Innovative Practices in Language Teacher Education: Spanning the Spectrum from Intra- to Inter-personal Professional Development

270 Pages·2017·4.39 MB·

by  Tammy S. Gregersen, Peter D. MacIntyre (eds.)

Educational Linguistics
Tammy S. Gregersen
Peter D. MacIntyre Editors
Innovative
Practices in
Language Teacher
Education
Spanning the Spectrum from Intra-
to Inter-personal Professional
Development
Educational Linguistics
Volume 30
Series Editor
Francis M. Hult, Lund University, Sweden
Editorial Board
Marilda C. Cavalcanti, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil
Jasone Cenoz, University of the Basque Country, Spain
Angela Creese, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
Ingrid Gogolin, Universität Hamburg, Germany
Christine Hélot, Université de Strasbourg, France
Hilary Janks, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa
Claire Kramsch, University of California, Berkeley, U.S.A.
Constant Leung, King’s College London, United Kingdom
Angel Lin, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Alastair Pennycook, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Educational Linguistics is dedicated to innovative studies of language use and
language learning. The series is based on the idea that there is a need for studies that
break barriers. Accordingly, it provides a space for research that crosses traditional
disciplinary, theoretical, and/or methodological boundaries in ways that advance
knowledge about language (in) education. The series focuses on critical and
contextualized work that offers alternatives to current approaches as well as
practical, substantive ways forward. Contributions explore the dynamic and multi-
layered nature of theory-practice relationships, creative applications of linguistic
and symbolic resources, individual and societal considerations, and diverse social
spaces related to language learning.
The series publishes in-depth studies of educational innovation in contexts
throughout the world: issues of linguistic equity and diversity; educational language
policy; revalorization of indigenous languages; socially responsible (additional)
language teaching; language assessment; first- and additional language literacy;
language teacher education; language development and socialization in non-
traditional settings; the integration of language across academic subjects; language
and technology; and other relevant topics.
The Educational Linguistics series invites authors to contact the general editor
with suggestions and/or proposals for new monographs or edited volumes. For more
information, please contact the publishing editor: Jolanda Voogd, Senior Publishing
Editor, Springer, Van Godewijckstraat 30, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/5894
Tammy S. Gregersen • Peter D. MacIntyre
Editors
Innovative Practices in
Language Teacher Education
Spanning the Spectrum from Intra- to
Inter- personal Professional Development
Editors
Tammy S. Gregersen Peter D. MacIntyre
Department of Languages and Literatures Department of Psychology
University of Northern Iowa Cape Breton University
Cedar Falls, IA, USA Sydney, NS, Canada
ISSN 1572-0292 ISSN 2215-1656 (electronic)
Educational Linguistics
ISBN 978-3-319-51788-9 ISBN 978-3-319-51789-6 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-51789-6
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017933681
© Springer International Publishing AG 2017
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Foreword: On the Need for a Theory
of Language Teaching: Twenty-Five Years Later
It is not often that one gets to reprise something one has written 25 years ago
(Larsen-Freeman, 1990, On the need for a theory of language teaching) or to update
it so many years hence. I am grateful to Editors Tammy Gregersen and Peter
MacIntyre for giving me the opportunity to do both. In the 1990 chapter, I called for
the development of a theory of second language teaching. It may not surprise any-
one that I still hold the position I put forth some 25 years ago, although with an
additional consideration. I will first review my basic position. Then I will say how
the contributions to this volume hold promise in this regard. I will conclude by sug-
gesting that a metatheory can offer guidance to members of the second language
teaching community who heed the call.
The main idea in my chapter then was that there appeared to be no “interdepen-
dence among theory, research, and practice” (the theme of the Georgetown Round
Table on Languages and Linguistics that year) in second language teaching (SLT),
and I attributed the disconnect to the fact that for too long the SLT field had inap-
propriately relied on other disciplines to have its theoretical needs met—oft-times,
appealing to linguistics, psychology, or education. While knowledge of other fields
can helpfully illumine one’s own, it seemed to me that we should entertain insights
from other disciplines, but not adopt others’ theories in place of one constructed by
members of our own community.
In more recent times, theories closer to SLT, second language acquisition (SLA)
theories, have been looked to guide pedagogic practice. Certainly at the time of my
article, most SLA theories were not up to the task. I explained this by invoking the
term “reflex fallacy.” I claimed that it was fallacious to assume that what was respon-
sible for natural acquisition could directly inform tutored instruction since class-
room pedagogy should accelerate and facilitate learning in a way that does not
normally take place extramurally. Of course, there is a newer strand of SLA research
that investigates instruction in the classroom. While this focus may seem more
appropriate to guide pedagogy (and indeed much effort has gone into doing so—and
it is likely to continue), it has not yet delivered on its potential for several reasons.
