Teaching Beliefs

Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963

Changing values: what use are theories of language learning and teaching?

Malcolm MacDonald a, *, Richard Badger

a , Goodith White

b

a Center for English Language Teaching (CELT), University of Stirling, Airthrey Castle, Stirling, Scotland FK9 4LA, UK

b School of Education, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK

Received 29 December 1999; received in revised form 8 June 2000; accepted 30 August 2000

Abstract

This paper is a response to the common perception by student teachers that the research and theory courses on their program are overtheoretical and unrelated to classroom practice. While there is some support for a categorical distinction between theory and practice in language education, it is suggested that the beliefs, assumptions and knowledge of teachers are in fact inextricably bound up with what goes on in the classroom. We investigate two groups

of student teachers studying at undergraduate and postgraduate level to become teachers of English to speakers of other languages. We examine the extent to which a research and theory course which both groups took in second language acquisition influenced key beliefs which students held relating to language learning during their period of study. r 2001

Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Teacher beliefs; Teacher education; Second language acquisition

1. Introduction

The contribution of second language acquisition (SLA) research to English language teaching and to teacher education remains problematic (Ellis, 1997; Lightbown, 1985). While one of the inten- tions of SLA research is to improve language pedagogy (Ellis, 1997), and most SLA researchers have at some time been language teachers (Tarone, Swain, & Fathman, 1976), teacher education programs in general and SLA courses on teacher

education programs in particular are often said to be either excessively theoretical (Brown, 1983; Brumfit, 1983; Lightbown, 1985) or not ‘relevant’ to what goes on in the classroom (Eykin in Markee, 1997). Markee goes so far as to say that ‘‘most potential consumers of SLA research are frequently repelled by its disregard for real world issues’’(1997, p. 88). Some of this criticism might be perceptual; but some of it could be grounded in the nature of SLA research itself. In a recent review of 50 examples of SLA research, it emerged that only 15 were actually carried out in authentic language class- rooms (Nunan, 1991). So it is not surprising that Stephen Krashen has concluded that theory is ‘‘rejected by most language teachers’’ (Krashen, 1983, p. 255).

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1786-467933; fax: +44-

1786-466-131.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. MacDonald),

[email protected] (R. Badger), [email protected]

(G. White).

0742-051X/01/$ - see front matter r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 7 4 2 - 0 5 1 X ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 4 2 - 7

1.1. Theory and practice

This division between theory and practice has been echoed by many of the undergraduates and postgraduates studying with the authors on B.A. and M.Sc. programs in teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL). Our student teachers pride themselves on their pragmatism, just wanting to ‘get on with the job’ of learning the day-to-day practicalities of how to teach in the classroom. In keeping with a majority of similar programs (Ellis, 1997), our program contains a course in SLA. We find that our student teachers’ pragmatism conflicts with the theory and research aspects of SLA. Here are examples of the sort of feedback we have been receiving over the years both orally and from the students’ written evalua- tion forms on our courses in SLA:

This course was much more theoretical than I am used to. This course gave me information overloadFI was not sure how it fitted into the classroom. There is an imbalance between theory and practice. Too many theories.

However, there is a paradox here. While many student teachers appear to reject theory, at the same time many of them expect from a course ‘‘instant panaceas, rigid rules of thumb, clear statements of practice, and absolute generaliza- tions’’ (Brumfit, 1983, p. 60) or ‘‘definitions, rules, absolutes’’(Brown, 1983, p. 54). Where else can this come but from theory? Krashen states: ‘‘Given a brief workshop or inservice, the most practical, most valuable information we can provide is a coherent view of how language is acquired, a theory of SLA’’ (1983, p. 281). Perhaps it is not that we are giving our student teachers too much theory; but rather that we are not addressing the right issues (Wright, 1992), or exploring them in the right way.

1.2. Dichotomies in teacher thinking

It has been suggested that the social and textual practices of teachers and researchers actually

constitute two different forms of discourseFthat the discourse of educational research is either alien to (Wright, 1992, p. 188) or generically different from that of the classroom teacher (Clarke, 1994; Ellis, 1997; Kerlinger, 1977). An important goal, then, of teacher education should be to establish links between professional discourse and local discourse, both at the level of language and practice (Freeman & Richards, 1993). In order to explore this, we will here consider what constitutes the less clearly defined ‘local’ (Geertz, 1983) or ‘personal’ knowledge (Clandinin & Connelly, 1987; Polanyi, 1958; Winch, 1958) of classroom practice which our student teachers contrast with educational research.

Considerable research has been carried out in mapping the cognitive and interpretative frame- works which teachers bring to their professional activities (Freeman, 1994, 1996; Freeman & Richards, 1993; Johnson, 1996; Richards & Nunan, 1990; Woods, 1996). Conventionally, these de- scriptions differentiate areas of teachers’ cognitive and interpretative frames. Abelson, working in the field of cognitive science, suggests seven features F‘‘nonconsensuality, existence beliefs, alternative worlds, evaluative components, episodic materials, unboundedness, variable credences’’ (Abelson, 1979, p. 360)Fthat distinguish a belief system from a knowledge system. Within the knowledge system of language education, Johnson (1996) distinguishes between conceptual knowledge [epis- temeFor ‘abstract wisdom’] and perceptual knowledge [phronesisFor ‘practical wisdom’]. She argues for the focus in teacher education to be on perceptual knowledge because the vicissi- tudes of the classroom often militate against the application of a general rule. This distinction between theoretical and practical knowledge is more conventionally framed in the distinction between declarative and procedural knowledge (Woods, 1996). Declarative knowledge is knowl- edge about teachingFknowledge of subject areas and the ‘theory’ of education; procedural knowl- edge is knowledge of how to teachFknowledge of instructional routines to be used in the classroom. Lightbown picks this up when she distinguishes (1985) between ‘teacher education’ (i.e., concep- tual/declarative knowledge) and ‘teacher training’

