International Conference on Teacher Training and Teacher Development: Integration and Diversity

Bilkent University Ankara, Turkey December, 1996

Integrating Training and Development: The Role of Research

1. General introduction I should perhaps point out from the start, for a talk given at a conference on teacher training and teacher development, that I am not a teacher trainer by profession, although I have operated as a teacher trainer on occasions. Neither am I a teacher developer, although I have been involved in in-service work with teachers on numerous occasions in a good many places throughout my career in teaching English as a foreign language. Of course you may in any case consider the notion of a teacher developer to be a contradiction in terms, given the widespread acceptance of the definition of development as something that you can only do for yourself, and that cannot be done to you by others. But that is an issue I will return to at the very end.

I am, if anything, a teacher educator, by which I mean that I earn my salary largely by teaching academic courses, leading to academic qualifications, for people with the relevant professional experience who are interested in knowing more about classroom language teaching and learning. As a university academic, however, I also have a major commitment to research, and in recent years I have focussed a large part of my research effort on trying to find a sustainable way in which a research perspective can be brought into play in the profession, as a driving force for development (incidentally for learners as well as for teachers, but that important subtopic is well beyond the scope of this presentation).

The procedures so far developed (under the heading of exploratory practice - see Allwright et al., 1994) have been devised mostly in the context of in-service work with experienced language teachers in Brazil (at the Cultura Inglesa, Rio de Janeiro, to which institution I owe an enormous debt of gratitude for their support, both moral and material, over the years), with important extensions being developed independently here in Turkey, at the British Councils Teachers Centre in Istanbul. It is not yet clear whether or not the procedures so far devised will also be able to find a place in initial teacher training, but it does seem at least most likely that the underlying principles and some of the practices will be relevant right at the beginning of a teachers career. I can certainly trace the origins of one of the main

principles right back to the earliest days of my own career in the teaching of English as a foreign language. And that is my excuse for moving now to some rather extensive personal reminiscing.

2. Teaching English as a foreign language: a personal introduction My own introduction to teaching English as a foreign language took place more than thirty years ago now in Stockholm, Sweden, over a period of just one month, of which the last two weeks were mostly taken up with teaching practice. The training I and my fellow trainees received was based upon the idea that what we most needed was to learn how to use the teaching materials that the British Centre, the organisation we were about to teach for, had developed over the ten years that they had been operating in Sweden. The British Centres view was that these materials, and the teaching ideas that went with them (which also took the physical form of a whole suitcase full of things for us to take from Stockholm to the towns where we were to work for the next year), represented their best estimate of what was likely to work well with the Swedish adults who were our clients. We trainee teachers, new to Sweden and, for the most part, new to language teaching itself, were therefore told that we should take this initial training as a set of quite precise instructions to follow quite precisely. That way we would be able to make a confident and probably successful start as teachers of adults in the Swedish context.

We were also told one other, crucial, thing. This was that although the materials and teaching ideas (virtually fully worked-out lesson plans in many cases) had been carefully developed over ten years especially for the Swedish adult evening class context, they might not actually all work for us. We should certainly follow the teaching instructions the first time around that we used the materials provided to us, we were told, but if they did not in fact work well for us on that first occasion we should at least entertain the possibility that it was the materials themselves that were deficient, not just us. And, if we felt we could devise something more likely to succeed we should certainly do so, and try the new ideas out the next time the opportunity arose. And then, if we felt our alternative ideas for any particular lesson, say, had been more successful than the original ones, we should send them to Stockholm so that they could be considered for immediate inclusion in the official materials.

At the time that mixture of self-confident experience-based top-down prescription and simultaneous willingness to embrace rapid change initiated from below came as something of a surprise, and was certainly very difficult to fully believe. Much later, therefore, when I found myself teaching a lesson for the second time, when the first time had not been very satisfactory, I simply repeated the old prescription, hoping it might go better this time around. It was, however, the day of the Regional Directors periodic visit, and she told me that she thought that that particular lesson had not been very successful. I countered that I had had doubts about it myself, but that I had felt it better to keep on trying with the original lesson plan. Her reply put me firmly in my place: if I had had serious doubts about the likelihood of the lesson being successful, she said, I should have tried to think of something better. Simply following instructions was no excuse for a bad lesson. I learned my lesson that day, and soon had an alternative lesson plan to propose to Stockholm.

That was my introduction to the teaching of English as a foreign language. It was not my introduction to initial teacher training itself, however. In fact I had already undergone a year of initial teacher training in England, before I went to Sweden, and had just qualified as a teacher of French at Primary level. My initial teacher training took the form of a postgraduate certificate in education, after my BA degree in French itself. That postgraduate year was in fact memorable for a good many reasons, but the memory which has most relevance here is of the vast amount of time we seemed to spend on determining what criteria would be most appropriate for the purchase of a language laboratory. That stuck in my mind because it occurred to me at the time that, first of all, it was extremely unlikely that I, as a novice teacher in the British primary school system, would be asked to decide on the purchase of a language laboratory, and, secondly, I could already imagine that by the time I was senior enough to be entrusted with such matters the pace of technological change would have ensured that what I had learned about such things at training college would be hopelessly out of date.

3. So what? What can we learn from such anecdotal material? The above accounts are personal and probably highly idiosyncratic, but they are potentially instructive, I believe, for the light they may help us to shed both on the distinction between, and the optimal relationship between, the notions of training and development - the two notions whose integration via research is my central concern in this talk. 4

Very crudely put, a straightforward notion of training is exemplified for me in one major part of my Stockholm experience, the part where I was carefully trained to use the British Centres teaching materials by following detailed instructions (a little like painting by numbers). That notion satisfied one key requirement of an introduction to teaching, that it should equip novice teachers like me at the time with the means for their immediate survival in the classroom - knowing what they basically should try to make happen there and knowing that they can in fact expect to be able to make it happen without undue difficulty.

Another key requirement for an introduction to teaching, I believe, is that it should sow the seeds for professional development, for developing maturity as a teacher. This I believe was well catered for, in an embryonic sense, and in my case at least, both by the British Centres policy of working constantly to improve their materials, and through my Regional Directors insistence when I failed to do so for my own classroom, that it was my duty to my learners, to myself, and lastly to the British Centre as an institution, to think for myself and try to find ways of making lessons as appropriate as possible to the situation I was teaching in.

In Stockholm, then, I was helped to get what I needed both for my immediate classroom survival and for my developing maturity as a teacher. By contrast, my earlier experience in England, insofar as the language laboratory purchasing episode was representative, constituted what you might perhaps call training for instant maturity, the sort of training that tries to get you to be, as a beginning teacher, the sort of teacher you will need to be for the rest of your working life, once you have qualified as a professional. It is a fundamentally static model, one that implies that all possible development can take place during the initial training itself, enabling the trainee to emerge fully fledged as a mature teacher, not needing to change further.

Had my experience in Stockholm been limited to the training I got for my immediate classroom survival it would be important to classify that very positive experience also as representing a static model, because it would have carried the severe risk, I believe, that I would have left the course thinking that I had been trained not only for my immediate classroom survival, but for all time - that I had been taught how to teach, and that was an end 5

to it. I suspect that much initial teacher training around the world takes this risk, and it is a major concern of mine here to consider how it might best be countered.

In Stockholm it was countered, as I have already suggested, by the policy of encouraging us to see the initial classroom prescriptions - our suitcases full of course books and lesson plans as no more than that: initial. They represented ways of getting us started on our new careers as teachers of English as a foreign language. They were ways that were known to have worked well for other newcomers to the field, and they might work well for us, but they were not ways that we should allow ourselves to think of as the last word on the teaching of English as a foreign language. We were therefore encouraged to think for ourselves about what might be better, and, to add to the incentive, we were actually paid, quite generously, per lesson plan page, on the occasions when our ideas were eventually adopted.

4. Towards an integrated approach We now have three models to consider for an initial introduction to teaching. The first two of them, the two training models, are inherently static, implying a career pattern of no change: the instant maturity model of my British training, and the immediate classroom survival model I encountered in Stockholm. The third one is the dynamic developing maturity model I also encountered as a crucial part of my introduction to teaching English as a foreign language in Stockholm.

The instant maturity model is just not helpful and must be discarded, I believe, if only for the obvious practical reason that is asking far too much of any beginning teacher to expect him or her to just leap straight into full maturity as a professional. It might well be the most appropriate model in some circumstances (for the retraining of experienced teachers moving between curriculum subjects, for example, when maturity as a teacher per se might reasonably be assumed), but it will never be the most appropriate model for initial teacher training, virtually by definition.

Having discarded one of our three models, we are left with the other two, a training model and a developmental one. But it is probably already clear that I do not believe there is any need to choose between them. They are both necessary to the notion of an adequate 6

introduction to teaching.

It is not going to be enough to equip trainees only for their

immediate classroom survival, especially if that carries with it the message that the way we teach for our initial survival is a the best possible model for the sort of teacher we can remain all our working lives. What we can hope to do as mature teachers must surely be very different from whatever we initially needed to do in order to survive our first professional years. But neither is it going to be enough to equip people for their developing maturity as teachers if their immediate survival needs are not properly looked after at the same time. If it is taken up by itself the developing maturity model, it must be said, shares with the instant maturity model the unacceptable risk of inducing early disaffection and possibly total burnout through not providing trainees with the practical means for their immediate classroom survival, and so leaving them unprepared for what may be an extremely demoralising, and potentially ultimately unsuccessful, struggle for survival.

What we seem to need, therefore, is a model for an initial introduction to teaching that somehow manages to achieve a productive combination of the static and the dynamic, of both the immediate classroom survival and developing maturity models. In the terms of my title, we need a model that is capable of integrating training and development.

5. The importance of a dynamic conception of a language teaching career Before considering how such integration may be achieved, however, it may be helpful to consider in more detail the very notion of developing maturity as a professional teacher of English as a foreign language. I see Prabhus thinking as directly relevant to the concerns of this paper at this point.

Prabhu (1987:103-4, and see also 1992) writes interestingly of the importance for a teacher of developing a sense of plausibility, a sense of what it is plausible to think it will be worth doing in a language classroom to best help learners learn effectively there. Helping a teacher develop his or her sense of plausibility is, in Prabhus view, the best that someone working with teachers can hope to do, the most valuable contribution anyone can hope to make. And part of this process, I believe, can be captured in the notion of a sense of curiosity. Without a fundamental sense of curiosity there is probably not going to be sufficient reason for a teacher to bother to develop his or her sense of plausibility. Why should a teacher not hope to 7

find a practical way of surviving as a professional and simply spend the rest of his or her working life teaching that way? What is so wonderful about development, after all? That is a question that deserves serious attention, I believe, if only because it seems so often to be taken for granted nowadays that it is not necessary to consider even for a moment the possibility that a static approach to professional life and work is a tenable one.

Two arguments in favour of a dynamic conception of teaching seem to me to be worth advancing here. First of all there is the probably very familiar argument that, whether we like it or not, the world is constantly changing around us, and therefore, even if all we want to do is to adopt a static approach, to simply stand still, we shall have to move continuously to even stay in the same place.

This argument is plausible enough for many people in many situations, but not plausible enough for all, in my experience. There are still many people (teachers who see teaching as just a job) who do in fact find that they can manage well enough by repeating themselves, by teaching the same things in the same way every academic year, rather than by constantly renewing themselves. For such people a different argument is needed, and my second argument is in any case a generally more attractive one, I believe, whatever the circumstances. It starts from the perception, from experience, that teachers who do actually simply and unthinkingly repeat themselves year after year are not actually having a great deal of fun in so doing, at least not during lessons (although of course I should acknowledge that they may be having a lot of fun using their spare time very productively writing novels, or digging in their garden, in all the valuable time they might otherwise be spending preparing new lessons). My second argument, then, is simply that teaching can be a lot more personally rewarding (a lot more fun, in short) if it is imbued with a sense of curiosity. And, I wish to contend, this sense of curiosity can suffice to lead to a developing and dynamic sense of plausibility even in circumstances where outside pressures do not force change upon teachers.

6. The diagnosis, and some examples of how a sense of curiosity might be encouraged My diagnosis, then, is that we need a model for initial teacher training that integrates the two notions of training and development. How this is to be achieved I see in terms of appealing to the idea that teaching can be intellectual fun, and harnessing for the purpose the notion of a sense of curiosity. I want, in short, to see the sense of curiosity as the driving force for professional development. But how might this be done? Some examples may help to clarify the position.

My experiences in Stockholm showed one way: not allowing us novice teachers to hide behind the materials, however well worked out they were, and then rewarding us for responding to problems by thinking for ourselves, having ideas of our own. But that

experience did not include any direct attention to the issue of systematically developing my sense of curiosity about what might work in the language classroom. It is to that aspect of the problem that I now turn, by considering in more depth the notion of a sense of curiosity.

In my introduction I said that I was looking for a sustainable way in which a research perspective can be brought into play in the profession, as a driving force for development, and now I am using the same phrase as a driving force for development, in connection with a sense of curiosity. For me it is a very short step conceptually to go from talking about the development of a sense of curiosity to talking about the adoption of a research perspective, because what is research if it is not the systematic pursuit of our curiosity about things? The step is simply to go from something that can be casual (we do talk sometimes of idle curiosity) to something that is by definition systematic. But changing the words we use not solve any practical problems. What can we actually do, whether we call it research or not, about people who seem to have no sense of curiosity? Is a sense of curiosity something that can be acquired?

My own experience suggests that sometimes it can be. Whenever I have felt that I have succeeded in helping someone develop a sense of curiosity that seemed previously to be missing, it has come about, I think, because I have encouraged (possibly even pushed) someone to think harder than they had ever thought possible about something they previously took for granted. Another way of putting it is to say that I have exhibited unusually low 9

tolerance of superficiality, and by pushing someone to dig beneath the surface I have helped them find something interesting, curious, that they had thought tediously obvious, or not thought about at all.

One striking example of the latter was the time I asked a group of initial trainees I was working with as academic supervisor to look at the classes they were observing (taught by very experienced professionals) for examples of language teaching as a public insult (my own visits to these classes had given me serious cause for concern in this respect). The assignment baffled them for a long time, and when they initially came together again to talk about their observations they had almost nothing to say, but the next week, since I had not been willing to abandon the idea, they came back with stories of teachers who couldnt pronounce the names of their students, or who used textbook materials they hadnt previously checked out properly, and so got into linguistic hot water half way through the lesson, and so on, and they had obviously learned to notice things that had previously passed completely unnoticed.

Another striking example was the Peace Corps volunteer, also in initial language teacher training, who told me he had never thought a minimal pair drill could be so technically demanding to devise. But this was only after I had got him to spend far longer on the task than he had thought it was worth. And eventually he had seen the complexities and begun to find them interesting.

A further example of the potential value of ambitiously taking things beyond the superficial is Ramanis (1987) use of videotaped lessons from which teachers (experienced but not necessarily trained ones in this case) were led to develop their own personal professional theories (their own senses of plausibility, in Prabhus terms, as we have already seen).

To return to my own personal experiences with language teachers, I recall asking a small group of British EFL teachers in Japan (again experienced professionals) to tell me what puzzled them about what happened in their language classes. For what seemed an eternity (it was in reality about twenty minutes) they sat in almost complete silence, but eventually one of them came up with a really intriguing puzzle that it was well worth waiting for: why was it, the teacher asked, that Japanese adult learners allowed British EFL teachers to get them to do 10

things that they would never be willing to do in classes run by Japanese teachers? This was readily agreed by all of the members of the group to be very puzzling. What was curious to me at the time, sitting there with the group, was that it took so long for it to emerge, but once it had emerged it seemed to encourage a more enquiring attitude in the group, and it encouraged me to believe even more strongly that pushing beyond the superficial, even at the risk of long embarrassing silences, was likely in the end to be very rewarding.

As I mentioned right at the beginning, in the last five or so years I have been developing such thoughts into a model for integrating research and pedagogy which I have called exploratory practice (for the earliest published statement see Allwright and Bailey, 1991, Chapter 11). The work so far has been almost exclusively with experienced teachers, but the ideas, the underlying principles and some of the practices involved, may have wider applicability and so I will briefly set them out here before I try to identify the implications for introducing novice teachers to the world of English as a foreign language.

7. Making it systematic: the notion of exploratory practice The most important point to make about exploratory practice, at the outset, is that it is not intended, perhaps surprisingly, as a set of principles and procedures for getting research done. I do not believe that research and pedagogy can be integrated successfully if the research element retains a fully separate identity. It needs to be subordinated to the pedagogy, turned into a properly contributing part of it. So I see exploratory practice as a way of getting language teaching (and learning) done in such a way that it not only fosters language learning itself but also fosters our understanding of what happens in the language classroom. The key term here for my purposes is understanding, since this provides the connection with the notions of a research perspective, and of a sense of curiosity. The value of a sense of curiosity, when applied systematically via a research perspective, is precisely that it offers a hope of enabling us to develop our understanding, both of teaching and of learning, and this surely is central to development itself.

Experience with exploratory practice suggests that this development of understanding can best be initiated by inviting teachers (and/or learners) to identify things that puzzle them about what happens in their lessons. Exploratory practice then suggests ways in which the 11

resultant puzzles can be investigated, within the classroom, without interfering with the pedagogy, by the use of already familiar classroom activities as the investigative tools. This is precisely what I mean by subordinating the research to the pedagogy.

To give a practical example: if a teacher is (as many teachers are, it seems) puzzled by the way that learners seem unable to resist the temptation to resort to their mother tongue when operating in small groups, then one way of investigating this would be to invite the learners to use their next small group discussion session to discuss this very issue. The result might well be (and has been already in Brazil) that the teacher not only gets to understand better the learners difficulties in staying exclusively with the target language, but also that the learners themselves understand the situation better, and try harder to stay with the target language thereafter.

There is a lot more to say about exploratory practice, but much of it has already been said a good many times elsewhere (see the Bibliography). My concern here is to argue that

exploratory practice perhaps offers a principled and practical proposal for how an initial introduction to the teaching of English as a foreign language could foster a sense of curiosity and so manage to integrate the two notions of training for immediate classroom survival and development for professional maturity.

8. But am I not falling into the old trap of expecting far too much of novice teachers? I am indeed asking for novice teachers to somehow be helped to learn, right from the beginning, that classroom language teaching is not something you just do, once youve been told how to, but something it is appropriate, and rewarding, to try to understand, not once and for all, but gradually, as you do it, and as you develop maturity both as a teacher and as a person. Perhaps that is too much to ask, and perhaps it is asking too much of novice teachers to expect them to be able, as exploratory practice suggests, to manage classroom language learning activities both for their learning potential and for their investigative potential - to get small-group discussion going and to have it at the same time deal with a classroom puzzle rather than a neutral topic like pollution.

12

It is not entirely obvious to me, however, that that is too much to ask, and in any case it is, surely, an empirical matter, not one that can be decided on in the abstract. It is also worth reminding ourselves that a less ambitious possibility exists, via the sadly neglected notion of monitoring.

9. The potential contribution of monitoring. By monitoring I mean to refer to whatever a teacher can do to become and stay aware of what is happening during a language lesson. Novice teachers surely need to be trained to teach in such a way that they are not so frantically busy in the classroom that they are quite unable to notice what is going on. And if they can be trained to teach so that they are not frantically busy just doing the teaching then perhaps they can use their free time in class not just to catch their breath but to pay attention to what the other people there are doing. And for that they may need to develop their monitoring techniques - ways of attending to the class. These may include such things as the old trick, during group work, of sitting near to one group but actually attending mentally to what is going on in another one, because the group you are sitting nearest to will probably believe you are attending especially to them and so be inhibited.

It would take me well outside my scope here (and my current competence) to try to list here a comprehensive set of monitoring techniques. I shall have to content myself with hoping that I have argued persuasively for the notion that monitoring could represent a significant step in the right direction towards enabling beginning teachers to pursue systematically whatever puzzles them about what happens in their language classes.

10. Concluding comments My title promised that I would propose a role for research in the integration of teacher training and teacher development. In my argument I have taken the notion of research back to its roots in a sense of curiosity, aligned it with Prabhus sense of plausibility, added the notion of systematic enquiry (via my own concept of exploratory practice) and insisted upon the centrality of working for the dynamic development of understanding. In this way I have tried to establish the value of setting up the fostering of a sense of curiosity during initial 13

training as the driving force for lifelong professional development. I am also keen to establish that the working for understanding that can come from a developed sense of curiosity is not something that you can afford to just switch on whenever (if ever) you get a chance to take time off for further study, and then switch off again the moment you get back into the classroom. Rather, I am arguing, it is something that can be fully integrated into a language teaching life, on a daily and continuous basis.

As an aside, it may be worth noting that language teachers are especially fortunate because they can legitimately use class time to talk about language learning puzzles, whereas the situation is not nearly so clear for teachers of other subjects, who are more likely to be limited to using monitoring techniques, rather than pedagogic activities themselves, for their attempts to develop their understandings of the classroom. Learners in a language class can get valuable language learning opportunities from talking to each other, and to their teacher, in the target language, about classroom language learning, but learners in a geography class, for example, cannot get much in the way of valuable geography learning opportunities if they stop talking about geography and start talking about learning processes instead.

Because this work for understanding, in a language class, is something that can be integrated into the pedagogy itself, it therefore makes even more sense, I believe, to try to help language teachers, right at the beginning of their careers, to realise that fact, and to learn how to make the best possible use of it, to build upon it for their own professional development throughout their careers. I am suggesting, then, that development, contrary perhaps to those who would have it as something that by definition one can only do for oneself, something that is inherently non-hierarchical in nature, is at least something that it is worth using the inevitably hierarchical situation of initial teacher training to introduce. It may not make semantic sense to say something like I will develop you, but it may make perfect sense to say that I will do my best to make sure that you know, right at the beginning of your career, while you are still in training, what you can do to further your own development, and that, following Prabhu, I will if necessary push you to think harder than you ever thought possible so that you have an opportunity (at least) to see how much fun it might be, how much more stimulating and rewarding your working life might be, if you let your interest in understanding what you are doing as a teacher, and what your learners are doing as learners, become a normal part of how you spend class time. 14

To me, the above represents a very modest and uncontroversial proposal, so modest and uncontroversial that there may well be a strong temptation to dismiss it as essentially trivial. I hope not, naturally, and for two reasons. Firstly, I am not convinced that initial teacher training does routinely succeed in enabling beginning language teachers to see the value of a developmental perspective on their careers, and to see the special opportunities available to language teachers specifically for this. And, secondly, the problem that I have whenever I start talking about monitoring - that very few teachers seem to recognise instantly what I am taking about, however well-trained they are - suggests that initial teacher training is currently failing to help people develop even this basic level of awareness of the possibility of using class time to try to understand better what is happening there, during lessons. We therefore need, if the diagnosis is right, to do a lot more work to devise appropriate practical procedures for classroom investigations, procedures that will be manageable by novice teachers. I can only hope that the principles and practices of exploratory practice, so briefly described here, will ultimately prove helpful in making the integration of training and development a practical possibility right from the very beginning of peoples careers in the teaching of languages. In retrospect I think I was very lucky to have even the weak mixture of training and development that featured in the introduction to language teaching that was provided for me by the British Centre in Stockholm in 1965 and now, thirty-one years later, very belatedly you may think, I would like to be able to help move things on a little bit further, to strengthen the mixture and make it more widely available.

Dick Allwright

REFERENCES AND INTRODUCTORY BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR EXPLORATORY PRACTICE Allwright, D. 1991a. Exploratory Teaching, Professional Development, and the Role of a Teachers Association. Invited paper for Cuban Association of English Language Specialists, Havana, Cuba. Lancaster University: CRILE Working Paper Number 7. Allwright, D. 1991b. Understanding Classroom Language Learning. Plenary talk given at XI ENPULI, So Paulo, Brazil. In Anais do XI Encontro Nacional de Professores Universitrios de Lingua Inglesa, 14-27. Also available from Lancaster University as CRILE Working Paper Number 8. 15

Allwright, D. 1991c. Exploratory Language Teaching. A description and report on a minicourse conducted at xi Enpuli, So Paulo, Brazil. In Anais do XI Encontro Nacional de Professores Universitrios de Lingua Inglesa, 160-170. Also available from Lancaster University as CRILE Working Paper Number 9. Allwright, D. 1992a. Understanding Classroom Language Learning: an argument for an 'exploratory' approach. Paper for the British Council Conference, Milan, April. Lancaster University: CRILE Working Paper Number 14. Allwright, D. 1992b. Exploratory Teaching: bringing research and pedagogy together in the language classroom. Plenary talk for the first Encontro em Ensino das Linguas Estrangeiras, Viseu, Portugal, May. Published in Revue de Phontique Applique, Vol. 103-104: 101-117. Allwright, D. 1993. Integrating 'Research' and 'Pedagogy': appropriate criteria and practical possibilities. In Edge and Richards (eds) Teachers Develop Teachers Research. Oxford: Heinemann, pp: 125-135. Allwright, D. and Bailey, K.M. 1991. Towards Exploratory Teaching. In D. Allwright and K.M. Bailey Focus on the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 194-199. Allwright, D., Lenzuen, R., Mazillo, T., and Miller, I.K. 1994. Integrating Research and Pedagogy: Lessons from experience in Brazil. Lancaster University: CRILE Working Paper Number 18. Arruda, C. 1992. Action Research Diaries. Views and News #5, Cultura Inglesa-Rio de Janeiro, February. Correa Pinto, R. and Bustamante, N. 1995. What Does Conversation Mean? An exploratory teaching experience. Views and News #10, Cultura Inglesa-Rio de Janeiro, April. Coutinho, G. 1993. VIP Young Learners. Views and News #7, Cultura Inglesa-Rio de Janeiro, June. Euthymiou, J. 1991. Counting on Students' Help. Research News #4, Cultura Inglesa-Rio de Janeiro, August. Lenzuen, R. 1994. Exploratory Teaching: looking back on our experience. Views and News #9, Cultura Inglesa-Rio de Janeiro, July. Mazzillo, T.M. 1994. Quality and Exploratory Teaching: the missing link. Views and News #9, Cultura Inglesa-Rio de Janeiro, July. Placido, V. and Oliveira, F. 1991. Familiarity Builds Up Confidence . Views and News #3, Cultura Inglesa-Rio de Janeiro, February. Prabhu, N.S. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

16

Prabhu, N.S. 1992. The Dynamics of the Language Lesson. TESOL Quarterly, 26/2: 225241. Ramani, E. 1987. Theorizing from the classroom. ELT Journal, 41/1: 3-11. Sanson, M.E. 1992. Students' Perceptions. Views and News #6, Cultura Inglesa-Rio de Janeiro, October.

17