A growing number of teachers are not simply accepting the authority of given methods which they must struggle to "apply," despite their students. These teachers are not dismissing other people's ideas; they are saying, "Let's find out." They believe that the most sensible way to develop as an effective teacher is to become more aware of what exactly is going on in our classrooms - which might not always be the same as what one thinks is going on! Then, as we get a clearer picture, we can start to investigate different possibilities in our teaching. The image of the teacher here is not that of a technician, who applies other people's theories, but of a practical investigator, who builds up understanding through an interacting cycle of observation, reflection, planning and action. The "best" teacher is not someone out there who we must try to copy; the best teacher we can be is the teacher we are. Bob Jones teaches in a vocational school. Bob noticed that his students, in both pair work and group work, routinely responded to each other, as in the following example:
A: Have you ever eaten Italian Food?
B: Yes, I have.

He made some recordings and listened to students doing a variety of tasks. These confirmed that students were carrying out simple, two-part routines such as they had learned from their text books, but doing very little else.

Bob wanted to help his students move towards more authentic exchanges and looked for ideas to help. In Richards, he found evidence that students were far more likely to use replies consisting of yes or no followed by repetition of the questioner's auxiliary verb, whereas native speakers often leave out yes and no as the message is obvious from the ensuing response:

A: Do you need the car tomorrow?
B: I've got to get some shopping and take Robert up for that hearing check.
A: Oh yeah... sorry, forgot... I'll need it Friday though...

When Bob recorded native speakers doing the tasks he set his students, he noticed the same phenomenon. Bob made transcripts of his recordings of native speakers carrying out communicative activities. His plan involved having his students read the transcripts and carry out a variety of tasks before listening to the tapes.

In class, the students worked on the transcripts in order to:

underline questions
count how many times participants asked questions
sort out different types of response
note features of spontaneous speech (e.g. 'so...err..)
ask questions designed to gauge par ticipants' attitude
think of equivalencies in Japanese.
Evidence from taping students and classroom observation suggested that Bob's students improved in their use of added information in the response slot and showed more readiness for the questioner to demonstrate interest by employing some kind of follow-up move. Bob sees this kind of consciousness-raising as part of an ongoing process rather than an idea for a one-off lesson.
Neil Cowie works in a university near Tokyo. His class of mixed-ability Japanese undergraduates want to improve their academic writing. Neil's course emphasized ideas generation, organization and rewriting. His impression was that most of their problems came in the rewriting stage. Neil chose a sample of students and asked them about their rewriting strategies. This revealed that students did not do very much rewriting and seemed unsure of its purpose. From Ferris, Neil drew up a list of goals for feedback. It should:

focus more on global concerns rather than surface errors
be directly connected to student con- cerns wherever possible
be clear, specific and related to lesson objectives
be positive as well as pointing out error.
Neil combined Charles' ideas on self-generated requests for feedback, with Allwright's suggestions for whole-class rewriting, and with Keh's proposals on sensitive peer interaction.
The first stage was to encourage students to raise their own questions. Neil used Charles' strategy of getting students to make comments on their own writing in the margin as they write. These comments refer to concerns that students have when writing the paper, and so could be about surface errors or global concerns. This 'early' feedback encourages students to demarcate where they want feedback.

Allwright's reformulation strategy offered a pragmatic possibility for Neil's large class. He took one (typical) student piece of writing and rewrote it 'live'; asking for suggestions and eliciting alternatives. The identity of the student-writer was kept anonymous. Both students and teacher found it motivating to be present in the classroom when rewriting took place. Neil found it particularly important that decisions about the text were generated by the students. Neil now believes that, before 'public' reformulation, student involvement is increased by responding to individual student's concerns using the Charles strategy. Moving on is what both teachers are doing all the time - not looking for "the right method," but simply being involved in a continuing development of themselves and their teaching in response to their environment and their students. This way of being a teacher obviously involves some extra effort, and it's not for everyone. But a highly satisfying synthesis of personal and professional development that can come through this type of involvement.