M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963950

(i.e., perceptual/procedural knowledge). Richards and Nunan (1990) also distinguish between teacher education and teacher training. They define teacher education as ‘‘characterized by approaches that involve teachers in developing theories of teaching, understanding the nature of teacher decision making, and strategies for critical self- awareness and self-evaluation’’ and teacher train- ing as ‘‘characterized by approaches that view teacher preparation as familiarizing student tea- chers with techniques and skills to apply in the classroom’’ (in Ellis, 1994, p. 187). Taking a slightly different perspective, Richards relates what is essentially perceptual/procedural knowledge (knowledge relating to curriculum, subject matter and lesson presentation) back to the realm of beliefsFknowledge ‘‘which relates to the teacher’s personal and subjective philosophy of teaching and the teacher’s view of what constitutes good teaching’’ (Richards, 1996, p. 284). He describes a number of ‘maxims’ which constitute not so much the ‘rules’ of specific teaching techniques, but rather the set of ‘‘beliefs, principles and values’’ (p. 294) underlying more generalized classroom practice.

From the research above, it is Lightbown who is specifically concerned with the contribution of SLA to teacher training. Unsurprisingly, she places SLA research in the realm of conceptual/ declarative knowledge, but suggestsFrather ‘‘humbly’’ (Ellis, 1994, p. 175)Fthat it relates to perceptual/procedural knowledge, inasmuch as it enables teachers to ‘‘have much more realistic expectations about what can be accomplished’’ (1985, p. 183–4). In this way, it is suggested that there are connections between these different areas of teacher cognition. Lightbown is suggesting anFalbeit weakFrelationship between concep- tual/declarative knowledge and perceptual/proce- dural knowledge; and Richards is suggesting a relationship between perceptual/procedural knowledge and teacher beliefs, principles and attitudes. What has not yet been explored is the notion that a relationship might exist between conceptual/declarative knowledge, in which SLA is conventionally seen as playing a role, and the beliefs, principles and attitudes of teachers and student teachers. The central question of this

paper, then, is to investigate whether the provision of a course in SLA within the context of a TESOL program might have an effect on the beliefs, principles and attitudes of student teachers.

1.3. An integrated approach

In our discussion so far, we have examined approaches which divide aspects of teacher cogni- tion into separate categories. A more recent strand of research, however, challenges the categorical distinctions outlined above. Woods (1996) sug- gests that these dichotomies do not accurately reflect the relationship between the beliefs, as- sumptions and knowledge of teachers and their practices in the classroom.

In order to take appropriate action, people need to understand; and to understand they need knowledge about the world and specifically about the situation they are in (Woods, 1996, p. 59).

Richards and Lockhart (1994) and Johnson (in Richards & Lockhart, 1994) also emphasize the interrelatedness between beliefs and knowledge, and declarative and procedural knowledge:

y ESL teachers teach in accordance with their theoretical beliefs and differences in theoretical beliefs may result in differences in the nature ofy instruction (Johnson in Richards & Lock- hart, 1994, p. 37).

ywhat teachers do is a reflection of what they know and believe, and teacher knowledge and ‘teacher thinking’ provide the underlying frame- work or schema which guides the teacher’s classroom actions (Richards & Lockhart, 1994, p. 29)

Woods (1996) goes on to develop a multi- dimensional cycle of planning and decision making within teaching. He describes three phases of assessment, planning and implementation which operate recursively to inform different hierarchical levels of the teaching processFgoing from the most local level of discrete events in the lesson plan to the most global level of whole course planning (p. 139). This is to say, a decision that a teacher

M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963 951

takes about designing the curriculum can be informed by his/her experience of teaching a particular component of a lesson the previous semester; and a planning decision that a teacher takes in relation to the curriculum can in turn inform the future staging of that particular lesson. Woods’s analysis of interview data suggests that knowledge structures and belief systems ‘‘are not composed of independent elements, but [are] rather structured, with certain aspects implying or pre- supposing others’’ (p. 200). Woods proposes a model to signify the evolving system of beliefs, assumptions and knowledge (BAK) that recursively informs/is informed by the context of teaching:

ythe BAK was part of the perceiving and organizing of the decisions. When a decision was considered, it was considered in the context of BAK, and when it was remembered later it was also remembered in the context of BAK (Woods, 1996, p. 247).

Woods’s research suggests, therefore, that class- room practice is not distinguished by a lack of theory, as implied by the commonplace polariza- tion with the research into teaching and learning reviewed above. In fact, Woods has demonstrated that language teachers create and maintain back- ground networks of beliefs, assumptions and knowledge which, we would argue, constitute a valid theory of teaching and learning. These background theoretical networks are grounded in every level of routine classroom practice in much the same way that educational theory is grounded in the systematic collection of empirical data. It would appear, therefore, that what distinguishes the discourse of classroom practice from the discourse of educational research is not an absence of theory, but the context in which the theory is constructed and the form in which it is articulated.

1.4. SLA theory and classroom practice

As part of the discourse of educational research, SLA theory has been said to have either a direct or indirect effect on the instructional routines and procedures of language teaching. Early research was sceptical. Tarone et al. suggested that ‘‘hasty

pedagogical applications should not be made on the basis’’ of the current state of SLA research (1976, p. 29). One example of this was Krashen’s attempt to devise a grammatical syllabus based on the Natural Order (1983).

1 Lightbown (1985) also

suggests that SLA research should play a role in teacher education rather than in teacher training. However, more recently, a strong claim has been made for the role SLA research has played in one of the more recent techniques of language peda- gogy, task-based learning and teaching (Long & Crookes, in Freeman & Richards, 1993). Over the past 20 year SLA research (e.g. Long, 1981) has offered powerful evidence that language intake is facilitated when language learners are engaged in the negotiation of meaning, as when attempting to find an outcome of a problem-solving task. This has currently led to the widespread design and implementation of tasks in the lan- guage classroom as an approach to language teaching.

