Linguistic Theory in Language Teacher Education A common thread through much of the recent debate is to call into question

the extent of the grounding that language teachers need in theory, especially linguistic theory, as part of their training. [2] This debate arises in a context where the role of linguistic training in language teacher education programs has long been taken for granted. A review of graduate program requirements in TESOL clearly shows the prominent role linguistic study still plays in the education of second/foreign language teachers. Govardhan, Nayar, & Sheorey (1999), for example, surveyed the core courses in TESOL Master of Arts (MA) programs in US universities, basing their analysis on data collected from 194 US institutions as presented in Garshick (1998). They found that most programs mandate linguistic study. A review of Garshick (2002) indicates that this trend continues today. Most teachers in language education programs are offered elective courses in linguistics as part of their professional education. However, we have observed that in our program many students choose to fill their elective options with methodology courses, while non-required courses dealing with aspects of linguistic theory are less frequently selected. Our conversations with colleagues at other institutions suggest that we are not alone in this observation. The same pattern can also be observed in professional gatherings of language teachers, such as the annual TESOL convention. While presenters often address packed audiences in methodologically oriented sessions (e.g., '10 tips for teaching grammar,' 'Developing oral proficiency tests,' or 'Using blogs to improve comprehension'), linguistically based sessions (e.g., 'Language shift in a diglossic community,' 'End states in L2 learning,' or 'The role of output in SLA') attract far fewer attendees. This suggests both a pre-service and in-service lack of interest on the part of teachers for the pursuit of linguistic theory as an aspect of their professional development. While this may be understandable because teachers clearly have a need to address the more practical aspects of their profession, it also indicates that they do not perceive linguistic-oriented presentations as useful for addressing their pedagogical problems. At the same time, some language teacher educators have begun to question the professional relevance of linguistic training. Recent debates among Johnson (2002), Snyder (2002 a, b), and Yates & Muchisky (2003, 2004) suggest that many teacher educators still believe that language teachers in training need to know about theories of language, learning, and second language acquisition, but this has not been a unanimous assumption. Phillipson (1988: 348), for instance, maintains that English Language Teaching (ELT) is best served when "the professional training of ELT people concentrates on linguistics, psychology and education in a restricted sense," (emphasis added). Other scholars such as Crookes (1997) and Holliday (1997) point out that the emphasis on linguistics in teacher education programs comes at the expense of less emphasis on other, mostly sociocultural , aspects of language teaching and learning. They view this lack of discussion of sociocultural variables in language learning as a problem for teachers preparing to teach in diverse contexts. Govardhan et al. display their skepticism of the practical applications of theory by arguing that many theoretical courses that are offered in MA programs in TESOL are "of doubtful relevance as part of an education program" and that there currently exists "an overinfusion of elements of linguistic theory (e.g., syntactic theory, various schools of theoretical phonology, historiography of linguistics), which are only remotely relevant to language pedagogy" (1999:121-122). Discussions on the Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal forum among language teachers have revealed similar attitudes, where, a number of contributors note that although they enjoyed their linguistics courses, they see little relevance of linguistic theory to the actual practice of language teaching. Hearing the Voices of Teachers Themselves

