Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

(TESOL)

Classroom-Centered Research on Language Teaching and Learning: A Brief Historical Overview

Author(s): Dick Allwright
Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Jun., 1983), pp. 191-204
Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586649 .
Accessed: 17/02/2015 12:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.179.16.201 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:36:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TESOL QUARTERLY, Vol 17, No. 2, June 1983

CLASSROOM-CENTERED RESEARCH: STATE OF THE ART

Classroom-Centered Research
on Language Teaching and Learning:
A BriefHistoricalOverview
DICK ALLWRIGHT
ofLancaster,
University England

This overview of classroom-centeredresearchon language teaching

and learningis a surveyof themes,notof researchfindings.Beginning
withtheproblemsof definitionand of researchmethod,itthenlooks
at the originsof such research in general educational and teacher-
trainingstudiesand in the failureof methodresearchin the sixties.It
thentracesthedevelopmentboth of theconcernsand of theresearch
tools of classroom-centered researchon language teachingand learn-
ing. Finally, the development of a productive controversyover
researchmethodsis brieflydescribed. Fundamentalto the surveyis
the conceptionof classroom-centered researchas an approach to the
studyof language pedagogy thatdraws itsunityfromthebelief that
the classroom is the proper place to look firstfor insightsand
understanding.

WHAT IS CLASSROOM-CENTERED RESEARCH?

Classroom-centered research is just that-research centered on the
classroom, as distinctfrom,for example, research that concentrates on
the inputs to the classroom (the syllabus, the teaching materials) or on
the outputs from the classroom (learner achievement scores). It does
not ignore in any way or tryto devalue the importance of such inputs
and outputs. It simply triesto investigatewhat happens inside the
classroom when learners and teachers come together.At its most
narrow,classroom-centeredresearchis in factresearchthattreatsthe
language classroomnot just as the settingfor investigationbut, more
importantly,as the obiect of investigation.Classroom processes be-
come the central focus. We want to understand why it is that things
happen as they do in the classroom-how it is, for example, that some
learners participate more and others less than planned by the teacher
CLASSROOM-CENTERED RESEARCH: BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 191

This content downloaded from 130.179.16.201 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:36:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and how we mightexpect such factorsto affectlanguage learning
itself.
As this and the articleby Gales (which follows) will demonstrate,
however,thisverynarrowconceptionof classroom-centered research
is fartoo narrowto characterizemuchof theresearchwe shallwant to
referto in depictingthe "stateof the art." Here we shall adopt a more
generaland generousviewpointand deal witha wide varietyof studies
thatfocuson classroomlanguage learning,includinga good manythat
do not specificallyinvestigateteacher-learner interaction.
We take classroom-centeredresearch as a cover-term,then,for a
whole range of researchstudieson classroomlanguage learning.The
obvious unifyingfactorsare thatthe emphasis is solidly on research,
and on researchin the classroomsetting.

HOW IS IT DONE?
Basically, research on classroom language learning can be done
either by observation, or by some form of introspection,or (and
probably most often,in fact) by some combination of these two.
(Please note thatthese briefmethodologicalremarksare intendedto
serve as scene-settingfor any readers who are generallyunfamiliar
withthisresearchfield. They thereforemake no pretenseto compre-
hensiveness,but we will returnto methodological issues later. For
methodological surveys,see Ochsner 1979, Long 1980, and Bailey,
forthcoming.)

Observation
Observationnecessarilyinvolveskeeping a record of what goes on
in the classroomsobserved. At itssimplest,an audio-cassetterecorder
may suffice.A trainedobserver,however, will also be able to take
usefulfieldnotes or use a set of predeterminedcategoriesto classify
events as they occur and thuskeep a writtenrecord of a lesson. An
audio (or video) recordingis probably not of very much use for
research purposes until it has been transcribed. Although a full
transcription is a more complete record thana set of field notes or a
page of categorizations,it will stillneed to be analyzed, somehow,to
see what light,if any,it sheds on the topic being investigated.
Some researcherswill want to quantifytheirdata analysis by re-
ducing it to numbersthatcan be subjected to statisticaltreatment.In
this way they will be able to report theirfindingsin termsof, for
example, positiveor negativeassociationsbetween differenttypesof
classroom behavior. Others will prefera more qualitative approach
and will interprettheirdata in a way thatdoes notrelyon statistics(for
192 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 130.179.16.201 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:36:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
example, see Mehan 1979). Stillothers(probably most) will combine
quantitativeand qualitativeapproaches to theirdata.
Mostresearchersstudywhole classes of learners,but otherspreferto
do case studies of one or two learners at a time. As before, a
combinationof approaches is also possible.

Introspection
I am using thisterm (somewhatbroadly) to referto researchtech-
niques thatinvolve, for example, asking people to answer questions
ratherthanaskingthemto allow themselvesto be observed in action.
We ask themto introspect,to reflecton theirexperience,and we do so
by interviewingthemor by givingthemquestionnairesto respond to;
or, we combine the two and use a structuredinterviewtechnique,in
whichtheinterviewerworksthrougha set of questionsequivalentto a
questionnaireand records (on paper and/oron tape) theinterviewees'
responses.
A fairlyrecent development (since 1976, approximately)has been
theuse of diary-keepingas an introspectivetechnique.In a diarystudy
the diarist (whetherlearner or teacher) keeps a personal record of
classroomeventsand uses theseas the researchdata forinvestigating
classroom language learning.Diary-keepingis, in effect,the partici-
pants' equivalent of field notes. We cannot expect learners,let alone
teachers,to make notes duringthelesson,but we may be able to learn
somethingfromthenotestheymake in theirpersonaldiariesaftereach
lesson.

Triangulation
Triangulationrefersto theimportantpoint,thatmultipleviewpoints
(at least three,as suggestedby thetermitself)may be necessaryifwe
are to understandwhat goes on in classrooms,ratherthan merely
record it in a way thatconfirmsour personalprejudices. In practice,
the principleof triangulationcan simplymean thatit is wisestto opt
fora combinationof observationand introspectionand, withineach,
for a variety of observers and "introspectors."We mightwell, for
example,ask learners,and notjustteachers,fortheirrecollectionsand
interpretations of classroom events. Together with our own, the re-
searcher's, that will make three points of view, none of which can
claim to have the "truth,"but all of which need to be taken into
account in our attemptto understandclassroomlanguage learning.

CLASSROOM-CENTERED RESEARCH: BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 193

This content downloaded from 130.179.16.201 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:36:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WHERE DID IT COME FROM?
Classroom-centered research is certainly not unique to language
teaching and did not even originate among language teaching research-
ers. In fact,it took language teachingsome timeto begin to catch up
with the rest of the educational research world. Modern classroom-
centered research began in the fiftiesamong teacher trainersand arose
in response to the need to provide student teachers with adequate
feedback on their teaching. The trainers realized that they needed to
investigate what constituted effective teaching and then find a way of
incorporating their findings into effective teacher training.As we shall
see, the firstof these issues (what constitutes effective teaching) has
proved so complex in itself,and so fascinatinga research problem, that
teacher training has slipped progressively into the background as an
immediate concern.

HOW HAS IT DEVELOPED?

Just as teacher training provided the earliest concerns, which cen-
tered on the attempt to determine what constitutes"good" teaching, so
teacher trainingalso provided the basic tools of classroom observation,
the observation instrumentsthemselves. Researchers such as Flanders
(1960) had used direct observation to study teaching and had devel-
oped observation schedules that could be used to help teachers in
training to see just how well their teaching behavior matched the
patterns that research had suggested would be effective. But the early,
almost euphoric, confidence in the findings of such research did not
survive many years of scrutinyby an increasing number of researchers
who found classroom behavior altogether too complex to be reduced
to a few categories (for a full review up to 1974, see Dunkin and
Biddle's [1974] classic survey of research on teaching). It seemed that
applications to teacher training were therefore premature, and that a
major effortshould firstbe put into trying to unravel the enormous
complexities of classroom behavior.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE EARLIEST CONCERNS

