"Theory" is an Unspoken Word among language teachers. Whenever
a language learning theory comes up in conversation, fellow conversants
heave a big sigh, roll their eyes, or pretend you haven't said anything.
We believe there is a feeling among teachers that goes something like this:
"Theory has nothing to do with me or my teaching. My teaching is what's
real, and those researchers who make theories talk in terms that are not
real. They can't know what my situation is, and they don't care." There
is a strong sense on the part of teachers that teachers and researchers
inhabit very different worlds.
Graves (1996) offers an alternative view of theory for teachers, citing
Prabhu (p. 2) in defining "theory in the general sense" as "an
abstraction that attempts to unite diverse and complex phenomena into a
single principle or system of principles." Graves then defines what
she calls "personal theory" as "a subjective understanding
of one's [teachers'] practice. . . that provides coherence and direction"
(p. 2). We believe what Graves and Prabhu are describing are the cognitive
processes used by all human beings to make sense of their world.
In this paper, we would like to discuss (a) teacher attitudes which we
believe account for the fact that theory has received slight attention in
our field, (b) what we believe theory is, (c) why theory is absolutely necessary
to teachers, (d) what blocks have to be dealt with for teachers to deal
with theory, and (e) a way for the future.
Teacher Attitudes
Teacher attitudes towards theory are likely determined by three things:
Their own educational experiences as learners, the type of training they
received, and the general state of the profession. That teachers think and
teach as they themselves have been taught is hardly new or surprising (Cohen
& Spillane, 1992; Freeman & Richards, 1993; Kennedy, 1989; MacDonald
& Rogan, 1990; Schmidt, Porter, Floden, Freeman, & Schwille, 1987).
Lortie characterized our experiences as students as a long "apprenticeship"
into teaching (1975, p. 61). As rich as this heritage is, it is also a shallow
one. As students, we saw only what our teachers did. We did not know why
they did what they did. We were not, as students, privy to our teachers'
thought processes, and especially, our teachers' theorizing about their
teaching. We do not have a template for the notion of theory from these
early, powerful images of teaching.
Most current teacher training programs do not help us develop our notions
of theory. Partly this is due to factors common to most pre-service teacher
education. Many teacher training programs do not strongly link theory and
practice (Zeichner, Tabachnik, & Densmore, 1987). This separation creates
a situation in which student teachers learn the "hidden curriculum,"
a mass of unreflected-on beliefs which provides student teachers with images
of teaching and learning. Would-be teachers learn early on that theory and
practice are seen as two different things. Student teaching practice, if
a program provides it, is not likely to break through this theory and practice
separation (Heath & Stange, 1995) because such practice is focused on
developing student teachers' skills "closely related to actual delivery
of instruction in the classroom" (p. 15). Developing student teachers'
notions of theory seems like a luxury in this situation, not a necessity.
In the EFL/ESL field specifically, most teacher training programs focus
on linguistics and methods (Combs, 1989; Tedick & Walker, 1994). Teacher
training course students may read research papers making use of theory in
the form of a general survey, but do not partake in explicit discussions
on the role of theory in teaching. As a result, would-be teachers do not
develop their thinking about theory as it can relate to their own teaching
practice.
Relative to the state of the profession in Japan, financial recession
and changing demographics have affected educational institutions. The educational
field in Japan is contracting (Koike & Tanaka, 1995). While there are
still English conversation school jobs for holders of BA or BS degrees,
having an MA is becoming necessary for getting a teaching position at a
university or college. Holders of bachelor degrees are often untrained as
teachers, and many holders of MA degrees are not deeply versed in the notion
of theory. Those who are interested in theory and aspire to research degrees
at the graduate level are penalized by their employers, particularly universities
which are more intent on economic survival than faculty development. In
one case, a female university instructor was ordered to quit her doctoral
studies [personal communication, May 23, 1999]
Given such a background, it is not surprising that teachers are unfamiliar
with the role of theory, and generally have negative attitudes towards discussions
of theory.
What is Theory?
Theory is an explanation for what we observe happening around us. When
a woman walks into her office building and sees construction workers and
equipment tearing up the street, she notices it (an empirical observation).
She may then talk to an office mate and ask him if he knows what is going
on (forming a hypothesis). After a time, she may come to a conclusion based
on a combination of her observations, colleagues' reports, reading from
the newspaper, and listening to the TV news that the reason for the construction
in the street is street repairs. This woman is a theory builder. She is
engaged in an everyday human activity called "making sense of the world."
She is creating theories. In teaching, the pattern is the same. Our everyday
observations come from the classroom, and we talk to colleagues about our
concerns and do our own reading in the field. We do create theories, whether
we think of them in those terms or not.
Why is Theory Necessary?
To paraphrase Kant, theory without data is empty, and data without theory
are blind. It is the latter we are concerned with here. Data (our experience)
without theory (our explanation for our experiences) only repeat themselves.
Theory is helpful because it unifies and explains common experience, and
allows teachers to go beyond common experience. Recently, one of us (Griffee)
engaged in action research to change his teaching in a principled way. He
noticed that his students seemed reluctant to ask questions in class. He
hypothesized that his students did not know how to ask questions. Based
on his reading on the topic, he also speculated (theorized) that student
question asking promotes the generation of comprehensible input by tailoring
the input to fit the students. He created a time-series design to measure
the effects of a model to teach students to ask questions.