However, in the light of the recent research into teacher cognition described above (Richards & Lockhart, 1994; Woods, 1996), perhaps a stronger claim can be made for the indirect transfer of SLA research into classroom practice. Allen suggested a long time ago that:

there is, perhaps, something wrong with the idea that the only way to ‘apply’ the results of research is to write a whole new textbook or a brand new curriculum sequence. Perhaps it is better to see the current applications of research as comprising an influence which indirectly and subtly changes the teacher’s attitude towards what s/he is trying to do in the classroomy (Allen in Tarone et al., 1976, p. 30).

This suggests that SLA theory and research could be better used to inform the reflexive frameworks which teachers mobilize in the

1 As part of his Monitor Model, the popular language

educationalist, Stephen Krashen (1985) drew on a body of

research published throughout the 1970s to support the thesis

that learners of English as a foreign/second language acquired

its morphemes in a particular order. This could have implica-

tions for the order in which grammatical items were introduced

in class. However, the evidence for this ‘‘natural order’’ is still

hotly disputed (McLaughlin, 1987).

M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963952

classroom and to enable teachers to refine their interpretative frames so that they can select from the plethora of possible teaching approaches available to them.

When we provide theory, we give them (tea- chers) the underlying rationale for methodology in general. This permits adaptation for different situations, evaluations of new techniques and evaluations of theory. Without theory, there is no way to distinguish effective teaching proce- dures from ritual, no way to determine which aspects of a method are helpful and which are not helpful (Krashen, 1983, p. 261).

To date, there has been surprisingly little published on the relationship between SLA and teacher thinking and how best to exploit SLA in order to enhance it (Ellis, 1997). However, the comments of our students and of those practi- tioners critical of the role of SLA research suggest that some justification is required for the inclusion of an SLA course in a program preparing people for a career in language education. One approach to this is to examine the relationship between theoretical knowledge and teacher behavior in the classroom (e.g., Freeman & Richards, 1996). The difficulty with this is that the changes in teacher behavior may be a result either of their experience of the classroom, the theoretical input they received during their initial preparation, or some combination of these. Also the way teachers behave in classrooms may be affected by the presence of observers or other methods of observation. We would argue that this type of research in the classroom could usefully be augmented by an investigation into the relation- ship between the theoretical knowledge provided on a teacher education program in TESOL and the changes that take place in the beliefs, assump- tions and knowledge of the student teachers on it. This paper goes on to describe a small-scale piece of research which was carried out to investigate whether there was any change in the beliefs, assumptions and knowledge of student teachers undergoing undergraduate and postgraduate programs in TESOL in a UK university.

2. Procedure

The authors teach on B.A. and M.Sc. programs in TESOL at the Center for English Language Teaching, now part of the University of Stirling Institute of Education in Scotland, UK. Both undergraduate and postgraduate programs include a one-semester course in SLA. The undergraduate SLA course is part of a three year B.A. degree in English Language Teaching offered specifically for non-native speakers of English. Students normally take this course in their second year along with courses in Discourse Analysis and Education. A course in micro-teaching and classroom observa- tion is held in the second semester. The post- graduate SLA course is taken in the first semester of a one year M.Sc. program in TESOL for both native and non-native speakers. In the first semester, postgraduates also take courses in language description (an introduction to func- tional grammar), TESOL methodology (teaching of skills), and classroom observation. A postgrad- uate micro-teaching course is held in the second semester of the program.

Both SLA courses are taught over twelve weeks with three contact hours per week. While the courses are taught separately, by different mem- bers of staff, and make use of different textbooks, there is inevitably considerable overlap in content between the two courses. The style of teaching in both courses is relatively informal and is discus- sion rather than lecture based, although the postgraduate teaching can be slightly more didac- tic at times. Both courses are assessed by two essays and one three hour examination, although the postgraduates write slightly longer assign- ments. A full description of the content of the two courses is given in Appendix A.

The students on the two SLA courses described above were the main focus of attention in this paper. Typical undergraduate student numbers are between 15 and 20. The postgraduate group is normally between 20 and 25, mostly non-native speakers with four or five native speakers in each year group. The male : female ratio of both groups is approximately 1 : 4. The largest number of students by far came from Greece, since they made up roughly two-thirds of the undergraduate

M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963 953

group. Details of the numbers, gender and nationalities of the students are given in Table 1. Of the two groups, only a few of the postgraduates had done any previous courses in language learning and teaching or related topics or had previous teaching experience. However, the non- native speakers had all studied English language to a high level and so could draw on considerable experience of the language classroom.

The Center for English Language Teaching also runs an undergraduate degree course in English as a Foreign Language for non-native speakers, which does not include components in teacher education; and the Institute of Education as a whole also runs undergraduate courses in Initial Teacher Education without any specific focus on foreign language teaching. Since these two groups did not receive any course specific to language teaching pedagogy or SLA, it was decided to use them as controls.

Over two successive years, we administered a questionnaire on language learning to 55 subjects (28 post-graduates and 27 undergraduates) at the beginning and end of the semester in which the SLA courses were taught. The same questionnaire was also administered at the beginning and end of the semester to the control group totaling 25 undergraduates drawn from a B.A. course in English as a Foreign Language and an Initial Teacher Education program which did not feature a course in SLA. The questionnaire (based on Lightbown & Spada, 1995, p. xv) contained 12 statements containing key beliefs relating to English language learning. These are included in the order in which they were given to the students

in Appendix B. Since the statements reflected issues which are central to SLA, the questionnaire was given out in the SLA class. Subjects had to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed on a six point Likert scale where 6 meant strongly disagree and 1 meant strongly agree. The mean responses are shown on the tables that follow. At the end of the semester the subjects again completed the questionnaire and the results were analyzed using a Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) (Kinnear & Gray, 1997).

