ATTITUDES TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT: TWO POLAR OPPOSITES

If pre-packaged methods have flaws and limitations (4), eclecticism has come to mean 'anything goes', experts' opinions are to be taken with a pinch of salt, theory doesn't point clearly towards application and research is about questions more than answers, where does that leave the language teacher?

A strong indication as to which direction the solution lies comes from current research in language teacher education. The consensus has been shifting towards the opinion that it is the teachers' knowledge, skills and attitudes, rather than any methodological package or framework, which have the greatest influence on observable teaching behaviours (see Karavas-Doukas, 1996; Roberts, 1998; Ulichny, 1996; Woods, 1996: 226-239). In other words, it is the teachers' contextualised interpretation of any given methodological framework that is actually put to use in the classroom. Therefore, development "involves changes in knowledge and beliefs and not simply changes in skill" (Elliot & Calderhead, 1995).

Edge (1997: 27) defines development as "a continuing process of self-directed movement" and contents that "one aspect of becoming a teacher is the growth of a commitment to continuing self-development". It seems then that it is important that teachers are willing/motivated to develop. Motivation can be influenced by intrinsic or extrinsic factors. Intrinsic factors may include attitudes towards learning and change, learning skills, and ability to observe, analyse and synthesise. Extrinsic factors may include the teachers' educational context, the criteria for becoming a language teacher in their countries, and the social status and income bracket of language teachers in their community (see Elliot & Calderhead, 1995).

Below, I describe two attitudes towards language teaching and professional development which I see as polar opposites. In terms of potential for development these two profiles are to a large extent congruent with the lower and higher points (respectively) of the five stages of professional development described by Berliner (1994) [For a summary go to: http://www.geocities.com/cgabrielatos/FiveStages]. What I mean is that it is unlikely for 'intuitive' teachers to move away from "novice" level, whereas for principled teachers "expert" level is attainable. Although I have met some language teachers whose attitude could be identified as 'intuitive' or 'principled', in my experience the majority occupies a middle ground.

Intuitive teachers

In an essay on the importance of philosophy for the layperson, Ayn Rand (1974/1984: 6) expresses ideas which are extremely close to my views on the importance of a conscious methodological framework. One excerpt is particularly relevant to the ELT context if 'philosophy' is replaced by 'awareness of theories of language and learning/teaching'. The following adaptation of this excerpt summarises my view of intuitive or 'practical' language teaching.

Teachers who operate only by intuition are like people who are run by a computer, unaware of, or unclear about, the principles behind its programming and unable to make effective use of the information on the monitor or printouts, because they either don't have such access, or lack the knowledge and skills required to accurately decode and interpret the computer's output. At best, they can only hope that the computer software is programmed to address their specific teaching/learning context.

Teachers who dismiss theoretical frameworks and research insights as too academic and impractical invariably fall into the trap of believing that they use a 'theory-free', 'common-sense' and 'practical' methodology. They are unaware of the fact that they are actually implementing a motley selection of principles, which they have subconsciously absorbed from their social, cultural and educational contexts (e.g. received wisdom, previous learning experiences, coursebooks). Consequently, they are in chronic awe (or even terror) of the different theories, methods, materials and procedures available.

As they are uncertain or unaware of the principles behind their own methodology and of alternative methodological frameworks, it is difficult, if not impossible for them to develop through critical evaluation of their actions and the learners' output and reactions. As a result, they are entangled in either of the following two vicious circles. In the first, they avoid experimentation and treat anything outside their immediate grasp and traditional practices as sour grapes. In the second, they adopt popular novel methodologies uncritically and superficially, only to abandon them at the first sign of 'failure' in order to either embrace the next methodological trend, or revert to traditional practices.

Principled teachers

Principled teaching is the result of conscious and informed decisions, and is concerned with the implications of theories and research findings, not their application. The wider and deeper the teachers' knowledge of different theories and approaches, and the history of language teaching, the better use they can make of available elements. Awareness of principles enables principled teachers to match procedures and materials to learning context, and combine relevant, compatible elements (Gabrielatos, 1999, 2000).

Principled teachers do not blame theory (i.e. the construction of frameworks) if existing theories of language or learning appear to be unhelpful for ELT. Their attitude is that well constructed theories are indeed helpful, but not because they can provide them with direct answers to the questions of 'what' and 'how' to teach. They are helpful because, firstly, they "have generality: they extend to situations and events not specifically included in the phenomena that the theory was first set up to explain" and secondly, because they "guide prediction … they are the ground from which hypotheses spring" (McLaughlin, 1987: 14, 7). When faced with a seemingly unhelpful framework, their reaction is not to dismiss it out of hand, but to re-examine their interpretation and views on its potential implications. If the framework still seems inadequate, they attempt to develop it further, or formulate a more appropriate one (see Freeman, 2000; Roberts, 1998: 29-42).

In other words, principled teachers use their knowledge of existing frameworks to interpret their teaching experience and formulate hypotheses, which they test against their experience and new views on, and insights into, language and teaching/learning. They have recognised that there is no end-point in development, and that any answers and solutions are only temporary. They don't regard new views, theories, methodologies, materials and procedures as something they have to adopt or reject, but as food for thought, as more raw material for their flexible frameworks to take into account. In this way they are involved in a virtuous cycle of development. I am not arguing, or course, that their decisions are always correct, only that they are conscious, informed, and have internal consistency.

A note on intuition

Brown (2000: 292-293) provides a more positive view on intuition, but he still cautions that it is "the product, in part, of a firm grounding in what is known, in analytical terms, about how people learn languages and why some people do not learn languages. … Intuitions are formed at the crossroads of knowledge and experience." Similarly, Berliner (1994) presents intuition as one of the attributes of "proficient" and "expert" teachers (the highest two of his five stages of development). According to Berliner, such teachers have the ability to recognise similarities holistically, which allows them "to predict events more precisely".

As I see it, the discrepancy between my negative use of 'intuition' and Berliner's and Brown's positive one is due to terminology rather than concepts. (5) Brown (2000: 292) states that "one of the important characteristics of intuition is its nonverbalizability", that is the inability to explain verbally the rationale behind decisions. Berliner's (1994) "expert" teachers can "bring analytic processes to bear on the situation" when "anomalies occur". Since analytic processes need ability to verbalise, which in turn requires explicit knowledge of concepts and terms, the intuitive teacher is not in a position to analyse with any degree of accuracy - and therefore unable to make informed (i.e. principled) decisions. The quality that Berliner and Brown seem to describe has to do with speed and automatisation, and is more akin to "procedural knowledge" in Anderson's ACT* model (1983). (6)

CONCLUSION

Methodological packages and approaches are only tools. However well constructed, their effectiveness depends much more on the teachers' interpretation than the design of the packages themselves. Pre-prepared guidelines do not equip someone to deal successfully with the complex interaction of numerous, ever shifting factors that is language teaching/ learning. Actually, it seems highly probable that if the use of fixed sets of materials and procedures becomes widespread, the need for principled teachers will diminish. Consequently, courses/programmes for language teachers will tend to become ever-more cursory and superficial. This process will eventually reduce the role and status of language teachers to that of 'materials operators' - with all the attendant negative effects on both the emerging teaching profession and the learners.

Principled teaching is not concerned with the consumption (i.e. application) of theories and pre-packaged methodologies. It involves critical evaluation of the implications of theories, their development, as well as the construction of new theories. Principled teachers do not depend on packaged products, although they are perfectly able to use them flexibly to suit their teaching context. Principled language teachers are aware of different views on the nature and use of language, as well as the rationale behind teaching methodology, they do not only translate theory into practice, they also contribute to the development of the ELT profession.

(4)Most pre-packaged methods lack a comprehensive and clearly defined approach, that is an informing theory of language and/or learning (see Brown, 2001: 18-35; Richards & Rodgers, 1986).
(5)Collins English Dictionary (1998) gives the following definition of 'intuition': 1. Knowledge or belief obtained neither by reason nor by perception. 2. Instinctive knowledge or belief. 3. A hunch or unjustified belief. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1995) defines 'intuition' as follows: 1. The ability to understand or know something by using your feelings rather than by carefully considering the facts. 2. An idea about what is true in a particular situation based on strong feelings rather than facts.
(6)ACT* is a model of language generation (Anderson, 1983). It distinguishes between "declarative" knowledge ('what') and "procedural" knowledge ('how'). Declarative knowledge is available to consciousness and can be used as a set of instructions to guide behaviour through "interpretative", "problem-solving", or "analogy-forming" procedures. Procedural knowledge is not conscious and only comes about by repeated use of declarative knowledge in "productions". According to ACT*, knowledge starts as declarative and gradually becomes procedural through "strengthening" and "tuning" processes while using combined units of declarative knowledge in "productions".

To page 5 of 5

Back to the articles index