Advertisement

Toward Managing Language Pedagogy and Language Teaching Research

  • Akira TajinoEmail author
  • Craig Smith
  • Toshiyuki Kanamaru
Chapter
Part of the Translational Systems Sciences book series (TSS, volume 17)

Abstract

This chapter provides the rationale for applying a systems approach to language pedagogy; presents a case study in which soft systems methodology (SSM), a type of soft systems approach, was applied to language curriculum development; and attempts to manage language teaching research from a communicative perspective. In doing so, it argues that language pedagogy is a complex phenomenon in which various factors affect one another in complex ways. By referring to language teaching research that investigates the nature of the factors of language pedagogy, it also argues that due to lack of communication among the research areas in the field, each of the discrete research topics has been discussed individually within the confines of those research areas, often resulting in the so-called silo effect.

Keywords

Language pedagogy Language teaching research Soft systems methodology (SSM) Silo effect 

References

  1. Atkinson, C., Eldabi, T., & Paul, R. (2002). Integrated approaches to health informatics research and development. Logistics Information Management, 15, 138–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chambers, F. (1997). Seeking consensus in coursebook evaluation. ELT Journal, 51(1), 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Checkland, P. (1983). OR and the systems movement: Mapping and conflicts. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 34, 661–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Checkland, P. (2001). Soft systems methodology in action: Participative creation of an information strategy for an acute hospital. In J. Rosenbhead & J. Mingers (Eds.), Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: Problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict (pp. 91–113). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2006). Learning for action: A short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers and students. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Churchman, C. W. (1968). The systems approach. New York: Delacorte Press.Google Scholar
  9. Connell, N. (2001). Evaluating soft OR: Some reflections on an apparently unsuccessful implementation using a soft systems methodology (SSM) based approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 52(2), 150–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferrari, M., Fares, B., & Martinelli, P. (2002). The systemic approach of SSM: The case of a Brazilian company. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 15, 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hasan, R. (1988). The analysis of one poem: Theoretical issues in practice. In D. Birch & M. O’Tool (Eds.), Functions and styles (pp. 45–73). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  12. Holliday, A. (1990). A role for soft systems methodology in ELT projects. System, 18, 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson, K., & Johnson, H. (Eds.). (1999). The encyclopedic dictionary of applied linguistics: A handbook for language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Katsurayama, K., Takahashi, S., Kanamaru, T., Sasao, Y., Stewart, T., Dalsky, D., & Tajino, A. (2018). Kyoto daigaku ni okeru eigo kyouiku kaikaku—Eigo raiting-risuningu kousu ni shouten wo atete [English education reform at Kyoto University: A focus on the English writing–listening course]. Kyoto University Institute for Liberal Arts and Sciences Bulletin, 1, 111–121.Google Scholar
  15. Luckett, S., Ngubane, S., & Memela, B. (2001). Designing a management system for a rural community development organization using a systemic action research process. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 14, 517–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Tajino, A. (2002). Transformation process models: A systemic approach to problematic team-teaching situations. Prospect, 17, 29–44.Google Scholar
  18. Tajino, A., & Suiko, M. (2005). Daigaku eigokyoiku eno teigen—Karikyuramu kaihatsu eno sisutemu apurochi [A proposal for university English language education: A systems approach to curriculum development]. In Y. Takefuta & M. Suiko (Eds.), Korekarano daigaku eigokyoiku [The future of university English language education] (pp. 1–46). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
  19. Tajino, A., James, R., & Kijima, K. (2005). Beyond needs analysis: Soft systems methodology for meaningful collaboration in EAP course design. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tett, G. (2015). The silo effect: The peril of expertise and the promise of breaking down barriers. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Akira Tajino
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Craig Smith
    • 3
  • Toshiyuki Kanamaru
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of British and American StudiesNagoya University of Foreign StudiesAichiJapan
  2. 2.Kyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Global AffairsKyoto University of Foreign StudiesKyotoJapan
  4. 4.International Academic Research and Resource Center for Language EducationKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations