Literature Review for Praxis Instructional Model

7/28/2019 Literature Review for Praxis Instructional Model

1/13

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

RThis chapter examines literature related to classroom research & Praxis Inquiry,Language Pedagogy, Language and its different conceptualizations, Learner Agency and Teacher

Agency.

Praxis Inquiry

To amend the mismatch between theory and practice, SLA researchers are encouraging

teachers to become actively involved in researching their own classrooms using Action Research

or other models of teacher practitioner research, also known as Design-Based Research

(Allwright & Hanks, 2009; Johnson, 2004; Brown, 1992). While Action Research (AR) is

designed for reflection and collaboration among colleagues, the focus of exploratory inquiry is

designed for the individual teacher practitioner on improving their own instructional activities,

without interfering with class time. The concept of Dialogical inquiry is an exciting new path in

teacher inquiry research which is believed to help teachers with some of the problems associated

with learning in a language classroom (Wells, 1999). Another form of teacher research referred

to asExploratory Practice, orFreierian Empoweringresearch denote other forms of

participatory action research that emphasize the participants active and reflective role in the data

collection process (Allwright & Hanks, 2009).

Problems in the classroom are universal, and it is up to teachers along with students to

search for remedies. A starting point is to find mutuality, intersubjectivity, a point in which

teachers and students recognize the others agency. As mention, some scholars suggest using

dialogical inquiry, a time consuming process in which teachers must embrace (Schleppegrell,

1997; Wells, 1999). Design-based Research such as Allwrights version of teacher research, EP

addresses complex classroom problems in real, authentic contexts in collaboration withpractitioners (Allwright & Hanks, 2009). Allwright suggests teachers start by trying to better

understand their classrooms, and considering students as potential researchers. He also suggests

that there be a shift from prescribing what should happen in the language classroom to simply

describing and understanding what is happening, a shift from quantitative to qualitative research.

To do this the researcher cannot ignore the social aspects of the classroom in hopes of controlling


2/13

variables, when human behavior cannot be controlled. What Allwright sees are teachers trying

out their own methodological ideas and reporting descriptively on their experiences (Allwright

& Hanks, 2009, p. 114). Allwright encourages teachers to consider contributing descriptive and

qualitative classroom to better understand classroom language learning by establishing

essentially social nature of classroom language learning.

EP encourages the novice practitioner to consider seven principles (see

Table 2).

Table 2 Exploratory Practice Principles

No Exploratory Practice

1 Quality of Life

2 Understanding the context

3 Everybody needs to be involved the work for understanding.

4 The work needs to serve to bring people together.

5 The work needs to be conducted in a spirit of mutual development.

6 Working for understanding is a continuous enterprise.

7 Integrating research into existing curriculum practices.

Source: Adapted from Allwright and Hanks (2009)

Few researchers in SLA stress the importance of Allwrights first principle, Quality of

Life. In pursuit of improving the classroom, teachers are essentially trying to improve the quality

of students lives, as well as their own. Teachers are stirred to make improvements because they

witness the issues associated with learning a language in a classroom, therefore,

seeking to improve the quality of life in a classroom is the first principle. The

second principle encourages to instructor to seek Understanding, and is a reminder that research

cannot impinge on the first principle. If it does, then the research needs to be changed,

demonstrating the importance of allowing the research to be flexible and fluid. Principles three,

four and five suggests that everyone get involved in the process of understanding, and if so it will

bring people together and mutual development will take place. Principle six reminds us that the


3/13

process never stops, and principal seven suggests that the research not interfere with the content

delivery but merge with the instructional activities.

Language Pedagogy

For language teachers wanting to improve their classroom practice Kumaravadevelu,

suggests pedagogy that focuses onLanguage,Learning, and Teaching(Kumaravadevelu, 2009).

Traditional language pedagogy has had a distinct positivistic and rationalistic influence from

earlier views which considered language to be a closed-system. This view of language rendered

classroom activities focused on the learner who could practice grammar or practice speaking.

