Different practices require different knowledge

contexts often report that they feel like novices in their new contexts, rather than experienced teachers (Bullough & Baughman, 1995; Burns, 1996), indicating expertise, at least in teaching, is context specific.

In general, studies show that academic knowledge tends to be overly simplistic and not to describe the complexities of teaching well. For example, Sosniak, Ethington and Varelas (1991) used questionnaire data in attempting to categorize teachers as either

‘traditional’ or ‘progressive’, but found that none of the teachers cleanly fell into either of the categories. Furthermore, McIntyre and Freppon (1994) observed two elementary teachers, one who taught a whole language classroom and one who taught a skill-oriented classroom. However, they found that neither teacher strictly used either of these conceptions when teaching. “Both instructional settings provided explicit phonics instruction (albeit contextualized differently), and both settings provided time for children to read self-selected books and to write” (McIntyre & Freppon, 1994: 391). In addition, Kinzer and Carrick (1986) have shown that the conceptions used for reading instruction by 27 elementary teachers in their study not did rely on their concepts of reading, but rather on their conceptions of how reading is learned.

If academic conceptions do not include many issues important for teaching, then they likely are not very useful for teachers, in the same way that a theory of bridge design which focuses solely on the building material but does not take into account wind and traffic patterns would not be very useful for engineers entrusted with the task of bridge design. Therefore, one possible reason why teachers do not seem to be able to use academic conceptions for teaching is that academic conceptions are simply not sophisticated enough to be of much use to teachers. It is for this reason (among others) that Larsen-Freeman (1990) has suggested that we need more than a theory of SLA, which focuses almost exclusively on language issues, but rather a theory of second language teaching which would include all issues significant for language teachers In-depth, longitudinal studies focusing on the teaching of individual teachers report similar results. Clift (1992) followed one English teacher through her first two years of teaching. The teacher reported that the conceptions learned in her teacher education program did not seem to cover many of the situations in which she found herself. For example, “she found that she was not prepared to work with students who had not completed the reading assignment or to decide how much explanation to provide them…When we reviewed her course work at the university, she identified many experiences with the analysis of literature but none in which she examined how students come to engage in that process” (Clift, 1992: 368). Cohen (1990) looked at one experienced teacher and her attempt to use the concept of constructivist learning (acquired in an inservice workshop) to guide her teaching. He found that the teacher struggled to use this concept because of the superficial way she had learned it in the workshop. “[T]he framework’s mathematical exhortations were general; it offered few specifics about how teachers might respond, and left room for many different responses”

(Cohen, 1990: 313).

1989: 24-25). Bromme (1992) claims that while researchers define, investigate and solve problems, teachers are constantly involved with creating things: activities, materials, relationships, class atmosphere, etc. Furthermore, for teachers there is no “solution” to their questions and teachers are part of the process, rather than outside observers. If teachers are to take advantage of near transfer (i.e., transferring knowledge between two similar activities) then they need knowledge about engaging in teaching practices, not academic practices. In fact, in a study of 20 first-year elementary school teachers, Loughran, Brown and Doecke (2001) found that one of the reasons that these teachers found it difficult to use the knowledge gained in their teacher education program was the differences between the practices they had been taught in that program and the practices of classroom teaching.

5.2.3.1 Talking about vs. doing

One of the practices central to being an academic is talking about and debating issues.

Generally academics are supposed to explain phenomena and their practice is judged by how well phenomena are explained. Teachers’ practice, on the other hand, is centered around creating instruction rather than expressing or debating ideas about language and language learning. “[T]he way linguists conceive of their task is inherently different from the way teachers conceive of theirs. Linguists are concerned with the precise description of language and with its explanation. Teachers are concerned with the effective use of language and with its propagation” (Ellis, 1997: 31). For example, the EFL teachers in Appel’s (2000) study reported that being able to embody and represent the target culture was more central to the practice of teaching than simply being able to talk about culture.

Studies which use a variety of data collection methods have found that there is a difference between the conceptions teachers use when they talk about teaching (i.e., what questionnaire and general interview data reveal) and the conceptions they use when teaching (i.e., what observation and stimulated recall data reveal) (Foss & Kleinsasser, 2001; Wilson, Konopak and Readence, 1992; see also Bartels, 2004). “The teacher’s responses seemed to reflect what should be done rather than what is done in her classroom” (Wilson, Konopak & Readence, 1992: 481). Foss and Kleinsasser (2001) used questionnaires, interviews and classroom observation to look at the conceptions of 22 novice elementary teachers had about teaching math. They found that when discussing teachers’ ideas in general, their conceptions were similar to the academic ideas they had been exposed to (i.e., students need to learn how to reason about math problems, etc.). However, when teaching or talking about teaching, their conceptions were much more traditional. For instance, “teachers touted in their interviews the use of

‘hands on’ materials…The classroom presentation showed a different story. Only 4 of 22 presentations showed any signs of involving such materials” (Foss & Kleinsasser, 2001:

281-282).

