New registrations are now closed for the 2009 IATEFL site. The forum content is for reference only.
Being an EFL teacher AND/OR a researcher?
- Login to post comments
Tue, 03/17/2009 - 18:21
Can we be both in-service teachers and researchers? Is there a clash between the two roles? How would you start your own research project? How would you overcome the obstacles? Btw. are there any obstacles?
Sooooo many interesting questions! Any ideas are welcome!
Wed, 03/18/2009 - 20:08
#2
Robert thanks for this! I really enjoyed reading your comment. To a great extent I agree with you. However, when I was referring to "obstacles" I was thinking of the probles Leigh wrote about. We think that for us wearing two pairs of shoes - as an in-service teacher and as a researcher - is a must. But I sometimes have the feeling that if we do applied research - go very empirical and not do research for the sake of research and not with the aim of having your list of publications as long as possible - you are not going to be treated equally...I think this is basically the problem, what if the so-called science community (in the broadest sense) prefers something less empirical and more scientific -- this will go against your intentions and motivation of becoming a researcher-teacher in one person. How do you see this?
Another issue. How do we interpret the notion of "research"? Is action research (done by the teacher in her/his classroom) research? Who is going to validate it? Do we need to have it validated? I think many problems arise from the many ways colleagues/experts define the concept of research. What do you think?
Fri, 03/20/2009 - 12:06
#3
Hi Helga, Leigh
Thanks for the support. ;)
Helga, you said: "I was thinking of the problems Leigh wrote about." That's interesting because I can't see which problems Leigh wrote about that you were thinking about, since I only see your post and Leigh's post which was posted 2 hours after yours! Haha. So I only saw your post not Leigh's post. And am not sure, even from reading Leigh's post, which problems you were referring to.
Helga, you also said: "We think that for us wearing two pairs of shoes - as an in-service teacher and as a researcher - is a must." Actually, I wasn't thinking of anyone else, just myself; not sure how many in-service teachers actually think they MUST 'wear two pairs of shoes'. Haha. Nice metaphor.
Then you lost me. Haha. "But I sometimes have the feeling that if we do applied research - go very empirical and not do research for the sake of research and not with the aim of having your list of publications as long as possible - you are not going to be treated equally...I think this is basically the problem, what if the so-called science community (in the broadest sense) prefers something less empirical and more scientific - this will go against your intentions and motivations of becoming a researcher-teacher in one person." Hmmmm. I kind of followed you up until you said "what if the so-called science community (in the broadest sense) prefers something less empirical and more scientific". How can one be "less empirical and more scientific"? Are you saying that to be more scientific is to be less empirical? :))
If I were merely doing research to lengthen my 'list of publications' just to gain kudos with the 'science community' then perhaps some would view my activities as ethically questionable, if the work I was producing was not of a high standard. If it were not of a high standard, would it even get published? O_o
I'm really not sure about the implications of that, if in fact I were intending to do what I think you're suggesting. Because as a teacher-researcher - is that different from a researcher-teacher? - I would certainly want to share my research efforts and results with not only the 'research community' but also anyone else who is interested in it. So, um, could you please explain your thoughts and idea a bit clearer. For someone who doesn't read between the lines so well. Haha.
As to your second issue, "How do we interpret the notion of "resarch"?" is a very good question indeed. In an effort to offer just one suggestion, I'm going to fall back on what Michael McCarthy (2001) said in his book titled Issues in Applied Linguistics. McCarthy (2001, p.1) said that "Applied linguists try to offer solutions to 'real-world problems in which language is a central issue', however tentative or 'implied' those solutions may be." In fact, he was quoting Brumfit when he said that. So I guess I'm falling back on McCarthy who fell back on Brumfit!? And in Chapter 6: Applied linguistics as professional discourse, (p.118-119) he said this
"Some applied linguistics spend part of their career engaged in research. This is a professional profile most immediately associated with applied linguistics departments in colleges and universities, where, if one is fortunate, grant-funded projects can be the focus of important research questions concerning aspects of language teaching and learning. There is, however, no unified notion of what constitutes research."
