The Teacher in the Pennsylvania Project

Abstract

R EVIEWERS of research proposals and studies usually bring various kinds of experience and competence to the task of compiling a critique of the rationale, objectives, design, implementation, and procedures for gathering and analyzing data described in a particular research report. In this case, comments are focused primarily on the area of teacher training because of my own confidence in dealing with this aspect of foreign language education, because of the crucial importance of the role of participating teachers in carrying out the experimental design, and because the variables of teacher behavior and performance are of major concern in the implementation of any approach to foreign language instruction. Education majors, methods students, student teachers, and experienced teachers are likely to be confused and overwhelmed by conflicting statements regarding how they should or should not behave in the foreign language classroom. Gross misstatements and over-simplified generalizations, and unproved claims are often made in favor of traditional (foreign language learning is an intellectually acquired discipline) or audio-lingual (foreign language acquisition is a behaviorally cultivated skill) texts, classes, and teachers. Most foreign language educators take sides in this issue and choose a position somewhere on the continuum that ranges from grammar translation to fundamental skills Students who participate in methods classes are usually forced by example and/or exclusion of alternative choices to teach a certain way or Despite the argument that has been raging, some indisputable facts exist: 1. Not everyone (foreign-language educators or teachers) advocates the same method. Each approach is widely found throughout the country. 2. Teachers mix techniques and methods of foreign language instruction, thus forming the eclectic approach. 3. Well-controlled research has not proved conclusively that any method is superior to another.