THE FORUMThe TESOL Quarterly invites commentary on current trends or practices in theTESOL profession. It also welcomes responses to rebuttals to any articles or remarkspublished here in The Forum or elsewhere in the Quarterly.

The Role of Theory inL2 Teacher Education*

KAREN E. JOHNSONPennsylvania State University

❑ L2 teacher education programs are often criticized for presentingparticular kinds of knowledge in ways that do not resemble how teachersactually use their knowledge in real classrooms. Novice teachers enrolledin teacher education programs complain that they get too much theoryand too little practice. Public school and English language instituteadministrators complain that new hires know a lot of theory but cannottranslate it into effective classroom practices. Teacher educators arguethat if novice teachers do not know the theory, they will be unable tomake informed decisions about what to do once they enter classrooms. Ibelieve that what is needed is more realistic expectations about whattheory does and does not do for L2 teachers.

PERCEPTUAL, NOT CONCEPTUAL, KNOWLEDGE

Recounting the classic controversy between Plato’s and Aristotle’sconceptions of rationality, Kessels and Korthagen (1996) argue that thedevelopment of perceptual knowledge (phronesis) not conceptual knowledge(episteme) should be central to teacher education programs. They arguethat conceptual knowledge is too abstract, stripped of its particulars, andvoid of the very context that constructs the basis upon which decisions

* This article presents some of the issues that will be addressed in the Quarterly’s Autumn1998 special-topic issue on Research and Practice in English Language Teacher Education,guest edited by Karen E. Johnson and Donald Freeman.

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 30, No. 4, Winter 1996 765

are made. Instead, they claim, “in the phronesis-conception of knowl-edge [practical wisdom], there is no set of given, abstract rules to applyto this particular problem because the problem is (as yet) far tooparticular for that. There are too many details, too many idiosyncrasies,too many exceptional aspects for a general rule” (p. 20). Teachereducators, they claim, must create opportunities for novice teachers toexplore, develop, and refine their perceptual knowledge; to uncoverwhat they are actually aware of; to articulate the particulars of their ownclassroom context; to examine their own reactions, thoughts, andfeelings; and to account for the intricacies of their own teaching.

The development of perceptual knowledge is also essential because, asBuchmann (1984) claims, “research knowledge is only a fragment ofhuman awareness, precious no doubt, but not created for the purpose ofactions, not sufficient to determine them” (p. 422). Thus, conceptualknowledge, or theory, should be viewed as only one aspect of theknowledge-base in teaching. In fact, Buchmann claims that other aspectsof teachers’ knowledge, namely, common sense, personal commitment,and external policies, such as school curriculum and mandates, mustalso be recognized as part of a valid knowledge-base for classroompractice. Eisner (1984), agreeing with Buchmann, claims that “theoryand generalizations from educational research can provide a guide—butnever a substitute—for the teacher’s ability to read the meanings that arefound in the qualities of classroom life” (p. 452). Hence, teachereducators cannot, and should not, look to theory as the solution to allthat ails classroom practice, or all that is needed to prepare L2 teachers.

Even more important, teacher educators must realize that theoryoften fails to inform practice because the problems that arise in practiceare generally neither caused by nor the result of teachers’ lack ofknowledge about theory. Instead, the problems that teachers face aregenerally caused by constraints imposed on them within the social,cultural, economic, and educational contexts in which their practicetakes place, namely, the school and classroom. This being the case, onecannot assume that theory does, or can ever, fully and completely informpractice.

MAKING SENSE OF THEORY

The question then becomes, what is the relevance of theory forclassroom practice? Over the past 10 years, researchers and practitionersin L2 teacher education have began to recast the conceptions of whoteachers are, what teaching is, and how teachers learn to teach (Free-man, 1993, 1994; Freeman & Richards, 1996; Johnson, 1992, 1994, 1996;Richards & Nunan, 1990). Researchers and practitioners have begun torecognize that what teachers know about teaching is not simply an

766 TESOL QUARTERLY

extended body of facts and theories but is instead largely experientialand socially constructed out of the experiences and classrooms fromwhich teachers have come. In addition, they have begun to recognizeteaching as a socially constructed activity that requires the interpretationand negotiation of meanings embedded within the classrooms andschools where teachers teach. And finally, they have begun to recognizethat learning to teach is a complex developmental process that isacquired by participating in the social practices associated with teachingand learning.

