436903
2012
LTR16310.1177/1362168812436903NassajiLanguage Teaching Research
Article
The relationship between
SLA research and language
pedagogy: Teachers’
perspectives
LANGUAGE
TEACHING
RESEARCH
Language Teaching Research
16(3) 337­–365
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1362168812436903
ltr.sagepub.com
Hossein Nassaji
University of Victoria, Canada
Abstract
There is currently a substantial body of research on second language (L2) learning and this body
of knowledge is constantly growing. There are also many attempts in most teacher education
programs around the world to inform practicing and prospective L2 teachers about second
language acquisition (SLA) research and its findings. However, an important question in this
context has been to what extent SLA research has been able to influence L2 teaching. There is
extensive discussion and debate among SLA researchers about the applicability of L2 research
to language teaching. However, there is little empirical research in this area. This research was
conducted to shed some light on this issue by examining how English language teachers perceive
the relationship between SLA research and language teaching and to what extent they believe the
findings of SLA is useful and relevant for L2 pedagogy. Data were collected from 201 teachers of
English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) by means of a written
questionnaire. Analyses of data revealed that most teachers believed that knowing about SLA
research is useful and that it can improve L2 teaching. However, a high percentage indicated that
the knowledge they gain from teaching experience is more relevant to their teaching practices
than the knowledge they gain from research. The majority indicated that they have easy access to
research materials, but very few stated that they read research articles, with the most common
reasons being lack of time, difficulty of research articles, and lack of interest. The article concludes
with discussion and suggestions about how to improve the perceived gap between L2 research
and pedagogy.
Keywords
Second language acquisition, SLA research, ESL/EFL pedagogy, teachers’ perspectives, teacher
research, relationship between research and pedagogy
Corresponding author:
Hossein Nassaji, Department of Linguistics, University of Victoria, PO Box 3045, Victoria, BC, V8W 3P4,
Canada
Email: nassaji@uvic.ca
338
I
Language Teaching Research 16(3)
Introduction
There has been a long-standing debate on the relationship between research and practice
not only in the general educational literature but also in many other practice-oriented
disciplines such as business, medicine, law, etc. This debate has often been carried out in
the form of questions related to the interaction between research and professional practice as well as how and what practitioners learn from research or researchers learn from
practitioners. The perceived need of the relationship between research and practice has
also led to the promotion of what has been called ‘evidence-based practice’ (practice
which is based on systematic research evidence) in places such as the UK and USA and
in different professional disciplines including education (Heilbronn, 2001, 2008). These
movements have also influenced the field of applied linguistics, and in particular second
and foreign language pedagogy, leading to extensive debates and discussions about the
role and applicability of second language acquisition (SLA) research in second language
(L2) teaching.
Although, SLA research and teaching can be connected, this relationship is not an easy
one. A fundamental question that has often been raised in this context relates to the utility
of such research for classroom teaching. Some researchers have argued that one of the key
rationales for conducting SLA research is to improve second language teaching (LarsenFreeman, 1998; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991; Pica, 2005). Others, however, have been
concerned about the extent to which such research has actually influenced language teaching (e.g. Block, 2000; Crookes, 1993, Klein, 1998; for a recent debate among SLA scholars, see also TESOL Quarterly 41(2) from 2007). Many SLA researchers have argued that
the relationship between L2 research and pedagogy is problematic. This has been attributed not only to the limitations of SLA research but also to the different goals and objectives of L2 research and pedagogy.
The earliest warning about the applicability of SLA research to L2 teaching was raised
in the late 1970s and early 1980s by researchers such as Tarone et al. (1976) and Hatch
(1978), who suggested caution when interpreting and applying SLA research results in
language pedagogy. Tarone et al (1976), for example, warned against making ‘hasty
pedagogical applications’ of SLA research (1976, p. 29). At that time, these researchers
argued that SLA research is limited in many ways, including its scope and methodology.
Hatch (1978) also warned against attempting to apply research findings to language pedagogy. Lightbown (1985), in her article Great expectations: Second language acquisition research and classroom teaching, argued that although many studies in SLA are
useful for language teaching, we need to be cautious about the extent to which such
research can tell teachers what to do. She argued that ‘second language research does not
tell teachers what to teach, and what it says about how to teach they had already figured
out’ (p. 182).
Such concerns have also been expressed more recently by researchers such as Block
(2000), Crookes (1997a, 1993, 1998), Ellis (1997a 1997b, 2001), and Klein (1998), all
of whom argued that although SLA research has made much progress, there is little that
teachers can gain from it in terms of practical ideas. Ellis (1997b, 2001) argued that
important progress has been made in SLA, but ‘much of the research is no longer directly
concerned with pedagogic issues’ (2001, p. 45). He pointed out that many of the issues
Nassaji
339
that SLA researchers examine ‘have their origins in bodies of knowledge which, arguably, have no or little relevance to language pedagogy’ (1997b, p. 6). He argued that there
are currently many studies whose aim is to test particular linguistic theories such as the
Universal Grammar, whose results are not translatable to what teachers actually need in
their everyday teaching because most of the time such research is conducted in contexts
that are different from the actual context in which language is taught. Researchers such as
Block and Klein have expressed stronger concerns. Block (2000) pointed out that ‘much
of what is done under the rubric of SLA is not particularly relevant to language teachers
and is not really applicable to the day-to-day language teaching and learning which goes
in the classroom’ (p. 130). He maintained that the issues that SLA publications examine are not often of particular interest to language teachers. Klein (1998) stated, ‘During
the last 25 years, second language acquisition (SLA) research has made considerable
progress, but it is still far from proving a solid basis for foreign language teaching, or
from a general theory of SLA’ (p. 527).
The perceived problem in the relationship between SLA research and language teaching can be attributed to different sources. One is the difference between the teachers’ and
researchers’ goals and objectives. Distinguishing between two types of knowledge, practical knowledge and technical knowledge, Ellis (1997b, 2001) pointed out that whereas
teachers’ goal is to develop practical knowledge, researchers have been interested in
developing technical knowledge. Technical knowledge is explicit and can be examined
systematically through empirical research. Practical knowledge, on the other hand, is
intuitive and implicit and usually learned as a result of experience. According to Ellis,
while teachers need practical knowledge, researchers have always been interested in
developing technical knowledge. Another one is the kind of research methods and report
formats used in SLA research. Crookes (1997a, p. 98) pointed out that most of the studies
in SLA have used a quantitative-experimental paradigm, viewing learning as a cognitive
process ‘internal to the learner’ rather than a social phenomenon embedded in context
(with the teacher as part of it). He argued, if research focuses on generalizations removed
from contexts, ‘it is asking too much of SFL [second and foreign language] teaching
programs alone to bridge the conceptual divide’ (1998, p. 8). Furthermore, the experimental format and the metalanguage used in most SLA research can be difficult for
teachers to understand, making the research inaccessible to teachers (Crookes, 1997).
The problem can also be seen to be one of ‘discourse’. Gee (1990) defined
‘discourse’ as a:
a socially accepted association among ways of using language, of thinking, feeling, believing,
valuing, and of acting that can be used to identify oneself as a member of socially meaningful
group or ‘social network,’ or to signal (that one is playing) a socially meaningful ‘role.’ (p. 143)
Teacher’s discourse has been considered to be different from academic discourse. Using
Gee’s theory of discourse, Ellis (1997a) pointed out that there is a potential conflict
between SLA and language teaching in that ‘they represent different social worlds with
different values, beliefs, and attitudes’ (see also Kramsch, 1995). Bartels (2003) argued
that SLA researchers and teachers belong to different professional discourse and that it is
this difference that can account for the divide between them. She stated that whereas by
340
Language Teaching Research 16(3)
reading or communicating research findings, academics seek to arrive at abstract and
generalizable knowledge, teachers’ purpose of doing so is to develop context-specific
knowledge about their own teaching.
However, although there are concerns about the relevance of SLA research to language
teaching, there are currently an increasing number of SLA studies in the field that have
important relevance to language teaching, with many serving as important resources to
inform classroom practices such as the role of learners’ consciousness in SLA processes,
input and interaction, and learners’ needs and motivation (Pica, 1994, 2005). In his recent
works, Ellis (e.g. 2006, 2008, 2009) has discussed how findings from specific areas of
SLA have important implications for classroom teaching such as current research on corrective feedback, the role of interaction, and various classroom-based studies on
instructed SLA. The pedagogical relevance of SLA research has also been highlighted in
many recent reviews of SLA research presented in various theme-based journal issues (on
corrective feedback, see, for example, the special issue of Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 32(2) from 2010) or in recent books such as Ellis et al. (2009), Fotos and
Nassaji (2007), Nassaji and Fotos (2010), Norris and Ortega (2006), among others that
have attempted to assess and synthesize the implications of current SLA theory research
for L2 classroom teaching.
