Linguistics in language teacher education.

Abstract

Linguistic theory has been a traditional component in the training of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), but recently the relevance of theoretical training has been questioned by some TESOL teacher educators. In this article, we highlight the problem that the voices of teachers-in-training have often been missing in this debate, and we call upon teacher educators to investigate how the perceptions of theory may change from the time teacher trainees first enter academic programs to the time they become seasoned professionals.

Introduction

What exactly do language teachers, including Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), need to know in order to be able to teach effectively? English grammar? Pedagogical practice? Linguistic theory? Intercultural communication? During the last decade, attempts to define the parameters of language teachers' knowledge base have intensified within the language teacher education community. [1] Some scholars have suggested the need for a broad knowledge base for language teachers. Shulman (1987), for instance, argues that teachers need to acquire content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, curriculum knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, knowledge of learners and their characteristics, knowledge of educational contexts, and knowledge of educational ends, purposes, and values. Yet, Byrnes' (2000) review of disciplinary knowledge in language learning and teaching shows that throughout the history of language education, essentially two academic disciplines have been in the foreground: linguistics and philosophy. Grabe, Stroller, & Tardy (2000), on the other hand, believe that four disciplines should be the foundation for teacher preparation--linguistics, psychology, anthropology, and education--and argue that the demands of teaching require professionals to integrate knowledge in these four disciplines. Freeman and Johnson (1998) have called for a 'reconceptualization' of the knowledge base in language teacher education in such a way that teachers focus somewhat less on theory and more on the activity of teaching itself, also paying more attention to social contexts and pedagogical processes of teaching. In a similar vein, Johnston and Goettsch (2000: 438) maintain that "... it is the teaching that is most important, not the language: that language teaching is first and foremost an educational enterprise, not a linguistic one."

Linguistic Theory in Language Teacher Education

A common thread through much of the recent debate is to call into question the extent of the grounding that language teachers need in theory, especially linguistic theory, as part of their training. [2] This debate arises in a context where the role of linguistic training in language teacher education programs has long been taken for granted. A review of graduate program requirements in TESOL clearly shows the prominent role linguistic study still plays in the education of second/foreign language teachers. Govardhan, Nayar, & Sheorey (1999), for example, surveyed the core courses in TESOL Master of Arts (MA) programs in US universities, basing their analysis on data collected from 194 US institutions as presented in Garshick (1998). They found that most programs mandate linguistic study. A review of Garshick (2002) indicates that this trend continues today.

Most teachers in language education programs are offered elective courses in linguistics as part of their professional education. However, we have observed that in our program many students choose to fill their elective options with methodology courses, while non-required courses dealing with aspects of linguistic theory are less frequently selected. Our conversations with colleagues at other institutions suggest that we are not alone in this observation. The same pattern can also be observed in professional gatherings of language teachers, such as the annual TESOL convention. While presenters often address packed audiences in methodologically oriented sessions (e.g., '10 tips for teaching grammar,' 'Developing oral proficiency tests,' or 'Using blogs to improve comprehension'), linguistically based sessions (e.g., 'Language shift in a diglossic community,' 'End states in L2 learning,' or 'The role of output in SLA') attract far fewer attendees. This suggests both a pre-service and in-service lack of interest on the part of teachers for the pursuit of linguistic theory as an aspect of their professional development. While this may be understandable because teachers clearly have a need to address the more practical aspects of their profession, it also indicates that they do not perceive linguistic-oriented presentations as useful for addressing their pedagogical problems.

At the same time, some language teacher educators have begun to question the professional relevance of linguistic training. Recent debates among Johnson (2002), Snyder (2002 a, b), and Yates & Muchisky (2003, 2004) suggest that many teacher educators still believe that language teachers in training need to know about theories of language, learning, and second language acquisition, but this has not been a unanimous assumption. Phillipson (1988: 348), for instance, maintains that English Language Teaching (ELT) is best served when "the professional training of ELT people concentrates on linguistics, psychology and education in a restricted sense," (emphasis added). Other scholars such as Crookes (1997) and Holliday (1997) point out that the emphasis on linguistics in teacher education programs comes at the expense of less emphasis on other, mostly sociocultural, aspects of language teaching and learning. They view this lack of discussion of sociocultural variables in language learning as a problem for teachers preparing to teach in diverse contexts. Govardhan et al. display their skepticism of the practical applications of theory by arguing that many theoretical courses that are offered in MA programs in TESOL are "of doubtful relevance as part of an education program" and that there currently exists "an overinfusion of elements of linguistic theory (e.g., syntactic theory, various schools of theoretical phonology, historiography of linguistics), which are only remotely relevant to language pedagogy" (1999:121-122). Discussions on the Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal forum among language teachers have revealed similar attitudes, where, a number of contributors note that although they enjoyed their linguistics courses, they see little relevance of linguistic theory to the actual practice of language teaching.

