online forum report

The use of jargon in teachereducation

Philip Kerr

This is a summary of some of the issues raised in a recent on-line discussionwithin the IATEFL Teacher Trainers and Educators Special Interest Group.

The IATEFL Teacher Trainers and Educators Special Interest Groupperiodically organizes on-line fielded discussions1 on pre-determined topics thatare chosen and moderated by volunteers. From time to time, however, vigorousdiscussions develop in a more informal and less planned way, when a topicstrikes a chord with members of the list. Few topics have provoked moreresponse from members of the group than the question of the use of jargon inteacher education.

The ownership ofjargon

Participants in the discussion referred frequently to a distinction betweenuniversity-based academics (who are the main authors of the literature ofteacher education) and ‘chalk-face’ practitioners. Examples of jargon thatwere cited included ‘top-down and bottom-up processing’ and‘metacognitive knowledge’, and this jargon was generally perceived tobelong to a discourse community that did not include the majority of‘chalk-face’ practitioners. One respondent pointed out that the ‘chalk-face’ practitioners had their own set of jargon (including terms like‘skills’, ‘humanistic’, and ‘pre-teaching’). However, his furtherobservations that particular discourse communities do not necessarilyperceive their own jargon as jargon, and that complaints about jargon areinvariably about ‘the other side’ (i.e. the jargon that we do notunderstand), suggest that many in the profession feel that there is morethan one discourse community within the world of teacher education.Within these communities, it was noted that much jargon, includingmany of the commonest terms in ELT, is defined in a variety of ways, andfrequently lacks precision. The terms ‘task’ and ‘communicative’ werecited as examples.

The uses and abusesof jargon

All participants acknowledged an element of inevitability in the use of adegree of jargon in teacher education—for reasons of economy andclarity. However, there was a perception that many contributors tojournals and conferences overused jargon—because of (1) intellectualsloppiness, and (2) a desire to be seen as a member of a higher-statusdiscourse community. As one participant observed, ‘authors andpresenters have a dual audience, and the purpose of their

ELT Journal Volume 59/2 April 2005 Q Oxford University Press 151doi:10.1093/eltj/cci029

communication is twofold. Firstly, they have relevant topic material to getacross to their audience, and secondly, presenters need to demonstratetheir legitimacy as a member of the academic community.’ On the whole,participants in the discussion felt that the second impetus was oftenmore compelling. The desire to acquire symbolic capital outweighed themotivation to share professional knowledge.

Two contributions to the discussion focussed on the paths of jargon use.Research by J. Calderhead (1987) indicates that novice teachers typicallygo through a number of clearly identifiable stages in the process of theirtraining. In the first of these stages, they want to feel that they belong tothe community of teachers to which they aspire, and that a significantpart of that belonging comes from a growth in confidence in their ownuse of the language (or jargon) of the dominant discourse community. Atthe other end of the spectrum, R. Lakoff (1990) observed that, inacademia, there is a continuum of usage of academese in the progressionfrom undergraduate status to senior tenured faculty. The use of jargondrops off, she suggests, as students become well-established, and can bedispensed with entirely when they achieve the status of senior academics.

Jargon and theory Some participants equated the overuse of jargon with an academicdiscourse whose theoretical orientation did not match the more practicalpriorities and interests of classroom teachers. They suggested that theday-to-day realities of many teachers’ lives did not leave much mentalenergy for theory. One post offered two contrasting definitions of ateacher:

1 ‘knowledgeable and principled professional able to act and developautonomously’

2 ‘method and materials operator in need of a guide’.

There was general agreement that the processes of teacher educationshould be built on an explicitly theoretical foundation, that the role of theteacher educator was to ‘teach how to fish’, rather than, simply, to ‘givefish’. It was suggested that one of the roles of the teacher educator is tohelp prospective teachers become aware of, and competent in, thelanguage of the professional community they wish to enter. However, itis clear that many participants saw classroom teachers and writers aboutclassroom teaching as belonging to separate professional communities,differentiated by status, salary, and working conditions. Theory, and itsattendant jargon, was seen as being of potential value to teachers, but thispotential was not always realized in practice.

The problem with the use of jargon (and, by extension, the use of theory)was considered to be essentially a problem of extent. Enormousdifferences in the working contexts of teacher educators participating inthe discussion preclude any attempt to determine which items of jargonwould be appropriate for inclusion in teacher education programmes.One participant suggested that research and theorizing would never be ofmore than tangential significance to teachers in helping them to carry outtheir work—work that requires rapid decision-making and is highlycomplex, both socially and psychologically.

Philip Kerr152

Conclusion More than anything else, the discussion reflected the perception thatthere is a communication gap between teachers, and for those who writeand speak for them in a professional context. Participants concentratedon the problems caused by this gap, and the desirability of bridging it,rather than on an analysis of the historical and social factors that broughtit about. The use of jargon in the discourse of ELT has undeniably led tocertain tensions. However, given the fact that contemporary societyvalues codified propositional knowledge more highly than uncodifiedpractical know-how, we should not, perhaps, expect to see any decrease inthese tensions for the foreseeable future.

Note1 For more information about the IATEFL

Teacher Trainers and Educators Special InterestGroup and its discussion list, please seehttp://www.ihes.com/ttsig/index2.asp

ReferencesCalderhead, J. 1987. ‘The Quality of Reflection inStudent Teachers’ Professional Learning’.European Journal of Teacher Education 10/3:269–78.

Lakoff, R. 1990. Talking Power. New York: BasicBooks.

The reporterPhilip Kerr is a member of the IATEFL TeacherTrainers and Educators Special Interest Groupcommittee. As a contributor to the literature ofteacher education, he has been accused of ‘jargonabuse’.

The use of jargon in teacher education 153