3. Results

At the outset of the semester there was no significant difference (Table 2) between the key beliefs about language learning (Lightbown & Spada, 1995, p. xv) indicated by the combined cohort of undergraduates and postgraduates (n ¼ 55) taking the SLA course and those noted by the control group (n ¼ 27).

Broadly speaking, the views of the combined cohort taking the SLA course differed significantly before and after the course on issues relating to learning and language, although there was no significant difference on issues relating to learner differences (Table 3). In particular there appeared to be a movement away from the behaviorist views of learning which the subjects had previously held (statements 1, 2, 6, 9, 12) and from the use of language input which is graded on a strict grammatical basis (statements 7, 8 and 10). The students also significantly lessened their convic- tions that language learning should be introduced early in a school program (statement 5). Although they still basically agreed with the notion, this would suggest that they had also been influenced by approaches that credit the cognitive resources that older learners bring to bear on language learning. However, students were not increasingly persuaded by evidence from SLA research pre- sented on both courses as to the benefits of interaction between non-native speakers on the accuracy of learners’ utterances (statement 11). There was also no significant change in their beliefs regarding the relationship between

Table 1

Respondents on TESOL training courses 1997–8

UG PG Combined

Male 8 7 15

Female 20 20 40

Native Speakers 0 9 9

Greece 17 7 24

Taiwan/HK 4 5 9

Japan 2 3 5

Other 5 3 8

Total 28 27 55

M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963954

Table 2

Comparison of the language learning beliefs of combined SLA (n ¼ 55) and non-SLA (n ¼ 27) cohorts before an SLA coursea

The higher the number the more the disagreement Non-SLA SLA P=

1 Languages are learned mainly through imitation 3.04 2.98 0.701 b

2 Parents usually correct young children when they make grammatical errors 3.36 3.02 0.335 b

3 People with high IQs are good language learners 3.68 3.56 0.702 b

4 The most important factor in second language acquisition success

is motivation

1.96 2.31 0.182 b

5 The earlier a second language is introduced in school programs, the

greater the likelihood of success in learning

1.92 1.85 0.664 b

6 Most of the mistakes which second language learners make are due

to interference from their first language

2.76 2.20 0.021 b

7 Teachers should present grammatical rules one at a time, and learners

should practice examples of each one before going on to another

2.44 2.13 0.418 b

8 Teachers should teach simple language structures before complex ones 1.92 1.45 0.088 b

9 Learners’ errors should be corrected as soon as they are made in order

to prevent the formation of bad habits

2.16 2.11 0.624 b

10 Teachers should use materials that expose students only to those

language structures which they have already been taught

3.24 3.42 0.605 b

11 When learners are allowed to interact freely (for example in group or

pair activities), they learn each others’ mistakes

3.08 3.09 0.996 b

12 Students learn what they are taught 3.48 3.36 0.738 b

a Adapted from Lightbown and Spada (1995, p. xv).

b No significant difference P > 0:05:

Table 3

Language learning beliefs of combined UG/PG cohort (n ¼ 55) before and after taking an SLA coursea

The higher the number the more the disagreement Pre Post P=

1 Languages are learned mainly through imitation. 2.98 4.15 0.000 d

2 Parents usually correct young children when they make grammatical errors. 3.02 3.75 0.008 d

3 People with high IQs are good language learners. 3.56 3.49 0.664 b

4 The most important factor in second language acquisition success is motivation. 2.31 2.47 0.483 b

5 The earlier a second language is introduced in school programs, the greater

the likelihood of success in learning.

1.85 2.27 0.007 d

6 Most of the mistakes which second language learners make are due

to interference from their first language.

2.20 3.29 0.000 d

7 Teachers should present grammatical rules one at a time, and learners

should practice examples of each one before going on to another.

2.13 2.96 0.000 d

8 Teachers should teach simple language structures before complex ones. 1.45 1.89 0.002 d

9 Learners’ errors should be corrected as soon as they are made in order to

prevent the formation of bad habits.

2.11 3.29 0.000 d

10 Teachers should use materials that expose students only to those

language structures which they have already been taught.

3.42 4.29 0.000 d

11 When learners are allowed to interact freely (for example in group of

pair activities), they learn each others’ mistakes.

3.09 3.38 0.185 b

12 Students learn what they are taught. 3.36 4.00 0.005 c

a Adapted from Lightbown and Spada (1995, p. xv).

b No significant difference P > 0:05:

c A significant difference Po0:05:

d A very significant difference Po0:01:

M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963 955

intelligence (statement 3) or motivation (statement 4) and language learning.

The beliefs of the control group who had not received a course in SLA did not differ significantly at the end of the semester from those they had held at the beginning of the semester (Table 4).

3.1. Undergraduates and postgraduates combined

If we take strong agreement to mean a rating of under two, before the course started the combined undergraduate and postgraduate SLA groups strongly agreed with just two statements (Table 3):

5. The earlier a second language is introduced in school programs, the greater the likelihood of success in learning.

8. Teachers should teach simple language structures before complex ones.

These two notions do not quite add up to a consistent view of language teaching. Statement five suggests a mentalist view of language acquisi- tion as biologically dependent while statement

eight is consistent with both behaviorist and cognitivist views. If we take strong disagreement to mean a rating of over four then the subjects did not strongly disagree with any statements before the course.

Again taking a rating of under two as indicating strong agreement, after the course the subjects strongly agreed with one statement (which they had strongly agreed with before the course):

8. Teachers should teach simple language structures before complex ones.

However, the subjects now strongly disagreed with three statements:

1. Languages are learned mainly through imitation.

10. Teachers should use materials that expose students only to those language structures which they have already been taught.