Language pedagogy has continued to evolve from Behaviorist perspectives through various

Cognitive approaches including Chomskys, Hallidays, Hymes and Longs influence

(Kumaravdevelu, 2009). The following review briefly discusses the pedagogical changes and the

significant influence of Vygotsky and Bakhtin towards a contextual view of language and

learning, and the importance of classroom intersubjectivity, the first step in improving

classroom practice.

Language pedagogy relies on the ideas, theories, and research from the field of second

language acquisition (SLA), a multidimensional and interdisciplinary field with numerous

approaches from the areas of applied linguistics, psychology, cognition and education. Due to

SLAs broad scope, there is limited agreement among researchers concerning objectives,methods design and data collection, even within similar disciplines, generating a dilemma for

language instructors and those involved in English Language Teaching (ELT). Current literature

suggests that there is a schism within the field of SLA based on worldviews, the

rupture due to ontological differences between positivist, rationalist and relativist approaches to

research which will be discussed in this review. SLA researchers such as Johnson, Marchenkova,

Zuengler & Miller, believe the divide can be healed through Vygotskys social activity theory,

and Bakhtins views on dialogue (Johnson, 2004; Marchenkova, 2005; Zuengler, Madison, &

Miller, 2006).

While there has never been a unified approach to SLA research, it wasnt until the

appearance of contextual perspectives in SLA research that many believed it was time for a

paradigm shift (Zuengler et al., 2006). Referring to Thomas Kuhns suggestion that science has a

tendency to enter periods where changes in perspectives create doubt, scientists must transform


4/13

their ideas to accommodate this change and many researchers believe it is time for a paradigm

shift in SLA research (Walliman, 2001). Many of these individuals have personally shifted their

views to a contextual perspective and believe a paradigm shift is necessary if SLA research is

develop beyond its stagnant situation (Zuengler et al., 2006). Ontological debates between

positivists and relativist on how to construct SLA theory have fueled divisions in the field, but

this is no different than when interpretivism was first introduced to the social sciences

(Walliman, 2001).

The positivist-rationalist world views have dominated second language research, but

relativism has become an alternative paradigm. Some in the field of second language research

regard relativism or interpretivism as unscientific, lacking rigor and validity, and would prefer

research studies which include data that is quantifiable with inferential statistics, and controlled

variables. But others believe what is missing are the authentic voices of the participants who

have been marginalized and ignored by traditional approaches, and support a paradigm shift

away from the traditional positivist-rationalist design (Sammel, 2003). They also point out that

such research has resulted in teaching methods that are outdated, and lend to false expectations,

which has setback the field of English Language Teaching (ELT). Such debates are due in part to

researchers recent use of Vygotskys sociocultural theory, and Bakhtins views on dialogue

(Johnson, 2004).

Since the 1993 publication in Applied Linguistics, entitled Theory Construction in

SLA, from the 1991 Conference Theory construction and Methodology in Second Language

Research, the divisions between SLA theorists have become well known, and while those

involved debate and divide, teachers remain committed to designing classroom activities that are

not just suitable for language learners, but are constructed on established theory (Zuengler et al.,

2006). Yet, most of the research available to teachers is based on scientific studies that have little

to do with the classroom setting, especially in an EFL setting as most research is conducted in an

ESL setting.

As is the case of SLA, different worldviews or perspectives seek to find meanings

based on their own particular view of the world, with no agreed upon model (Johnson, 2004;

Wells, 1999). Allwright suggests, and to some extent Kumaravadivelu, that this has caused

ELTs inability to establish a reliable method, leading to the Post-method era (Allwright &

Hanks, 2009; Kumaravadivelu, 2003). Others suggest SLA research based on positivist and


5/13

rationalist views of the world, which dont directly apply to the classroom setting, are ambiguous

and misrepresentative (Johnson, 2004). Some researchers suggest that teachers perspectives, as

well as students voices are missing from the research. In their book, all you need to know about

Action Research, the authors write:

A shift took place in some quarters, away from a positivist view towards an

interpretive view. Positivism held that the world was a thing, separate from an

observer. It was a possible to observe and comment on the world in an objective,

value-free way. In the same way, knowledge was a thing, separate from a knower, so

it was possible also to comment on knowledge in an objective, value-free way (McNiff

& Whitehead, 2006, p. 10).

