Interview took place over the telephone. Interviewer, Greta Gorsuch was in
Lubbock, Texas, Friday, August 18, 2000 at 2:30 PM. Rod Ellis was in Auckland,
New Zealand, Saturday, August 19, 2000, at 7:30 AM. Conversation was recorded
on an Eiki tape recorder on a cordless telephone using a RadioShack 43-228A
telephone recording device. The interviewer promised the interviewee the
conversation would be transcribed and sent to him for perusal before any
publication of his comments would take place.
GG = Greta Gorsuch (interviewer) RE = Rod Ellis (interviewee)
GG How long have you been teaching SLA courses?
RE Really the first time I taught an SLA course as a course in its own right was in 1989 when I went to Temple University. Prior to that I would teach SLA topics in other courses.
GG Are you teaching SLA now?
RE Yes. In our current master's degree we have two courses. One course is entitled Learner Language and the purpose is to describe learner language and identify some of its characteristics and also to develop the skills that the students need to describe learner language themselves. They look at things like error analysis, sequence of development, code switching, etcetera. And then, a second course is called Theories of Second Language Acquisition and that's a survey of different theories of second language acquisition from the perspective of what they offer language teachers.
GG Are students required to take one of those courses first.
RE Yes, the first one [Learner Language]. They can take them in any order but only one course is a required course, the other is actually an elective.
GG So the first one [Learner Language] is required?
RE The first one is required and the other is an elective. But they could in fact take the elective before they take the required course. Ideally it should be the other way around but inevitably with students coming in every semester it's not always possible to schedule.
GG And these are master's degree students.
RE Yes.
GG And what is their ethnic background and makeup?
RE Their ethnic background is just about like in any MA course of this nature, very very mixed. We have some Caucasian New Zealanders, we have some New Zealanders with Maori or Pacific Island background, we have quite a lot of Asian students, Chinese, Korean, Japanese. We have one or two other students from other parts of the world, India, etcetera.
GG And for the second course, which is the theories course, what do you see as the purpose of that course?
RE It誷 a survey course, the purpose is to survey the main theories of second language acquisition and to familiarize students with what they claims of those theories are and then to examine what those theories offer to the teacher.
GG Did you create the two courses?
RE Yes, since I've arrived we've sort of structured the MA. The MA structure is quite complicated to explain because the MA structure is really somewhat different from the MA structure in America. It was actually a two year MA and what I've really done since I've come here is maintain the two year MA for some people but to redevelop it so it can be done as a one year MA for others. That's one reason why we have the two courses. People who do it in one year will only do the Learner Language paper course. Others who do it in two years are more likely to do both courses.
GG Even without the one year and two year difference, does splitting the course into two parts [Learner Language, and Theories of Second Language Acquisition] have some benefit?
RE It seems to me that probably what teachers really need, if you like, the basis that teachers need to know is what learner language is like, I mean that would include obviously things like order and sequence of development. But it would also look at errors, it would also look at formulaic chunks, and it looks at different ways we can analyze and describe learner language. But it seems to me that it is a kind of nuts and bolts course because it can feed into lots of other courses as well. So in some respects it seems to me that it is almost a kind of foundation course. Many teachers who come on MAs don't really have precise ways of examining the language that their students produce. In particular from a developmental perspective which is trying to understand how the language that learners produce gives clues as to their developmental progress. That's really what underlies that particular approach. Whereas when one looks at the theories of second language acquisition, there are some theories that I think are of crucial, central importance, but there are others that probably aren't, for example I've never really considered that Universal Grammar had very much to offer teachers. That course does go a little bit beyond merely my interpretation of what theories would be of value to teachers, so I do do a session of Universal Grammar so they become at least familiar with what that is, etcetera.
GG Are you able to use current SLA textbooks for your purposes, or is a new type of textbook called for?
RE I use my little OUP introductory book alongside my big purple book. I tell the students to use the latter as a reference book and not to read it through cover to cover. I think this works reasonably well. If I had the time I would like to see a different kind of textbook, one that starts with pedagogical issues and addresses these in terms of SLA.
GG Do you believe there is a stereotype of an SLA course at the M.A. level in regards to what content is included, how it is taught, etc?
RE Possibly. It would be largely determined by the text books, mine included. Most SLA courses will cover the topics in the big purple book I guess. I think what SLA becomes more and more difficult to define at its boundaries expand.
GG What are some features of this stereotype SLA course?
RE An interesting question is what separates "acquisition" from "proficiency." SLA people are interested in the former and testing people the latter. I think the main differences are (1) SLA focusses on specific linguistics/pramatic features whereas testers are interested in overall linguistic ability and (2) SLA is concerned with process whereas testers are concerned with state.
