Apply with Caution

Abstract

Perhaps we are no worse than any other, but I think our field must soon be known for the incredible leaps in logic we make in applying our research findings to classroom teaching. When contrasts drawn between first and second languages showed differences and those differences seemed to match errors our students made in the classroom, we leapt to say that Contrastive Analysis alone should form the basis of the language teaching curriculum. When a so-called invariant order of acquisition of morphemes was found, we made two leaps in logic––one to say that this was the best evidence of a creative language acquisition process and a second to say that this research shows that learners should just be exposed to, rather than taught, the language. When we found traits shared by good language learners, we suggested that the curriculum should be altered to make sure everyone does what good learners do. We have looked at conversational analysis and declared that teaching materials should reflect true conversational data. No matter what the finding, we have taught ourselves to ask ‘What -does this mean for the classroom teacher?’ and made suggestions without careful thought. There is hardly a publisher or a political group that won't find (or hasn't already found) something in all these leaps of logic to call giant strides. It shouldn't be hard to find the basis to sell almost any program to almost everyone on the strength of someone's research findings.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 70 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.