SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH: TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVE

: This study aims to know teachers’ perception regarding research and throw a shadow of light on this critical issue with respect to teaching pedagogy. For this study, data were collected through survey questionnaire with close ended items from 104 secondary school teachers (SSTs) (grade 6 to 10) and English language centers of Karachi. The data analysis revealed that most of the teachers believed that the knowledge they gain from the teaching is more effective and valuable rather than the knowledge acquired from research. In both categories, majority of the participants declared that they have limited sources available in order to access the Second Language Acquisition (SLA) articles, whereas half of them stated that they don’t have enough time to conduct SLA research, a few of them reported as lack of interest, one of the SSTs indicated that research articles are difficult to understand and no ability to conduct research. Furthermore, majority of the teachers agreed that a teacher should be researcher, whereas a few of them disagreed with the statement. This study concludes with some ideas and proposals to remove the pertaining communication barriers between researchers and teachers.


INTRODUCTION
Teaching and research activities are recognized as academics' core responsibilities, and result changes occurring in their teaching and research activities are more significant than other minor academic activities (Huang, 2019). SLA research and teaching are bounded in a close relation. It can be considered as a complicated affiliation as far as its practical application is concerned. A number of researchers are supposed to believe that an underlying principle to carry out SLA research is to encourage second language teaching scope (Pica, 2005; Previous studies that investigated the relationship between SLA research and LT can be broadly divided into essaystyle publications, which explore and problematize the relationship between research and practice, and empirical studies, which design specific data-based studies that address the connection between SLA research and LT (Comajoan-Colomé, 2021). EFL teachers in Chile showed their utmost interest in L2 research and found it relevant and very useful as they were mostly positive but found some difficulties in applying research such as lack of time and no financial support in order to access the research (Sato & Loewen, 2018).
Two large online studies (i.e Marsden and Kasprowicz, 2017;Muñoz-Basols et al.; have been conducted while examining the relationship between practice in foreign language teaching and research in United Kingdom and Spain. Marsden and Kasprowicz (2017) conducted two online surveys with questionnaires and obtained 183 and 391 responses, respectively, from foreign language education teachers in primary and secondary education in the UK. The factors preventing teachers from engaging themselves in research were understanding the content of research works, practical constraints, access to research and negative perception of research. Whereas, Muñoz-Basols et al. (2017) conducted a study with 1675 teachers of Spanish as a foreign language around the world who taught at different educational establishments: 27.8% taught at the university, 23.4% at private language schools, 21.6% at secondary schools, 9.7% at primary schools, 5.8% at branches of the Instituto Cervantes, and 11.7% at other types of educational institutions. The finding regarding connection of teaching and research were: 39% of teachers tended to attend conferences and do research in Spanish teaching (33.1% said they did not); research was increasingly important in their teaching profile; and the main constraints for not doing more research were lack of training, lack of professional recognition, and lack of support from their institutions. Comajoan-Colomé (2021) found the relationship between SLA research findings and the declared practices of L2 Catalan teachers. The survey results found that half of the participants declared that their practices had been influenced by research results. However, the teachers' answers were more closely connected to matters of teaching methodology, teacher training, and teaching methodologies than to specific references to research findings.