GG For the Learner Language course, what is the typical mode for that class?
RE A typical mode for that class would be for me to well if I take you through some of the topics...the first topic looks at different ways in which one can collect data from learners. Different ways in which one can collect samples of learners language. The second topic looks at different ways in which one can analyze learner language. It really is a hands on class because typically what each class consists of is an explanation of some aspect of describing analyzing learner language and then an opportunity to practice that. So typically there would be a handout which would give an explanation as to how to do for example, frequency analysis, and then there would be data which they would proceed to work on in groups to carry out that analysis.
GG And what about the theories course?
RE The theories course works similarly. There would be a handout that would review a particular theory, explain its premises, give some indication of the research that's based on it, although there's no attempt to review extensively all the research that relates to the theory. The main aim is to get them to understand what the premises of the theory are. And then there would be a task that would ask them to consider those premises in relation to pedagogic issues in question.
GG Some others I have interviewed have hinted that they would like to have two courses for SLA, but you're the first who have gone ahead and done that.
RE You have to understand that the size of our course is a little bit smaller than the size of a typical course in the United States. A typical course in the United States would be worth three credits. The courses we teach are worth two credits. So there is a slight difference in that respect.
GG You mentioned papers for the Learner Language course. Do you then require a paper for both courses?
RE Each course has two written assignments attached to them. In the case of the Learner Language course, one written assignment is a data analysis assignment, and the other is an essay type assignment, they take one particular area they've looked at and they proceed to do a sort of survey review of that, and its implications for language teachers. In the other course, which I'm actually teaching for the first time now, one paper asks people to take two theories and to compare them, and I can't remember what the other one is, I'll have to go and check.
GG It sounds like at least two out of the four total is kind of a literature review, would that be correct?
RE Yes. But not just a literature review, because one is asking people to evaluate these theories from the perspective of language pedagogy, so they have to either take specific aspects of language pedagogy and address those from the perspective of the theory. Or alternatively, to go from the premises of the theory and point to areas of language pedagogy, issues in language pedagogy that they address and inform, and how they inform it.
GG Partly you've answered my next question which is what are your goals for such a paper, and it sounds that you want the students to really relate what they're learning to their teaching.
RE Yes.
GG Do you have any secondary goals such as you want them to learn how to synthesize?
RE Well, obviously in the Learner Language paper one of the goals is to develop the analytical skills to actually analyze learner language. Many of these students do go on to do a small dissertation as part of their MA. So they do need skills that will help them to research, and from our point of view at this level, the major skill that we think is important is the ability to actually analyze learner language so that they can devise studies that involve collecting samples of learner language which they can submit to analysis in terms of whatever research questions they have. The idea of using data to analyze research questions. The kind of subgoal of the Learner Language is to develop some kind of basic skills that will feed into doing the research for the dissertation.
GG Other people I have interviewed have suggested that the place for students to learn how to synthesize, read critically, and analyze is at the M.A. level. Is development of these skills the responsibilility of M.A. programs? If so, do you believe that this is a topic of overt discussion among faculty in other M.A. programs?
RE It is difficult for me to speak to other M.A. programs. I think, especially in the American system, there is little discussion that goes on among members of staff teaching an M.A. program about such matters. This is because each course in an American M.A. is taught by a single person who "owns" it. I consider an M.A. course has both a practical function--to develop teaching skills--and a broader educational goal--to develop systematic skills of enquiry, etcetera.
GG For the theories course, to what extent do you highlight past SLA research?
RE The theories course has a kind of slight historical element to it. That is to say, it begins in effect with behaviorism, what one might call the notion of creativity, vis a vis Krashen, vis a vis Dulay and Burt, and then it moves on there through Schumann's theory through UG into connectionism into some of the current cognitive theories based on notions of noticing, Schmidt's work etcetera. It also includes social cultural theory, it's very very broad. So it includes Lantolf's type of work. It does aim to be a comprehensive survey of theoretical accounts of second language learning from a great variety of perspectives but they are ordered in part in terms of how these various theories have entered the field of SLA, you know, chronologically. So that people can get the sense of how development in the field has taken place.
GG What do you feel is the purpose of that?
RE It would be difficult to understand, for example, current theories relating to connectionist models or current theories relating to noticing unless one is familiar with the way that Krashen, Dulay, Burt, and Corder challenged initial behaviorism. I think it's also somewhat difficult to understand Lantolf's social culture theory unless one first of all is very familiar with the computational model and how that has informed various theories of second language learning. If you look at how SLA has evolved in part it has evolved in terms of a reaction to what went previously. Therefore to understand the different theoretical positions one needs to understand them in part as what went previously.