First, much of the research is rather narrowly focused. Second, the questions
researchers ask are not necessarily those that teachers ask, and third, teachers have
v
vi Foreword: On the Need for a Theory of Language Teaching: Twenty-Five Years Later
a number of concerns, such as managing classroom dynamics and meeting admin-
istrative demands, which lie outside of the scope of instructed SLA research
(Larsen-Freeman, 2015).
As it turns out, when I made the proposal 25 years ago, there was some push
back. Some teacher educators felt that we did not know enough to theorize; others
feared the smothering effect a hegemonic theory might portend. Still others worried
that a theory would define the subject matter of teacher education at a distance from
those who were engaged in the teaching. A concern was also that teacher learning
would simply be seen as a matter of mastering the theory (Freeman p.c.).
I chose not to elaborate a theory or respond to this push back at the time as I was
in the midst of other professional projects. However, 25 years later, here is what I
think about these objections. The truth is that we will never know enough. The pur-
pose of a theory, at least one type of theory (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991), is to
gather together what is generally accepted, even if abstract, in as coherent a way as
possible to make sense of what it is we seek to understand. Our understanding of
what teaching is can be reflected in statements such as:
Teaching does not cause learning; nonetheless, the teacher is an all-important agent in the
teaching-learning process.
All theories are inchoate and provisional. However, they give us a starting point
and the rudiments of a metalanguage with which thinking and collaborating can be
facilitated. Nevertheless, having witnessed the stranglehold that generative gram-
mar had on linguistics for so many years, I am also wary of the danger of having one
dominant theory exercise control over research agendas. Furthermore, I do think
that any theory of language teaching must be aligned with what we know of teacher
learning, just as I have suggested that we cannot really separate language learners
from language learning (e.g., Larsen-Freeman, 2012). Although there are theories
that are authored by a single theoretician, a theory of SLT, as with most other theo-
ries, would be a social construction with many contributors. A good theory should
not restrict our vision, but it should guide us as to where to look. It should also tell
us how to interpret our data. Data by themselves can be ambiguous. It is a theory
that imbues them with meaning (Larsen-Freeman, forthcoming b).
One final reason I cited in 1990 for why a theory of SLT would be desirable is
that such a theory would take into account an important agent in the teaching-
learning exchange, namely the language teacher. I felt then, as I sometimes still do
today, that the role of the teacher has been overlooked. As I put it in 1990,
“Generalized knowledge of teaching is mobilized in specific ways by teachers. We
need to know more.”
I do not wish to use all my allotted space to reiterate what I wrote 25 years ago,
so let me proceed with the second part of this preface, which is to say how the pres-
ent volume responds to my call. Of course, a great deal of work on teaching and
teacher learning has gone on in the ensuing years, for example, on teacher cognition
and beliefs (by, among others, Borg, 2003; Freeman & Johnson, 1998; Johnson,
2006, 2009), all the way up to a recent proposal calling for a reconceptualization of
teachers’ work from a critical language perspective (Gebhard & Willett, 2015) and
Foreword: On the Need for a Theory of Language Teaching: Twenty-Five Years Later vii
the position that part of learning teaching is learning to rename one’s experience
rather than talking about and thinking about it in the usual way (Freeman, 2016).
The present volume, it seems to me, joins forces with these efforts. What I see here
is a great deal of respect for teachers: their socio-emotional intelligence, their auton-
omy, their agency, and their professionalization. This I find gratifying. I also value
the rich trove of innovative ideas for language teacher education.
Partly buoyed by the support of the editors and the authors of this volume, I
remain resolute. “As Crandall (2000), echoing Larsen-Freeman (1990, 1995) stated,
we may be observing the gradual development of a theory of language teaching that
is quite distinct from an application of SLA research findings (p. 34)” (Byrnes,
2007, p. 8). To this end, I would like to offer a partial distillation of themes present
in the chapters in this volume, which might serve as candidate statements for a
theory of teaching/teacher learning. I have preserved their wording for the most
part:
Teaching is about managing complex dynamics in the classroom. Successful language
teaching is fundamentally social, interactional, and interpersonal nature, and thus, emo-
tional and social intelligence are core competencies. Teaching requires a commitment to
being innovative, open to new ideas, and transformative in the classroom. Language is a
semiotic resource, which needs to be regarded and explored as such in the language
classroom.
Teachers bring their knowledge, previous educational experience, and individual char-
acteristics to teaching. Part of what they do is to construct new identities. Reflection,
inquiry, and critical discussion are keys in this construction process. So is giving teacher-
learners an opportunity to teach others what they are learning.
Just to be clear, these statements would need to be elaborated and not everyone
will be receptive to the prescriptive language; moreover, these selective statements
do not collectively constitute a comprehensive theory. Also, I am not proposing, nor
are the chapter authors, a grand narrative. We know that the adaptiveness of any
theory is important and should perhaps be a measure of its worth. Nevertheless, as I
wrote above, what I think we should aspire to is a theory of our own making (Larsen-
Freeman & Freeman, 2008; Kleinsasser, 2013), and I believe that compiling such
statements is an initial step.