The researcher of the current study intends to explore information about English language teaching and teaching research, the interest of Secondary School Teachers (SSTs), teaching from grade six to ten and Language Center Teachers (LCTs) in research and reasons for having no or even less interest in research in Karachi, Pakistan. Thus, researchers are normally the university employed lecturers, who generally conduct research and compose writings. Ellis (1997bEllis ( , 2001 spotlighted that researchers' interest is based around technical knowledge, whereas teachers focus on practical. Technical knowledge is unambiguous and precise, can be observed through experimental research. In fact, the teachers or academics like to have a chance to carryout research studies around the globe, but maximum are restricted due to none availability of reasonable sources and lack of time (Nassaji, 2012). On the contrary, it has been generally observed that teachers working in primary or secondary level institutes do not take keen interest in research projects, and SLA research works do not reflect predominantly relevant data to the language teachers and is not actually appropriate for day to day language pedagogies in the classroom (Block, 2000). Similarly, the teachers have no spare time to read research articles of their interest, even they intend to read them (Nassaji, 2012). Pica (2005) and Ellis (1997a) have focused that researchers should get close to the teachers just to create good understanding between them, which may ultimately help teachers to know about researchers and vice versa, and this interaction would help them to know about each other's' goals and objectives (Lightbown, 2000). No doubt, it's a matter of importance to walk around the primary elements of relationship between second language teaching and teaching research, gaps or miscommunications, causes for not conducting researches and other interconnected pertaining issues. Likewise, the researcher aims to focus on this foremost issue in Karachi to accomplish the research and investigate the root causes.
Scholars like Lightbown (1985) argued in her "Great Expectations" that SLA research does not advise teachers about the contents of teaching and its principles. Whereas some researchers such as Block (2000), Ellis (2001), Crookes (1997aCrookes ( , 1998 and Klein (1998) have also articulated their concerns that even though SLA research has achieved enough progress, but still there are no more practical ideas available for teachers. There has been significant progress made in SLA but still no research work is extensively concerned with pedagogical matters (Ellis, 2001). In fact, the relation between language teaching and SLA research is unusual, as far as the objectives are concerned. Similarly, both fields dig out two different types of understanding, practical and technical knowledge. Ellis (2001) stated that teachers require practical comprehension, whereas researchers like to enhance their technical knowledge. According to Ellis (1997a), SLA and language teaching are bit conflicting issues as they symbolize different viewpoints, social worlds, stance, standards and values. Teachers and researchers belong to dissimilar professional discourse and that cause split them into two (Bartels, 2003).
Moreover, relevance between SLA research and language teaching can be observed as the increasing number of SLA studies are proving a significant consequence about relevance of acquired data to language teaching such as learners' role in class room, awareness in SLA procedures, learners' motivation, interaction and input need (Pica, 2005(Pica, , 1994. Teaching principles and technique issues are already being highlighted by many researchers in different SLA research works. The scholars like Block (2000) and Klein (1998) argued that SLA research is more concentrated on theoretical aspect of language teaching rather than practical, in the class room teaching. In this regard, Klein (1998) strongly argued that this approach of SLA research is narrow and even not agreed by various language researchers. On the other hand, Freeman (1998) indicated that the results of SLA research should not be only interpreted to get ideas about teaching and conduct specific lessons efficiently, because it does not provide exact solutions to the practical problems of teaching. If the language research interpreted in this way, then teachers should stop concentrating on research and rely on their own teaching practice. Hence, research methods also differ, those carried out under extremely proscribed investigational circumstances or in the laboratories to those which performed qualitatively or in the classroom environment.
SLA and LT (Language Teaching) research discussing the relationship between research and practice often finish with a call for more collaboration between teachers and researchers. While this is desirable, it is easier said than done because teachers and researchers work under different conditions. Research is a time consumable task, and it becomes difficult for teachers to spare time for conducting research. However, initiatives have been taken for better working environment and collaboration for research dissemination, which may reduce the existing barrier between researchers and teachers in future (Colome, 2022).
