This was originally published in Modern English Teacher (Oct 2013)
One
of the most divisive myths in the TEFL world is the supposed irreconcilable
distinction between teachers and researchers. In this narrative Real TEFL
practitioners are in the classroom with students –at the chalkface, while those
in academia spend their time in ivory towers, coming up with counter intuitive
theories that any experienced teacher in the ‘real world’ would be able to tell
them were nonsense. Thornbury, for example characterises researchers as “men in
white coats” who he fears may “hijack” ELT (2001:403) and Widdowson notes that
“there is a good deal of mistrust of theory among English language
teachers…[who] see it as remote from their actual experience, an attempt to
mystify common-sense practices by unnecessary abstraction”(2010:1). Simon
Andrewes further reinforces this popular view in his article “About Theory and
Practice” (Met 22:2)
Simon
Andrewes draws a distinction between, “practitioners and theoreticians” or “the
real world” and the world of academics. In this dichotomy practitioners are
“pragmatists” looking for real ways to improve teaching while academics just
want to get published. While there may be some truth in the different aims of
these professions, it seems to me a rather simplistic and unkind portrait of
academics, many of whom started life in the classroom and did their time at the
‘chalkface’. Often these experiences drive their research:
…gradually
my career has moved me from direct language teaching to being more of a
researcher, more of a teacher educator. I think that experience is very
important because a lot of the things that I research and the way in which I
interpret research is based very much on my experience as a language teacher. (Ellis
2012 Online)
The
problem is more nuanced than Simon allows and it is not because “theory has become
divorced from practice” as he suggests but rather because questions that
teachers want answers to are not always easy to research:
when
you ask students to try to plan a research study, they have a lot of problems
writing their questions because they tend to write questions that are important
to them, but are not very easily researchable…If you have a very broad question
like, “What can I do to get my learners to avoid making this kind of mistake?”
that’s probably not a very good question because it’s not easy to see how you
can design a study to actually do that.(Ellis 2012: Online)
Despite
the difficulties, research is carried and results are produced. It seems rather unfair for those not engaged
in research to write off the whole endeavour as being a way to climb the
academic ladder.
Simon
clearly feels passionately about this subject. In an earlier article he sets
teachers in opposition to “methodologists” who unlike teachers “do not feel the
constraints of everyday school life” and who spend their time trying to
“attract their paymasters” by “constantly revolutionising teaching ideas” (2008:18).
He also notes that “Teachers' mistrust of and resentment towards methodology
are clearly a consequence of this gulf between practice and theory” (2008:19). But
his passion for defending the “‘ordinary’, ‘down-to-earth’ people against the
elitism of academics”, (Widdowson 2010:2) has, it seems, led him to create
straw man villains like ‘researchers’ (only in it for the ‘papers’) and ‘methodologists’
(only in it for the money) who are positioned in opposition to the noble
pragmatic teacher. This is an attractive fantasy but still a fantasy.
The
teacher/academic distinction is arguably quite convenient for experienced
teachers who can simultaneously dismiss academic work without the bother of
having to do it or read it and by placing ‘experience’ as the ‘ne plus ultra’
of TEFL professionalism, position themselves as the voice of authority. This is
also a dangerous position as “teachers who insist they are simply
practitioners, workers at the chalkface, not interested in theory, in effect
conspire against their own authority, and against their own profession”
(Widdowson 2012:2) Research can be flawed, often seriously yet good research
can give us insights into best practice and while what is effective isn’t
always easy to demonstrate and may depend on many factors, we can often identify those things which have
been shown to be ineffective. One such example as I argued previously is
learning styles(LS).
Simon
Andrewes is mistaken when he suggests the “facts and fictions” title refers to
the sense that research can be quite removed from practice. The title is
actually homage to an article by Amos Paran (1996) “reading in EFL: facts and
fictions” which was an inspiration to me and pertinent to this article as Paran
attacks the use of ‘the psycholinguistic (guessing game) model’ of reading popular
in ELT. He criticises the approach, for lacking evidence and for having been
rejected by reading researchers for years. He concludes:
As a final point, it is important to stand back and think how [this
model] of reading, with all the reservations LI reading researchers expressed
towards it, has been able to hold sway over L2 reading models for such a long
time. (1995:33)
This is important to
dwell on as the model he attacked then is still hugely popular today among EFL
teachers and this has similarities with LS.
The
former is true, the latter is false. The former is merely expressing the quite
obvious idea that people prefer to study things in different ways. I may like
to listen to music while studying and another person may love checking words in
a dictionary or listening to podcasts. Some people like the colour red and
others prefer blue. There is nothing controversial here but also nothing
particularly note-worthy. The latter, has repeatedly been shown to be
unsupported by evidence. Just to be clear about this point, there is no
evidence, despite much research, that people learn better if they get
information through a preferred sensory channel.
