Tudor Capitulo

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 23

1 A changing perspective on language

teaching

1.1 A new technology of language teaching

People have been learning languages other than their first language
throughout history. How they did this, however, is something which
remains shrouded in mystery as the long history of language learning is
largely unrecorded. It is likely that a very large part of this learning
occurred in a naturalistic manner by means of contact with speakers of
another language with the goal of interpersonal communication for
purposes of trade, social organisation or the conveyance of a belief
system. There have also been attempts to help language learners by
means of structured approaches to the presentation of the target
language (TL) or the practice of elements of this language. That is what
we would now call approaches or methodologies.
Neither the learning nor the teaching of languages, then, are novel
activities. The period of language teaching history which stretches from
the 196os to the present, however, is probably unique. To begin with,
the scale of the learning and teaching of languages is in all probability
greater than has ever been the case previously; this is as a consequence
of the expansion in international exchanges of all types which charac-
terises the modern world. This period has also witnessed an unprece-
dented intensity of reflection and experimentation in all fields of
language teaching. In this respect, it is useful to bear in mind that
language teaching is a social phenomenon and is therefore influenced by
the sociocultural context in which it occurs. It is therefore useful to look
at the reasons for the development of language teaching in recent
decades, and also at the general directions that thinking on language
teaching have adopted over the same period.
The period. around the r96os witnessed a number of significant
changes in the map of the world and in international relations. On the
international level, colonial empires were. disappearing, and a large
number of states which had recently obtained their independence were
investing heavily to provide their populations with improved standards

5
A changing perspective on language teaching

of education and to develop their economies in order to be able to


compete on the international market on more equal terms. This led to
the need for knowledge of foreign languages as a means of gaining
access to information in the· fields of science and technology, and of
enabling citizens to communicate with people from other countries in
various aspects of economic and commercial life. In view of the role of
English as an international language in the fields of science, technology
and business, a significant part of the expansion in the demand for
language learning involved English. At the same time, the countries of
Europe, which were still emerging from the destruction and trauma of
the Second World War, were rebuilding their economies and seeking to
create greater mntual understanding and cooperation in both economic
and social fields. One of the manifestations of this effort was the setting-
up in 1963 of the Council of Europe's Modern Languages Project, an
ambitious scheme which was designed to promote language learning
throughout Europe. Increasing prosperity gave further impetus to this
drive as a result of increased economic exchanges as well· as by
providing the bases for the expansion of travel for leisure and cultural
purposes.
These changes in society influenced language teaching in two main
ways. First, they increased the overall demand for language teaching
dramatically. Second, they altered the nature of this demand. Before this
period language teaching had beep marked by a focus on the language
code and by a strong scholastic and literary orientation. The changes
alluded to above, on the other hand, set primarily functional goals for
language teaching. In many cases, they related to the development of
specific competences in more or less restricted domains of usage such as
basic transactional skills for travel or tourism, the ability to read
specialised material in a given domain of activity, oral communication
skills in a particular field of economic life, and so on.
In order to be able to respond to this changing demand, the language
teaching profession had to develop a new set of procedures for
establishing goals, constructing learning programmes, and realising
these programmes at classroom level. This led to work on needs analysis
(cf. Richterich, 1973; Munby, 1978) and on functionally based ap-
proaches to course design (d. Wilkins, 1976; Mackay and Mountford,
1978; Widdowson, 1978), as well as on the development of a new
approach to classroom methodology (cf. Strevens, 1977; Brumfit and
Johnson, 1979; Savignon, 1983; Brumfit, r984a). These efforts led to
the creation of what could fairly be described as a new 'technology' of
language teaching, as seen in the options that were made available to
language educators for investigating students' learning needs, con-
structing coherent learning programmes, and realising these pro-

6
A new technology in language teaching

grammes in terms of learning tasks and activities. By about 1980, the


theoretical !andsca pe of language teaching had undergone a significant
change, and what came to be known as the communicative approach
had established itself as the dominant paradigm in language teaching.
This intense work of reflection and development has continued into the
present and there is no reason to believe that it will stop in the near
future.
The period since the r96os has been marked by a considerable
amount of creativity and energy in language teaching. This has mani-
fested itself in terms of the theoretical developments mentioned above,
and also ·in an impressive productivity in terms of teaching materials
and learning aids of many types, including the use of various technical
facilities such as video, computer-assisted learning, and multimedia.
With respect to methodology, it is fair to speak of an explosion in the
range of materials which are available to teachers. A parallel expansion
has taken place in terms of the number of professional journals,
language teaching associations, and courses in applied linguistics or
language teaching methodology which are available. The world of
language teaching is now a very much richer and more diversified place
than it was in the 196os. What could be described as the 'technology of
language teaching' - namely the theoretical perspectives and practical
options which are available to language educators for designing and
implementing learning programmes- has expanded dramatically.
In one sense, the language teaching profession has good reason to feel
satisfaction with this period of creativity: it points to the considerable
efforts that have been made in response to the demands of society to
develop new means of approaching the task of language teaching in an
effective manner. In many ways, these developments reflect the positi-
vistic belief in the power of human reason to find solutions to the
various challenges of life aud, thus, parallel developments in the fields
of medicine, science, and technology. As a result, the language teaching
profession has a much richer array of options at its disposal at the start
of the twenty-first century than was the case a few decades ago. A
teacher faced with the request to set up a learning programme for a
given group of students thus has a varied and well-developed set of
resources to choose from in terms of investigative and course design
procedures, teaching materials, and learning aids; he or she also has an
impressive array of methodological ideas as a source of inspiration. It
would thus be reasonable to say that over the last few decades the
profession has developed what could be seen as a new technology of
language teaching.
This, however, is not the whole story. Having a rich technology at
one's disposal is certainly a help. Technology, however, offers a potential .I

..-:-'
_
I
A changing perspective on language teaching
I but does not in itself guarantee that a given result will be obtained, not
in a complex human activity like teaching, at least. The real effective·
ness of educational technology lies not just in the inherent logic and
potentiality of the technology itself but in the appropriacy of its use,
and this involves consideration of a variety of 'soft' data relating to the
perceptions and attitudes of the people who will be using it and to the
type of context in which it will be used. This in turn calls for a different
perspective on language teaching, one which is complementary to but,
nonetheless, separate from the development of the 'technology' referred
to above.

Evaluate your own interaction with the technology of language


teaching in terms of the approaches, methodologies, materials, or
learning aids with which you have worked.
• In which ways has this technology facilitated your task as
teacher?
• Have you ever felt tensions or dissatisfaction with elements of
this technology? Specifically, have you ever felt that technology
did not appear to offer you what you might have expected it to?
• If so, try to identify the origins of these tensions or dissatisfac-
tions.
• In which ways have you responded to situations of this nature?

1.2 Towards an ecological perspective on language teaching

If it could be assumed that learners were 'simply' learners, that teachers


were 'simply' teachers, and that one classroom was essentially the same
as another, there would probably be little need for any approach other
than a technological perspective on language teaching. Objective differ-
ences - such as the age of learners, the specific goals being pursued, or
class numbers - could be included in a pre-established matrix and
accommodated in a reasonably straightforward manner as departures
from a given norm, rather in the way that the same production
machinery can be recalibrated to produce different cars. In this scenario,
a well-developed technology of language teaching would be sufficient to
guarantee a fairly predictable set of results.
This, of course, is not the case. Learners are not 'simply' learners any
more than teachers are 'simply' teachers; teaching contexts, too, differ
from one another in a significant number of ways. In other words,
language teaching is far more complex than producing cars: we cannot

8
Towards an ecological perspective on language teaching

therefore assume that the technology of language teaching will lead in a


neat, deterministic manner to a predictable set of learning outcomes.
For the technology of language teaching to produce effective results, it
has to work with people as they are in the context in which they find
themselves at a given point in time. The technology, then, has to be used
appropriately, and deciding on what is or is not appropriate calls for
consideration of the total context of teaching in both human and
pragmatic terms. Certain writers (Holliday and Cooke, 1982; Van Lier,
1997) have referred to this as an 'ecological' perspective on language
teaching, i.e. one which looks at language teaching within the totality of
the lives of the various participants involved and not as one sub-part of
their lives which can be examined in isolation. Van Lier expresses this in
the following terms:
An ecological perspective on language learning offers an alter-
native way of looking at the contexts in which language use and
language learning are situated ... It proposes to be a radical
alternative to Cartesian rationalism, body-mind dualism, and
the anthropocentric world promoted for several centuries. It
replaces these views with a conception of the learning environ-
ment as a complex adaptive system, of the mind as the totality
of relationships between a developing person and the sur-
rounding world, and of learning as the result of meaningful
activity in an accessible environment. (1997: 783)
In an ecological perspective on teaching, technology is simply one
element among others, an essential element indeed, but still only one.
Furthermore, it is unsafe to assume that the effects of educational
technology can be predicted confidently from the inner logic of the
technology alone, as this inner logic inevitably interacts with the percep-
tions and goals of those involved in using it. This means that in order to
understand precisely what takes place in our classrooms, we have to
look at these classrooms as entities in their own right .and explore the
meaning they have for those who are involved in them in their own
terms. In other words, a classroom is not just an exemplar of a certain
pedagogical idealisation: it is something living and dynamic which does
not necessarily fit into an idealised picture of what a classroom should
be. Consequently, understanding the reality of teaching involves ex-
ploring the meaning it has for students, for teachers, and for the others
who, in one way or another, influence what is done in classrooms.
The ecological perspective has gained more attention and has come to
assume a more dominant role in mainstream thinking on language
teaching in recent years. It has, however, been present for some time,
running parallel with the development of the new technology of

9
A changing perspective on langnage teaching

language teaching mentioned above. Indeed, the two are by no means


incompatible. The technology of language teaching as seen in approach,
methodology, materials, and learning aids provides language educators
with options from which they can choose in setting-up a course or
planning a class. The ecological perspective, on the other hand, focuses
attention on the human and pragmatic factors which influence the use
arid likely effectiveness of this technology. There can, however, be a
tension between the two perspectives. A technological approach to
education seems positive and confident, and it promises a specific
product. An ecological perspective, on the other hand, often calls upon
us to 'Wait a moment' and has many instances of 'It depends'. Perhaps
for this reason, the technological perspective has the most attraction for
those who are further removed from classroom realities, i.e. planning
committees, educational authorities, and so on. Practising teachers,
however, are in (and part of) one small ecosystem which is the class-
room, and it is much more difficult for them to ignore the 'rules' or inner ·
logic of this system and simply to 'apply the technology' according to
the instruction manual. The teacher's reality is an ecological one which
is shaped by the attitudes and expectations of students, of parents, of
school administrators, of materials writers, and of many others in-
cluding, of course, each teacher as an individual in his or her own right.
Understanding what takes place in classrooms therefore involves
understanding what different participants - students and teachers in the
first instance, but many others, too - bring with them to the classroom,
and how this influences what they do within it. This, in turn, involves
exploring participants' identities and listening to their voice. The next
three sections therefore look at trends in research in recent years which
have explored this aspect of teaching, namely the identity of partici-
pants and how this influences the voices they express.

This book works within an ecological perspective on language


teaching and seeks to provide teachers with guidelines for nego-
tiating a shared and sustainable approach to teaching within their
classrooms. Think about the two perspectives on language
teaching which have been outlined here.
• Which do you work with more?
• Which was dominant in your training?
• Have you encountered tensions between the two?
• If so, analyse the origin of these tensions and how you have dealt
with them.

IO
Learner identities

1.3 Learner identities I

I
A significant part of the new technology of language teaching which
was developed in the r96os and 1970s reflected the demand for a
functionally oriented approach to teaching. The development of the
new technology of language teaching was thus strongly influenced by
pragmatic considerations wbich focused on 'hard', objectively obser-
vable phenomena. Within this framework, students were seen primarily
as social actors whose identity was defined in terms of the social role in
which they would have to use the language, e.g. a tourist needing to
organise travel and accommodation, a student needing to read a certain
type of specialist material, a businessperson needing to describe his or
her company's products or negotiate a contract, and so on. The main
emphasis was thus on students' objective needs, what they would have
to do in the language, and the translation of these needs into a coherent
pedagogical form. As far as it goes, this is a perfectly valid perspective
on the final goals of language teaching.
The functionally based approach to teaching had not been in use for
long before it became apparent that the objective relevance of learning
content is no guarantee in itself that effective learning will occur. The
latter depends on the willing and active involvement of students in the
learning process: students therefore need to perceive the relevance
of learning content and be willing to interact meaningfully with the i
learning activities in place. This, however, depends on factors of an
affective and attitudinal nature, which haye co~e to be studied under
the heading of subjective needs. This area of"CO(lCeJ;!l relates to the
identity of learners within the learning process itself,___rj~ust as future
language users, but as language learners who are involvetfin developing
a certain competence in interaction with a given set of teaching
procedures and learning activities.
This is clearly a complex area and has been investigated from a
number of angles. One of the first was the learning strategy research of
the 1970s (for an overview of the earlier work in the area, cf. Rubin,
r987; for subsequent developments, cf. Reid, 1995). Early work on
learning strategies arose out of the observation that some learners seem
to be more at ease with and achieve higher levels of success in language
study than others. It therefore seemed reasonable to investigate whether
it would be possible to identify those behaviours which were typical of
more and of .less successful learners. One motivation of this research 1'
was to assess whether the behaviours of successful learners could be
pinpointed as the basis for a sort of ideal learning strategy agenda
which could be used to provide guidance for less successful learners. It
did in fact emerge that more successful learners manifest a certain

II
A changing perspective on language teaching

number of characteristic behaviours. At the same time, it also became


apparent that these behaviours are expressions of a certain attitude to
the learning process which is deeply rooted in the personality and
experience of each learner. Students' interaction with the learning
process therefore arises out of a complex of attitudes which is specific to
each one as an individual. For this reason, it was realised that the
behaviours characteristic of more successful learners could not be
transformed into a discrete set of steps to be learned and imitated by
others like an aerobics routine. The learning strategy research of the
1970s was pivotal in that it opened up a research agenda which has led
us to explore the complexity of students' interaction with their language
study, an agenda which has made us appreciate the individuality of each
learner, and of their interaction with language study.
One of the inain lines of investigation in this area has related to
individual differences among learners (for overviews, cf. Skehan 1989,
1991). Individual differences are those factors of a psychological,
cognitive or attitudinal nature which influence the way in which
learners perceive and interact with their language study. Individual
differences studied with respect to second language learning include
motivation (Dornyei, 1990, 1994, 1998; Oxford and Shearin, 1994;
Tremblay and Gardner, 1995), anxiety (Scovel, 1978; Horwitz and
Young, 1991), tolerance for ambiguity (Chapelle and Roberts, 1986),
and field dependence-independence (Abraham, 1985; Chapelle, 1995).
Another area of research is learning style, even if there is some
disagreement as to the status of this concept. One perspective (Oxford
and Ehrman, 19.93) is that learning style is an individual difference
alongside others. Another (Willing, r 9 8 8) sees it as a more powerful
concept which encapsulates the combined effect of a number of
individual differences as they relate to language learning. Since the
r98os a considerable body of research has been built up in this area.
Attention has also been devoted to 'theories' or beliefs about language
learning that students bring with them to the classroom, and how these
may influence their interaction with teaching and learning procedures
(Wenden, 1987).
This line of research has made us aware that factors of a subjective
nature exert a significant influence on how learners perceive and
experience the learning process and, therefore, how they are likely to
react to various learning activities or modes of teaching. For example,
for one student an oral production task may represent a welcome
opportunity to express his or her personality and/or to experiment with
his or her ability to use the language for its 'real' purpose, namely to
exeh~ge ideas with another human being. For another student, the
same activity may be a stressful and unwelcome experience in which he

I2
Learner identities

or she feels judged on his or her use of a language that has not as yet
been 'learned properly'. This means that what the teacher has in mind
when preparing a class may not be what students perceive or experience
during the class itself. The reality of teaching therefore arises out of the
meaning that methodological choices assume in the minds of students
and the dynamics that this generates within the learning group.
Research in individual differences has played a valuable role in
increasing our understanding of the factors that make language teaching
and learning what they are in the minds of our students. Nonetheless,
much of this research has focused on one specific aspect of learners'
perceptions of language study at a time. This is understandable in
research terms, but it leaves us with the unresolved problem of knowing
how to put the various elements together in the moment-to-moment
dynamics of classroom teaching.
Williams and Burden (1997: 89-95) make a number of pertinent
remarks in this respect about the variables which are studied under the
heading of individual differences. To begin with, they point out that
these variables are hypothetical constructs. In other words, researchers
agree to speak about factors such as intelligence, anxiety, or risk-taking
in order to gain insight into the psychocognitive reality of students'
interaction with language learning. However, these terms are not the
reality itself, nor can we be sure whether they are the best way of
encapsulating this reality. Williams and Burden also suggest that while
individual differences tend to be viewed as fixed or at least relatively
stable phenomena, most are better viewed as 'variable, context specific,
and amenable to change' (1997: 90). They point out, for example, that
anxiety is highly situation specific, that it is affected by a variety of
factors, and that a behaviour that would be seen as anxious in one
culture might be construed differently in another. Indeed, they suggest
that 'the whole area of individual differences is fraught with unan-
swered questions' and argue for an approach which focuses on 'the
unique contribution each individual brings to the learning situation'
(p. 95). For Williams and Burden, such an approach would involve a
change in the way in which the psychocognitive aspect of language
learning is considered:

·So, instead of asking the question: 'How are learners different


from each other and can we measure these differences?', it
would be more helpful to seek answers to such questions as:
'How do learners perceive themselves as language learners?',
'What effect do these "personal constructs" have upon the
process of learning a new language?', 'How do individuals go
about making sense of their learning?', alld-~Jio~ can we as

/
A changing perspective on language teaching

teachers assist learners in making sense of their learning in ways


that are personal to them?' (Williams and Burden,- I997: 96)
These are all valid qnestions, and they frame the investigation of
students' subjective interaction with the learning process in terms which
are pertinent to the concerns of the practising teacher. They are not,
however, easy questions, and we are some way from settling on
adequate answers to them. Nevertheless, the fact that they are being
posed is in itself an indication of how far our awareness of the role of
learners' subjective interaction with the learning process has developed
over the last few decades. We can no longer assume that our students
are 'simply' students, nor that they are bundles of discrete variables.
They are complex human beings who bring with them to the classroom
their own individual personality as it is at a given point in time, and this
influences how they interact with what we do as teachers.
Attempting to disentangle and analyse the many strands which make .
an individual who he or she is is a valid strategy for researchers.
Practising teachers, howeve1; deal with individuals integratively. The
inner coherence of a learner's classroom identity has to be explored and
understood in its own terms, and as it is at a given point in time and in a
given setting. Stevick's (r989) Success with Foreign Languages, which is
built around an exploration of the perceptions and strategies of seven
successful language learners, provides an insightful illustration of how
complex an undertaking this can be. Stevick describes the seven learners
under the following headings: intuitive, formal, informal, imaginative,
active, deliberate, and self-aware. It is unlikely, however, that Stevick
would feel too attached to these terms as such: they are an attempt .to
encapsulate a certain learner identity, but this is a reality which can
never be fully pinned down and which is unique to each learner as an
individual. Stevick also gives some very useful advice about helping
different learners to build on their basic disposition to learning in a
productive manner. His last piece of advice (1989: rso), however, -
'Beware of building a system of teaching around one type of learner' -
seems to be crucial in that it points to the importance of working with
the diversity of learners as they are and their attempt to find per.!!_onal
meaningfulness in their language study.
Over three decades of research into learners' subjective interaction
with language study has led us to acknowledge the uniqueness of each
language learner, and therefore of the need to accommodate this
uniqueness and, in this way, the learner's identity, in our pedagogical
actions and choices.
Teacher identities

Consider your own experience as a language learner.


• To what extent do you feel that your individuality as a person
and as a learner was acknowledged in the learning programme
or program~es you followed?
• Analyse your answer (which may vary from one programme to
another) to evaluate what did or did not make your learning
experience(s) congenial to you as an individual.
• In which way could you make use of these insights to help you
cateJ~ for the individuality of your own students?
• Do you feel that there might be obstacles to this? If so, what are
they, and where do they come from?

1.4 Teacher identities

Research into the subjective needs of language learners has made us


aware that our students are not 'simply' language learners but complex
human beings whose interaction with language study is influenced by a
variety of attitudinal and experiential factors. Our students are ·not
therefore blank sheets of paper onto which a pre-ordained body of
knowledge can be transferred in a neat, predictable manner. They are
human beings who interact with teaching procedures in an individual
manner as part of the broader goal of creating a personal understanding
of language and of language learning in the here-and-now of their lives.
The goal of language teaching is not to iron out differences among
learners ·but to work with them in a constructive and educationally
informed manner. More recently, we have also come to realise some-
thing similar with respect to teachers.
In itself, this may not seem a particularly startling discovery. No one
would seriously question that each teacher is an individual in his or her
own right, nor would it be reasonable to assume that a teacher leaves
his or her individual identity on a clothes peg on entering the classroom.
At the same time, there is an implicit assumption in much curriculum
design that the perspectives on language teaching contained in approach
and materials feed through in a relatively direct manner to the class-
room via the actions of the teacher. In planning terms, this is clearly a
very convenient assumption. It does, however, suppose that teachers are
'simply' teachers who act in accordance with the plans of others in a
,i[utifuJJand predictable manner. This is at best somewhat simplistic, and
it aEio underestimates the very specific contribution which the individual

