[ advanced search ]

Join TESOL Membership Benefits   A |  A |  A

Login
Please allow pop-ups
Email Address:

Password:


    Need Help?
   Forgot Password?

TESOL Matters Vol. 9 No. 5 (October/November 1999)

David C. Nunan, President of TESOL, 1999-2000

In my last message, I discussed four criteria that can be drawn on in deciding whether or not an occupation could lay claim to being a profession:

1. the existence of advanced education and training
2. the establishment of "standards of practice and certification"
3. an agreed theoretical and empirical base
4. the work of individuals within the field to act as advocates for the profession

In Part 2, I'd like to take a critical look at these four criteria, raise some questions and caveats, and contest the criteria against what is currently happening within TESOL the association.

Is education and training necessary? In Part 1 of this piece, I pointed out that many people who teach English around the world have no specific training as language educators. In fact, there are many who have no training whatsoever. Does this matter? At some time or other, you've probably heard comments such as the following: "Some of my best teachers had no formal qualifications." "I once had a teacher with a PhD in education. He was hopeless as a teacher."

The fact that some individuals without formal training happen to be natural teachers and that some highly trained people aren't particularly good in the classroom isn't a good enough reason to argue that education and training aren't necessary. Requiring someone with a natural gift or talent to undergo training is not going to turn them into "bad" teachers. Not so long ago, a top surgeon, who performed some of the most delicate operations possible under current medical technology, was found to be a fraud, with no medical training or qualifications whatsoever. He is currently serving a prison term.

Given the imperative for education and training, the question arises, What types of knowledge and skill are relevant for language educators? In considering this question, we can draw a broad distinction between declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge. Procedural knowledge can be subdivided into discipline-specific and general knowledge.

For language teachers, declarative knowledge includes all of the things we know about language. The following are examples of declarative knowledge:

"When making third-person declarative statements in the simple present, put an s on the end of regular verbs" or "The passive voice is used when we want to emphasise a process rather than the performer of an action."

Discipline-specific procedural knowledge refers to skills that are specific to language teaching, for example, how to introduce new grammatical items, such as gerunds and infinitives. General procedural knowledge refers to skills that all teachers should possess regardless of the subject they teach. Such skills would include how to manage group work, how to deal with discipline problems, and how to improve the motivation of students. (The procedural/declarative distinction also holds for students. Last semester, I had a student who performed flawlessly in a lesson reviewing the use of adjectives ending in -ing to describe persons, actions, and things, and the use of adjectives ending in -ed to describe feelings and attitudes. At the end of the lesson, I asked him how he liked the class. "Oh," he replied, "I am boring when we practice this -ing stuff!")

The second defining characteristic of a profession has to do with standards of practice and certification. The caveat here concerns the right of one group of individuals to grant or withhold a licence to any other individual or group of individuals. The danger is that if power is vested in a particular group, it may lead to a "closed shop." So the question here is, Who has the right to set standards and to certify? What gives TESOL -- or any subgroup within TESOL -- the right to say who should or should not be allowed to teach English to speakers of other languages? In other words, to what extent does the association have the right to act as a custodian to the field?

The third criterion, the existence of a disciplinary base or shared principles of procedure, is also problematic. According to Freeman (1998), teaching doesn't constitute a discipline because it "does not have unified or commonly held "ground rules for creating and testing knowledge" (p. 10). He goes on to state that "Teachers are seen -- and principally see themselves -- as consumers rather than producers of knowledge. Other people write curricula, develop teaching methodologies, create published materials, and make policies and procedures about education that teachers are called upon to implement" (p. 10).

As with the second criterion, we are entitled to ask, Who decides the rules of the game? Who decides "This is the way it should be"? In all professions, these questions are posed by those who challenge the traditional order of things. When they succeed, and force acceptance of an alternative vision of the way things should be, there is a paradigm shift. In terms of Western medical practice, it wasn't all that long ago that the idea of curing headaches by sticking needles into the sufferer's foot was held up to ridicule, and those who advocated such practices were pilloried. These days, acupuncture is commonplace. In language teaching the so-called communicative revolution that began in the 1970s has led to changing practices. Many classroom procedures that are now widely embraced were branded as heretical not all that long ago.

There is clearly a role for research in determining the way it should be, although the exact nature of this research and the shape and form it should take are hotly contested within the profession (witness the debate that took place in these pages last year between past presidents Robert Kaplan and Donald Freeman; see Kaplan, 1998; Freeman, 1998/1999).

The fourth and final defining criteria is that of advocacy/influence. Within the United States, TESOL has had some successes, stemming at least in part from its employment of a professional in the area of advocacy, Marlyn McAdam, to lobby on its behalf. Internationally, however, it has had less success. The question or caveat in relation to this criterion is, Is it possible for any profession to act as an international advocate? Potentially, the work of individuals such as Francisco Gomes in Brazil, who has argued vigorously for an international declaration of language rights, shows some promise.

It is interesting to note that the four criteria set out here are reflected in TESOL's Forward Plan. This plan sets out TESOL's agenda in the areas of professional development, standards, research, and advocacy. (A fifth area, organizational development, is not covered here.) For the foreseeable future, the Forward Plan will serve as an organizing matrix within which we will continue in our efforts at professionalization. The table summarizes the work currently being carried out as well as indicating possible areas for further action.

Is TESOL a profession? The answer to this question is, It depends where you look! It is possible to find language teaching institutions in different parts of the world that fit none of the criteria set out above. However, it is also possible to find institutions and associations that are actively committed to advancing education and training, developing standards and certification, supporting the development of theory and research so that a disciplinary base can be established, and working as advocates to influence broader communities in ways that are positive for L2 learners. It is up to us who are committed to the notion of TESOL as a profession to identify and promote those practices around the world that are consistent with this goal.

References

Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacher research. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Freeman, D. (1998/1999, December/January). Research in TESOL: Another view. TESOL Matters, p. 5.

Kaplan, R. (1998, June/July). On TESOL and Research. TESOL Matters, p. 16.

David C. Nunan, President of TESOL, 1999-2000