IN THE FIELD OF LANGUAGE TEACHING?
One probable reason why the language teaching profession came
late to classroom-centered research was that, just when teachers of
other subjects were losing confidence in their methods, language
teachers were enjoying a period of unprecedented confidence in
theirs; audiolingualism was being used widely as a method that had
194 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 130.179.16.201 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:36:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
been proven, in practice, by its success in militarylanguage-training
programsduringWorld War II and, in theory,by itshighlydeveloped
originsin linguisticsand psychology.This confidencein method,per
se, was hardly disturbed by Chomsky's challenge to behaviorism
(Chomsky 1959), since thatchallengequickly foundexpressionin the
formof an alternativemethod (dubbed "cognitivecode" by Carroll
[1966]) in which,despite Carroll'scarefulwarnings,it seemed rightto
manyto place justas much confidence.
At that time, the trainingof language teachers could be seen as
revolvingaround theissue of whichof themajor methodsto prescribe
(thatis,theissue of global methodologicalprescriptions),leavingwhat
actually happened in the classroom to be fully determinedby the
choice of method.Unfortunately forthemethodologists, however,the
major experiments conducted in the sixtiesto decide which method
was to be advocated (see especially Scherer and Wertheimer1964,
Smith1970,and Otto 1969) proved inconclusiveat best,if not simply
invalid. The ultimate loser, however, was of course neither the
audiolingualmethodnoritscognitivecode rival,but theverynotionof
global methodological prescriptions.It no longer made sense to
imagine that any one method would prove in some absolute way
superiorto its competitorsand could thereforebe prescribed,like a
patentmedicine,withcompleteconfidencein itsoveralleffectiveness.
Grittnersummed up the situationby suggestingthat"... perhaps
we should ask fora cease firewhile we search fora more productive
means of investigation"(Grittner1968:7). Some researchersdecided to
move a step down in the approach, method, technique hierarchy
(Anthony1963) and do small-scaleresearchat the level of technique
instead of large-scaleresearchat the level of method. In Sweden the
GUME (GothenburgEnglishTeaching Method) Projectcompromised
by workingat thelevel of techniquebut stillin thehope of establishing
the relative validity of large-scale ideas (see Carlsson 1969). They
were,in fact,hopingto testtheusefulnessof grammaticalexplanations
framed according to Chomsky's (1957) version of transformational-
generativegrammar.In essence,thismeanttryingto testan approach
(Chomsky'stheory)by experimentation withtechniques(in thiscase,
theprovisionof certaintypesof grammaticalexplanationas againstno
explanationat all). The resultswere again inconclusive,at least until
theyswitchedfromchildrento adults (see Oskarsson1973), who did
seem to learnbetterfromexplanationsand practicethanfrompractice
alone. Even these positive findings,however, were far from an
ultimate verificationof the absolute validity of any broad-based
methodological (or technical) prescription.The mere fact that they
had obtained differentresultswithadults as compared withchildren
destroyedany trulyfar-reachingclaims, of course, and the relatively
CLASSROOM-CENTERED RESEARCH: BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 195