Hearing the Voices of Teachers Themselves

While the above debates have been continuing among teacher educators and researchers, few empirical studies have investigated how linguistic knowledge is used by language teachers in their practice. This is a remarkable oversight given that we, as teacher educators and curriculum designers, have been basing our assumptions on the notion that linguistic theory informs language teaching, and thus have been making linguistic training a staple in language teacher education. It is important for us to learn how exactly linguistic theory is used in language teaching, or indeed, whether it is used at all. This information is needed to help us test our assumptions that inform curriculum design in language teacher education programs. One attempt to begin to address this oversight is Grabe et al. (2000) who carried out a case study of a single teacher who had completed a Master's degree in teaching English as a Second Language. The aim of their study was to determine the extent to which the theoretical and methodological coursework in this student's program transferred into her subsequent lesson planning and classroom teaching. Grabe et al. found that the particular teacher trainee did incorporate linguistic knowledge into her teaching practice, although the authors were understandably very cautious in drawing generalizations from one case alone.

As teacher trainees gain experience in teaching, it may well be that their views change on the importance of linguistic theory for their practice. To date, few studies have examined this question and we do not have solid data on how perceptions of theory may change from the time teacher trainees first enter academic programs to the time they become seasoned professionals. Access to such data would require soliciting information from students and teachers themselves, and the fact that we do not as of yet have such data underscores the need for further research.

Mullock (2002) surveyed teachers' views of what they believed to be important traits in a language teacher. Working with teachers from ten countries, Mullock found that subjects ranked knowledge of the subject matter higher than expertise in teaching techniques and methods in their evaluation. From these findings, Mullock concluded that expert teachers are those who have "highly organized and elaborated sets of conceptual knowledge in their subject area which provides them with a sophisticated conceptual understanding of the principles and relationships in their subject area" (2002: 9-10). Studies such as those by Grabe et al. and Mullock provide us with insights on teachers' beliefs about the value of theory in practice, however, they need to be replicated more broadly across other contexts, with triangulation of methods, in order for us to gain a deeper understanding of teachers' reactions to aspects of their professional training. We need to learn where and how teachers incorporate their linguistic knowledge into their teaching and how this kind of knowledge helps to shape their grasp of the subject matter. In turn, a better understanding of how theoretical components of language are actually being used by teachers would inform us of needed modifications in teacher education.

In short, the study of theoretical linguistics has been a core component in language teacher education, perhaps due to teacher educators' conviction that knowledge of linguistic theory and skills in analyzing various aspects of language should form an important part of language teachers' knowledge base. However, this view may be changing: some scholars now argue for prominence on the act of teaching itself in language teacher education programs, and others argue for an increase in emphasis on the sociocultural and contextual factors influencing language teaching and learning. While anecdotal evidence and informal observations indicate that prospective teachers in teacher education programs often argue against the study of linguistic theory, calling instead for more pedagogy/practice-oriented courses in their curricula, the few available empirical studies of teachers suggest a more complex picture, one in which teachers appear to place value on content knowledge and theoretical knowledge.

Call for Action

Given the conflicting views presented above, there is a clear need for studies investigating the actual use of linguistic theory in language teaching. To further inform discussions on the role of theoretical linguistic training in language teacher education, we need better and more varied empirical data gained through observation of practicing language teachers. Furthermore, since many have begun to consider training educators as a collaborative process involving 'reflective teaching' and 'theorizing opportunities' (cf. Johnson, 2002), our discussions as educators need to take into account the voices of our teachers-in-training (who study linguistic theory in preparation for language teaching) and our experienced alumni (who may or may not see linguistic theory as useful for their teaching practice). These groups are the direct recipients of our instruction and, in regards to their internal thought processes related to the use of linguistic theory, our only available source of information. We need to uncover the perceptions of pre-service teachers about their future needs for linguistic theory in their pedagogical practice, so that as teacher educators we can explain to students the rationale behind our curricular requirements and help them usefully integrate theory and practice from the start. We also need to learn about the perceptions of practicing teachers on how, where, and when they have been using their linguistic knowledge base to inform their teaching practice, in order to be able to reassess and modify our teacher education curricula appropriately. With such feedback, modifications made to teacher education curricula will be more meaningful and teacher educators debating the role of linguistic knowledge in teacher education will have actual examples/narratives from teachers on which to base their claims.

We therefore call upon our colleagues in language teacher education to join us in constructing empirical studies that will inform the above debate with authentic teacher feedback. The following are some suggestions to begin our investigations:

1. Collect data on teachers' (both pre- and in-service teachers) views on what they perceive to be the value and relevance of linguistic training for their teaching practice. Data may be collected through interviews, questionnaires, stimulated recall, journaling, and other means, in order to allow us to gain insights from multiple perspectives.

2. Solicit real examples and narratives from practicing teachers of how linguistic knowledge they have gained as part of their training is used to prepare, present, and practice areas of the target language in the classroom, and how such knowledge can be used in solving pedagogical problems.

3. Compare and contrast the perceptions of pre-service and in-service teachers on the usefulness of linguistic theory in their practice, to learn whether and how a practicum or other fieldwork may change their views towards theory.