Of course, authors such as Block (2000) and Klein (1998) downplayed the contribution of SLA research to language pedagogy on the grounds that the aim of SLA research
has been primarily theoretical rather than practical and, hence, such research has not
been able to influence classroom teaching. Klein, for example, argued that SLA research
has always wanted to discover the underlying principles of SLA, and that such theorybuilding endeavors have had little impact on L2 teaching in terms of changing teachers’
course preparations, materials development, and the way learners learn and process
materials in the classroom. However, this view of interpreting the contribution of SLA
seems to be too narrow and hence not supported by some SLA researchers. LarsenFreeman (1998), for example, objected strongly to Klein’s argument, pointing out ‘it is
ill-advised to judge SLA’s contributions to L2 teaching in terms of their application to
language teaching methods and materials.’ She argued that SLA has contributed to language teaching in other important ways such as changing teachers’ attitudes and awareness. She noted:
Teachers who have been exposed to concepts and research in SLA courses … often become
more learning-centered. The benefit of this shift is two fold: Their responses to their students
are more relevant, and their own professional development is ensured, for becoming fascinated
with what learners do is an excellent way of keeping one’s teaching practice vital. (p. 554)
Surely, as Larsen-Freeman indicates, the contributions of SLA should not be simply
interpreted with regard to teaching ideas or providing effective teaching materials for
conducting a certain lesson effectively. If SLA is interpreted that way and research cannot
provide solutions to practical problems, one conclusion then would be that teachers should
stop paying attention to research and attempt to simply rely on their own practice. As Ellis
(2001) noted, this solution is not warranted as it stems from a lack of understanding
of how SLA knowledge informs teachers’ knowledge. Furthermore, we should not expect
Nassaji
341
that every research should be (equally) relevant to L2 teaching. SLA is a broad field of
inquiry and covers both basic and applied research, encompassing methods from a variety
of disciplines including linguistics, psycholinguistics, communications, education,
anthropology, and studying language learning when it happens informally in naturalistic
contexts and also formally in instructional contexts.
Research methods also vary, ranging from those conducted under highly controlled
experimental conditions or in lab settings to those conducted qualitatively or in classroom
settings. Therefore, while some SLA research may be relevant, others may be less or not
relevant. For example, research that is conducted under highly controlled experimental
conditions in a lab setting may be less relevant to classroom pedagogy than research that
is conducted inside language classrooms. But even classroom-based studies are not of
similar degree of relevance. Although such research is conducted in the classroom, sometimes the focus may not be instruction as it may simply view the teacher ‘primarily as a
source of input’ not as someone involved in teaching (Crookes, 1997a. p. 98). Also,
although the research is carried out inside the classroom, the researcher may investigate
questions that are not pedagogical or do not arise from teachers’ classroom concerns, but
rather ones that are theoretical and arise from researchers’ theoretical interests (Ellis,
1997a). In such cases the research and its findings may not be directly relevant to language pedagogy and the teachers’ classroom teaching.
One type of research that can be considered highly relevant to pedagogical problems is
research conducted by teachers themselves. This research – which has been called teacher
research, action research, practitioner research or even exploratory practice (Allwright,
2005) – has received increasing attention in the field of teacher education as a tool to
enhance professional development (e.g. Burns, 1999; Crookes, 1993; Crookes & Chandler,
2001; Freeman, 1998; Nunan, 1997; Wallace, 1998). The main aim of such research is to
foster reflective teaching and to discover and develop alternative perspectives on pedagogical problems (Wallace, 1998). Action research consists of particular procedures in a
sequence with the goal of improving practice. Teacher research can be seen as a kind of
action research. However, they are not the same. Action research is carried out by or for
those who plan to take action (Sagor, 2000). Therefore, it can be conducted in any field
and it is not limited to research carried out by teachers. Teachers can also conduct other
types of research, which are not necessarily action research such as surveys, diary studies,
experiments, or observational studies without adhering to the procedures of action
research or even without primarily aiming for improving their own classroom practices.
However, as Ellis (1997a) pointed out, if SLA research is relevant to language pedagogy it is essential to find out how, to what extent, and in what areas. In this context, an
important question is how we should go about assessing relevance. As Ellis (1997a)
discussed, there are two main approaches. One approach is the one in which an applied
linguist uses SLA theory and research and attempts to identify its ‘utility’ for teaching.
According to Ellis, this approach can sometimes be problematic because the researcher
is evaluating the relevance of a work for teaching that is conducted from a researcher’s
perspective and presented in a discourse different from that of the teacher. Another
approach is the one that begins with pedagogy and uses SLA to address issues nominated
by practitioners and educators. In this approach, instead of assessing SLA for relevance,
pedagogical issues become the topics of SLA research. The second approach could be
342
Language Teaching Research 16(3)
advantageous in that the outcomes are more likely to be used by teachers because it
examines practical issues they have considered as important, rather than theoretical
issues nominated by SLA researchers (Ellis, 1997a). However, this approach has its own
limitations, too. First, not all SLA researchers are interested in pedagogical issues
because they have their own theoretical concerns (Crookes, 1997a; Ellis, 1997a). Second,
this approach is based on the assumption that if SLA research addresses pedagogical
issues, its findings should be useable by teachers. This, however, may not always be the
case because much of what goes on in L2 classrooms is dependent on teachers’ views,
beliefs, and perspectives.
One thing that is surely needed in assessing pedagogical relevance of research findings
is the assessor’s close acquaintance and familiarity with the practice of classroom teaching. However, in many cases researchers who work in many areas of SLA may not be
necessarily familiar with issues surrounding classroom teaching or, if they do, they will
(as noted before) interpret the findings mainly from their own viewpoint. Therefore, their
interpretation about relevance can be different from teachers’. To be successful, researchers need teachers’ help, knowledge, and participation in making valid decisions about the
connection between research and practice. Indeed, the problems of practice cannot be
fixed unless there is a deep understanding of their nature and the contexts in which they
occur (Labaree, 2003). This point has been emphasized by SLA authors such as Lightbown,
Pica, Ellis, and Widdowson, who have argued that it is eventually the teachers who should
decide what is pedagogically relevant and what is not. Widdowson (1990), for example,
stated:
But the concerns of pedagogy are the business of teachers. It is surely they who have to
determine relevance in this case, they who have to be convinced that what research has to say
has a bearing on what they do. (p. 30)
Ellis (1997a) Lightbown (2000), and Pica (2005) have all stressed that researchers
should interact closely with teachers because such interactions would not only help teachers to know what researchers are saying but also ‘researchers can hear what teachers are
saying’ (Lightbown, 2000, p. 453). Pica (2005) pointed out that ‘as teachers and researchers, we cannot work in isolation from each other if we are to help our students meet their
needs and accomplish their goals’ (p. 49). Attention to what teachers say is also essential
because it not only facilitates communications between teachers and researchers but can
also lead to the production of research that can be more relevant to classroom practices
and hence more likely to be used by teachers.
There is currently ample literature that has discussed the relationship between
researching and teaching; for example, the literature on action research or studies that have
explored the role of research in teacher’s thinking, beliefs, and development (e.g. Borg,
2006; Richards & Farrell, 2005; Tsui, 2003). However, there is much less literature on what
teachers know about L2 research or how they view its usefulness for their teaching.
There are many anecdotal observations about what teachers may think about the relevance of SLA research to their teaching. However, there is little empirical research in this
area. Of course, there are a few studies that have indirectly attempted to tap into what L2
teachers gain from SLA research. One such study, for example, is by Crookes and Arakaki
Nassaji
343
(1999), which was conducted in an intensive English program in the USA. The aim of the
study was to explore teachers’ beliefs about what sources they use to obtain teaching ideas.