This
is where the problems associated with relying entirely on a teacher’s
experience can be clearly seen. A teacher may believe that it is useful to know
a student’s LS and they may believe it sincerely but research suggests
otherwise. It is not good enough for teachers to accept only those findings
that they already agree with and dismiss research that contradicts their
preferred way of working. Thus, when Simon writes “nobody is better placed than
the teacher to determine what will work in practice” (2013:56) what he is
arguing for is essentially an anything goes attitude to ELT where what is good,
bad, fun, useful or valid are all decided entirely at the discretion of the
teacher.
When
research findings contradict teachers, Simon suggests that the problem is with
the research, after all “if theory is honestly valid, then classroom practice
will vindicate it” (2012:56). He Later adds, “the division between theory and
practice, then, is what leads to a healthy scepticism among practitioners
towards the claims of theoreticians”. In actuality healthy scepticism is
entirely what’s missing from our profession and thus the proliferation of
faddish theories continues. Master NLP practitioner claim to determine student LS
from watching their eye movements while tapping into their left-brained
multiple intelligences with the latest BrainGymTM activity. Pseudo-science
is heaped on pseudo-science with scant regard for facts. This is hardly
surprising when they are told to ignore research and decide the value of things
for themselves.
The
ELT world has proved a fertile breeding ground for pseudo-science and at times
mutually exclusive theories are even thrown together with seeming reckless
abandon. For example, Simon explicitly relates LS with the theory of multiple
intelligences (MI) at one point talking about students’ “intrapersonal learning
style” but LS theory and MI theory are completely different things. LS theory
(or at least the VARK model) is the idea that people can improve their learning
if information is delivered via their dominant modality (visual, auditory etc).
Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory is merely an attempt to redefine the
concept of aptitudes as ‘intelligences’. This is not my opinion but Gardner’s
who describes the idea that “[a]n Intelligence is the same as a learning style”
as a “myth” (1999:80). The only common ground that the two share is that they
are both adored by teachers and lack any scientific credibility. Even Gardner
himself is not keen on certain classroom applications of MI theory:
I am leery of implementations such as […]
believing that going through certain motions activates or exercises specific
intelligences. I have seen classes in which children were encouraged to move
their arms or run around, on the assumption that such exercise enhances
bodily-kinesthetic intelligence. It does not, any more than babbling enhances
linguistic or musical intelligence.
(1999:90)
And:
I once watched a series of videos
about multiple intelligences in the schools. In one video after another I saw
youngsters crawling across the floor, with the superimposed legend
‘Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence’. I said, ‘That is not bodily-kinesthetic
intelligence, that is kids crawling across the floor. And I feel like crawling
up the wall.’
(1999:142)
Simon
suggests teachers should be aware that students learn in different ways and
adds that we should know about their “particular kinaesthetic or right brain or
interpersonal needs or whatever”. So as well as LS and MI he also promotes the idea
of there being left-brained/right brained learners, an idea long rejected by
neuroscientists.
In
the article, Simon claims my argument fails because we cannot engage students
if we are “oblivious to their particular learning style” (2013:58). Does he, I
wonder, also think we should find out our students’ star signs, or endeavour to
find out what colour their auras are, as these have, at present, as much
credibility as the theories he is defending. This isn’t “healthy scepticism” it’s a free
for all.
The need for research
That
Simon calls things like LS “self-evident truth[s]” when there is so little
supporting evidence is exactly why research is so crucial. At one point in our
history it seemed self-evident that some women were witches or that star signs
could tell us about our personalities or that tarot cards could help us know
our destinies. It once seemed self-evident that canning students was an
appropriate method of classroom management and that blood-letting was a good
medical treatment. As Widdowson notes:
The first thing to do with common sense is to
question it; the last thing to do is accept it as valid. It may be valid, but, then the validity has
to be argued for and demonstrated. It cannot be taken as self-evident. (2010:3)
Experience
is a crucial tool for teachers. It can give us insights into what is effective
and indicate what isn’t, and in the absence of evidence it’s arguably a good
bet. However, experience has its limits and can cause us to see evidence
supporting our ideas that perhaps isn’t there. As Jeremy Harmer tweeted
recently “I don’t 100% trust what I think I see! I also want the results of
better brains than mine = research”.
Andrewes,
S. (2013) About theory and practice in
ELT. MET 22:2 56-58
Andrewes, S. (2008) Teachers Against Methodology. English Teaching Professional, May
2008. 56. 17-19.
Gardner, H. (1991) Intelligence Reframed. New York: Basic Books
Thornbury,
S. (2001) Lighten up: A reply to Angles
Clemente ELT
Journal, 55(4),
403-4
Widdowson, H.G (2010) Defining issues in English
language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Language Mazazine (2012). Interview with Rod Ellis.
In The journal of communication and
education. Retrieved 3rd August 2013, from http://languagemagazine.com/?page_id=3843