With theory construction as an objective, it is newly clear to me that the SLT field
would benefit from the guidance of a metatheory to provide a more general frame-
work. “Theories and methods refer directly to the empirical world, while metatheo-
ries refer to the theories and methods themselves” (Overton, 2007, p. 154). With its
nonreductionist stance and its appreciation of complex processes as dynamic, rela-
tional, nonlinear, contextualized, and variable, Complexity Theory (CT) can serve
such a purpose (Larsen-Freeman, forthcoming b; see also Kubanyiova, 2012).
Indeed, what I also perceive in re-reading my 1990 chapter are the seeds of my
interest in CT (although I did not recognize it at the time). In that chapter, I wrote
about the need to move beyond reductionism to a place where a teacher’s particular-
istic view is valued. I also suggested that an SLT theory be dynamic, respecting that
teachers with different levels of experience will relate to the classroom differently.
In addition, I pointed out the reciprocity of the teaching/learning relationship and
viii Foreword: On the Need for a Theory of Language Teaching: Twenty-Five Years Later
the need to adopt a retrospective view to account for the nonlinearity of learning. All
these would surface later in my musings on what is afforded from CT’s metatheo-
retic perspective (e.g., Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008).
Furthermore, CT could serve as a metatheory for SLT because of the importance
it accords context. It sees context not as a backdrop, but as an integral part of any
system that we are trying to understand. Applying this principle to SLT, Crandall
(2000, p. 5) wrote “Decontextualized theory fails to consider the multidimensional-
ity and unpredictability of the classroom environment.” In addition, CT honors vari-
ability in complex dynamic systems. In SLT, this variability is plain to see: both in
the intra- and the inter-individual variability of teaching and learning, and for
teacher-learners, the multiple routes of development (e.g., Breen, Hird, Milton,
Oliver, & Thwaite, 2004). There is nothing static or fixed about either SLT, SLTE
(Second Language Teacher Education), or, for that matter, theory construction. This
fact does not make them less worthy of study, as the present volume demonstrates.
Ann Arbor, MI Diane Larsen-Freeman
References
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language
teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109.
Breen, M. P., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R., & Thwaite, A. (2004). Making sense of language
teaching: Teachers’ principles and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 22, 470−501.
Byrnes, H. (2007). Second and foreign language pedagogy. Paper presented at the 30th anniver-
sary of AAAL.  Retrieved 1/6/2016, from www.ibrarian.net/…/Second_and_Foreign_
Language_Pedagogy.pdf.
Crandall, J. (2000). Language teacher education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 34−55.
Freeman, D. (2016). Educating second language teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher
education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397–417.
Gebhard, M., & Willett, J. (2015). Translingual context zones: Critical reconceptualizing of teach-
ers’ work within the context of globalism. Linguistics and Education, 32, 198−206.
Johnson, K. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for L2 teacher education. TESOL
Quarterly, 40(1), 235–257.
Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York:
Routledge.
Kleinsasser, R. C. (2013). Language teachers: Research and studies in language(s) education,
teaching, and learning in Teaching and Teacher Education, 1985-2012. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 29, 86–96.
Kubanyiova, M. (2012). Teacher development in action. Understanding language teachers’ con-
ceptual change. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1990). On the need for a theory of language teaching. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.),
Linguistics, language teaching and language acquisition: The interdependence of theory, prac-
tice and research (GURT ‘90) (pp. 261−270). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1995). On the changing role of linguistics in the education of second lan-
guage teachers: Past, present, and future. In J. E. Alatis, C. A. Straehle, B. Gallenberger, &
M. Ronkin (Eds.), Linguistics and the education of language teachers: Ethnolinguistic,
Foreword: On the Need for a Theory of Language Teaching: Twenty-Five Years Later ix
psycholinguistic, and sociolinguistic aspects (GURT ‘95) (pp. 711−724). Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012). Complex, dynamic systems: A new transdisciplinary theme for
applied linguistics? Language Teaching, 45(2), 202−214.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Research into practice: Grammar learning and teaching. Language
Teaching, 48(2), 263–280.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (forthcoming a). Just learning. Language Teaching.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (forthcoming b). Complexity theory: The lessons continue. In L. Ortega &
Z.-H. Han (Eds.), Complexity theory and language development: In honor of Diane Larsen-
Freeman. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Freeman, D. (2008). Language moves: the place of “foreign” languages in
classroom teaching and learning. Review of Research in Education, 32, 147−186.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research.
London, UK: Longman.
Overton, W. (2007). A coherent metatheory for dynamic systems: Relational Organicism-
Contextualism. Human Development, 50, 154–159.