Mangubhai and his colleagues found that ESL teachers’ conceptions of communicative language teaching (CLT) which they used to discuss CLT in academic contexts were separate from the conceptions of CLT they used for their teaching. The teachers had:

two conceptions of CLT. First, they hold a theoretical or academic conceptualization that has been constructed from study, readings and inservice courses on CLT…Secondly, they hold a practical conceptualization of CLT that is grounded in their classroom experience of this approach…This is the conceptualization that directs classroom practice (Mangubhai, Marland, Dashwood & Son, 2005: 58) [Italics added].

Focusing on the practice of talking about CLT may result in deficits for knowledge about engaging in CLT. Sakui (2004) investigated the CLT conceptions of 12 EFL teachers through interviews and observations. She found that when the teachers spoke about CLT in general, their definitions were similar to academic definitions, but when talking about teaching CLT, their versions diverged from academic positions. For example, they stressed that learners should guess grammatical meanings from context, but when talking about teaching, the teachers asserted that learners had to be taught grammar before engaging in communicative activities which required those aspects of grammar. “These data show that teachers’ understanding of CLT is more semantic than conceptual. In defining CLT, they reported lists of features which included exchanging messages and self-expression, but their definitions lacked the coherence of a methodology incorporating goals, planning, and tasks” (Sakui, 2004: 160). In other words, these teachers had learned to talk about CLT, but not to do CLT. Similar deficits in teaching-specific knowledge of CLT have also been found in studies by Karavas-Doukas (1996), Andrews (2003) and Sato (2002).

The distinction between learning to talk about and to do CLT may explain the studies showing that SLTE programs were good at changing how teachers talked about teaching, but not how they did it. What that research may have measured is that teachers in SLTE programs learn the practice of how to talk about language and language teaching in new ways, but not the practice of using knowledge about language and language learning to create lesson plans, guide interaction with learners, assess language learning, etc. Thus, the central problem of teacher education may not be one of “theory” vs. “practice”, but of academics’ practice vs. L2 teachers’ practice. When Schlessman (1997) argues that there really is no difference between theory and practice, she is right in the sense that

“doing” theory is a practice in itself. Academic is not neutral, but rather vocational training for a specific kind of practice.

Consider…what it is to engage in a theoretical practice like psychology, sociology or philosophy. To undertake any one of these pursuits is to engage in a distinctive social activity by means of specific procedures and skills and in accordance with the way of thinking and acting appropriate to the institutional setting in which this activity is pursued.

Each of these ways of thinking and acting incorporates an interrelated set of beliefs and assumptions providing rules and maxims which operate both as instructions about how events and situations are to be interpreted and as prescriptions about how to proceed if one’s practice is to be interpreted by others as the practice of a theoretical activity of a particular sort (Carr, 1986: 178).

Thus, when Clarke (1994) talks of “theory” being considered more important than

“practice”, he may be referring to academic practices (explicit explanation and discussion of general ideas, use of external data, etc.) which are considered superior to teachers’ practices (knowledge-in-action and reliance on internal data).

5.2.3.2 Gaining knowledge

Because they engage in different activities, teachers and academics have different ways of gaining and using knowledge for their practice. For example, in a study of three language teachers and three language researchers (Bartels, 2003), the researchers viewed the purpose of knowledge as helping to build a public knowledge base about language and language learning. The teachers, on the other hand, felt that the purpose of knowledge was to enrich and improve their own, personal knowledge bases.

Furthermore, the language teachers decided to accept or reject information based on how well it explained their own personal experience in language learning and language

teaching, in other words they were relying on their internal knowledge; whereas the researchers relied on external knowledge sources such as statistics, descriptions, research designs, etc. Ironically, when one of the researchers took on the role of teacher in explaining her own practice as a teacher of graduate students, she relied on her internal data for validation, just as the language teachers did (Bartels, 2003).

Cognitively, both of these practices make sense. Teachers have lots of internal, experiential knowledge (or data) on language learning and huge time pressures, but little pressure to achieve extremely exact answers to the questions or to communicate their findings. Therefore, relying on a quick and roughly accurate comparison with their internal data fits well with the requirements of their practice. Researchers, on the other hand, have far more time to search for answers, but have much greater pressure for accurate and public answers and typically lack the extensive internal data of experienced language teachers. It makes sense for them to rely on external data because (a) this provides more accurate and communicatable findings and (b) they do not face the kinds of time pressures that teachers face. (They do have their own time pressures, but these are far more lenient than the day-to-day and moment-to-moment time pressures that teachers face.) Kennedy frames this in terms of how each occupational group deals with uncertainty: “the problem, then, has more to do with how each group tries to cope with uncertainty. For researchers, it is a matter of improving study designs, checking and verifying, and replicating. Certainty comes about through intellectual processes. For teachers, certainty is often achieved by creating predictability within the classroom”

(Kennedy, 1997: 6).