The emerging relativistic perspective sees situated reality as created by the participants,

establishing a shift from viewing not only the participants but their relationship to their

environment; the two being indistinguishable. Such shifts in beliefs and perspectives influence

how research is conducted and applied, suggesting that new approaches or inquiries into the

language classroom will dramatically improve the situation (Wells, 1999). Teachers then, are in

need of research that can be applied directly to their classrooms, such research has to consider

the nature of Language, Learning and Teaching as it pertains to the classroom, and all aspects of

the classroom. A positivistic approach looks at behavior and how students respond to the teacher

in limited situations (Cobb, 1996). A rationalistic approach tries to discover the underlying truth,

the reality of learning with a disregard of feelings and opinions, but a relativistic approach views

reality as the classroom, as social with multiple constructions where science embraces human

ambiguities (Walliman, 2001). Walliman goes on to describe non-positivistic research that is

developed to produce a more holistic or discursive examination of situations and phenomena,

mostly focusing on humans and human activities in society (Walliman, 2001, p. 19). Walliman

continues to state that while positivists see the researcher and what is being researched as

separate, interpretivists see them as inseparable, and traditional research is bound up without life

experience (Walliman, 2001). In effect, Relativistic research is distinguished by its setting, which

is natural, uncontrived, where little is changed.

Language


6/13

Applied linguistics has attempted to understand the fundamental concepts of language

and how they can be applied to language pedagogy (Kumaravadivelu, 2006), but there are

general disagreements about the nature of language and how it is acquired that divides the field

(Tomosello, 2003; Everett, 2012). The positions are extremely technical and conceptual, beyond

the grasp of most language teachers, and each theory corresponds to positivist/rationalist

relativist world views. It is not the researchers purpose to decide which is correct, but to

consider theory and how it relates to classroom instruction. What language is, and how teachers

view language is significant in relation to instructional design. How studies regarding language

are designed may or may not be applicable to a language classroom.

Kumaravadivelu divides language into three sections: system, discourse and ideology

withsystem referring to its organizing characteristics and views of Noam Chomsky, with

discourse referring to its meaning potential and the work of Halliday, and with ideology to the

importance of social relations (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). If we are to teach language, we must

have our own view of what language is, but this simple task is difficult. Even among cognitive

scientists, one may claim that language is innate, while another defines language as an emerging

cultural tool (Pinker, 1994; Tomasello, 2008). Both cognitive scientists, having devoted their

lives to the study of language, yet neither view the world the same. On the surface, these

positions may not seem significant to language pedagogy, as they are highly conceptual and

theoretical, but the essence of language and what it is actually influences and determines the

types of activities to be used in class. Two different cognitive positions on language will be

briefly examined.

Language as Form

Language or the faculty of language (Hauser, Chomsky, & Fitch, 2002) is not easy to

define, and no straightforward, acceptable definition of language is available even though the

function of language is a common characteristic of being human. Researchers, linguists among

them, cant seem to agree on the basic nature of language, due in part to the previous mentioned

worldview schisms. Due to Noam Chomskys scathing attack on Skinners behaviorist views of

language, few consider a Behaviorist approach to Language, but in broad spectrum, behaviorists

and cognitivists still view language from similar vantage points, as scientists believing the can

discover reality. But the greatness of their thoughts is masked from the classroom. Still, teachers


7/13


8/13

more interested in the workings of the mind (McGivray & Chomsky, 2012). For Chomsky, the

outside or environment only triggers what is inside and that performance, which is error

ridden, is of little concern in developing a generative, biologically based view of language.

Chomsky wants to look at language as a biologist looks at other organs of the body, as a bodily

function, not as a tool for communication, and in so doing, he considers language less of an agent

of communication, and more of an internalizing mechanism. This focus on competence, while

perhaps not its intention, led to language curriculums that focused on grammar or form as a

method of teaching a language. Krashen also believed that with enough

comprehensible input, the language acquisition device (LAD) that Chomsky espoused would

allow second language learners to acquire language subconsciously (Krashen, 1982).