4. Solicit pre-and in-service teachers' suggestions on whether they are/were able to integrate linguistics-oriented and methodology-oriented courses as important components of their training, and seek feedback on ways in which such integration can be facilitated in teacher education programs.

Other research questions could certainly be formulated, but the main point here is that data gathered from teachers is needed to inform our understanding of their reactions to language teacher education programs. The attitudes of teacher trainees are important because these attitudes can influence how much they gain from the courses we offer them and how they eventually apply this body of knowledge. Furthermore, examples from practicing teachers on how they use the linguistic knowledge gained as part of their training will give us valuable feedback that can then be integrated into our instruction in theory-oriented language teacher courses. Such examples may show the rationale for studying linguistic theory to those students who might otherwise be skeptical of its value. Needless to say, information gained from understanding teachers' perspectives on their curriculum will also give us a stronger basis for ultimately determining what place linguistic theory will play in our teacher education programs.

Conclusion

In this brief analysis, we have observed that the study of linguistic theory continues to be a regular component of language teacher education; however, debate surrounding the utility of linguistic theory for classroom practice has recently intensified. We have argued that without adequate empirical data on how teachers do or do not use linguistic theory in their pedagogical practice, we have no solid basis for resolving this question. Furthermore, we have argued that a significant portion of the data we need must come from students and practicing teachers themselves. We believe that we cannot and should not continue with this debate, especially when it revolves around attempts to reconceptualize the knowledge base of teacher education and modify curricula, unless we can provide stronger empirical support for our positions. For this reason, we have presented a list of issues to be explored, in the hope that this will serve as a call for action. Studies that specifically address the role of linguistic theory in language teacher education will permit us rationally to reevaluate our current curricula, guide the pedagogical processes of our students, and ultimately enhance language instruction.

References

Byrnes, H. (2003). Shaping the discourse of a practice: the role of linguistics and psychology in language teaching and learning. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 472-94.

Crookes, G. (1997). What influences what and how second and foreign language teachers teach? The Modern Language Journal, 81, 67-79.

Freeman, D. & Johnson, K. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397-417.

Freeman, D. & Johnson, K. (2004). Common Misconceptions About the Quiet Revolution. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 119-127.

Garshick, E. (ed) (1998). Directory of Teacher Education Programs in TESOL in the United States and Canada, 2000-2002. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.

Garshick, E. (ed) (2002). Directory of Teacher Education Programs in TESOL in the United States and Canada, 2002-2004. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.

Govardhan, A., Nayar, B. & Sheorey, R. (1999). Do U.S. MATESOL programs prepare students to teach abroad? TESOL Quarterly, 33, 114-125.

Grabe, W., Stroller, F. L. & Tardy, C. (2000). Disciplinary knowledge as a foundation for teacher preparation. In Hall, J. K. & Eggington, W. G. (eds.) The sociopolitics of English language teaching (pp. 178-194) Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Holliday, A. (1997). Six lessons: Cultural continuity in communicative language teaching. Language Teaching Research 1, 212-238.

Johnson, K. (2002). Second language teacher education. TESOL Matters, 12, 1 & 8.

Johnston, B. & Goettsch, K. (2000). In search of the knowledge base of language teaching: Explanations by experienced teachers. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 437-468.

Mullock, B. (2002). What is a good teacher? Views from students. Paper presented at the 13th World Congress of Applied Linguistics (AILA), December 16-21, 2002, Singapore.

Phillipson, R. (1988). Linguicism: Structures and ideologies in linguistic imperialism. In T. Skutbnabb-Kangas & J. Cummins (eds.) Minority education: From shame to struggle (pp. 339-352). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Shulman, L. (1987) Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review 57, 1-22.

Snyder, B. (2002a). Letter to the editor. TESOL Matters, 12, 10-11.

Snyder, B. (2002b). Contribution to the discussion: "The role of linguistic and language acquisition theory in teacher development." TESL-EJ Forum. 6(2). Retrieved 10/18/2004 from http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej22/f1.html

Tedick, D. J. (2005). Preface. In Tedick, D. J. (ed.) Second language teacher education: International perspectives (pp. xvii-xxiv). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Yates, R & Muchisky, D. (2003). On reconceptualizing teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 135-147.

Yates, R. & Muchisky, D. (2004). The authors respond: Defending the discipline, field, and profession. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 134-140.

Seran Dogancay-Aktuna, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville 

Larry LaFond, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville

Endnotes

[1] The knowledge base of language teaching is a broad theme encompassing many areas. Following Tedick (2005: xviii), we define 'knowledge base' as 'what it is that second language teachers need to know and understand to be effective teachers and how that knowledge is incorporated into second language teacher education.' Our main concern in this paper is the place of linguistic theory within this knowledge base.

[2] For the purposes of this paper, we define the study of linguistic theory as taking courses that focus on core traditional areas of linguistics, such as phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, etc.

Seran Dogancay-Aktuna, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of English and teaches courses in TESL methodology and linguistics. Larry LaFond, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of English and teaches courses in linguistic theory and language acquisition.