Você está na página 1de 11

Classroom

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.

There are many areas in language teaching which need


investigation.
They include
teacher
talk; vocabulary
load;
processing
in L2 reading and writing; learner factors; inductive
versus deductive methods
of
grammar
presentation;
communi- cation strategies;
visual versus auditory
memory;
attention
span;
error
correction;
and
group dynamics.
Equally
various
are the methods available. Even a progress
test is a simple form of research which can be used not simply to
check learning but also to monitor the interlanguage
of class
members,
and to undertake
error analysis. Other
possible
methods
include:
fieldnotes,
in which the teacher keeps a
reflective log after each lesson; controlled experiments,
where
one class is subjected to a change of technique or materials,
and then compared to a control group which has not had the
treatment; case studies, in which one follows the progress
of
a targeted
student
or students;
learner
diaries; surveys,
questionnaires, and/or interviews; introspection, where a learner
describes
the experience
of undertaking
a task in L2;
observation,
where peers are observed in a targeted way;
and recording lessons, in order to monitor learners' problems.
For a general account of classroom research, see Hopkins,
A
Teacher's
Guide
to Classroom Research (Open University
1993), and for advice on methods see Bell, Doing Your Research
Project (Open University 1993). A standard guide on methods
is Cohen and Manion, Research Methods in Education (Routledge
1994). On
teacher-led research
in
language
teaching,
Richards
and Lockhart,
Reflective
Teaching
in
Second
Language
Classrooms
(Cambridge
University Press 1994)
provide a basic introduction.
For more
detailed
discussion,
see
Allwright
and Bailey,
Focus
on
the
Language
Classroom (Cambridge University Press 1994); and for ideas on
observation
tasks,
consult
Allwright, Observation
in
the
Language
Classroom (Longman
1991) and Wallace
(1991, Chapter 5). The
IATEFL
Research
SIG
will shortly
be publishing
a
teacher-friendly
Handbook
of Classroom
Research
(for further
details,
contact IA TEFL,
Kingsdown
Chambers,
Kingsdown Park, Whitstable, Kent CT5 2DJ, UK).

References
Kemmis,
S. 1983: 'Action
research',
in T. Husen and T.
Postlethwaite
(eds.) International
Ency- clopaedia of Education:
Research and Studies. Oxford: Pergamon.

Wallace,

M. J. 1991: Training Foreign Language

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.

He suggested that we need investigation in many areas in language


teaching with include teacher talk, vocabulary load, processing in L2
reading and writing, learner factors; inductive versus deductive
methods of grammar presentation,
communi- cation strategies,
visual versus auditory
memory, attention span, error correction,
and
group dynamics.
Equally
various
are
the
methods
available. Even a progress test is a simple form of research
which can be used not simply to check learning but also to
monitor the interlanguage of class members, and to undertake
error analysis.

English as a Lingua Franca


by Barbara Seidlhofer
In recent years, the term English as a lingua franca (ELF) has
emerged as a way of referring to communication in English between
speakers with different first languages. Since roughly only one out of
every four users of English in the world is a native speaker of the
language (Crystal 2003), most ELF interactions take place among
non-native speakers of English. Although this does not preclude the
participation of English native speakers in ELF interaction, what is
distinctive about ELF is that, in most cases, it is a contact language
between persons who share neither a common native tongue nor a
common (national) culture, and for whom English is the chosen
foreign language of communication (Firth 1996:240).
Defined in this way, ELF is part of the more general
phenomenon of English as an international language (EIL) or
World Englishes. (For comprehensive overviews, see Jenkins 2003;
McArthur 1998; Melchers and Shaw 2003.) EIL, along with English as
a global language (e.g. Crystal 2003; Gnutzmann 1999), English as
a world language (e.g. Mair 2003) and World English (Brutt-Griffler
2002) have for some time been used as general cover terms for
uses of English spanning Inner Circle, Outer Circle, and Expanding
Circle contexts (Kachru 1992). The traditional meaning of EIL thus
comprises uses of English within and across Kachrus Circles, for
intranational as well as international communication. However,

