Skip to main content Skip to navigation


<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "base.dtd">




<title>Studies in teacher development: a methodological viewpoint</title></titleStmt>

<publicationStmt><distributor>BASE and Oxford Text Archive</distributor>


<availability><p>The British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading, under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Centre for English Language Teacher Education, Warwick) and Paul Thompson

(Department of Applied Linguistics, Reading), with funding from BALEAP,

EURALEX, the British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. The

original recordings are held at the Universities of Warwick and Reading, and

at the Oxford Text Archive and may be consulted by bona fide researchers

upon written application to any of the holding bodies.

The BASE corpus is freely available to researchers who agree to the

following conditions:</p>

<p>1. The recordings and transcriptions should not be modified in any


<p>2. The recordings and transcriptions should be used for research purposes

only; they should not be reproduced in teaching materials</p>

<p>3. The recordings and transcriptions should not be reproduced in full for

a wider audience/readership, although researchers are free to quote short

passages of text (up to 200 running words from any given speech event)</p>

<p>4. The corpus developers should be informed of all presentations or

publications arising from analysis of the corpus</p><p>

Researchers should acknowledge their use of the corpus using the following

form of words:

The recordings and transcriptions used in this study come from the British

Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus, which was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Warwick) and Paul Thompson (Reading). Corpus development was assisted by

funding from the Universities of Warwick and Reading, BALEAP, EURALEX, the

British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. </p></availability>




<recording dur=" 00:55:14" n="7817">


<respStmt><name>BASE team</name>



<langUsage><language id="en">English</language>

<language id="ja">Japanese</language>

<language id="de">German</language>



<person id="nm1088" role="main speaker" n="n" sex="m"><p>nm1088, main speaker, non-student, male</p></person>

<person id="nm1089" role="participant" n="n" sex="m"><p>nm1089, participant, non-student, male</p></person>

<person id="nf1090" role="participant" n="n" sex="f"><p>nf1090, participant, non-student, female</p></person>

<personGrp id="ss" role="audience" size="s"><p>ss, audience, small group </p></personGrp>

<personGrp id="sl" role="all" size="s"><p>sl, all, small group</p></personGrp>

<personGrp role="speakers" size="5"><p>number of speakers: 5</p></personGrp>





<item n="speechevent">Lecture</item>

<item n="acaddept">CELTE (Centre for English Language Teacher Education)</item>

<item n="acaddiv">ss</item>

<item n="partlevel">PG/staff</item>

<item n="module">unknown</item>




<u who="nm1088"> thank you very much for all of you and CELTE members # for inviting as a visiting fellow # actually this is this is this is one of the # i mean the major event in my life <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>actually <pause dur="0.8"/> <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>i have been learning i have been a learner of English for myself for more than twenty years <trunc>agos</trunc> # <pause dur="0.2"/> years or so but the i mean <vocal desc="sigh" iterated="n"/> you just <pause dur="0.5"/> don't learn anything until you <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>just just <pause dur="0.4"/> <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>see something <pause dur="0.6"/> yourself # <pause dur="0.3"/> i mean <pause dur="0.2"/> to the actually <pause dur="0.4"/> # the some of our some of our students # say <pause dur="0.2"/> at the graduation ceremony <pause dur="0.4"/> in my university <pause dur="0.3"/> says <pause dur="0.3"/> # to the dean actually <pause dur="0.7"/> # she <pause dur="0.2"/> actually # said to the dean that one of the happiest moment one of the most exciting one of the happiest moment of <pause dur="0.2"/> of my college life <pause dur="0.3"/> is <pause dur="0.3"/> in <pause dur="0.2"/> the CELTE <pause dur="0.2"/> <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="2"/><pause dur="0.2"/> this is this is a a sort of the well i mean <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> to some # for for some point of view i mean this is a embarrassment to the <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>dean because i mean <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="sl" dur="1"/> after all i mean <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>she's just said something like very complimentary to

the dean but i mean <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> this is a truth so <pause dur="0.3"/> # ever since i came here i began to see more <pause dur="0.2"/> and more far more point in <pause dur="0.2"/> # Professor # <pause dur="0.5"/> # <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> <gap reason="name" extent="2 words"/> or the professor <gap reason="name" extent="2 words"/> is doing and i really thank you for inviting me and giving opportunity to <pause dur="0.2"/> stay here <pause dur="0.7"/> so # i <trunc>k</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> kept saying to myself that i <trunc>sh</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> maybe # no i mean <pause dur="0.2"/> i must do something for you i must do something for you because i just can't have the <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>privilege <pause dur="0.3"/><shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> of staying here <pause dur="0.5"/> and maybe i can do <pause dur="0.2"/> from the future but this is the <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>one <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>small thing that i can do is this is that the <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> to talk about <pause dur="0.4"/> the methodological # point # methodological point of view <pause dur="0.8"/> # for the <pause dur="0.3"/> # teacher # development </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/><u who="nm1088" trans="pause"> <kinesic desc="overhead projector is on showing transparency" iterated="n"/> okay # i was # <pause dur="0.2"/> just a normal <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> <pause dur="0.3"/> undergraduate student in Japan <pause dur="0.6"/> i was just quite happy with # <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> the coursework <pause dur="0.2"/> # but <pause dur="0.5"/> well # the privilege of <pause dur="0.3"/> # being a young man and a stupid person <pause dur="0.2"/> is <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> <pause dur="0.6"/> to be ambitious and i began to <pause dur="0.2"/> look for something more deeper or

scientific <pause dur="0.6"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> and then i became at the M-A course in M-A # areas sort of a semi-psycholinguist <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> and i just read <pause dur="0.3"/> # books on # psychology of reading et cetera <pause dur="0.5"/> but at some point some <pause dur="0.2"/> # moment <pause dur="0.3"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> i was so disillusioned <pause dur="0.2"/> actually <pause dur="0.4"/> # with the well maybe this is <pause dur="0.2"/> not a fair # remark for psychologists <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> but you see <pause dur="0.2"/> the more technical you get in psychology <pause dur="0.3"/> # the <pause dur="0.2"/> less point i mean less point i began to see in my work <pause dur="0.6"/> so i mean <pause dur="1.6"/> i began to think <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.4"/> and then if you think too much <pause dur="0.2"/> one <pause dur="0.2"/> pitfall is that you begin philosophy <pause dur="0.5"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="sl" dur="1"/> <kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> and i became sort of this student oh i mean i'm not <pause dur="0.2"/> i haven't been a formal student i mean <pause dur="0.2"/> in a formal sense but i sort of the independent learner <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="0.2"/> # philosophy <pause dur="0.4"/> and then <pause dur="0.4"/> gradually over the years i what <pause dur="0.4"/> i began to summarize what <pause dur="0.2"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> i am doing as philosophical investigations in <pause dur="0.6"/> E-L-T <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> that's a very <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> ambitious topic <pause dur="0.2"/> but and the to be <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> more specific what i've been doing is that the <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> in one work <pause dur="0.2"/> i <pause dur="1.0"/> # took <pause dur="0.2"/> # Krashen's Monitor <sic corr="Hypothesis">hypothis</sic> <pause dur="0.5"/>

i in <pause dur="0.6"/> i <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> think i saw much point <pause dur="0.2"/> intuitively <pause dur="0.2"/> when Krashen says that consciousness # conscious <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>lear</trunc> conscious learning doesn't lead to acquisition or language use <pause dur="0.6"/> i saw much point <pause dur="0.3"/> and what i wanted to do was that <pause dur="0.2"/> to just see <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean to to rationalize <pause dur="0.2"/> his argument <pause dur="0.9"/> i mean <pause dur="0.3"/> just saying that well look i mean this this must be the truth <trunc>b</trunc> because we intuitively knows <pause dur="0.7"/> this is a truth is doesn't convince other people <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="0.4"/> # by <pause dur="0.3"/> # introducing Wittgenstein's philosophy of rule forming i tried to reconstruct # Krashen's Monitor Hypothesis <pause dur="0.5"/> but the paper is was <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>written <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>in Japanese and i mean the most papers if i mean <pause dur="0.2"/> in these <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> days i used to write in English but i mean <pause dur="0.3"/> as i began philosophy i began to write in Japanese which is my native language <pause dur="0.5"/> or <pause dur="0.3"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> i did <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="2.4"/> i thought about # grammar teaching <pause dur="0.2"/> because after all <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean <pause dur="0.2"/> if you think simply <pause dur="0.2"/> if you <pause dur="0.2"/> teach rules <pause dur="0.4"/> and teach vocabulary <pause dur="0.2"/> students should produce a language i mean <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> students should be able to use the language <pause dur="0.4"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> as we all <trunc>a</trunc> as we know this is