The researchers collected data from 19 English as a second language (ESL) teachers using
semi-structured interviews. They found that teachers talked about a number of sources that
they believed they use to develop teaching ideas, including teaching experience, consultation with colleagues, and pre-service training and workshops. However, many reported that
they do not consult published research. The researchers considered this situation problematic and attributed the problem to teachers’ working conditions, including long hours of
teaching. Another study by McDonough and McDonough (1990) examined the perceptions of a group of teachers attending a conference in the UK about the use of research in
their teaching. Using a written questionnaire, the researchers collected data from 34
English language teachers to explore their beliefs about the relevance of L2 research to
their teaching. They found that most teachers believed that they made use of research findings in their teaching and that they had opportunities to conduct research in their institutions. Both Crookes and Arakaki’s (1999) and McDonough and McDonough’s (1990)
studies were small-scale studies involving a limited number of teachers in one particular
setting. Furthermore, in McDonough and McDonough’s (1990) study, most of the participating teachers were already involved in conducting research at the time of research and
were also those that attended an academic conference. Therefore, as the researchers
pointed out, they were not a representative sample of English teachers. In a more recent
study, Borg (2009) examined teachers’ conceptions of research. Using questionnaire data
and follow up interviews, Borg found that teachers’ conception of research was more in
line with conventional notions of research. Most of the teachers, for instance, viewed
research as an activity that is highly objective, test hypotheses, and produce true and valid
results. Borg also found little evidence for teachers’ engagement with research.
Borg’s study is significant because it shows why for many teachers research is not a
relevant or feasible activity and why teachers do not want to get involved in doing
research. However, his study focused mainly on teachers’ ideas about what research is and
not necessarily on what uses teachers make of SLA research or how relevant they find it
for their classroom teaching.
The present study was conducted to explore the relationship between SLA research and
L2 teaching by investigating teachers’ perspectives regarding a number of areas related to
the relationship between SLA research and pedagogy, including their familiarity with
SLA research, their involvement with SLA research, accessibility of SLA research, the
sources they consult, and the relevance and usefulness of SLA research for their classroom practices. Of interest was also the issue of teacher–researcher relationships and
teachers’ perceptions about the connection between researchers and teachers and also
what teachers expected from SLA research and what they wanted to gain from such
research. The last two issues are particularly important in light of the recent emphasis on
teacher–researcher collaboration and also attention to what teachers consider important
for investigation. As Ellis (1997a, 2001) pointed out, in order to improve the relationship
between SLA research and language pedagogy, SLA researchers need to pay attention
to what teachers say and what they desire to learn from SLA research. Thus, to achieve
relevance, SLA should try to ‘address issues that practitioners nominate as important to
them’ (1997a, p. 69). Data were collected from two groups of teachers teaching in two
344
Language Teaching Research 16(3)
different instructional contexts: an ESL context in Canada and an EFL (English as a foreign language) context in Turkey. Thus, the study provided insight into the similarities and
differences in the perspectives of these two groups of teachers. In summary, the study
addressed the following six research questions:
1. To what extent are teachers familiar with SLA research?
2. How easily can they access SLA research, and what sources do they consult?
3. To what extent do they read research articles and, if they do not read them, what
are their reasons?
4. How do they judge the relevance and usefulness of SLA research for classroom
teaching?
5. How do they perceive the relationship between researchers and teachers?
6. What are their expectations of SLA research?
II
Method
Data were collected by means of a written questionnaire (Appendix 1). The questionnaire
was designed to collect both qualitative and quantitative data. Quantitative data were
obtained through close-ended questions with various response formats, such as yes–no
questions, checklists, and Likert-scale formats. Qualitative data were collected through
open-ended questions. Before the study was conducted, the questionnaire was piloted
with a similar group of teachers (10 ESL and 10 EFL teachers), who were asked to answer
the questions, provide feedback on the wording and clarity of the items, and also how to
improve them. After the piloting, the problematic items were revised.
III
Participants
The questionnaire was distributed to 410 teachers, teaching at different language
institutes and schools in Canada and Turkey. The participation of teachers was voluntary
and solicited through email, personal contact, and students and colleagues, who sent the
potential participants the questionnaire and asked them if they were interested in participating in the research. Teachers responded to the questionnaire anonymously. Along with
the questionnaire, they received a letter that informed them of the purpose of the study and
also notified them that their participation in the research would be voluntary. They were
informed that if they agreed to participate, they could complete the questionnaire and
send it back to the researcher at their convenience, and that by completing and returning
the questionnaire, they had consented to participate in the study. Of the 410 teachers,
201 completed and returned the questionnaire, thus, producing a response rate of
49%. Of the 201 respondents, 119 were EFL teachers teaching in Turkey and 82 were ESL
teachers teaching in Canada.
Table 1 provides a summary of teachers’ background characteristics. All respondents
were qualified practicing teachers, and their ages ranged from 22 to 58, with a mean of
33.56 years. They had a range of teaching experience, from 4 months to 32 years, with a
mean of 8.15 years. The two groups were similar in terms of years of teaching experience
345
Nassaji
Table 1. Teachers’ background characteristics
Age
Years of teaching experience
Gender
Highest degree completed
Age group teaching at the time of the study
Additional teaching certificates
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Male
Female
BA
Masters
PhD
Others
Adults
Children
EFL
ESL
Total
31.15
7.26
8.09
7.10
31.1%
68.9%
64.7%
32.8%
0.8%
1.7%
97.2%
2.8%
51.3%
37.04
8.10
8.25
4.10
36.6%
63.4%
69.5%
24.4%
0.0%
6.1%
97.6%
2.4%
81.7%
33.56
8.10
8.15
6.30
33.3%
66.7%
66.7%
29.4%
0.5%
3.5%
97.4%
2.6%
63.7%
and, on average, were fairly experienced. Means of years of teaching experience for EFL
and ESL teachers were 8.09 and 8.25, respectively. Of all participants, 67 (33.3%) were
male and 134 (66.7%) were female. Of the 119 EFL teachers, 37 (31.1%) were male and
82 (68.9%) were female, and of the 82 ESL teachers, 30 (36.6%) were male and 52
(63.4%) were female. Thus, the two groups of teachers were similar in terms of the
proportion of males to females. As can be seen in Table 1, the two groups of teachers
were similar in terms of the kind of degrees they held and their level of education. Of
all participants, 134 (66.7%) held undergraduate BA degrees, 59 (29.4%) held master’s
degrees, 1 (0.5%) held a PhD, and 7 (3.5%) held other degrees. About two thirds
(63.7%) reported they also held an additional teaching certificate, including ESL or
ELT certificates or diplomas in applied linguistics. But there were more EFL teachers
with graduate degrees than ESL teachers. More ESL than EFL teachers also had additional teaching certificate (82% vs. 51%). All the teachers in the ESL setting were
native speakers of English and the majority of the teachers (98%) in the EFL setting
were non-native speakers of English. In both groups, the teachers were teaching in
both private and public schools.
IV Analyses and results
The data gathered through the close-ended questionnaire items were analysed quantitatively,
using frequencies and percentages. Additional qualitative analyses were conducted on
the open-ended questions. In the following sections, the results pertaining to each of the
areas explored are reported.
346
Language Teaching Research 16(3)
Table 2. Familiarity with SLA research (percentages in parentheses)
a) Courses in second language acquisition
b) Courses in second language research methods
c) Conducting research
d) Publishing research
EFL
ESL
Total
EFL
ESL
Total
EFL
ESL
Total
EFL
ESL
Total
Yes
No
85 (73)
64 (78)
149 (75)
84 (71)
42 (51)
126 (63)
41 (34)
16 (20)
57 (28)
2 (2)
6 (7)
8 (4)
31 (27)
18 (22)
49 (25)
34 (29)
40 (49)
74 (37)
78 (66)
66 (80)
144 (72)
113 (98)
74 (93)
187 (96)
Total
116 (100)
82 (100)
198 (100)
118 (100)
82 (100)
200 (100)
119 (100)
82 (100)
201 (100)
115 (100)
80 (100)
195 (100)
Note: Totals do not always add up to 201 for all items in this table and in some others because some teachers did not respond to all items.
1 Teachers’ familiarly with SLA research
To explore teachers’ familiarity with SLA research, they were asked the following
questions:
•
•
•
•
whether they had taken any SLA courses (i.e. courses on how people learn a second language);
whether they had taken any SLA research methods courses (i.e. courses on how to
conduct research);
whether they had conducted any SLA research; and
whether they had published any SLA research.
Of all respondents, the majority indicated that they had taken courses in SLA (75%) or
SLA research methods (63%). About one third (28%) indicated that they had conducted
research, but few stated that they had published research articles (4%) (Table 2). If they
had taken courses in SLA, they were asked to indicate how useful they found those
courses. A very high percentage indicated that they found both SLA and research methods
courses useful or very useful (91% and 80%, respectively) (Table 3).