12. Students learn what they are taught.

The strong rejection of these three statements suggests that after the course, the subjects had at least taken on board one of the few certainties

Table 4

Language learning beliefs of non-SLA cohort (n ¼ 25) at the beginning and end of semestera

The higher the number the more the disagreement Pre Post P=

1 Languages are learned mainly through imitation. 3.04 3.00 0.928 b

2 Parents usually correct young children when they make grammatical errors. 3.36 3.20 0.559 b

3 People with high IQs are good language learners. 3.68 3.64 0.788 b

4 The most important factor in second language acquisition success is motivation. 1.96 2.08 0.499 b

5 The earlier a second language is introduced in school programs, the greater

the likelihood of success in learning.

1.92 1.76 0.360 b

6 Most of the mistakes which second language learners make are due to

interference from their first language.

2.76 2.76 0.942 b

7 Teachers should present grammatical rules one at a time, and learners

should practice examples of each one before going on to another.

2.44 2.68 0.343 b

8 Teachers should teach simple language structures before complex ones. 1.92 1.76 0.617 b

9 Learners’ errors should be corrected as soon as they are made in order to

prevent the formation of bad habits.

2.16 2.20 0.772 b

10 Teachers should use materials that expose students only to those language

structures which they have already been taught.

3.24 3.68 0.173 b

11 When learners are allowed to interact freely (for example in group of pair

activities), they learn each others’ mistakes.

3.08 3.00 0.877 b

12 Students learn what they are taught. 3.48 3.56 0.929 b

a Adapted from Lightbown and Spada (1995, p. xv).

b No significant difference P > 0:05:

M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963956

afforded by SLA research: a rejection of the behaviorist model of learning. It implies that they now accord more importance to the role of the learner in language learning, which is consistent with the view that learners create their own syllabuses out of the language input they receive.

3.2. Undergraduates and postgraduates compared

There were only a few areas of difference between the responses of the undergraduate and postgraduate cohorts. Tables 5 and 6 compare differences between the undergraduate and post- graduate responses before and after the SLA course. We shall group these into four categories of statement. Statements which reflect a broadly behaviorist

view of language learning (S1, S2, S6, S9, S12). There was a significant difference between the undergraduate and postgraduate cohorts on only one statement, relating to the immediate correc- tion of errors (S9), before the course (Table 5); but

there was no significant difference between the two groups in this area after the course (Table 6). Statements relating to the grammatical sequen-

cing of language teaching (S7, S8, S10). There was a significant difference between the undergraduate and postgraduate beliefs relating to the idea of staged presentation and practice of grammatical rules (S7), a notion which also has some beha- viorist overtones, both before the course (Table 5) and after the course (Table 6). Statements relating to learner variations (S3, S4,

S5). There was a significant difference between the undergraduate and postgraduate beliefs relating to the relationship between IQ and language learning (S3) both before the course (Table 5) and after the course (Table 6). Thus it would appear that the SLA course did not minimize the difference between undergraduate and postgraduate beliefs relating to this area. Statement relating to learner-learner interaction

(S11). There was no significant difference between either the degree or the range of undergraduate and postgraduate beliefs before and after the courses.

Table 5

Comparison of the language learning beliefs of UG (n ¼ 28) and PG (n ¼ 27) cohorts before an SLA coursea

The higher the number the more the disagreement UG PG P=

1 Languages are learned mainly through imitation. 3.21 2.74 0.218 b

2 Parents usually correct young children when they make grammatical errors. 2.89 3.15 0.496 b

3 People with high IQs are good language learners. 3.96 3.15 0.048 c

4 The most important factor in second language acquisition success is motivation. 2.57 2.04 0.106 b

5 The earlier a second language is introduced in school programs, the greater

the likelihood of success in learning.

1.93 1.78 0.856 b

6 Most of the mistakes which second language learners make are due to

interference from their first language.

2.04 2.37 0.224 b

7 Teachers should present grammatical rules one at a time, and learners

should practice examples of each one before going on to another.

1.79 2.48 0.010 c

8 Teachers should teach simple language structures before complex ones. 1.36 1.56 0.307 b

9 Learners’ errors should be corrected as soon as they are made in order to

prevent the formation of bad habits.

1.61 2.63 0.007 c

10 Teachers should use materials that expose students only to those language

structures which they have already been taught.

3.43 3.41 0.952 b

11 When learners are allowed to interact freely (for example in group of pair

activities), they learn each others’ mistakes.

2.96 3.22 0.526 b

12 Students learn what they are taught. 3.32 3.41 0.810 b

a Adapted from Lightbown and Spada (1995, p. xv).

b No significant difference P > 0:05:

c A significant difference Po0:05:

M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963 957

4. Discussion

The relatively small numbers of students in- volved in the study limit the generalisability of the results. Furthermore, the results may have been skewed by the disproportionate ratio of females to males and the particular configuration of different nationalities which we had in our cohort, for example, the preponderance of Greek learners.

4.1. Changes in student beliefs, assumptions and knowledge

We would suggest that, within the context of the other courses on our B.A. and M. Sc. programs, our course on SLA research and theoryFas one area of conceptual/declarative knowledgeFdid have an impact on some of the beliefs, assump- tions and knowledge of our student teachers. While the control group, who did not take an SLA course, did not register any significant changes in their attitudes towards language learn- ing, our students, who did take the course, did

register significant changes in their attitudes towards certain issues in language learning. Thus it would seem that, despite the explicit aversion expressed by our students towards the theoretical approach of the course, the course did have some measurable effect. Our students ap- peared to have started out with common sense beliefs about language learning which were per- haps closest to a behaviorist model of language learning. It is possible that these reflected didactic classroom practices that they had experienced during their periods of language learning in their home cultures. This could be as true of some of our more mature British postgraduates as those from Greece and East Asian countries. The kind of beliefs that our students seemed to be moving towards would seem to fit in either with a broadly Krashenite view (Krashen, 1983; Krashen & Terrell, 1995), which sees language learning as a largely unconscious process, or with a broadly cognitive perspective, which emphasizes the potential for conscious language learning.

