THE FORUM

The TESOL Quarterly invites commentary on current trends or practices in the

TESOL profession. It also welcomes responses to rebuttals to any articles or remarks
published here in The Forum or elsewhere in the Quarterly.

The Role of Theory in

L2 Teacher Education*
KAREN E. JOHNSON
Pennsylvania State University

L2 teacher education programs are often criticized for presenting

particular kinds of knowledge in ways that do not resemble how teachers
actually use their knowledge in real classrooms. Novice teachers enrolled
in teacher education programs complain that they get too much theory
and too little practice. Public school and English language institute
administrators complain that new hires know a lot of theory but cannot
translate it into effective classroom practices. Teacher educators argue
that if novice teachers do not know the theory, they will be unable to
make informed decisions about what to do once they enter classrooms. I
believe that what is needed is more realistic expectations about what
theory does and does not do for L2 teachers.

PERCEPTUAL, NOT CONCEPTUAL, KNOWLEDGE

Recounting the classic controversy between Platos and Aristotles
conceptions of rationality, Kessels and Korthagen (1996) argue that the
development of perceptual knowledge (phronesis) not conceptual knowledge
(episteme) should be central to teacher education programs. They argue
that conceptual knowledge is too abstract, stripped of its particulars, and
void of the very context that constructs the basis upon which decisions
* This article presents some of the issues that will be addressed in the Quarterlys Autumn
1998 special-topic issue on Research and Practice in English Language Teacher Education,
guest edited by Karen E. Johnson and Donald Freeman.

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 30, No. 4, Winter 1996

765

are made. Instead, they claim, in the phronesis-conception of knowledge [practical wisdom], there is no set of given, abstract rules to apply
to this particular problem because the problem is (as yet) far too
particular for that. There are too many details, too many idiosyncrasies,
too many exceptional aspects for a general rule (p. 20). Teacher
educators, they claim, must create opportunities for novice teachers to
explore, develop, and refine their perceptual knowledge; to uncover
what they are actually aware of; to articulate the particulars of their own
classroom context; to examine their own reactions, thoughts, and
feelings; and to account for the intricacies of their own teaching.
The development of perceptual knowledge is also essential because, as
Buchmann (1984) claims, research knowledge is only a fragment of
human awareness, precious no doubt, but not created for the purpose of
actions, not sufficient to determine them (p. 422). Thus, conceptual
knowledge, or theory, should be viewed as only one aspect of the
knowledge-base in teaching. In fact, Buchmann claims that other aspects
of teachers knowledge, namely, common sense, personal commitment,
and external policies, such as school curriculum and mandates, must
also be recognized as part of a valid knowledge-base for classroom
practice. Eisner (1984), agreeing with Buchmann, claims that theory
and generalizations from educational research can provide a guidebut
never a substitutefor the teachers ability to read the meanings that are
found in the qualities of classroom life (p. 452). Hence, teacher
educators cannot, and should not, look to theory as the solution to all
that ails classroom practice, or all that is needed to prepare L2 teachers.
Even more important, teacher educators must realize that theory
often fails to inform practice because the problems that arise in practice
are generally neither caused by nor the result of teachers lack of
knowledge about theory. Instead, the problems that teachers face are
generally caused by constraints imposed on them within the social,
cultural, economic, and educational contexts in which their practice
takes place, namely, the school and classroom. This being the case, one
cannot assume that theory does, or can ever, fully and completely inform
practice.
MAKING SENSE OF THEORY
The question then becomes, what is the relevance of theory for
classroom practice? Over the past 10 years, researchers and practitioners
in L2 teacher education have began to recast the conceptions of who
teachers are, what teaching is, and how teachers learn to teach (Freeman, 1993, 1994; Freeman & Richards, 1996; Johnson, 1992, 1994, 1996;
Richards & Nunan, 1990). Researchers and practitioners have begun to
recognize that what teachers know about teaching is not simply an
766