If teachers reported that they had not conducted research, they were asked for the reason. Over half (55%) indicated that it was because of lack of time and about one third
(33%) indicated that it was because they were not interested. A higher percentage of ESL
teachers (50%) than EFL teachers (12%) indicated lack of interest, whereas a higher percentage of EFL teachers (17%) than ESL teachers (8%) indicated lack of ability as one of
the reasons (Table 4).
347
Nassaji
Table 3. Usefulness of SLA courses (percentages in parentheses)
Very useful
a) Courses in SLA:
EFL
32 (38)
ESL
28 (44)
Total
60 (40)
Useful
Somewhat useful
Not useful at all
Total
45 (53)
31 (48)
76 (51)
7 (8)
5 (8)
12 (8)
1 (1)
0 (0)
1 (1)
85 (100)
64 (100)
149 (100)
b) Courses in research methods:
EFL
29 (35)
43 (51)
ESL
12 (29)
17 (41)
Total
41 (33)
60 (48)
10 (12)
5 (12)
15 (12)
2 (2)
8 (19)
10 (8)
84 (100)
42 (100)
126 (100)
Table 4. Reasons for not conducting second language research (percentages in parentheses)
EFL
ESL
Total
No time
No ability
No interest
Not useful
No need
Others
Total
18 (43)
34 (65)
52 (55)
7 (17)
4 (8)
11 (12)
5 (12)
26 (50)
31 (33)
2 (5)
2 (4)
4 (4)
3 (7)
2 (4)
5 (5)
10 (24)
2 (4)
11 (12)
42
52
94
Note: Total percentages are greater than 100, due to multiple responses by the same participant.
2 Accessibility of SLA research, sources teachers
consult, the extent to which they read research articles,
and support for research at their institutions
To explore teachers’ perceptions regarding accessibility of SLA research, they were asked
about the ease with which they can access readings on SLA research, the sources they
consult, the extent to which they read research articles (and if they do not read them what
the reasons are), and whether there is any support for research in their institutions. Most
of them (82%) indicated that they are able to easily access SLA research materials (82%
EFL and 82% ESL teachers). If they indicated that they could access research easily they
were asked what sources they consult. The majority indicated that they use books (96%
EFL and 98% ESL teachers) and the internet (83% EFL and 98% ESL teachers). Only
about half (51%) indicated that they use journals. They were then asked what sources they
use specifically to get information about teaching. Their most popular responses were
talking to colleagues (64%), followed by reading books (63%), checking the internet
(58%), and attending conferences and workshops (47%). Reading journal articles was
last, indicated by only 38% of the teachers (Table 5).
As for the extent to which they read SLA research articles, only a small percentage
(13%) indicated that they read research articles often. Almost half (48%) indicated that
they rarely or never read them, and 36% indicated that they sometimes read them.
However, a higher percentage of EFL teachers than ESL teachers indicated that they read
research articles often (18% vs. 5%) (Table 6).
348
Language Teaching Research 16(3)
Table 5. Sources teachers consult to find out about SLA research (percentages in
parentheses)
Sources
EFL teachers
ESL teachers
Total
Research:
Books
Internet
Journals
Online journals
Online catalogues
Professional magazines
Databases
94
81
45
27
3
1
4
(96)
(83)
(46)
(28)
(3)
(1)
(4)
50
50
31
0
7
0
0
(98)
(98)
(61)
(0)
(14)
(0)
(0)
144
131
76
27
10
1
4
(96)
(88)
(51)
(18)
(6)
(1)
(3)
Teaching:
Talking to colleagues
Reading books
Checking the internet
Attending conferences and workshops
Reading journal articles
74
77
73
42
45
(62)
(65)
(61)
(35)
(38)
54
50
43
53
31
(66)
(61)
(52)
(65)
(38)
128
127
116
95
76
(64)
(63)
(58)
(47)
(38)
Table 6. Frequency of reading research articles (percentages in parentheses)
EFL
ESL
Total
Always
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Total
6 (5)
0 (0)
6 (3)
22 (18)
4 (5)
26 (13)
45 (38)
27 (33)
72 (36)
43 (36)
49 (60)
92 (46)
3 (3)
2 (2)
5 (2)
119 (100)
82 (100)
201 (100)
Table 7. Reasons for not reading SLA research (percentages in parentheses)
EFL
ESL
Total
No time
Difficult
No interest
No access
Not useful
Others
Total
31 (72)
43 (93)
74 (83)
16 (37)
20 (43)
36 (40)
10 (23)
15 (33)
25 (28)
12 (27)
13 (28)
25 (28)
3 (7)
3 (7)
6 (7)
6 (14)
5 (11)
11 (12)
43 (100)
46 (100)
89 (100)
Note: Total percentages are greater than 100, which is due to multiple responses.
If they indicated that they rarely or never read research articles, they were asked to
indicate their reasons. Over 80% indicated that it was because of lack of time, and a substantial proportion (40%) indicated that research articles are difficult to understand. About
one third (28%) also indicated that they are not interested in reading research articles
(Table 7). A number of teachers also highlighted these reasons in their written comments.
Samples of these comments are as follows:
Nassaji
349
It’s very difficult to find time to read articles, our plates are already full.
(EFL teacher)
Spending time on reading about research is a waste of time; I prefer to spend my time on
materials development, which I think is more beneficial. (EFL teacher)
My time is fairly limited and I don’t prioritize learning about research findings. (ESL teacher)
The main problem is how to get research results to teachers in an accessible form. Research
articles are often very difficult to read and understand. (ESL teacher)
Could it [SLA research] be less academic and easier to read, the writing style more casual?
It would be more accessible, and I’d enjoy reading it more. (ESL teacher)
Teachers were then asked whether there is any support for research in their institutions.
More than half (55%) indicated ‘no’ support (55%: 48% EFL and 66% ESL). Many also
mentioned this lack of support in their written comments. Samples of such comments are
as follows:
In my school, what they want from me is teaching not research. (EFL teacher)
In second language teaching, doing research and teaching at the same time is ideal, but it needs
resources. (EFL teacher)
The business of second language teaching (i.e. for profit language schools) does not encourage
or support furthering one’s knowledge in the field. Far too much emphasis is on the bottom
line-how to bring in students and keep them.
(ESL teacher)
Obviously research costs money, which competitive language schools cannot afford without
significant proof of some economic advantage.
(ESL teacher)
If they stated that there is some kind of support, they were asked what kind of support.
The most frequent responses were: verbal encouragement, support to attend conferences,
workshops and seminars, in-service classes, action research groups, library support, and
workshops on databases.
3 Relevance and usefulness of SLA research for classroom teaching
Teachers were then asked about their perceptions about the relevance and usefulness of
SLA research for their classroom teaching. To this end, they were asked to indicate the
extent of their agreement with a number of Likert-scale statements, including:
•• knowing about second language acquisition research improves second language
teaching practice;
•• second language acquisition research is not relevant to language teaching;
•• second language acquisition research provides teachers with practical suggestions
for improving second language instruction;
•• the knowledge I gain from teaching experience is more relevant to my teaching
than the knowledge I gain from second language acquisition research.
The majority of the teachers (79%), including both EFL and ESL teachers, agreed or
strongly agreed that knowing about SLA research improves second language teaching. On
the other hand, about two thirds (60%) disagreed with the statement that SLA research is
not relevant to language teaching. Far fewer agreed or strongly agreed that SLA research
350
Language Teaching Research 16(3)
Table 8. Relevance of SLA research to language teaching (percentages in parentheses)
Strongly
agree
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
a) Knowing about second language acquisition research improves second language teaching practice:
EFL
37 (31)
52 (44)
26 (22)
1 (1)
3 ( 3)
0 (0)
ESL
24 (30)
44 (54)
13 (16)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Total
61 (31)
96 (48)
39 (19)
1 (1)
3 (2)
0 (0)
b) Second language acquisition research is not relevant to language teaching:
EFL
0 (0)
14 (12)
23 (19)
0 (0)
ESL
0 (0)
7 (9)
35 (43)
0 (0)
Total
0 (0)
21 (11)
58 (29)
0 (0)
81 (69)
39 (48)
120 (60)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
c) Second language acquisition research provides teachers with practical suggestions for improving
second language instruction:
EFL
12 (10)
22 (19)
22 (18)
43 (36)
17 (14)
3 (3)
ESL
8 (10)
14 (17)
12 (15)
19 (23)
27 (33)
1 (1)
Total
20 (10)
36 (18)
34 (17)
62 (31)
44 (22)
4 (2)
d) The knowledge I gain from teaching experience is more relevant to my teaching than the knowledge I
gain from second language acquisition research:
EFL
23 (20)
40 (34)
33 (28)
12 (10)
8 (7)
1 (1)
ESL
10 (13)
33 (42)
25 (32)
10 (13)
1 (1)
0 (0)
Total
33 (17)
73 (37)
58 (30)
22 (11)
9 (5)
1 (1)
provides them with practical suggestions about how to teach (28%). However, more than
half (54%) agreed or strongly agreed and another 30% somewhat agreed that the knowledge they gain through experience is more relevant to their teaching than the knowledge
they gain from SLA research (Table 8).
4 Teacher–researcher relationship
The next analysis explored teachers’ views on the relationship between researchers and
teachers. To this end, they were asked to indicate their degree of agreement with the following Likert-scale statements:
••
••
••
••
••
Researchers should be university professors or academics, but not teachers.
Researchers should carry out research and teachers should teach.
Teachers and researchers should work together.
Researchers should consult teachers for advice on issues they want to research.
Teachers should consult researchers for advice on teaching and learning issues.
Table 9 presents teachers’ responses to these items. More than half (60%) disagreed or
strongly disagreed with the statement that researchers should be university professors or
academics as opposed to teachers. Similarly, most respondents (64%) disagreed or strongly
disagreed that researchers should carry out research and teachers should teach. In fact,
almost all agreed or strongly agreed that teachers and researchers should work together
351
Nassaji
Table 9. Teacher–researcher relationship (percentages in parentheses)
Strongly
agree
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
a) Researchers should be university professors or academics, but not teachers:
EFL
3 (3)
11 (9)
14 (12)
9 (8)
38 (32)
ESL
0 (0)
7 (9)
5 (6)
30 (37)
24 (30)
Total
3 (1)
18 (9)
19 (20)
39 (20)
62 (31)
43 (36)
15 (18)
58 (29)
b) Researchers should carry out research and teachers should teach:
EFL
3 (3)
10 (9)
16 (14)
13 (11)
ESL
1 (1)
2 (3)
6 (7)
21 (26)
Total
4 (2)
12 (6)
22 (11)
34 (17)
29 (25)
22 (27)
51 (26)
47 (40)
29 (36)
76 (38)
0 (0)
1 (1)
1 (.5)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
d) Researchers should consult teachers for advice on issues they want to research:
EFL
46 (39)
57 (48)
12 (10)
2 (2)
2 (8)
ESL
22 (27)
46 (57)
10 (12)
0 (0)
3 (4)
Total
68 (34)
103 (51)
22 (11)
2 (1)
5 (3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
e) Teachers should consult researchers for advice on teaching and learning issues:
EFL
24 (20)
62 (52)
26 (22)
0 (0)
6 (5)
ESL
10 (12)
49 (61)
19 (24)
0 (0)
2 (3)
Total
34 (17)
111 (56)
45 (23)
0 (0)
8 (4)
1 (1)
1 (1)
2 (1)
c) Teachers and researchers should work together:
EFL
62 (53)
49 (42)
7 (6)
ESL
32 (41)
40 (51)
6 (8)
Total
94 (48)
89 (45)
13 (7)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
(93%). A very high percentage (85%) also agreed or strongly agreed that researchers should
consult teachers for issues to research, and the majority also agreed or strongly agreed that
teachers should consult researchers for advice on teaching and learning issues (73%). From
these responses, it would appear that teachers believed in close collaboration between
researchers and teachers. A number of teachers also stressed the importance of such collaborations in their written comments. An ESL teacher commented:
I think researchers and teachers should have more interaction. Genuine two-way dialogue
should be mutually advantageous.
However, they also stated that such collaborative opportunities rarely exist in their schools.
Another ESL teacher wrote:
The biggest problems in staying up to date with research are money. Our private school gives
only small allowances for visiting speakers or researchers for our pro-D-days. Very rarely we
get a visitor from the university come and to talk about the latest research.
As noted earlier, about one third of the teachers hold graduate qualifications; they
presumably encountered SLA research at some point first hand during their postgraduate
studies. Therefore, some further analysis were conducted regarding the views of this
352
Language Teaching Research 16(3)
subgroup on their views about the contribution of SLA research to their teaching as well
as their opinion about teacher–researcher relationship. The analyses were conducted to
see if those who had gradate qualifications held different views in the above areas than
those who did not have graduate degrees. These analyses did not reveal substantial differences between the two groups regarding their views about the contribution of SLA
research to language teaching. For example, while both groups of teachers generally
agreed that knowing about SLA research improves L2 teaching (about 78%), less than 20%
of both groups believed that research provides teachers with practical ideas about teaching.
However, the analysis indicated some differences between the views of these two groups
of teachers regarding the relationship between researchers and teachers. For example,
while only 23% of those who did not hold graduate degrees strongly disagreed that
researchers should be university teachers but not teachers, more that half of the graduate
degree holders (54%) strongly believed that teachers and researchers should work together
with none of them believing in the separation of the role of teachers and researchers. This
suggests that those teachers who had undertaken graduate studies had a more favorable
view of the relationship between teachers and researchers.
5 Expectations of SLA research
Another question in this research was teachers’ expectation of SLA research. As noted
before, in order to improve the relationship between SLA research and language pedagogy,
it is important to know what teachers expect to gain from SLA research and what topics
they consider important to be investigated. Therefore, this issue was also explored in the
research. The question was explored through an open-ended question, which was ‘What
would you expect or would like to learn from second language acquisition research.’ The
open-ended question allowed respondents to describe in their own words what they felt
was important. Teachers were also asked to provide any further comments they had about
the role of SLA research in their teaching.
Of all teachers, 163 responded to the question (99 EFL and 64 ESL teachers). Their
written responses provided qualitative data that were analysed using a method of thematic
analysis (Creswell, 2007). Using an inductive approach, first the participants’ responses
were read and general themes were identified. These initial themes were then reviewed
and refined by clustering related themes that referred to similar concepts. After finishing
the categorization, a colleague examined the entire database to see whether the derived
themes represented accurately the participants’ opinions. This second coder agreed with
the researcher in 98.7% cases.
Altogether, the responses clustered around 12 major topics, each representing an area
that teachers expected SLA research to focus on. Not surprisingly, the majority of the
teachers’ indicated that SLA research should focus on identifying effective instructional
strategies. This issue was explicitly indicated by about two thirds of teachers (62%).
Teachers then identified a number of specific areas that they believed SLA research has
to examine. In order of frequency, these areas are as follows:
•• how to keep students motivated and interested in learning a second language;
•• how to teach grammar and vocabulary effectively;
•• how to work with diverse learners from different ability groups and cultures;
353
Nassaji
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
how to provide effective feedback on student performance;
what aids and hinders L2 learning;
how to perform communicative and task-based/group work activities effectively;
research about student needs and preferences;
the effects of first language (L1) on L2 learning;
classroom management;
how to retain language rules and words;
research about language learning styles and strategies (see Table 10).
As can be seen, teachers’ responses concern a wide range of issues, most of which seem
to be already the focus of much SLA research. However, the fact that teachers mention
these topics highlights their importance and suggests that they have to be the focus of continued research. Of course, these responses may also suggest that many teachers may not
be well aware of many of such studies currently conducted in SLA. Part of the reason for
this, as many teachers in this study indicated, could be that much of the research reports
currently available in the SLA literature may be too difficult for them to read and understand. Thus, teachers may not be able to benefit from such research. Of course important
reviews and summaries of such research also exist. However, it is also possible that many
teachers are not aware of such summaries or if they are, they may find the recommendations difficult to apply in their classroom contexts. Useful summaries need to be not only
written in a language that is comprehensible to teachers but the suggestions made should
also be practical and useable, so that teachers can be able to apply them and test their relevance in their own context. To this end, they should make sense to teachers and also be in
line with their prior knowledge and experience.
Another interesting finding in teacher’s responses, however, was the noticeable differences that were observed between ESL and EFL teachers in terms of their expectations. For example, while research on motivation or the role of L1 interference was
Table 10. Teachers’ expectations of SLA research (percentages)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Effective instructional strategies
How to keep students motivated and interested
How to teach grammar and vocabulary effectively
How to teaching different learners, ability groups, and mixed
classes
How to provide effective feedback
What aids and hinders L2 learning
How to perform communicative and task-based/group work
activities effectively
Student needs and preferences
The effects of L1 on L2 learning
Classroom management
How to retain language rules and words
Language learning styles and strategies
EFL
ESL
Total
67
21
17
8
53
12
12
20
62
18
15
13
14
15
5
9
6
12
12
12
9
13
8
5
1
4
1.5
3
8
14
3
Note: The percentages do not add up to a 100 due to multiple responses by the same participant.
8.5
6
6
6
4
354
Language Teaching Research 16(3)
mentioned more frequently by EFL teachers, research on effectiveness of communicative language teaching or how to deal with classes with diverse students in terms of culture and proficiency levels was mentioned more frequently by ESL teachers. For example,
the EFL teachers’ concern with motivation could have resulted from learners’ lower level
of motivation or immediate need to use the target language outside the classroom in EFL
contexts as compared to ESL contexts. The ESL teachers’ concern with how to work with
diversity in students could be motivated by the fact that they often work with such
populations. Samples of EFL and ESL teachers’ comments showing such differences are
as follows:
I would like to see more research on how to deal with relationships and motivation, how to
make lessons enjoyable and interesting. (EFL teacher)
I would expect certain problems to be addressed and solutions offered. Yet, there are all varieties
of learners. [I’d like to see] more about adult students in mixed classes: so much is geared
toward young learners in ‘Canadian’ classes. (ESL teacher)
I’d like to see research on communicative learning. We need ‘hard data’ to prove to our students
that communicative learning is possible and is effective. How does, if at all, group work
increase their learning? Why is it ineffective to make discrete point teaching the primary
approach? (ESL teacher)
Doing research on effective classroom techniques. I want to be able to help my students to learn
English efficiently. (EFL teacher)
I want to know how to deal with a classroom full of students with divergent expectations,
differing levels, and waning interest, all in an organization that has an economic bottom line.
(ESL teacher)
The above findings may suggest that the relevance of SLA research to teaching pedagogy
can be context dependent. That is, SLA findings that are relevant to an ESL context may
not be necessarily relevant to the same degree to an EFL context. If so, SLA research
should consider issues of interest and concern to different instructional contexts. For the
same reason, when interpreting the implications of SLA research findings for classroom
pedagogy, such contextual differences should also be considered.
V
Discussion
The results of this study revealed that the majority of teachers who participated in this
study (both ESL and EFL) were familiar with SLA research through taking SLA related
courses. But few had conducted or published such research. Most teachers believed that
knowing about SLA improves L2 teaching although few believed that research provides
teachers with practical suggestions about teaching. However, very few indicated that they
had themselves conducted research. Most believed that the knowledge they gain from
teaching experience is more relevant to their teaching than the knowledge they gain from
research. Only about half of teachers indicated that they consult research articles as a
source of information, and a very small percentage indicated that they read research articles often. About half indicated that they never or rarely read such articles. One of the
most common reasons given for not reading research or conducting research was a lack of
time.
Nassaji
355
The finding about shortage of time is not surprising and reaffirms the concerns that
have been expressed in the field of teacher education in general (e.g. Cambone, 1995;
Collinson & Cook, 2001; Fullan & Steigelbauer, 1991; Hargreaves, 1990), and in the
field of SLA in particular (Crookes, 1997). Of course, when teachers say that they do not
read SLA research articles, it does not necessarily indicate that their teaching is not influenced by SLA research, as teachers may use other sources for teaching ideas, such as
textbooks, conferences, or workshops, all of which may have been influenced by SLA
research. However, if teachers feel that they cannot afford the necessary time to consult
research, they do not benefit directly from research findings even though they may consider it useful for teaching. Thus, to improve the situation, language teaching institutions
should consider ways in which teachers can be provided with the necessary time and
resources to consult professional and research literature to improve their teaching.
In addition to shortage of time, teachers identified the difficulty of research articles as
another main reason for not reading them. Several SLA scholars have discussed the difficulty of research articles as a problem in the relationship between SLA research and
teaching (Brown, 1991; Crookes, 1997; Ellis, 1997a). Ellis (1997b), for example, stated
that researchers ‘spend an increasing amount of time talking to each other in a language
only they understand’ (p. viii). The findings of this study testify to these concerns and
suggest that the problem in communication between teachers and researchers is real and
hence needs attention. In recent years, many efforts have been made by many SLA
researchers to make research more accessible to teachers by, for example, carrying out
research that has closer connection with pedagogy or evaluating and presenting pedagogical implications of their research for teachers. However, much of the practical
impact of research is lost if the language used in research articles does not make access
easy to practitioners and teachers.
There are a number of suggestions about how to address this communication problem.
One suggestion is using a simpler language for reporting research results. Crookes
(1997), for example, proposed that researchers should use a more informal format of
reporting data. He also proposed conducting studies that follow a qualitative design
rather than a quantitative design. Because qualitative research takes a holistic view and
is interpretive, he argued, its report uses narratives that are easier for teachers to understand. Another suggestion is increasing the literacy skills of teachers. Gass (1995), for
example, proposed incorporating SLA research-based courses in teacher education programs so that teachers could become familiar with research formats, the language, and
the discourse used by researchers to report research results. Hedgcock (2002) proposed
facilitating teachers’ access to the shared knowledge of the discipline through increasing
their ability to read texts with awareness and critical reflection. Brown (1991) suggested
increasing teachers’ knowledge of statistics. He argued that many studies on language
learning and teaching use statistics; therefore, in order to understand these studies, teachers need to have some knowledge of statistics.
The above suggestions can be beneficial in helping teachers to become familiarized
with the kind of language and technical knowledge used in SLA research. However, they
alone may not be able to bridge the perceived gap between SLA research and L2 pedagogy. For example, while L2 teacher education programs may offer courses that train
teachers to understand academic discourse, it is not clear to what extent training teachers
356
Language Teaching Research 16(3)
in the researchers’ discourse can improve the situation as teachers may not use the same
technical knowledge that researchers use when they assess the relevance of information
in academic journals. In fact, Bartels (2003) found that teachers employed different strategies and sources of knowledge than researches when they both read the same research
articles and were asked to evaluate information in the articles. Bartels (2003) concluded
that the discourse worlds of teachers and researchers are different and, thus, attempts in
teaching teachers rule of researchers’ discourse may not be very helpful. In fact, Bartels
argued that such attempts may run the danger of ‘colonizing’ them with academic conventions (Bartels, 2003, p. 750). This happens when the practices valued by one group is
imposed on another. Such impositions may not work because the colonized members of
a group ‘never really experience the power of transforming their own practices’ (Gee,
2004, p. 30). Thus, they may never really change their action. This suggests that if the
aim is for teachers to transform their practices, it should be ensured that the discourse in
which they are trained is compatible with their own practices and values.
The idea of familiarizing teachers with researchers’ discourse can be problematic in a
different way as well. It is based on the assumption that that the researcher is the
producer of knowledge and that the teacher is simply a consumer, This assumption is problematic because it represents a top-down model of teacher education in which teachers
are seen only as recipients of information. This is not a correct way of viewing teachers
because teaching is a profession with its own knowledge base and teachers have their
own professional expertise (Freeman, 1998). Therefore, we need to consider ways in
which teachers are viewed not simply as readers of research findings but as active contributors, question generators, and initiators of insights.
In what follows, other options will be examined that can be used to promote the
relationship between SLA research and teaching. These suggestions will also be discussed in light of the findings of the present study, where possible. These options can
promote the relationship between research and practice by engaging teachers in the
process of research.
One proposal, which has also been strongly advocated in the literature as a way of
improving the relationship between SLA and language teaching is the idea of teacher–
researcher collaboration. Teacher–researcher collaboration refers to research activities
undertaken jointly by the teacher and the researcher (Lightbown, 2000). Because they
provide teachers and researchers with opportunities to explore issues of mutual concern,
such collaborations have been increasingly recognized as a useful tool to improve the
relationship between research and pedagogy (e.g. Crookes, 1997; Ellis, 1997b;
Lightbown, 2000; Pica, 2005). These opportunities can be promoted in different ways,
for example, through teachers and researchers entering into active dialogue with each
other about the issue of their mutual interest, through establishing professionally motivated communication networks (Crookes, 1998), through undertaking and publishing
research projects collaboratively inside the classroom, and through researchers presenting their works at teachers’ conferences and vice versa (Lightbown, 2000). In all these
cases, the relationship between research and pedagogy can increase because they engage
teachers more actively in the process of research. Because of this, the research will be
more likely to be used by teachers in their teaching.