IS
A changing perspective on language teaching

teacher as a person makes to the teaching process and to the creation of


classroom realities.
Richards (1996), for example, points to the importance of under-
standing teaching 'from the inside', i.e. of the 'need to listen to teachers'
voices in understanding classroom practice' in order to be in a position
to 'understand teaching in its own terms and in ways in which it is
understood by teachers' (pp. 281-282). He contrasts this perspective
with 'earlier research traditions which presented an outsider's perspec-
tive on teaching and sought to identify quantifiable classroom beha-
viours and their effect on learning outcomes' (p. 282). Richards thus
stresses the need to accord attention to the subjective realities of
teaching from the point of view of the individual teacher. This involves
exploring teacher attitudes and perceptions and the way in which these
influence teachers' classroom behaviours. Richards focuses in particular
on teachers' 'maxims', or the principles which teachers use, consciously·
or unconsciously, to guide their pedagogical decisions. Other writers
have looked at teachers' 'conceptions' of teaching (Freeman and
Richards, 1993), teachers' 'understandings' (Almarza, 1996; Burns,
1996; Freeman, 1996), the teacher's 'sense of legitimacy' (Moran,
1996), and the role of the teacher's language learning autobiography
(i.e. teachers' own experiences as language learners) on their teaching ·
philosophy and practice (Bailey eta/., 1996). A related line of research
has focused on teacher learning and decision-making (e.g. Johnson,
1992; Pennington, 1995, 1996; Numrich, I996; Woods, 1996). This
line of reflection paints a picture of teaching which is no less complex
than that which has emerged from the studies of learners' subjective
needs reviewed above. We are thus coming to acknowledge that both
students and teachers are human beings whose involvement in the
process of language study is shaped by a complex set of beliefs,
attitudes, and perceptions, and that this can no more be ignored with
respect to teachers than it can with respect to students.
This realisation clearly has implications for curriculum planning.
Freeman and Richards (1996: 22) suggest that 'the external prescriptive-
views of method that generally prevail in the field of language teaching
bear little resemblance to teachers' and students' lived experience of
methods in the classroom.' In a similar vein, Woods (1991) suggests
that the reality of classroom teaching is not what is found in official
curricula or recommended materials, but resUlts from individual tea-
chers' interpretations of these. The official syllabus certainly does
influence what takes place in the classroom, but not in a linear or easily
predictable manner. The reality of classroom teaching and learning
emerges rather from the teacher's interpretation of the syllabus or
materials in use, and how this interpretation interacts with the percep-

/~

L~
Teacher identities

tions of the learners involved, as well as with forces present in the


broader context in which teaching is conducted. Woods (1991) con-
trasts two models of education: the input model and the process model.
The former assumes that a pr<;:>gramme is implemented:
in a linear manner from top to bottom: overall educational
objectives are set by a ministry or planning body, a syllabus is
designed to carry out these objectives, materials are developed
to instantiate the syllabus, the teaching is carried out to teach
the content presented in the materials, and, finally, the learners
are evaluated on the degree to which they have learned the
content. (Woods, 1991: r)
This describes the classic approach to curriculum design and implemen-
tation, and assumes the presence of a single set of rational principles
which are subscribed to by all participants. The process model, on the
other hand, sees classroom learning as operating in a multidirectional
manner, so that 'learners interact with teachers and materials to
determine what and how they learn' (1991: r). In this view, two of the
key factors which go to create classroom realities are the way in which
teachers interpret materials and how they interact with learners. Both of
these factors engage teachers as individuals with their own particular
attitudes and beliefs about the nature of learning and teaching.
Kennedy and Kennedy (1996: 3 sr) make a similar point with respect
to the implementation of change. They point to the 'importance of
teacher attitude and the interconnections [of attitude] with beliefs and
teaching behaviour'. Any form of educational innovation is put into
practice by teachers and is understood (or 'interpreted' to use Woods'
term) by them in the light of their own attitudes. Kennedy and Kennedy
also point out, however, that teacher attitude should not be seen as a
static phenomenon, but rather as something which interacts with 'the
social norms and the perceived behavioural control which is specific to
a particular context' (p. 359). This parallels the remarks of Williams
and Burden (1997) cited above with respect to individual differences
among learners. Teachers may have a certain attitudinal disposition
towards teaching and a number of behavioural preferences, but these
are !l,<)t_§tatic: They represent an underlying orientation that is realised
dynamically in ~SJ:lOP§~Jo the specifics()feac!J§ituation.
These observations indicate that teachers cannot be taken for granted
or viewed simply as skilled technicians who dutifully realise a given set
of teaching procedures in accordance with the directives of a more or
less distant authority. Teachers are active participants in the creation of
classroom realities, and they act in the 'light of their own beliefs,
attitudes, and perceptions of the relevant teaching situation. This

I7
A changing perspective on language teaching

realisation has set our profession the challenge of working with teacher
individuality and teacher identity just as much as with the individuality
and identity of students. Indeed, we are coming to realise that we need
to be as aware of the 'unique contribution which each individual brings
to the learning situation' (Williams and Burden, I997' 9 5) with respect
to teachers just as much as learners.

• What do you feel that you as an individual bring to your task as


teacher? In which ways does this influence your actions and
choices in the classroom?
• Have you ever felt any tensions between your personal attitudes
or philosophy of teaching and the expectations of other partici-
pants? If so, identify what these tensions are and analyse their
origins.
.

1.5 Identity and context

Students' and teachers' identities are in part the result of factors of a


purely individual nature, but they are also influenced by aspects of the
context in which they live and work. The language classroom is not an
other-worldly entity divorced from human culture and society. Lan-
guage teaching is conducted among individuals interacting with one
another in a specific socially defined framework, i.e. in a classroom,
school, language centre, or whatever. This framework in turn is part of
a larger entity which is the society and culture in question. In this way,
context influences what takes place in classrooms in a variety of ways.
Context, however, is a complex phenomenon, which may be seen as
having two main sets of components: pragmatic and mental.
In the first instance, there are the objectively observable pragmatic
features of a given teaching situation. These include a wide range of
factors. Class size is clearly one: teaching a group of roo students is a
very different affair from teaching a group of ro, even if the· objective
learning goals that the two groups are pursuing are the same. Then
there is the question of the teaching-learning resources which are
available, and which can vary from a blackboard (with a more or less
reliable supply of chalk) to classrooms equipped with audio and video
equipment backed up by a self-access centre with CALL and multimedia
facilities. Other factors include the type and level of training that
teachers have received, their salaries, their status in society, and their
decision-making role in their institution. The presence of an examina-