Teachers conduct appropriate research such as practitioner, teacher, action research, or exploratory research and these types of inquiries precisely deal with pedagogical matters (Allwright, 2005). The fundamental plan of these researches is to promote thoughtful teaching and to find out and develop substitute perception on pedagogical issues of language teaching (Wallace, 1998). In fact, action research comprises of specific procedures to get better practice and can be carried out in any discipline, is not only confined for teachers. Pica (2005) highlighted that researchers and teachers cannot be segregated from each other, if the intentions are to meet the students' goals and objectives. Similarly, this interaction may cause a removal of communication barrier between researchers and teachers and must lead to research production, which may direct the teachers for relevant practices in the classroom. Currently, there is a literature that generally discussed the relation between teaching and researching, i.e. the literature that investigated studies about research role in teachers' perspective, growth and beliefs (Borg, 2006;Richard & Farrell, 2005;Tsui, 2003). The teachers' research (i.e. action research) has also been promoted in ESOL by well-known figures over an extended period (Wallace, 1998;Ellis, 1997;Nunan, 1997;Van Lier, 1990;Long, 1983). Nowadays, the qualitative research reports closely resemble the descriptive forms previously employed by teachers (Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 1994, p. 20).
Moreover, the commendations that teachers be researchengaged have also been based on extensive point of views about the advantages this can have for teachers' professional improvement (Kirkwood and Christie, 2006;Kincheloe, 2003). Likewise, curiosity while encouraging teachers to be researchengaged, one strand of inquiry to appear has focused on probing what teachers in reality feel about research (Ratcliffe el al. 2004;Everton el al. 2002;McNamara, 2002b;Everton el al. 2000;Shkedi, 1998). A teacher having good knowledge about research is obviously an asset of classroom teaching for students. Nevertheless, teacher trainers face the uninterrupted challenges of improving candidates' teaching proficiency while bringing them into the language teaching (LT) community, a discipline that efficiently make up several sub disciplines with their connected social practices and resilient boundaries (Kramsch, 2000;Markee, 1997). In fact, the research outcomes should vigilantly be applied in language pedagogies (Hatch, 1978). Teachers can also carry out some other types of research, not necessarily the action research, like observational studies, experiments, surveys or diary studies without mainly planning to their own classroom practices (Nassaji, 2012).
This study was conducted to investigate the perception of Secondary School Teachers (SSTs) teaching from grade six to ten and Language Center Teachers (LCTs) teaching in English language centers of Karachi. The aim was to focus on how familiar they are about SLA research and its effects over instructional techniques, involvement in conducting research, their interest, available resources, facilities and assistance provided by the school administration, familiarity with usefulness of SLA research in classroom management. It further investigated the contacts between researchers and teachers, reasons for having less interest in research, how teachers look forward into language research and what they attain from it, as stated by Ellis (2001Ellis ( , 1997a) that SLA researchers need to understand that what teachers' actually intend to learn from the SLA researches. In this regard, data were collected from concerned teachers (SSTs & LCTs) in Karachi, Pakistan. Thus, the study provided different perspectives of the teachers and following research questions were addressed in the study: 1. What are the perceptions of Secondary School Teachers (SSTs) and Language Center Teachers (LCTs) about second language teaching? 2. What are the perceptions of Secondary School Teachers (SSTs) and Language Center Teachers (LCTs) about SLA research?

METHOD
The data were collected through written questionnaire (see appendix A) and it was designed to accumulate quantitative data through close ended questions with different response formats including yes-no questions and Likert-scale formats. The target population was secondary school teachers (SSTs) and language center teachers (LCTs) of Karachi, Pakistan. The questionnaire was adopted from Nassaji (2012) with the permission of author. The questionnaire was distributed to 210 teachers of different secondary schools and English language teachers teaching in language centers of Karachi. It was forwarded through email along with covering letter, to explain them the purpose of research. The participation was completely on volunteer based and participants were informed that their personal data would never be disclosed at any stage. Out of 210 questionnaires, a total number of 104 responses were received during data collection. The collected data was analyzed through descriptive statistics, frequencies and percentages using SPSS-22 version. Table 1 contains the information about characteristics and background knowledge of teachers. Thus, rest of the teachers was not qualified as per prescribed criteria and their age ranged from 20 to 54years presented mean value of 29.20 with .98 SD. Their teaching experience was ranging between 1 month to 28 years with 2.69 mean and 1.33 SD.