not the case <pause dur="0.3"/> usually <pause dur="0.3"/> and i began to see <pause dur="0.2"/> why and i began to reconstruct again <pause dur="0.6"/> # why this that is so <pause dur="1.6"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> or <pause dur="0.5"/> i mean the more i hear <pause dur="0.4"/> about the <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="1.1"/> learner's experience in Japan or on the outside Japan <pause dur="0.6"/> well almost <pause dur="0.3"/> all <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> almost all <pause dur="0.4"/> learners say that imitation <pause dur="0.2"/> played a major role in their <pause dur="0.2"/> learning experience <pause dur="0.5"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> what we often see in the <pause dur="0.8"/> textbook for # language # acquisition is that no <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>w</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> imitation doesn't work <pause dur="0.9"/> # one famous example is that nobody doesn't like me <pause dur="0.4"/> and the correction comes nobody likes me ten times and <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>then <pause dur="0.6"/><shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> # you produce i mean <pause dur="0.2"/> # a learner produce the same result <pause dur="0.4"/> and obviously <trunc>y</trunc> we have Chomsky which is <pause dur="0.8"/> critical so critical about the imitation <pause dur="0.6"/> and but i mean it is like the throwing a baby with the hot <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean with the water <pause dur="0.2"/> so i began to <pause dur="0.3"/> # see some point <pause dur="0.5"/> in the imitation <pause dur="0.2"/> by Heidegger's epistemology <pause dur="1.6"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> or recently <pause dur="0.3"/> # i am involved in the <pause dur="0.2"/> # sort of the informal seminar called <unclear>passagen</unclear> seminar in Japan <pause dur="0.3"/> this is <pause dur="0.3"/> an informal # informal # association in Japan <pause dur="0.9"/> # teachers just gather <pause dur="0.5"/>

because the <trunc>mo</trunc> their motivation is that they are not particularly happy <pause dur="0.9"/> with the academic <trunc>preten</trunc> presentations in their <unclear>academic</unclear><pause dur="0.2"/> conferences <pause dur="0.4"/> nor <pause dur="0.3"/> they are particularly happy with the say # the the seminars <pause dur="0.5"/> are sponsored by the Ministry of Education <pause dur="0.2"/> because <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>everything is <pause dur="0.4"/> <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>can be very formal in there so i mean they just want # <pause dur="0.3"/> informal exchange of views <pause dur="0.9"/> and every time i attend there <pause dur="0.2"/> i see <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean <pause dur="0.2"/> i see <pause dur="0.4"/> a lot of wisdom <pause dur="0.7"/> produced by the experienced teachers <pause dur="0.2"/> they are not they may not be theoretical <pause dur="0.4"/> particularly <pause dur="0.3"/> but they <pause dur="0.2"/> i see much point when they <trunc>someth</trunc> they say something <pause dur="0.3"/> and # <pause dur="0.6"/> i began to see <pause dur="0.3"/> i <pause dur="0.2"/> i began to think that <pause dur="0.2"/> the my role <pause dur="0.2"/> as a <pause dur="0.2"/> sort of researcher <pause dur="0.3"/> is that to try to <pause dur="0.2"/> see <pause dur="0.6"/> # try to give theoretical framework <pause dur="0.2"/> to them <pause dur="0.5"/> and then we can cooperate <pause dur="0.5"/> as <pause dur="0.6"/> i mean together <pause dur="0.2"/> to for i mean <pause dur="0.7"/> to improve our <pause dur="0.2"/> our English education <pause dur="0.8"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> and also i am recently involved with a joint work called re-engineering <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>and this is the <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.3"/> another work i mean if you read comics of Dilbert or something like

that <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>i mean <pause dur="0.2"/> you should know <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="sl" dur="1"/> these sort of thing this is # sort of the <pause dur="0.3"/> well new <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean <pause dur="0.2"/> catchy word but <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean what i mean is that the <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> my point here is that if you try to be too scientific <pause dur="0.5"/> then <pause dur="0.8"/> you will get lost <pause dur="0.7"/> and for some people <pause dur="0.2"/> it is i mean <pause dur="0.3"/> i mean it is sometimes so hard to convince <pause dur="0.3"/> scientific oriented people <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.4"/> to sort of to convert their beliefs about that so i see my role as a sort of the <pause dur="1.1"/> # say <pause dur="1.1"/> # directing ourselves <pause dur="0.6"/> this is again too ambitious but again <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.4"/> since i am young and stupid <pause dur="0.2"/> so <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> maybe i have that # privilege <pause dur="0.5"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> so # <pause dur="0.8"/> # so what i am doing # my argument is <pause dur="0.4"/> mainly # normative by which i mean <pause dur="0.3"/> philosophical or theoretical <pause dur="0.3"/> and methodological <pause dur="0.7"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> # <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> here i have # <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> this is the # home page that i have but unfortunately <pause dur="0.2"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> well <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> everything is done in i mean it's written in Japanese <pause dur="0.6"/> and # <pause dur="0.2"/> one thing # <pause dur="1.0"/> one <pause dur="0.2"/> # thing that i <pause dur="0.6"/> say to myself these days is that i mean now that i have <pause dur="0.2"/> yes this privilege of staying in a

<trunc>for</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> in a in an English country <pause dur="0.5"/> i must have another # <trunc>e</trunc> # English home page and # maybe hopefully <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> i will have some <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="1.2"/> # English home page <pause dur="0.5"/><event desc="takes off transparency" iterated="n"/></u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm1088" trans="pause"> today <pause dur="3.1"/> <kinesic desc="puts on transparency" iterated="n"/> i will talk about studies in teacher under the title of # studies in teacher development a methodological viewpoint <pause dur="0.4"/> and the whole point is actually <trunc>sum</trunc> can be summarized as such <pause dur="0.6"/> and now this point i can say that's all but <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/> no <pause dur="0.3"/> this is not <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/><shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> fair <pause dur="0.2"/> so maybe # perhaps you # you don't # <pause dur="0.5"/> you can let me read <pause dur="0.2"/> # here <pause dur="1.1"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> perhaps it is sensible to start # with my <trunc>motivati</trunc> # <pause dur="0.3"/> with my motivation to write this paper for i think papers should be read in the larger <pause dur="0.2"/> # context of our intellectual and social backgrounds <pause dur="0.7"/> <reading>what i perceive to be the case is that <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>i</trunc> at least in Japan we are in short of practically <pause dur="0.2"/> relevant academic studies <pause dur="0.3"/> in our fields or applied linguistics as sometimes <pause dur="0.4"/> possibly <pause dur="0.2"/> misleadingly called <pause dur="0.6"/> large numbers of <trunc>s</trunc> # teachers are quite eager for self-development <pause dur="0.2"/> yet <pause dur="0.2"/> when they

turn to academic researchers for some help <pause dur="0.3"/> they often find that some researchers only produce experimental studies with little relevance to teaching practice</reading> <pause dur="0.4"/> as far as i can see in Japan <pause dur="0.8"/> <reading>the findings of <pause dur="0.2"/> # the researchers are often only comprehensible from a very limited technical <pause dur="0.2"/> perspective which is too remote or detached <pause dur="0.3"/> or even completely different from teaching perspective <pause dur="0.5"/> or the findings are sometimes too patchy <pause dur="0.2"/> and interpretable only in the <pause dur="0.3"/> # controlled situation of that experimental study <pause dur="0.6"/> it seems that it is usually supposed that teachers not researchers <pause dur="0.4"/> are to <pause dur="0.3"/> are expected to integrated these different and <pause dur="0.3"/> and fragmented findings to turn them into practical knowledge <pause dur="0.4"/> but i believe this is a <pause dur="0.2"/> unfair burden of labour for teachers <pause dur="0.8"/> if researchers like my like me <pause dur="0.2"/> only produce # replication of linguistics or psychology <pause dur="0.2"/> under the name of applied linguistics applied psychology i believe they should be advised to <unclear>learn</unclear> the construction of their

own theoretical framework <pause dur="0.2"/> for teaching practice <pause dur="1.7"/> however # this <pause dur="0.2"/> # discrepancy between the researchers and practitioners seemed to be <pause dur="0.2"/> only widening <pause dur="0.3"/> at least in Japan <pause dur="0.5"/> for example in some academic journals in Japan major # academic journals <pause dur="0.2"/> the standard format for a paper or a presentation is just like that of a psychological a psychology journal <pause dur="0.3"/> and takes the form of <pause dur="0.2"/> introduction <pause dur="0.2"/> method <pause dur="0.3"/> result discussion <pause dur="0.6"/> it is as if only experimental works are encouraged <pause dur="0.8"/> unfortunately enough <pause dur="0.2"/> it is as if <pause dur="0.2"/> you have to stop caring about teaching practice at all <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> in order to be a competitive researcher <pause dur="0.5"/> or <pause dur="0.2"/> you have to give up being academic <pause dur="0.4"/> in order to # <trunc>h</trunc> be helpful for teachers in practice <pause dur="0.8"/> apparently we must <pause dur="0.2"/> # find our own methodology <pause dur="0.2"/> to produce practically relevant <pause dur="0.2"/> and academic <pause dur="0.5"/> or rigid # studies <pause dur="1.8"/> and i suspect Japan <pause dur="0.2"/> isn't the only country to see the chasm <pause dur="0.3"/> between research and practice <pause dur="0.6"/> to take <pause dur="0.3"/> only one <pause dur="0.2"/> other example <pause dur="0.2"/> rather thoughtlessly <pause dur="0.8"/></reading> i wonder <pause dur="0.4"/> the U-K here

this <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>country <pause dur="0.7"/><shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> isn't the same i i just don't know i mean if you say resoundingly no in chorus then i shall stop <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>but <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/><shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> perhaps # i i can continue <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> <reading>for example the Times Higher Educational Supplement recently <pause dur="0.3"/> # quoted # Professor Hargreaves at Cambridge University a member of the government's standard task <pause dur="0.2"/> # force when he says in a nineteen-<pause dur="0.6"/>#-sixty-nine teaching teacher training agency lecture <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.4"/> quote <pause dur="0.3"/> much educational research is of little relevance to improving <trunc>cla</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> classroom practice <pause dur="0.5"/> Times Higher Education <trunc>cla</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> # Supplement also carries an even more critical view by Professor Hillage <pause dur="0.2"/> at Sussex University's # Institute of <pause dur="0.4"/> Employment Studies <pause dur="0.2"/> the author of a report on the state of the educational research and quote <pause dur="0.5"/> there are three-thousand <trunc>id</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> # education researchers educational researchers in university education departments <pause dur="0.3"/> and teacher training colleges <pause dur="0.3"/> too much of what they do is small scale <pause dur="0.2"/> lack rigour and does not advance