I8
Identity and context

tion may also be an important contextual factor in terms of the vision of


language it contains, its role in students' careers, the type of study
habits it generates, and so on. These and other factors can play a
powerful role in influencing what takes place in the classroom, both
directly in terms of what can or cannot be done, and indirectly in terms
of participants' attitudes to the teaching situation.
The second main constituent of context are the attitudes, beliefs, and
behavioural expectations which participants bring with them to the
classroom. The language classroom is certainly a pedagogical entity, but
one which is embedded in the society and culture of which it is part.
The classroom therefore needs to be understood with reference to the
broader context of the beliefs and expectations of the relevant culture.
Brumfit highlights the close connection between participants' attitudes
and belief system and their evaluation of classroom behaviours in the
following terms:
Schooling, which includes teaching, is a co-operative activity.
performed by human beings. Participants in this enterprise are
constrained by the micro-social context in which they operate,
so any teaching will have limitations on available options
imposed by the nature of the classroom ... These constraints
favour particular kinds of social interactions, but the negotia-
tion of appropriate interaction that goes on within th.em is also
subject to the macro-sociological context, which will reflect
larger ideologies of the time . . . Factors of these kinds,
mediated through the views of students, their parents, adminis-
trators, politicians and others will necessarily constrain any
teaching. It is only within this context that matters of the nature
of language and the nature of language learning become im-
portant. (1991: 141)
The way in which participants perceive classroom realities and interact
with one another are therefore influenced by their socialisation, and
their belief and value systems. The language classroom is thus one part
of a much broader sociocultural reality. Hayes (1996: 174) observes
that 'meaning is a socio-cultural construct' and stresses the importance
of 'an understanding of the meaning for participants of their experience
of a situation and their participation'. A similar point is made by
Cortazzi, who uses the term 'perspective' to describe 'the matrix of
assumptions by which someone makes sense of their world'. Cortazzi
stresses that 'perspectives' are not:
simply reflections of reality, but [are rather] constructed in the
course of social interaction in terms essentially given by the
A changing perspective on language teaching

culture. In this view, culture serves as a framework for the


perception of others and gnides the interpretation of classroom
interaction and, more broadly, the construction of meaning in
the classroom. (r990: 55)

Context, then, includes more than just the externally observable


pragmatic features of a situation. It also relates to the mental context
which is created by participants' attitudes, beliefs, and expectations.
Furthermore, and crucially, it involves the interaction of the two.
Holliday (1994), for example, in a discussion of certain study habits
current among Egyptian university students, points out that these habits
derive in part from aspects of traditional Egyptian culture, but also
reflect cooperative modes of behaviour which have arisen out of
relatively recent developments in Egyptian society, in particular rapid
urbanisation, an overburdened infrastructure, and the consequent need
for people to develop networks of mutual support and assistance.
The acknowledgement of the role of contextual factors has given rise
to a number of studies which have explored the way in which these
factors influence the behaviours and, indeed, the 'personality' of partici-
pants in the classroom. With respect to language learners, this has taken
the form of investigation of the learning style preferences of certain
culturally homogeneous groups of learners (e.g. Reid, 1987; Melton,
1990; Oxford eta/., 1992.; Hyland, 1993), of culturally-specific learning
traditions (Erbaugh, r 990 ), and of the modes of classroom interaction
characteristic of certain cultural groups (Coleman, 1996a; Sullivan,
r996). Other studies have examined the way in which learners' sociali-
sation and their culturally based expectations interact with particular
methodological approaches such as learner autonomy (Riley, 1988; Ho
and Crookall, 1995) and communicative language teaching (Ellis,
1996). It would be unhelpful to oversimplify the results of these studies,
but they indicate that the sociocultural traditions of learning to which.
students have been exposed exert a real influence on how they perceive
the teaching-learning process, how they define their goals, and how
they interact with methodology, including the relative roles of teachers
and students. This may be more marked when learners are studying in
their home culture, where their own socioculturally based beliefs and
expectations receive reinforcement from the attitudes and behaviours of
other participants (including their teachers), as well as from various
institutionalised aspects of the education system.
A smaller number of studies have adopted a similar approach to
teacher behaviours, in the attempt to explore the cultural content of
teachers' perceptions of their pedagogical tasks (e.g. Burnaby and Sun,
1989; Langfeldt, 1992.; Richards, I992). Other studies have focused on

2.0
Emerging responses, emerging challenges

the way in which teachers and students interact with one another to
create classroom realities in response to various aspects of context
(Young, 1987; McCargar, 1993; Muchiri, 1996; Shamim, r996a),
including political or ideological factors (Adendorff, 1996; Chick,
r996; Duff, r996).
Interestingly, Cortazzi and Jin (1996) point to the way in which the
different expectations of students with respect to teachers from their
own and from a different cultural group interact with differences in the
behaviours of the two groups of teachers to create different classroom
dynamics. This study reminds us that, while both students and teachers
appear to· bring to the classroom perceptions and expectations that arise
out of their sociocultural backgrounds, these factors operate dynamic-
ally, i.e. they interact with and around the expectations and behaviours
of other participants and with aspects of context. Cortazzi and Jin also
point out that cultures evolve over time and thereby warn against a
stereotypical or static view of culture.
It emerges from these studies that the context, both JW!gmatic and
mental, in which students and teachers operate exerts a very real
innuence on what they do and how they evaluate the options that are
available to them. These factors contribute to the participants' identity
in the classroom and need to be taken into account both in under-
standing a situation as it is at a given point in time and in evaluating the
likely effects of change.

Select one situation that you are familiar with either as a teacher or
as a learner and try to identify the main contextual factors which
make this situation what it is.
• Initially, do this separately for the two categories of contextual
factors outlined above, viz. pragmatic and mental.
• Then try to evaluate the interaction of the two. For example,
how do participants react to poor resourcing or large class
numbers? Which strategies do they adopt, and what are their
attitudes to the pragmatic aspects of the situation? In which way
does the presence of an examination influence approaches to
teaching and students' motivation and study strategies?

1~6 Emerging responses, emerging challenges

The trends reviewed in this chapter reflect a significant change in


thinking on language teaching. They arise out of an increasing

2I
,,
I!'
A changing perspective on language teaching
\

Il acknowledgement of the role played by human perceptions and expecta-


tions in both learning and teaching. This clearly alters the role which is
attributed to the technology of teaching, and to methodology in
particular. The reality that .methodology assumes in the classroom is not
I simply a reflection of its own inner logic (or that which was in the mind
of its originators) but of the meaning it assumes for participants. This
meaning results from participants' own perceptions of the teaching
I situation and the goals they will he pursuing within it, not simply as
students or teachers in the abstract but in the totality of their lives. It

~
']
cannot therefore be assumed that methodology operates in a linear,
deterministic manner: a given methodological option leading in a more
or less direct and predictable manner to a specifiable set of learning
outcomes. Methodological choices need to be made in the light of the
human and contextual factors which are specific to each teaching
situation. Decision-making therefore has to be local and situation-
specific; this clearly has a number of significant implications for educa- ·
tiona] planning.
This section begins with a survey of the pedagogical responses which
have emerged in recent years as part of the move towards a more
ecological perspective on language teaching. It then briefly surveys some
of the challenges which these responses have raised, not simply in a
strictly pedagogical sense, but with respect to the overall organisation of
learning programmes.

1.6.1 Responses . ..
Our recognition of the importance of learners' subjective interaction
with language study has made it clear that no one methodological
approach can be considered to be equally suitable for all learners. This
implies that a given activity or mode of learning is likely to assume quite
different meanings for the various learners who use it, and therefore it
cannot be assumed that it will lead to the same or perhaps even to
comparable learning outcomes. One response to this has been to cater
for variety in methodological approach and activity type so that most
students have the opportunity to find at least some aspects of their
learning programme which correspond to their own learning prefer-
ences; this represents a meaningful step towards the accommodation of
learner diversity. A teacher working from a coursebook or a range of
sources which offer a variety of activity types is clearly in a better
position to respond to different learning preferences than if the source
material caters for just one mode of learning. A varied and strategy-rich
(Tudor, I996: I97-2or) learning environment is therefore a real asset
in the goal of accommodating learner diversity. This having been said,
I, 22
Emerging responses, emerging challenges

the availability of a variety of learning options offers a potential which


has to be realised locally as part of the day-to-day interaction between
teacher and students and among students themselves; this calls for a
reflective involvement of learners in their language study.
For this reason, considerable attention has been devoted to the means
of engaging learners actively in their language study. A key aspect of
this process is the fostering of their ability to articulate their insights
and preferences, and to develop their understanding of language study
so that they can engage in an informed dialogue about the learning
options available to them, a process which is generally referred to as
learner training (cf. Ellis and Sinclair, 1989). Learner training, however,
is not an end in itself, but one stage in the broader involvement of
learners in their language study. The latter has found expression in
concepts such as syllabus negotiation and the learner-centred curri-
culum (Nunan, 1988). The acknowledgement of the role of subjective
factors in learning and of the individuality of each language learner has
thus given rise to a concern with the quality of learners' involvement in
their language study and a desire to develop learning frameworks which
cater for an active and reflective involvement of learners in the shaping
of their study programme.
A parallel change has taken place with respect to the role of the
teacher. In part, this is a logical consequence of the move towards a
more learner-centred approach to teaching. The difficulty of accommo-
dating learner diversity in a pre-programmed, technocratic manner
means that the move to a more learner-centred approach to teaching
involves a greater degree of negotiation and decision-making at class-
room level between teacher and students. This places a greater decision-
making responsibility with the classroom teacher as opposed to the
more or ·less distant curriculum designer or materials writer (Tudor,
1993, 1996). It is for this reason that Kumaradivelu (1994: 27) speaks
of a 'post-method condition' which has arisen out of the move away
from the traditional concept of method and which 'may potentially
refigure the relationship between theorizers and teachers by empow-
ering teachers with knowledge, skill and autonomy'.
Furthermore, as indicated in Section 1.4, research into teacher
decision-making has revealed that teachers interpret methodology and
understand their own teaching situatiqns ou the basis of a variety of
affective, attitudinal, and experiential factors. It cannot therefore be
assumed that teachers will simply 'do as they are told', if only because
they are likely to interpret 'what they are told' in different ways.
Teachers are active participants in the creation of classroom realities
and will do this in an individual manner. Teacher awareness and skills
are thus crucial factors in the quality of teaching. These factors,

23
A changing perspective on language teaching

however, cannot simply be written into a set of materials, and need to


be explicitly fostered and supported. The acknowledgement of the
crucial decision-making role played by the classroom teacher has given
rise to interest in the concept of reflective teaching (cf. Wallace, 1991;
Graves, 1996; Nunan and Lamb, 1996) and to the exploration of
teaching 'from the inside' (Richards, 1996). The idea of reflective
teaching is thus in part a consequence of the move towards reflective
learning. It also points to our profession's growing acknowledgement of
the complexity of teaching. Teacher awareness and teacher development
have thus become key 'methodological' issues.
A number of studies, as well as the experience of practising language
educators, have drawn attention to the role of context in language
teaching. As already indicated, context includes both the pragmatic
aspects of the teaching situation and the attitudes and expectations of
participants. As teaching situations can differ significantly on both
counts, it cannot be assumed that what works well in one situation will ·
necessarily work equally well in another. This realisation has given rise
to interest in 'appropriate methodology' (Holliday, 1994), which takes
the pragmatic and mental realities of each teaching situation as the
starting point for decision-making. In part, this concept may be seen as
paralleling on a sociocultural level the concern with subjective needs on
the individual level. In other words, it acknowledges the role played in
language teaching and learning by participants' sociocultural back-
ground, and the attitudes and expectations to which this gives rise. It
also reflects the fact that the practical conditions within which teaching
is conducted exert a significant influence not only on what can or
cannot be done, but also on participants' attitudes to the teaching
situation and to the actions of other participants.
Concern with appropriate methodology has drawn attention to what
could be called the contextual relativity of methodological choices. This
means that methodological choices cannot be made simply on the basis
of abstract principles, but need to accommodate the mental and prag-
matic realities of each teaching situation in its own right. Achieving this
calls for exploration of local realities and the adaptation or reformula-
tion of existing methodology around these realities. This requires
flexibility and open-mindedness both from individual teachers and in
terms of curriculum design and revision. On the latter count, Kennedy
(1987) argues for a collaborative approach to innovation which inte-
grates the insights of both insiders and outsiders; he also suggests that it
is the former - and, in particular, the teachers - who will be responsible
for realising change in the classroom, who should decide on the degree
and pace of change. These suggestions, although very reasonable m
themselves, have significant implications for educational planning.