This content downloaded from 130.179.16.201 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:36:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
small-scale nature of the project (in terms of number of lessons,
numberof learners,numberof teachingpointscovered, the fact that
the teaching was not live but on audiotape) would prompt great
cautionin drawingglobal conclusions.
Meanwhile, in the United States, Politzer (1970) had already con-
ducted and reportedupon a seminal studyin which he videotaped a
number of language classes, recorded the frequency with which
certaintechniques (mostlydifferenttypes of structuralpatternprac-
tice) were used, and correlatedthe frequencieswithlearnerachieve-
mentin thedifferentclasses. His resultswere complex and make very
interestingreading. However, they add up to strongevidence that
small-scaleresearchat the level of techniqueis by no means ready to
support a prescriptiveapproach to teacher training.We do not yet
have, and cannot expect to have in the foreseeablefuture,a situation
whereteachertrainerscan, withthe confidencebornof a background
of solid experimentalresults,tell theirtraineeswhat techniquesto use
and what not to use. As Politzerwrote,"the very highcomplexityof
the teachingprocess makes it very difficultto talk in absolute terms
about 'bad' and 'good' teachingdevices" (1970:42). Language teaching,
it was becoming increasinglyclear, is much more complicated than
that.
Having already retreatedfrom method to technique, it therefore
seemed necessary to retreatat least one step furtherback into the
unknown.In fact,two moves were involved.First,it meantretreating
fromprescriptionaltogetherin favor of adopting a descriptiveap-
proach (see Allwright1972 foran earlycall forthisparticularmove).
Second, it meantretreatingfromtechniquesto classroomprocesses.
These two moves, taken together,meant tryingto find ways of
describingclassroom processes to find out what actuallyhappens in
language classes,not assumingthatall thathappens is thata particular
method or a particularset of techniquesis simplyimplemented,but
assumingthatsomethingbelow the level of technique,somethingless
obviously pedagogic, takes place, somethingthat is more likely to
provide a fruitfulsubject forinvestigation.
In the pursuitof these two retreats,to the descriptionof classroom
processes, two somewhat differentviewpointshave emerged in the
last decade. Researchers with more of a sociological outlook on
education have tended to look at the language lesson as a socially
constructedevent,as somethingthatis the product of the interactive
workof all thepeople present.Put moresimply,such researchershave
stopped lookingat teachingas ifeverything of importancecame from
the teacher and have instead started looking at the way in which
people interactin the classroom to collectivelyproduce the learning
opportunitiesthatarise there.In my own work, for example, I have
196 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 130.179.16.201 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:36:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
gone fromlookingat how teacherscorrecterrors,to how learnersand
teachers togetherdetermineeach learner'slevel of participationin
classroom activities,and have now moved on to looking at how
learners'contributionsto classroominteractionaffectthe syllabusthe
teacheris tryingto implement.
More directly,language-orientedresearchershave chosen to look at
the classroom as a settingfor classroom language acquisition and
learningin termsof the language inputprovided by the teacher'stalk.
Gaies' (1977) work is importantin thisconnectionby demonstrating,
for example, the way teachersmay be able to adjust theirclassroom
language to thelevel of theirstudents.
These two viewpoints,however, are complementaryratherthan
mutuallyexclusive, and itis probablyalreadyclear thatthesociological
interestin the way learnerbehavior affectsthe syllabuscan easily be
related to the linguisticinterestin the nature of the language the
learnersare exposed to in the classroom. In fact,the two viewpoints
mustcome together,I would suggest,if we are not to misspotentially
valuable insights.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE BASIC TOOLS?

In themove fromteachertrainingto somethingmorelikefundamen-
tal research,typifiedin the twinmoves fromprescriptionto descrip-
tion and fromtechnique to process, what has happened to the basic
tools of classroom-centeredresearch?It should be rememberedthat
theywere originallyborrowed fromgeneraleducationalresearchand
consistedof techniquesthatused observationalschedules for the in-
class categorization of teacher behavior (relativelylittle attention
being paid to learnerbehaviorat thattime,giventhe focuson teacher
training).Observationschedules (essentiallylistsof categories)had to
be modifiedto be appropriateto theobvious complexitiesof language
teaching,where language is medium as well as content,where more
than one language may be used, and where, as in pronunciation
practice,all the learnersmay need to have a chance to tryto produce
the same answer to exactly the same question. Moskowitz (1971)
produced the most widely known and used modificationof a general
educational schedule (Flanders' [1960] FIAC) and called it FLint
(Foreign Language interactionsystem). She expanded and refined
Flanders' categories and thenused FLint both as a researchtool, to
pursuetheissue of "what constitutes'good' language teaching,"and as
a feedback tool forher importantwork in teachertraining,where she
trainedher studentteachersto analyze theirown teachingusing the
FLint categories so that they could have objective feedback about
theirteachingbehavior and a firmbasis forcomparisonin theirlater
CLASSROOM-CENTERED RESEARCH: BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 197