Among all the participants, 58 (56%) were Secondary School Teachers (SST) and 46 (44%) were Language Center Teachers (LCT). Furthermore, 64 (61%) participants were having undergraduate degrees, 40 (38%) participants reported master degree as their highest qualification and none of them was M.Phil/PhD qualified. Therefore, almost half of them were in possession of additional teaching certificates.

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The data collection was carried out through close ended questionnaire and it was analyzed quantitatively using descriptive statistics, frequencies and percentage. Therefore, the results are displayed in the following tables.  Teachers were asked about usefulness of SLA courses and majority of SSTs (91.37%) stated that SLA courses were very useful and useful for them, whereas a few (8.62%) of them stated it as somewhat useful and even not useful at all. Similarly, a huge number (80.43%) of LCTs also indicated that SLA courses were very useful and useful, and some of them (19.56%) stated that these courses are somewhat useful and not useful at all (see table  3). Furthermore, teachers were asked the reasons for not conducting the research (see table 4), where 29 (50%) SSTs declared that they don't have enough time to conduct research, one teacher stated inability, 17 (29.31%) were not interested, one participant claimed that conducting research is not useful, 8 (13.79%) explained that there is no need to conduct research, whereas 2 (3.44%) teachers stated some other reasons for not conducting the SLA research. On the contrary, 24 (52.17%) LCTs indicated that they don't have enough time to conduct research, 4 (8.69%) were not interested, 6 (13.04%) participants stated that conducting research is not useful, 9 (19.56%) described that there is no need to conduct research, whereas 3 (6.52%) teachers explained some other reasons for not conducting the SLA research.

SLA research accessibility, sources teachers consult, article reading and support by institutes/schools
In order to investigate the teachers' perception about teaching research, they were asked regarding facilities available for conducting SLA research, the sources they avail and reading of articles. Teachers were asked the reasons for not reading the research articles and in response to the statement, majority of the SSTs (77%) highlighted that they have limited facilities/ sources available for research material. Similarly, a huge number of LCTs (83%) claimed that they don't have enough resources to conduct the research. The teachers then were asked about the sources; they specifically use to get authentic information, where the most common response by SSTs (43.10%) was to talk colleagues, reading books (53.44%) and 5 (8.62%) participants stated that they read articles through journals, 8 (13.79%) stated that they attend conferences and workshops, whereas 4 (6.89%) participants indicated that they conduct empirical research. Similarly, a number of 18 (39.13%) LCTs stated that they prefer to talk colleagues, 22 (47.82%) indicated as reading books, 14 (30.43%) said that they read journals, 3 (6.52%) participants stated that they attend conferences and workshops, whereas only one teacher indicated to conduct empirical research (see table 5). In response to reading the research articles (see table 6), 3 (5.17%) SSTs stated that they read research articles always, 11 (18.96%) responded as often, 19 (32.75%) sometimes, 16 (27.58%) rarely and 9 (15.51%) participants stated that they never read the research articles. Similarly, 5 (10.86%) LCTs stated that they read research articles always, 12 (26.08%) responded as often, 11 (23.91%) sometimes, 8 (17.39%) rarely and 10 (21.73%) participants stated that they never read the research articles. The participants were asked the reasons for not reading research articles (see table 7), where 29 (50%) SSTs declared that they have no time, only one teacher indicated as it is hard to understand the research articles, 15 (25.86%) participants were not interested, 8 (13.79%) stated that there is no need to read the research articles, one teacher pronounced that reading research articles are not useful and 4 (6.89%) participants declared some other reasons. On the contrary, 25 (54.34%) LCTs indicated that they have no time to read the research articles, 4 (8.69%) participants were not interested, 9 (19.56%) explained that there is no need to read the research articles, 6 (13.04%) teachers declared that reading research articles are not useful and 2 (4.34%) participants stated some other reasons. Later on, teachers were asked about the support of institution and schools in conducting research and availability of resources. Many teachers highlighted that, in this regard, they don't have any support. Few of them highlighted the availability of limited sources by schools, such as books, attending conferences, seminars and encouragement etc.