knowledge <pause dur="0.8"/> the burgeoning of # the burgeoning forest of academic research papers appears to be increasingly impenetrable <pause dur="0.2"/> to academic audience <pause dur="0.2"/> let alone to the wider education community <pause dur="1.1"/> if academic research # <pause dur="0.2"/> # research papers sit in the library to be read by a few scholars whose research and personal interest touch <pause dur="0.2"/> on the same issues <pause dur="0.3"/> as the Guardian higher education section <pause dur="0.3"/> # put it <pause dur="0.6"/> teachers do not benefit from the outcome of the tax money in the form of academic works <pause dur="1.1"/> so # methodological consideration for educational research <pause dur="0.4"/> # seemed to be an international task as it were <pause dur="0.6"/> the current paper is an <pause dur="0.3"/> attempt to of what little academic contribution i can make for the community of researchers and teachers <pause dur="0.5"/> this paper deals with the methodological norms for studies in teacher development and seek a way for a better <pause dur="0.2"/> # cooperation between researchers and teachers <pause dur="0.6"/></reading> and here i'd like to say that well # <pause dur="0.3"/> my <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean this paper is also <pause dur="0.2"/> # based on <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> these experience or sorry <kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="6"/>

these experiences <pause dur="0.5"/> particularly <pause dur="0.3"/> in the <pause dur="0.3"/> informal <pause dur="0.2"/> discussion medium <pause dur="0.7"/> called <unclear>passagen</unclear><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> seminar in Japan <pause dur="0.2"/> this is an informal but <pause dur="0.2"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean i learned quite a lot <kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="3"/></u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm1088" trans="pause"> first # comes the <pause dur="1.1"/> teacher action <pause dur="1.7"/> and well <pause dur="0.4"/> philosophers are rather notorious for saying something <pause dur="0.3"/> obvious <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> philosophers just say <pause dur="0.2"/> if <pause dur="0.2"/> P then Q <pause dur="0.6"/> P <pause dur="0.4"/> therefore Q ah <pause dur="0.3"/> God <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> i mean how <pause dur="0.4"/> how how can we make this sort of inference you see <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> what i'm stating maybe # <pause dur="0.3"/> just the <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>ob</trunc> # obvious but by stating the <pause dur="0.2"/> rather obvious <pause dur="0.2"/> maybe i hope that we begin to see something <pause dur="0.3"/> better <pause dur="0.5"/> so <pause dur="0.4"/> # <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> this is the first point <pause dur="1.4"/> as a definition <pause dur="0.2"/> <reading>we make <trunc>ac</trunc> # we take actions of an <trunc>ex</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> experienced # competent teacher to be rational by and large <pause dur="0.4"/> the teacher is not merely <trunc>a</trunc> # adopting ad hoc measures for it's hard to explain the fact that she has <pause dur="0.3"/> had a successful career <pause dur="0.2"/> for a long time simply in terms of <trunc>hapza</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> haphazard luck <pause dur="0.5"/> nor <pause dur="0.4"/> teachers' actions are <trunc>m</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> are mere simple # simple automatic skills for they are often <pause dur="0.3"/>

apparently done <pause dur="0.2"/> in conflicting situations which doesn't allow <pause dur="0.2"/> do not allow easy # fixed responses <pause dur="0.8"/> the purpose of studies in teacher development should be to explore that rationality of teacher actions <pause dur="0.6"/> the studies should # clarify the rationality which <trunc>ha</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> has not always been described in a coherent way so far <pause dur="1.3"/> this definition implies that we have to take <pause dur="0.4"/> # assumptions in the following sections which are mutually related <pause dur="0.3"/> these assumptions should be explicitly <trunc>adopt</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> adopted <pause dur="0.2"/> for <pause dur="0.2"/> confusion or in methodology can lead <pause dur="0.2"/> can easily lead us nowhere <pause dur="0.9"/> indeed <pause dur="0.3"/> although i am of the opinion that Chomsky <pause dur="0.2"/> linguist <pause dur="0.2"/> Chomsky's project has little or practically no relevance to studies in teacher development <pause dur="0.3"/> but i must i <pause dur="0.2"/> i must admire his # methodological <pause dur="0.2"/> excellence in explicating <pause dur="0.2"/> his normative nature of research programme <pause dur="0.5"/> it is i believe the combination of the normative <pause dur="0.2"/> or philosophical <pause dur="0.3"/> argument <pause dur="0.4"/> and the descriptive <pause dur="0.3"/> arguments specific arguments <pause dur="0.2"/> that turn Chomsky's

revolution into orthodoxy <pause dur="0.3"/> which has been lasting for more than thirty years <pause dur="1.0"/> what studies in teacher development need is normative awareness of their own methodology <pause dur="0.5"/> after all <pause dur="0.5"/> # we are not in short of practical tips for tomorrow or small ideas for Monday morning <pause dur="0.8"/> it is lack of methodological foundation which makes them look like <pause dur="0.2"/> collection of ad hoc advice which are not coherent to each other <pause dur="0.5"/> without proper <pause dur="0.2"/> methodology <pause dur="0.3"/> we might fail to see the rationality of an <pause dur="0.2"/> experienced competent teachers and continue to treat it <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> as something anybody would quickly acquire after experience without much effort <pause dur="0.2"/> but that is not the case <pause dur="1.0"/> we need to <pause dur="0.3"/> explore # the rationality of an <trunc>e</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> experienced <pause dur="0.2"/> competent teacher so that we can share and develop our understanding of the profession <pause dur="1.1"/> yet <pause dur="0.6"/> this does not suggest that we should pick up one teacher <pause dur="0.2"/> and treat her as an example of perfect rationality in language teaching <pause dur="0.6"/> as human beings all teacher are under obvious constraints and thus

prevented from being an <pause dur="0.3"/> exemplar of perfect rationality <pause dur="0.2"/> so we don't take actions of <pause dur="0.2"/> one particular teachers as <pause dur="0.3"/> to <pause dur="0.2"/> as sort of sacred facts <pause dur="0.3"/> # to be explained unquestionably <pause dur="0.7"/> they # their actions could have been more rational <pause dur="1.6"/> this statement mine <trunc>s</trunc> might sound like truism for some people but it is important to acknowledge once and for all <pause dur="0.3"/> that no teacher should be <pause dur="0.2"/> treated as a sort of <pause dur="0.2"/> an icon <pause dur="0.3"/> for it is sometimes the case that some teachers are so admired that they <trunc>be</trunc> they begin to accept <pause dur="0.2"/> less and less critical <trunc>v</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> reviews <pause dur="0.2"/> and establish <pause dur="0.2"/> an exclusive group <pause dur="0.3"/> of their own</reading> <pause dur="0.4"/> actually this is the case in Japan <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean some <pause dur="0.3"/> # educational journals are so hard to read <pause dur="0.4"/> but it is not because they are intellectually hard i mean they just use <pause dur="0.8"/> words which is not <pause dur="0.3"/> exactly technical jargon but just just i mean they just communicated <pause dur="0.4"/> communicate <pause dur="0.4"/> within a limited group <pause dur="0.3"/> and i just <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> think that it is a sad thing for us i mean <pause dur="0.3"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> we need to # be <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="1.7"/> right # <pause dur="0.2"/> we just # <pause dur="0.5"/> we just <trunc>n</trunc> shouldn't have an

icon <pause dur="1.4"/> # <reading>this <trunc>i</trunc> would be more plausible in an authoritarian culture when <pause dur="0.2"/> where a democratic exchange of views are not <trunc>e</trunc> is not encouraged</reading><pause dur="1.0"/> maybe <trunc>jap</trunc> in Japan i <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>mean <pause dur="0.3"/> <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>it is sometimes hard to exchange i mean frank views <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>i mean <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>because i mean some teachers are just in <sic corr="authoritarian">authoritian</sic> sits <kinesic desc="sits back in chair" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.6"/> <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.7"/> and <kinesic desc="sits back in chair" iterated="n"/> and they just say they can <pause dur="0.4"/> just say something but they rarely listen <pause dur="0.4"/> well i mean maybe i <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> i am <pause dur="0.4"/> exaggerating a little bit but <pause dur="0.2"/> <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/> this is what i i <trunc>s</trunc> i sometimes thinks <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> <reading>studies in # teacher development is not <pause dur="0.2"/> to impart our teachers' knowledge <pause dur="0.2"/> to <pause dur="0.3"/> other <trunc>in</trunc> inexperienced teachers with no enquiring mind if that is all meant is meant by sharing experience we would only see <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>deteriorate</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> deteriorating <pause dur="0.3"/> practical wisdom of teachers <pause dur="0.2"/> for by definition a copy cannot be better than the original <pause dur="1.2"/> so our knowledge of teachers # one teacher can be only diminished or distorted when imparted <pause dur="0.6"/> therefore when we share