This content downloaded from 130.179.16.201 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:36:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
attemptsto behave differently in class. In anotherimportantcontribu-
tionin thisarea, Fanselow made major modificationsand elaborations
of Bellack's pioneering analytical system (Bellack et al. 1966) to
produce FOCUS (Fanselow 1977),an observationschedule developed
with language teacher trainingin mind, but a descriptive system
applicable to any humaninteraction.
These refinementsof the basic tools, however, seem not to have
been quite as generallyproductiveas one mighthave expected. One
possible explanation, embarrassingbut difficultto ignore, is that
researchersmay be such "primadonnas" thattheycannotbear to use
anyone else's observationalinstruments. There does seem to be some
truthin thissuggestion,and, forgeneral educational research,it was
made a long time ago. In 1968 Komisar wrote: "We are rapidly
approachingchaos in theproduction,by researchers,of 'new' category
systems"(quoted in Nuthall1968). I am reluctantto believe thisis the
whole story,however,and certainlythereis another,moreintellectual-
ly respectable possibility:thatthereis somethinginherentlyproble-
matic about tryingto keep the close link between fundamental
research,withitsneed forproperlyvalidatedobservationaltechniques,
and teachertraining,withitsneed forrelativelycrude instruments that
can be very quickly taughtto novice teachersand reliablyused by
them on recordingsof their own teaching withouttheirhaving to
spend inordinateamounts of time transcribingand analyzing their
data. When we considerthat,forresearchpurposes,we can expect to
take twentyhoursto produce a good, workingtranscription of a one-
hour language lesson (and thatis before we startto analyze it), and
then consider how we would justifythat use of time in a teacher
trainingcourse, we can see that the two enterprises,fundamental
researchand teachertraining,make verydifferentdemands on these
observational tools and can thereforebe expected to diverge. Of
course,thisimpliesthatteachertrainingcannotaffordthe timeto use
the more sophisticatedtools thatmightcome somewherenear reflect-
ing all of the complexitiesof the language classroom, and that,in
essence,a somewhat"roughand ready"approach to teachertrainingis
thebest we can do, forpurelypractical,logisticalreasons.This sounds,
perhaps, like a wholesale condemnationof teacher trainingas being
necessarilysimple-mindedand crude. Perhaps teacher training,like
any applied activity,has to be simple-mindedand crude relativeto
fundamentalresearch,but thatshouldin no way be takenas a criticism
of it.And in language teachertraining(perhapsin all subject areas) we
should rememberthatwhat may mattermostto the traineeis not that
the particularcategoriesused for the analysisof teachingshould be
highlyrefinedand fullyvalidated by research,but thattheprocess of
obtainingfeedback by self-analysisshouldact to stimulateproductive
198 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 130.179.16.201 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:36:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
thinkingabout classroom processes. Productive thought,experience
suggests,does not depend on the ultimateand proven validityof the
categories used as a startingpoint. As a startingpoint, categories
devised by the trainee teachers themselvesmay sufficeto provide
fruitfulthoughtand useful behavioral change (for some research
evidence, see Bailey 1976).
Fundamental research on classroom language learning,then, has
moved away from teacher trainingnot only in its moves from
prescriptionto description,and fromtechniqueto process,but also in
the search for appropriateresearchtools. The ultimateaim is stillto
end up withsomethinghelpfulto say to teachersand theirtrainers, but
we have been retreatingon all such frontsin thehope of being able to
returnsomeday withproperlyjustifiedconfidence.Meanwhilewe, as
researchers,have retainedthe basic idea of classroomobservationas
centralto our data collection procedures and have concentratedon
developingour own analyticaltools forour own particularpurposes.

FURTHERDEVELOPMENTS
In thissectionI will not tryto outlinefurtherdevelopmentsin terms
of researchfindings,since thatis the job of the articlewhich follows.
Instead,I will draw attentionto currentissuesin thefield,issuesthatlie
behind thetopics being investigated.
The firstissue was introduced earlier when I suggested that the
retreatfromprescriptionto descriptionand fromtechniqueto process
had resulted in the emergence of two viewpoints on classroom-
centeredresearch:one focusingon theinteractiveaspect of classroom
behavior, and the otherfocusingmore on the teacher'stalk as input.
The firstof these,based as itis on a sociologicalview of education,has
broughtclassroomresearchon language teachingand learningnearer
the sociological traditionof such educational researchersas Hymes
(see Cazden, John,and Hymes 1972) and theparticularethnomethodo-
logical work of such researchersas Mehan (1979). The second view-
point,focusingon teachertalk,has broughtus much closer to what is
now the mainstreamof second language acquisitionresearch,where
the huntis on for the crucial variables and where one of the prime
candidatesis input(see Krashen1981).
The issue concerningthesetwo viewpointsis simplythattheyshould
be seen as complementary,not in any way as in conflictwith each
other.Second language acquisitionstudiescan benefitfromtryingto
take theinteractivenatureof talkintoaccount,and interactionstudies
can certainlybenefitfromall theworkthathas been and is being done
to investigatethe naturalprocess of language acquisitionitself.
Our second issue is closelyrelatedto thislastpoint.Second language
CLASSROOM-CENTERED RESEARCH: BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 199