The maximum teachers strongly agreed and agreed that knowing SLA research definitely improves the language teaching (see table 8). In this regard, 18 (31%) SSTs strongly agreed that SLA research improves the language teaching, 29 (50%) agreed, 10 (17.24%) somewhat agreed, 1 (1.72%) somewhat disagreed and none of them disagreed or strongly disagree the statement. Whereas, 15 (32.60%) LCTs strongly agreed that SLA research improves the language teaching, 25 (54.34%) agreed, 5 (10.86%) somewhat agreed, 1 (2.17%) somewhat disagreed and none of them disagreed or strongly disagree the statement. In response to the statement that second language acquisition is not relevant to language teaching, 14 (24.13%) SSTs strongly agreed and agreed the statement, 10 (17.24%) somewhat agreed, 2 (3.44%) somewhat disagreed, 23 (39.65%) disagreed and 9 (15.51%) strongly disagreed. On the contrary, 6 (13.04%) LCTs strongly agreed and agreed the statement, 5 (10.86%) somewhat agreed, 2 (4.34%) somewhat disagreed, 27 (58.69%) disagreed and 6 (13.04%) strongly disagreed. Majority of the participants strongly agreed and agreed that language research provides practical suggestions with respect to classroom teaching strategies and methodologies. A great number of SSTs 48 (82.75%) were strongly agreed and agreed, 9 (15.51%) participants somewhat agreed, one participant somewhat disagreed and none of them disagreed or strongly disagreed the statement. Similarly, 35 (76.08%) LCTs were strongly agreed and agreed, 7 (15.21%) participants somewhat agreed, 2 (4.34%) somewhat disagreed and none of them disagreed or strongly disagreed the statement. Furthermore, 38 (65.51%) SSTs were strongly agreed and agreed that the knowledge they gain from teaching is more relevant than the knowledge they gain from Second Language Acquisition research, 10 (17.24%) somewhat agreed, 4 (6.89%) somewhat disagreed, 4 (6.89%) disagreed and 2 (3.44%) were strongly disagree. Whereas, 16 (34.78%) LCTs were strongly agreed and agreed that the knowledge they gain from teaching is more relevant than the knowledge they gain from Second Language Acquisition research, 4 (8.69%) somewhat agreed, 8 (17.39%) somewhat disagreed, 12 (26%) disagreed and 6 (13%) were strongly disagree. The next analysis explored the relationship between researchers and teachers. Five items (see table 9) were under discussion with respect to their relationship. A number of 22 (37.93%) SSTs strongly agreed and agreed to the statement that researchers should be university professors only, 8 (13.79%) respondents somewhat agreed, one participant somewhat disagreed, 18 (31%) disagreed and 9 (15.51%) participants strongly disagreed the statement. On the other hand, 26 (56.52%) LCTs strongly agreed and agreed to the statement, 7 (15.21%) respondents somewhat agreed, one participant somewhat disagreed, 8 (17.39%) disagreed and 4 (8.69%) participants strongly disagreed. In response to other statement, 28 (48.27%) SSTs strongly agreed and agreed that teachers should teach only, whereas researchers should conduct research, 9 (15.51%) participants were somewhat agreed, 13 (22.41%) disagreed and 8 (13.79%) participants strongly disagreed the statement. Whereas, 27 (58.69%) LCTs strongly agreed and agreed the statement, 7 (15.21%) participants were somewhat agreed, 2 (4.34%) somewhat disagreed, 8 (17.39) disagreed and 2 (4.34%) participants strongly disagreed. A number of 36 (62%) SSTs strongly agreed and agreed that researchers must consult the teachers in order to resolve the issues related to research, 15 (25.86%) participants were somewhat agreed, one participant somewhat disagreed and 6 (10.34%) were disagreed and no participant strongly disagreed the statement. However, 33 (71.73%) LCTs strongly agreed and agreed the statement, 8 (17.39%) participants were somewhat agreed, no participant somewhat disagreed, 4 (8.69%) were disagreed and one participant strongly disagreed the statement. Similarly, a very high ratio of teachers strongly agreed and agreed that teachers should consult researchers in order to get concerned suggestions with respect to their pertaining teaching issues. Furthermore, participants