TESOL QUARTERLY

extended body of facts and theories but is instead largely experiential

and socially constructed out of the experiences and classrooms from
which teachers have come. In addition, they have begun to recognize
teaching as a socially constructed activity that requires the interpretation
and negotiation of meanings embedded within the classrooms and
schools where teachers teach. And finally, they have begun to recognize
that learning to teach is a complex developmental process that is
acquired by participating in the social practices associated with teaching
and learning.
To accept these reconceptualizations is to assume that teachers
knowledge is inherently their own, constructed by teachers themselves,
and largely experiential. This being the case, it appears that theory can
inform classroom practice only to the extent to which teachers themselves make sense of that theory. Ultimately, it is on this sense-making
process that I believe the attention of L2 teacher education programs
must be focused. But what does this sense-making process entail and how
can teacher education programs be structured in such a way as to foster
such sense-making?
CASEBASED METHODS
First, for teachers to make sense of theory, it must be situated in the
familiar context of their own teaching. Fenstermacher (1986) claims that
theory benefits classroom practice only to the extent that it helps bring
to the surface, alter, and strengthen the justifications that exist in the
minds of teachers. When teachers articulate their justifications for why
they teach the way they do, when they reflect on theory within the
context of their own classrooms, and when they talk about their
justifications with others, it fosters the kind of sense-making that enables
teachers to not only change what they do but also change their
justifications for what they do.
To enable novice teachers to work through their justifications, teacher
educators must begin to recognize the situated and interpretative nature
of teaching (Freeman, 1994; Freeman & Richards, 1996). In essence,
teaching requires teachers to figure out what to do about a particular
topic with a particular group of students in a particular time and place.
This being the case, teacher education programs must rely less on the
transmission of knowledge model of teaching teachers (i.e., readings,
lecture, exams, term papers) and more on a more problem-or case-based
method (Richert, 1987; Shulman, 1992). Case-based methods provide
rich descriptions of the complexities of teachers work by revealing the
complex variables that are considered as teachers sort out, make sense
of, and justify the use of particular actions. Cases, unlike real classrooms,
provide a safe environment for novice teachers to consider alternatives,
THE FORUM

767

granting them time and space to carefully consider all the issues
embedded within an instructional situation. Cases can also be used as
social activities in that novice teachers can get together in groups to
discuss, reflect on, and analyze a case. Novice teachers can also author
cases as a means of talking about what they know within the contexts in
which they work. Doing so fosters reflection, brings value to novice
teachers experiences, and validates their perspectives. In essence
case-based methods create opportunities for novice teachers to use their
knowledge about teaching in situated and interpretative ways.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOLS
However, teacher educators must also recognize that learning to teach
requires participation in the social practices associated with teaching and
learning, and herein lies a fundamental problem with most teacher
education programs. In general, students enrolled in preservice teacher
education programs are not participating in teaching while they are
studying about teaching, so they do not have the opportunity to
experience firsthand the situated and interpretative nature of real
teaching. Not until they actually enter classrooms and have to make
decisions about what to do, with whom, for what purpose, and when will
they have to engage in the complex interpretative way of thinking and
doing required in real teaching. Unfortunately, the one-semester
practicum teaching experience typical of most TESOL teacher education programs is grossly inadequate for preparing novice teachers to
teach (Johnson, 1996). Given that most university-based teacher education programs are constrained by time (semester or term) and the
availability of appropriate practicum placements, the creation of professional development schools (Darling-Hammond, 1994; Gebhard, 1994;
Grossman, 1994; Lieberman & Miller, 1990) is essential if teacher
educators are to provide an authentic environment for the preparation
of novice teachers.
ASSESSMENT
Professional development schools are not just university lab schools
but instead are real schools where university faculty and site-based
teachers share in the responsibility for preparing novice teachers.
Lieberman and Miller (1990) characterize the culture of professional
development schools as places where teachers work collegially, where
they engage in serious inquiry into their own practices, where teachers
themselves determine how best to teach their students based on contextual and personal understandings of their students needs, and where
support for change comes from within the school and from the univer768