He said that in the USA 'research' had been associated with the idea of empirical research, which of course includes quantitative methods. Then in the later part of the 20 Century, the view had shifted to include qualitative paradigms. However, he concluded that section with this
"My own experience of communicating with teachers at professional conferences in more than 30 countries leaves me with the conclusion that, at the time of writing, yawning gulfs still separate what we 'research-oriented' applied linguists find interesting and what 'action-oriented' applied linguists (i.e. teachers) find relevant...What I have learnt (a lesson not always easy to apply) is that it is my ethical duty as an applied linguist to make my theoretical position clear and understandable and to mediate the theory of others...From my own perspective, at least, the discourse of applied linguistics should be plain and lucid."
In sum, research is discourse, in McCarthy's view. And I will take the same view as McCarthy. If research stops being discourse, where will we be? McCarthy concluded that there were 'health risks' for 'the organism', by which I believe he meant applied linguistics. He listed them thus: an over-enthusiasm to tie up loose ends, get us all in line and singing from the same hymn-sheet, a lack of awareness and sensitivity towards our ethical responsibilities to our language-teacher peers and to language learners, a lack of awareness of the social, political and cultural contexts that condition our activities, a cosiness that comes from working in a narrow circle that excludes so many of our peers from less privileged parts of the world, an over-inflated sense of our importance in the world of language teaching, and a lack of self-criticality."
In sum, 'research' includes both quantitative and qualitative paradigms, now. According to McCarthy, it does. And again, I'm going to take the same view as McCarthy. Haha. Research then, according to this way of thinking, is discourse, and includes both quantitative and qualitative paradigms. My own 'research', including my PhD research project, tends to be more qualitative than quantitative because I approach research from a social science perspective (i.e. sociology) not from a 'hard' science perspective (i.e. neurobiology).
Apologies for the long answer. Hope it attracts attention and further discussion. Continues the discourse. :))
Sun, 03/22/2009 - 21:59
#4
Dear Robert, you are welcome. Your post reminds me of my prospectus-defense and pre-defense. Challenging, indeed.
I was referring to Leigh's comment from 03/17/2009 in which she explained the obstacles she had to face when writing up her findings. If you have time feel free to read it. Very important points she made.
Helga, you also said: "We think that for us wearing two pairs of shoes - as an in-service teacher and as a researcher - is a must." Actually, I wasn't thinking of anyone else, just myself; not sure how many in-service teachers actually think they MUST 'wear two pairs of shoes'. Haha. Nice metaphor.
Thanks, Robert for the compliment on the metaphor. It is from Berge (1995) and Hootstein (2002) when discussing the roles of online moderators. Well, as regards using the plural, I was referring to those colleagues who agree with this idea but of course it is not a must to share this view.
I kind of followed you up until you said "what if the so-called science community (in the broadest sense) prefers something less empirical and more scientific". How can one be "less empirical and more scientific"? Are you saying that to be more scientific is to be less empirical? :))
Exactly, this is what I was referring to. I had several times the experience to read purely scientific papers which have nothing to do with real life experience. E.g. gathering data on huge samples and doing statistical data analysis (even if it is done in a high-quality manner and statistically reliable) might work in certain cases but might not in others.
If I were merely doing research to lengthen my 'list of publications' just to gain kudos with the 'science community' then perhaps some would view my activities as ethically questionable, if the work I was producing was not of a high standard. If it were not of a high standard, would it even get published? O_o
I'm really not sure about the implications of that, if in fact I were intending to do what I think you're suggesting. Because as a teacher-researcher - is that different from a researcher-teacher? - I would certainly want to share my research efforts and results with not only the 'research community' but also anyone else who is interested in it. So, um, could you please explain your thoughts and idea a bit clearer. For someone who doesn't read between the lines so well. Haha.
In my remark on the publication list and in my whole post I wasn't referring to you. Probably, I did not explicitly state this. I was just sharing my thoughts and ideas in general that were boosted by your insightful comment. Actually, my remark was based on my own experience as a junior facing sometimes problematic situations with senior researchers who are into the race of collecting publications.