were asked that a teacher should also be a researcher to become a good teacher, in response to this statement, 45 (77.58%) SSTs strongly agreed and agreed the statement, 10 (17.24%) were somewhat agreed, one participant disagreed and 2 (3.44%) strongly disagreed the statement. On the contrary, 35 (76%) LCTs strongly agreed and agreed the statement, 8 (17.39%) were somewhat agreed, one somewhat disagreed, one participant disagreed and one strongly disagreed the statement. In response to the statement that good researchers become good teachers, 36 (62%) SSTs strongly agreed and agreed the statement, 14 (24.13%) were somewhat agreed, 3 (5.17%) disagreed and only one teacher strongly disagreed the statement. On the other hand, 33 (71.73%) LCTs strongly agreed and agreed the statement, 12 (26%) were somewhat agreed, one somewhat disagreed and none of the participants disagreed or strongly disagreed the statement.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The study disclosed that majority of the teachers, contributed in this research, had adequate knowledge about Second Language Acquisition except a few who didn't take any SLA courses. Some of the participants claimed that they have conducted research; however, a few of them published their research articles. SSTs and LCTs believed that SLA courses improve the second language teaching and some of them acknowledged that research definitely adds the practical plans and ideas to the classroom teaching strategies. On the contrary, five teachers (two SSTs and three LCTs) claimed that taking SLA courses are not useful at all. In both categories, majority of the participants stated that they don't have enough time to conduct the SLA research, some of them indicated no interest, whereas a few of them stated that there is no need to conduct SLA research or it is not useful, however, only one participant (SST) indicated inability to conduct SLA research. Majority of the teachers (SSTs & LCTs) stated that knowing SLA research definitely improves the language teaching, whereas none of the participants strongly disagreed or disagreed the statement. A smaller number of participants (in both groups) declared that they read SLA articles as a source of information; however, a common response was reading books and talking to colleagues. Some of them stated that they attend conferences and workshops to get information about SLA. A few SSTs and LCTs declared that they always read research journals, some of them stated that they often or sometimes read the articles, whereas few of them stated that they never read SLA articles. Therefore, in both categories (SSTs and LCTs), no major difference was observed.
Almost half of the teachers said that they don't have time to read the research articles, some of them indicated less interest, a very few of them stated that there is no need to read, whereas a few of them showed that these are not useful and only one SST declared difficulty in reading the research articles. In fact, the reason, shortage of time is not a surprising result, generally in the field of education (e.g Cambone, 1995;Collinson & Cook, 2001;Fullan & Steigelbauer, 1991;Hargreaves, 1990). Nevertheless, when teachers declare that they do not read language articles, it definitely does not reflect that their teaching is affected by SLA research, as teachers may concern some other sources for acquiring teaching ideas and strategies, such as conferences, books, workshops etc. However, teachers cannot get benefit directly from the research, till the times they spare themselves to conduct research (Nassaji, 2012). Difficulty was another reason for not conducting research, as highlighted by teachers. Many scholars have spotlighted the difficulty of research articles as a core reason of relation between teachers and researchers (Brown, 1991;Crooks, 1997;Ellis, 1997a). A number of 38 SSTs strongly agreed and agreed that the knowledge acquired from teaching experience is more effective than the information extracted from the research, whereas 6 participants disagreed and strongly disagreed the statement. Similarly, 16 LCTs favored the statement, whereas 18 disagreed it.