Chomskys focus has gone through an evolution of its own, as cognitive science has

opened up new understandings of how the brain functions. While Chomsky first

focused his attention to language with its deep structure, he now focuses on language as an

evolutionary mutation that happened suddenly; in a single human who looked within, firing new

neurons that precipitously multiplied. Such a focus on the internal mechanism of

language excludes the importance of social interactions, and falls outside the necessities of

language pedagogy.

Language as Usage-BasedOther cognitive scientists have attempted to view language contextually, believing that

language performance and humans desire to interact will tell us much more about language than

pure competence and form. A number of these related theories are referred to as cognitive-

functional or usage-based linguistics (Tomasello, 2003). From this perspective we see a different

view of language that is dependent on the outside as much as from the inside, as language

merges from usage. The environment not only triggers language growth but it is the reason for

development, out of a human desire to interact. This being the predominate reason why humans

have language and it naturally developed and evolved as humans began to socialize and depend

on one another (Tomasello, 2008; Everett, 2012). This view holds that language is a product of

genes and the environment which is dependent on both influences. What divides this group from

the bio-linguists is their belief that language is a cultural invention, a tool which grows out of

usage, from the outside, not from within.


9/13

The proposition that language is a humanly invented tool begins with the belief that

pointing and pantomiming are the precursors to language, and that joint attention is a uniquely

human function (Wittgenstein, 1953; Bruner, 1983; Tomasello, 2008). Language is a natural

extension from our desire to experience common conceptual understandings which leads to

communication. Communication is about cooperation, and creating meaning. It is striking that

somewhere near 80% of the world does not understand English (Tomasello, 2003). This suggests

that local social groupings are more important than universals.

The language as usage-based suggests a language curriculum based on usage and

meaning, where language is used in functional situations, and can only be obtained through

social interaction. Of course this has significant implications for language teaching, which

suggests that any attempts at teaching out of context and meaningless will do little towards

language acquisition. Even a CLT approach that is not contextual and meaningful has little

chance of producing language transformation.

These two views of language give us two completely different perspectives on language

and on language acquisition. While it is generally agreed that there are differences between first

and second language acquisition, some believe that regardless of first or second language

acquisition, the two distinct views of language present very different models of language

acquisition, one being more dependent on the individual, and the other more dependent on

society. Such models of language acquisition will inevitably influence the types of activities used

in a language classroom. Some regard the functional view of language acquisition as truly

revolutionary, forming the assumption that the cognitive and social learning skills that learners

bring to the acquisition process should be utilized in a much more learner-friendly approach to

language acquisition without the universal grammar hypothesis, (Tomasello, 2003).

Language as Mediation

While viewing language contextually as an open-system, both Vygotsky and Bakhtin,

focused on the interactions between speakers. Vygotsky saw the relationship between language,

critical thinking and culture, in which language mediated a persons internalization and

externalization (Bernat, 2008). This approach is significantly different from traditional

approaches which separated language from its natural setting to accommodate positivist and

rationalist views. Bakhtin explained language in terms of identity and culture. Two important


10/13

concepts of Bakhtin are important to teaching, the idea of responsivity in which utterances are

always in response to an utterance, and his view of multi-voicedness, that thoughts and ideas

are seldom original, but are based on many voices, and are essentially borrowed (Johnson,

2004; Marchenkova, 2005; Wells, 1999). Like Vygotsky, Bakhtin saw language as speech, not as

an abstract form of deep structure. While rationalists look for meaning in the structure of

language, relativists see meaning in the interaction between language, minds and culture. Such

an outlook allows us to concentrate on the relationships in classroom between students, teachers,

culture and course content which offers teachers new approaches to instructional design.

Language as Heteroglossia

In response to early Russian formalists, Mikhail Bakhtin developed his views of

language which were tied to historical and social contexts (Marchenkova, 2005). Somewhat

related to Vygotskys social activity theory, Bakhtin scrutinized the complex dialogues in literary

works to conceptualize language as social acts. For Bakhtin, an utterance was actually

a two-sided exchange that implied a past, a present and future. His purpose was to

discount the distinctions between form and function in the process of dialogue, to view meaning-

making (Marchenkova, 2005). For the researcher, such a view transformed his perspective on

language teaching. In his mind, the years of frustration trying to focus on forms, then to

be replaced by functions, were only precursory for possible advances. Such an approach, to see

language as utterance, not form, not function allows teaching possibilities that go beyond the

formal attempts to direct meaning.