TESOL QUARTERLY

sity. Within this culture, novice teachers enter professional development

schools as true novices but gradually participate in team teaching,
develop curriculum, prepare case studies, and participate in ongoing
research projects.
Throughout this process, novice teachers become socialized into a
school culture that views learning as personal, meaningful, and based on
a grounded understanding of students needs. Thus, novice teachers rely
less on prefabricated lessons or textbooks but instead learn to construct
curriculum that is uniquely adapted to their students. Through team
meetings, peer observations, case conferences, and action research,
professional development schools create an environment where reflection and continuous inquiry into ones practice is the norm, not the
exception. Although creating and sustaining professional development
schools is no simple task (Grossman, 1994; Teitel, 1992), such schools
have enormous potential to link universities and classrooms in order to
create authentic environments for the preparation of novice teachers.
Whether university or school based, teacher education programs that
are structured to foster sense-making must also design ways of assessing
this sense-making process. Portfolio assessment is one means of assessing
how teachers make sense of what they are learning in their teacher
education programs (Collins, 1991; Johnson, in press). Portfolio design
and development require teacher educators to articulate the specific
purposes that the portfolio will be used to assess. To do so, teacher
educators must ask themselves, What is it that we really want our
students to know and be able to do as a result of this teacher education
program? For example, as a teacher educator, I may believe that novice
teachers need to reflect on, critically analyze, and evaluate their own
teaching or that they need to be aware of the unique needs and learning
styles of their students and be sensitive to the social factors that may
affect their students learning. Though these purposes are not easy to
accomplish, those selected will depend on the goals of the particular
teacher education program.
Once the purposes are established, novice teachers then set out to
compile evidence that demonstrates that they have successfully met these
purposes. Evidence may come in the form of artifacts, such as a paper
written for a course or a notebook of field notes from a series of
classroom observations. They may take the form of reproductions, such
as an audiotape of a discussion with an experienced teacher about
classroom management or a collection of journal entries about a
particular student. Evidence may also reflect attestations, for example, a
cooperating teachers final written report or a peers written observation
of the novice teacher. Once all of the evidence is collected, novice
teachers must then provide a description of the focus of the portfolio, a
summary of the documents in the portfolio, and attachments for each
THE FORUM

769

piece of evidence describing what it is, why it is evidence, and what it is

evidence of. Ultimately, this process requires novice teachers to articulate their knowledge about teaching in ways that are similar to how they
will use that knowledge once they enter their own classrooms. Thus, it
represents a form of assessment that not only assesses sense-making but
also fosters it.
CONCLUSION
In refocusing L2 teacher education programs, teacher educators must
find ways to situate learning about teaching within authentic contexts
and develop in teachers ways of knowing and doing that represent the
socially constructed, perceptual, and interpretative nature of real teaching. If teacher educators do this, teachers will be constantly engaged in a
process of sense-making, enabling them to not simply change what they
do, but change their justifications for what they do. Such sense-making
makes theory relevant for practice because teachers knowledge, whether
theoretical or practical, conceptual or perceptual, will be understood
and acted on within the context of real teaching.
REFERENCES
Buchmann, M. (1984). The use of research knowledge in teacher education and
teaching. American Journal of Education, 92, 421439.
Collins, A. (1991). Portfolios for biology teacher assessment. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 5, 147-167.
Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (1994). Professional development schools. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Eisner, E. W. (1984, March). Can educational research inform educational practice?
Phi Delta Kappan, 447-452.
Fenstermacher, G. D. (1986) Philosophy of research on teaching: Three aspects. In
M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 3749). New York:
Macmillan.
Freeman, D. (1993). Renaming experience/reconstructing practice: Developing new
understandings of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 485498.
Freeman, D. (1994). Knowing into doing: Teacher education and the problem of
transfer. In D. C. Li, D. Mahoney, & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Exploring second language
teacher development (pp. 120). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.
Freeman, D., & Richards, J. C. (1996). (Eds). Teacher learning in language teaching.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gebhard, M. (1994). Professional development for pre-seruice second language educators:
Present understandings and future directions. Unpublished manuscript, University of
California, Berkeley.
Grossman, P. (1994). In pursuit of a dual agenda: Creating a middle level professional development school. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional development
schools (pp. 5073). New York: Teachers College Press.
Johnson, K. E. (1992). Learning to teach: Instructional actions and decisions of
preservice ESL teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 507-535.

770

TESOL QUARTERLY

Johnson, K. E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of preservice

ESL teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 439-452.
Johnson, K. E. (1996) The vision vs. the reality: The tensions of the TESOL
practicum. In D. Freeman & J. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching
(pp. 30-49). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, K. E. (in press). Portfolio assessment in second language teacher education.
TESOL Journal.
Kessels, J. P., & Korthagen, F. A. (1996). The relationship between theory and
practice: Back to the classics. Educational Researcher, 25, 1722.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1990). Teacher development in professional practice
schools. Teachers College Record, 92, 105122.
Richards, J. C., & Nunan, D. (Eds.). (1990). Second language teacher education. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Richert, A. (1987). Writing cases: A vehicle for inquiry into teaching process. In J. H.
Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp. 155174). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Shulman, J. H. (1992). Case methods in teacher education. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Teitel, L. (1992). The impact of professional development school partnerships on
the preparation of teachers. Teaching Education, 4, 7785.

THE FORUM

771