Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Research
by John Field
The idea of teacher-led research developed in secondary
education in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The term 'action
research'
was adopted
to describe a small-scale investigation
undertaken by a class teacher. Kemmis (1983) describes it as
a form
of self-reflective
enquiry
undertaken
by participants
in social (including
educational) situations in order to improve
the rationality
and justice
of
their
own
social
and
educational practices,
their understanding
of those practices,
and the situations in which the practices are carried out.
Action research is envisaged as conferring two important
benefits. Firstly, it encourages
teachers to reflect on their
practice, and therefore leads to potential
change. It plays an
important
part in reflective
teaching,
where
personal
and professional
development
occur
when
teachers review
their experience in a systematic way (see Wallace 1991: 49 for
a model). Secondly, it is said to empower
teachers,
releasing
them
from dependence
upon precepts
handed
down by
trainers and inspectors. By testing for themselves the
methods
and materials they use in the classroom, they can establish
which are the most effective for them.
The
term
'action
research'
has often been
used
imprecisely,
and
would-be
teacher-researchers have been
deterred
by suggestions
that it has to follow
a
rigidly
defined
cycle
(plan-act- observe-reflect).
Many commentators
now prefer to speak of 'classroom research'
or 'teacher-led
research'.
Classroom research in ELT is not a hobby: it is a professional
imperative.
Only
by undertaking discovery projects can we
extend our knowledge of the impact of our teaching, and the
process of learning
which
our
students
experience.
Classroom
research
also enables
us to evaluate techniques
which are taken for granted but have never been put to the
test. It may thus be general in aim, adding to our knowledge
of language teaching and learning (in which case, it will be
necessary to replicate any findings with a number of different
classes); or it may be extremely specific:
teachers
investigating
their
own teaching, specific classes, or
individuals.
References
Kemmis,
S. 1983: 'Action
research',
in T. Husen and T.
Postlethwaite
(eds.) International
Ency- clopaedia of Education:
Research and Studies. Oxford: Pergamon.
Wallace,
Teachers.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University Press.
The author
John Field is currently doing PhD research on listening at
the University
of Cambridge.
He is a materials
writer and
teacher trainer with experi- ence in Europe, the Middle East,
the Far East, and Africa. He is currently co-ordinator
of the
IATEFL Research SIG.
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by azwar azwar paramma on February 12, 2013
Review
John Field (1997) Classroom Research 192-3.
John Field
was currently doing PhD research on listening at the University
of Cambridge. He was a materials writer and teacher trainer
with experience in Europe, the Middle East, the Far East, and
Africa. He was currently co-ordinator
of the IATEFL Research
SIG.
The researcher used the idea of teacher-led
research
developed
in secondary education in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The
term 'action research' was adopted to describe a small-scale
investigation undertaken by a class teacher. Action research is
envisaged
as conferring
two important
benefits. Firstly, it
encourages teachers to reflect on their practice, and therefore
leads to potential
change. Secondly, it is said to
empower
teachers,
releasing
them
from dependence
upon precepts
handed
down
by trainers
and inspectors. By testing for
themselves the
methods
and materials
they
use in the
classroom, they can establish which are the most effective for
them.
Fields paper reported that classroom research in ELT isnt a hobby, but
its a professional imperative. Only by undertaking discovery projects
can we extend our knowledge of the impact of our teaching,
and the process of learning which our students
experience.
Classroom
research
also enables
us to evaluate techniques
which are taken for granted but have never been put to the
test.
References
Brutt-Griffler, J. 2002. World English. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Firth, A. 1996. The discursive accomplishment of normality. On
lingua franca English and conversation analysis. Journal of
Pragmatics 26:
237 59.
Gnutzmann, C. (ed.). 1999. Teaching and Learning English as a Global
Language. Tu bingen: Stauffenburg.
House, J. 1999. Misunderstanding in intercultural communication:
interactions in English as a lingua franca and the myth of mutual
intelligibility in C. Gnutzmann (ed.). pp. 73 89.
Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. 2003. World Englishes. London: Routledge.
Kachru, B. (ed.). 1992. The Other Tongue (Second edition). Urbana and
Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
McArthur, T. 1998. The English Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. McKay, S. 2002. Teaching English as an International
Language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Mair, C. (ed.). 2003. The Politics of English as a World Language.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Mauranen, A. 2003. Academic English as lingua francaa corpus
approach. TESOL Quarterly 37: 513 27.
Crystal, D. 2003. English as a Global Language (Second edition).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meierkord, C. 1996. Englisch als Medium der interkulturellen
Kommunikation. Untersuchungen zum non-native-/non-native speaker
Diskurs. Frankfurt/Main: Lang.
The author
Barbara Seidlhofer is Professor of English and Applied Linguistics
at the University of Vienna. She is the Director of the Vienna-Oxford
International Corpus of English (VOICE) project, which aims to provide
a basis for the linguistic description of ELF. Her most recent book is
Controversies in Applied Linguistics (Oxford University Press).
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by azwar azwar paramma on February 12, 2013
Review
Barbara Seidlhofer (2005) English as a Lingua Franca 339-41.
Barbara Seidlhofer is Professor of English and Applied Linguistics at
the University of Vienna. She is the Director of the Vienna-Oxford
International Corpus of English (VOICE) project, which aims to provide
a basis for the linguistic description of ELF. Her most recent book is
Controversies in Applied Linguistics (Oxford University Press).
Universal
by Dr Anjum P. Saleemi
Grammar
References
Cook, V. J. 1988. Chomsky's
Blackwell.
Universal Grammar.Oxford:
of
Cognitive Grammar,
vol.
A. 1991.
The Author
Dr Anjum P. Saleemi, Department of English Language and
Literature, National University of Singapore
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by azwar azwar paramma on February 12, 2013
Review
Dr Anjum P. Saleemi (1995) Universal Grammar 196. Dr anjum
P. Saleemi was a lecturer in Department of English Language and
Literature, National University of Singapore. He used the popular
current conception of Universal Grammar (UG) of the one due to the
generative linguist Noam Chomsky, whose theory of UG is supposed
to be a theory of the human language faculty, i.e. a module of
the mind/brain involved in the basic design of language.
The finding was an important aspect of Chomsky's theory is the
argument that human beings are innately predis- posed to
learn natural languages. Thus, any normal
human
child
can learn any natural language he or she is exposed to, a
process that occurs relatively effortlessly and rapidly. Moreover, child language acquisition takes place in the absence of
any negative data (i.e. ungrammatical examples), and as a result
of exposure to evidence which is random, unsystematic, and
devoid of the kind of abstract information that is crucial to the
structure of human language.
The author noted that it is possible to speak of language
universals without committing oneself to the concept of
UG, as for example some typologists do, who simply take
universals to mean character- istics that are found in all (absolute
universals) or most (relative universals) languages (Croft 1990).