experience we must try to understand rationality in that experience not just the experience in <trunc>it</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> in in itself but the rationality in it <pause dur="0.6"/> and explore some other cases some potential <pause dur="0.2"/> cases <pause dur="0.4"/> that could be or could have been possible <pause dur="1.2"/> if we agree to treat # <pause dur="0.6"/> regard <pause dur="0.2"/> teacher actions as instantiation of rationality <pause dur="0.3"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> we can discuss the issue objectively incorporating discussion apply the finding properly not blindly to each unique situation <pause dur="1.1"/> in other words we should cease to see teacher development in a craft model <pause dur="0.8"/> as some <pause dur="0.2"/> # some people call it <pause dur="0.4"/> # we have to # distance <pause dur="0.2"/> thoughtfully distance ourselves away from non-critical ethos or blind following of mentor's behaviour <pause dur="1.1"/> some might argue then <pause dur="0.3"/> if teacher development is a matter of rationality <pause dur="0.5"/> # we only have to adopt scientific method <pause dur="1.1"/> my reaction is yes and no because the word scientific or science can be ambiguous <pause dur="0.4"/> unlike the German word <distinct lang="de">wissenschaft</distinct> or the Japanese word <distinct lang="ja">gakumon</distinct> <pause dur="0.4"/> the English word science is sometimes taken

to mean only natural or physical scientists <pause dur="0.3"/> science <pause dur="0.2"/> to the exclusion of social science or human science <pause dur="0.7"/> if we take science in this narrow sense the answer is no <pause dur="0.3"/> because <pause dur="0.4"/> # it seems that we can only be scientific <pause dur="0.3"/> in this sense by being for example semi-psychologists who replicates experiments in L-two settings <pause dur="0.3"/> or applied linguists <pause dur="0.4"/> # who works for research questions set by theoretical linguists not by language teachers in practice <pause dur="0.9"/> the consequence of such scientific approach is much widening <pause dur="0.2"/> # gap <pause dur="0.2"/> between theory and practice <pause dur="0.2"/> # or researchers and teachers <pause dur="0.6"/> criticism for this kind of applied science model <pause dur="0.3"/> is much discussed and i won't repeat it here <pause dur="0.6"/> here suffice it to say <pause dur="0.2"/> that neither side benefit from this gap <pause dur="0.4"/> scientific researchers in our field <pause dur="0.3"/> cannot avoid being uncritical # followers <pause dur="0.7"/> of other presumably advanced scientists <pause dur="0.3"/> because the former lack their own original research questions for education <pause dur="0.7"/> and practical teachers will stay further away from

methodological rigour <pause dur="1.2"/> so we will <pause dur="0.2"/> pursue studies in <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> <trunc>te</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> for # teacher development <pause dur="0.3"/> in a wide sense <pause dur="0.4"/> but what is a scientific approach in the wide sense or the critical approach to avoid the ambiguity of the term <pause dur="0.8"/> if there are any other way than <trunc>f</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> psychology or linguistics for example to explore the issue of <pause dur="0.2"/> # teacher development <pause dur="0.6"/> some researchers have already referred to ethnomethodology <pause dur="0.2"/> and proposed reflective model <pause dur="0.8"/> this paper is in line with this movement <pause dur="0.2"/> and argues that <pause dur="0.2"/> if critical enquiry which is different from natural or physical science <pause dur="0.6"/> is # is done in a methodologically proper way <pause dur="0.3"/> it will be it will reveal what natural or <trunc>f</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> physical <trunc>scien</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> science cannot reveal <pause dur="1.0"/> in what follows i will make clear methodological assumptions that we have to adopt in studies in teacher development</reading> <pause dur="0.2"/> and <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> these are the assumptions i think <pause dur="0.2"/> that we have to follow <pause dur="0.2"/> <reading>if the purpose of study <pause dur="0.2"/> # studies for teacher development is to explore the rationality of an <pause dur="0.2"/>

experienced <pause dur="0.2"/> competent teacher's actions <pause dur="0.2"/> we need to adopt the intentional stance <pause dur="1.0"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> not the design stance or the physical stance <pause dur="0.5"/> because # the only <trunc>s</trunc> # the <trunc>f</trunc> the intentional stance is <pause dur="0.2"/> # the only <pause dur="0.2"/> # stance of the three that can deal with human rationality <pause dur="0.7"/> these <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> three stances are <pause dur="0.2"/> # philosophical concepts advocated by Dennett <pause dur="0.6"/> a part of his motivation seems to be <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>t</trunc> # to make us critically aware that stance adopted by natural scientists <pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> the <trunc>nat</trunc> # physical stance <pause dur="0.2"/> is not the only possible way to view the world <pause dur="0.9"/> from the <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> intentional stance <pause dur="1.6"/> here <pause dur="0.2"/> the word intentional is a rather <pause dur="0.2"/> # used in a technical sense of philosophy <pause dur="0.3"/> and does not exclusively mean <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>purpose</trunc> purposeful or purposive <pause dur="0.5"/> okay <pause dur="0.3"/> but <pause dur="0.3"/> # from this <pause dur="0.3"/> intentional stance we see and try to understand an intelligent being <pause dur="0.5"/> in our case <pause dur="0.3"/> teacher <pause dur="0.8"/> <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="sl" dur="1"/> <pause dur="0.3"/> by ascribing rationality to it <pause dur="0.2"/> that is we treat the intelligent as <pause dur="0.4"/> we <pause dur="0.6"/> treat the intelligent being as the <pause dur="0.2"/> one that has beliefs and desires and other

mental states like hopes fears et cetera <pause dur="0.3"/> and try to explain and predict <pause dur="0.3"/> its <pause dur="0.2"/> # actions by assuming <pause dur="0.2"/> that it will act <pause dur="0.3"/> with these mental <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> # states <pause dur="0.2"/> on the basis of rationality <pause dur="0.8"/> with some possible obvious <trunc>excep</trunc> exceptions like the fatigue or something <pause dur="0.3"/> we take it for granted that <pause dur="0.2"/> it or the teacher will act rationally <pause dur="0.4"/> even when <pause dur="0.3"/> # it appears to be acting not rationally we do not <pause dur="0.2"/> ascribe we shouldn't ascribe <pause dur="0.3"/> you irrationality immediately <pause dur="0.5"/> but still <pause dur="0.2"/> ascribe the <pause dur="0.2"/> # maximum amount of rationality to it <pause dur="0.4"/> and try to account for the action <pause dur="0.8"/> by examining what beliefs and <trunc>desi</trunc> or desires <pause dur="0.3"/> # have led to their action <pause dur="0.9"/> on the other hand <pause dur="0.5"/> even in the case of reasonably <pause dur="0.6"/> # rational action <pause dur="0.5"/> we attribute again the maximum rationality to the intelligent being <pause dur="0.2"/> and try to explore <pause dur="0.2"/> what <pause dur="0.2"/> other potential actions <pause dur="0.3"/> could be or could have been taken <pause dur="0.4"/> which are more rational <pause dur="0.8"/> applied to the studies in <pause dur="0.2"/> # teachers' development <pause dur="1.1"/> # from <pause dur="0.4"/> # from this # intentional stance we view teacher actions as an actual

instantiation of rationality <pause dur="0.6"/> for seemingly unusual or unexpected actions by <pause dur="0.3"/> maybe inexperienced teachers or young teachers or <pause dur="0.5"/> experienced teachers <pause dur="0.3"/> we won't just condemn the teacher herself but instead <pause dur="0.3"/> try to uncover what led her <pause dur="0.3"/> to that action by examining her beliefs and desires et cetera <pause dur="1.0"/> by mutually finding out her unrealized # beliefs or desires et cetera <pause dur="0.4"/> # we give her a chance for reflection <pause dur="0.3"/> for theoretical <pause dur="0.9"/> on the other hand for theoretically trained <pause dur="0.2"/> but inexperienced teacher <pause dur="0.3"/> we might be able to reveal <pause dur="0.2"/> what she could have done <pause dur="0.3"/> given the strength of her theoretical beliefs <pause dur="0.8"/> from this <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>intens</trunc> intentional stance we construct <pause dur="0.2"/> # reconstruct the rationality of our teacher <pause dur="0.3"/> so that we can share her <pause dur="0.2"/> actual and potential actions <pause dur="0.2"/> in an explicit <pause dur="0.3"/> and understanding way <pause dur="0.9"/> thus <pause dur="0.2"/> studies in teacher development should <pause dur="0.3"/> be construed <pause dur="0.2"/> as a rational reconstruction of existing practice <pause dur="0.4"/> but extending that # beyond that practice <pause dur="0.4"/> by exploring its internal structure and suggesting <pause dur="0.2"/> other <pause dur="0.3"/>

potential practice <pause dur="1.0"/> in short <pause dur="0.3"/> this stance is <pause dur="0.2"/> the one that we just <pause dur="0.2"/> usually take <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> in # the reflective model <pause dur="0.2"/> of teacher development <pause dur="2.1"/> this intentional stance should not be confused with the <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> design stance <pause dur="2.1"/> # for if we we take the design stance <trunc>ex</trunc> exclusively <pause dur="0.2"/> # in teacher development <pause dur="0.3"/> what result may <pause dur="0.2"/> well be coercion not reflection <pause dur="0.9"/> from the design stance we see <pause dur="0.2"/> a being <pause dur="0.5"/> as what <pause dur="0.2"/> is designed to serve a certain purpose <pause dur="0.2"/> to perform <pause dur="0.2"/> a certain predetermined functions <pause dur="0.9"/> this view is of limited help <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> only when teachers <pause dur="0.4"/> are expected to do fixed activities <pause dur="0.6"/> these routine behaviours are certainly one element of teacher actions but <pause dur="0.3"/> yet <pause dur="0.2"/> not the major element <pause dur="0.5"/> after all it is possible or arguably even desirable to replace these fixed teacher actions <pause dur="0.3"/> with some <pause dur="0.3"/> teaching machines <pause dur="0.8"/><vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> for <pause dur="0.3"/> # # as far as fixed and # non-creative functions are concerned <pause dur="0.2"/> machines are much faster <pause dur="0.2"/> more accurate <pause dur="0.2"/> and even perhaps more humane because it <pause dur="0.2"/> # is more patient</reading> <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="2"/> and <pause dur="1.3"/><kinesic desc="puts on transparency" iterated="n"/> actually but <pause dur="0.2"/> i

think major major issue for <pause dur="0.2"/> our profession is the <trunc>i</trunc> <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> information technology i think <pause dur="0.4"/> i mean <pause dur="0.2"/> this can change a lot i mean <pause dur="0.2"/> industrial revolution <pause dur="0.3"/> can change the life of <pause dur="0.7"/> workers <pause dur="0.5"/> i mean the <pause dur="0.4"/> manual workers <pause dur="0.5"/> then i mean <pause dur="0.6"/> if this is the information revolution <pause dur="0.3"/> that we are witnessing <pause dur="0.6"/> we our change <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean our work will <pause dur="0.6"/> change a lot <pause dur="0.2"/> that's what i think i suspect <pause dur="0.8"/> okay <pause dur="0.9"/> and # <reading>in other words teacher development exclusively from the design stance <pause dur="0.2"/> would discourage teachers from developing <pause dur="0.5"/> # to be more flexible and compatible with conflicting situations in real classrooms <pause dur="0.6"/> the design stance <pause dur="0.2"/> # alone cannot deal with this sort of open-minded <pause dur="0.2"/> open-ended questions </reading></u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/><u who="nm1088" trans="pause"> <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> from the physical stance we <pause dur="0.2"/> only <pause dur="0.3"/> # we see a being solely on the basis of the actual physical state as the natural or physical scientist usually do <pause dur="0.4"/> this stance does not deal with human rationality <pause dur="0.2"/> or purpose <pause dur="0.5"/> for <pause dur="0.3"/> they do not enter into the realm of the physical world <pause dur="0.2"/> of the natural scientist <pause dur="0.9"/> this physical stance is what

some <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> school <pause dur="0.2"/> of psychology and linguistics <pause dur="0.5"/> are trying to take <pause dur="0.4"/> although i would say # <pause dur="0.2"/> # there are other <pause dur="0.8"/> types of psychology and linguistics <pause dur="0.2"/> that is seen from the design stance <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> not the physical stance <pause dur="1.2"/> for example what some <pause dur="0.2"/> # experimental psychological researchers are changing <pause dur="0.2"/> into <pause dur="0.3"/> # neuroscience or brain science <pause dur="0.3"/> that's neuropsychology <pause dur="0.4"/> for the # these types of <pause dur="0.2"/> researchers has simply a more precise instruments of measurements and this is capable of producing finer theories <pause dur="0.7"/> in linguistics Chomsky often says that linguistics is and should be ultimately biology <pause dur="1.2"/> this stance can produce argualy <pause dur="0.3"/> arguably <pause dur="0.3"/> the finest picture of reality <pause dur="0.4"/> however we have to remember that this stance by definition excludes <pause dur="0.2"/> the rationality of <pause dur="0.2"/> a teacher <pause dur="0.2"/> and <pause dur="0.5"/> the design # design of teaching <pause dur="0.4"/> you need more than <pause dur="0.2"/> # terms of physics to deal with these sort of human concepts <pause dur="1.1"/> therefore i mean <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> by just trying to look <pause dur="0.2"/> # like science scientific <pause dur="0.2"/> we are turning ourselves further away from the teaching

practice <pause dur="1.0"/> here we have to be careful about scientism <pause dur="0.9"/> if we naively believe in scientific method and assume that if if scientific application <pause dur="0.2"/> is the ultimate panacea <pause dur="0.3"/> and justify <pause dur="0.3"/> ourselves <pause dur="0.2"/> # mimicking <pause dur="0.2"/> experiments by psychologists or <trunc>lin</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> # linguistics <pause dur="0.8"/> in the hope of finding the ultimate answer <pause dur="0.3"/> to practical human questions by these small scientifics # steps <pause dur="0.3"/> we are i believe <pause dur="0.2"/> doomed <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> well to <pause dur="0.5"/> i think i would say that it is like a hopeless situation <pause dur="0.3"/> where a tortoise <pause dur="0.6"/> starts <pause dur="0.4"/> not <pause dur="0.2"/> even before <pause dur="0.3"/> but alas after Achilles <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> and finds an infinite number of passing points <pause dur="0.2"/> leading to ever running # Achilles <pause dur="0.7"/> the more <trunc>s</trunc> # natural science advances the more educational researchers have to replicate <pause dur="0.5"/> and natural scientists <pause dur="0.2"/> run much faster than educational researchers <pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/> because they are <pause dur="0.3"/> <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>much in larger in number <pause dur="0.2"/> # much larger in number and have far fewer burden of # <pause dur="0.2"/> explanation than educational researchers <pause dur="0.6"/> educational researchers i believe have to learn to benefit

from the result of <pause dur="0.2"/> natural science <pause dur="0.2"/> not to <pause dur="0.7"/> mimic <pause dur="0.2"/> as it were <pause dur="0.2"/> natural scientists <pause dur="1.6"/> so we should <pause dur="0.2"/> # not take <trunc>f</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> # for granted the priority of the <trunc>s</trunc> # three stances that scientism implies <pause dur="0.5"/> scientism holds that physical stance <pause dur="1.1"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> # physical stance as paramount <pause dur="0.2"/> the design stance being a mere application of the finding from the physical stance <pause dur="0.3"/> nothing more than a secondary interest <pause dur="0.5"/> for the follower of scientism the <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> intentional stance <pause dur="1.0"/> may only have a derogatory connotation <pause dur="0.2"/> for it is far from the precise <trunc>desrip</trunc> description that physical stance can produce <pause dur="0.8"/> however <pause dur="0.2"/> this priority order of physical stance first and then <trunc>f</trunc> design stance and the intentional stance <pause dur="0.2"/> is not only possible one nor the only sensible one as i have implied <pause dur="0.6"/> suppose we take only the physical stance for teacher development <pause dur="0.2"/> X years later with the advance of # neuroscience educational researchers too <pause dur="0.3"/> might have a far more detailed pictures of <pause dur="0.4"/> # teacher actions <pause dur="0.5"/> yes <pause dur="0.3"/> yet this picture <pause dur="0.9"/> whose reading requires a lot of

study <pause dur="0.2"/> in neuroscience <pause dur="0.2"/> would <pause dur="0.4"/> # be far less of help for teachers <pause dur="0.2"/> because this picture is <trunc>f</trunc> <trunc>f</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> far too detailed and yet too vast in the information <pause dur="0.3"/> to be understood in real terms <pause dur="0.5"/> it might perhaps start from the excitement <pause dur="0.2"/> of some neurons <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> in some # some domains of the brain to the transmission of chemical substance in the muscle and then finally to the picking up one piece of chalk <pause dur="0.7"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> and <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.8"/> obviously it's not good picture <pause dur="0.2"/> if this sort of precise scientific findings are to be of some help for practitioners <pause dur="0.2"/> scientific <pause dur="0.3"/> enquiry must be properly directed <pause dur="0.2"/> by <pause dur="0.2"/> some <pause dur="0.2"/> other principles <pause dur="0.2"/> with educational orientation <pause dur="0.8"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> my <pause dur="0.2"/> # what i <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> in other words i think <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean we shouldn't start from <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> here or even start from <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> here we should start from <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> here <pause dur="0.4"/> # this is my point <pause dur="1.1"/> # by <pause dur="0.2"/> so <pause dur="0.6"/> # it <pause dur="0.3"/> # <trunc>enq</trunc> <reading>our enquiry must be directed by a less precise yet more economical stance that is far more relevant to practice of education <pause dur="0.6"/> thus <pause dur="0.4"/> for us <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean we must reverse # <pause dur="0.2"/> priority order <pause dur="0.2"/> thus <pause dur="0.9"/> #

intentional stance comes first followed by the design stance <pause dur="0.3"/> and then finally by the physical stance <pause dur="0.8"/> we must limit our enquiry to the realm of the intentional stance unless it becomes undeniably necessary <pause dur="0.5"/> that without local findings from a more precise <pause dur="0.2"/> # stance we cannot go on <pause dur="1.4"/> only then do we began # begin to take the design stance <pause dur="0.2"/> the physical stance <pause dur="0.3"/> should come even later when efforts # from the design stance are exhausted <pause dur="0.7"/> this order might seem <pause dur="0.6"/> # unscientific or even antiscientific <pause dur="0.4"/> to some people <pause dur="0.2"/> however i argue that this is not <pause dur="0.4"/> in the broad sense of that term science <pause dur="0.2"/> and that this is <pause dur="0.2"/> a very reasonable order by which we can increase our practical knowledge <pause dur="0.7"/> if we start # from the physical stance or even the design stance <pause dur="0.3"/> critical enquiry for teacher development <pause dur="0.2"/> is far too vast <pause dur="0.6"/> it would be too arbitral to pick <pause dur="0.2"/> just one or two aspects of the whole scientific enquiry <pause dur="0.4"/> and claim <pause dur="0.2"/> these studies studies in # teacher development <pause dur="0.7"/> by definition <pause dur="0.2"/> pure <trunc>s</trunc> #

natural <pause dur="0.4"/> # or physical scientists <pause dur="0.2"/> must be blind to design <pause dur="0.2"/> and human intentionality human <pause dur="1.0"/> concepts <pause dur="0.3"/> but we cannot be blind to them also by definition <pause dur="1.6"/> i would say in order to be reasonable in teacher development we cannot afford to be physical # scientists <pause dur="2.0"/> and <pause dur="0.9"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> we will go to the next point </reading></u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm1088" trans="pause"> adoption of intentional stance entails commitment to holism <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>bec</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> # for our intentionality <pause dur="0.3"/> meaning our human concepts our human <pause dur="0.7"/> understanding <pause dur="0.6"/> beliefs hopes desires <pause dur="0.3"/> anxieties et cetera <pause dur="0.3"/> is so <trunc>inter</trunc> internally connected that we are <pause dur="0.4"/> that one change in one part of our intentionality <pause dur="0.5"/> may <pause dur="0.2"/> cause some <pause dur="0.2"/> other change in some parts <pause dur="0.2"/> for example <pause dur="0.2"/> we may want our <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> want our students to make <pause dur="0.2"/> an immediate response to a question in the target language in classroom <pause dur="0.4"/> but it may only be so as long as she does not <pause dur="0.2"/> the student <pause dur="0.3"/> does not develop too much reliance on strategic competence too much frequent <pause dur="0.4"/> # too frequent <pause dur="0.2"/> # circumlocution which discourage <pause dur="0.5"/> # syntactic development <pause dur="0.4"/> or <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> unless she # <pause dur="0.8"/>

she does not # develop too much reliance on easy set phrase which whose semantic content <pause dur="0.3"/> is not necessarily an expression of her feelings <pause dur="0.8"/> nor would teacher want an <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>im</trunc> immediate response if it threatens the <trunc>teach</trunc> student's <trunc>des</trunc> # affective sense of security <pause dur="0.6"/> our beliefs and desires are so interconnected that it is practically impossible to pick up <pause dur="0.2"/> one proposition #<pause dur="0.2"/> from our intentionality <pause dur="0.3"/> and treat the proposition as a kind of decontextualized <trunc>e</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>ex</trunc> eternal truth <pause dur="0.5"/> of course we sometimes take the proposition <pause dur="0.6"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> perhaps we see we find <pause dur="0.3"/> no practical problem in saying that <pause dur="0.3"/> an immediate response from a student is desirable <pause dur="0.7"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> we have to be reminded that when we make this sort of type <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> this type of statement <pause dur="0.3"/> we omit for the economy of speech <pause dur="0.3"/> a restrictive phrase like <pause dur="0.2"/> other things being normal <pause dur="0.9"/> indeed <pause dur="0.3"/> or we have to be careful about the balance of significance between the proposition part and the <unclear>restrictive</unclear> <pause dur="0.3"/> # phrase part <pause dur="0.2"/> other things being normal <pause dur="0.7"/> in natural or

physical science where the target of the study is highly focused or controlled <pause dur="0.3"/> restrictive # phrase <pause dur="0.4"/> may sound a platitude <pause dur="0.7"/> yet <pause dur="0.2"/> in the case where a proposition is actually in the web of other propositions and contextual factors play a major role <pause dur="0.3"/> it is indeed <pause dur="0.2"/> the proposition part <pause dur="0.4"/> that may <pause dur="0.7"/> # become a platitude <pause dur="0.7"/> indeed <pause dur="0.2"/> restrictive phrase other thing being <trunc>e</trunc> <pause dur="0.7"/> # normal may be the focus of our enquiry <pause dur="0.4"/> a holistic question like <pause dur="0.2"/> what other factors are significantly related to this proposition <pause dur="0.4"/> may carry more relevance to teachers who already know the content of the platitudinous <pause dur="0.3"/> proposition <pause dur="1.3"/> in this sense i i'm rather sceptical of of experimental studies in teacher development <pause dur="0.3"/> of course you can <pause dur="0.2"/> # compare for example two types of teaching technique in a semi-experimental manner and have a conclusion that one technique work better than the other <pause dur="0.6"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> if the study neglects exploring what constitutes the <trunc>de</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> # context including the teacher herself <pause dur="0.4"/> the conclusion <pause dur="0.2"/> is of little significance to

other teachers or even the teacher herself <pause dur="0.2"/> when she is put in a different situation <pause dur="1.1"/> i believe <trunc>proliferi</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> # proliferating <pause dur="0.2"/> this type of experimental studies leads us nowhere unless we take the holistic nature of reality <pause dur="0.3"/> as the foundation of our studies <pause dur="0.6"/> hence action research <pause dur="0.2"/> should be <pause dur="0.2"/> encouraged for it <pause dur="0.2"/> # supposedly encourages our reflection over <pause dur="0.2"/> holistic situation <pause dur="0.3"/> rather than jumping to a hasty conclusion <pause dur="0.3"/> but without <pause dur="0.4"/> proper understanding of the holism <pause dur="0.3"/> action research <pause dur="0.3"/> # could perhaps degenerate into a rather arbitrary comparison study <pause dur="0.3"/> which is far from scientific # experimental design <pause dur="0.2"/> and sensible <pause dur="0.3"/> # reflection </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/><u who="nm1088" trans="pause"> <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> okay next point <pause dur="0.7"/> <reading>adoption of <trunc>re</trunc> intentional stance and holism commands a more flexible type of rationality <pause dur="0.2"/> than we normally think</reading> because <pause dur="0.2"/> if <pause dur="0.2"/> when we say <pause dur="0.3"/> we are rational and <pause dur="0.2"/> we <pause dur="0.5"/> often <pause dur="1.2"/> # think of <pause dur="0.5"/> # rationality in formal <pause dur="0.2"/> terms <pause dur="1.1"/> for <pause dur="0.2"/> <reading>it would be inconceivable that we often come up with sensible solutions in this complex world satisfying our

holistic intentionality <pause dur="0.3"/> with only simple formal deductive type of rationality <pause dur="1.4"/> in this section <pause dur="0.3"/> therefore i introduce Habermas' theory of rationality for a more flexible account of rationality <pause dur="1.3"/> Habermas <pause dur="0.2"/> # distinguishes two types of rationality <pause dur="0.6"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> cognitive instrumental rationality and # communicative rationality <pause dur="0.2"/> stating that although the <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> cognitive instrumental rationality is the self-understanding of the modern era <pause dur="0.4"/> contemporary <pause dur="0.3"/> world <pause dur="0.3"/> it should be subsumed <pause dur="0.4"/> by the latter <pause dur="0.4"/> # communicative rationality which is connected with the ancient <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> conception of logos <pause dur="0.7"/> exertion of cognitive instrumental rationality is measured <pause dur="0.3"/> by successful intervention <pause dur="0.7"/> if one is able to fulfil her purpose by making informed and intelligent change <pause dur="0.3"/> in the environment <pause dur="1.2"/> she is regarded as possessing cognitive instrumental rationality <pause dur="0.8"/> this is <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> teleological and non-cognitive <pause dur="0.3"/> and does not require at least theoretically <pause dur="0.4"/> agreement with other persons <pause dur="0.8"/> as long as she makes her purpose clear and change

the environment <pause dur="0.2"/> so that <pause dur="0.6"/> # it more satisfies <pause dur="0.5"/> her purpose <pause dur="0.3"/> she has shown instrumental mastery <pause dur="0.3"/> and that is enough for cognitive # instrumental rationality <pause dur="1.1"/> to make internal reference <pause dur="0.4"/> we typically exert this rationality from the design stance <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.8"/> some # we somehow receive purpose from the intentional stance <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.1"/> and tactfully gain knowledge from the physical stance and then relate them to fill fulfil the purpose <pause dur="1.3"/> yet <pause dur="0.4"/> this is not a good picture for teacher <pause dur="0.2"/> # development as you would assume <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> as we have confirmed the purpose or the end of a teacher action <pause dur="0.2"/> is not always independent <pause dur="0.4"/> and unchangeable <pause dur="0.5"/> because of the holistic nature of our teaching experience <pause dur="0.6"/> only some portion of # teacher actions can be properly explained by this cognitive instrumental rationality <pause dur="0.2"/> from the design stance <pause dur="0.7"/> so we need a more flexible and comprehensible notion of rationality <pause dur="0.3"/> and that according to Habermas <pause dur="0.2"/> is communicative rationality <pause dur="0.5"/> we hold that rationality of teacher <pause dur="0.3"/> actions <pause dur="0.5"/>

comes <trunc>its</trunc> # manifests itself through <pause dur="0.3"/> the use of this communicative rationality <pause dur="1.5"/> okay communicative rationality is exerted for unifying consensus bridging force of argumentative <pause dur="0.2"/> # speech <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> what i mean is that in this # sort of communication different participants overcome <pause dur="0.3"/> their merely subjective views and by the use of communicative rationality <pause dur="0.3"/> they try to <pause dur="0.3"/> # achieve <pause dur="2.6"/> and they integrate different aspects of the same world in a coherent way</reading> <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="0.7"/> for example when we talk <pause dur="0.2"/> and when we reach an <trunc>ar</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> agreement <pause dur="0.2"/> we just <pause dur="0.2"/> don't simply follow one type of argument <pause dur="0.4"/> some <pause dur="0.4"/> people says when in terms of this <pause dur="0.3"/> rule i mean <pause dur="0.2"/> your action is <trunc>wro</trunc> i mean wrong or something like that <pause dur="0.5"/> whereas <pause dur="0.2"/> the other person might say but you see <pause dur="0.2"/> just just think <pause dur="0.2"/> of how she must be feeling right now <pause dur="0.5"/> which is quite different logic <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> somehow we reach <pause dur="0.2"/> an understanding <pause dur="0.7"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> Habermas <pause dur="0.2"/> # says that <pause dur="0.5"/> we should <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> acknowledge this that sort of # more <pause dur="0.3"/> flexible rationality <pause dur="0.8"/> that's what he means by # communicative

rationality <pause dur="0.9"/> <reading>and inherent in this # communicative rationality <pause dur="0.2"/> is communicative understanding <pause dur="0.8"/> this rationality is exercised particularly when it becomes obvious that there is apparent disagreement <pause dur="0.2"/> in understanding among ourselves <pause dur="0.3"/> with different orientations <pause dur="0.6"/> in our case <pause dur="0.3"/> teacher often encounters students or student # and situations <pause dur="0.5"/> which are quite different from what she expected <pause dur="0.8"/> and do not allow an easy solution <pause dur="0.6"/> she then has to talk as it were with herself <pause dur="0.3"/> or <pause dur="0.5"/> actually with other persons <pause dur="0.2"/> other colleagues <pause dur="0.2"/> or friends when she has time to find a better solution <pause dur="0.6"/> she must take into account different aspects of teaching that's different students <pause dur="0.3"/> and different <trunc>s</trunc> # situations bring <pause dur="0.6"/> and find that unified <pause dur="0.2"/> understanding of the whole picture of teaching <pause dur="2.1"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> she <trunc>m</trunc> <trunc>c</trunc> she must come up with the solution by way of <pause dur="0.2"/> communicative rationality <pause dur="1.0"/> communicative rationality is therefore motivated by such ordinary questions <pause dur="0.2"/> like <pause dur="0.3"/> how come she sees it <pause dur="0.3"/> and you don't <pause dur="0.5"/> i mean <pause dur="0.8"/> this type of mindset is

quite incompatible <pause dur="0.3"/> in fact <pause dur="0.3"/> and in fact in <pause dur="0.3"/> unimaginable from the <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> physical stance or the design stance <pause dur="0.4"/> which only presupposes the the one <pause dur="0.2"/> and only one <pause dur="0.2"/> unquestionable realistic world <pause dur="0.2"/> or purpose <pause dur="0.4"/> and see disagreement among us <pause dur="0.3"/> as a mishap <pause dur="0.3"/> not as a starting motivation for further enquiry <pause dur="1.0"/> the communicative rationality takes <pause dur="0.2"/> phenomenological style <pause dur="0.6"/> which allows different looks of the world <pause dur="0.5"/> # from different interpretive backgrounds <pause dur="0.6"/> therefore communicative rationality <pause dur="0.4"/> is # compatible with holism <pause dur="0.8"/> rather than the instrumental <pause dur="0.2"/> # cognitive instrumental rationality <pause dur="1.8"/> and also # compatible with the intentional stance <pause dur="0.6"/> in addition since communicative rationality is a more comprehensible concept <pause dur="0.6"/> # this subsumes cognitive instrumental rationality <pause dur="0.5"/> it is an undeniable fact that our daily life is occasionally supplemented by instrumental mastery <pause dur="0.6"/> a life with no instrumental mastery is not a human life <pause dur="0.2"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> a life which is only made up of instrumental mastery <pause dur="0.3"/> is not a human life either <pause dur="0.6"/> we

need to make clear the <trunc>as</trunc> sort of the <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> asymmetrical <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>w</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> relation <pause dur="0.2"/> of our communicative rationality and <trunc>cogniti</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> cognitive instrumental rationality <pause dur="0.4"/> and try not to misrepresent a human life or teacher actions in theoretically biased way</reading> </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm1088" trans="pause"> <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> then <pause dur="0.3"/> argumentation <pause dur="1.1"/> <reading>suppose that <pause dur="0.2"/> so suppose a teacher comes to us <pause dur="0.4"/> and we try to see <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="1.2"/> rationality <pause dur="0.2"/> by the use of communicative rationality <pause dur="0.4"/> then what are the specific requirements in the argumentation</reading> <pause dur="1.3"/> Habermas says that <pause dur="0.7"/> our argumentation should be seen <pause dur="0.4"/> as a process <pause dur="0.2"/> that is <pause dur="0.2"/> unfinished work <pause dur="0.2"/> unfinished continuation <pause dur="0.6"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> in natural science <pause dur="0.2"/> you should have an answer <pause dur="1.2"/> if you don't have an answer that's a failure <pause dur="0.7"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> in our <pause dur="0.2"/> discussion <pause dur="0.6"/> i mean in our setting <pause dur="0.2"/> maybe we don't have a complete answer and we shouldn't have a complete answer <pause dur="0.2"/> if you think you should you have a the ultimate <pause dur="1.9"/> i mean <pause dur="0.3"/> complete # right answer then <pause dur="0.3"/> you must be taking <pause dur="0.6"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> # design stance or <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> physical stance or this # <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.3"/> rationality <pause dur="0.9"/> cognitive instrumental rationality <pause dur="0.5"/> so <pause dur="0.5"/> we we

shouldn't be ashamed of the fact that <pause dur="0.3"/> sort of as it were we are <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>endlessly <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>talking <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.9"/> i mean from different # <pause dur="0.2"/> perspectives <pause dur="0.9"/> also <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> Habermas says that <pause dur="0.5"/> we must follow certain procedure i mean argumentation should be seen # procedure <pause dur="0.4"/> and we must follow <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> # certain types of rules <pause dur="0.5"/> for example <pause dur="0.7"/> # Habermas says <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> we should <pause dur="0.2"/> thematize <pause dur="0.2"/> no we just <pause dur="0.4"/> i mean <pause dur="1.3"/> in the process we just <pause dur="1.2"/> don't chat <pause dur="0.5"/> we just thematize <pause dur="0.3"/> the claim <pause dur="0.6"/> and we try to see <pause dur="1.0"/> we try to clarify the reasons behind it <pause dur="0.5"/> not the # claim itself <pause dur="0.4"/> for example when she says when # one teacher says something like the <pause dur="0.7"/> i think the <trunc>introductio</trunc> i mean the use of music enhances the student's motivation et cetera <pause dur="0.4"/> rather than focusing on that content itself <pause dur="0.3"/> oh no in my experience it didn't work <trunc>w</trunc> et cetera or music is not related to the cognitive development something like that <pause dur="0.3"/> we should try to see the reasons <pause dur="0.4"/> reasons <pause dur="0.2"/> and argumentations <pause dur="0.3"/> these are the core of the <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> argumentation <pause dur="0.3"/> and # <pause dur="1.0"/> we shouldn't <pause dur="0.2"/> take the <trunc>attitu</trunc> # we should take the

sort of the hypothetical <trunc>wor</trunc> # attitude <pause dur="0.3"/> and stop saying <pause dur="0.5"/> well <pause dur="0.4"/> if you have the experience if you have experience like mine <pause dur="0.2"/> you will see <pause dur="0.4"/> or you cannot say anything <pause dur="0.3"/> you cannot say <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>real</trunc> # say anything really <pause dur="0.6"/> if you are not experienced # if you are not experienced <pause dur="0.4"/> i mean <pause dur="0.7"/> we should <pause dur="0.7"/> as i said <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> we just <pause dur="0.3"/> i mean <pause dur="0.6"/> we should <pause dur="0.4"/> begin <pause dur="0.3"/> we should see <pause dur="0.2"/> the teacher actions in terms of <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> rationality <pause dur="0.3"/> so we we should try to see the rationality behind it <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> reasons <pause dur="0.6"/> not the context <pause dur="0.7"/> or the <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean experience is obviously important <pause dur="0.3"/> but <pause dur="0.4"/> experience is not absolutely necessary <pause dur="0.3"/> to understand <pause dur="0.6"/> our profession <pause dur="1.7"/> and but <pause dur="0.2"/> we should have <pause dur="0.2"/> # at some point <pause dur="0.7"/> i mean we should turn these discussion <pause dur="0.3"/> or argumentation <pause dur="0.3"/> into a product <pause dur="0.4"/> otherwise i mean we'll get <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>nowhere <pause dur="0.5"/><shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> i mean this sounds rather contradictory to each other but <pause dur="0.3"/> in in actual case i mean we should have the sort of the intent <pause dur="0.2"/> # report or a summary <pause dur="0.8"/> otherwise # <pause dur="0.8"/> and <pause dur="0.8"/> that is <pause dur="0.5"/> okay and that <pause dur="0.2"/> # sort of the product <pause dur="0.2"/> is enough <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> i don't have time so i have no time to

introduce # Wittgenstein's # concept of certainty <pause dur="0.5"/> oh in short Wittgenstein says <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean scientists <pause dur="0.2"/> are concerned with truth <pause dur="0.7"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> we <pause dur="0.3"/> don't <pause dur="0.3"/> # spend our lives <pause dur="0.6"/> based on the truth <pause dur="0.2"/> we <pause dur="0.2"/> act on certainty <pause dur="0.3"/> and certainty is enough <pause dur="0.4"/> that's what Wittgenstein <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>says in the <trunc>f</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/><shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> rather thick book but <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="3"/> just let's <pause dur="0.4"/> <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>i mean <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <unclear>i don't know</unclear> <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.3"/><shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> and we <pause dur="0.4"/> so sort of produce argumentation or discussion <pause dur="0.2"/> then we have to make it <pause dur="0.2"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> a study <pause dur="1.3"/> and # <pause dur="1.3"/> in the <trunc>s</trunc> # in order to have a study or a research programme <pause dur="0.3"/> we should have <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> normative and <pause dur="0.2"/> we should distinguish <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> normative <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> descriptive <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> prescriptive <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> argumentations or types <pause dur="0.2"/> # aspect <pause dur="0.3"/> of the research <pause dur="0.7"/> # i would like to say unless we clearly distinguishes these three aspects <pause dur="1.3"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="9"/> # <pause dur="1.6"/> we cannot develop our <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> # discussion into a study <pause dur="2.7"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> prescriptions <pause dur="0.4"/> i mean prescriptions is just advice from the senior teacher <pause dur="0.8"/> and usually we <pause dur="0.2"/> just take it <pause dur="0.2"/> or and some people <pause dur="0.2"/> says that no no you shouldn't prescribe you shouldn't you shouldn't # <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/>

have you should have no prescriptions et cetera <pause dur="0.6"/> but <pause dur="0.4"/> # actually <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> proper prescriptions is <pause dur="0.3"/> quite possible <pause dur="0.3"/> if we have <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> normative theories and <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> descriptions <pause dur="1.2"/> okay <pause dur="0.3"/> by <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> normative theories <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> as i said <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="1.3"/> since we see the teacher actions as an instantiation of rationalities <pause dur="1.4"/> # we have to we sort of the <pause dur="0.2"/> we should come up with the <pause dur="0.4"/> theories <pause dur="0.6"/> that is philosophically <pause dur="0.9"/> sound and <pause dur="0.4"/> solid <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="1.4"/> what i mean is that <pause dur="1.4"/> if we <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> yeah <pause dur="0.9"/> we should rather than starting from here <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.3"/> my point is rather than <trunc>s</trunc> starting from here <pause dur="0.2"/> just to quote <pause dur="0.2"/> # Chomsky or some other psychological studies <pause dur="0.4"/> we should start from the <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> # here our sense of practice we do have a good sense of practice <pause dur="0.9"/> and then <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> we should sort of be <pause dur="0.5"/> by some <pause dur="0.3"/> happy <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>accident <pause dur="0.4"/> <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>we should come up with the <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> # possible normative theories <pause dur="0.7"/> and then <pause dur="0.3"/> if we have these normative theories <pause dur="0.5"/> we can <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> describe <pause dur="0.4"/> according <pause dur="0.3"/> # according to that normative theories <pause dur="0.8"/> otherwise if we just try to describe <pause dur="0.9"/> it is like a diary <pause dur="0.3"/> i mean you describe something but i mean you see <pause dur="0.3"/> i

mean other people can see <pause dur="1.1"/> # little point in them so <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.4"/> normative theories and descriptions must # <pause dur="0.4"/> come together <pause dur="0.7"/> if <pause dur="0.3"/> i mean <pause dur="1.7"/> one cannot exist without <pause dur="0.2"/> the other <pause dur="0.2"/> i would say <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> particularly descriptions <pause dur="0.6"/> and if we compare <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> normative theories and descriptions then there should be a gap i mean <pause dur="0.3"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> should it be the case <pause dur="0.6"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> this is the normative theories <pause dur="0.7"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> should it be the case that there are some paths <pause dur="0.2"/> # which are <pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> not <pause dur="0.3"/> really the case in the descriptions <pause dur="0.4"/> we can have the <pause dur="0.2"/> prescription I-E i mean we have to concentrate our effort in this <pause dur="0.3"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> stance <pause dur="0.3"/> i mean <pause dur="0.2"/> in <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> this area <pause dur="0.3"/> of research <pause dur="0.7"/> so <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="1.9"/> if i can summarize quickly <pause dur="0.4"/> i think <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> we have been <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> we have <pause dur="0.2"/> an applied science model <pause dur="0.4"/> as i said <pause dur="0.8"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> in applied science model normative theories comes first <pause dur="0.5"/> but i i think it it should not be the case <pause dur="0.3"/> on the other hand <pause dur="0.3"/> we sometimes just # <pause dur="0.4"/> just try to describe <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="1.2"/> without # <pause dur="0.2"/> having the <trunc>n</trunc> <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> normative theories <pause dur="0.2"/> but this is not the case <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> in order to <pause dur="0.2"/> have the normative theories <pause dur="0.4"/> i <pause dur="0.8"/> i'd like to say that we shouldn't be natural

science or we shouldn't be the <pause dur="0.4"/> normative theories <pause dur="0.2"/> # themselves we should <pause dur="0.3"/> just like <pause dur="0.3"/> just like an engineer is quite happy <pause dur="0.5"/> to learn some of the results <pause dur="0.6"/> of the scientific findings <pause dur="0.2"/> and apply it <pause dur="0.6"/> we should be happy <pause dur="0.3"/> to be <pause dur="0.2"/> not <pause dur="0.2"/> original scientists or pure scientists we cannot be <trunc>scien</trunc> i mean real scientists in practical terms <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> that's not a shame <pause dur="0.2"/> this is my # contention <pause dur="0.8"/> and <pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> <trunc>pres</trunc> prescriptions <pause dur="0.2"/> it's still possible and <pause dur="0.6"/> i mean if a prescriptions comes with the normative theories and descriptives # <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>descrips</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> descriptions <pause dur="0.4"/> # prescriptions are not <pause dur="0.4"/> just blind thing <pause dur="1.3"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> well i <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>sort of <unclear>hasten</unclear> <pause dur="0.3"/><shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> to conclude but i think this is # <pause dur="0.2"/> all i want to say right <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>now <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.2"/> thank you very much </u><u who="nm1089" trans="latching">

well thank you very much indeed Professor <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> <kinesic desc="applause" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="5"/> </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm1089" trans="pause"> i think you may have got some sense of the experience i was describing in # <pause dur="0.3"/> Professor's <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/>'s office sparks flying in all directions i was <gap reason="inaudible due to laughter" extent="2 secs"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="sl" dur="1"/> so we certainly got our money's worth this afternoon <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="nm1088" dur="1"/> thank you very much <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>indeed <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.4"/> # i heard the clatter of teacups a little while ago <pause dur="0.2"/> and i don't want our tea to get cold so i'm going to suggest if anybody has immediate responses they'd like to make now for perhaps about five minutes or so <pause dur="0.4"/> and there are many many areas we could follow through trying to catch those sparks <pause dur="0.3"/> and and then if we can all go into room three-five-seven where i believe the tea is we can continue informally <pause dur="0.2"/> over a cup of tea <pause dur="0.9"/> so any any immediate responses <pause dur="2.1"/> or comments or questions or <pause dur="4.1"/> <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> yes of course </u><u who="nf1090" trans="overlap">

can i just make one observation <pause dur="0.4"/> do you see it as a hopeful sign that Chomsky is now saying that <pause dur="0.5"/> everything has become much too complicated and he wants to go back to <pause dur="0.4"/> a much simpler model <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> of # <pause dur="0.2"/> language learning in order to <pause dur="0.2"/> understand <pause dur="0.5"/> really <pause dur="0.2"/> what's going on </u><u who="nm1088" trans="overlap"> do you mean that Chomsky is saying that he he's sort of the # <pause dur="0.5"/> trying to give up the <pause dur="0.2"/> account of the language development </u><u who="nf1090" trans="latching"> that's right <pause dur="0.3"/> that's right </u><u who="nm1088" trans="overlap"> yes i think that's why he he he can survive <pause dur="0.3"/> i mean <pause dur="0.3"/> that's the way he survives </u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="nf1090" trans="pause"> yes </u><u who="nm1088" trans="overlap">

right i mean <pause dur="0.3"/> he <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean his <pause dur="0.3"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> i mean <pause dur="0.6"/> his normative theory is nativism <pause dur="0.4"/> innate theory </u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="nf1090" trans="pause"> yes </u><u who="nm1088" trans="latching"> and that's the most important part <pause dur="0.6"/> right <pause dur="0.5"/> and the some <pause dur="0.3"/> people say oh it's not <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>fair because you have to <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.3"/> account for various things like the language development </u><u who="nf1090" trans="latching"> mm </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="nm1088" trans="pause"> but if he <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> tries to do that <pause dur="0.4"/> i think his # project might have collapsed </u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="nf1090" trans="pause"> mm </u><u who="nm1088" trans="overlap"> and <pause dur="0.7"/> by <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.2"/> # concentrating his efforts to the <pause dur="0.3"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> to his normative theory <pause dur="1.0"/> he can make it methodologically clear <pause dur="0.2"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> and that's why people <pause dur="0.3"/> # # linguists all over the world can cooperate <pause dur="0.5"/> so i mean <pause dur="0.8"/> # i think we have to sort of not in the Chomskian sense but we have to certainly # narrow <pause dur="0.2"/> our <pause dur="0.2"/> focus actually <pause dur="0.8"/> # in the form of <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> normative theories otherwise i think <pause dur="0.2"/> # we keep <pause dur="0.2"/> talking <pause dur="0.2"/> and that's fine <pause dur="0.4"/> that's fine because <trunc>w</trunc> <pause dur="0.6"/> each time <pause dur="0.3"/> hopefully we <pause dur="0.2"/> understand better <pause dur="0.4"/> but <pause dur="0.3"/> if we are to cooperate <pause dur="0.5"/> then we should have <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> normative theories <pause dur="0.8"/> according to which we can cooperate