I hope this somewhat clarifies my intentions which by no means were to form judgement on anybody's activity. Best, Helga
Mon, 03/23/2009 - 11:22
#5
Hi Helga
Good comeback. Congrats; that's good. Yes, well, if you had ever been in my office over the years and/or overheard conversations with colleagues you would have heard exactly the same thing from me! Haha. Some of my colleagues were surprised to here that I wasn't a follower of Chomsky's, for that very reason. I admire the man but disagree with some of his theorizing. So I am thankful for the 'shift' that McCarthy talks about to include qualitative paradigms.
Like you, I have read many articles and papers on linguistics and applied linguistics that I felt were nowhere near 'reality'; couldn't possibly be. But that's what research is all about. Not to sound like I am defending them without justification. I mean, I think it is quite 'okay' to do 'armchair' theorizing, but it is quite another thing to claim that one's 'armchair' theory is the 'truth', without doing applied research to test it or verify it. Someone else usually gets to do that even if you don't. Haha.
Many theories tend to be just that, a theory. It's up to applied scientists to find out if that is really the case or not; find evidence to support it or not. I think Chomsky's Universal Grammar or Language Acquisition Device is an instance. When he first publicized his theory, it was a time when genetic science was 'science fiction'. So his theory fell in that box of unasnwerable theories along with Does God exist? and Did the Universe begin with a Big Bang? Now that genetics has arrived and been around for a decade or more, geneticists are no closer to finding Chomsky's LAD - the existence or not of Chomsky's LAD can only be verified by geneticists. And they haven't done that. If fact, I believe research is not verifying that.
I think a balance must struck. I support 'armchair' theorizing. I support applied research. They're two sides of the same coin. But I also support critical evaluation. So even if you didn't intend to single anyone out, and if I were you, I wouldn't apologize for unintentionally doing so. Critical thinking and critical critique come with the job - being an applied scientist. Because that is partly how reseach moves forward, I believe. You think something is inadequate or inefficient or could be done better or not based in reality, so you do some research to demonstrate it and strengthen your argument or theory against the other position. Some would say, in the nicest possible way. But sometimes it just isn't like that. I'm thinking of Climate Change as another case or instance as I say this.
robert
Wed, 03/18/2009 - 23:08
#6
One problem I see with the strong separation between teachers and researchers in language learning is that many "pure" researchers are out-of-touch with those of us with our boots on the ground. Ive even met a few that have a lousy attitude toward those of us who "just teach"(meaning those who teach the language, not those who teach future researchers or teachers)
Have you ever read something coming out of research and thought to yourself "Is s/he kidding?" I have. It was part of the reason I didnt pursue a PhD and went into teaching. I need to know what the real world was like. Now I really doubt I would ever want to leave it 100%.
Sun, 03/22/2009 - 22:02
#7
Unfortunately, I also had the chance to read such articles and exactly this is what I was referring to. How can then these results/research scenarios be considered authentic from the point of view of "those with the boots on the ground"? Helga
Fri, 04/17/2009 - 14:53
#8
Hello Robert:
Regarding your comment, "Now that genetics has arrived and been around for a decade or more, geneticists are no closer to finding Chomsky's LAD - the existence or not of Chomsky's LAD can only be verified by geneticists. And they haven't done that. If fact, I believe research is not verifying that," you can stop believing. Gerald M. Edelman has established the impossibility of Chomsky's notions. (Edelman, G. M. (1992). Bright air, brilliant fire. NY: BasicBooks; specifically the last part of the book titled: Mind without biology: A critical postscript). A brief excerpt:
' "In his [Chomsky's] formal systems approach, the principal assumption is that the rules of syntax are independent of semantics. Language, in this view, is independent of the rest of cognition, I must take issue with this notion.
The set of rules formulted under the idea that a grammar is a formal system are essentially algorithmic. In such a system, no use is made of meaning. Chomsky's so-called generative grammer ... assumes that syntax is independent of semantics and that the language faculty is independent of external cognitive capabilities. This definition of grammar is impervious to any attempt to disconfirm it by referring to facts about cognition in general. A language defined as a set of strings of uninterpreted symbols generated by production rules is like a computer language. To give the symbols semantic meaning, they must be mapped onto the real world or onto a language of thought or mentalese.