This content downloaded from 130.179.16.201 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:36:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
acquisitionstudies have generallybecome more concerned with the
elaborationof an overall conceptual framework,a theoryof second
language acquisitionin thenaturalsetting.Krashen'sworkin particular
has been stimulatingin thisrespect since he has dared to speculate
boldly about the implications of acquisition studies for classroom
language work. By contrast,classroom-centeredresearch typically
lacks such an overall framework,and perhaps rightlyso. In a way,
classroom-centeredresearch, as mentioned in my introductoryre-
marks, is simply research centered on the classroom. The field is
definedby its choice of where to look forits data, ratherthanby any
consensusabout whatto look forin itsdata. For that,perhaps,we need
to go outside and get the real motivationfor our classroom studies
fromhypothesesbeing developed in the most closely related field,
second language acquisitionresearch.Even thisis premature,because
we cannot yet expect a second language acquisitiontheoryto be so
well developed thatitprovidesus withprecisehypothesesto testin the
classroom, but at least it gives us a body of research and a set of
generalhypothesesto relateto.
The thirdissue withinclassroom-centered researchis somethingof a
controversy,a controversyover researchmethods.Put crudely,there
are obiectivistsand thereare subiectivists.The objectivistsare perhaps
closer to the practical originsof classroom observationwork, where
for teacher-training purposes it was seen as crucial to attempt to
eliminatethe unreliabilityinherentin supervisors'impressionistic re-
ports of classroom visits. Classroom observation schedules, using
agreed-uponcategories,could attemptto objectifyobservers'reports
and thereforemake teacher evaluation much less subjective. This
objectiveapproach fitswell withthedesireto quantifydata in research
studies,where one is lookingforgeneralizablefindingsthatwill defy
the cynics and the skepticswho always want to say, "So what?" The
objectivistssee progressin termsof hard, unassailable findingsthat
will accumulate to strengthen or weaken our confidencein particular
hypotheses that are properly derived from a coherent theoretical
framework.
The subjectivistsmightnot wish to quarrel withthisgoal, but they
would probablyargue,at least,thatitcannotbe attainedby way of the
objectivistroute since objectivityitselfis ultimatelyillusory.They
claim that it is, firstof all, quite impossible to fullyeliminatethe
subjective element. They go further,however, and argue that it is
preciselythe subjectiveelementthatis most worthyof investigation.
From thispoint of view we should not even be looking for ways of
eliminatingthesubjective,therefore,but forways of studyingitrigor-
ously. Diary studiesrepresentthispoint of view most clearly,where
diaristsmust not "wallow" in their subjective record of classroom
200 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 130.179.16.201 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:36:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
events,but somehow studyit rigorouslyforwhateverinsightsit may
offer(see Bailey and Ochsner,in press).
The fundamentalissue at stake is the status of the findingsof
classroom-centeredresearchstudies.The objectivistswant hard find-
ingsand can easilypointto thedifficulties thesubjectivistsface in their
attemptsto be rigorouslysubjective;the subjectivistscan easilypoint
to the difficultiesobjectivistsface in theirattemptsto be rigorously
objective in such a human,and thereforeinfinitely complex,endeavor
as language learning in the classroom (for overviews, see again
Ochsner 1979; Long 1980; Bailey, forthcoming,in press; Bailey and
Ochsner,in press). Perhaps the basic questionis, can we testhypothe-
ses in some way that meets any generallyaccepted criteriafor any
serious research enterprise,or can we only illuminateissues? Some
have suggested a sort of compromise, whereby the "illuminators"
would feed theirinsightsto the "hypothesistesters,"thusputtingthe
"issue illuminators"(the subjectivists)in a sort of service capacity.
However, the hard-linesubjectivistsmaintainstronglythatthe illumi-
nationof issues by insightfully rigoroussubjectiveresearchis just the
best thatwe can do and thatwe should not persistin the illusionthat
classroomlanguage learningresearchcould ever be usefullyobjective.
The controversycontinues,ratherthan rages, and performsthe
usefulservice of helpingkeep all of us a littlemore on our toes about
what we are doing and what we can sensiblyclaim about our results.

