Relevance of Knowledge of Second Language Acquisition:
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
Question 3: How does an understanding of the salient issues in the process of learning and making sense of SLA and in subsequent teaching practices contribute to a new perspective on SLA?
Woods (1996) proposes that one’s knowledge, assumptions, and beliefs about teaching and learning are intertwined in a very complex way. The results of this case study demonstrate that one’s theoretical orientation toward SLA theory, belief, and practice plays an essential role in designing and delivering the SLA course. This case study also suggests that what teacher-learners expect to learn and gain from an SLA course may also be greatly influenced by their theoretical orientations. What complicates the notion more is that “congruence between teachers’ and trainees’ beliefs is one factor that affects change” (Gupta & Saravanan, 1995, p. 347). Due to the mismatch between Peiling’s and her instructor’s theoretical orientations, a great sense of resistance and alienation was observed throughout the study. In other words, such mismatches are very likely to lead to ineffective understanding of SLA no matter how much information about SLA is given and how knowledge of SLA is packaged. SLA instructors need to be aware of the possibility of mismatches and should not overlook their negative impact. Further, together with teacher-learners, SLA instructors should think of ways to minimize the negative impact resulting from mismatches.
Peiling’s case reminds us that in addition to research-based and experiment-oriented readings, teacher-learners might also benefit from papers that address knowledge of SLA situated in “meaningful contexts” that include real classroom situations that teacher-learners are likely to confront. Peiling’s situation also makes us aware of the significance of discussion to teacher-learners. Although it was not clear in the study what benefits class discussion could have brought to Peiling, her negative response to teacher-oriented lectures suggests that the delivery of SLA–related issues should be diversified. An open classroom discussion on a given topic, instigated through and inspired by collaborative reflection and interaction (Bailey, 1996) as well as use of practical case studies (for more, see Richert, 1991) might be a way to share, validate, interrogate, and transform the conflicting knowledge of SLA.
It is hoped that classroom discussion would have alleviated Peiling’s sense of alienation. This study illustrates that when teacher-learners are not given the time and space to integrate their previous experience/knowledge, they may have difficulty making sense of SLA theory as it is currently introduced to them. In the case of Peiling, evidence shows that she had difficulty making the active decisions that the instructor assumed she would make when her past experience and current knowledge were in conflict (Schulman, 2000).
Peiling’s resistance to lab-based, experiment-oriented SLA production and her resistance to playing the role of SLA researcher (as opposed to that of teacher) as required in her term paper suggest that some fundamental issues need further investigation. These issues include (1) What counts as SLA? (2) What is the purpose of studying SLA? (3) How is knowledge of SLA produced? (4) What is the role of SLA researchers? (5) What should be the relationship between SLA researchers and language teachers? Through systematic and in-depth investigation, both parties, the instructors and the teacher-learners, may become more aware of the theoretical assumptions each party brings to the class. This awareness might ease teacher-learners’ sense of resistance and alienation both during and after the course. Johnson (1996) stated,
Theory often fails lo inform practice because the problems that arise in practice are generally neither caused by nor the result of teachers’ lack of knowledge about theory. Instead, the problems that teachers face are generally caused by constraints imposed on them within the social, cultural, economic, and educational contexts in which their practice takes place, namely, the school and classroom. (p. 766)
While it is essential to address the place of SLA theory in language teacher preparation (Bardovi-Harlig, 1997), this case study suggests that when SLA theory is introduced without taking future teaching contexts into account (Freeman & Johnson, 1998), teacher-learners might feel knowledge of SLA is irrelevant. In the case of Peiling, she quickly fell into the pre-existing, pre-SLA course explanatory framework (e.g., repetition and practice) that was most familiar to her. Little impact of her knowledge of SLA was observed in her EFL practices.
Finally, the results of the study also demonstrate that “years of practical experience” did not automatically provide the missing link between theory and practice for Peiling, as assumed by her instructor (Freeman, 1989; Richards, 1998). While taking the course, she had problems making sense of the theories in relation to her future teaching. After she returned to teach, when being overwhelmed by the challenges in her EFL context, Peiling felt the irrelevancy of her SLA knowledge. It is suggested that further studies are needed in order to examine and understand how SLA theories and researchers can contribute to teachers’ practices (Kerekes, 1999) in order to bridge the gap between SLA theory and practice.
