¹ My own contribution to ELT Docs 76/3 (to be discussed in the final section) certainly seems to have been open to this misinterpretation.

² It could be argued that this is an ideologically, rather than a logically, determined response to the problem of classroom method. I hope to establish that both logic and the available empirical evidence (what little there is as yet) support a ‘responsibility-sharing’ approach, and that therefore we need not fear that ‘mere’ ideology is having too much influence.

³ Many teachers might find this sketch of my argument somewhat presumptuous, because they have been practising responsibility-sharing for years and yet I appear to be proposing it as an innovation. I would only reply that my intention is to support such teachers rather than antagonize them, by proposing what I believe is a novel analysis of the language teaching/learning situation, one that strongly reinforces the arguments in favour of responsibility-sharing.

⁴ A revised version of the paper given at Stuttgart was later published in the UCLA Workpapers, Vol. X, June 1976, pages 1 – 14, under the title: “Putting Cognitions on the Map”.

⁵ Not only, but most obviously, because of the variety of radically different teacher roles now current. In addition, of course, neutrality at this level of analysis is crucial if this paper's later return to the teacher-centred/learner-centred issue is to be a genuine change of perspective.

⁶ It may be thought that it is the presence or absence of this element that crucially distinguishes formal from informal learning environments (teaching/learning from learning environments) but it should not be thought that simp1e presence or absence is the issue. It must surely be a matter of degree.

⁷ For an extremely interesting discussion of such matters (among many others) see Stevick, E. W.: Memory, Meaning and Method, Newbury House, 1976.Google Scholar

⁸ This point will be taken up again in the final section.

⁹ Politzer writes: “Receiving the explanation before the treatment evidently antagonized precisely those students who like to arrive at rules by themselves and who are capable of doing so” (page 340). See Politzer, R. L.: “On the Use of Aptitude Variables in Research on Foreign Language Teaching”, IRAL. VIII/4, 11 1970, pages 333–340.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Rodgers' contribution to this Colloquium, page 1.

¹¹ But note all the work on learner autonomy at CRAPEL and elsewhere, to be discussed briefly in the final section.

¹² See my paper on “Some Problems in the Study of the Language Teacher's Treatment of Learner Error”, in Burt, and Dulay, (eds.): New Directions in Second Language Learning, Teaching and Bilingual Education, TESOL, 1975, pages 96–109.Google Scholar

¹³ Lucas found more than 40% of errors going unnoticed. See Lucas, E.: “Teachers' Reacting Moves Following Errors made by Pupils in Post-Primary English-as-a-Second-Language Classes in Israel”, M. A. Thesis, University of Tel Aviv, 1975Google Scholar

¹⁴ See McTear, M.: “Potential Sources of Confusion in Foreign Language: The Rules of the Game”, paper presented at the Fourth International Congress of Applied Linguistics, Stuttgart, 1975.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Rivers, W. M.: The Psychologist and the Foreign Language Teacher, University of Chicago Press, 1961 (especially Chapter III).Google Scholar

¹⁶ For a pioneering study which raises the issue of relative, as opposed to absolute, time see Politzer, R. L.: “Some Reflections on ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ Language Teaching Behaviors”, Language Learning, Vol. XX, no. 1, pages 31–43Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Cathcart, R. & Olsen, J.: “Teachers’ and Students’ Preferences for Correction of Classroom Conversation Errors”, paper presented at the 1976 Annual TESOL Convention, New York.Google Scholar

¹⁸ A point emphasized in all Gattegno's work on the Silent Way.

¹⁹ Team-teaching may sometimes present a viable alternative, of course, but it does not appear to have been much explored for language work.

²⁰ Getting group work adopted by teachers appears to have been slowed down by the same sort of problem. It involves a certain amount of ‘letting go1 of which teachers seem to be remarkably frightened.

²¹ Risk 2 has been included in spite of the counter arguments put forward when the risk itself was first described. It is included here because the potential advantages outweigh the probable disadvantages, to such an extent that it seems foolish to be swayed by practical problems that may have practical solutions.

²² See in particular the work of the CRAPEL team at Nancy (and the references to it in Rodgers' contribution to this Colloquium). For the Nancy work see the CRAPEL publication Melanges, for 1975, 1976, and 1977, and in particular the papers involving C. Henner Stanchina.

²³ Now the subject of a teacher-training film “Activity days in language learning”, produced by the staff at ELTI, and presented at the 1978 Annual TESOL Convention, Mexico City.

²⁴ See Allwright, J. M. & Allwright, R. L.: “An Approach to the Teaching of Medical English”, in English for Specific Purposes, Modern English Publications, 1977.Google Scholar

²⁵ See his forthcoming book Communicative Syllabus Design, Cambridge University Press, 1978.Google Scholar

²⁶ For relevant research see Phillips, M. K.: “Questions in the Design and Use of Courses in English for Specific Purposes”, a paper presented at the Fourth International Congress of Applied Linguistics, Stuttgart, 1975.Google Scholar

²⁷ See page 4.