Table 6

Comparison of the language learning beliefs of UG (n ¼ 28) and PG (n ¼ 27) cohorts after an SLA coursea

The higher the number the more the disagreement U/G P/G P=

1 Languages are learned mainly through imitation. 4.39 3.89 0.123 b

2 Parents usually correct young children when they make grammatical errors. 3.50 4.00 0.129 b

3 People with high IQs are good language learners. 3.89 3.07 0.013 c

4 The most important factor in second language acquisition success is motivation. 2.50 2.44 0.943 b

5 The earlier a second language is introduced in school programs, the greater

the likelihood of success in learning.

2.50 2.04 0.142 b

6 Most of the mistakes which second language learners make are due to

interference from their first language.

3.32 3.26 0.766 b

7 Teachers should present grammatical rules one at a time, and learners

should practice examples of each one before going on to another.

2.61 3.33 0.048 c

8 Teachers should teach simple language structures before complex ones. 1.71 2.07 0.394 b

9 Learners’ errors should be corrected as soon as they are made in order to

prevent the formation of bad habits.

3.21 3.37 0.617 b

10 Teachers should use materials that expose students only to those language

structures which they have already been taught.

4.43 4.15 0.319 b

11 When learners are allowed to interact freely (for example in group of pair

activities), they learn each others’ mistakes.

3.46 3.30 0.815 b

12 Students learn what they are taught. 4.04 3.96 0.816 b

a Adapted from Lightbown and Spada (1995, p. xv).

b No significant difference P > 0:05:

c A significant difference Po0:05:

M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963958

4.1.1. Cohort overall Differences in significance levels of the changes

in the beliefs of the cohort taken as a whole might reflect differences in the degrees of certainty with which different areas of knowledge within the emerging paradigm of SLA research are viewed. Research such as Chomsky’s (1959) critique of behaviorism and Dulay and Burt’s (1972) account of language learning processes, which militate strongly against behaviorist notions of language learning and downplay the influence of the first language on the second language, have by now- Fdespite the latter’s limited database (Kachru in Liu, 1998)Fbecome an unproblematic part of the SLA canon and a central plank of many founda- tion courses at undergraduate and Master’s level, including our own. It may also be the case that the debate over behaviorismFhowever wellworn in Anglo-American pedagogyFrelates most strongly to many of our own students’ re-evaluations of their experience of teaching and learning lan- guages. However, the SLA research into learner characteristics, such as the relationship between language learning and motivation (Gardner, 1985) and intelligence (Genessee, 1976) has tended to be less conclusive and has also been carried out relatively more recently. This may explain the fact that the SLA cohort as a whole did not register significant degrees of change in their beliefs regarding these areas. Our combined cohort also remained largely unpersuaded about the positive impact of interaction between non-native speakers on language learning despite aspects of this being supported by extensive current research into Task- Based Learning (Long & Crookes, 1992). This is particularly ironic, since it is precisely in this area of SLA research that the strength of the interface between theory and practice has been noted (Markee, 1997). One can only speculate that our students’ lack of conviction might have been affected by two factors: again, the comparative recency of the research in this area (Markee, 1997); and the fact that cultural influences were still proving more powerful for them than empirical research. It is perhaps unsurprising that a one semester course did not entirely persuade our students of an alternative view of language learning, sinceFfor perfectly valid reasonsF

many of them were probably only still emerging from a lengthy period of being positioned as passive learners.

4.1.2. Undergraduates vs. postgraduates There are two areas of interest in which the

undergraduate and postgraduate cohorts differed both before and after the course: error correction and the relationship between language teaching and language learning.

First, it is paradoxical that the undergraduate cohort agreed more than the postgraduate cohort with immediate classroom error correction at the beginning of the course but their degree of change was greater by the end of the course. Many of the undergraduates and postgraduates had come from teaching cultures where there is a low tolerance of error in the classroom. However, our under- graduates had been studying in an ethos of communicative language teaching for one year prior to the study, whereas most of our post- graduates had come directly to the program from their home countries. This may account for the fact that the undergraduate beliefs changed more by end of the course; but it does not account for the fact that they agreed more strongly with the idea of immediate error correction at the beginning of the course. Furthermore, the converse is the case with regard to parental error correction, where the postgraduates became much more assured of a non-behaviorist position by the end of the course.

Secondly, the undergraduate cohort agreed significantly more than the postgraduates with the idea of staged presentation and practice of grammatical rules both before and after the course. In this respect, our SLA course would seem to have had little impression on them. Moreover, this suggests that the undergraduates viewed language learning as more teacher-directed than the postgraduate cohort. This may be due to the fact that the undergraduate program was by its very nature more teacher-directed than the post- graduate program. It is possible that the under- graduates were responding here not so much to what they were taught as to the way in which they were taught.

M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963 959

4.2. Theory into practice

It would hardly be adequate if all that happened in a TESOL program was a change in beliefs and assumptions. Central to Woods’s (1996) concep- tualization of beliefs, assumptions, and knowledge (BAK) is the idea that changes in teachers’ belief systems can also lead to changes in their percep- tual/procedural systems, which in turn produces outcomes in terms of classroom practice. Although it clearly is a limitation of our study that we have no data from classroom practice relating to the changes in beliefs and attitudes that appeared to take place, we would argue on the basis of Woods’s (1996) research that SLA theory actually does play a part in the development of the everyday class- room routines of prospective teachers.