GG So in your comprehensive survey, do you also highlight current SLA research?
RE Oh yes, I mean the majority of the course is obviously based on current SLA research so a lot of this is dealt with, for example when we deal with the interaction hypothesis, we don't just look at Long's initial formulation of the hypothesis back in the 1980s, we look at the more recent reformulations of it including the role of output and the role of negative feedback. So when I deal with the interaction hypothesis one deals with it in terms of the early version and the late version so that one can see what he was saying intially and what he was saying later. If you don't do that when people go to the literature they get lost. Because they need to look at the date at which the literature was published and get a sense of what the theory was then.
GG With the learner language course, what do you see as significant challenges for the students?
RE If you have no experience in analyzing learner language rigorously in terms of very explicit categories, which sometimes you have to develop yourself, that is a skill. One of the major challenges to the students is precisely doing that. It varies. Some students find the analysis of learner language something that comes naturally to them. Other students don't. Other students always struggle because it's something that they've never done before. Most students have never ever had to analyze a piece of learner language and use that analysis in order to answer some sort of a question about it.
GG How many of them are experienced teachers?
RE I would say 90%. It depends on what you mean by experienced. It's a different system. Whereas in the States, the MA serves as a kind of pre-training for teaching, you have to understand in a British type system, they never have. America is way out in this respect. Typically people would have received their training in some other context. They would probably become qualified teachers during a general training course in schools, not just ESL schools, and then probably they would have gone on to have taken some sort of RSA type course, or Cambridge type certificate and then they would use that to move into teaching EFL/ESL, and then they would typically gravitate toward an MA. That's the typical path of development for a lot of these students.
GG And so then the general course would have given them some pedagogical training.
RE Absolutely. So they come not only teachers with experience but teachers with some theoretical understand as to what teaching is.
GG And so the master's degree that the United States does seems to be trying to do both things.
RE The problem with the United States is that it has never really developed what one might call more practically oriented certificates. They're trying to develop hands on practical classroom skills and the MA courses that are offered in the United States I've always kind of felt that they fit uneasily between two objectives, one of which is to develop actual practical classroom skills and the other of which is to, you know, prepare people to become researchers. There's always been that kind of uneasy divide because there are no professional qualifications outside the MA, really.
GG I experience it as a kind of drift, working in an MA program here in the States.
RE In part, you're faced with two kinds of students. You're faced with some students who have never taught anything and you're faced with students who are really quite experienced EFL/ESL teachers. They want different things. They need different things. The ones who have been teaching for X number of years, they don't want you to tell them how to do a grammar lesson. They wants things that are going to make them think and reflect about their practice. They maybe want some new ideas about teaching but I don't think that's primarily what they want. They want to be challenged intellectually about their profession.
GG In the theory course, what do you see as significant challenges for the students?
RE I think one of the problems again with teachers is that to some extent they don't really know what theory is. They come with lay ideas of what a theory is, you know, and many people's concept of a theory is a theory is something that proves something. I think there are two challenges, first of all is to actually understand that a theory is a collection of statements that makes claims about a phenomenon which then actually has to be tested and may not necessarily be true, be correct, be demonstrable. And the second thing I think they need to understand is that in SLA there are these many different perspectives on what language learning is. And therefore there is always the problem of how these different theories relate to each other and whether in fact they can be related to each other. In order to make sense of SLA you really have to have some understanding of how these different theories relate to each other, how they conflict with each other, etcetera. I think that's a very considerable challenge to anyone.
GG Do you get the feeling that your students don't see themselves has having theories?
RE One of the purposes that I state from the beginning of the theories course is that teachers do have theories which exist in varying degree of explicitness and one of the ideas of the course is that they can test some of their own assumptions, they can make some of their assumptions more explicit, and they can redevelop their own personal theories of second language learning in relation to pedagogy in relation to the role of instruction in language learning.
GG In the theories course, what topics do you feel are particularly difficult for students?
RE Well, I'm teaching it for the first time and I'm halfway through it. I think it gets more difficult as time moves on. I think obviously UG poses enormous problems for students if only because the actual theory of grammar that underlies UG changes. I mean you've moved from the prinicples of parameters model to a minimalist program, and that raises questions like what is the status of all the research that was done on principles of parameters. Now people are doing research on functional categories based on the minimalist program. Where does that leave all the previous research? I try not to get into that too much because it takes us into the realm of linguists and for one thing, I'm not a linguist. And for another, I don't think it's terribly relevant to teachers. I try to deal with what I call the grand theory of UG, i.e, its basic theoretical frames about the role of input, about the role of innate knowledge, about the nature of innate knowledge, about whether UG is available in second language acquisition, etcetera.