While the above debates have been continuing among teacher educators and researchers, few empirical studies have investigated how linguistic knowledge is used by language teachers in their practice. This is a remarkable oversight given that we, as teacher educators and curriculum designers, have been basing our assumptions on the notion that linguistic theory informs language teaching, and thus have been making linguistic training a staple in language teacher education. It is important for us to learn how exactly linguistic theory is used in language teaching, or indeed, whether it is used at all. This information is needed to help us test our assumptions that inform curriculum design in language teacher education programs. One attempt to begin to address this oversight is Grabe et al. (2000) who carried out a case study of a single teacher who had completed a Master's degree in teaching English as a Second Language. The aim of their study was to determine the extent to which the theoretical and methodological coursework in this student's program transferred into her subsequent lesson planning and classroom teaching. Grabe et al. found that the particular teacher trainee did incorporate linguistic knowledge into her teaching practice, although the authors were understandably very cautious in drawing generalizations from one case alone. As teacher trainees gain experience in teaching, it may well be that their views change on the importance of linguistic theory for their practice. To date, few studies have examined this question and we do not have solid data on how perceptions of theory may change from the time teacher trainees first enter academic programs to the time they become seasoned professionals. Access to such data would require soliciting information from students and teachers themselves, and the fact that we do not as of yet have such data underscores the need for further research. Mullock (2002) surveyed teachers' views of what they believed to be important traits in a language teacher. Working with teachers from ten countries, Mullock found that subjects ranked knowledge of the subject matter higher than expertise in teaching techniques and methods in their evaluation. From these findings, Mullock concluded that expert teachers are those who have "highly organized and elaborated sets of conceptual knowledge in their subject area which provides them with a sophisticated conceptual understanding of the principles and relationships in their subject area" (2002: 9-10). Studies such as those by Grabe et al. and Mullock provide us with insights on teachers' beliefs about the value of theory in practice, however, they need to be replicated more broadly across other contexts, with triangulation of methods, in order for us to gain a deeper understanding of teachers' reactions to aspects of their professional training. We need to learn where and how teachers incorporate their linguistic knowledge into their teaching and how this kind of knowledge helps to shape their grasp of the subject matter. In turn, a better understanding of how theoretical components of language are actually being used by teachers would inform us of needed modifications in teacher education. In short, the study of theoretical linguistics has been a core component in language teacher education, perhaps due to teacher educators' conviction that knowledge of linguistic theory and skills in analyzing various aspects of language should form an important part of language teachers' knowledge base. However, this view may be changing: some scholars now argue for prominence on the act of teaching itself in language teacher education programs, and others argue for an increase in emphasis on the sociocultural and contextual factors influencing language teaching and learning. While anecdotal evidence and informal observations indicate that prospective teachers in teacher education programs often argue against the study of linguistic theory, calling instead for more pedagogy/practice-oriented courses in their curricula, the few available empirical studies of teachers suggest a more complex picture, one in which teachers appear to place value on content knowledge and theoretical knowledge. Call for Action Given the conflicting views presented above, there is a clear need for studies investigating the actual use of linguistic theory in language teaching. To further inform discussions on the role of theoretical linguistic training in language teacher education, we need better and more varied

empirical data gained through observation of practicing language teachers. Furthermore, since many have begun to consider training educators as a collaborative process involving 'reflective teaching' and 'theorizing opportunities' (cf. Johnson, 2002), our discussions as educators need to take into account the voices of our teachers-in-training (who study linguistic theory in preparation for language teaching) and our experienced alumni (who may or may not see linguistic theory as useful for their teaching practice). These groups are the direct recipients of our instruction and, in regards to their internal thought processes related to the use of linguistic theory, our only available source of information. We need to uncover the perceptions of pre-service teachers about their future needs for linguistic theory in their pedagogical practice, so that as teacher educators we can explain to students the rationale behind our curricular requirements and help them usefully integrate theory and practice from the start. We also need to learn about the perceptions of practicing teachers on how, where, and when they have been using their linguistic knowledge base to inform their teaching practice, in order to be able to reassess and modify our teacher education curricula appropriately. With such feedback, modifications made to teacher education curricula will be more meaningful and teacher educators debating the role of linguistic knowledge in teacher education will have actual examples/narratives from teachers on which to base their claims. We therefore call upon our colleagues in language teacher education to join us in constructing empirical studies that will inform the above debate with authentic teacher feedback. The following are some suggestions to begin our investigations: 1. Collect data on teachers' (both pre- and in-service teachers) views on what they perceive to be the value and relevance of linguistic training for their teaching practice. Data may be collected through interviews, questionnaires, stimulated recall, journaling, and other means, in order to allow us to gain insights from multiple perspectives. 2. Solicit real examples and narratives from practicing teachers of how linguistic knowledge they have gained as part of their training is used to prepare, present, and practice areas of the target language in the classroom, and how such knowledge can be used in solving pedagogical problems. 3. Compare and contrast the perceptions of pre-service and in-service teachers on the usefulness of linguistic theory in their practice, to learn whether and how a practicum or other fieldwork may change their views towards theory. 4. Solicit pre-and in-service teachers' suggestions on whether they are/were able to integrate linguistics-oriented and methodology-oriented courses as important components of their training, and seek feedback on ways in which such integration can be facilitated in teacher education programs. Other research questions could certainly be formulated, but the main point here is that data gathered from teachers is needed to inform our understanding of their reactions to language teacher education programs. The attitudes of teacher trainees are important because these attitudes can influence how much they gain from the courses we offer them and how they eventually apply this body of knowledge. Furthermore, examples from practicing teachers on how they use the linguistic knowledge gained as part of their training will give us valuable feedback that can then be integrated into our instruction in theory-oriented language teacher courses. Such examples may show the rationale for studying linguistic theory to those students who might otherwise be skeptical of its value. Needless to say, information gained from understanding teachers' perspectives on their curriculum will also give us a stronger basis for ultimately determining what place linguistic theory will play in our teacher education programs. Conclusion In this brief analysis, we have observed that the study of linguistic theory continues to be a