However, from their comments, both orally and on their course evaluation forms, it would appear that our students were either unaware of, or undervalued, the changes that were taking place. Three factors might contribute towards this. We have already commented upon the differences between the discourse of educational research and classroom practice. Markee (1997) notes how inefficient SLA research is in particular when it comes to communicating with its clients, teachers. Secondly, our SLA course is not unusual in being clearly distinguished from other courses on classroom pedagogy on the B.A. and M.Sc. programs. As is the case elsewhere, our students are also products of an educational system which sustains the classification of knowledge into clearly bounded units (Bernstein, 1975). Both the framing of the teacher education curriculum and the corresponding socialization of students militate against the ultimate re-integration of theories of language learning with their pedagogic application by their users. Finally, given that the teacher education curriculum is conventionally classified into research and theory courses on the one hand, and practical teaching courses on the other, it will tend to be the theory that becomes devalued in the current pragmatic intellectual climate where there is a ‘‘desire for immediate application of research to general education’’ (Kerlinger in Lightbown, 1985, p. 180).

We would like to conclude by pointing up some possible ways forward for the reframing of SLA

research on teacher education programs so that student teachers might become more aware of the changes that are taking place in their beliefs, assumptions and knowledge and recognize their inseparability from pedagogic practice. Under- lying this is the notion that the way SLA is taught, and in particular its contextualisation within a teacher education program, is at least as important as the content of the course. With regard to the exclusivity of educational research, Freeman (1996) argues that there is a need for a change in the genre of research to enable the teacher’s voice to be heard. He goes on to say (1996, p. 10) that narrative accounts of classroom experience which reveal the identity of the teller should be accorded the same validity as more objective research reports. The use of narratives could enable student teachers to identify more powerfully with their reading and might serve to compensate for some of the deficiencies in communication apparent in the conventional SLA literature (Markee, 1997). Student teachers could also be encouraged within the seminar to generate both oral and written narratives of their own experiences as language teachers or learners. If the voice of the lan- guage teacher is only partially heard within the discourse of language education, it is surely the voice of the language learner that is truly absent. In this way, student teachers might ‘‘develop their own systematic ways of communicating their own experi- entially derived understandings of what will chal- lenge our preconceptions, suggest falsifications of some of our hypotheses, and enable teaching itself to develop more openly’’ (Brumfit, 1983, p. 71).

Teacher education could also establish stronger links between the divergent discourses of educa- tional research and classroom practice by educat- ing prospective teachers in classroom-based forms of research and embedding teacher education in the classroom. Rather than students being posi- tioned as the passive recipients of research and theory, they could be positioned as potential users. This would also help prepare them for more active future engagement in research as teachers (Sten- house, 1975; Markee, 1997; Wright, 1992). This research could be contextualised within case-based methods (Richert & Shulman in Johnson, 1996) and portfolio assessment (Johnson, 1996).

M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963960

The compartmentalization of educational knowledge within the curriculum of teacher education programs in TESOL could also be addressed, although this would be a major under- taking for any program. Rather than having discrete specialisms running ‘horizontally’ in par- allel through the program, it might be possible to experiment with the idea of exploring ‘vertical’ topics in an integrated way. One unit would be devoted to ‘errors’, another to ‘strategies’ and so on. Each unit would provide a focus through which aspects of classroom practice could be explored from the most theoretical to the most practical level. For example, a module on errors would address psycholinguistic reasons for errors (often dealt with separately on an SLA course), linguistic descriptions of errors (often dealt with separately in a language description course) and techniques of handling errors (often dealt with separately on a methodology course).

5. Conclusion

In this paper we have observed that, despite student teachers’ avowed aversion to SLA theory and research, certain changes in key beliefs in their own attitudes and beliefs towards language learn- ing did take place during programs which included an SLA course. Taking on board Woods’s (1996) argument that teachers’ beliefs and attitudes are inextricably linked with classroom practice, we would argue that the theory and research compo- nent of these programs does have an effect on the evolving classroom routines of our students. However, it has to be conceded that neither the discourse of educational research in which SLA is grounded nor the way in which SLA courses are framed within the curriculum of teacher education programs in TESOL make it any easier for the prospective teacher to come to terms with this often arcane body of knowledge. However, if some of the changes which have been suggested were to be implementedFof necessity over some consider- able period of timeFwe might see SLA research and theory begin to become ‘‘more explicitly grounded in the real world’’ (Markee, 1997, p. 88), and in so doing, be placed ‘‘back into its

originating context’’ (Buchmann, 1984, p. 434). Further research needs to be carried out to correlate changes in the beliefs, assumptions and knowledge of student teachers in TESOL with observable data of changes in their classroom routines in the context of micro-teaching or teaching practice.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our B.A. ELT and M.Sc. TESOL cohorts (1997 and 1998) for their good humor and persistence; also Patsy Light- bown for permission to use the questionnaire.

Appendix A. Content of undergraduate and post-

graduate SLA courses

Undergraduate course

Learning a First Language (behaviorism, ment- alism, interactionism)

Learner Language (contrastive analysis, error analysis, natural order)

Social Aspects of Interlanguage (acculturation and social identity)

Discourse Aspects of Interlanguage (input, out- put and interaction)

Psycholinguistic Aspects of Interlanguage (transfer, consciousness, communication strate- gies)

Linguistic Aspects of Interlanguage (Chomsky, TG and CPH)

Individual Differences in L2 Acquisition (apti- tude, motivation, the affective filter and learning strategies)

Interaction in Language Learning (groupwork and feedback)

Instruction and L2 Acquisition (form focused instruction and the natural approach)

Postgraduate course

First Language Acquisition (behaviorism, ment- alism, interactionism)

M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963 961

Error Analysis and Language Transfer (psycho- linguistic causes of errors; influence of L1 on L2)

Interlanguage ( idiosyncratic dialects, approx- imate systems, interlanguage)

Monitor Model (Krashen’s approach to lan- guage learning)

Learner Differences (age, motivation, field dependence/independence)

Input in Language Learning (caretaker talk, teacher talk, foreigner talk)

Interaction in Language Learning (groupwork and feedback)

Learner Strategies (metacognitive and cognitive strategies, strategy training)

Teaching and Language Learning (form-focused instruction)

Appendix B. Questionnaire statements

Languages are learned mainly through imita- tion.