SUMMARY
In thisarticleI have deliberatelypresentedan overview of themes,
ratherthan of findings,in order to trace the origins of classroom-
centeredresearchon language teachingand learningand to trace the
variouschanges ithas gone throughin termsof thedevelopmentof its
centralconcernsand of itsresearchmethods.
It has been a historyof retreatfromthesimplisticoptimismthatwe
now see in the earliestattemptsto determinewhat constitutes"good"
language teachingand to trainlanguage teachersaccordingly.It has
been a historyof movementin generalaway fromtraditionalpedago-
gic concerns (the best method to adopt, the best techniquesto use)
toward other areas (the classroom interactionprocess) thatpromise
insightsof eventual value to language pedagogy-a retreatto what
may reasonablybe called fundamentalresearch,and a retreatthathas
broughtus muchcloser to othereducationalresearchersand to second
language acquisitionspecialists.
It has broughtus to a state of considerable diversityand healthy
controversy,where unresolved(and perhaps unresolvable)methodo-
logical issues are a key concernbut hardlya major worry,except for
CLASSROOM-CENTERED RESEARCH: BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 201

This content downloaded from 130.179.16.201 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:36:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
those with a very low tolerance of ambiguity, those who still expect
quick and easy answers to simple questions.
Perhaps the most important point to end with is that what unites
classroom-centered researchers is precisely their concern for what
happens in classrooms, their conviction that (to borrow a phrase from
Stephen Gaies, personal communication) "the classroom is the cruci-
ble," and thus the firstplace to look if we really want to understand
how to help our learners learn more effectively.
U

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wouldliketothankMichaelLong,HerbertSeliger,andespeciallyStephenGaiesfor
theircomments andveryhelpful ofthecontent
discussion ofthisarticle.Responsibility
fortheviewsexpressed ofcourse,myown.
remains,

THE AUTHOR
Dick Allwright is a Lecturerin AppliedLinguisticsat the Universityof Lancaster,
England.Hisarticles on classroom haveappearedina number
research ofprofessional
journalsas wellas inseveralcollections. he is co-chair(withStephenGaies)
Currently,
of theAnnualTESOL Colloquiumon Classroom-Centered Research,Chairof the
TESOL ResearchInterest Section,and a memberoftheEditorialAdvisory Boardof
theTESOL Newsletter.