The results indicated that teaching the model nearly doubled the number
of questions asked by his students. For years he had encouraged his students
to ask questions with no results. He decided to articulate a hypothesis
that explained student behavior and suggested a course of action. In investigating
this hypothesis by trying a treatment and gathering data, he was able to
move beyond simply repeating his experiences. In this instance, he was able
to conjoin theory and empirical data to create a positive teaching strategy.
What are the Blocks?
We are moving from stage one (untrained teachers) to stage two (trained
teachers). We hope this will set the scene for stage three (trained professionals).
Teachers in stage one are unreceptive to discussions on theory because they
do not see the necessity of the discussion. Teachers in stage two are receptive
to discussion of theory because in their M.A. programs they have been exposed
to research literature which sometimes explicitly discusses theory. When
teachers are asked to do research, sometimes their attitude towards theory
changes because they begin to see theory as a research tool. What blocks
teachers is that our training programs do not emphasize research. To become
a profession, we must change our teacher training curricula to include research
(see American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 1988; see also
Tedick & Walker, 1995).
The Future: Paths We Can Take
Patton (1990, p. 150) lists and describes five types of research: basic,
applied, summative, formative, and action research. Each type of research
has a different purpose, appears in different venues, and is judged by different
standards. The purpose of basic research is to articulate universal relationships;
the purpose of applied research is to apply theory to the world of teaching
and classrooms; the purpose of summative research is to evaluate a course,
the purpose of formative research is to improve a program, and the purpose
of action research is to solve a specific problem. In our field "research"
equals "applied research," which means quasi-experimental designs,
experimental and control groups, statistical analyses, a search for causal
relationships, and a strong inclination to embed the research in theory
(Long, 1985). However, such research may be seen by teachers as not directly
applicable to them.
But suppose each type of research listed by Patton implied a different
kind of theory. Action research, also known as Teacher-centered research"
or "classroom-centered research," may be tapping into what Graves
would call the "personal theory" of teachers. Teachers have their
own experiences and areas of concern. They also have theories, whether they
refer to them in those terms or not. Action research applied by teachers
to their own situations could transform teachers' teaching by causing teachers
to explore their own theories and applying their observations to them. Perhaps
what we teachers need to do is reorientate our thinking about who we are
and what we do. The question is not "Do we need theory?" but "What
kind of theory do we need?" Action research may be the vehicle to a
conscious acceptance of theory on the part of classroom teachers. This type
of theory would use the discourse and experience of teachers to create theory
that is accessible and compelling to teachers.
Patton states that it is the purpose of research that determines which
type is appropriate in a given situation, and that it is not always easy
to tell them apart. In that sense, we are not advocating one type of research
over another. But clearly teachers have been alienated from theory of the
basic and applied variety. Nonetheless, we need theory in order to evolve
as teachers, and as a profession. We must change our attitudes towards theory,
and see it as something that we do as a matter of course (Legutke, 1994;
Prabhu, 1992). We must begin to bring our observations to bear on our theories
and the theories suggested by others.
Theory is only a tool. Teachers are central to the educational process
and teacher intuition is the spark that lights the fire. But we need theory,
or we will be forever wandering from tree to tree, saying "I know there
is a forest here, but where is it?"
We would like to thank Bill Bradley and David Berger for comments
on an earlier draft of this paper. Thanks also to Patricia Dunkel for her
encouragement.
References
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
(1988). ACTFL provisional program Course of Study for foreign language teacher
education. Foreign Language Annals, 21(1), 71-82.
Cohen, D. K. & Spillane, J. P. (1992). Policy and practice:
The relations between governance and instruction. Review of Research
in Education, 18, 3-49.
Combs, A. W. (1989). New assumptions for teacher education.
Foreign Language Annals, 22(2), 129-134.
Freeman, D., & Richards, J. (1993). Conceptions of
teaching and the education of second language teachers. TESOL Quarterly,
27(2), 193-216.
Graves, K. (1996). Teachers as course developers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heath, M.P. & Stange, T. (1995). Early field experience:
Contributions of the methods courses. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 381605)
Kennedy, M. (1989). Policy issues in teacher education.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 326 538)
Koike, I. & Tanaka, H. (1995). English in foreign language
education policy in Japan: Toward the twenty-first century. World Englishes,
14(1), 13-25.
Legutke, M. (1994). Teachers as researchers and teacher
trainers: An in service project for German in the Pacific Northwest. Die
Unterrichtspraxis, 27(1), 56-70.
Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition
theory. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition
(pp. 377-393). Cambridge, MA: Newbury.
Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
MacDonald, M.A. & Rogan, J. M. (1990). Innovation in
South African science education (part 2): Factors influencing the introduction
of instructional change. Science Education, 74(1), 119-132.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research
methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Prabhu, N. S. (1992). The dynamics of the language lesson.
The TESOL Quarterly, 26(2),136-241.
Schmidt, W., Porter, A., Floden, R., Freeman, D., &
Schwille, J. (1987). Four patterns of teacher content decision-making. Journal
of Curriculum Studies, 19(5), 439-455.
Tedick, D. J. & Walker, C. L. (1994). Second language
teacher education: Problems that plague us. The Modern Language Journal
, 78(3), 300-312.
Tedick, D. J. & Walker, C. L. (1995). From theory to
practice: How do we prepare teachers for second language classrooms? Foreign
Language Annals, 28(4), 499-516.
Zeichner, K. M., Tabachnik, B. R., &Densmore, K. (1987).
Individual, institutional, and cultural influences on the development of
teachers' craft knowledge. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers'
thinking (pp. 21-59). London: Cassell Educational Limited.