regular component of language teacher education; however, debate surrounding the utility of linguistic theory for classroom practice has recently intensified. We have argued that without adequate empirical data on how teachers do or do not use linguistic theory in their pedagogical practice, we have no solid basis for resolving this question. Furthermore, we have argued that a significant portion of the data we need must come from students and practicing teachers themselves. We believe that we cannot and should not continue with this debate, especially when it revolves around attempts to reconceptualize the knowledge base of teacher education and modify curricula, unless we can provide stronger empirical support for our positions. For this reason, we have presented a list of issues to be explored, in the hope that this will serve as a call for action. Studies that specifically address the role of linguistic theory in language teacher education will permit us rationally to reevaluate our current curricula, guide the pedagogical processes of our students, and ultimately enhance language instruction.

Journal The case for applied linguistics in teacher education by Timothy Reagan The notion that black English is a language and that black kids are actually bilingual is ludicrous and patronizing. Ebonics is ungrammatical English. What students who speak Ebonics need to learn is that they are speaking substandard English and that substandard English brands them as uneducated. (Hernandez, 1996, p. A-21) This quotation, from a recent column by Roger Hernandez about the decision of the Oakland, California, Board of Education to recognize Black English (or Ebonics [see Blackshire-Belay, 1996]) as the dominant language many students in that district speak, makes clear both the emotional and psychological importance of language in the educational process as well as the extent to which normally well-educated and articulate individuals can be victims of their own ignorance of the nature of language and linguistics (see, for example, Bennet, 1996; S. Holmes, 1996; Maxwell, 1997; Olszewski, 1996; Schorr, 1997; Staples, 1997). The debate about Black English is only one component of a far larger problem in contemporary American education: the lack of knowledge of applied linguistics common among educators and educational professionals. Trueba (1991) recently noted that there are approximately 35 million persons in the United States who speak a language other than English at home, of whom about 20 million are not fluent in English. Almost 11 million of them are school age children (p. 45). These numbers alone are significant, but they take on considerable urgency when one considers the demographic trends they represent. Both the percentage and the absolute number of language-minority children in the public schools in the United States will increase dramatically in the decades ahead as American society itself becomes increasingly diverse culturally and linguistically (see Ager, Muskens, & Wright, 1993; Baker, 1993; Corson, 1993). These children bring with them educational needs distinct from those of their English-speaking classmates in important ways. They must learn to function in an American society very different from that existing when earlier nonEnglish-speaking groups were assimilated into the dominant society. It is neither socially nor educationally sound simply to assume that left to their own devices, such students will acquire English (see Scarcella, 1990). At the same time, school-based programs that target such students especially bilingual education programs and English as a Second Language programs--are increasingly unpopular with many segments of society and are under fire all over the country (see Baron, 1990; Crawford, 1992a, 1992b; Moraes, 1996;

Porter, 1990; Smitherman, 1992; Tatalovich, 1995). It is, in any case, unlikely that such programs will be available for all language-minority students. Rather, significant numbers of non-English and limited-English-speaking students are almost certainly going to be placed in English-medium classroom environments, taught by teachers with neither special language skills nor professional training to prepare them to teach such students. The needs of children who do not speak English, or who do not speak English fluently, are only one part of the linguistic challenge facing teachers, as the debate in Oakland makes clear. Millions of children speak distinctive non-mainstream varieties of English or exhibit various sorts of language and speech pathologies; many language-related classroom issues arise on a daily basis related to language use. Few debates about language in the educational sphere generate the heat and passion that discussions of nonmainstream language varieties, especially of Black English, generate. The 1979 judicial decision in Martin Luther King Junior Elementary School Children vs. Ann Arbor School District (473 F. Supp. 1371, E. D. Mich. 1979) led to a widespread national debate about the status of Black English similar to that taking place about the Oakland decision (for earlier discussions of King, see Chambers, 1983; Smitherman, 1981; Whiteman, 1980). In both cases, strong emotions on both sides have tended to drown out more moderate, linguistically defensible positions. In short, the old adage that every teacher is an English teacher is only part of the story; all teachers today, whether or not they wish it, must be to some extent applied linguists. A number of years ago, the British philosopher of education R. S. Peters argued, with respect to the need for teachers to be familiar with philosophy of education, that The question . . . is not whether a modern teacher indulges in philosophical reflection about what he is doing; it is rather whether he does so in a sloppy or rigorous manner (quoted in Fitzgibbons, 1981, p. 34). Precisely the same argument applies to the teacher's performance as an applied linguist. Given the centrality of language to the educational ...