l
Emerging responses, emerging challenges

1. 6. 2 . . . and challenges
Acknowledging the identity of participants both as individuals and as
members of a given community clearly offers a much more promising
path in educational terms than attempting to squash these many poles
of diversity into a single mode of teaching and learning. It does,
however, raise significant questions of both a pedagogical and an
organisational nature. One question relates to the locus of control in
language teaching. A learner-centred approach makes local decision-
making crucial and calls for teacher empowerment. This, however, has
implications both in terms of support for teachers and with respect to
the organisation of teaching programmes. It can, for example, be
difficult to obtain the time and resources needed for teacher develop-
ment, and there are powerful forces of a political and organisational
nature which emphasise control, accountability and standardisation.
There may therefore be resistances within educational hierarchies either
to the costs entailed by teacher empowerment or even to the very idea
itself. The pedagogical impetus towards localness of decision-making
can thus encounter significant obstacles of a social, organisational, or
ideological nature.
In more general terms, the research reviewed in this chapter involves
an acknowledgement of the complexity of language teaching in both
human and contextual terms. Should this be seen in positive or negative
terms? Is it an indication that our profession is suffering from post-
modernist confusion, or that language teaching has fallen victim to the
much discussed 'crisis of values' which is (apparently) threatening our
societies? This is one interpretation. Alternatively, it is equally plausible
to suggest that by acknowledging the complexity of language teaching
in a more open and constructive manner, we are simply showing that
our profession is coming of age and demonstrating the willingness to see
things as they really are. The trends reviewed in this chapter reflect a
growing awareness of the complex and dynamic nature of language
teaching which has parallels with developments in many other fields of
research. These are often discussed in terms of complexity theory or the
study of complex adaptive systems. Much of what is written on these
topics is specific to fields of research far removed from the direct
concerns of language teaching, but accessible and engaging accounts are
given in Waldrop (1992), Lewin (1993), and Kauffman (1995); Larsen-
Freeman (1997) is also well worth reading for a discussion of these
trends of thought with respect to aspects of language teaching. Our
profession is thus by no means alone in calling into question the general
framework of reference in which we have worked in the past.
In fact, one can seriously question whether it is reasonable to see
A changing perspective on language teaching

language teaching as anything other than a complex activity. To begin


with, all participants (students, teachers, heads of department, materials
writers, and so on) are individuals in their own right. Each has his or
her own personality, attitudes, beliefs and life experience, and these
factors all influence how the participants interpret and interact with the
activity of language teaching. Each participant is also a member of one
or more sociocultural or socioprofessional groups, and this, too,
influences the identity which they manifest in the classroom, staff
meeting, planning committee, or whatever. On this level, then, language
teaching can never be less complex than the individuals who are
involved in it. In addition, language teaching involves human beings in
interaction with one another. This may involve direct face-to-face inter-
action in the classroom, or the interaction may be indirect, as when a
coursebook which reflects a given writer's perspective on language
teaching is recommended for use in dozens or possibly hundreds of
classrooms. In this case, the materials writer, although not physically ·
present in the classroom, exerts strong influence on modes of interaction
in the classroom.
This is the reality with which teachers and other practising language
educators have to live and work. At the same time, while acknowl-
edging that the complexity of language teaching may bring us closer to
the reality of the activity, it also raises a variety of questions, not the
least of which is where we should look for the guiding principles we
need in order to help us approach our many tasks as teachers, teacher
trainers, and so on. The technological response is to look outside of the
specifics of each situation for general principles which can then be used
to guide decision-making within these situations. However, as we have
seen in the last three sections, this approach soon runs up against the ~
problem of diversity: general principles are precisely that: general. All 'li
too frequently they do not fit the specifics of any one situation, and it is t
with specific situations that individual teachers work and in which I
decisions have to be made.
Another response is to look into each situation in its own right, to try I
!
to understand the dynamics which make the situation what it is, and to I
work with and from these dynamics. This may seem to confront us with '
a kaleidoscope of detail which may often seem confusing, contradictory I
'
and, at times, rather trivial. And yet, this is where language teaching is
lived out, and where the value of principle is put to the hard test of
reality. The essence of an ecological perspective on language teaching is
precisely to understand situations in their own terms and in the light of
the dynamics which operate within each situation. This clearly implies a
change in orientation from the search for generalisations which has
guided much thinking in language teaching. It does, however, open the

26
Emerging responses, emerging challenges

door to better understanding of the uniqueness of each teaching situa-


tion and, thereby, to an approach to teaching which is locally relevant
and meaningful by virtue of it being rooted in local realities. It suggests
that we look at classrooms not as more or less perfect exemplars of an
ideal classroom, but rather as complex adaptive systems in their own
right. I have suggested elsewhere (Tudor 2ooo) that 'Local is beautiful'
is a useful motto for language teaching. However, in order to be able to
work locally, we need to explore the dynamics which make each
teaching situation and, indeed, each classroom, what it is. This book
has the goal of helping teachers to do this. It does not propose a grand
theory of language teaching, but more modestly seeks to provide
teachers with a few guidelines for developing a local understanding of
their own teaching situations as they are in their own right, and in terms
of their own inner logic and dynamics.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy