swallowed the whole ‘teaching is a science’ claptrap. We ‘real teachers’ know that it’s more of an art than a science - something that ‘real professors’ can’t stomach!
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Oh my, just wanted some unbiased feed back. The point of this blog seems to have some what been lost.
November 4th, 2008 at 10:39 am
So, Ron, are you saying that language is not socially constructed? Why must all research be from the positivist/ scientific point of view or be deemed rubbish? News flash: the paradigm wars are over and qualitative studies are commonplace in many doctoral programs – like it or not. Welcome to the 21st century.