Nassaji
357
Of course, not all researchers agree that the suggestion of teacher–researcher collaboration is a good idea. Stewart (2006, p. 421), for example, argued that the notion of collaboration is problematic as it suggests ‘a division of roles between one collaborator who
does teaching and another who knows about and does research.’ This, he argued, can
create an asymmetry of power and status between teachers and researchers, and hence
can have ‘damaging effects’ on the field of TESOL.
While Stewart’s point may warrant discussion, in this study, teachers were overwhelmingly in favor of the idea of teacher–researcher collaboration. Almost all teachers,
including both EFL and ESL teachers, agreed or strongly agreed that researchers and
teachers should work together and also a number of the teachers commented on the desirability of teacher–researcher collaboration in their written responses. Of course, some
teachers lamented the rarity of such opportunities in their schools. Thus, it is suggested
that teacher training programs or language schools should attempt to provide the necessary environments in which such collaborations can take place.
Another way to get teachers engaged in the process of research is by doing teacher
research or action research. As noted earlier, action research is a kind of research to
improve practice. This kind of research has been widely advocated in the field of teacher
education as a way of promoting reflective teaching and professional development.
Teacher research can be seen as a kind of action research, which is conducted by teachers. Freeman (1998, p. 2) argued that teacher research is essential because it brings
together what he calls the ‘two often contradictory damnations of teachers’ work’, that is,
the teaching and the wondering.
However, although action research (and by the same token teacher research) should
be supported as a way of getting teachers involved in pedagogical inquiries, this kind of
research has sometimes been criticized for lacking rigor as an informal undertaking that
is not methodologically robust and as research whose results cannot be generalized.
However, we should note that the purpose of such research is often local and is not to
find generalizable findings, as in much academic research. Therefore, the robustness of
the research should not be measured against the criteria generally used for more academic enquiry. Furthermore, action research is a kind of systematic inquiry that involves
many of the procedures used in other types of research including identification of the
problem, collecting, analysing, and interpreting data (Ary et al., 2010). Of course, in
addition to action research to address local teacher-perceived problems, teachers can also
conduct research to examine more academically oriented SLA issues. For example, they
can carry out research not only to test the relevance of pedagogical proposals suggested
by SLA in their own classrooms (Ellis, 2001) but also to test hypothesis about the role of
form-focused instruction and thus contributing to theories of instructed SLA.
In this study, teachers were divided in their opinions about whether a teacher should
be a researcher. This division might be partly due to differences in the kind of conceptualization of research that teachers may have. Borg (2009), for example, found that many
teachers in his study often associated research with an activity that requires large groups
of subjects, involves statistics, is objective, and leads to written publications. Research
of this nature may not be something of interest to teachers and hence they may refrain
from doing it. However, as Borg noted, there are different ways of doing research and
hence it would be beneficial to inform teachers of the diversity of research approaches
and particularly of those that are more practically oriented. However, teachers may still
358
Language Teaching Research 16(3)
not see themselves as researchers if they feel that their job is simply to teach the required
curriculum and if they do not have the necessary time and resources to do research.
The relationship between SLA research and language pedagogy can also be enhanced
by careful assessment of the implications of SLA findings in order to determine their
applicability to classroom teaching (Ellis, 1997a). Such assessments can be conducted by
researchers through examining research findings and making decisions about what is
relevant to teaching or by teachers through testing the applicability of research ideas in
their classrooms. Thus, the relevance can be judged through appraisal or application
(Widdowson, 1990), with appraisal involving critical interpretation and evaluation of the
pedagogical relevance of SLA research by an applied linguist or SLA researcher and
application involving teachers’ use of research ideas in the classroom in order to assess
their relevance in context. In this study, teachers seemed to support both methods. An
EFL teacher, for example, observed:
It is necessary for teachers to apply it in the classroom and work out approaches and methods
which are generally effective and useful.
Another ESL teacher, however, commented:
I don’t have the time or energy to pour over the theory and extrapolate super-lessons from it …
I want to read the book by someone who did that for me!
Such observations highlight the value of publications that attempt to review, evaluate, and
make accessible to teachers the pedagogical insights of SLA research, and thus, appear to
support the observation that teachers need assistance in converting knowledge from
research results into practice (Ellis, 1997a).
VI
Conclusions and limitations
In the above section, I discussed the findings of the present study along with a number of
suggestions about how to enhance the relationship between SLA research and language
pedagogy. However, it is simplistic to think that a connection between research and pedagogy can be established easily. One line of research that is highly needed here is studies
of teachers’ knowledge and looking into what this knowledge consists of and how this
can be affected. This is important because if the nature of the knowledge produced by
research and the knowledge needed by teachers are found to be different, this would have
important implications for how one should affect the other. The findings of the present
study provided important insight into the relationship of SLA research and language
teaching as perceived by English language teachers. However, the research was a survey
study, using a questionnaire to collect data. Thus, it has the limitations of questionnaire
studies. Unfortunately, questionnaire studies do not clearly illustrate why respondents
respond in a particular manner, nor is it clear whether all respondents have the same
interpretations of questions and whether they interpret questions as intended by the
researcher. Furthermore, while the questionnaire in this study explored the extent to
which teachers considered SLA research useful for classroom teaching, it did not explore
Nassaji
359
what aspects of SLA research were useful and why. In such cases, the questionnaire data
can be significantly strengthened if they are combined with in-depth interview data. In
the present study, the questionnaire included a number of open-ended questions, which
provided teachers with the opportunity to share opinions that were not elicited by specific questions. However, due to anonymity and interest in collecting data from as many
teachers as possible, face-to-face interviews were not feasible. Of course, participants’
anonymity adds strength to the study by freeing teachers from the obligation to say what
they think they ‘should’ say.
This study was conducted with two groups of teachers: ESL and EFL teachers. Much
more research of this kind is needed and also with larger groups of teachers teaching in
different contexts. Research with different groups of teachers in different contexts is useful because it can help discover their various research needs and concerns and also the
problems that they consider important for investigation. In this research, ESL and EFL
teachers’ expectations of SLA research were probed. However, it would be useful to
conduct more research of this kind. It would be worthwhile to conduct such research not
only with teachers but also with researchers interested in pedagogical issues. Duff and
Bailey (2001) stressed the importance of identifying research topics for a given filed.
Conducting research with both teachers and researches can help discover topics of
mutual interest and can consequently foster opportunities for collaboration between
teachers and researchers.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the ESL and EFL teachers who participated in this study.
References
Allwright, D. (2005). From teaching points to learning opportunities and beyond. TESOL
Quarterly, 39, 9–31.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education.
8th edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bartels, N. (2003). How teachers and researchers read academic articles. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 19, 737–53.
Block, D. (2000). Revisiting the gap between SLA researchers and language teachers. Links &
Letters, 7, 129–43.
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London:
Continuum.
Borg, S. (2009). English language teachers’ conceptions of research. Applied Linguistics, 30,
355–88.
Brown, J.D. (1991). Statistics as a foreign language; Part 1: What to look for in reading statistical
language studies. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 569–86.
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cambone, J. (1995). Time for teachers in school restructuring. Teachers College Record, 96,
512–43.
Collinson, V. & Cook, T.F. (2001). ‘I don’t have enough time’: Teachers’ interpretations of time
as a key to learning and school change. Journal of Educational Administration, 39, 266–81.
Creswell, J.W. (2007) Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
360
Language Teaching Research 16(3)
Crookes, G. (1993). Action research for second language teachers: Going beyond teacher research.
Applied Linguistics, 14, 130–44.
Crookes, G. (1997). SLA and language pedagogy: A socioeducational perspective. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 19, 93–116.
Crookes, G. (1998). On the relationship between second and foreign language teachers and
research. TESOL Journal, 7, 6–11.
Crookes, G. & Arakaki, L. (1999). Teaching idea sources and work conditions in an ESL program.
TESOL Journal, 8, 15–19.
Crookes, G. & Chandler, P.M. (2001). Introducing action research into the education of postsecondary foreign language teachers. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 131–40.
Duff, P. & Bailey, K. (Eds.). (2001). Identifying research priorities: Themes and directions for the
TESOL International Research Foundation. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 595–616.
Ellis, R. (1997a). SLA and language pedagogy: An educational perspective. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 19, 69–92.
