My career has taken me to the uncomfortable and sometimes exciting spot in English language teaching or education in general: middle management, a term I dislike. As an advocate of teachers, I find my direction and passion by supporting teachers, helping them make their jobs more meaningful. Unfortunately, I have had to work with supervisors that didn't understand or share this vision. I'm not sure if they saw me as someone to "manage" teachers, but it often felt like it. If you don't know what middle management jobs are, and there are a lot of them, they go by many different names. Match any of the words in the left column with the words in the right column to create a job title that can describe the same job.
It seems that most of these job descriptions do not include research, which I believe is essential in developing curriculum and professional learning. It also seems obvious to me that a background in pedagogical research (and for ELT, research in applied linguistics) would make the position more credible, especially for teachers who seek support and guidance. However, the job can serve the administration more than the faculty in that a legitimate goal, such as giving the university or department some cohesion in terms of learning pathways for the students, may override the issues or concerns that arise in the classroom. If this happens, a top-down directive can unintentionally take away creativity and/or autonomy from the teachers. If the job is to serve an administrator's vision for teaching and learning, the middle manager may be asked to provide workshops and sessions on areas of that vision, which may or may not be backed by research. If it is not backed by solid research, there is a good chance that it is supported by an education-related industry, such as publishing and education technology.
What does this have to do with ELT?
Through my research projects on professional development and through my middle management experiences, I find that I can divide ELT research into two categories: academic research and industry research.
Academic research is what I believed all research was in education. That is research aimed at determining ways to improve the teaching and learning processes. A large chunk of applied linguistics research is aimed at this purpose because of the decades-long demand for English language teaching and curriculum. The number of ELT-related research publications seems to be exponentially expanding since the 1980s. And I assume many teachers who are looking for ways to improve some aspect of their pedagogy their hope or believe that the ELT books they read or the conference workshops and presentations they attend are backed by this type of research. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.
Industry research is something that has caught my attention when working in these middle management positions. An administrator, a director, a publisher, or a vendor will approach me with an idea to improve some aspect of teaching or the curriculum. Since they are not in the classroom, I raise my skeptical eyebrow to these ideas. How do they know what's not working? Administrators and directors do have the data from student feedback, but I often find the main issue to be about a specific teacher or a textbook more than a teaching technique or the curriculum itself. Administrators, especially those in the private sector, are worried about the bottom line. They will make decisions, not necessarily based on research, to cut losses and stimulate growth. This is their job, so I do not have an issue with that. The problem arises when business-minded administrators are in charge of developing curriculum or making curricular changes. Larger English language schools and programs will have two (sets of) administrators, one focused on the business and one on the academics. Some smaller schools and programs will grant a teacher or a committee of teachers the authority to make curricular decisions. I am interested in what proportion of these administrators, lead teachers, or curriculum committees have a strong background in academic research rather than industry research.
Industry research is more visible than academic research because publishers and education technology vendors have the money to attract the consuming educator. Industry research is based on market research: What do the consumers want and need? These consumers are ELTs and their students. Look at the best selling ELT coursebooks and you get a good sense of what the market wants. If you have a background in applied linguistics or education research, you may notice a gap between a research-informed curriculum and a market research-informed textbook. It is my opinion that market research wants to make English language teaching and learning look easy. Their products offer a path of least resistance to "effective" teaching and learning. If teachers and students follow their suggested sequence of English language acquisition, then neither party has to work so hard. That's the appeal of the products. Think Rosetta Stone and The Plimseur Approach.
Now think of how easy it is as a curriculum leader to choose one publisher's series of ELT coursebooks as the guide for the school or program's curriculum. This leader places their trust completely in a publisher that designs its books primarily on market research, which is something that is usually fast and easy for the teacher, "de-skilling" the teacher as many have put it. If a teacher decides to seriously pursue their professional development and avoids most of the industry research, they will discover that blindly following the coursebook and the curriculum is likely harming both student and teacher.
With the publishing industry becoming more and more monolithic, some industry publishers are merging with academic publishers. I am uncertain how these two forces interact under the same roof. Is the industry including more academic research into their design? Some teachers and ELT leaders I have spoken with believe this is happening. Is the academic side of these joint industries becoming more accessible to teachers? Not really. For many academics, accessibility runs too close to commercialization. Rigorous research findings and conclusions should not have to compete in the marketplace with an app that translates slang poorly, or even worse, one shouldn't be used to help sell the other.
Industry research is more visible than academic research because publishers and education technology vendors have the money to attract the consuming educator. Industry research is based on market research: What do the consumers want and need? These consumers are ELTs and their students. Look at the best selling ELT coursebooks and you get a good sense of what the market wants. If you have a background in applied linguistics or education research, you may notice a gap between a research-informed curriculum and a market research-informed textbook. It is my opinion that market research wants to make English language teaching and learning look easy. Their products offer a path of least resistance to "effective" teaching and learning. If teachers and students follow their suggested sequence of English language acquisition, then neither party has to work so hard. That's the appeal of the products. Think Rosetta Stone and The Plimseur Approach.
Now think of how easy it is as a curriculum leader to choose one publisher's series of ELT coursebooks as the guide for the school or program's curriculum. This leader places their trust completely in a publisher that designs its books primarily on market research, which is something that is usually fast and easy for the teacher, "de-skilling" the teacher as many have put it. If a teacher decides to seriously pursue their professional development and avoids most of the industry research, they will discover that blindly following the coursebook and the curriculum is likely harming both student and teacher.
With the publishing industry becoming more and more monolithic, some industry publishers are merging with academic publishers. I am uncertain how these two forces interact under the same roof. Is the industry including more academic research into their design? Some teachers and ELT leaders I have spoken with believe this is happening. Is the academic side of these joint industries becoming more accessible to teachers? Not really. For many academics, accessibility runs too close to commercialization. Rigorous research findings and conclusions should not have to compete in the marketplace with an app that translates slang poorly, or even worse, one shouldn't be used to help sell the other.
So what?
Education has always been a mix of cheap quick fixes and thoroughly researched conclusions. I suggest that all teachers develop a sense of research literacy. In this case, they need to understand the difference between academic research and industry research. Academic research in ELT involves finding a solution to a pedagogical problem or improving teaching and learning. Industry research in ELT involves finding a solution to an economic problem or improving the distribution of ELT products and services. With a few years of middle management experience in higher education and ELT, I have developed the skills for both types of research, but my heart is in improving teaching and learning because that's why I chose this field. If the product is a program with a solid academic research-based curriculum with teachers who are engaged in and with academic research, then I'm for its wider promotion and distribution.
Comments