Relevance of Knowledge of Second Language Acquisition:
FINDINGS
Disconnection between Theory, Belief, and Practice
The instructor had a set of perspectives on the relationship between theory, belief, and practice. She asserted that it would be irresponsible for researchers to draw implications for teaching or give suggestions to teachers based on research findings. When asked whether SLA researchers should draw implications for teaching, without hesitation the instructor responded:
No! No! No! I don’t think we know enough to know what it is that people do that influences learners and in a way people are influenced in the classroom. I just don’t think we know. I would be pretending to know something I don’t know as a researcher (Interview, 12-10-01).
For her, most SLA researchers don’t involve themselves much in teaching and don’t know much about teaching. This is what the instructor saw as the difference between pedagogical researchers and SLA researchers. She explained:
A pedagogical researcher has one ... major intention - to find out what things happen in the classroom both in terms of what teachers do and what learners do, whereas SLA doesn’t. Its major interest is not classroom application. It really isn’t. (Interview, 12-10-01).
The instructor did not think SLA researchers had built up enough knowledge to be able to provide any practical suggestions to teachers. She used “input” as an example to illustrate her view on the relationship between theory and practice. She stated:
We still don’t know how much correction is necessary even with that order. We don’t know. This is what I mean about it. It would be too risky to say what you ought to do in the classroom. You know the whole thing about input is very up in the air. We don’t know still how much, what kind, when -- we don’t know any of those. If anyone tells you they do, they don’t know what they are talking about. (Interview, 11-13-01)
Moreover, the instructor believed that “there are competing theories... Then you cannot possibly know what you should do in the classroom based on that theory.” She associated practice with “formula” and “a set of rules,” as seen in her statement: “I am not giving them formula. I am not giving them a set of rules to go out and do things” (Interview, 10-13-01)
Peiling perceived the relationship between theory, belief, and practice quite differently than did the instructor. While she understood that “theory won’t [hold true] forever...” she believed that “at least during this period I think we should [or] we could do something based on those theories” (Interview, 10-11-01). In fact, what Peiling needed from the SLA course was not a “formula,” or “a set of rules.” She did not expect SLA researchers to provide “very clear steps to tell teachers [how] to apply those research findings, [rather]... some simple suggestions [or implications] to educators [or teachers]” (Interview, 10-11-01).
Peiling understood that by nature SLA theories could be messy and contradictory, but she felt this did not give SLA researchers the right to step away from application. She perceived that SLA researchers’ real contribution to the world was the practicality of SLA research. Without addressing implications for application, SLA researchers, for Peiling, were more like “examiners” who analyzed the result of teachers’ teaching rather than “helpers” who could provide useful information to teachers (Interview, 11-20-01).