The previous discussion has prepared us for the conclusion that underlying this view is the objectivist position: categories are classical and semantics are gnerated by unambiguous assignment to entities in the world. This amounts to a definition of language and grammar. Under this definition, language falls afoul of all the difficulties faced by the objectivist view. The problem is not just that this view does not agree with the empirical facts concerning categorizatin. It also ignores the fact that langauge serves to convey the thoughts and feelings of individuals who already think independently of language" (p. 243).
Dan Jenkins (Foreign Expert, English Department, China University of Minining and Technology, Beijing, China)
Fri, 04/17/2009 - 15:17
#9
Hi Helga:
I look at it this way. If a teacher is successful, which is to say that the outcome is always what is intended, then perhaps there is no need for the teacher to be involved in research unless the teacher doesn't know why the techniques work and would like to know. However, if the outcome is sometimes not as intended, i.e., there are problems, then the problems are resolved only by some form of research (postings to this forum is a form of research). If the sole purpose of the research is to find a solution to the problem, then the methodology need not conform to community standards, but if it is desired to make the findings available to others, then it will most likely have to confirm to some standard in order to be accepted for publication (past muster by a critical reader). Then again, there are people like myself who have to publish research in order to qualify for a PhD program. My research focuses on explaining why things work the way they do for the purpose of resolving a problem (L2 learners' listening is "too slow" and acquisition of L2 pronunciation to the level of native speaker accuracy, for example), and on the development of a unified approach (philosophy, theory, method, and technique) to adult second language acquisition. Thus, I teach and I do research. Finally, there is another kind of research - the research necessary to implement techniques pasted down from on high, which, fortunately, I don't have to deal with.
Dan Jenkins (Foreign Expert, English Department, China University of Mining and Technology, Beijing, China)
Hi Helga
I am both: teacher/researcher. I am both because I think teachers needs to be both. Some people do not see it that way, fine. I support the dual function for teachers because it is they who need to resolve any issues arising from either teaching or learning. If they cannot they must turn to someone else. Not a bad thing itself but help may take its time in coming or may not even be appropriate for your particular situation of context.
So there is a clash of 'roles' sometimes. Firstly, in the sense of a clash of 'disciplines'. The teaching versus the researching. The teaching role can at times be rather 'mechanical', if the teacher takes the 'feeding the ducks' approach. It maybe simplified as merely 'input'. The teacher may not be interested in knowing what happens after that, and just wants to know the results on a formal test. The other maybe the pedagogical value of doing one thing and not another. Some may take the view that doing just about anything is 'okay' because 'acquisition' mostly happens 'unconsciously' anyway. All the teacher need do is provide the 'input' and the student's LAD (language acquisition device) will do the rest. I do not subscribe to that view of learning. So there may be a clash of roles 'internally'.
On the other hand, it may be a worker vs. policy situation. The institute or company you work for expects you to 'toe the line'. It takes a particular view of teaching and learning and expects you to support that view. As a teacher, you may say, for the sake of money, sure, why not. But as a researcher, you may think the particular view of the institute or company clashes with your view. So the clash might be between the 'science' and 'politics'.
In terms of starting a research project, one must notice something. A problem or an issue. Firstly, define the problem and then choose methods of collecting data on the problem or issue. That's a traditional approach. And it depends on what you want to say about it. So, following Nunan (2001) for example, who says that one's research questions will make suggestions about data collection methods. So there's a relationship between research questions and data collection methods.
Overcoming 'obstacles' is a bit vague. It depends on many things to do with the research project. What kind of project is it? What information is needed? Has anyone investigated the problem/issue before? What are the differences between your proposed study and what others have done? There's a process of sorts involved here. Pays to talk to others who've been where you're going or planning to go.
In sum, I'm both teacher and researcher. I'm both because I think problems and issues WILL arise within any ELT context. The teacher/researcher is therefore in the best position to investigate, find a solution and resolve. The teacher only situation may not be. Just a few ideas to get discussion started. Of course, I have not meant to exclude the learner from this discussion. The learner is really the epicentre of learning and needs to be included in any discussion of teaching and learning. In the end, teaching is directed at the learner with the aim of speeding up the acquisition process. Research is aimed at verifying or validating the value of teaching one way and not another based on relevant data. For example, language learning and technology.
robert