Relevance of Knowledge of Second Language Acquisition:
FINDINGS
Conflicting Roles: Researcher versus Teacher
As part of the requirements for this course, teacher-learners were required to submit four short papers throughout the semester, each less than 5 pages long, reporting on the linguistic development of an L2 learner whose nationality was different from the teacher candidate’s and a final paper that was no longer than 20 pages. The teacher-learners could draw on data from their small papers to complete their final paper.
From the instructor’s point of view, the SLA course was both for researchers and for teachers. There were several purposes for the teacher-learners to conduct research on an L2 learner whose nationality was different from the teacher candidate’s. First, the instructor thought that in this way, teacher-learners would be able to examine the L2 learning process from a researcher’s perspective.
.... I want people to have experience observing someone learning a language. So I want them to be outsiders. I want them to be able to look at people who are not from their own L1, just so they cannot make certain assumptions... So they have an idea what’s happening when they are learners and their next step data gathering sort of speaks to that... (Interview, 11-13-01)
Secondly, this requirement was also viewed as research training to learn how to conduct language acquisition research for those who wanted go on to pursue their Ph.D. She said,
There is a percentage that would want to go on for Ph.D, So that’s certainly one of the purposes of the paper. (Interview, 10-13-01)
Thirdly, the instructor believed that the experience of conducting research would be
“useful” even for those who didn’t want to go for their Ph.D. because it would help
teacher-learners find out answers through research and better understand research
papers.
Finally, the instructor assumed that the experience in conducting SLA research
provided an opportunity for teacher-learners to examine L2 production objectively, as
researchers do.
Most people probably won’t be researchers or have a chance to stand back and sort of objectively look at some learning language without worrying about tomorrow’s lesson plan and grades for these papers. (Interview, 10-13-01)
While the instructor required the students to play the role of a researcher by being an “outsider” observing someone learning a language objectively and by coming up with more data gathering instruments to respond to what they had observed, Peiling, from the perspective of a teacher, thought this requirement was “funny, useless, and meaningless” and resisted playing the role of a researcher. What concerned Peiling most was how to help her participant as a teacher rather than giving her participant test after test as a researcher. “I feel guilty and that I have to ask him to do [the tests]. I think it’s a torture for him,” said Peiling. She thought it was “kind of funny to look for various experiments to dig [out] someone’s errors” (laughing) (Interview, 10-07-01).
The instructor felt it was useful for the teacher-learners to learn how to “speak to data,” like researchers, by using different instruments to come up with hypotheses on the kind of errors that learners make. With a teacher’s mentality, Peiling did not think she had to learn about her students’ errors through using different instruments in addition to her EFL curriculum. She believed she would be able to detect her EFL learners’ errors/mistakes through her observations or their L2 production in class. She said:
I think I can easily know what kind of problems they [my students] have just in class or when I look at their writing. I don’t think I need to do such tests or experiments to look for their mistakes or evidence. (Interview, 10-07-01)
In retrospect, Peiling remembered vividly that she spent a great deal of time counting the rate of accuracy (the obligatory occasions versus correct production) (Interview, 01-09-02). However, as scientific and objective as the rate of accuracy would sound, and as authentic as the instructor wanted the experience to be, Peiling thought it was not useful for her as a teacher. She said:
I think what I should say is that what we teach now is a tiny piece of language. As a teacher, you will know what kind of mistakes your students will be more likely to make. I don’t think I will need to know how well their learning is through that [rate of accuracy]. I don’t think I need to count the rate of accuracy in order to understand mistakes and the pattern of their mistakes. (Interview, 04-12-02)
Peiling felt that the course was merely for researchers. “They, [the researchers], look at grammar and phonology. They separate things into pieces and try to look at language from different perspectives. They focus more on theory...” indicated Peiling. Assuming that researchers were helpers to teachers, and that the purpose for doing research was to improve practice, Peiling’s focus was on how to connect research findings to her teaching. Peiling’s resistance to the requirement was evident in her description of the experience as “funny, meaningless and useless.” Her negative feelings demonstrated her resistance to playing the role of researcher. With a teacher’s orientation, she cared more about how to improve L2 learning.
I don’t think there is any point to count the accuracy rate. So what? How will you help your students? I don’t think accuracy rate will help your students. (Interview, 04-12-02)