when English is chosen as the means of communication among


people from different first language
backgrounds, across
linguacultural boundaries, the preferred term is English as a lingua
franca (House 1999; Seidlhofer 2001), although the terms English
as a medium of intercultural communication (Meierkord 1996),
and, in this more specific and more recent meaning, English as an
international language (Jenkins 2000), are also used.
Despite being welcomed by some and deplored by others, it
cannot be denied that English functions as a global lingua franca.
However, what has so far tended to be denied is that, as a
consequence of its international use, English is being shaped at
least as much by its non- native speakers as by its native speakers.
This has led to a somewhat paradoxical situation: on the one hand,
for the majority of its users, English is a foreign language, and the
vast majority of verbal exchanges in English do not involve any native
speakers of the language at all. On the other hand, there is still a
tendency for native speakers to be regarded as custodians over what
is acceptable usage. Thus, in order for the concept of ELF to gain
acceptance alongside English as native language, there have been
calls for the systematic study of the nature of ELFwhat it looks and
sounds like and how people actually use it and make it workand a
consideration of the implications for the teaching and learning of
the language.
Empirical work on the linguistic description of ELF at a number
of levels has in fact been under way for several years now. Research
has been carried out at the level of phonology (Jenkins 2000),
pragmatics (Meierkord 1996), and lexicogrammar (Seidlhofer 2004,
which also offers an overview of descriptive work to date). ELF corpora
are now also being compiled and analysed, such as the English as a
lingua franca in Academic settings (ELFA) corpus (Mauranen 2003)
and the general Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English
(VOICE) (Seidlhofer 2004). While space prevents summarizing the
findings of this research here, two illustrative examples can be
mentioned. Thus, Jenkins (2000) found that being able to
pronounce some sounds that are often regarded as particularly
English but also particularly difficult, namely the th sounds /u/ and
/D/ and the dark l allophone [], is not necessary for international
intelligibility through ELF. Similarly, analyses of ELF interactions
captured in the VOICE corpus clearly show that although ELF
speakers often do not use the third person singular present tense s marking in their verbs, this does not lead to any isunderstandings
or communication problems.
This gradually accumulating body of work is leading to a better
understanding of the nature of ELF, which in turn is a prerequisite
for taking informed decisions, especially in language policy and
language teaching (McKay 2002). Thus, the features of English which
tend to be crucial for international intelligibility and therefore need

to be taught for production and reception are being distinguished


from the (non-native) features
that tend not to cause
misunderstandings and thus do not need to constitute a focus for
production teaching for those learners who intend to use English
mainly in international settings. Acting on these insights can free
up valuable teaching time for more general language awareness and
communication strategies; these may have more mileage for
learners than striving for mastery of fine nuances of native- speaker
language use that are communicatively redundant or even counterproductive in lingua franca settings, and which may anyway not be
teachable in advance, but only learnable by subsequent experience
of the language. It should be stressed, however, that linguistic
descriptions alone cannot, of course, determine what needs to be
taught and learnt for particular purposes and in particular settings
they provide necessary but not sufficient guidance for what will
always be pedagogical decisions (Widdowson 2003).

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.

Melchers, G. and P. Shaw. 2003. World Englishes. London: Arnold.


Seidlhofer, B. 2001. Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a
description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics 11:133 58.
Seidlhofer, B. 2004. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, pp. 209
39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, H. G. 2003. Defining Issues in English Language Teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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).