REFERENCES
Allwright,Richard L. 1972. Prescriptionand descriptionin the trainingof
language teachers. In Proceedings of the thirdInternationalCongress of
Applied Linguistics(AILA; Copenhagen, 1972),J.Qvistgaard,H. Schwarz,
and H. Spang-Hanssen(Eds.), 150-166.Heidelberg: JuliusGroos Verlag.
Anthony,Edward M. 1963. Approach, method, and technique. English
Language Teaching 17:63-67.
Bailey, Kathleen M. 1976. The use of two observationinstrumentsin super-
vised ESL teaching.M.A. thesis,Universityof California,Los Angeles.
Bailey, Kathleen M. In press. Competitivenessand anxietyin adult second
language learning:lookingat and throughthe diary studies.In Classroom
language acquisition and use: new perspectives,Herbert D. Seliger and
Michael H. Long (Eds.). Rowley, Massachusetts:NewburyHouse Publish-
ers,Inc.
Bailey, KathleenM. Forthcoming.Classroom-centeredresearchon language
teachingand learning.In Essays for language teachers,Marianne Celce-
Murcia (Ed.). Rowley,Massachusetts:NewburyHouse Publishers,Inc.
202 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 130.179.16.201 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:36:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Bailey,KathleenM., and RobertOchsner.In press. A methodologicalreview
of the diarystudies:windmilltiltingor social science? In Second language
acquisitionstudies,KathleenM. Bailey,Michael H. Long, and SabrinaPeck
(Eds.). Rowley, Massachusetts:NewburyHouse Publishers,Inc.
Bellack, Arno A., Herbert M. Kliebard, Ronald T. Hyman, and Frank L.
Smith, Jr. 1966. The language of the classroom. New York: Teachers
College Press,Columbia University.
Carlsson, I. 1969. Implicitand explicit:an experimentin applied psycholin-
guistics.Gothenburg,Sweden: GothenburgUniversity.
Carroll,JohnB. 1966. The contributionof psychologicaltheoryand educa-
tionalresearchto the teachingof foreignlanguages.In Trendsin language
teaching, Albert Valdman (Ed.), 93-106. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Cazden, Courtney,Vera John,and Dell Hymes (Eds.). 1972. Functionsof
language in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press,Columbia
University.
Chomsky,Noam. 1957.Syntacticstructures.The Hague: MoutonPublishers.
Chomsky, Noam. 1959. Review of Skinner'sVerbal behavior. Language
35:26-58.
Dunkin, Michael J.,and Bruce J. Biddle. 1974. The studyof teaching.New
York: Holt, Rinehartand Winston.
Fanselow, JohnF. 1977. Beyond Rashomon-conceptualizingand describing
the teachingact. TESOL Quarterly11(1):17-39.
Flanders, Ned A. 1960. Interactionanalysis in the classroom: a manual for
observers.AnnArbor:The Universityof MichiganPress.
Gaies, Stephen J. 1977. The nature of linguisticinput in formal second
language learning:linguisticand communicativestrategiesin ESL teachers'
classroomlanguage. In On TESOL '77, H. Douglas Brown,Carlos A. Yorio,
and RuthH. Crymes(Eds.), 204-212.Washington,D.C.: TESOL.
Grittner,Frank M. 1968. Letter to the Editor. Newsletterof the National
Associationof Language LaboratoryDirectors(NALLD) 3(2):7.
Krashen,StephenD. 1981. Second language acquisitionand second language
learning.Oxford:PergamonPressLtd.
Long, Michael H. 1980. Inside the black box: methodological issues in
classroomresearchon language learning.Language Learning30(1):1-42.
Mehan, Hugh. 1979. Learninglessons: social organizationin the classroom.
Cambridge,Massachusetts:Harvard UniversityPress.
Moskowitz,Gertrude.1971.Interactionanalysis-a new modernlanguage for
supervisors.ForeignLanguage Annals5(2):211-221.
Nuthall,G.A. 1968. Studies of teaching:types of researchon teaching.New
Zealand Journalof Educational Studies3(2):125-147.
Ochsner,Robert. 1979. A poetics of second language acquisition.Language
Learning29(1):53-80.
Oskarsson,Mats. 1973.Assessingtherelativeeffectivenessof two methodsof
teachingEnglishto adults: a replicationexperiment.InternationalReview
of Applied Linguistics(IRAL) 11(3):251-262.
Otto,Frank.1969.The teacherin thePennsylvaniaproject.ModernLanguage
Journal53(6):411-420.
CLASSROOM-CENTERED RESEARCH: BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 203

This content downloaded from 130.179.16.201 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:36:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Politzer, Robert L. 1970. Some reflectionson "good" and "bad" language
teachingbehaviors.Language Learning20(1):31-43.
Scherer, George A.C., and Michael Wertheimer.1964. A psycholinguistic
experimentin foreignlanguage teaching.New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Smith, Philip D. 1970. A comparison of the cognitive and audiolingual
approaches to foreignlanguage instruction:the Pennsylvaniaforeignlan-
guage project. Philadelphia,Pennsylvania:Center for CurriculumDevel-
opment.

204 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 130.179.16.201 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:36:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions