Discussion Details
| Title: | Re: Review: Applied Linguistics (Seidlhofer) |
| Submitter: | Ronald Sheen |
| Description: | Re: Review of Controversies in Applied Linguistics in LINGUIST List
16.623 (http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-623.html). Given the title of Barbara Seidlhofer's (BS) "Controversies in Applied Linguistics" (reviewed by David Deterding), readers with a knowledge of the history of applied linguistics might expect it to include an account of the one major controversy which has dominated that history. That is the failure of applied linguistics during the last half century or so to do anything of real substance to improve the effectiveness of foreign and second language classroom learning (FSLCL). Now, this is a pretty hard pill to swallow - which probably explains why the vast majority of applied linguists do not express it, and why BS fails to include it in her book, and why the reviewer fails to remark on its omission. Of course, BS, along with the vast majority of applied linguists, do not consider this to be a glaring omission for they choose not to address the fact that there is no empirical evidence to demonstrate that any of the innovations of the last fifty years has improved the effectiveness of FSLCL. Quite the contrary, in fact. Most reforms in education, in general, and foreign-second language learning, in particular, have proven to be failures (Adams and Chen 1981; Brumfitt 1981; Fullan 1982). In fact, Markee (1993:231), given the high risk of failure, argues that "...innovations should be resisted rather than promoted because their adoption may be more harmful than beneficial." Valette (1991:325), indeed, argues, with supportive test scores, that the innovations of the previous twenty five years had resulted in the worsening of the proficiency standards of seniors graduating from college. In any other area of research and application which aims to serve the public, such a failure would result in much soul-searching and actual investigation into the cause of the failure. Why doesn't it happen in FSLCL? I'd suggest that it will never happen whilst applied linguists continue to do research which ultimately has little to no relevance to the effectiveness of FSLCL. Unfortunately, both researchers and funding agencies continue to support research on multiple peripheral issues which have but a tenuous relationship with the issue of the effectiveness of FSLCL. The fact that a book called "Controversies in Applied Linguistics" was published whilst ignoring the one major controversy is symptomatic of a malaise which besets the field of applied linguistics and results in largely ignoring the crying need for long term comparative studies in order to identify the most effective teaching/learning options in set situations. References: Adams, R. and Chen, D. (1981). The process of educational innovation: An international perspective. London: Kogan Page in association with the UNESCO Press. Brumfitt, C. (1981). "Notional syllabuses revisited", A response." Applied Linguistics, 2: 90-92. Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. Markee, N. (1993). "The diffusion of innovation in language teaching" Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13: 229-243. Valette, R.M. (1991) "Proficiency and the prevention of fossilization - an editorial" The Modern Language Journal, 75: 325-336. |
| Date Posted: | 10-Mar-2005 |
| Linguistic Field(s): | Applied Linguistics |
| LL Issue: | 16.713 |
| Posted: | 10-Mar-2005 |