5.2.3.3 Participating in public discourses

Some academics have claimed that SLTE programs should apprentice L2 teachers into academic practices, for example how to participate in academic discourse by learning to write like academics (Ramanathan, 2002). It is said that this is necessary so that teachers can access and contribute to the professional debate on language and language learning (Wright & Bolitho, 1997; Tyler & Lardiere, 1996; Hedgcock, 2002; Ramanathan, 2002).

“To deny classroom access to the genres of power in favor of local knowledge, folk discourses – or even those insights based solely on reflective teaching – would place teachers and learners at a distinct disadvantage relative to their counterparts who are exposed to the broader ideological context of their education” (Kinginger, 2002: 196).

There are several problems with this argument. First, it demands that a central goal of SLTE is to teach practices which are peripheral to L2 teaching. The practice of writing for academic genres is something few teachers do (Burns, 2005; see Smargorinsky, 1995, for extended discussion). It is not part of what is seen as teachers’ practice and is not recognized or rewarded as such (Crookes, 1997). In addition, teachers generally do not access academic material once they have left university programs (Block, 2000; Gitlin &

Burbank, 2000; McDonough & McDonough, 1990; Zeuli, 1994).

Informal contacts over the years with teachers of a number of languages in a number of contexts reveals that few, if any, regularly read articles in journals such as Language Learning, Studies in Second Language Acquisition (SSLA) and Second Language Research…even those who have completed MA programmes generally do not keep up with reading of academic material upon their return to full-time employment (indeed, many never really start to read such literature with any consistency in the first place!) (Block, 2000: 130-131).

The reason that teachers do not generally read academic genres is that they do not find the investment of time and effort that this practice requires to be worth what they get out of it, which suggests that such practices are not central to teaching (Kagan, 1993a, 1993b; Gitlin & Burbank, 2000, Bartels, 2003). “Teachers’...criticism is not that research doesn’t try to be practical, doesn’t have practical goals, but rather that when put into practice research doesn’t achieve these goals…Teachers‘ criticism of research...[is]

centered on the claim that doing research is an ineffective way to keep up and know what is happening in the classroom” (Gitlin & Burbank, 2000: 6).

Second, training in academic language does not guarantee access to public academic discourse. Not only do teachers with MA degrees often have difficulty understanding academic articles (McDonough & McDonough, 1990, Macrory, 2002; Bartels, 2003), many professors have difficulty understanding literature within their own subject area which uses a different perspective than they are used to, for example cognitive psychologists reading literature on situated learning (Clancey, 1993; Kirshner &

Whitson, 1998).

Finally, it is a stretch to call academic literature “genres of power” outside of the university setting (and most L2 teachers work outside of the university setting).

Academic research and theory play little role in the organization of schools and academic findings are routinely ignored by those making educational and language policy (Bartels, 2003; Kagan, 1993a; Zeuli, 1994; Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2001). Academic genres are most powerful within SLTE programs where academics are the gatekeepers to degrees and certification, not in actual teaching contexts. In university settings teachers can be punished for not becoming proficient in academic language and academic practices with lower grades and negative feedback on their work. For example, Morris and Cobb (2004) studied the relationship between acquisition of academic jargon and grades novice teachers received in their SLTE program. They found that the more proficient teacher students were in academic language, the better grades they received, suggesting that SLTE students are assessed, at least partially, for picking up academic discourse rather than their proficiency in L2 teaching.

Furthermore, it is not just teachers who do not find engaging in the academic literature in their area to be central to their practice. Other professional groups also rely on knowledge gained in their specific contexts rather than from academic contexts. Morrow-Bradley and Ellist (1986) reported on a survey of 384 psychotherapists (response rate:

73%). Only 10% of those psychotherapists reported research articles and books (i.e., general, industry-wide knowledge) as one of their primary sources of professional information. Instead, experience with clients (i.e., knowledge specific to practice of individual psychotherapist) was by far the most common source for informing their practice. In addition, Morrow-Bradley and Ellist reviewed research showing that psychotherapists do not see research knowledge as being specific enough to help their practice. For example, they feel that research rarely addresses research questions which are relevant for clinical practice, that the variables included in studies are different than the variables the therapists encounter in their own practice, and that research focuses on group behavior while therapists focus on individuals, etc. In addition, Patel, Groen, and Scott (1988) found that in memory experiments doctors performed like other experts in terms of clinical knowledge, but not in terms of bio-science knowledge. In addition, while recall performance of clinical knowledge improved dramatically from the beginning to the end of clinical training (40% to 65%), recall performance of science

knowledge did not (36% to 40%). They interpreted this as evidence that doctors rely on specific clinical knowledge rather than more general bio-science knowledge when diagnosing cases. “Basic science does not provide the axioms, the analogies, or the abstractions required to support clinical problem-solving” (Patel, Evans & Groen, 1989:

120).