The researcher got an empirical work on the linguistic description of


ELF at a number of levels has in fact been under way for several
years now. Research has been carried out at the level of phonology
(Jenkins 2000), pragmatics (Meierkord 1996), and lexicogrammar
(Seidlhofer 2004, which also offers an overview of descriptive work
to date).
Seidlhofers paper reported the finding of the research, two illustrative
example can be mentioned. Jenkins (2000) found that being able to
pronounce some sounds that are often regarded as particularly
English but also particularly difficult, namely the th sounds /u/ and
/D/ and the dark l allophone [], is not necessary for international
intelligibility through ELF and McKay (2002) the features of English
which tend to be crucial for international intelligibility and therefore
need to be taught for production and reception are being
distinguished from the (non-native) features that tend not to cause
misunderstandings and thus do not need to constitute a focus for
production teaching for those learners who intend to use English
mainly in international settings.
In this case, he argued that acting on these insights can free up
valuable teaching time for more general language awareness and
communication strategies; these may have more mileage for
learners than striving for mastery of fine nuances of native- speaker
language use that are communicatively redundant or even counterproductive in lingua franca settings, and which may anyway not be
teachable in advance, but only learnable by subsequent experience
of the language.

Universal
by Dr Anjum P. Saleemi

Grammar

By far the most popular current conception of Universal


Grammar (UG) is 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. More specifically, he
employs the term UG to refer to a system of principles and
parameters that underlie all human languages (see Chomsky
]988 for a simple exposition).
A major claim is that there are some highly abstract
universal
linguistic principles, such as the binding
principles
(named A, B, and C, respec- tively) determining what can or
cannot be the antecedent
of an anaphoric, pronominal, or
fully referential
nominal element. Other currently well- known
principles
include:
subjacency,
the
Head Movement
Constraint,
the
Empty
Category Principle (see Cook 1988
and
Chomsky
and Lasnik 1993 for definitions and examples).
These principles are good examples of formal universals, i.e.
linguistic constraints
of an abstract nature, as opposed
to
substantive
universals, or linguistic primitives,
which
are
best
exemplified
by grammatical
categories
like N( oun),
V( erb), P(reposition), etc.
Closely related
to the principles are the para- meters,
parts of UG which are allowed to vary in a limited fashion and
which therefore
explain
the linguistic
variation
that
obviously
exists.
For example,
the
execution
of binding
principle A may vary from language to language, largely in
terms of how far from an anaphor
(a reflexive or reciprocal
pronoun) its antecedent may be located, with
some
languages
permitting
long-distance antecedents
(e.g. Mandarin),
and
others
enforcing only strictly
local anaphora
(e.g. English);
likewise, verb phrases in various languages may be head- first
(i.e. verb object (YO) as in English) or head- final (i.e. object verb
(OY), as in Hindi).
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. By extension, the UG hypothesis


has had considerable impact on theoretical
research in second
language acquisi- tion, where a major issue in recent years has
been whether, and to what extent, an adult language learner
has access to UG (see White 1992 for a good introduction).
Note 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). However,
the notion of UG may be held to be a possible logical extension
of the idea of universals, and any efforts to account for (rather
than just describe)
whatever
linguistic properties
are universally or widely attested are likely to yield some theory of UG.
It is, therefore, not surprising that attempts
have been made
to explain
linguistic universals, such as they are, in more than
one way. For
instance,
in
addition
to
the
Chomskyan
explanation,
there
are functional
explanations that consider
these universals to be a reflection of the systems of meaning
and
use
(Siewierska 1991),
and
cognitive
ones
which
emphasize
the similarity
linguistic
structures
supposedly
bear with various other cognitive domains, such as the perceptual
systems (Langacker 1987).

References
Cook, V. J. 1988. Chomsky's
Blackwell.

Universal Grammar.Oxford:

Chomsky, N. 1988. Language and Problems of Knowledge:


The Managua Lectures. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. and H. Lasnik. 1993. 'Principles and parameters
theory' in J. Jacobs (ed.). Syntax: An International
Handbook
of
Contemporary Research. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Croft, W. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Langacker,
R. 1987. Foundations
1: Theoretical Prerequisites.

of

Cognitive Grammar,

Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press. Siewierska,


Functional Grammar. London: Routledge.

vol.

A. 1991.

White, L. 1992. Universal Grammar and Second Language


Acquisition.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

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).

Você também pode gostar