Parents usually correct young children when they make grammatical errors.

People with high IQs are good language learners. The most important factor in second language

acquisition success is motivation. The earlier a second language is introduced in

school programs, the greater the likelihood of success in learning.

Most of the mistakes which second language learners make are due to interference from their first language.

Teachers should present grammatical rules one at a time, and learners should practice examples of each one before going on to another.

Teachers should teach simple language struc- tures before complex ones.

Learners’ errors should be corrected as soon as they are made in order to prevent the formation of bad habits.

Teachers should use materials that expose students only to those language structures which they have already been taught.

When learners are allowed to interact freely (for example in group or pair activities), they learn each others’ mistakes.

Students learn what they are taught.

References

Abelson, R. P. (1979). Difference between belief and knowledge

systems. Cognitive Science, 3, 355–366.

Bernstein, B. (Ed.) (1975). On the classification and framing of

educational knowledge. Class codes and control, Vol. 3 (pp.

85–116). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Brown, H. D. (1983). From ivory tower to real world: A search

for relevance. In J. E. Alatis, H. H. Stern, & P. Strevens

(Eds.), Georgetown university round table in languages and

linguistics (pp. 53–59). Washington DC: Georgetown

University Press.

Brumfit, C. (1983). The integration of theory and practice. In

J. E. Alatis, H. H. Stern, & P. Strevens (Eds.), Georgetown

university round table in languages and linguistics (pp.

59–74). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Buchmann, M. (1984). The use of research knowledge in

teacher education and teaching. American Journal of

Education, 92, 421–439.

Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of ‘‘verbal behavior’’ by B.F.

Skinner. Language, 35, 26–58.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1987). Teachers’

personal knowledge: What counts as ‘personal’ in studies

of the personal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(6),

487–500.

Clarke, M. A. (1994). The dysfunctions of the theory/practice

discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 9–25.

Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1972). Goofing, an indicator of

children’s second language learning strategies. Language

Learning, 22, 234–252.

Ellis, R. (1994). Second language acquisition research and

teacher development: The case of teachers’ questions. In

D. C. S. Li, D. Mahoney, & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Exploring

second language teacher development (pp. 175–193). Hong

Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.

Ellis, R. (1997). SLA and language pedagogy: An educational

perspective. SSLA, 19, 69–92.

Freeman, D. (1994). Knowing into doing: Teacher education

and the problem of transfer. In D. C. S. Li, D. Mahoney, &

J. C. Richards (Eds.), Exploring second language teacher

development (pp. 1–20). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of

Hong Kong.

Freeman, D. (1996). Redefining the relationship between

research and what teachers know. In K. M. Bailey, & D.

Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom: Quali-

tative research in second language education (pp. 88–115).

Cambridge: CUP Press.

Freeman, D., & Richards,, J. C. (1993). Conceptions of

teaching and the education of second language teachers.

TESOL Quarterly, 27(2), 193–216.

Freeman, D., Richards, J. C. (Eds.) (1996). Teacher learning in

language teaching. Cambridge: CUP.

Gardner, R. (1985). Social psychology and second language

learning: The role of attitude and motivation. London:

Edward Arnold.

Geertz, C. (Ed.) (1983). Common sense as a cultural system.

Local knowledge (pp. 73–94). London: Basic Books.

M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963962

Genessee, F. (1976). The role of intelligence in second language

learning. Language Learning, 26, 267–280.

Johnson, K. (1996). The role of theory in L2 teacher education.

TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 765–771.

Kerlinger, F. H. (1977). The influence of research on education

practice. Educational Research, 6, 5–12.

Kinnear, P. R., & Gray, C. D. (1997). SPSS for windows.

London: Psychology Press.

Krashen, S. D. (1983). Second language acquisition theory and

the preparation of teachers: Towards a rationale. In J. E.

Alatis, H. H. Stern, & P. Strevens (Eds.), Georgetown

university round table in languages and linguistics (pp.

255–264). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.

Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1995). The natural approach.

Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.

Lightbown, P. (1985). Great expectations: Second-language

acquisition research and classroom teaching. Applied

Linguistics, 6, 173–189.

Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1995). How languages are learned.

Oxford: OUP.

Liu, D. (1998). Ethnocentrism in TESOL: Teacher education

and the neglected needs of international TESOL students.

English Language Teaching Journal, 52(1), 3–10.

Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction, and SLA. Annals of the

New York Academy of Sciences, 37(9), 259–278.

Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-

based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 27–56.

Markee, N. (1997). Second language acquisition research: A

resource for changing teachers’ professional cultures? The

Modern Language Journal, 81, 80–93.

McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second-language learning.

London: Edward Arnold.

Nunan, D. (1991). Second language acquisition research in the

language classroom. In E. Sadtono (Ed.), Language

acquisition and the second/foreign language classroom

(pp. 1–16). Singapore: SEAMO Regional English Language

Centre.

Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical

philosophy. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.

Richards, J. C. (1996). Teachers’ maxims in language teaching.

TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 281–296.

Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in

second language classrooms. Cambridge: CUP.

Richards, J. C., Nunan, D. (Eds.), (1990). Second language

teacher education. Cambridge: CUP.

Stenhouse, L. (1975). Research as a basis for teaching. In

Authority, education and emancipation (pp. 177–195).

London: Heineman.

Tarone, E., Swain, M., & Fathman, A. (1976). Some limi-

tations to the classroom applications of current second

language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly, 10(1),

19–32.

Winch, P. (1958). The idea of a social science. London:

Routledge and Keegan Paul.

Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching.

Cambridge: CUP.

Wright, T. (1992). L2 classroom research and L2 teacher

education: Towards a collaborative approach. In J. Flower-

dew, M. Brock, & S. Hsia (Eds.), Perspectives on second

language acquisition (pp. 187–223). Hong Kong: City

Polytechnic of Hong Kong.

M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963 963