GG It誷 interesting to hear you say you don't think of yourself as a linguist.
RE Well I'm not a linguist. I'm an Applied Linguist. They're very different. They have different concerns. Applied Linguists are necessarily problem oriented and the problems come from real life. The problems that I'm concerned with are essentially pedagogic problems, whereas linguists' problems aren't. Many people who work in the area of UG and SLA have no interest whatsoever in language pedagogy. The probably don't know what it is, half of them.
GG What problems have you encountered in teaching SLA?
RE I'm not sure this is a problem, it's a question I ask myself. There are always two ways in which you can handle SLA. One is to tell people what SLA is about and then make applications to language pedagogy. The other way is to take issues in language pedagogy and address those from what different theories of SLA might have to say about those pedagogical issues. If you like, whether you go from SLA to language pedagogy, or whether you go from language pedagogy to SLA. I think one of the major issues is what is the best way to do it. To be frank, I've always gone from SLA to language pedagogy. One of the reasons I've done that is because most of the people that I've taught have in fact been teachers. I think this is an approach that works well for people who already have teaching experience because they bring a knowledge of the pedagogical issues and as they learn about SLA they are constantly rethinking positions relating to pedagogy that they have in the light of what they're learning about SLA and you don't have to do too much prodding to make them do that. I think that's what that kind of student probably wants. On the other hand it seems to me that if you have a load of students who really don't know anything about pedagogy, probably a better approach would be to take pedagogical issues, make them aware, if you like, of the technical aspects of how these issues are dealt with in terms of materials, syllabuses, and actual classroom practices. And then look at those from the perspective of what SLA theory or theories would say. So you show them, if you like, what the pedagogical issue/practice is, and then you get them to reflect on that practice in the light of what people say about SLA. Now probably if I were teaching on some sort of certificate or diploma course the purpose of which was to introduce teachers to ESL/EFL, then I would not teach an SLA course. I would bring SLA in to other courses with a much more overt pedagogical focus. I think it really does depend on the kind of student you have.
GG You seem to have a very curricular vision of SLA.
RE Obviously, the application, the relevance of SLA to language pedagogy is an issue that's got to be addressed. The issue is: Is it something that can be left for the students themselves to address, or should it be built into the structure of the actual program, and I think the answer to that depends on the students. If you have experienced teachers as students, its better to let them make what they want of it. I mean, SLA courses that I've taught at Temple, I mean I must have had countless students come up at the end and say how interesting they found it and how it made them rethink some of their ideas about language pedagogy. That's exactly what I wanted to hear, because it reaffirms what I誺e just said: Experienced teachers who already have a theory of language teaching, in effect evaluate that theory as they learn about SLA. But that's not something that's going to work for teachers with no experience. It's not an appropriate pre-training technique. It's only an appropriate in-training approach.
GG You seem to have a pedagogical stance towards the purpose of SLA for students in your program. Do you feel your stance is a common one?
RE I honestly don't know. My stance towards SLA varies depending on whether I am teaching it as a basis for students to do their own research or as a basis for helping teachers develop their teaching skills.
GG For the teachers who are already experienced, is there anything you do in class to bring certain things to their attention in terms of their identities as teachers or in terms of their experiences?
RE Certainly in the theories course there is always a task that asks them to relate the theory in some way to some aspect of teaching. If one looks at say Schumann's Acculturation model, then one would ask at the end, to what extent teachers can take account of acculturation and its role in language learning and how they might actually do this and whether in fact it's possible and in part that leads people to understand that there are constraints on what teachers can do. If acculturation is a key issue in successful second language learning, then teachers can't make learners acculturate, only learners can acculturate. I mean sometimes teachers think that success or failure of their students is entirely on their shoulders. I think that one of the things that SLA ought to teach a teacher that that is not actually the case. Teachers can create conditions under which learners can favorably learn, but they can't actually make them learn. And that is something that has to be understood and I think it's something that comes out very strongly from the study of second language acquisition. I think one of the things about becoming an effective teacher is ultimately to recognize the limitations of teaching in language learning. One of the main things that SLA has actually contributed to is the demise of the method consrtruct, the notion that there is a method out there that will somehow enable learners to magically learn successfully in the minimal possible time. One of the major lessons in studying SLA is that learning a second language is hard work and takes a long time. There are no short cuts.
你可以使用这个链接引用该篇文章 http://publishblog.blogchina.com/blog/tb.b?diaryID=4726501