Ellis, R. (1997b). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2001). Second language acquisition: Research and language pedagogy. In C. Candlin
& N. Mercer (Eds.), English language teaching in its social context (pp. 44–74). London:
Routledge.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly,
40, 83–107.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 3–18.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Erlam, R., Philp, J., Elder, C., & Reinders, H. (Eds.). (2009). Implicit and
explicit knowledge in second language learning and teaching. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Fotos, S. & Nassaji, H. (Eds.). (2007). Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in
honour of Rod Ellis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacher research: From inquiry to understanding. Pacific Grove, CA:
Heinle & Heinle.
Fullan, M. & Steigelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York:
Teachers College.
Gee, J. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Philadelphia: Falmer.
Gee, J. (2004). Learning language as a matter of learning social languages within discourses. In
M.R. Hawkins (Ed.), Language learning and teacher education: A sociocultural approach
(pp. 11–31). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Gass, S. (1995). Learning and teaching: The necessary intersection. In F. Eckman, D. Highland,
P. Lee, J. Mileham, & W.R. (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy
(pp. 3–20). Hove: Erlbaum.
Hargreaves, A. (1990). Teachers’ work and the politics of time and space. Qualitative Studies in
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 3, 303–20.
Hatch, E. (1978). Apply with caution. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2, 123–43.
Hedgcock, J. (2002). Toward a socioliterate approach to second language teacher education.
Modern Language Journal, 86, 299–317.
Heilbronn, R. (2001). The national teacher research panel: Teaching as evidence based practice.
Prospero, 6, 70–77.
Heilbronn, R. (2008). Teacher education and the development of practical judgement. New York:
Continuum.
Klein, W. (1998). The contribution of second language acquisition research. Language Learning,
48, 527–49.
361
Nassaji
Kramsch, C. (1995). The applied linguist and the foreign language teacher: Can they talk to each
other? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 1–16.
Labaree, D.F. (2003). The peculiar problems of preparing educational researchers. Educational
Researcher, 32, 13–22.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1998). On the scope of second language acquisition research: ‘the learner
variety’ perspective and beyond-a response to Klein. Language Learning, 48, 551–56.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M.H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition
research. New York: Longman.
Lightbown, P. (1985). Great expectations: Second language acquisition research and classroom
teaching. Applied Linguistics, 6, 173–89.
Lightbown, P. (2000). Anniversary article: Classroom SLA research and second language teaching.
Applied Linguistics, 21, 431–62.
McDonough, J. & McDonough, S. (1990). What’s the use of research. ELT Journal, 42, 102–09.
Mitchell, R. (2000). Anniversary article: Applied linguistics and evidence-based classroom practice:
The case of foreign language grammar pedagogy. Applied Linguistics, 21, 281–303.
Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2010). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating
form-focused instruction in communicative context. London: Routledge.
Norris, J.M. & Ortega, L. (Eds.). (2006). Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nunan, D. (1997). Developing standards for teacher–research in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31,
365–67.
Pica, T. (1994). Questions from the language classroom: Research perspectives. TESOL Quarterly,
28, 49–79.
Pica, T. (2005). Second language acquisition research and applied linguistics. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),
Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 263–80). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Richards, J.C. & Farrell, T. (2005). Professional development for language teachers: Strategies
for teacher learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Stewart, T. (2006). Teacher–researcher collaboration or teachers’ research? TESOL Quarterly, 40,
421–30.
Tarone, E., Swain, M., & Fathman, A. (1976). Some limitations to the classroom applications of
current second language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 19–32.
Tsui, A.B. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of ESL teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wallace, M.J. (1998). Action research for language teachers. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Widdowson, H.G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Appendix 1 Teachers’ questionnaire
A.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Background Information
Gender:
Male
Female
Age: _______
Years of teaching experience: _______
Age group you are teaching: Adult
Children
Level(s) you are teaching: Beginner Low intermediate
High intermediate
Advanced Other
362
Language Teaching Research 16(3)
6. Highest degree completed: BA in … MA in … PhD in ……
7. Do you hold an additional teaching certificate?
Yes
No
Other
If yes, please specify the kind of certificate.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
_________________________________
B.
Please answer the following questions by checking the options provided.
1.
Have you ever taken any course(s) in second language research methods (i.e.
courses that teach you how to conduct research)?
Yes
No
If yes, how useful have you found the course(s)?
Very useful
Useful
Somewhat useful
Not useful at all
2.
Have you ever taken any course(s) in second language acquisition (i.e. courses on
how people learn a second language)?
Yes
No
If yes, how useful have you found the course(s)
Very useful
Useful
Somewhat useful
Not useful at all
3. Have you ever conducted any second language acquisition research?
Yes
No
If no, could you please indicate why? Check all the options that apply.
Because:
I don’t have time to do research.
I don’t have the ability to do research.
I am not interested in doing research.
I think research is not needed.

Second language acquisition research is not very useful for language teaching
purposes.
Others _________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
4. Can you easily access readings on second language acquisition research?
Yes
No
If yes, please indicate how (e.g. through books, journals, the internet, etc.).
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
_____________________________
5. Have you ever published any research on second language acquisition?
Yes
No
If yes, please mention where (i.e. the name of the journal(s))
________________________________________________________________
Nassaji
363
________________________________________________________________
_____________________________
6. At the institution where you teach, is there any support for teachers to do research
on second language acquisition?
Yes
No
If yes, please indicate what kind of support.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
_____________________________
7. Do you make any use of second language acquisition research findings in developing ideas for teaching?
Yes
No
If no, could you please mention why?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
_____________________________
C. Please kindly check your position regarding the following statements using the scale
provided. Please indicate what you believe rather than what you should believe.
1. Researchers should be university professors or academics, but not teachers.
Strongly agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
2. A teacher should also be a researcher.
Strongly agree
Agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly disagree
3. In order to be a good teacher, you should also be a good researcher.
Strongly agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
4. Researchers should carry out research and teachers should teach.
Strongly agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
5. Teachers and researchers should work together.
Strongly agree
Agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly disagree
6. Teachers should consult researchers for advice on teaching and learning issues.
Strongly agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
7. Researchers should consult teachers for advice on issues they want to research.
Strongly agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
8. Knowing about second language acquisition research improves second language
teaching practice.
Strongly agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
364
Somewhat disagree
Language Teaching Research 16(3)
Disagree
Strongly disagree
9. Second language acquisition research provides teachers with practical suggestions for improving second language instruction.
Strongly agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
10. Second language acquisition research contributes to second language pedagogy.
Strongly agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
11. Second language acquisition research is not relevant to language teaching.
Strongly agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
12. The knowledge I gain from teaching experience is more relevant to my teaching
than the knowledge I gain from second language acquisition research.
Strongly agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
D. Answer the following questions by checking the options provided.
1. How interested are you in doing second language acquisition research?
Very interested
Interested Somewhat interested
Somewhat uninterested Uninterested Not interested at all
2.How useful do you think second language acquisition research is for second language teaching?
Very useful
Useful
Somewhat useful Not useful at all
3. How often do you read second language acquisition research articles?
Always
Often
Sometimes
RarelyNever
a.If your answer to question 3 is positive (i.e. if you have chosen ‘Always,’
‘Often,’ or ‘Sometimes’), have you found the information useful for your own
language teaching purposes?
Yes No
b.If your answer to question 3 is negative (i.e. if you have chosen ‘Rarely’ or
‘Never’), could you please indicate why? Please check all the options that
apply.
Because:
I don’t have time.
Research articles are very difficult to read and understand.
I cannot easily access them.
I am not interested in reading them.
I do not find them very useful to read.
Others ________________________________________________________
Nassaji
365
4.If you want to find information about issues related to language teaching, you
usually (You can check more than one option):
Talk to your colleagues Read books
Read journal articles
Attend conferences or workshops
Do empirical research Please specify if others ___________________
5.Which of the following research journals do you usually read or consult for information on second language acquisition issues?
Language Teaching Research
The Modern Language Journal
TESOL Quarterly
The English Teaching Forum
Foreign Language Annals
ELT Journal
Language Learning Journa
Language Learning
Studies in Second Language Acquisition Applied Language Learning
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics Applied Linguistics
Applied Psycholinguistics
Language Testing
None of them
Please mention any other journals that you usually consult but not listed above.
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
E.
Please kindly write your answers to the following two questions
1.
What would you expect or would like to learn from second language acquisition
research?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
2.
Please add any other comments you have about the role of second language
acquisition research in second language teaching.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your cooperation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.