Learner Agency

Agency is a psychological term that relates to many factors associated with apersons

identity. Learner Agency reminds us that as a learner must be willing to learn. Learning takes

place at all times, in all situations, and literature on learning is vast and complex, but in order to

stay within the theme of this study, Learning will be limited to learners in a contextual

classroom, and how theory can be used to design instructional activities for EFL learners. Using

a contextual approach to learning, Allwright describes second language learners as developing

language practitioners using five propositions:


11/13

Table 3 Learner Propositions

No Allwrights Learner Propositions

1 Learners are unique individual who learn and develop best in their own

idiosyncratic ways.

2 Learners are social beings who learn and develop best in a mutually

supportive environment.

3 Learners are capable of taking learning seriously.

4 Learners are capable of independent decision-making.

5 Learners are capable of developing as practitioners of learning.

Source: Adapted from Allwright and Hanks (2009)

From these propositions, (Allwright & Hanks, 2009) believed that teachers could

conduct classroom research along with students as co-participants in which classroom activities

could generate research data. The significance of these propositions cannot be overlooked. If

teachers consider their students unable to learn, then learning will not take place. In the first

proposition, teachers should accept that students are unique and learn in their own way. This

does not mean that teachers should focus on each learners learning style, but be reminded that

students learn differently. Proposition two, comes directly from Vygotsky, and that humans

learn in an active, social and supportive environment. Propositions three, four and five state that

learners are capable of taking learning seriously can be independent and develop as language

learners.

Teacher Agency

Purely from a historical perspective, Kumaravadivelu identified three types of language

teachers: the passive technician, the reflective practitioner, and the transformative intellectual

(Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Most experienced teachers can relate to the three distinctions, and

understand that each role is due in part to a specific setting. While professional teachers are

responsible to their employee and the established school curriculum, using current methods and

course materials, especially in large EFL classrooms leads towards frustration. Few language


12/13

teachers in these situations remain passive technicians, and begin to look both inward and

outward for answers.

Issues concerning teacher dissatisfaction have been discussed in mainstream settings

for years. Praxis pedagogy conceptualizes teachers as proactive, creative, and dialogically

involved with their students. Dialogic instruction concerns the relationship between teacher,

students and content (Guilar, 2006). Under the theoretical framework of prominent scholars

including John Dewey and Paulo Freire, dialogical instruction finds its roots in Greece with

Socrates. Both John Dewey and Paulo Freire imply student-teacher intersubjectivity that emerges

from democratic values (Dewey, 2009; Friere, 1970). In Dialogic education, students, teachers

and content become entwined intersubjectively (Guilar, 2006). In a dialogical approach,

communication and meaning are established between participants with content as the basis of the

relationship. The focus is not necessarily on the one or the other, but on the mutual and

interdependent relationship of the three. Whether a student likes a teacher or vice

versa, is irrelevant, the content and their agency is what bind them together. Neither authority nor

custom are the focus, but the relationship. With this in mind, a dialogical approach is considered

critical, or even radical, especially in a setting such as in Thailand. Guilar identifies

three prevalent teaching styles to help illustrate the types of teacher agency.

Table 4 Teaching Styles

No. Teaching Styles

1. Autocratic Instruction (Imposing);

2. Dialogic Enabling Instruction (The narrow ridge of dialogue);

3. Overly Permissive Instruction (Soft relativism),

Source: Adapted from Guilar (2006)

In an era of Post-methodology, teachers must take the initial step towards improving

their classroom through a logical approach by attempting to connect theory and practice in their

own classrooms. By conducting their own Praxis Inquiry, teachers can begin to better understand

their students and the local context. For language teachers, being familiar with


13/13

Language Pedagogy is necessary to help guide their decisions as they examine the process their

students go through to use the target language in both social and academic settings.

Documents

Literature Review for Praxis Instructional Model