To accept these reconceptualizations is to assume that teachers’knowledge is inherently their own, constructed by teachers themselves,and largely experiential. This being the case, it appears that theory caninform classroom practice only to the extent to which teachers them-selves make sense of that theory. Ultimately, it is on this sense-makingprocess that I believe the attention of L2 teacher education programsmust be focused. But what does this sense-making process entail and howcan teacher education programs be structured in such a way as to fostersuch sense-making?

CASEBASED METHODS

First, for teachers to make sense of theory, it must be situated in thefamiliar context of their own teaching. Fenstermacher (1986) claims thattheory benefits classroom practice only to the extent that it helps bringto the surface, alter, and strengthen the justifications that exist in theminds of teachers. When teachers articulate their justifications for whythey teach the way they do, when they reflect on theory within thecontext of their own classrooms, and when they talk about theirjustifications with others, it fosters the kind of sense-making that enablesteachers to not only change what they do but also change theirjustifications for what they do.

To enable novice teachers to work through their justifications, teachereducators must begin to recognize the situated and interpretative natureof teaching (Freeman, 1994; Freeman & Richards, 1996). In essence,teaching requires teachers to figure out what to do about a particulartopic with a particular group of students in a particular time and place.This being the case, teacher education programs must rely less on thetransmission of knowledge model of teaching teachers (i.e., readings,lecture, exams, term papers) and more on a more problem-or case-basedmethod (Richert, 1987; Shulman, 1992). Case-based methods providerich descriptions of the complexities of teachers’ work by revealing thecomplex variables that are considered as teachers sort out, make senseof, and justify the use of particular actions. Cases, unlike real classrooms,provide a safe environment for novice teachers to consider alternatives,

THE FORUM 767

granting them time and space to carefully consider all the issuesembedded within an instructional situation. Cases can also be used associal activities in that novice teachers can get together in groups todiscuss, reflect on, and analyze a case. Novice teachers can also authorcases as a means of talking about what they know within the contexts inwhich they work. Doing so fosters reflection, brings value to noviceteachers’ experiences, and validates their perspectives. In essencecase-based methods create opportunities for novice teachers to use theirknowledge about teaching in situated and interpretative ways.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOLS

However, teacher educators must also recognize that learning to teachrequires participation in the social practices associated with teaching andlearning, and herein lies a fundamental problem with most teachereducation programs. In general, students enrolled in preservice teachereducation programs are not participating in teaching while they arestudying about teaching, so they do not have the opportunity toexperience firsthand the situated and interpretative nature of realteaching. Not until they actually enter classrooms and have to makedecisions about what to do, with whom, for what purpose, and when willthey have to engage in the complex interpretative way of thinking anddoing required in real teaching. Unfortunately, the one-semesterpracticum teaching experience typical of most TESOL teacher educa-tion programs is grossly inadequate for preparing novice teachers toteach (Johnson, 1996). Given that most university-based teacher educa-tion programs are constrained by time (semester or term) and theavailability of appropriate practicum placements, the creation of profes-sional development schools (Darling-Hammond, 1994; Gebhard, 1994;Grossman, 1994; Lieberman & Miller, 1990) is essential if teachereducators are to provide an authentic environment for the preparationof novice teachers.

ASSESSMENT

Professional development schools are not just university lab schoolsbut instead are real schools where university faculty and site-basedteachers share in the responsibility for preparing novice teachers.Lieberman and Miller (1990) characterize the culture of professionaldevelopment schools as places where teachers work collegially, wherethey engage in serious inquiry into their own practices, where teachersthemselves determine how best to teach their students based on contex-tual and personal understandings of their students’ needs, and wheresupport for change comes from within the school and from the univer-

768 TESOL QUARTERLY

sity. Within this culture, novice teachers enter professional developmentschools as true novices but gradually participate in team teaching,develop curriculum, prepare case studies, and participate in ongoingresearch projects.

Throughout this process, novice teachers become socialized into aschool culture that views learning as personal, meaningful, and based ona grounded understanding of students’ needs. Thus, novice teachers relyless on prefabricated lessons or textbooks but instead learn to constructcurriculum that is uniquely adapted to their students. Through teammeetings, peer observations, case conferences, and action research,professional development schools create an environment where reflec-tion and continuous inquiry into one’s practice is the norm, not theexception. Although creating and sustaining professional developmentschools is no simple task (Grossman, 1994; Teitel, 1992), such schoolshave enormous potential to link universities and classrooms in order tocreate authentic environments for the preparation of novice teachers.

Whether university or school based, teacher education programs thatare structured to foster sense-making must also design ways of assessingthis sense-making process. Portfolio assessment is one means of assessinghow teachers make sense of what they are learning in their teachereducation programs (Collins, 1991; Johnson, in press). Portfolio designand development require teacher educators to articulate the specificpurposes that the portfolio will be used to assess. To do so, teachereducators must ask themselves, “What is it that we really want ourstudents to know and be able to do as a result of this teacher educationprogram?” For example, as a teacher educator, I may believe that noviceteachers need to reflect on, critically analyze, and evaluate their ownteaching or that they need to be aware of the unique needs and learningstyles of their students and be sensitive to the social factors that mayaffect their students’ learning. Though these purposes are not easy toaccomplish, those selected will depend on the goals of the particularteacher education program.

Once the purposes are established, novice teachers then set out tocompile evidence that demonstrates that they have successfully met thesepurposes. Evidence may come in the form of artifacts, such as a paperwritten for a course or a notebook of field notes from a series ofclassroom observations. They may take the form of reproductions, suchas an audiotape of a discussion with an experienced teacher aboutclassroom management or a collection of journal entries about aparticular student. Evidence may also reflect attestations, for example, acooperating teacher’s final written report or a peer’s written observationof the novice teacher. Once all of the evidence is collected, noviceteachers must then provide a description of the focus of the portfolio, asummary of the documents in the portfolio, and attachments for each

THE FORUM 769

piece of evidence describing what it is, why it is evidence, and what it isevidence of. Ultimately, this process requires novice teachers to articu-late their knowledge about teaching in ways that are similar to how theywill use that knowledge once they enter their own classrooms. Thus, itrepresents a form of assessment that not only assesses sense-making butalso fosters it.

CONCLUSION

In refocusing L2 teacher education programs, teacher educators mustfind ways to situate learning about teaching within authentic contextsand develop in teachers ways of knowing and doing that represent thesocially constructed, perceptual, and interpretative nature of real teach-ing. If teacher educators do this, teachers will be constantly engaged in aprocess of sense-making, enabling them to not simply change what theydo, but change their justifications for what they do. Such sense-makingmakes theory relevant for practice because teachers’ knowledge, whethertheoretical or practical, conceptual or perceptual, will be understoodand acted on within the context of real teaching.

REFERENCES

Buchmann, M. (1984). The use of research knowledge in teacher education andteaching. American Journal of Education, 92, 421–439.

Collins, A. (1991). Portfolios for biology teacher assessment. Journal of PersonnelEvaluation in Education, 5, 147-167.

Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (1994). Professional development schools. New York:Teachers College Press.

Eisner, E. W. (1984, March). Can educational research inform educational practice?Phi Delta Kappan, 447-452.

Fenstermacher, G. D. (1986) Philosophy of research on teaching: Three aspects. InM. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 37–49). New York:Macmillan.

Freeman, D. (1993). Renaming experience/reconstructing practice: Developing newunderstandings of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 485–498.

Freeman, D. (1994). Knowing into doing: Teacher education and the problem oftransfer. In D. C. Li, D. Mahoney, & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Exploring second languageteacher development (pp. 1–20). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.

Freeman, D., & Richards, J. C. (1996). (Eds). Teacher learning in language teaching.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gebhard, M. (1994). Professional development for pre-seruice second language educators:Present understandings and future directions. Unpublished manuscript, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley.

Grossman, P. (1994). In pursuit of a dual agenda: Creating a middle level profes-sional development school. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional developmentschools (pp. 50–73). New York: Teachers College Press.

Johnson, K. E. (1992). Learning to teach: Instructional actions and decisions ofpreservice ESL teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 507-535.

770 TESOL QUARTERLY

Johnson, K. E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of preserviceESL teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 439-452.

Johnson, K. E. (1996) The vision vs. the reality: The tensions of the TESOLpracticum. In D. Freeman & J. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching(pp. 30-49). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, K. E. (in press). Portfolio assessment in second language teacher education.TESOL Journal.

Kessels, J. P., & Korthagen, F. A. (1996). The relationship between theory andpractice: Back to the classics. Educational Researcher, 25, 17–22.

Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1990). Teacher development in professional practiceschools. Teachers College Record, 92, 105–122.

Richards, J. C., & Nunan, D. (Eds.). (1990). Second language teacher education. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Richert, A. (1987). Writing cases: A vehicle for inquiry into teaching process. In J. H.Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp. 155–174). New York:Teachers College Press.

Shulman, J. H. (1992). Case methods in teacher education. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Teitel, L. (1992). The impact of professional development school partnerships onthe preparation of teachers. Teaching Education, 4, 77–85.

THE FORUM 771