Therefore, a huge number of SSTs and LCTs believed that SLA research is thoroughly relevant to the language teaching, whereas a few of them disagreed the statement. Almost half of the teachers stated that researchers should be the university professors, but not teachers, whereas some of the believed that teachers should also conduct the research in classrooms. Majority of the participants indicated that researchers should consult teachers to resolve the issues related to teaching pedagogies and a good teacher should be a researcher too. Furthermore, in both groups, a huge number of participants declared that a researcher becomes a good teacher, whereas only four SSTs disagreed the statement.
In this regard, SLA researchers have conducted countless efforts to write articles very close to the language pedagogy, just to reduce the gap and strengthen the relation. In order to reduce the communication gap between teachers and researchers, there are few submissions, such as research results reporting should be ensured in simple language for better understanding of teachers (Crooks, 1997), such as using informal format for data reporting, the use of qualitative format is easier to understand for teachers, as it contains a narrative style of writing. An important submission is to increase teachers' literacy skills. Gass (1995) suggested that the integration of SLA courses in teachers training may allow them to know about research techniques, language in use and reporting of results as per prescribed format. The plans should be implemented to increase the statistics knowledge among teachers, as it may enhance them to understand the statistical calculations in research studies (Brown, 1991). Another option to enhance teachers' skills about research is to engage them in action research and it should focus on language pedagogies, particularly.
In fact, the aim is to improve collaboration between researchers and teachers, as argued by Lightbown (2000) that teacher-researcher association reflect an idea that both should undertake research activities jointly. In this regard, all the researchers are not agreeing to this collaboration of teachers and researchers as a good proposal as Colome (2022) argues that teaching and research, both fields work under different conditions as research is time and energy consuming task and many teachers are unable to spare time and they don't have adequate resources and accessibility to research contents. Recent initiatives have called for better working conditions for teachers and newer ways of collaboration and research dissemination, which may contribute to creating a more equal partnership between researchers and teachers in the future. To get them on one page, this opportunity can be encouraged in many ways, such as active dialogues on mutual interest issues by teachers and researchers through professional inspired communication set-up. In this process, teachers and researchers, both should jointly ensure the active participation in SLA researches. Therefore, the findings of this study are in line to Colome (2022), Sato and Loewen (2018), Muñoz-Basols et al. (2017), Nassaji (2012) and Pica (2005).

CONCLUSIONS
It was a quantitative study and data was collected through questionnaire from secondary school teachers (SSTs) teaching grade six to ten and the teachers teaching in language institutes of Karachi, Pakistan. The findings revealed a prominent communication barrier between researchers-teachers, as both are working in isolation. A close connection can be established between research and pedagogy. An important discussion is to disclose information about teachers' existing knowledge and how it can be influenced effectively, as it reflects the difference between knowledge produced by research and needed for teachers. In this regard, this study provided an insight about language teaching and SLA research with respect to practical applications. Moreover, the study explored teachers' (SSTs and LCTs) perception about usefulness of SLA research in classroom teaching along with its various aspects. The teachers were asked about reading the SLA articles and conducting research. This study included only school level teachers (SSTs) and language center teachers (LCTs), however, this scale can be extended for college and university level teachers. Therefore, still a lot of researches are needed to be conducted in order to extract deeper information and explicit data regarding teacher-researcher relationship with respect to classroom teaching, particularly. Nevertheless, it would be more beneficial to highlight that these types of studies should be conducted with deep concern and not only teachers but researchers should also be focused to keep their concentration towards language pedagogical researches. Conclusively, conducting a research jointly by researchers and teachers in collaboration can help them to select the topics of mutual interest and ultimately it would resolve the communication barriers between them. research.
(iii) I am not interested in doing research. (iv) I think research is not needed.
(v) Second language acquisition research is not very useful for language teaching purposes.

6.
Researchers should be university professors or academics, but not teachers.

7.
A teacher should also be a researcher.

8.
In order to be a good teacher, you should also be a good researcher.
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree (c) Somewhat agree